Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => SSPX Resistance News => Topic started by: Ekim on November 25, 2023, 12:46:49 AM
-
https://www.edmundmazza.com/2023/10/24/archbishop-vigano-to-speak-at-online-conference/?fbclid=IwAR1dzHwF5odq6oNQktBJbO_IWXP407cb8npW9ZXMVOt6rBbs4D-bygWT2aE
-
This was posted about a month ago. At the time, Vigano had not mentioned it in his tweets nor on his exsurgedomine website. He still hasn't, so I still wonder if he is really going to be part of this conference.
-
This was posted about a month ago. At the time, Vigano had not mentioned it in his tweets nor on his exsurgedomine website. He still hasn't, so I still wonder if he is really going to be part of this conference.
I emailed Dr Mazza . If I get a reply I will inquire. I was surprised that I didn’t see this mentioned anywhere else….
-
The angle of the advertised conference is benevacantist. By December 9th, Vigano might prefer some other line of attack more effective to whatever he's thinking. Till then, here's the old general's latest (https://twitter.com/CarloMVigano/status/1728408631136199022).
A strategy that is disconcerting, to say the least, in its blatant maliciousness.
First Bergoglio foments the initiatives of the German Bishops' Conference on issues not subject to discussion because they are already defined by the Magisterium: divorce, polygamy, sodomy, female priesthood, celibacy. Next, he fuels with the Synod on Synodality the autonomist thrusts of the national churches in doctrinal and moral matters. And then, when the slow subversive gear begins to move, the Argentine Jesuit has his Secretary of State send a letter hypocritically reminding them that Catholic teaching on ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity and priesthood is not up for discussion. And yet at the same time he is arranging a series of meetings of the German Episcopate with the main Roman Dicasteries at the Vatican, aimed at “verifying” what is immutable and what is not of that newly reaffirmed teaching.
This is the typical procedure of Luciferian Peronism: inducing the subordinates to take steps - apparently "spontaneous" and "coming from the grassroots” but in reality cleverly planned from above - to introduce doctrinal, moral and liturgical deviations contrary to the Catholic Faith. At the same time, he sends them a "green light," making it clear that their requests will be accepted. In this way, when the ultaprogressive bishops demand 100, Bergoglio has already decided to pretend to be a moderate and grant 50, which is what he wanted to get from the beginning.
Bergoglio is the fulcrum around which the entire attack on the Church of Christ revolves.
https://riposte-catholique.fr/archives/184420 (https://t.co/MH8yNIbhRQ)
(https://t.co/MH8yNIbhRQ)
-
I emailed Dr Mazza . If I get a reply I will inquire. I was surprised that I didn’t see this mentioned anywhere else….
It would be good to get verification from him.
Here's the other thread, in case of interest:
https://www.cathinfo.com/crisis-in-the-church/vigano-to-speak-at-bennyvacantist-conference/
-
By December 9th, Vigano might prefer some other line of attack more effective to whatever he's thinking.
(https://t.co/MH8yNIbhRQ)
.
:laugh1:
I just got off the Vigano train, myself. When I saw his post on Twitter that his arguments should not be interpreted to mean he agrees with the arguments of sedevacantists.
For nearly two years he's been talking incessantly about all kinds of things, mostly not related to the Faith, and people have been arguing that he is secretly sedevacantist because he always refers to Francis as "Bergoglio". We have had to try to read his mind to figure out if he is sedevacantist or not. Why couldn't he just tell us? Why all the mind games? But during all that time, it's true, he WAS giving all kinds of arguments that would support sedevacantism, without saying he believed the seat was empty.
Then, finally, a week or two ago he comes out and says (FINALLY) that he doesn't think Francis is the pope. Finally.
But wait! Days later, he responds to Schneider, who had responded to the previous statement, and tells Schneider on Twitter all kinds of reasons why Francis can't be the pope, but then .... concludes with the statement that his words should not be interpreted to mean he agrees with the opinions of sedevacantists.
What??! :facepalm:
I'm tired of him playing these sorts of mind games, and I don't know what he believes, and neither does anyone else, probably including him, so there's no point listening to him anymore. That's what I've concluded.
Wake me up when he's trying to organize a council to have Francis excommunicated and deposed.
Until then, I'm not going to have him messing with my head anymore. I've had enough of this nonsense.
-
.
Until then, I'm not going to have him messing with my head anymore. I've had enough of this nonsense.
"Head Games" (https://youtu.be/Dzjg4v7bd1U)
-
.
:laugh1:
I just got off the Vigano train, myself. When I saw his post on Twitter that his arguments should not be interpreted to mean he agrees with the arguments of sedevacantists.
For nearly two years he's been talking incessantly about all kinds of things, mostly not related to the Faith, and people have been arguing that he is secretly sedevacantist because he always refers to Francis as "Bergoglio". We have had to try to read his mind to figure out if he is sedevacantist or not. Why couldn't he just tell us? Why all the mind games? But during all that time, it's true, he WAS giving all kinds of arguments that would support sedevacantism, without saying he believed the seat was empty.
Then, finally, a week or two ago he comes out and says (FINALLY) that he doesn't think Francis is the pope. Finally.
But wait! Days later, he responds to Schneider, who had responded to the previous statement, and tells Schneider on Twitter all kinds of reasons why Francis can't be the pope, but then .... concludes with the statement that his words should not be interpreted to mean he agrees with the opinions of sedevacantists.
What??! :facepalm:
I'm tired of him playing these sorts of mind games, and I don't know what he believes, and neither does anyone else, probably including him, so there's no point listening to him anymore. That's what I've concluded.
Wake me up when he's trying to organize a council to have Francis excommunicated and deposed.
Until then, I'm not going to have him messing with my head anymore. I've had enough of this nonsense.
But Catholic Knight says there’s no pope, but that doesn’t mean he’s a sedevacantist either (lord knoweth how).
-
I'm tired of him playing these sorts of mind games, and I don't know what he believes, and neither does anyone else, probably including him, so there's no point listening to him anymore. That's what I've concluded.
This is actually a very important point. Assuming he is still figuring things out (and that is definitely how he comes across), then it would be best if he did so privately. Then when he's figured it out (as much as anyone can), go public.
-
But Catholic Knight says there’s no pope, but that doesn’t mean he’s a sedevacantist either (lord knoweth how).
We're dealing with a group of bad-willed and uncharitable individuals here. By saying that he's not a "sedevacantist", he hasn't concluded ... YET ... that the pre-Bergoglian papal claimants are non-popes. He hasn't reasoned that out. Some time ago, he also explicitly kept away from holding that Jorge was a non-pope, simply saying that questions about his legitimacy need to be investigated. He's taking his time and praying about each conclusion he arrives at. You don't get the same kind of rancor against Archbishop Lefebvre as what we've seen against +Vigano. These senitments against +Vigano are coming from a "bad place," various resentments over the fact that he's only recently become a Traditional Catholic and has nevertheless had the "spotlight" put on him. Strangely, you do find this same attitude from the sedevacantist clergy, who truly have been laboring for decades in relative obscurity. There's nothing of substance here, and nothing but bad will and lack of charity. It's the same motivation we find in the Sacred Scriptures from the guys who toiled all day and then got the same pay as the guy who showed up later in the day. Our Lord's answer is that the Master freely gives. We ourselves became Traditional Catholics, as did the Trad clergy, by the same free and unmerited grace of God that He now has bestowed upon +Vigano. But it's this same pathetic resentment that's at work among some of these bad-willed individuals.
-
These senitments against +Vigano are coming from a "bad place," various resentments over the fact that he's only recently become a Traditional Catholic and has nevertheless had the "spotlight" put on him.
Not sure what you mean by "spotlight put on him." After all, Vigano has for the most part put the spotlight on himself. Over the last few years (five years or so?) he has published his communications through quite a few different news sources and journalists, some of whom are affiliated with Opus Dei. Since he has put himself out there as an authority on all church matters having to do with the Crisis, then he's gonna get some scrutiny. That's just how it is.
-
Dr Mazza did reply to the email. The conference is still on. I believe you need to register via email. Perhaps this is his way of screening attendees and avoiding +Vigano contractors? He also said he will try to make it available on video for those who miss it but did not mention by which platform.
-
Dr Mazza did reply to the email. The conference is still on. I believe you need to register via email. Perhaps this is his way of screening attendees and avoiding +Vigano contractors? He also said he will try to make it available on video for those who miss it but did not mention by which platform.
Thank you, Ekim
-
Dr Mazza did reply to the email. The conference is still on. I believe you need to register via email. Perhaps this is his way of screening attendees and avoiding +Vigano contractors? He also said he will try to make it available on video for those who miss it but did not mention by which platform.
So he is still asserting that Vigano will be taking part? Seems odd that Vigano has made no mention of it.
-
So he is still asserting that Vigano will be taking part? Seems odd that Vigano has made no mention of it.
I didn’t say that. I said the conference is still a go. +Vigano has not been removed from the promotion page. I’m sure you can email Dr Mazza if you feel the need to confirm.
-
I didn’t say that. I said the conference is still a go. +Vigano has not been removed from the promotion page. I’m sure you can email Dr Mazza if you feel the need to confirm.
No, I don't need to do that. It's just that the post you made to my first one on this thread sounded like you were going to email him to find out if Vigano was attending (given that was what I was questioning there as well).
-
No, I don't need to do that. It's just that the post you made to my first one on this thread sounded like you were going to email him to find out if Vigano was attending (given that was what I was questioning there as well).
I gotcha. Dr Mazza has a long-standing reputation of scholarship and integrity. I would think he’d remove +Vigano’s name from the lineup if he wasn’t attending.
-
https://m.youtube.com/live/Cs6kcIeMxD8
Advertised Speakers:
H.E. AB Vigano
Fr. Paul Kramer
Dr Ed Mazza
Ann Bernhardt
Elizabeth Yore
-
You will probably hear during this conference different reasons for why Jorge Bergoglio is not pope, but the a priori cause is that Benedict XVI did not renounce his munus.
-
You will probably hear during this conference different reasons for why Jorge Bergoglio is not pope, but the a priori cause is that Benedict XVI did not renounce his munus.
I'm sure you'll hear that from the Barnhardt group, but that hasn't been +Vigano's main reason. At one point, Barnhardt denounced the vitium consensus position, clinging to the munus nonsense.
-
He has also announced that he is opening a Seminary. Wonder if he’ll discuss this?
https://www.lifesitenews.com/opinion/abp-vigano-the-church-needs-good-and-holy-priests-who-arent-forced-to-accept-errors-of-vatican-ii/?fbclid=IwAR0BOdmEHKHBziKlLoejJyUghDto8BVscn-MUQOakKhX7hp9gbOgOMA1Uo8
-
He has also announced that he is opening a Seminary. Wonder if he’ll discuss this?
I'm guessing that +Vigano's comments will be pre-recorded. Maybe Barnhardt will see something she doesn't like and pull the plug on it like Matt did. :laugh1:
-
I'm guessing that +Vigano's comments will be pre-recorded. Maybe Barnhardt will see something she doesn't like and pull the plug on it like Matt did. :laugh1:
My understanding is that it is a live conference…nothing prerecorded.
-
https://m.youtube.com/live/Cs6kcIeMxD8
Advertised Speakers:
H.E. AB Vigano
Fr. Paul Kramer
Dr Ed Mazza
Ann Bernhardt
Elizabeth Yore
I thought you had to register first.
-
I thought you had to register first.
I did…there’s the link. It is a public event.
-
I'm guessing that +Vigano's comments will be pre-recorded. Maybe Barnhardt will see something she doesn't like and pull the plug on it like Matt did. :laugh1:
Yes, you called it! It is prerecorded!
-
I'm listening to this while I work and thus far we've had ...
1) started with the Rosary (Dr. Mazza botched the Creed, as he confused the Apostles' Creed with the Nicene ... which speaks to regular attendance at the NOM)
2) Father Kramer just seemed to read something ... mostly a summary of prior work he's done.
3) Ann Barnhardt is just re-hashing her speech about Canon Law and non-resignationism.
So there's basically nothing new yet, all stuff that's been out there forever.
-
Yes, you called it! It is prerecorded!
+Vigano has done almost everything pre-recorded. I don't know if he's done anything live ... especially for English speakers. He's not SUPER fluent in English, so I think he's more comfortable doing it recorded than live.
-
I thought you had to register first.
They made it seem that way on Barnhardt's website, but that doesn't appear to be the case.
Thus far it's nothing new, but a re-presentation of material that every here on CI has been exposed to dozens of times.
I'll mostly be interested in hearing what +Vigano has to say ... though I suspect that too will be a re-iteration of things he's said before.
-
I just happened to hear Dr. Mazza citing Fr. Duterte from Most Holy Trinity Seminary, against Schneider's position, regarding Universal Peaceful Acceptance not being a teaching of the Magisterium.
-
.
:laugh1:
I just got off the Vigano train, myself. When I saw his post on Twitter that his arguments should not be interpreted to mean he agrees with the arguments of sedevacantists.
For nearly two years he's been talking incessantly about all kinds of things, mostly not related to the Faith, and people have been arguing that he is secretly sedevacantist because he always refers to Francis as "Bergoglio". We have had to try to read his mind to figure out if he is sedevacantist or not. Why couldn't he just tell us? Why all the mind games? But during all that time, it's true, he WAS giving all kinds of arguments that would support sedevacantism, without saying he believed the seat was empty.
Then, finally, a week or two ago he comes out and says (FINALLY) that he doesn't think Francis is the pope. Finally.
But wait! Days later, he responds to Schneider, who had responded to the previous statement, and tells Schneider on Twitter all kinds of reasons why Francis can't be the pope, but then .... concludes with the statement that his words should not be interpreted to mean he agrees with the opinions of sedevacantists.
What??! :facepalm:
I'm tired of him playing these sorts of mind games, and I don't know what he believes, and neither does anyone else, probably including him, so there's no point listening to him anymore. That's what I've concluded.
Wake me up when he's trying to organize a council to have Francis excommunicated and deposed.
Until then, I'm not going to have him messing with my head anymore. I've had enough of this nonsense.
Yeti, good post!
-
Not sure what you mean by "spotlight put on him." After all, Vigano has for the most part put the spotlight on himself. Over the last few years (five years or so?) he has published his communications through quite a few different news sources and journalists, some of whom are affiliated with Opus Dei. Since he has put himself out there as an authority on all church matters having to do with the Crisis, then he's gonna get some scrutiny. That's just how it is.
Meg, good post!
-
+Vigano's talk is amazing. It's a must listen.
-
+Vigano's talk is amazing. It's a must listen.
Lad,
Do you have a link?
-
Lad,
Do you have a link?
There's no separate link yet, but if you go here and "rewind the time" to +Vigano's speach, which started about 45 minutes ago, you can see it again.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cs6kcIeMxD8
-
In summary, +Vigano holds that this crisis is unprecedented by anything in Church history, that it could only be part of the foretold Great Apostasy.
He takes a bit of a shot at the Bennyvacantists, a very subtle diplomatic shot, saying that even though it's possible that Ratzinger didn't resign properly, that this problem goes way beyond a canonical problem. It also goes beyond Bergoglio's adherence to this or that heresy (of which he said, as an aside, that he's done many times), but to an open apostasy.
He says that Bergoglio is an infiltrator working under Luciferian intelligence on behalf of the enemies of the Church intent upon infiltrating and destroying it.
He cuts into those who claim that the problem is limited to Bergoglio, but says it started with Vatican II, the 1789 in the Church, and listed John XIII, Paul VI, JP I, JPI, and BXVI (much to Barnhardt's chagrin no doubt) as accomplices in the promotion of their acceptance of the Masonic principles "liberte, egalite, fraternite" into the Church. He basically says it's not just Bergoglio but all these V2 papal claimants were in on it, in on the revolution.
He takes a swipe at SSPX for fence-sitting and others who play ball with Bergoglio, holding that there must be a complete break, where we're either for the Church or against it.
He implies a form of sede-impoundsim, sede-privationism, where he says we have moral certainty that Jorge is not the pope, though we lack the authority to publicly declare him a non-pope.
Also, he says that St. Robert Bellarmine never envisioned a situation where there's no one left in the hierarchy to call out a heretical Pope, but they would deal with it ... whereas now the entire hierarchy are corrupted and are never going to remove him, so this situation is beyond human remedy and can only be solved by God.
-
In a word, he shot down the Barnhardt / Mazza / Kramer Bennyvacantist position as being too myopic, focused on Jorge and focused on Canonical issues, where this goes WAY beyond all that. You can tell after +Vigano's speech that they're very much muted ... and yet they continue to go back to focusing on Benny's non-resignation as all this is about. Idiots. Did they hear or understand a word of what +Vigano was telling them?
-
He coins a new term also, calling those who criticize Bergoglio without recognizing the problem with Vatican II and the other Conciliar popes as "Montinians" ... basically talking about Barnhardt, Mazza, Kramer, and other Bennyvacantists.
:laugh1:
-
How was talk?
-
He coins a new term also, calling those who criticize Bergoglio without recognizing the problem with Vatican II and the other Conciliar popes as "Montinians" ... basically talking about Barnhardt, Mazza, Kramer, and other Bennyvacantists.
:laugh1:
But Fr. Kramer has been recognizing the problems of Vatican II for a long time, here is one example:
Fr. Paul Kramer: the Vatican II Revolution Pt. 1 (youtube.com) (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VkTj21uvcNo)
-
+Vigano's talk is amazing. It's a must listen.
I agree. Hopefully a transcript will be made available.
-
But Fr. Kramer has been recognizing the problems of Vatican II for a long time, here is one example:
Not really. He thinks that the problem is with Bergoglio and there was nothing wrong with Ratzinger.
-
.....he says we have moral certainty that Jorge is not the pope, though we lack the authority to publicly declare him a non-pope.
I took that as meaning that we do not have the jurisdiction to depose Jorge Bergoglio. Rather, it is up to the cardinals and/or bishops to do so.
-
In summary, +Vigano holds that this crisis is unprecedented by anything in Church history, that it could only be part of the foretold Great Apostasy.
He takes a bit of a shot at the Bennyvacantists, a very subtle diplomatic shot, saying that even though it's possible that Ratzinger didn't resign properly, that this problem goes way beyond a canonical problem. It also goes beyond Bergoglio's adherence to this or that heresy (of which he said, as an aside, that he's done many times), but to an open apostasy.
He says that Bergoglio is an infiltrator working under Luciferian intelligence on behalf of the enemies of the Church intent upon infiltrating and destroying it.
He cuts into those who claim that the problem is limited to Bergoglio, but says it started with Vatican II, the 1789 in the Church, and listed John XIII, Paul VI, JP I, JPI, and BXVI (much to Barnhardt's chagrin no doubt) as accomplices in the promotion of their acceptance of the Masonic principles "liberte, egalite, fraternite" into the Church. He basically says it's not just Bergoglio but all these V2 papal claimants were in on it, in on the revolution.
He takes a swipe at SSPX for fence-sitting and others who play ball with Bergoglio, holding that there must be a complete break, where we're either for the Church or against it.
He implies a form of sede-impoundsim, sede-privationism, where he says we have moral certainty that Jorge is not the pope, though we lack the authority to publicly declare him a non-pope.
Also, he says that St. Robert Bellarmine never envisioned a situation where there's no one left in the hierarchy to call out a heretical Pope, but they would deal with it ... whereas now the entire hierarchy are corrupted and are never going to remove him, so this situation is beyond human remedy and can only be solved by God.
Good synopsis Lads. Thank you.
-
In a word, he shot down the Barnhardt / Mazza / Kramer Bennyvacantist position as being too myopic, focused on Jorge and focused on Canonical issues, where this goes WAY beyond all that. You can tell after +Vigano's speech that they're very much muted ... and yet they continue to go back to focusing on Benny's non-resignation as all this is about. Idiots. Did they hear or understand a word of what +Vigano was telling them?
Great Summary. I think Dr Mazza confused the Creeds because he got distracted trying to get organized. I was a bit disappointed that Fr Kramer just read an article, but maybe his mind isn’t as sharp as it once was and he didn’t want to miss anything. +AB Vigano was amazing. I’m anxious to hear what becomes of his new seminary and yes, Dr Mazza is a big fan of JP2 but hopefully grace will soak in and the light turned on.
-
I took that as meaning that we do not have the jurisdiction to depose Jorge Bergoglio. Rather, it is up to the cardinals and/or bishops to do so.
Correct, the actual quote is "we do not have OFFICAL authority"
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9PJWGWJmo30
-
I was a bit disappointed that Fr Kramer just read an article....
They all really just read off the screen.
-
Not really. He thinks that the problem is with Bergoglio and there was nothing wrong with Ratzinger.
Are you sure Fr. Kramer has said there is "nothing wrong with Ratzinger"? Maybe quote some passengers in his book Devils Final Battle, when referring to Cardinal Ratzinger or in his new book to prove your point. Seems everything I read from him over the years shows that there is a problem with Pope Benedict, John Pau II and Pau VI. I think you are wrong to say "nothing" but may be right to say "not as much as".
-
https://youtu.be/Cs6kcIeMxD8?start=21202&end=23226
-
Are you sure Fr. Kramer has said there is "nothing wrong with Ratzinger"? Maybe quote some passengers in his book Devils Final Battle, when referring to Cardinal Ratzinger or in his new book to prove your point. Seems everything I read from him over the years shows that there is a problem with Pope Benedict, John Pau II and Pau VI. I think you are wrong to say "nothing" but may be right to say "not as much as".
Fr. Paul Kramer has consistently publicly acknowledged that Vatican II and the New Mass are not Catholic.
(https://ecclesiamilitans.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/2023-04-01_095947.png)
(https://ecclesiamilitans.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/2023-04-01_100441.png)
(https://ecclesiamilitans.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/08/IMG_1932.png)
-
Fr. Paul Kramer has consistently publicly acknowledged that Vatican II and the New Mass are not Catholic.
Pffft. He criticizes Jorge but then absolves Ratzinger for the exact same heresies. It's nonsense.
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9PJWGWJmo30
Some of us guessed, correctly that this is where they were heading...
(https://i.imgur.com/2ZzWOto.png)
Pope Viggy
:laugh1::laugh2::facepalm:
-
I think Fr Kramer was a Bennyvacantist, that is until Ratzinger died
-
Some of us guessed, correctly that this is where they were heading...
(https://i.imgur.com/2ZzWOto.png)
Pope Viggy
:laugh1::laugh2::facepalm:
I think the speech was very good (although parts of it were difficult to understand), but I still don't agree with his "lack of consent" reasoning (since it still means that, according to him, Bergoglio is the only false pope).
Regardless, we're still left with a Novus Ordo "bishop". If he intends to ordain priests in his new seminary in Italy
Archbishop Vigano Establishes the Collegium Traditionis - page 1 - Crisis in the Church - Catholic Info (cathinfo.com) (https://www.cathinfo.com/crisis-in-the-church/archbishop-vigano-establishes-the-collegium-traditionis/msg915894/#msg915894)
then he MUST be conditionally consecrated first AND he needs to make that PUBLIC asap. Otherwise, he just remains part of (if not adds to) the problem rather than looking like papal material.
-
I think the speech was very good (although parts of it were difficult to understand), but I still don't agree with his "lack of consent" reasoning (since it still means that, according to him, Bergoglio is the only false pope).
Regardless, we're still left with a Novus Ordo "bishop". If he intends to ordain priests in his new seminary in Italy
Archbishop Vigano Establishes the Collegium Traditionis - page 1 - Crisis in the Church - Catholic Info (cathinfo.com) (https://www.cathinfo.com/crisis-in-the-church/archbishop-vigano-establishes-the-collegium-traditionis/msg915894/#msg915894)
then he MUST be conditionally consecrated first AND he needs to make that PUBLIC asap. Otherwise, he just remains part of (if not adds to) the problem rather than looking like papal material.
The Smells and Bells folks won’t care
-
I think the speech was very good (although parts of it were difficult to understand), but I still don't agree with his "lack of consent" reasoning (since it still means that, according to him, Bergoglio is the only false pope).
Except that he went far beyond that. He stated quite clearly the Bellarmine principle that a heretic / apostate cannot be the head of the Church. He dismissed the formal/material heresy argument typically used by R&R, saying that Bergoglio's status goes far beyond that of being heretical on an isolated point or two or three, but crosses over into apostasy. He speculates that Begoglio is an agent of the enemies of the Church, operating under Luciferian intelligence, infiltrating the Church on behalf of whoever he reports to in order to destroy it. He also stated ... and listed by name ... J23, P6, JP1, JP2, and B16 as complicit in the revolution, though he stopped short of questioning their legitimacy. Nevertheless, he's a very small logical leap from admitting that there are serious problems with the legitimacy of those also. He states that we can be morally certain that Bergoglio is not pope, but don't have the authority to "declare" it, settle it legally ... so eschewing a dogmatic SVism (holding more to a position like that of Father Jenkins, for example). He says that St. Robert envisioned a scenario where there was a heretical pope and the Church would deal with him, and not one where the entire hierarchy (that was supposed to deal with him) would have gone just as corrupt as Bergoglio, that this Crisis is unprecedented, and believes that this can only be solved by divine intervention.
He disparaged those (Trad, Inc.) who go after Bergoglio but won't attack V2 and Bergoglio's predecessors, referring to them twice as "Montinians". He also pushed aside the SSPX position.
So he went FAR beyond his vitium consensus argument. In fact, while making a passing reference to the "Canon Law" argument (from people like Barnhardt, one of the hosts of this conference), he actually subtly undermined it, by stating that this situation far transcends a consideration of legal technicalities, and in a sense went beyond his own vitium consensus position as well.
So +Vigano has gone far beyond the "lack of consent" argument in this latest speech. It was brilliant really.
-
Also, he says that St. Robert Bellarmine never envisioned a situation where there's no one left in the hierarchy to call out a heretical Pope, but they would deal with it ... whereas now the entire hierarchy are corrupted and are never going to remove him, so this situation is beyond human remedy and can only be solved by God.
.
Did he explain why he calls himself "Archbishop" and says at the same time that he is not a member of the hierarchy or can't remove Bergoglio?
I also don't understand why he doesn't call out the conservative members of the hierarchy (if that's what he thinks they are) for refusing to remove Bergoglio.
-
.
Did he explain why he calls himself "Archbishop" and says at the same time that he is not a member of the hierarchy or can't remove Bergoglio?
I also don't understand why he doesn't call out the conservative members of the hierarchy (if that's what he thinks they are) for refusing to remove Bergoglio.
I wondered similar things.
-
Except that he went far beyond that. He stated quite clearly the Bellarmine principle that a heretic / apostate cannot be the head of the Church........
Thank you for this synopsis.
-
It was very satisfying and refreshing to hear someone from outside the usual fold talking on the Church being actively destroyed by an 'ape of a pope' and the Luciferian intelligence of the NWO, etc. He touched on Bellarmine and added 'we are far beyond heresy'. He's at a very interesting place and I'm now getting interested in what happens and what he's saying.
-
Except that he went far beyond that. He stated quite clearly the Bellarmine principle that a heretic / apostate cannot be the head of the Church. He dismissed the formal/material heresy argument typically used by R&R, saying that Bergoglio's status goes far beyond that of being heretical on an isolated point or two or three, but crosses over into apostasy. He speculates that Begoglio is an agent of the enemies of the Church, operating under Luciferian intelligence, infiltrating the Church on behalf of whoever he reports to in order to destroy it. He also stated ... and listed by name ... J23, P6, JP1, JP2, and B16 as complicit in the revolution, though he stopped short of questioning their legitimacy. Nevertheless, he's a very small logical leap from admitting that there are serious problems with the legitimacy of those also. He states that we can be morally certain that Bergoglio is not pope, but don't have the authority to "declare" it, settle it legally ... so eschewing a dogmatic SVism (holding more to a position like that of Father Jenkins, for example). He says that St. Robert envisioned a scenario where there was a heretical pope and the Church would deal with him, and not one where the entire hierarchy (that was supposed to deal with him) would have gone just as corrupt as Bergoglio, that this Crisis is unprecedented, and believes that this can only be solved by divine intervention.
He disparaged those (Trad, Inc.) who go after Bergoglio but won't attack V2 and Bergoglio's predecessors, referring to them twice as "Montinians". He also pushed aside the SSPX position.
So he went FAR beyond his vitium consensus argument. In fact, while making a passing reference to the "Canon Law" argument (from people like Barnhardt, one of the hosts of this conference), he actually subtly undermined it, by stating that this situation far transcends a consideration of legal technicalities, and in a sense went beyond his own vitium consensus position as well.
So +Vigano has gone far beyond the "lack of consent" argument in this latest speech. It was brilliant really.
Thanks for the analysis!
I will admit, with all my other reservations, that Archbishop Vigano has gone further than any other Consiliar prelate in speaking the logical truth about the hijacking and corruption of the visible, Church since 1958.
But most of us know, it was happening way before then.
Going back to your 2019 Habemus Papam video, do we know Archbishop Vigano's response to the extraordinary conclave election?
Did he accept? If so, did he take a papal name?
Cardinal Siri did this much in 1958 when he was elected Pope. The Cardinal of Genoa accepted the office and took the name Gregory XVII. But he was immediately threatened and disposed by ecclesiastical freemasons within the Church under the direction of the Jєωs.
-
But wait.... one more observation:
(https://i.imgur.com/2ZzWOto.png)
What do the red roses symbolize in this photo? (Don't say, "Aw man... it's just decorative flowers!")
Ah yes, and you know where I'm headed with this comment.
Perhaps the Bishop of Broadstairs, with a Rose embedded within his Apostolic Coat of Arms could comment?
-
the "lack of consent" argument
This argument is just one of many various arguments one can make against V2 popes. Vigano was simply pointing out the legal effects of having a lack of intention (ie its null and void). This isn’t the main argument, which is doctrinal/theological, and +Vigano has covered this too in the past.
-
This argument is just one of many various arguments one can make against V2 popes. Vigano was simply pointing out the legal effects of having a lack of intention (ie its null and void). This isn’t the main argument, which is doctrinal/theological, and +Vigano has covered this too in the past.
I put these types of arguments in the category of explanations for how/why the See is vacant. They're speculative. I personally hold to the Siri Theory. Others have floated the notion that Montini was replaced by a double (and held in a dungeon), or else that he was being blackmailed. So they're really somewhat peripheral to the main problem, that we see a guy who's clearly not Catholic sitting on the See of Peter.
+Vigano went far beyond the various canonical explanations for how we find ourselves in this current situation, but he made it clear that this crisis is profound beyond mere canonical technicalities and that we're in the foretold Great Apostasy.
-
Going back to your 2019 Habemus Papam video, do we know Archbishop Vigano's response to the extraordinary conclave election?
Did he accept? If so, did he take a papal name?
Cardinal Siri did this much in 1958 when he was elected Pope. The Cardinal of Genoa accepted the office and took the name Gregory XVII. But he was immediately threatened and disposed by ecclesiastical freemasons within the Church under the direction of the Jєωs.
Oh, I've never heard him mention his "election" by those Eastern Rite bishops, and I doubt he would consider it legitimate. I post that somewhat tongue-in-cheek from time to time.
I myself believe that the Siri Theory is extremely credible and would explain everything that's gone on. But I think that +Vigano is getting warmer and warmer with each statement he makes. He's hovering over the target.
Starting with Roncalli, we had conscious evildoers infiltrate / usurp the papal office with the deliberate intention of destroying it. These V2 papal claimants are not just poor, confused, misguided souls whose minds were contaminated by Modernism. They were deliberate and conscious enemy agents intent upon destroying the Church ... Communist / Masonic / Jєωιѕн agents. That's why I believe Our Lady spoke obliquely about the "errors of Russia," not Russia, but the ERRORS of Russia, i.e. Jew-inspired Communism / Masonry ... and she likely foretold in the Third Secret that these Jew / Communist / Masonic agents would infiltrate the papacy. +Vigano basically said exactly that about Bergoglio, and might be inching toward realizing this also of Roncalli, Montini, Luciani, Wojtyla, and Ratzinger as well.
Here's why I think they went the Siri route. They knew that if the installed some occult heretic / Mason / Communist / Jew into the papal office, the office itself would be protected by the Holy Spirit from rolling out the damage they intended ... even if it mean God striking him dead. They thought they had their man in Pius IX, but the latter was converted from his extreme liberalism ... due to the graces of the office. They could have threatened Siri before the election and had him just refuse it outright. But that wouldn't have served their purposes. They needed him to get elected and to accept because at that moment he became the rightful legitimate pope. Then they threatened him AFTER he had accepted, uncanonically removing him but leaving the subsequent election impeded or obstructed by Siri's rightful hold on it. This way, these men were not even canonically in possession of the office. It's to Roncalli that I believe St. Francis referred in his prophecy about the "uncanonically elected pope".
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gBx-jtQXhLo
Transcript (https://exsurgedomine.it/231209-aspicite-eng/)
-
[VIDEO]
Transcript (https://exsurgedomine.it/231209-aspicite-eng/)
He does speak very slowly, and I've found that listening at 2x- or 1.5x- speed works better.
-
From the speech:
When Saint Robert Bellarmine hypothesized, as an academic study, the question of whether a Roman Pontiff could fall into heresy, he imagined a Pope who, while convinced that he continued to hold the Catholic faith, adhered materially or formally to one particular heresy
:facepalm: This is completely false. Why are people always making up garbage to counteract the teachings of theologians on a heretical pope, and always in a way that benefits the heretics? Here is what St. Robert Bellarmine actually said (https://cmri.org/articles-on-the-traditional-catholic-faith/on-the-roman-pontiff/):
This principle is most certain. The non-Christian cannot in any way be Pope, as Cajetan himself admits (ib. c. 26). The reason for this is that he cannot be head of what he is not a member; now he who is not a Christian is not a member of the Church, and a manifest heretic is not a Christian, as is clearly taught by St. Cyprian (lib. 4, epist. 2), St. Athanasius (Scr. 2 cont. Arian.), St. Augustine (lib. de great. Christ. cap. 20), St. Jerome (contra Lucifer.) and others; therefore the manifest heretic cannot be Pope.
Where in that quote, or anywhere else in that entire passage, does it say what Vigano claims it said? And how convenient that he makes something up in order to prevent this teaching of St. Robert Bellarmine from applying to Bergoglio.
-
I posted before I read more of the passage. It just keeps getting worse and worse.
Vigano:
Bellarmine could never have imagined that an emissary of Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ could go so far as to be elected pope with the purpose of demolishing the Church from within, usurping and abusing the very power of the papacy itself against the papacy. [This is ridiculous. That's what this whole passage I quoted above is talking about.] Nor could he have imagined that a hypothetical pope would surpass mere heresy and embrace all-out apostasy. [That's also false. The passage talks about a non-Christian and how he cannot be pope. And heresy and apostasy both equally separate someone from the Church, according to traditional theology and canon law, even if the new church does not teach this] No Doctor of the Church has ever contemplated the possibility of an apostate pope, [What??! Does this guy even know how to read??! Did he even read St. Robert's teachings on the heretical pope? What exactly is he quoting here, anyway?] or of an election falsified and manipulated by powers avowedly hostile to Christ, [foreseen already by Pope Paul IV in cuм Ex Apostolatus, where he legislated that such an election would be automatically invalid] because such an enormity could only happen in a unique and extraordinary context such as that of the final persecution foretold by the Prophet Daniel and described by Saint Paul.
.
I quote the passage of St. Robert Bellarmine below for convenience:
This principle is most certain. The non-Christian cannot in any way be Pope, as Cajetan himself admits (ib. c. 26). The reason for this is that he cannot be head of what he is not a member; now he who is not a Christian is not a member of the Church, and a manifest heretic is not a Christian, as is clearly taught by St. Cyprian (lib. 4, epist. 2), St. Athanasius (Scr. 2 cont. Arian.), St. Augustine (lib. de great. Christ. cap. 20), St. Jerome (contra Lucifer.) and others; therefore the manifest heretic can
not be Pope.
-
I posted before I read more of the passage. It just keeps getting worse and worse.
I quote the passage of St. Robert Bellarmine below for convenience:
not be Pope.
What keeps getting worse is your reading comprehension and your bad will. If you actually read the context of what he's saying, he's referring to the so-called "Bellarmine" opinion of the ipso facto deposition of a heretical pope, and he's saying that it's even WORSE than what Bellarmine had in mind. Bellarmine's had in mind the scenario of a simple heretic, someone, like say the famous case of John XXII, where he embraced a heretical proposition. +Vigano says that Bergoglio has certainly done that on numerous occasions, but that he goes far BEYOND that, that he's actually a deliberate infiltrator.
Are you an idiot or just operating on sheer wicked malice toward +Vigano? He's not rejecting Bellarmine's opinion, you blithering moron, but saying that not only does that apply (he cited that a heretic cannot be the head of the Church), but that it goes way beyond that, to the end times Great Apostasy, where the papacy has been usurped and infiltrated by Luciferians.
Since you have malice toward this man, you read stuff into his text that isn't there, pretending as though he's rejecting Bellarmine (and that you need to defend him), when what he's saying is that not only does Bellarmine apply, but that this scenario is Bellarmine on steroids. I envision you sitting there at your keyboard reading +Vigano looking for stuff you can distort, with flames of malice coming from your nostrils and drool coming from the corners of your mouth, as your malice has reduced your brain to a puddle of mush.
-
Also, he says that St. Robert Bellarmine never envisioned a situation where there's no one left in the hierarchy to call out a heretical Pope, but they would deal with it ... whereas now the entire hierarchy are corrupted and are never going to remove him, so this situation is beyond human remedy and can only be solved by God.
Well, that is pretty close to what St Robert Bellarmine did actually say, not specifically with reference to heresy and a corrupt hierarchy, but in terms of a pope wanting to destroy the Church with no human remedy. I don't think we can say that he did not envisage this possibility:
On The Church, Vol I, Bk II, On The Authority of Councils, Ch XIX, Protestant Responses are Refuted:
In the second place he proposes arguments of John Gerson:...
2. The Pope is a member of the Church, therefore he is lesser than the whole, which is the Church, and may and must be cut off if he would corrupt the Church because it is from natural law that members corrupting the whole body must be cut off...
To the second consequent it can be said: firstly... secondly...
But they will say, therefore, only the Church is without remedy if it has a bad Pope, and the Pope can disturb all things unpunished, and destroy and no one will be able to resist.
I respond: No wonder, if the Church remains without an efficacious human remedy, seeing that its safety does not rest principally upon human industry, but divine protection, since God is its king. Therefore, even if the Church could not depose a Pope, still, it may and must beg the Lord that He would apply the remedy, and it is certain that God has care of its safety, that He would either convert the Pope or abolish him from the midst before he destroys the Church. Nevertheless, it does not follow from here that it is not lawful to resist a Pope destroying the Church: for it is lawful to admonish him while preserving all reverence, and to modestly correct him, even to oppose him with force and arms if he means to destroy the Church. For to resist and repel by force of arms, no authority is required. See more on this with Juan Torquemada, lib. 2 cap 106
-
.
Did he explain why he calls himself "Archbishop" and says at the same time that he is not a member of the hierarchy or can't remove Bergoglio?
I also don't understand why he doesn't call out the conservative members of the hierarchy (if that's what he thinks they are) for refusing to remove Bergoglio.
And why, if he truly has issues with the New Rites of Ordination (as he stated in his new newsletter announcing his new seminary) hasn't he been conditionally consecrated in the Old Rite? And if he has been conditionally consecrated, why is he keeping it a secret/not making it public?
-
And why, if he truly has issues with the New Rites of Ordination (as he stated in his new newsletter announcing his new seminary) hasn't he been conditionally consecrated in the Old Rite? And if he has been conditionally consecrated, why is he keeping it a secret/not making it public?
Good point!
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gBx-jtQXhLo
Transcript (https://exsurgedomine.it/231209-aspicite-eng/)
Thanks for the transcript, CK. I didn't see this earlier. I much prefer to read the actual words than watch a video with subtitles.
-
From the speech:
When Saint Robert Bellarmine hypothesized, as an academic study, the question of whether a Roman Pontiff could fall into heresy, he imagined a Pope who, while convinced that he continued to hold the Catholic faith, adhered materially or formally to one particular heresy
:facepalm: This is completely false. Why are people always making up garbage to counteract the teachings of theologians on a heretical pope, and always in a way that benefits the heretics? Here is what St. Robert Bellarmine actually said (https://cmri.org/articles-on-the-traditional-catholic-faith/on-the-roman-pontiff/):
This principle is most certain. The non-Christian cannot in any way be Pope, as Cajetan himself admits (ib. c. 26). The reason for this is that he cannot be head of what he is not a member; now he who is not a Christian is not a member of the Church, and a manifest heretic is not a Christian, as is clearly taught by St. Cyprian (lib. 4, epist. 2), St. Athanasius (Scr. 2 cont. Arian.), St. Augustine (lib. de great. Christ. cap. 20), St. Jerome (contra Lucifer.) and others; therefore the manifest heretic cannot be Pope.
Where in that quote, or anywhere else in that entire passage, does it say what Vigano claims it said? And how convenient that he makes something up in order to prevent this teaching of St. Robert Bellarmine from applying to Bergoglio.
I also found the underlined part odd/off. However, I *think* what he was referring to was the fact that Bellarmine actually never believed a true pope could fall into heresy. That was his real position. Then he went on to consider what would happen if one could fall into heresy (the 5 opinions). I *think* it's just poorly worded/phrased, but I'm still not sure.
I actually didn't have an issue with the second part.
The Bellarmine section:
When Saint Robert Bellarmine hypothesized, as an academic study, the question of whether a Roman Pontiff could fall into heresy, he imagined a Pope who, while convinced that he continued to hold the Catholic faith, adhered materially or formally to one particular heresy, in a general context in which the social and ecclesial body remained Catholic.
Bellarmine could never have imagined that an emissary of Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ could go so far as to be elected pope with the purpose of demolishing the Church from within, usurping and abusing the very power of the papacy itself against the papacy. Nor could he have imagined that a hypothetical pope would surpass mere heresy and embrace all-out apostasy. No Doctor of the Church has ever contemplated the possibility of an apostate pope, or of an election falsified and manipulated by powers avowedly hostile to Christ, because such an enormity could only happen in a unique and extraordinary context such as that of the final persecution foretold by the Prophet Daniel and described by Saint Paul.
Our Lord’s admonition videritis abominationem desolationis – when you shall see the abomination of desolation (Mt 24:15) – is to be understood as such precisely because of its absolute uniqueness and for the fact that everyone will see fulfilled – some with horror, some with satanic satisfaction – the abomination of desolation standing in the holy place: qui legit intelligat – let the one who reads understand (Mt 24:15).
-
Dear Friend in Christ,
Thank you for your interest in Is the Pope Catholic? Conference with His Excellency Archbishop Carlo Maria Vigano.
If you found value from this experience, please consider helping this work: https://give.cornerstone.cc/edmundmazza (https://give.cornerstone.cc/edmundmazza)
or consider joining our January 15th "Popes, Prophecy, Antipopes" Seminar
https://www.edmundmazza.com/2023/12/07/495/ (https://www.edmundmazza.com/2023/12/07/495/)
Here is the link to the final YouTube video of the Conference!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LdUofsdb7m4 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LdUofsdb7m4)
God Bless,
Dr. Ed
-
The following is a transcript of the talk given by Fr. Paul Kramer:
Contra Bergoglium (https://ecclesiamilitans.com/Contra_Bergoglium.pdf)
-
I also found the underlined part odd/off. However, I *think* what he was referring to was the fact that Bellarmine actually never believed a true pope could fall into heresy. That was his real position. Then he went on to consider what would happen if one could fall into heresy (the 5 opinions). I *think* it's just poorly worded/phrased, but I'm still not sure.
I actually didn't have an issue with the second part.
The Bellarmine section:
When Saint Robert Bellarmine hypothesized, as an academic study, the question of whether a Roman Pontiff could fall into heresy, he imagined a Pope who, while convinced that he continued to hold the Catholic faith, adhered materially or formally to one particular heresy, in a general context in which the social and ecclesial body remained Catholic.
Bellarmine could never have imagined that an emissary of Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ could go so far as to be elected pope with the purpose of demolishing the Church from within, usurping and abusing the very power of the papacy itself against the papacy. Nor could he have imagined that a hypothetical pope would surpass mere heresy and embrace all-out apostasy. No Doctor of the Church has ever contemplated the possibility of an apostate pope, or of an election falsified and manipulated by powers avowedly hostile to Christ, because such an enormity could only happen in a unique and extraordinary context such as that of the final persecution foretold by the Prophet Daniel and described by Saint Paul.
Our Lord’s admonition videritis abominationem desolationis – when you shall see the abomination of desolation (Mt 24:15) – is to be understood as such precisely because of its absolute uniqueness and for the fact that everyone will see fulfilled – some with horror, some with satanic satisfaction – the abomination of desolation standing in the holy place: qui legit intelligat – let the one who reads understand (Mt 24:15).
I agree, it must have been a slip of the tongue. Archbishop Vigano undoubtedly knows that you cannot hold formally to a particular heresy and continue to hold the Catholic Faith.
But why does he hold that saint Robert Bellarmine was only foreseeing the possibility of a pope holding one heresy and not a cesspool of heresies (modernism)? That is the bit that he makes up. Perhaps it is true, perhaps not.
We all know that St Robert Bellarmine personally held to the pious opinion of Pighius, that the Pope could not fall into heresy, because such seemed to him to be "in accord with the sweet dispositions of Divine Providence". However, he acknowledged that this was not the common opinion of the theologians and that is why - take note Yeti- he examines if and how an heretical Pope would lose office.
I find it hard to accept Archbishop Vigano's statement that St Robert could never have imagined that "an emissary of Freemasonary could go so far as to be elected pope with the purpose of demolishing the Church from within..." In my citation of Bellarmine above, he contemplates precisely "a pope who means to destroy the Church". This is a pope he is speaking of - wanting to destroy the Church. What Catholic would want to destroy the Church? He contemplates it to the extent that it would be permitted for Catholics to resist him even with force of arms! St Robert is contemplating a pope who wants to do something diabolical, freemasonic! And what is St Robert's solution? Even if he couldn't be removed, God would provide the remedy. Granted, St Robert does not mention apostasy, or heresy, but would they be implicit in "a pope who means to destroy the Church"? What do you think 2V?
-
I was glad to read this towards the end of his dissertation, and there is certainly a salutary message here for the SSPX:
"Can we therefore be morally certain that the tenant of Santa Marta is a false prophet? My answer is: Yes. Are we therefore authorized in conscience to revoke our obedience to one who, presenting himself as Pope, actually acts like the biblical boar in the Lord's Vineyard, or like the hireling, qui non est pastor, cujus non sunt oves propriæ (Jn. 10:12), et non pertinet ad eum de ovibus (ibid., 13)? Yes.
"What we cannot do because we do not have the authority, is to officially declare that Jorge Mario Bergoglio is not Pope. The terrible impasse in which we find ourselves makes any human solution impossible.
"Our task must not be to grapple with abstract canonical speculations, but to resist with all our strength - and with the help of God's Grace - the explicitly destructive action of the Argentine Jesuit, rejecting with courage and determination any collaboration even indirectly with him and his accomplices."
However, it disappoints me that he appears to be saying "he's not the pope, we just don't have the authority to say it". He has never once called him 'Pope', so he is effectively declaring it anyway: 'Jorge Bergoglio', 'the tenant of St Martha'. But if we are not allowed to declare it, there is a reason: there needs to be a conviction of heresy (by a Council according to St Robert) before the declaration, formal heresy needs to be established. Whatever we might think the outcome of such a process may be, we may not presume, because, as Archbishop Lefebvre said, nothing is impossible with God. If we cannot declare he is Pope, then he is to be held as Pope and addressed with the respect due to that exalted office, however unworthy an occupant he may be.
He gives a whole stack of reasons why Pope Francis is not truly pope before saying this - the possibility that Benedict's resignation was not valid, lack of consent, involvement with the deep state and intention to destroy the Church. I do not see how all of this can be regarded as anything more than conjecture, not Catholic dogma on the papacy.
-
However, it disappoints me that he appears to be saying "he's not the pope, we just don't have the authority to say it". He has never once called him 'Pope', so he is effectively declaring it anyway: 'Jorge Bergoglio', 'the tenant of St Martha'. But if we are not allowed to declare it, there is a reason: there needs to be a conviction of heresy (by a Council according to St Robert) before the declaration, formal heresy needs to be established. Whatever we might think the outcome of such a process may be, we may not presume, because, as Archbishop Lefebvre said, nothing is impossible with God. If we cannot declare he is Pope, then he is to be held as Pope and addressed with the respect due to that exalted office, however unworthy an occupant he may be.
He gives a whole stack of reasons why Pope Francis is not truly pope before saying this - the possibility that Benedict's resignation was not valid, lack of consent, involvement with the deep state and intention to destroy the Church. I do not see how all of this can be regarded as anything more than conjecture, not Catholic dogma on the papacy.
What Archbishop Vigano means is that we do not have the juridical authority to declare that Jorge Bergoglio is not pope and not that we cannot make a private judgment that he is not pope.
-
What Archbishop Vigano means is that we do not have the juridical authority to declare that Jorge Bergoglio is not pope and not that we cannot make a private judgment that he is not pope.
Indeed, to the contrary, he said right before the statement that we cannot "declare" him to be the non-pope that we can have "moral certainty" that he is not. As you point out, he's distinguishing between the legal/juridical authority to declare the See deposed and the ability to make a private "morally certain" judgment. Some people here seem to have reading comprehension issues.
-
I do not see how all of this can be regarded as anything more than conjecture, not Catholic dogma on the papacy.
Evidently you're unaware that Catholic dogma on the papacy precludes the corruption of the Magisterium and the Public Worship of the Church. Well, you're not unaware, as it's been pointed out to you on myriad occasions ... you just refuse to accept it. Every one of the "5 Opinions" limits itself to PERSONAL heresy and no Catholic theologian ever held that the Pope could defect from the faith in the exercise of his office. Catholic dogma on the papacy also requires communion with and submission to the Pope. Your only concept of the dogma on the papacy involves paying lip service to some guy in a white cassock and putting his picture up in the vestibule.
-
I want to know if he is The False Prophet. That is more meaningful to me in these times.
-
What Archbishop Vigano means is that we do not have the juridical authority to declare that Jorge Bergoglio is not pope and not that we cannot make a private judgment that he is not pope.
(https://ecclesiamilitans.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/12/2023-12-12_075703.png)
-
Not only did he say that we had a right to express an option, +Vigano said we can be morally certain that Bergoglio is not the pope. Here's from the transcript ... in context.
Can we be morally certain, then, that the tenant of Santa Marta is a false prophet? My answer is: Yes. Are we therefore authorized in conscience to revoke our obedience to someone who, presenting himself as pope, is in reality acting like the Biblical wild boar in the Lord’s vineyard (Ps 79:14), or like the hireling, qui non est pastor, cuius non sunt oves propriæ – who is not the shepherd, whose own the sheep are not – et non pertinet ad eum de ovibus – and who has no care for the sheep (Jn 10:12-13)? Yes.
What we cannot do, because we do not have the authority, is to officially declare that Jorge Mario Bergoglio is not Pope. The terrible impasse in which we find ourselves makes any human solution impossible.
What we cannot be because we do not have the authority is to OFFICIALLY DECLARE him to be a non-pope.
-
I agree, it must have been a slip of the tongue. Archbishop Vigano undoubtedly knows that you cannot hold formally to a particular heresy and continue to hold the Catholic Faith.
But why does he hold that saint Robert Bellarmine was only foreseeing the possibility of a pope holding one heresy and not a cesspool of heresies (modernism)? That is the bit that he makes up. Perhaps it is true, perhaps not.
We all know that St Robert Bellarmine personally held to the pious opinion of Pighius, that the Pope could not fall into heresy, because such seemed to him to be "in accord with the sweet dispositions of Divine Providence". However, he acknowledged that this was not the common opinion of the theologians and that is why - take note Yeti- he examines if and how an heretical Pope would lose office.
I find it hard to accept Archbishop Vigano's statement that St Robert could never have imagined that "an emissary of Freemasonary could go so far as to be elected pope with the purpose of demolishing the Church from within..." In my citation of Bellarmine above, he contemplates precisely "a pope who means to destroy the Church". This is a pope he is speaking of - wanting to destroy the Church. What Catholic would want to destroy the Church? He contemplates it to the extent that it would be permitted for Catholics to resist him even with force of arms! St Robert is contemplating a pope who wants to do something diabolical, freemasonic! And what is St Robert's solution? Even if he couldn't be removed, God would provide the remedy. Granted, St Robert does not mention apostasy, or heresy, but would they be implicit in "a pope who means to destroy the Church"? What do you think 2V?
RE: bolded:
Well, I think we can only go by the writings of St Bellarmine. I have not read everything written by him, but I don't recall him ever mentioning multiple heresies. I think the reason why he doesn't go there would be obvious: a pope holding to one heresy is enough for his purpose. I agree that we don't have proof that Bellarmine didn't consider multiple heresies, so Vigano shouldn't have said that.
Your last paragraph:
When you consider the portion of Bellarmine's writings that you are referring to here, I think, although you did note that he is NOT considering a heretic or apostate pope, destroying the Church in this context was written purposely not to include a heretic pope (because he addresses that in a different section).
It is also my understanding that St Bellarmine in that particular section is talking about a pope who subsequently commands something that would help to destroy the Church while pope. Not becoming pope with the intention to do these things which is what I think Vigano is saying. [As a side note, this section was also not about a pope teaching error to the Church].
Hope that helps.
-
Foreigner
-
Not only did he say that we had a right to express an option, +Vigano said we can be morally certain that Bergoglio is not the pope. Here's from the transcript ... in context.
What we cannot be because we do not have the authority is to OFFICIALLY DECLARE him to be a non-pope.
Lad,
Thanks for cluing me in on how to watch the speech after the fact. I did, and it was excellent on the whole.
Vigano makes an important point about the irrelevance of "canonical arguments," how that's a waste of time, etc. Bergolio is a "false prophet," to whom no obedience is owed. This is what we know, and all we need to know.
I will also add that these endless arguments about "he's pope; he's not pope" are irrelevant and a waste of time, like the canonical arguments. What was the purpose of "indefectibility"? So that men could have a sure guide as to the truth by looking to the teaching of the pope and the bishops in union with him. A usurpation of the papacy and the entire bishopric - and especially for 6 or 7 decades - is contrary to the very purposes of "indefectibility." The "indefectibility" of the Church, as it was represented by a united papacy and bishopric, served the highlighted purpose, God's purpose, during the spread of the Gospel throughout the world to all nations and peoples. That has been done. What remains is the end, after - what has apparently happened - the release of Satan to deceive via his false prophets after he was "bound" during the spread of the Gospel by the Church:
Apocalypse 20
3 And he cast him into the bottomless pit, and shut him up, and set a seal upon him, that he should no more seduce the nations, till the thousand years be finished. And after that, he must be loosed a little time.
et misit eum in abyssum, et clausit, et signavit super illum ut non seducat amplius gentes, donec consummentur mille anni : et post haec oportet illum solvi modico tempore.
https://www.drbo.org/drl/chapter/73020.htm
Perhaps we are in the day, or coming to the day, that all the elect will have been "signed" or saved, and it is merely time for judgment. Apocalypse 7:3; Ezekiel 9:4,6.
All this endless discussion about "he's pope, he's not pope" is ridiculous - and it's been running, the debate with that theme line, for 5 popes now, intensifying along the way - John XXIII, Paul VI, JPII, Benedict XVI, and now Francis.
If I were a non-Catholic seriously considering becoming Catholic, was doing my due diligence and taking the issue to heart, studying Catholic theology and seeing contradictions pre-V2 and after V-2, and perplexed by that contradiction in light of the dogma and doctrines of indefectibilty and Infallibility, and I took it up with some Catholic, and he told me, "don't worry about that, all those popes were not popes, and all the bishops now, and most since, were not real Catholic bishops," I'd immediately think, "well, ain't that convenient." If that's not an evasion and/or cop out, I don't know what is. You simply take 60 years of popes and bishops and pronounce them 'non-popes' and 'non-bishops' to escape a logical problem that otherwise would belie your Church and its claims."
I don't know how any honest, non-Catholic person coming to the question - who didn't come to it already as a Catholic and with an otherwise noble and honorable bias to "clear the family name" - would buy such a claim, and find it credible.
To say these popes and bishops are not really popes and bishops is to evade the real issue regarding indefectibility and infallibility: the dogma and doctrine was bottomed on a belief that God would prevent such a total usurpation of the hierarchy, so that mankind would have that guide of truth in a legitimate hierarchy all days until Christ returned - that was the teaching. You're fooling yourself in thinking you're upholding the indefectibility of the Church in light of the prior teaching in its fullness.
Here's Pius IX regarding the Old Catholics:
“Incredibly, they boldly affirm that the Roman Pontiff and all the bishops, the priests and the people conjoined with him in the unity of faith and communion fell into heresy when they approved and professed the definitions of the Ecuмenical Vatican Council. Therefore they deny also the indefectibility of the Church and blasphemously declare that it has perished throughout the world and that its visible Head and the bishops have erred. They assert the necessity of restoring a legitimate episcopacy in the person of their pseudo-bishop, who has entered not by the gate but from elsewhere like a thief or robber and calls the damnation of Christ upon his head.”
I said before regarding this, in response to Lad saying in another thread that Sedes do not deny what Pius IX said about the Church's indefectibility when they assert that the heretical Conciliar popes and the bishops of every Catholic diocese (all of them, in union) are not really Catholic popes and bishops, and thus Sedes avoid the Catholic Church defecting problem (which he contends is an R & R problem):
According to you, all that the Old Catholic would have to say in response is, "not so, you, and the bishops in union with you, are heretics, and not part of the Catholic Church. The Catholic Church - of which you are not - remains indefectible, and your defection from the faith is not attributable to the Church, which remains indefectible with us."
Until the late 20th Century and Sedevacantism, the idea that the pope and all the bishops in union with him would lose the faith would be unthinkable. Catholics believed, like Pius IX, that the Holy Ghost would not have permitted such a total and radical usurpation of the hierarchy. That is the protection of indefectibility identified, and referred to, by Pius IX in Etsi Multi: that there could not be such a radical usurpation of the hierarchy such that it becomes a total seat of pestilence, such that it could be taken over by Satan. A bishop here or there, or even possibly a heretic pope, who would be opposed by legitimate bishops who were successors to the apostles - even if that nightmare was a possibility, that would not destroy indefectibility as understood. But indefectibility, as understood by Pius IX, would not be compatible with such a total usurpation.
You morph this into a circular, tautological argument swirling around terminology: the pope and all the bishops in union with him in the Catholic Church cannot be heretics, and so if they are heretics, they aren't the pope and the bishops of the Catholic Church. That's a total evasion of Pius IX's point: if the pope and the all Catholic bishops in union with him joined to issue heresy in an ecuмenical council, the Church would have defected. Period. The Old Catholics could not, and you can not, evade that point by saying, "but the pope and all the bishops who did so were not Catholic."
But that is what you are doing. You are evading the "crux" of the argument: the Holy Ghost would not allow that to happen, i.e., that any "person" sitting in the seat of Peter could have all the "persons" possessing Catholic sees or bishoprics joining him in union to do such a thing.
Sedevacantism is not an answer to the "indefectibility" problem of the post-V2 Church. It would not convince my hypothetical non-Catholic inquirer seeking truth in light of the contradictions, and it doesn't convince me, or many other of us, for darn good and logical grounds, like the one I'm raising.
Archbishop Vigano is not "going Sede" perhaps because he no doubt sees the problem - one of which I've identified above - with the Sede "solution." He has pointed to the truth, looking to Scripture: we are in the Great Apostasy. Perhaps one day he'll agree with me, and come to view the post-V2 phenomenon in a way that doesn't involve the papering over of contradictions like the Sede position does: the Great Apostasy is an unprecedented end times anomaly which God warned us about, a sort of theological suspension of the normal, ordinary theological truths and laws that obtained during the spread of the Gospel by the Church during "normal times" preceding it, like a miracle done in nature that suspends and acts outside of the physical laws that rule under normal circuмstances.
Not only is such a view not plagued with contradictions, but it accords with the Word of God and prophecy, since, "we've been told before" (Matthew 24:25) - i.e, it's part of the plan and design of God, and rather that contradicting His truths and plan, fulfills it perfectly.
-
What we cannot be because we do not have the authority is to OFFICIALLY DECLARE him to be a non-pope.
.
So he rejects St. Robert Bellarmine (https://cmri.org/articles-on-the-traditional-catholic-faith/on-the-roman-pontiff/):
The fourth opinion is that of Cajetan, for whom (de auctor. papae et con., cap. 20 et 21) the manifestly heretical Pope is not “ipso facto” deposed, but can and must be deposed by the Church. To my judgment, this opinion cannot be defended. For, in the first place, it is proven with arguments from authority and from reason that the manifest heretic is “ipso facto” deposed. The argument from authority is based on St. Paul (Titus, c. 3), who orders that the heretic be avoided after two warnings, that is, after showing himself to be manifestly obstinate — which means before any excommunication or judicial sentence. And this is what St. Jerome writes, adding that the other sinners are excluded from the Church by sentence of excommunication, but the heretics exile themselves and separate themselves by their own act from the body of Christ. Now, a Pope who remains Pope cannot be avoided [rejecting the R&R solution], for how could we be required to avoid our own head? How can we separate ourselves from a member united to us?
This principle is most certain.
He is ipso facto deposed by his own act. And he points out that St. Paul says a heretic must be avoided even before a judicial sentence or excommunication, which is impossible to do in the case of a pope, as he points out. A heretical pope would therefore not be the pope, and thus could be avoided.
St. Robert Bellarmine really takes pains in this passage to assert and prove more than once that a pope who falls into heresy is no longer the pope, even without a declaration.
Again, all the errors in this regard seem to favor the modernists. I don't know why people are so desperate to find any loophole in this stuff to get Bergoglio off the hook. :confused:
-
So he rejects St. Robert Bellarmine (https://cmri.org/articles-on-the-traditional-catholic-faith/on-the-roman-pontiff/):
So, no he doesn't. He's saying the man is not the pope, prior to declaration, but there's a legal aspect of declaration that we don't have the authority to make. I've always held that Bellarmine is actually a sedeprivationist, distinguishing between the papal authority and the legal right to the office, having articulated between the designation being the matter of the office and the papal authority its form. He also cited Pope St. Celestine who described Nestorius as excommunicandus after his manifestation of heresy and before his legal/official removal of office, not actually excommunicated, but in a state of needing to be excommunicated, similar to Father Chazal's state of suspension.
It's this distinction in Bellarmine that caused Salza and Siscoe to go off the reservation, since they were unaware of it, and therefore collected quotes from Bellarmine about the legal/official disposition of the office to pretend that he retained the authority of office, thereby making Bellarmine have the same opinion as Cajetan / John of St. Thomas.
No, Yeti, neither you nor your Aunt Helen have the authority to vacate the legal claims one might hold to the papal office by virtue of his designation/election to office.
-
Lad,
Thanks for cluing me in on how to watch the speech after the fact. I did, and it was excellent on the whole.
Vigano makes an important point about the irrelevance of "canonical arguments," how that's a waste of time, etc. Bergolio is a "false prophet," to whom no obedience is owed. This is what we know, and all we need to know.
I will also add that these endless arguments about "he's pope; he's not pope" are irrelevant and a waste of time, like the canonical arguments.
Indeed arguing about the finer points of the "5 Opinions" is a waste of time, as I've repeatedly stated, since we're not going to resolve the matter here on CI, and, as you point out, in the PRACTICAL order, it does not matter. You could be as dogmatic an SV as they come (and anti-sedeprivationist), but at the end of the day, the SVs, sedeprivationists, and sedeimpoundists ... all put Bergoglio into the "ignore" category.
Now, with classical R&R, you can't do that. You'd have to obey anything Bergoglio commanded or taught that was not contrary to your conscience. But all the others put him in the category of needing to be categorically ignored and treated as if he were not the pope.
What matters, however, is that to assert BOTH that 1) Bergoglio is (formally) the pope and 2) Bergoglio has a corrupt Modernist-imbued Magisterium and has promoted a non-Catholic Rite of Public Worship that displeases God, is to deny the indefectibility of the Papal Magisterium and Universal Discpline. It's to reject the teaching of Vatican I that the See of Peter cannot be blemished by any error.
-
He's saying the man is not the pope, prior to declaration, but there's a legal aspect of declaration that we don't have the authority to make. I've always held that Bellarmine is actually a sedeprivationist, distinguishing between the papal authority and the legal right to the office, having articulated between the designation being the matter of the office and the papal authority its form.
Exactly. When the pope is elected, he gains control of 2 offices - the natural/human/govt and the supernatural/spiritual. If the pope becomes a heretic, he immediately is "impounded" (to use Fr Chazal's word) and he loses spiritual authority "ipso facto" (per canon law). But, he still retains the human/govt office until the human/govt arm of the Church removes him using the human/govt process (i.e. canon law, or some type of declaration).
This is the distinction that Pope St Pius X and XII had in mind when they declared that a heretic's spiritual penalties are put "on pause" for the election, then immediately go back into full force after the election is complete. They saw the future of the Church, and the Modernists who had already taken over. They saw that there was a high likelihood of a heretic gaining office and wanted the human/govt office to remain operating (i.e. the visible church still functions).
The fact that +Bellarmine (and others he was debating) correlate heresy (a spiritual sin) with loss of office, but still debated over their removal (i.e. human/govt removal), shows they made the distinction between the loss of spiritual office/authority and the human loss of office (which must be done by the Cardinals or some authority committee).
-
Indeed arguing about the finer points of the "5 Opinions" is a waste of time, as I've repeatedly stated, since we're not going to resolve the matter here on CI, and, as you point out, in the PRACTICAL order, it does not matter. You could be as dogmatic an SV as they come (and anti-sedeprivationist), but at the end of the day, the SVs, sedeprivationists, and sedeimpoundists ... all put Bergoglio into the "ignore" category.
Now, with classical R&R, you can't do that. You'd have to obey anything Bergoglio commanded or taught that was not contrary to your conscience. But all the others put him in the category of needing to be categorically ignored and treated as if he were not the pope.
What matters, however, is that to assert BOTH that 1) Bergoglio is (formally) the pope and 2) Bergoglio has a corrupt Modernist-imbued Magisterium and has promoted a non-Catholic Rite of Public Worship that displeases God, is to deny the indefectibility of the Papal Magisterium and Universal Discpline. It's to reject the teaching of Vatican I that the See of Peter cannot be blemished by any error.
Two responses.
First, the issue goes beyond the pope issue. I've repeated that over and over in our discussions. The issue is, there is not a single ordinary of the Catholic Church who is not either a heretic or a schismatic by being in union with a heretic pope and remaining in union with other bishops who embrace heresy. So the "Church" has defected in the sense that she has no "governing authority," not a single ordinary with true exective/legislative power over Christ's sheep to command and rule.
Second, the above simply does not comport with the notion of indefectibility, in two senses: the complete usurpation of the hierarchy in a pope in union with almost every single bishop, but certainly the the moral majority of bishops, in promulgation of heresy, etc. According to Pius IX (Etsa Multi"), that equals a defection of the Church. The second sense is the loss of a "governing body," i.e. no bishop with true and real authority of command.
The facts indicate the Church, in this scenario, has defected . . . if you follow the understanding of Pius IX and the official teaching regarding indefectibility.
You can call out "Old Catholic" all you want, but that's the reality. And that's not heresy. Even Christ, as human, "defected"- his physical body died and was in the tomb. He DIED, which is a defect in an entity with a body.
The Church follows the life of her Lord, and she has "defected" too under the old definition, as understood by Pius XI, expressed in Etsa Multi.
Now, you can understand that and come to terms with that as God's will, outlined and given to us in the revelation of Scripture, and therefore no contradiction by following the design of a God who works in aeons and ages, spans and blocks of time under certain covenants and governing laws and terms, or you can insist that the Church remains "indefectible" during the Great Apostasy, just as it was "indefectible" during the Church age and the spread of the Gospel, when God willed it to be so, which does not square with the facts and the reality. The facts and the doctrine did indeed square during the Church age, when the Church was indeed indefectible.
It's a matter of consistency, which matters when we're arguing truth, the weighing of concepts and hypotheses against facts, and that's what we do here.
But practically speaking, we both recognize, with Archbishop Vigano, that Francis is a false prophet, has lost his right to rule by virtue of his apostasy, and can be told to take a hike. And as Vigano indicates by dismissing canonical arguments, that is what matters, and what will determine the salvation of souls.
-
Evidently you're unaware that Catholic dogma on the papacy precludes the corruption of the Magisterium and the Public Worship of the Church. Well, you're not unaware, as it's been pointed out to you on myriad occasions ... you just refuse to accept it. Every one of the "5 Opinions" limits itself to PERSONAL heresy and no Catholic theologian ever held that the Pope could defect from the faith in the exercise of his office. Catholic dogma on the papacy also requires communion with and submission to the Pope. Your only concept of the dogma on the papacy involves paying lip service to some guy in a white cassock and putting his picture up in the vestibule.
I wonder if you would have had the gall to speak like that to Archbishop Lefebvre, or to Bishop Williamson.
-
It is also my understanding that St Bellarmine in that particular section is talking about a pope who subsequently commands something that would help to destroy the Church while pope. Not becoming pope with the intention to do these things which is what I think Vigano is saying. [As a side note, this section was also not about a pope teaching error to the Church.
Thanks 2V. Yes, I agree with what you say about becoming pope with the intention do destroy. But in reply to what ABV says in relation to this, 1. we cannot judge that intention, no matter how circuмstances may appear, and 2. there is no dogmatic Church teaching on this matter anyway. So we are back to making concrete judgements/conclusions based on premises that are not certain. This is the problem, for me, and I would say in general for most people of my persuasion, with the sedevacantist thesis. Not only do we not have the authority to make the declaration, as ABV says, but I think even making the definitive judgement that he cannot be Pope is going too far. That is what Archbishop Lefebvre held, and it is surely just and true, since no one is condemned without a trial/certain confirmation of the facts, much less so a pope.
-
All this endless discussion about "he's pope, he's not pope" is ridiculous - and it's been running, the debate with that theme line, for 5 popes now, intensifying along the way - John XXIII, Paul VI, JPII, Benedict XVI, and now Francis.
If I were a non-Catholic seriously considering becoming Catholic, was doing my due diligence and taking the issue to heart, studying Catholic theology and seeing contradictions pre-V2 and after V-2, and perplexed by that contradiction in light of the dogma and doctrines of indefectibilty and Infallibility, and I took it up with some Catholic, and he told me, "don't worry about that, all those popes were not popes, and all the bishops now, and most since, were not real Catholic bishops," I'd immediately think, "well, ain't that convenient." If that's not an evasion and/or cop out, I don't know what is. You simply take 60 years of popes and bishops and pronounce them 'non-popes' and 'non-bishops' to escape a logical problem that otherwise would belie your Church and its claims."
I don't know how any honest, non-Catholic person coming to the question - who didn't come to it already as a Catholic and with an otherwise noble and honorable bias to "clear the family name" - would buy such a claim, and find it credible.
To say these popes and bishops are not really popes and bishops is to evade the real issue regarding indefectibility and infallibility: the dogma and doctrine was bottomed on a belief that God would prevent such a total usurpation of the hierarchy, so that mankind would have that guide of truth in a legitimate hierarchy all days until Christ returned - that was the teaching. You're fooling yourself in thinking you're upholding the indefectibility of the Church in light of the prior teaching in its fullness.
Here's Pius IX regarding the Old Catholics:
“Incredibly, they boldly affirm that the Roman Pontiff and all the bishops, the priests and the people conjoined with him in the unity of faith and communion fell into heresy when they approved and professed the definitions of the Ecuмenical Vatican Council. Therefore they deny also the indefectibility of the Church and blasphemously declare that it has perished throughout the world and that its visible Head and the bishops have erred. They assert the necessity of restoring a legitimate episcopacy in the person of their pseudo-bishop, who has entered not by the gate but from elsewhere like a thief or robber and calls the damnation of Christ upon his head.”
I said before regarding this, in response to Lad saying in another thread that Sedes do not deny what Pius IX said about the Church's indefectibility when they assert that the heretical Conciliar popes and the bishops of every Catholic diocese (all of them, in union) are not really Catholic popes and bishops, and thus Sedes avoid the Catholic Church defecting problem (which he contends is an R & R problem):
...
Sedevacantism is not an answer to the "indefectibility" problem of the post-V2 Church. It would not convince my hypothetical non-Catholic inquirer seeking truth in light of the contradictions, and it doesn't convince me, or many other of us, for darn good and logical grounds, like the one I'm raising.
Archbishop Vigano is not "going Sede" perhaps because he no doubt sees the problem - one of which I've identified above - with the Sede "solution." He has pointed to the truth, looking to Scripture: we are in the Great Apostasy. Perhaps one day he'll agree with me, and come to view the post-V2 phenomenon in a way that doesn't involve the papering over of contradictions like the Sede position does: the Great Apostasy is an unprecedented end times anomaly which God warned us about, a sort of theological suspension of the normal, ordinary theological truths and laws that obtained during the spread of the Gospel by the Church during "normal times" preceding it, like a miracle done in nature that suspends and acts outside of the physical laws that rule under normal circuмstances.
Not only is such a view not plagued with contradictions, but it accords with the Word of God and prophecy, since, "we've been told before" (Matthew 24:25) - i.e, it's part of the plan and design of God, and rather that contradicting His truths and plan, fulfills it perfectly.
An intelligent post, DR, and if nothing else, it highlights the uncertainty of sedevacantism, and that is at least one reason we should not affirm it, because it does cause division, and as Matthew has so often eloquently demonstrated, it leads to no difference in practical attitude, other that not praying for the pope, and, God forbid, the possibility of schism down the track when the situation in Rome is rectified.
-
Two responses.
First, the issue goes beyond the pope issue. I've repeated that over and over in our discussions. The issue is, there is not a single ordinary of the Catholic Church who is not either a heretic or a schismatic by being in union with a heretic pope and remaining in union with other bishops who embrace heresy. So the "Church" has defected in the sense that she has no "governing authority," not a single ordinary with true exective/legislative power over Christ's sheep to command and rule.
Second, the above simply does not comport with the notion of indefectibility, in two senses: the complete usurpation of the hierarchy in a pope in union with almost every single bishop, but certainly the the moral majority of bishops, in promulgation of heresy, etc. According to Pius IX (Etsa Multi"), that equals a defection of the Church. The second sense is the loss of a "governing body," i.e. no bishop with true and real authority of command.
The facts indicate the Church, in this scenario, has defected . . . if you follow the understanding of Pius IX and the official teaching regarding indefectibility.
You can call out "Old Catholic" all you want, but that's the reality. And that's not heresy. Even Christ, as human, "defected"- his physical body died and was in the tomb. He DIED, which is a defect in an entity with a body.
The Church follows the life of her Lord, and she has "defected" too under the old definition, as understood by Pius XI, expressed in Etsa Multi.
Now, you can understand that and come to terms with that as God's will, outlined and given to us in the revelation of Scripture, and therefore no contradiction by following the design of a God who works in aeons and ages, spans and blocks of time under certain covenants and governing laws and terms, or you can insist that the Church remains "indefectible" during the Great Apostasy, just as it was "indefectible" during the Church age and the spread of the Gospel, when God willed it to be so, which does not square with the facts and the reality. The facts and the doctrine did indeed square during the Church age, when the Church was indeed indefectible.
It's a matter of consistency, which matters when we're arguing truth, the weighing of concepts and hypotheses against facts, and that's what we do here.
But practically speaking, we both recognize, with Archbishop Vigano, that Francis is a false prophet, has lost his right to rule by virtue of his apostasy, and can be told to take a hike. And as Vigano indicates by dismissing canonical arguments, that is what matters, and what will determine the salvation of souls.
"the above simply does not comport with the notion of indefectibility", nor with the truth! The truth is, as Archbishop Lefebvre always maintained, and as is evident, is that the reality is more complex. Should we say that Archbishop Vigano was not Catholic until he joned our hallowed ranks, for example!?? It is complex. Let us adhere to what is certain and not cause division over uncertainties, here is the issue.
-
It's to reject the teaching of Vatican I that the See of Peter cannot be blemished by any error.
Would you please provide this precise teaching that you are referring to here, Ladislaus. This seems to be at the very heart of our personal disagreement at least, and clearly your difference with DR too.
-
Would you please provide this precise teaching that you are referring to here, Ladislaus. This seems to be at the very heart of our personal disagreement at least, and clearly your difference with DR too.
.
Right here (https://novusordowatch.org/the-catholic-papacy/). Teachings from numerous popes. Just read five or ten of these quotes from true popes and you'll see the problem with saying the papacy can be corrupted by error in its teaching, or that people can say that the pope is leading people astray by his public teaching. These ideas are contrary to the Catholic Faith.
Just a few excerpts:
Pope Leo X: You will firmly abide by the true decision of the Holy Roman Church and to this Holy See, which does not permit errors.
Pope Pius 9th: This chair [of Peter] is the center of Catholic truth and unity, that is, the head, mother, and teacher of all the Churches to which all honor and obedience must be offered. Every church must agree with it because of its greater preeminence — that is, those people who are in all respects faithful….
Again: Nor will We permit anything against the sanctity of the oath by which We were bound when, however undeservingly, We ascended the supreme seat of the prince of the apostles, the citadel and bulwark of the Catholic faith.
Pius 9th again: …t is not sufficient for learned Catholics to accept and revere the aforesaid dogmas of the Church, but that it is also necessary to subject themselves to the decisions pertaining to doctrine which are issued by the Pontifical Congregations, and also to those forms of doctrine which are held by the common and constant consent of Catholics as theological truths and conclusions, so certain that opinions opposed to these same forms of doctrine, although they cannot be called heretical, nevertheless deserve some theological censure.
Pope Leo 13th: On its side the Holy See, faithful to the mission it has received to teach all men and to preserve the faithful from error, follows with attentive and vigilant eye all that happens within the Catholic fold, and, when it is judged necessary and opportune, it will not fail in the future — any more than it has ever failed in the past — to give appropriate light and direction by its teaching. It is to the Holy See first of all — and also, in dependence upon it, to the other pastors established by the Holy Spirit to rule the Church of God — that belongs by right the teaching ministry.
Pope Pius 11th: For the teaching authority of the Church, which in the divine wisdom was constituted on earth in order that revealed doctrines might remain intact for ever, and that they might be brought with ease and security to the knowledge of men, and which is daily exercised through the Roman Pontiff and the Bishops who are in communion with him, has also the office of defining, when it sees fit, any truth with solemn rites and decrees, whenever this is necessary either to oppose the errors or the attacks of heretics, or more clearly and in greater detail to stamp the minds of the faithful with the articles of sacred doctrine which have been explained.
(Encyclical Mortalium Animos (http://www.papalencyclicals.net/pius11/p11morta.htm), n. 9)
There are numerous other similar teachings of the magisterium in the page I cited. That's why we reject the idea that people can recognize someone as pope while resisting his teachings on the Faith. Because they contradict everything above.
-
St. Robert Bellarmine really takes pains in this passage to assert and prove more than once that a pope who falls into heresy is no longer the pope, even without a declaration.
Yeti, what about this teaching of St Robert in his work On Councils? The first few paragraphs provide some context. Does it not add anything to the debate? Don't you think there is a role for the Church to play before we can make this definitive judgement?:
1... the particular reasons , on account of which Councils are celebrated, are usually numbered as six... d) the fourth reason is suspicion of heresy in the Roman Pontiff, if perhaps it might happen, or if he were an incorrigible tyrant; for then a general Council ought to be gathered either to depose the Pope if he should be found to be a heretic, or certainly to admonish him, if he seemed incorrigible in morals... general Councils ought to impose judgment on controversies arising in regard to the Roman Pontiff - albeit not rashly... e) the fifth reason is doubt about the election of a Roman Pontiff... (from Ch IX On the utility or even the necessity of celebrating Councils)
2. It is certain that hitherto a Council has never been called for this purpose. The same can be said about the fourth reason. For on account of suspicions on the doctrine and life of Popes, no Council has been convened apart from provincial or national Councils. Nor does it seem necessary for a greater Council; for while the Pope is truly a pope, he cannot be judged by any Council, unless he himself were to grant the power... and it could impose a judgement of the Council, but not a coercive judgement... (from Ch X General Councils are useful and in a certain measure necessary, but not absolutely and simply)
3. Catholics customarily propose certain doubts... The second, whether or not it is lawful for a Council to be summoned by anyone other than the Pope when the Pope cannot summon it, for the reason that he is a heretic or schismatic... I respond that in no case can a true and perfect Council (such as we make our disputation on here) be convoked without the authority of the Pope, because he has the authority to define questions of faith. For the particular authority is in the head, in Peter... for whom the Lord prayed lest his faith would fail (Luke 22). Still, in those two cases an imperfect Council could be gathered which would suffice to provide for the Church from the head. For the Church, without a doubt, has the authority to provide for itself from the head... Hence, that imperfect Council can happen, if either it is summoned by the college of Cardinals, or the Bishops themselves come together in a place of themselves. (from Ch XIV Certain doubts are answered)
4. The Lutherans... propose eight conditions for celebrating a Council... Firstly,... the Council of Trent be invalidated. Secondly, that the Council be in Germany... Thirdly, that the Roman Pontiff should not summon the Council, nor preside in it, but that it should be on the other side of those litigating, just as when someone is accused and no man is at the same time the judge and the accusing party... The third condition is unjust, because the Roman Pontiff cannot be deprived of his right to summon Councils and preside over them... unless he were first convicted by the legitimate judgement of a Council and is not the Supreme Pontiff. Moreover, what they say, that the same man ought not be a judge and a party, I say has place in private men, but not in a supreme prince. For the supreme prince, as long as he is not declared or judged to have legitimately been deprived of his rule, is always the supreme judge, even if he litigates with himself as a party. (from Ch XXI The conditions which the Lutherans require to celebrate a Council are refuted)
-
.
Right here (https://novusordowatch.org/the-catholic-papacy/). Teachings from numerous popes. Just read five or ten of these quotes from true popes and you'll see the problem with saying the papacy can be corrupted by error in its teaching, or that people can say that the pope is leading people astray by his public teaching. These ideas are contrary to the Catholic Faith.
Just a few excerpts:
There are numerous other similar teachings of the magisterium in the page I cited. That's why we reject the idea that people can recognize someone as pope while resisting his teachings on the Faith. Because they contradict everything above.
Let's just confine ourselves to Vatican I, as referred to by Ladislaus, so we can address one issue at a time. An infallible pronouncement of the Church is a good place to start.
-
The issue is, there is not a single ordinary of the Catholic Church who is not either a heretic or a schismatic by being in union with a heretic pope and remaining in union with other bishops who embrace heresy. So the "Church" has defected in the sense that she has no "governing authority," not a single ordinary with true exective/legislative power over Christ's sheep to command and rule.
This is your interpretation. Another interpretation is that the same thing happened above during the Arian heresy. St Athanasius was said to be “against the world” and he had no ordinary jurisdiction nor diocesan authority. But he had supplied jurisdiction. Same as all the current Trad clerics. That suffices for the Church to continue.
Remember, the first 300 yrs, the church wasn’t operating in public. Diocese’s weren’t even invented. Ordinary jurisdiction was a hoped for dream. Yet the Church had not defected nor was She impaired from Her mission.
When a car goes from 70mph down to 2mph, it *seems* to have stopped, but, in reality, it’s still moving. The crisis in the Church happened so fast and so profound that it *seems* like it’s insurmountable, but in reality, the Trad movement may be as big (or bigger) than in St Athanasius’ day. We can’t go by perception; we have to go by facts. And Trad clerics are still part of the Church authority and jurisdiction. See Canon Law.
-
The issue is, there is not a single ordinary of the Catholic Church who is not either a heretic or a schismatic by being in union with a heretic pope and remaining in union with other bishops who embrace heresy. So the "Church" has defected in the sense that she has no "governing authority," not a single ordinary with true exective/legislative power over Christ's sheep to command and rule.
This is your interpretation. Another interpretation is that the same thing happened above during the Arian heresy. St Athanasius was said to be “against the world” and he had no ordinary jurisdiction nor diocesan authority. But he had supplied jurisdiction. Same as all the current Trad clerics. That suffices for the Church to continue.
Pax,
St. Athanasius was indeed an "ordinary," a true successor of the apostles with "governing authority." In fact, I believe he was a Patriarch, the "pope of Alexandria," unjustly exiled by heretics.
Second, you seriously believe that every single bishop of the Catholic Church, including all those in the West, subscribed to Arianism? I challenge that. In fact, I believe other bishops who objected to Arianism were also unjustly exiled.
St. Athanasius and the Arian crisis doesn't provide a situation where there were no ordinaries with genuine "governing authority" extant in the Church. It is not a valid objection to my "interpretation."
-
This is your interpretation. Another interpretation is that the same thing happened above during the Arian heresy. St Athanasius was said to be “against the world” and he had no ordinary jurisdiction nor diocesan authority. But he had supplied jurisdiction. Same as all the current Trad clerics. That suffices for the Church to continue.
Remember, the first 300 yrs, the church wasn’t operating in public. Diocese’s weren’t even invented. Ordinary jurisdiction was a hoped for dream. Yet the Church had not defected nor was She impaired from Her mission.
When a car goes from 70mph down to 2mph, it *seems* to have stopped, but, in reality, it’s still moving. The crisis in the Church happened so fast and so profound that it *seems* like it’s insurmountable, but in reality, the Trad movement may be as big (or bigger) than in St Athanasius’ day. We can’t go by perception; we have to go by facts. And Trad clerics are still part of the Church authority and jurisdiction. See Canon Law.
Pax,
I just did about 10 minutes of research and quickly found a couple of other bishops with ordinary jurisdiction who opposed Arianism - St. Basil of Caesarea, St. Gregory of Nαzιanzus, and St. Ambrose.
-
Christ never promised that ‘ordinary jurisdiction’ would survive the gates of hell. He said the Church.
When there’s a crisis, you aren’t living in ordinary times. Thus, ordinary jurisdiction will be replaced by non-ordinary (ie supplied) jurisdiction. Either way, the Church still goes on.
-
Christ never promised that ‘ordinary jurisdiction’ would survive the gates of hell. He said the Church.
When there’s a crisis, you aren’t living in ordinary times. Thus, ordinary jurisdiction will be replaced by non-ordinary (ie supplied) jurisdiction. Either way, the Church still goes on.
I like some of what you said here, but how do explain what Vatican I taught? It said that there would be pastors and teachers to the end?
-
Jurisdiction has two aspects, spiritual and temporal/govt. Every valid Bishop is a successor of the Apostles and has spiritual jurisdiction, by way of his episcopal powers. This comes from God.
But Christ gave St Peter the power to bind/loose, so the pope has the power to appoint Bishops to their temporal/govt offices. This gives them the LEGAL/human permission to use their God-given authority. This is the “ordinary” way things work.
But canon law makes multiple exceptions for non-ordinary uses of God-given jurisdiction. The fact that supplied jurisdiction even exists, proves that there are times when ordinary jurisdiction didn’t work in the past, due to some crisis.
All Trad Bishops posses jurisdiction as part of their status. When ordinary jurisdiction is impeded or insufficient for the times at hand, canon law allows supplied to fill in the gaps. Wether ordinary or supplied, as long as there is 1 valid Bishop alive, then jurisdiction remains.
-
Is supplied jurisdiction a theological concept in addition to being a canonical one? If so, can anyone provide the evidence?
-
Christ never promised that ‘ordinary jurisdiction’ would survive the gates of hell. He said the Church.
When there’s a crisis, you aren’t living in ordinary times. Thus, ordinary jurisdiction will be replaced by non-ordinary (ie supplied) jurisdiction. Either way, the Church still goes on.
So you're changing your argument now, since you now realize St. Athanasius had true "governing authority" as a Patriarch in the Church, as well as some of his fellow bishops?
If you want to limit the argument to Scripture, no, Christ never said the Church would have legitimate and true shepherds with his authority to teach, sanctify and govern until the end of the world, but "usque ad consummationem saecule" -
https://www.cathinfo.com/the-sacred-catholic-liturgy-chant-prayers/vatican-council-says-there-will-be-shepherds-'usque-ad-consummationem-saeculi'/
but that's what the Church said. You're not following the argument, so I'll give you a pass. I, Lad and others have discussed this repeatedly in a few thread.
The total usurpation of the hierarchy so that their are no shepherds with genuine authority to govern violates the doctrine or dogma of indefectibility as the Church has explained it. The facts of the last 60 years, beginning with V2, indicate a defection of the Church on its own terms.
Again, Pius IX in Etsi Multa:
“Incredibly, they boldly affirm that the Roman Pontiff and all the bishops, the priests and the people conjoined with him in the unity of faith and communion fell into heresy when they approved and professed the definitions of the Ecuмenical Vatican Council. Therefore they deny also the indefectibility of the Church and blasphemously declare that it has perished throughout the world and that its visible Head and the bishops have erred. They assert the necessity of restoring a legitimate episcopacy in the person of their pseudo-bishop, who has entered not by the gate but from elsewhere like a thief or robber and calls the damnation of Christ upon his head.”
Or, how about the Fathers of Vatican I, in their draft Constitution on the Church in preparation for the council, and aspect of a heiararchy with "governing body" as being of the essence of the Church's indefectibility:
We declare, moreover, that, whether one considers its existence or its constitution, the Church of Christ is an everlasting and indefectible society, and that, after it, no more complete nor more perfect economy of salvation is to be hoped for in this world. For, to the very end of the world the pilgrims of this earth are to be saved through Christ. Consequently, his Church, the only society of salvation, will last until the end of the world ever unchangeable and unchanged in its constitution. Therefore, although the Church is growing—and We wish that it may always grow in faith and charity for the upbuilding of Christ's body—although it evolves in a variety of ways according to the changing times and circuмstances in which it is constantly displaying activity, nevertheless, it remains unchangeable in itself and in the constitution it received from Christ. Therefore, Christ's Church can never lose its properties and its qualities, its sacred teaching authority, priestly office, and governing body, so that through his visible body, Christ may always be the way, the truth, and the life for all men.
Jesuit Fathers of St. Mary's College. The Church Teaches: Docuмents of the Church in English Translation . TAN Books. Kindle Edition.
I'm arguing from authorities, you're giving "Pax thinks" that shift with each rebuttal. Give me something beyond that and I'd be thrilled to continue the discussion.
DR
-
Ordinary jurisdiction is a human invention, to split up the Church into dioceses, to provide order, efficiency and clear authority.
We’re there dioceses in existence on the first Pentacost? No. How many years did the Church function before St Peter setup his papal office in Rome? Quite a few. And then, during the first 300 years, didn’t the church operate underground, with minimal organization? Yes.
Ordinary jurisdiction is for ordinary times. Supplied jurisdiction is for crazy times.
Canon law is always based on theological principles because the Church cannot contradict itself. All church law is in harmony with theology/doctrine.
-
Ordinary jurisdiction is a human invention, to split up the Church into dioceses, to provide order, efficiency and clear authority.
We’re there dioceses in existence on the first Pentacost? No. How many years did the Church function before St Peter setup his papal office in Rome? Quite a few. And then, during the first 300 years, didn’t the church operate underground, with minimal organization? Yes.
Ordinary jurisdiction is for ordinary times. Supplied jurisdiction is for crazy times.
Canon law is always based on theological principles because the Church cannot contradict itself. All church law is in harmony with theology/doctrine.
Forget the "ordinary jurisdiction" phraseology, as that's simply how the Church has organized its "governing authority" now. St. Athanasius, St. Basil, St. Gregory were successors of the apostles as bishops with real governing authority over Christ's sheep in certain areas, e.g, Athanasius was the Patriarch of Alexandria. Try telling Athanasius to "take a hike" when he was seated in his Patriarchy.
I can tell Bishop Sanborn to "take a hike," e.g., and any Catholic can, without being subject to any sanction with Church authority behind it.
You latch onto whatever you can to make an argument, ignoring the essence of the argument. The issue is "governing body" and "governing authority," which now rests in ordinaries who are successors to the Apostles and bishops real authority.
-
Ordinary jurisdiction is for ordinary times. Supplied jurisdiction is for crazy times.
Absolutely agree. This is not "ordinary times," and "indefectibility" as the Church defined it and expressed it was for ordinary times. That is my point.
You, however, are arguing this is not "ordinary times" while maintaining that the Church remains "indefectible" as she has understood and explained the term, which results in contradiction, a non-correspondence between theory or doctrine and reality/fact . . .
Follow the argument!!!!
-
Christ's Church can never lose its properties and its qualities,
It hasn't.
its sacred teaching authority, priestly office,
Still exists.
and governing body,
The Church's government still exists. Jurisdiction, both ordinary and supplied, are still in use.
so that through his visible body, Christ may always be the way, the truth, and the life for all men.
The visible body of the Church still exists.
-
It hasn't.
Still exists.
The Church's government still exists. Jurisdiction, both ordinary and supplied, are still in use.
The visible body of the Church still exists.
Mere ipse dixit, Pax think, and non-responsive to the substance of the argument.
If I give you the definition of "red" and we're looking at an object in a picture and it doesn't match the definition, you can't simply respond by saying, "no, it's red." Well, you can, but it doesn't move the discussion forward at all.
-
Absolutely agree. This is not "ordinary times," and "indefectibility" as the Church defined it and expressed it was for ordinary times. That is my point.
You, however, are arguing this is not "ordinary times" while maintaining that the Church remains "indefectible" as she has understood and explained the term, which results in contradiction, a non-correspondence between theory or doctrine and reality/fact . . .
Follow the argument!!!!
DR. You and Pax are talking past one another.
Pax is saying that "the Church" is, by definition and dogmatically, "indefectible." This means that EVEN IF 99.9% of nominal Catholics "defect" from the True Faith, there will always be a "faithful remnant" that has not "defected" from the True Faith. That faithful remnant will be the manifestation of the "indefectibility of the Church" because they are at that point the only constituents of the True Church. All the other merely nominal Catholics (but actual heretics) are outside the true Church. They are the "false bretheren" discussed by St. Augustine in the City of God.
You, on the other hand, hold tenaciously to the idea that "the Church" is primarily an institutional thing that is identified not by adherence to the "True Faith" but simply by sociological or legal claims to be "the Catholic Church." But that kind of claim can be a false claim. And the falsity can be demonstrated by comparing "the heretical faith" of these false claimants against the standard of the "True Faith."
Those people are fake Catholics but they don't tell people they are fake. They tell people that they are evolved and modern Catholics. But Pax would say, correctly, that these people have "defected" from the "True Faith." And that fact does not affect the "indefectibilty of the Church" because those people are outside the Church anyway, by definition. Therefore, you cannot make a judgment about the "defection" of "the Church" by referencing the beliefs and behaviors of the false "members" of the Church. You are judging "the Church" by referencing its enemies.
Pax is saying that we recognize who and what is "the Church" not by the buildings and the claims of the false brethren to be Catholic. Instead, we recognize "the Church" as being made up of only those who have not "defected" from the True Faith.
Here is what Pius XII said in Mystici Corporis (https://www.vatican.va/content/pius-xii/en/encyclicals/docuмents/hf_p-xii_enc_29061943_mystici-corporis-christi.html):
22. Actually only those are to be included as members of the Church who have been baptized and profess the true faith, and who have not been so unfortunate as to separate themselves from the unity of the Body, or been excluded by legitimate authority for grave faults committed.
-
You, on the other hand, hold tenaciously to the idea that "the Church" is primarily an institutional thing that is identified not by adherence to the "True Faith" but simply by sociological or legal claims to be "the Catholic Church." But that kind of claim can be a false claim. And the falsity can be demonstrated by comparing "the heretical faith" of these false claimants against the standard of the "True Faith."
Angelus,
I have simply given the understanding of "indefectibility" as it has been expressed by Pius IX and the Fathers of Vatican I. In another thread I have given the discussion of the doctrine/dogma from the Catholic Encyclopedia.
Show me how those sources have wrongly understood the Church's indefectibility, or how their understanding differs from that of the Church. Considering the sources, I don't think you can.
But go ahead, if you think you can.
DR
-
Angelus,
I have simply given the understanding of "indefectibility" as it has been expressed by Pius IX and the Fathers of Vatican I. In another thread I have given the discussion of the doctrine/dogma from the Catholic Encyclopedia.
Show me how those sources have wrongly understood the Church's indefectibility, or how their understanding differs from that of the Church. Considering the sources, I don't think you can.
But go ahead, if you think you can.
DR
There is an mis-definition of the term that is causing the misunderstanding.
The word "indefectibility" as used in the dogma of the "indefectibility of the Church" can be understood in two ways:
1. indefectibility: the Church (understood as souls of the triumphant, militant and suffering) cannot "defect" from the teachings of Jesus and the Apostles. Here "defection" means a loss of faith. Faith is a virtue proper to the human soul, not to an institution.
2. indefectibility: the Church (understood as a sociological, historical, institutional thing) cannot "defect" from the teachings of Jesus and the Apostles. Here "defection" is used incorrectly because an institution does not have "the faith" to begin with. Rather, only the souls (the members) that make up the institution can exercise the virtue of Faith and, therefore, only those individual souls can "defect" from the Faith.
Proposition #1 is the essence of the Catholic dogma.
Proposition #2 is a pious belief that the institutional Church can never fail which is belied by the historical fact of the Arian Crisis, St. Augustine's teaching in the City of God, and the facts of the conciliar hijack after Vatican II.
-
Ordinary jurisdiction is a human invention, to split up the Church into dioceses, to provide order, efficiency and clear authority.
We’re there dioceses in existence on the first Pentacost? No. How many years did the Church function before St Peter setup his papal office in Rome? Quite a few. And then, during the first 300 years, didn’t the church operate underground, with minimal organization? Yes.
Ordinary jurisdiction is for ordinary times. Supplied jurisdiction is for crazy times.
Canon law is always based on theological principles because the Church cannot contradict itself. All church law is in harmony with theology/doctrine.
This might be the biggest pile of nonsense I've ever read on this forum.
Ordinary jurisdiction is an "invention" of Christ and he transmitted it's plenitude to St. Peter, the conduit of authority and legitimacy in the Church.
While the body that detains this power of governing in Christ's name may suffer diminution or adaption in some way, it could never dissappear in such fashion that there be no presence whatsoever of Christ's authority(ordinary jurisdiction) on earth.
To admit such a possibility would be a denial of the dogma of indefectibility. So be careful. I think you are speaking out of ignorance because your language about these matters shows that you do not possess its basic fundaments. But if you were knowledgeable and still maintained what you say you would be guilty of heresy.
-
Ordinary jurisdiction is an "invention" of Christ and he transmitted it's plenitude to St. Peter, the conduit of authority and legitimacy in the Church.
I'm distinguishing between ordinary vs supplied, at the diocesan level. Yes, the pope has ordinary jurisdiction. But there were no dioceses in the Church, right off the bat. So, in this sense, the APPLICATION of ordinary jurisdiction, worldwide, was a human invention.
While the body that detains this power of governing in Christ's name may suffer diminution or adaption in some way, it could never dissappear in such fashion that there be no presence whatsoever of Christ's authority(ordinary jurisdiction) on earth.
Agree.
-
There is an mis-definition of the term that is causing the misunderstanding.
The word "indefectibility" as used in the dogma of the "indefectibility of the Church" can be understood in two ways:
1. indefectibility: the Church (understood as souls of the triumphant, militant and suffering) cannot "defect" from the teachings of Jesus and the Apostles. Here "defection" means a loss of faith. Faith is a virtue proper to the human soul, not to an institution.
2. indefectibility: the Church (understood as a sociological, historical, institutional thing) cannot "defect" from the teachings of Jesus and the Apostles. Here "defection" is used incorrectly because an institution does not have "the faith" to begin with. Rather, only the souls (the members) that make up the institution can exercise the virtue of Faith and, therefore, only those individual souls can "defect" from the Faith.
Proposition #1 is the essence of the Catholic dogma.
Proposition #2 is a pious belief that the institutional Church can never fail which is belied by the historical fact of the Arian Crisis, St. Augustine's teaching in the City of God, and the facts of the conciliar hijack after Vatican II.
Angelus,
Mis-definition of the term? Again, I gave you the understanding of the term expressed by Pius IX and the Fathers of Vatican I. So, in other words, you are saying that Pius IX and the Fathers of Vatican I "mis-defined" indefectibility. Is that what you are saying?
As I indicated in my response to Pax, the Arian crisis does not rebut my argument. St. Athanasius, St. Basil, and St. Gregory - just some examples - were bishops with "governing authority," and of the hierarchical "governing body" of the Church, opposed to the Arian heresy.
How does St. Augustine say the institutional Church can fail? Perhaps he agrees with me.
There needs to be some clarification between you and I here. You say that to say that the institutional Church can never fail is "belied." Your example of the Arian crisis doesn't support that. In any event, by saying "belied," you are saying that it can fail or defect, yes? If you are, I agree with you as to that being an end times phenomenon, but it is limited to the "consummation of the age," an end times phenomena; it has not occurred prior to Vatican II.
It appears to me that your position differs from that of Pax, and Lad, who argue that the Church remains "indefectible" as she expressed it and understood it prior to V2 - which, as I have argued, doesn't square with facts/reality.
Can you clarify? It appears you are dismissing the understanding of Piux IX and the Fathers of Vatican I to be wrong in principle as to the indefectibility of the Church, since you claim that understanding of "indefectibility" was "belied" by the Arian crisis of 1650 so years ago. I say that the Pius IX and Fathers of Vatican I understanding is wrong only in the sense that it is subject to an end times, sui generis phenomenon that they were not addressing, and which is being revealed and made clear during the Great Apostasy, and part of the "mystery of iniquity" that has reached its climax, or very close to it.
-
I like some of what you said here, but how do explain what Vatican I taught? It said that there would be pastors and teachers to the end?
.
No one on any side of the crisis in the Church thinks there are pastors and teachers right now, so I really don't understand why this question is considered some sort of "Gotcha!". The people challenging sedevacantists with "Who is your pope? We always have to have a pope," don't treat Bergoglio like a pope at all, and act in practice as if there weren't one.
In an argument, it's illogical and absurd to make an objection to an opponent that one doesn't believe himself. If the R&R people don't submit to their local ordinary, and to Francis, the way Catholic teaching says they must, then they can't object to sedevacantists that they don't do that either.
-
Yes, there are two aspects of indefectibility. I bolded and put (1) and (2) below ...
From Catholic Encyclopedia:
Among the prerogatives conferred on His Church by Christ is the gift of indefectibility. By this term is signified, not merely that (1) the Church will persist to the end of time, but further, that (2) it will preserve unimpaired its essential characteristics. The Church can never undergo any constitutional change which will make it, as a social organism, something different from what it was originally. It can (2) never become corrupt in faith or in morals; (1) nor can it ever lose the Apostolic hierarchy, or the sacraments through which Christ communicates grace to men. The gift of indefectibility is expressly promised to the Church by Christ, in the words in which He declares that the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. It is manifest that, could the storms which the Church encounters so shake it as to alter its essential characteristics and make it other than Christ intended it to be, the gates of hell, i.e. the powers of evil, would have prevailed. It is clear, too, that could the Church suffer substantial change, it would no longer be an instrument capable of accomplishing the work for which God called it in to being. He established it that it might be to all men the school of holiness. This it would cease to be if ever it could set up a false and corrupt moral standard. He established it to proclaim His revelation to the world, and charged it to warn all men that unless they accepted that message they must perish everlastingly. Could the Church, in defining the truths of revelation err in the smallest point, such a charge would be impossible. No body could enforce under such a penalty the acceptance of what might be erroneous. By the hierarchy and the sacraments, Christ, further, made the Church the depositary of the graces of the Passion. Were it to lose either of these, it could no longer dispense to men the treasures of grace.
This, ultimately, is what the SV vs. R&R debate boils down to (not an argument about the "5 Opinions").
R&R claim that SVism leads to a defection of the Church by virtue of the loss of (1) above, the Apostolic hierarchy.
SVs claim that R&R leads to a defection of the Church by virtue of the loss of (2) above, the Church's essential characteristics, or notes.
R&R hold that the Church's not-strictly-infallible Magisterium can go entirely corrupt, that the Public Worship of the Church can become corrupt, that the canon of the saints can become corrupted, etc. ... but so long as the small body of dogma remains in tact, there is the Church and there are the Catholic hierarchy. Not more than this small body of dogma is protected and guided and guaranteed by the Holy Ghost.
SVs point out that, rightly, that the hierarchy is not "lost" due to interregna, due to Antipopes, due to usurpation of episcopal sees (97-99% of episcopal sees were usurped by Arians during that crisis), but that this degree of corruption is tantamount to the Church losing its essential characteristics. Archbishop Lefebvre publicly stated that the Conciliar Church lacks the Marks/Notes of the One True Church, i.e. lacks the Church's essential characteristics, those by which the Catholic Church can be identified as the One True Church founded by Christ.
If the changes in the Conciliar Church are merely accidental, then R&R have zero excuse for not remaining in communion with and submission to the hierarchy. But if the changes are essential, and change the essential characteristics of the Church, then if the Conciliar Church is the Catholic Church, it has defected.
It's much easier to explain that the papacy and many episcopal sees can have been usurped by heretics than to explain how the Church has not changed essentially. And, if the Church has not changed essentially, then those who have broken from the Church over these accidental concerns are guilty of schism.
There's no way to justify R&R, which is a have your-cake-and-eat-it-too, where they can claim that the essential characteristics of the Church have not changed, but it's still OK to sever communion with and submission to the hierarchy.
We have Vatican I teaching that the See of Peter has never and can never be blemished by error, and a wall of papal teaching that the Magisterium cannot be corrupted. Trent anathematizes those who claim that the Rites used by the Church can be inducements to impiety, and theologians are unanimous in upholding the Church's disciplinary infallibility (which includes the Rite of Mass). If the majority of the Catholic Magisterium can go corrupt, why were the Old Catholics wrong, why were the Eastern Orthodox wrong, and why were the Protestants, who all made the same claim, that the Catholic Church had veered from true Christian doctrine?
If the Conciliar Church is (and can at any given time become) hopelessly corrupt (to the point that Catholics cannot co-exist with it), what is it even good for? How can you try to convince Old Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, and Protestants that it's the True Church of Christ, and the only sure guaranteed of sound doctrine (the standard Catholic apologetic)? "You must join the Church and stay separated from it at the same time." It's almost like R&R have become "separated brethren" of the Catholic hierarchy and their position bolsters Vatican II ecclesiology, which holds that there are divisions within the Church, while other things united its members. While R&R are separated from the "Vicar of Christ", they hold enough things in common to continue to claim that they're both Catholic and are in the same Church.
R&R is an abhorrent non-Catholic trainwreck, and those who adhere to it, claiming that the Catholic Church has become corrupt, that the Conciliar Church is the Catholic Church, and yet remain outside of it, are in grave danger of losing their faith and their souls. And the scariest part is that they don't even recognize how non-Catholic the whole thing is.
-
Again, I gave you the understanding of the term expressed by Pius IX and the Fathers of Vatican I.
You "gave" nothing but a version of Old Catholicism.
-
.
No one on any side of the crisis in the Church thinks there are pastors and teachers right now, so I really don't understand why this question is considered some sort of "Gotcha!". The people challenging sedevacantists with "Who is your pope? We always have to have a pope," don't treat Bergoglio like a pope at all, and act in practice as if there weren't one.
In an argument, it's illogical and absurd to make an objection to an opponent that one doesn't believe himself. If the R&R people don't submit to their local ordinary, and to Francis, the way Catholic teaching says they must, then they can't object to sedevacantists that they don't do that either.
Will the real Catholic hierarchy please stand up!?
-
Yes, there are two aspects of indefectibility. I bolded and put (1) and (2) below ...
From Catholic Encyclopedia:
This, ultimately, is what the SV vs. R&R debate boils down to (not an argument about the "5 Opinions").
R&R claim that SVism leads to a defection of the Church by virtue of the loss of (1) above, the Apostolic hierarchy.
SVs claim that R&R leads to a defection of the Church by virtue of the loss of (2) above, the Church's essential characteristics, or notes.
R&R hold that the Church's not-strictly-infallible Magisterium can go entirely corrupt, that the Public Worship of the Church can become corrupt, that the canon of the saints can become corrupted, etc. ... but so long as the small body of dogma remains in tact, there is the Church and there are the Catholic hierarchy. Not more than this small body of dogma is protected and guided and guaranteed by the Holy Ghost.
SVs point out that, rightly, that the hierarchy is not "lost" due to interregna, due to Antipopes, due to usurpation of episcopal sees (97-99% of episcopal sees were usurped by Arians during that crisis), but that this degree of corruption is tantamount to the Church losing its essential characteristics. Archbishop Lefebvre publicly stated that the Conciliar Church lacks the Marks/Notes of the One True Church, i.e. lacks the Church's essential characteristics, those by which the Catholic Church can be identified as the One True Church founded by Christ.
If the changes in the Conciliar Church are merely accidental, then R&R have zero excuse for not remaining in communion with and submission to the hierarchy. But if the changes are essential, and change the essential characteristics of the Church, then if the Conciliar Church is the Catholic Church, it has defected.
It's much easier to explain that the papacy and many episcopal sees can have been usurped by heretics than to explain how the Church has not changed essentially. And, if the Church has not changed essentially, then those who have broken from the Church over these accidental concerns are guilty of schism.
There's no way to justify R&R, which is a have your-cake-and-eat-it-too, where they can claim that the essential characteristics of the Church have not changed, but it's still OK to sever communion with and submission to the hierarchy.
We have Vatican I teaching that the See of Peter has never and can never be blemished by error, and a wall of papal teaching that the Magisterium cannot be corrupted. Trent anathematizes those who claim that the Rites used by the Church can be inducements to impiety, and theologians are unanimous in upholding the Church's disciplinary infallibility (which includes the Rite of Mass). If the majority of the Catholic Magisterium can go corrupt, why were the Old Catholics wrong, why were the Eastern Orthodox wrong, and why were the Protestants, who all made the same claim, that the Catholic Church had veered from true Christian doctrine?
If the Conciliar Church is (and can at any given time become) hopelessly corrupt (to the point that Catholics cannot co-exist with it), what is it even good for? How can you try to convince Old Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, and Protestants that it's the True Church of Christ, and the only sure guaranteed of sound doctrine (the standard Catholic apologetic)? "You must join the Church and stay separated from it at the same time." It's almost like R&R have become "separated brethren" of the Catholic hierarchy and their position bolsters Vatican II ecclesiology, which holds that there are divisions within the Church, while other things united its members. While R&R are separated from the "Vicar of Christ", they hold enough things in common to continue to claim that they're both Catholic and are in the same Church.
R&R is an abhorrent non-Catholic trainwreck, and those who adhere to it, claiming that the Catholic Church has become corrupt, that the Conciliar Church is the Catholic Church, and yet remain outside of it, are in grave danger of losing their faith and their souls. And the scariest part is that they don't even recognize how non-Catholic the whole thing is.
What a monumental waste of words.
This is really simple, or should be.
Does Pius IX in Etsi Multi say that the Church will have defected if a pope and the bishops in union with him teach error in an ecuмenical council?
Do the Fathers of Vatican I say that the Church’s indefectibility entails the Church having a hierarchal “governing body” until the end of time?
Until you deal with the issue, you’re wasting band width.
-
You "gave" nothing but a version of Old Catholicism.
You think Pius IX and the Fathers of Vatican 1 are Old Catholics for understanding that the Church has defected if a pope and ecuмenical council teach error, or that indefectibility requires the ongoing presence of a hierarchical “governing body” with real authority?
:facepalm:
-
Angelus,
Mis-definition of the term? Again, I gave you the understanding of the term expressed by Pius IX and the Fathers of Vatican I. So, in other words, you are saying that Pius IX and the Fathers of Vatican I "mis-defined" indefectibility. Is that what you are saying?
As I indicated in my response to Pax, the Arian crisis does not rebut my argument. St. Athanasius, St. Basil, and St. Gregory - just some examples - were bishops with "governing authority," and of the hierarchical "governing body" of the Church, opposed to the Arian heresy.
How does St. Augustine say the institutional Church can fail? Perhaps he agrees with me.
There needs to be some clarification between you and I here. You say that to say that the institutional Church can never fail is "belied." Your example of the Arian crisis doesn't support that. In any event, by saying "belied," you are saying that it can fail or defect, yes? If you are, I agree with you as to that being an end times phenomenon, but it is limited to the "consummation of the age," an end times phenomena; it has not occurred prior to Vatican II.
It appears to me that your position differs from that of Pax, and Lad, who argue that the Church remains "indefectible" as she expressed it and understood it prior to V2 - which, as I have argued, doesn't square with facts/reality.
Can you clarify? It appears you are dismissing the understanding of Piux IX and the Fathers of Vatican I to be wrong in principle as to the indefectibility of the Church, since you claim that understanding of "indefectibility" was "belied" by the Arian crisis of 1650 so years ago. I say that the Pius IX and Fathers of Vatican I understanding is wrong only in the sense that it is subject to an end times, sui generis phenomenon that they were not addressing, and which is being revealed and made clear during the Great Apostasy, and part of the "mystery of iniquity" that has reached its climax, or very close to it.
DR, I will try to explain, following Augustine's description of the bi-partite nature of the institutional Church of Earth. He discusses this in his commentary on Tychonius (the Donatist) in The City of God.
1. There are two ways of understanding "the Church:"
(a) The Apparent Church: This is the Church as the institutional, pilgrim Church on Earth. This institutional body is composed of two parts: (1) faithful Catholics and (2) the false brethren. This Church is an imperfect mixture until the end of time. It is described in the parable of the Wheat and the Tares.
(b) The Real Church: There is the True Church as the Mystical Body of Christ: That mystical body is composed of three parts: (1) Church Triumphant, (2) Church Militant, and (3) Church Suffering. These are only the "faithful Catholics." The False Brethren are not included in this definition of the Church. This is "the Church" as referenced by Pius XII in Mystici Corporis that I quoted above.
2. The institutional, pilgrim Church in Earth, by its very nature, has never been and can never be "indefectible." This is because it is made of one part that has already "defected" from the True Faith. That part that has "defected" is called, again, the "false brethren," the counterfeit Catholics, the Whore. The Apocalypse is all about the final battle between those members of the institutional, pilgrim Church that are "faithful Catholics" (i.e., the Immaculate Bride of Christ) and those members of the institutional, pilgrim Church that are "false brethren," (i.e., the Whore that rides the Beast).
3. What is necessarily "indefectible," precisely because it stays faithful to Our Lord Jesus in his absence, is the True Church, the members known as the Immaculate Bride, the faithful Catholics. We can recognize those faithful members who are True Members (not False Brethren) of the True Church because those members have not "defected" from the True teachings of the Divine Master and his legitimate successors. The Modernists, for example, have "defected" from the True Faith and are therefore not members of the True Church, even though they claim to be members of the institutional, pilgrim Church on earth.
4. The Church dogma of "indefectibility of the Church" has as its subject matter not the institutional Church, which includes the False Brethren. Instead, the dogma references only those members of the institutional Church that have not defected from the True Faith. The purpose of the dogma is to identify the distinguishing mark of the True Catholic, that he remains faithful to the teachings of Jesus and the Apostolic Tradition.
5. So, the fact that infiltrators and heretics make up the major part of the hierarchy of the institutional Church does not contradict the dogma of "indefectibility." Those infiltrators are simply "false brethren" who have always pretended to be Catholics since the Church's origins. Simon Magus is one example. The fact that those "false brethren" act as "wolves in sheep's clothing" does not impact "indefectibility."
6. The dogma of indefectibility would only be contradicted if all laymen and clergy defected from the True Faith. We have Our Lord's guarantee that that will not happen. Our Lord does not say that the false prophets of the institutional Church (the false Brethren) will not try to deceive us. In fact, he tells us the opposite. Those false members will defect and lead many into perdition.
-
With all of this talk about ordinary vs supplied jurisdiction, we should remember that the subject of the OP, Vigano, does not have ordinary jurisdiction.
-
DR, I will try to explain, following Augustine's description of the bi-partite nature of the institutional Church of Earth. He discusses this in his commentary on Tychonius (the Donatist) in The City of God.
1. There are two ways of understanding "the Church:"
(a) The Apparent Church: This is the Church as the institutional, pilgrim Church on Earth. This institutional body is composed of two parts: (1) faithful Catholics and (2) the false brethren. This Church is an imperfect mixture until the end of time. It is described in the parable of the Wheat and the Tares.
(b) The Real Church: There is the True Church as the Mystical Body of Christ: That mystical body is composed of three parts: (1) Church Triumphant, (2) Church Militant, and (3) Church Suffering. These are only the "faithful Catholics." The False Brethren are not included in this definition of the Church. This is "the Church" as referenced by Pius XII in Mystici Corporis that I quoted above.
2. The institutional, pilgrim Church in Earth, by its very nature, has never been and can never be "indefectible." This is because it is made of one part that has already "defected" from the True Faith. That part that has "defected" is called, again, the "false brethren," the counterfeit Catholics, the Whore. The Apocalypse is all about the final battle between those members of the institutional, pilgrim Church that are "faithful Catholics" (i.e., the Immaculate Bride of Christ) and those members of the institutional, pilgrim Church that are "false brethren," (i.e., the Whore that rides the Beast).
3. What is necessarily "indefectible," precisely because it stays faithful to Our Lord Jesus in his absence, is the True Church, the members known as the Immaculate Bride, the faithful Catholics. We can recognize those faithful members who are True Members (not False Brethren) of the True Church because those members have not "defected" from the True teachings of the Divine Master and his legitimate successors. The Modernists, for example, have "defected" from the True Faith and are therefore not members of the True Church, even though they claim to be members of the institutional, pilgrim Church on earth.
4. The Church dogma of "indefectibility of the Church" has as its subject matter not the institutional Church, which includes the False Brethren. Instead, the dogma references only those members of the institutional Church that have not defected from the True Faith. The purpose of the dogma is to identify the distinguishing mark of the True Catholic, that he remains faithful to the teachings of Jesus and the Apostolic Tradition.
5. So, the fact that infiltrators and heretics make up the major part of the hierarchy of the institutional Church does not contradict the dogma of "indefectibility." Those infiltrators are simply "false brethren" who have always pretended to be Catholics since the Church's origins. Simon Magus is one example. The fact that those "false brethren" act as "wolves in sheep's clothing" does not impact "indefectibility."
6. The dogma of indefectibility would only be contradicted if all laymen and clergy defected from the True Faith. We have Our Lord's guarantee that that will not happen. Our Lord does not say that the false prophets of the institutional Church (the false Brethren) will not try to deceive us. In fact, he tells us the opposite. Those false members will defect and lead many into perdition.
That's all well and good, and fine with me, but the Magisterium has expressed its understanding of what indefectibility entails, for example, in the statements of Pius IX and the Fathers of Vatican I which I quoted.
My issue is not with you - I responded to you because you jumped in to say Pax and I were talking past each other - but with those (Ladislaus, and maybe Pax) who hold that the Church remains indefectible post-V2 per the pre-V2 expression or understanding of the doctrine, when the facts and circuмstances show that it clearly doesn't meet the terms of the pre-V2 expression - vide Pius IX and the Fathers of Vatican I, quoted by me in this thread.
Truth is not what you want or would like it to be, but what IS.
-
That's all well and good, and fine with me, but the Magisterium has expressed its understanding of what indefectibility entails, for example, in the statements of Pius IX and the Fathers of Vatican I which I quoted.
My issue is not with you - I responded to you because you jumped in to say Pax and I were talking past each other - but with those (Ladislaus, and maybe Pax) who hold that the Church remains indefectible post-V2 per the pre-V2 expression or understanding of the doctrine, when the facts and circuмstances show that it clearly doesn't meet the terms of the pre-V2 expression - vide Pius IX and the Fathers of Vatican I, quoted by me in this thread.
Truth is not what you want or would like it to be, but what IS.
And I provided this quote from Pius XII from Mystici Corporis (https://www.vatican.va/content/pius-xii/en/encyclicals/docuмents/hf_p-xii_enc_29061943_mystici-corporis-christi.html). Here it is again:
22. Actually only those are to be included as members of the Church who have been baptized and profess the true faith, and who have not been so unfortunate as to separate themselves from the unity of the Body, or been excluded by legitimate authority for grave faults committed.
Using Pius XII's definition of "the Church" in the quote above, how can you not say that "the Church remains indefectible." The true Church, identified with the "mystical Body of Christ," by definition of Pius XII, can never "defect" from "the true faith." Indefectibility is the mark the True Church allowing us to distinguish it from its Counterfeit.
Pius XII's definition of "the Church" requires that that "Church" be composed ONLY of those who "profess the true faith." Therefore, as long as Catholics are alive who "profess the true faith," the true Church, the Mystical Body of Christ, will exist on Earth and it will always, by definition, have this characteristic of "indefectibility."
You, on the other hand, don't understand what I am saying because you seem to think "the Church" referenced in the dogmatic proposition of "indefectibility," can be composed of members who do not profess "the true faith." If that is what you believe, then your belief directly contradicts what Pius XII says about "the Church" in the above quote.
But I think I understand what you are trying to say. You are using a different conception and definition of "the Church." You are thinking of "the Church" as the institutional, pilgrim Church on Earth which consists of both those who "profess the true faith" AND the "false brethren," the heretics.
That is the conception of the institutional, pilgrim Church on Earth described by Augustine in the City of God. It is bi-partite. It is imperfect, moving eschatologically toward perfection in Salvation History. But that institutional, pilgrim Church on Earth can never be properly described as "indefectible" because it always contains a significant part of it that has already "defected" from the true Faith, specifically the heretics that masquerade as Catholics but are not in fact Catholic.
So the dogma of "indefectibility of the Church" cannot possibly be referencing that Augustinian conception of "the Church," the institutional, pilgrim Church, containing both the true faithful and the false brethren. Instead, the dogma of "indefectibility" must logically be referencing the conception/definition of "the Church" as described by Pius XII in the quote above.
-
And I provided this quote from Pius XII from Mystici Corporis (https://www.vatican.va/content/pius-xii/en/encyclicals/docuмents/hf_p-xii_enc_29061943_mystici-corporis-christi.html). Here it is again:
22. Actually only those are to be included as members of the Church who have been baptized and profess the true faith, and who have not been so unfortunate as to separate themselves from the unity of the Body, or been excluded by legitimate authority for grave faults committed.
Using Pius XII's definition of "the Church" in the quote above, how can you not say that "the Church remains indefectible." The true Church, identified with the "mystical Body of Christ," by definition of Pius XII, can never "defect" from "the true faith." Indefectibility is the mark the True Church allowing us to distinguish it from its Counterfeit.
Pius XII's definition of "the Church" requires that that "Church" be composed ONLY of those who "profess the true faith." Therefore, as long as Catholics are alive who "profess the true faith," the true Church, the Mystical Body of Christ, will exist on Earth and it will always, by definition, have this characteristic of "indefectibility."
You, on the other hand, don't understand what I am saying because you seem to think "the Church" referenced in the dogmatic proposition of "indefectibility," can be composed of members who do not profess "the true faith." If that is what you believe, then your belief directly contradicts what Pius XII says about "the Church" in the above quote.
But I think I understand what you are trying to say. You are using a different conception and definition of "the Church." You are thinking of "the Church" as the institutional, pilgrim Church on Earth which consists of both those who "profess the true faith" AND the "false brethren," the heretics.
That is the conception of the institutional, pilgrim Church on Earth described by Augustine in the City of God. It is bi-partite. It is imperfect, moving eschatologically toward perfection in Salvation History. But that institutional, pilgrim Church on Earth can never be properly described as "indefectible" because it always contains a significant part of it that has already "defected" from the true Faith, specifically the heretics that masquerade as Catholics but are not in fact Catholic.
So the dogma of "indefectibility of the Church" cannot possibly be referencing that Augustinian conception of "the Church," the institutional, pilgrim Church, containing both the true faithful and the false brethren. Instead, the dogma of "indefectibility" must logically be referencing the conception/definition of "the Church" as described by Pius XII in the quote above.
Angelus,
I'm using "a different definition and conception of the 'Church' "? This is getting exasperating.
I'm not using my definition. I'll ask you the same question I asked Lad, so if you want to continue please answer.
Pius IX, Etsi Multi:
Incredibly, they boldly affirm that the Roman Pontiff and all the bishops, the priests and the people conjoined with him in the unity of faith and communion fell into heresy when they approved and professed the definitions of the Ecuмenical Vatican Council. Therefore they deny also the indefectibility of the Church and blasphemously declare that it has perished throughout the world and that its visible Head and the bishops have erred. They assert the necessity of restoring a legitimate episcopacy in the person of their pseudo-bishop, who has entered not by the gate but from elsewhere like a thief or robber and calls the damnation of Christ upon his head.”
The Fathers of Vatican I, in the section entitled "On the Indefectibility of Christ's Church" in the first draft Dogmatic Constitution on the Church of Christ:
We declare, moreover, that, whether one considers its existence or its constitution, the Church of Christ is an everlasting and indefectible society, and that, after it, no more complete nor more perfect economy of salvation is to be hoped for in this world. For, to the very end of the world the pilgrims of this earth are to be saved through Christ. Consequently, his Church, the only society of salvation, will last until the end of the world ever unchangeable and unchanged in its constitution. Therefore, although the Church is growing—and We wish that it may always grow in faith and charity for the upbuilding of Christ's body—although it evolves in a variety of ways according to the changing times and circuмstances in which it is constantly displaying activity, nevertheless, it remains unchangeable in itself and in the constitution it received from Christ. Therefore, Christ's Church can never lose its properties and its qualities, its sacred teaching authority, priestly office, and governing body, so that through his visible body, Christ may always be the way, the truth, and the life for all men.
Jesuit Fathers of St. Mary's College. The Church Teaches: Docuмents of the Church in English Translation . TAN Books. Kindle Edition.
Does Pius IX in Etsi Multi say that the Church will have defected if a pope and the bishops in union with him teach error in an ecuмenical council?
Do the Fathers of Vatican I say that the Church’s indefectibility entails the Church having a hierarchal “governing body” until the end of time?
DR
-
Angelus,
I'm using "a different definition and conception of the 'Church' "? This is getting exasperating.
I'm not using my definition. I'll ask you the same question I asked Lad, so if you want to continue please answer.
Pius IX, Etsi Multi:
The Fathers of Vatican I, in the section entitled "On the Indefectibility of Christ's Church" in the first draft Dogmatic Constitution on the Church of Christ:
Does Pius IX in Etsi Multi say that the Church will have defected if a pope and the bishops in union with him teach error in an ecuмenical council?
Do the Fathers of Vatican I say that the Church’s indefectibility entails the Church having a hierarchal “governing body” until the end of time?
DR
DR, in that quote from Etsi Multa there is no definition of "the Church." And its subject matter is not about defining the doctrine of "indefectibility of the Church." It mentions the concept of "indefectibility of the Church" in relation to the specific situation of the Old Catholics and their criticisms of the Roman Catholic Church.
Etsi Multa states that those specifically referenced, the Old Catholics, had denied "the indefectibility of the Church." Those offenders, the Old Catholics, were claiming that "the definitions" that came out of Vatican I were heretical "definitions." So the Old Catholics were suggesting that the Roman Catholic Church had "defected" from the ancient, immemorial faith and this "defection" justified the actions of the Old Catholics to separate and form their own Church.
Of course Pius IX is condemning the Old Catholic heretics and schismatics. He, Pius IX, is doing so from the perspective of someone who holds "the true faith." Pius IX famously said that he "is the Church," and in saying that he was simply stating, in a slightly different way, what Pius XII said in Mystici Corporis, that "the Church" is made up of those who "profess the true faith."
Now, moving forward to Vatican II, you seem to be suggesting that when a traditionalist says that certain propositions of Vatican II were heretical, that the traditionalist is doing the same thing that the Old Catholics did. But that is not correct. The traditionalist continues to "profess the true faith." The traditionalists are playing the role of Pius IX. It is the heretical members of the institutional conciliar Church, the infiltrators, who were playing the role of the Old Catholics in the post-VII era. But they were now doing so from inside the Church rather from outside the Church as the Old Catholics tried to do.
Your second quote poses no problem for the doctrine of the "indefectibility of the Church." First off, it is from a draft docuмent. Why are you even quoting it as if it is the official teaching of the Church? Second, what does "governing body" mean exactly? Is a bishop not a person who represents the "governing body" of the Church? You seem to jump to an interpretation of those words to mean the full world-wide diocesan structure of Church government. But, you have to admit that you are reading that interpretation into those two words aren't you? Still, the statement is not magisterial, so I don't know why you are even quoting it.
-
Does Pius IX in Etsi Multi say that the Church will have defected if a pope and the bishops in union with him teach error in an ecuмenical council?
Yes. But V2 didn't "teach/define" as any previous ecuмenical council of the past. They called it a "pastoral council", the first in history. So it's an apples to oranges comparison between V2 and any prior ecuмenical council. V2 was only ecuмenical in its "global invitation to participate". It was not ecuмenical in the sense that it "taught doctrine to be believed by all catholics, everywhere". In fact, V2 never defined anything, nor did it oblige anyone to believe anything. It merely gave "pastoral guidance" for the "application of doctrine in daily life".
Do the Fathers of Vatican I say that the Church’s indefectibility entails the Church having a hierarchal “governing body” until the end of time?
Yes, but how did they define "governing body"? You can't just interpret this on your own. My interpretation is that 'governing body' means the govt operation of the Vatican state, and the college of Cardinals being intact, and the visible head of the Church, the pope, holding his office (heretic or not). Governing refers to the human, visible portion of the Church, which still remains today.
You may totally disagree and that's fine. But what matters is Vatican I's definition.
-
Does Pius IX in Etsi Multi say that the Church will have defected if a pope and the bishops in union with him teach error in an ecuмenical council?
Yes, one more reason why Montini could not have been the pope. An Antipope and bishops united to him could teach error in an ecuмenical council till the cows come home.
During the Arian crisis, 97-99% of episcopal sees has been usurped by Arians. Had Liberius gone Arian and taught Arianism, that would not be a defection of the Church, but the usurpation of the Holy See by an Arian.
-
Yes, one more reason why Montini could not have been the pope. An Antipope and bishops united to him could teach error in an ecuмenical council till the cows come home.
During the Arian crisis, 97-99% of episcopal sees has been usurped by Arians. Had Liberius gone Arian and taught Arianism, that would not be a defection of the Church, but the usurpation of the Holy See by an Arian.
I know your "solution": just say Montini and all those bishops, cardinals weren't Catholic. Easy. Too easy. And very convenient.
And as I've said, ignoring the purpose behind the "indefectibility" of the Church - as indicated by Pius IX in Etsi Multi, that was understood as a protection of the Church by the Holy Ghost such that a total usurpation of the hierarchy, issuing in heretical and erroneous decrees of an ecuмenical council, was impossible.
As I said, the "Old Catholics" could have simply objected to Pius IX and those bishops who issued Vatican I, as you do to Montini and his cohorts regarding Vatican II, that they were not true popes and bishops, not part of the indefectible Catholic Church, but the OCs were - as you and others now assert with regard to the Concilair popes/bishops and the overwhelming majority of the Novus Ordites in union with them (just as the overwhelming majority of the then Catholic world were in union with Pius IX and the bishops). :confused:
"Had Liberius gone Arian . . . " He didn't. I'm pretty positive you have argued here that he didn't. So it's just speculation that can't be precedential, and not analogous.
And we KNOW there were members of the hierarchy with "governing authority," members of the "governing body," that were not Arian during that crisis - St. Athanasius, St. Basil of Caesarea, St. Gregory of Nαzιanzus, and St. Ambrose - for starters. To which we can (you would, yes?) add Pope Liberius himself. So, again, not "precedential" and analogous to the crisis of the last at least 40 or so years.
-
DR, in that quote from Etsi Multa there is no definition of "the Church." And its subject matter is not about defining the doctrine of "indefectibility of the Church." It mentions the concept of "indefectibility of the Church" in relation to the specific situation of the Old Catholics and their criticisms of the Roman Catholic Church.
Etsi Multa states that those specifically referenced, the Old Catholics, had denied "the indefectibility of the Church." Those offenders, the Old Catholics, were claiming that "the definitions" that came out of Vatican I were heretical "definitions." So the Old Catholics were suggesting that the Roman Catholic Church had "defected" from the ancient, immemorial faith and this "defection" justified the actions of the Old Catholics to separate and form their own Church.
Of course Pius IX is condemning the Old Catholic heretics and schismatics. He, Pius IX, is doing so from the perspective of someone who holds "the true faith." Pius IX famously said that he "is the Church," and in saying that he was simply stating, in a slightly different way, what Pius XII said in Mystici Corporis, that "the Church" is made up of those who "profess the true faith."
Now, moving forward to Vatican II, you seem to be suggesting that when a traditionalist says that certain propositions of Vatican II were heretical, that the traditionalist is doing the same thing that the Old Catholics did. But that is not correct. The traditionalist continues to "profess the true faith." The traditionalists are playing the role of Pius IX. It is the heretical members of the institutional conciliar Church, the infiltrators, who were playing the role of the Old Catholics in the post-VII era. But they were now doing so from inside the Church rather from outside the Church as the Old Catholics tried to do.
Your second quote poses no problem for the doctrine of the "indefectibility of the Church." First off, it is from a draft docuмent. Why are you even quoting it as if it is the official teaching of the Church? Second, what does "governing body" mean exactly? Is a bishop not a person who represents the "governing body" of the Church? You seem to jump to an interpretation of those words to mean the full world-wide diocesan structure of Church government. But, you have to admit that you are reading that interpretation into those two words aren't you? Still, the statement is not magisterial, so I don't know why you are even quoting it.
Angelus, Angelus. I'll leave this discussion, as there appears to be no further point.
If anyone wants to believe that you've dealt with the substance of my argument with regard to Etsi Multi and the Fathers of Vatican I with your response above, may God bless them, and you.
I'll leave you with the last word.
DR
-
Yes. But V2 didn't "teach/define" as any previous ecuмenical council of the past. They called it a "pastoral council", the first in history. So it's an apples to oranges comparison between V2 and any prior ecuмenical council. V2 was only ecuмenical in its "global invitation to participate". It was not ecuмenical in the sense that it "taught doctrine to be believed by all catholics, everywhere". In fact, V2 never defined anything, nor did it oblige anyone to believe anything. It merely gave "pastoral guidance" for the "application of doctrine in daily life".
Yes, but how did they define "governing body"? You can't just interpret this on your own. My interpretation is that 'governing body' means the govt operation of the Vatican state, and the college of Cardinals being intact, and the visible head of the Church, the pope, holding his office (heretic or not). Governing refers to the human, visible portion of the Church, which still remains today.
You may totally disagree and that's fine. But what matters is Vatican I's definition.
Pax,
So a "pastoral" ecuмenical council of bishops in union with the pope can teach error and heresy to the universal Church? The Sedes have ripped that to shreds already. You can read all about it here and elsewhere.
You say I "can't just interpret this on {my} own," and then immediately go into, "my {i.e, your} interpretation . . .," on your own. :facepalm:
You have a current "governing body" of bishops, cardinals and a pope who don't govern, and can't tell you to do squat, or hit you with any sanction for telling them to get lost. I'll keep my understanding of "governing body," thank you. Which I'm sure would be the understanding of the manualists and theologians, but I'm not going take the time to research it, as it won't matter.
I think I'll bow out of this discussion.
Have a blessed Advent,
DR