Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => SSPX Resistance News => Topic started by: de Lugo on September 15, 2022, 11:11:10 AM
-
Msgr. Vigano (13/8/22):
"Abusing the vicarious power of Christ and placing oneself outside the succession by proposing heterodox doctrines, or by imposing norms that refer to them, makes this intrinsic link with Christ the Head and with His Mystical Body, the Church, disappear."
https://www.lifesitenews.com/opinion/abp-vigano-authoritarian-tyrant-pope-francis-causing-incalculable-damage-in-the-church/
Can someone help me interpret what he is saying with this quote? Is he referring to Bergoglio's pontificate, or to individual heretical teachings of Bergoglio?
-
I think he takes for granted that everyone understands that the pope's business is not to make and then to change, to create and promote new ideas. The pope's business is to preserve, to formulate, to teach the faith as it has always been in order that there be a preservation of all that was established by the Apostles and all the previous popes, this is how we maintain our link with Christ for his flock's salvation. His duty is to maintain that which has been handed to him, proposing heterodox doctrines is for heretics and "makes this intrinsic link with Christ the Head and with His Mystical Body, the Church, disappear."
-
I think he takes for granted that everyone understands that the pope's business is not to make and then to change, to create and promote new ideas. The pope's business is to preserve, to formulate, to teach the faith as it has always been in order that there be a preservation of all that was established by the Apostles and all the previous popes, this is how we maintain our link with Christ for his flock's salvation. His duty is to maintain that which has been handed to him, proposing heterodox doctrines is for heretics and "makes this intrinsic link with Christ the Head and with His Mystical Body, the Church, disappear."
Well said, Stubborn.
-
Look at the difference in perspective between Msgr. Vigano here, and another famous lettre from the FSSPX:
Msgr. Vigano: Roman modernists intend to destroy the Church -
"It is evident that this relentless action of war against traditional Catholics includes a strategy and a tactic, and that it corresponds to a plan devised for decades to destroy the Church of Christ and replace it with its ecuмenical, globalist, and apostate counterfeit. It would be foolish to think that they act without a purpose and without organizing themselves.
Bergoglio’s election in the conclave of 2013 was also planned: let’s not forget the emails between John Podesta and Hillary Clinton about the need to promote a “springtime of the Church” in which a progressive pope modifies its doctrine and morals by enslaving them to nєω ωσrℓ∂ σr∂єr ideology.
Action against Benedict XVI was planned to push him to resign. The subversive work of the innovators at the Council was planned. The action of progressives loyal to Bergoglio was planned in the synods, in the meetings of the curial dicasteries, in the consistories. On the other hand, behind the enemies of Christ and the Church, Satan always hides with his plots, his deceptions, his lies."
FSSP (Abbe Simoulin): The Roman modernists do NOT wish to destroy the Church -
"That being said, can we really consider this authority as working for the destruction of the Faith? It would seem more accurate to call it an authority that does not profess the Faith, or does not confess it in its integrity, and that professes notions that are dangerous or even against the Faith. For there is a distinction to be made between an intention to destroy the Faith and an effect that was not directly wished for (https://sspx.org/en/ecuмenism-silent-apostasy-index). It is clear that this loss of the Faith is a consequence of the conciliar doctrine that has been professed for the past 50 years, but can we say that this was and still is the intention of its promoters? If such were the case, these authorities would no longer have the Faith and would no longer be formally Catholic, and to believe this would be implicitly sedevacantist."
https://sspx.org/en/news-events/news/avoiding-false-spirit-resistance-3764
No wonder there is no collaboration between Msgr. Vigano and the FSSPX: The former attributes evil intentions (supported by volumes of external evidence), while the latter believes the damage is incidental, and the modernists want to encourage Tradition. Who can forget Msgr. Fellay telling the Australian faithful that Rome's offer of an agreement is not a trap, and "they want to do good to us?"
-
Msgr. Vigano (13/8/22):
"Abusing the vicarious power of Christ and placing oneself outside the succession by proposing heterodox doctrines, or by imposing norms that refer to them, makes this intrinsic link with Christ the Head and with His Mystical Body, the Church, disappear."
https://www.lifesitenews.com/opinion/abp-vigano-authoritarian-tyrant-pope-francis-causing-incalculable-damage-in-the-church/
Can someone help me interpret what he is saying with this quote? Is he referring to Bergoglio's pontificate, or to individual heretical teachings of Bergoglio?
It sounds to me like, in an oblique way, he is suggesting that Francis has relinquished the papacy through heterodox teachings.
But did he say this in English, in Italian, or in some other language? There might be a nuance I'm missing.
-
It sounds to me like, in an oblique way, he is suggesting that Francis has relinquished the papacy through heterodox teachings.
But did he say this in English, in Italian, or in some other language? There might be a nuance I'm missing.
He said this in Italian:
(LifeSiteNews (https://lifesitenews.com/)) – Editor’s note: Below follows the transcript of an interview between Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò and Paix Liturgique during a conference held by the Civitas movement on August 13. The interview has been translated from Italian.
[Apologies for my confusion in thinking the responses were originally in the French. Paix Liturgique is predominantly French, but also has various website translations. The Italian page does not contain this interview, but the French does (hence my thinking that this was the original, until I returned to the English translation reproduced by LSN above). I cannot explain why the interview in the original Italian would not be published in PL's Italian language page.]
In any case, the bottom of the French translation carries this approbation: "©Traduction de F. de Villasmundo pour Paix Liturgique relue et corrigée par Mgr Viganò" (i.e., Translation by F. de Villasmundo for Paix Liturgique proofread and corrected by Msgr. Viganò).
-
He said this in Italian:
(LifeSiteNews (https://lifesitenews.com/)) – Editor’s note: Below follows the transcript of an interview between Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò and Paix Liturgique during a conference held by the Civitas movement on August 13. The interview has been translated from Italian.
[Apologies for my confusion in thinking the responses were originally in the French. Paix Liturgique is predominantly French, but also has various website translations. The Italian page does not contain this interview, but the French does (hence my thinking that this was the original, until I returned to the English translation reproduced by LSN above). I cannot explain why the interview in the original Italian would not be published in PL's Italian language page.]
In any case, the bottom of the French translation carries this approbation: "©Traduction de F. de Villasmundo pour Paix Liturgique relue et corrigée par Mgr Viganò" (i.e., Translation by F. de Villasmundo for Paix Liturgique proofread and corrected by Msgr. Viganò).
https://fr.paix-liturgique.org/aff_lettre.asp?LET_N_ID=3540
-
After reading this interview, he still sounds like he is of the "Benedict is still the pope" variety.
-
"Abusing the vicarious power of Christ and placing oneself outside the succession by proposing heterodox doctrines, or by imposing norms that refer to them, makes this intrinsic link with Christ the Head and with His Mystical Body, the Church, disappear.
He's saying that by preaching heresy you separate yourself from the Catholic Church. And, therefore, you cannot be or would cease to be the Pope (i.e. sedevacantism).
-
He's saying that by preaching heresy you separate yourself from the Catholic Church. And, therefore, you cannot be or would cease to be the Pope (i.e. sedevacantism).
If only he'd just say it. Of course, like I said above, I think he thinks Ratzinger is pope.
-
If only he'd just say it. Of course, like I said above, I think he thinks Ratzinger is pope.
Yeah. Sadly, Ratzinger is the poster child and embodiment of the Rhine flowing into the Tiber. Complete Modernist through and through and hardly an alternative. LOL
-
After reading Vigano interview, it was very disappointing how he answered to: What flaws in the Mass..... vigano states 3 major flaws(not heresies) in the Mass. Not one of those major flaws had anything to do with the loss of the Precious Blood. Not one flaw(heresy) was mentioned for the loss of Holy Orders to bring Christ to His People. Holy cow! God have Mercy!!
-
After reading this interview, he still sounds like he is of the "Benedict is still the pope" variety.
Or that too. I didn't think of that.
It's entirely possible, if a bit tendentious, to say that Francis is not the Pope, simply because Benedict still is.
Indeed, that doesn't even require one to say that Francis is a heretic, or rather, it doesn't require one to say that Francis has either lost the papal office, or never held it in the first place, on account of being a heretic. If Benedict were still the Pope, Francis could be as traditional as Vigano, Schneider, or (arguably) Burke, and he still wouldn't be Pope, because you can only have one Pope at a time.
-
After reading Vigano interview, it was very disappointing how he answered to: What flaws in the Mass..... vigano states 3 major flaws(not heresies) in the Mass. Not one of those major flaws had anything to do with the loss of the Precious Blood. Not one flaw(heresy) was mentioned for the loss of Holy Orders to bring Christ to His People. Holy cow! God have Mercy!!
What do you mean by "loss of the Precious Blood"? Are you saying that the consecration of the Body is valid but that of the Blood is not? And how do you support this?
-
After reading Vigano interview, it was very disappointing how he answered to: What flaws in the Mass..... vigano states 3 major flaws(not heresies) in the Mass. Not one of those major flaws had anything to do with the loss of the Precious Blood. Not one flaw(heresy) was mentioned for the loss of Holy Orders to bring Christ to His People. Holy cow! God have Mercy!!
He can't say that....at least not yet....because that would mean his orders are invalid.
-
Well said, Stubborn.
:facepalm: ... the fact that you think Stubborns utterly nonsensical and at-time heretical gobbledygook is "well said" says a lot about you.
For the Pope to "safeguard Tradition" is not merely a duty or a job; he's protected by the Holy Spirit for doing so. Take your Old Catholic garbage to an Old Catholic discussion forum.
-
It sounds to me like, in an oblique way, he is suggesting that Francis has relinquished the papacy through heterodox teachings.
But did he say this in English, in Italian, or in some other language? There might be a nuance I'm missing.
It's hard to say. Archbishop Lefevre used the same type of rhetoric, saying that Rome is in schism because they broke from Tradition.
-
It's the fruit of the Permanent Instruction of the Alta Vendita. Now they have the numbers and now they have their pope ( usurper papacy).
A pagan friendly apostate who is ok with sodomy as well.
-
:facepalm: ... the fact that you think Stubborns utterly nonsensical and at-time heretical gobbledygook is "well said" says a lot about you.
For the Pope to "safeguard Tradition" is not merely a duty or a job; he's protected by the Holy Spirit for doing so. Take your Old Catholic garbage to an Old Catholic discussion forum.
I guess the Holy Ghost has been on vacation for the last 5 or 6 popes, eh? Maybe you could remind Him - if He's listening to you in your padded (I hope for your sake it's padded) cell, Mr. Delusional.
-
I guess the Holy Ghost has been on vacation for the last 5 or 6 popes, eh? Maybe you could remind Him - if He's listening to you in your padded (I hope for your sake it's padded) cell, Mr. Delusional.
.
While it would be impossible for the last 5 or 6 papal claimants to be true popes given their profession of heresy, it is not at all impossible that they were not true popes but only heretics claiming possession of the Holy See.
We are guaranteed that the Holy Ghost will not allow a pope to teach heresy to the whole Church in his official capacity as pope. We are not guaranteed that everyone who puts on a white cassock and claims to be pope will be the pope.
One of the most evident proofs of sedevacantism is the argument that any other explanation of the crisis is impossible.
-
.
While it would be impossible for the last 5 or 6 papal claimants to be true popes given their profession of heresy, it is not at all impossible that they were not true popes but only heretics claiming possession of the Holy See.
We are guaranteed that the Holy Ghost will not allow a pope to teach heresy to the whole Church in his official capacity as pope. We are not guaranteed that everyone who puts on a white cassock and claims to be pope will be the pope.
One of the most evident proofs of sedevacantism is the argument that any other explanation of the crisis is impossible.
Ok, so the "pope" is not the captain of the ship; he's just in command of it.
"You're drowned; the ship's sunk; but that guy in fancy clothes and feathered hat on the quarter deck with the spy glass who drove us into the rocks wasn't really the captain."
I'm not sure that is going to be much comfort to the drowned on the bottom of the ocean.
There's a purpose posited for the Holy Ghost's protection of the pope and the ecclessia docens that is the rai·son d'ê·tre behind that doctrine of indefectibility Ladislaus keeps trumpeting: the protection of the Church's faith from harm. That purpose has been belied and obliterated by last 60 or so years, and shows the doctrine to be the delusional error it is - as he and those late 19th and 20th century theologians and manualists have described it. All his jumping up and down, shouting heresy, etc. doesn't change a thing . . . but keeps puffing him up in his delusion of hyper-orthodoxy and dogmatic rectitude.
He's going to blow up like the Hindenburg Blimp soon, no matter what he calls himself, or the pope.
-
I think he takes for granted that everyone understands that the pope's business is not to make and then to change, to create and promote new ideas. The pope's business is to preserve, to formulate, to teach the faith as it has always been in order that there be a preservation of all that was established by the Apostles and all the previous popes, this is how we maintain our link with Christ for his flock's salvation. His duty is to maintain that which has been handed to him, proposing heterodox doctrines is for heretics and "makes this intrinsic link with Christ the Head and with His Mystical Body, the Church, disappear."
I agree. The quote that the OP refers to should be read in the light of the entire article. It seems apparent that +Vigano is not saying that Francis is not the Pope, though it's a bit confusing. I do wish that +Vigano would not use language which gives sedevacantists the hope that he is a sedevacanist. Here's what +Vigano says in the paragraph following the one in which the OP sentence is given, in which he seems to clarify what he means:
"In fact, the Pope's vicarious power enjoys the special grace of state always within the very specific boundaries of this purpose; these graces have no effect where he acts against Christ and the Church. This is why Bergolio's furious attempts, however violent and destructive, are inexorably destined to break, and one day will certainly be declared null and void."
The above quote seems to echo what +ABL believed as well, when referring to Modernist Popes.
-
One of the most evident proofs of sedevacantism is the argument that any other explanation of the crisis is impossible.
Well said.
Another quote from Meg (not sure how to quote from two different posts at the same time) -
"I do wish that +Vigano would not use language which gives sedevacantists the hope that he is a sedevacanist."
It does not matter to me whether Vigano is a sedevacantist or not. He's simply affirming the Catholic teaching on the papacy and that can only lead to sedevacantism. Took me a while to get there but that's Catholic teaching (as well as the Doctrine of Indefectibility - that it's impossible for the Catholic Church to teach error to the world).
-
While it would be impossible for the last 5 or 6 papal claimants to be true popes given their profession of heresy...
It is important to recognize that this is a mere opinion of some reknowned theologians (opposed by other reknowned theologians), and not Church teaching.
According to Arnoldo da Silveira, nearly all the defenders of the opinion that "God will never permit that a pope should fall into heresy" (i.e., the "first opinion" in S. Bellarmine's classifications) -which include S. Bellarmine, Suarez, Bouix, Billot, Pighi, and others- did not hold this opinion as certain, but only as "more probable."
This means they did not consider it impossible that a pope could be a heretic, only improbable.
It is also important to recognize that the adherents of this opinion named above (with the possible exception of Pighi), only and precisely because they consider that opinion as uncertain, go on to entertain other improbable positions (i.e., S. Bellarmine's classification of opinions 2-5), arguendo.
-
Well said.
Another quote from Meg (not sure how to quote from two different posts at the same time) -
"I do wish that +Vigano would not use language which gives sedevacantists the hope that he is a sedevacanist."
It does not matter to me whether Vigano is a sedevacantist or not. He's simply affirming the Catholic teaching on the papacy and that can only lead to sedevacantism. Took me a while to get there but that's Catholic teaching (as well as the Doctrine of Indefectibility - that it's impossible for the Catholic Church to teach error to the world).
I think I see what you mean, but +Vigano does not ever mention that what he refers to or affirms about the papacy can only lead to sedevacantism. In fact, given the context of the entire article, it is obvious that he believes Bergolio to be the Pope. And, since he believes Bergolio to be the Pope, all other hopes for his being a sedevacantist fails miserably.
-
He's simply affirming the Catholic teaching on the papacy and that can only lead to sedevacantism. Took me a while to get there but that's Catholic teaching (as well as the Doctrine of Indefectibility - that it's impossible for the Catholic Church to teach error to the world).
Your a priori should enter into consultation with your a posteriori.
-
Why the red highlighting?
-
.
While it would be impossible for the last 5 or 6 papal claimants to be true popes given their profession of heresy, it is not at all impossible that they were not true popes but only heretics claiming possession of the Holy See.
We are guaranteed that the Holy Ghost will not allow a pope to teach heresy to the whole Church in his official capacity as pope. We are not guaranteed that everyone who puts on a white cassock and claims to be pope will be the pope.
One of the most evident proofs of sedevacantism is the argument that any other explanation of the crisis is impossible.
The reason that any other explanation of the crisis is impossible is because your preceding paragraph is altogether wrong and because that is the case, can only lead to a wrong conclusion.
The dogma is that the Holy Ghost will not allow a pope to teach heresy to the whole Church when he defines a doctrine ex cathedra, not when he teaches in his official capacity as pope.
V1 even states there is no protection from the Holy Ghost should he preach heresies ("new doctrines"): "For the holy Spirit was promised to the successors of Peter, not so that they might by his revelation make known some new doctrine...."
-
The dogma is that the Holy Ghost will not allow a pope to teach heresy to the whole Church when he defines a doctrine ex cathedra, not when he teaches in his official capacity as pope.
.
This goes against (condemned) Proposition 22 of the Syllabus of Errors (https://www.papalencyclicals.net/pius09/p9syll.htm):
22. The obligation by which Catholic teachers and authors are strictly bound is confined to those things only which are proposed to universal belief as dogmas of faith by the infallible judgment of the Church. — Letter to the Archbishop of Munich, “Tuas libenter,” Dec. 21, 1863.
-
Ok, so the "pope" is not the captain of the ship; he's just in command of it.
"You're drowned; the ship's sunk; but that guy in fancy clothes and feathered hat on the quarter deck with the spy glass who drove us into the rocks wasn't really the captain."
I'm not sure that is going to be much comfort to the drowned on the bottom of the ocean.
There's a purpose posited for the Holy Ghost's protection of the pope and the ecclessia docens that is the rai·son d'ê·tre behind that doctrine of indefectibility Ladislaus keeps trumpeting: the protection of the Church's faith from harm. That purpose has been belied and obliterated by last 60 or so years, and shows the doctrine to be the delusional error it is - as he and those late 19th and 20th century theologians and manualists have described it. All his jumping up and down, shouting heresy, etc. doesn't change a thing . . . but keeps puffing him up in his delusion of hyper-orthodoxy and dogmatic rectitude.
He's going to blow up like the Hindenburg Blimp soon, no matter what he calls himself, or the pope.
If your metaphor here is describing the Church as a ship that has crashed on the rocks, with people that have drowned by staying inside her, then that is your problem right there. We know that the Church will not sink and that people cannot be lost by the fact of remaining inside her.
I would respond to the rest of your statement, but I'm not sure I can do that until you clarify what you are saying here.
-
Well said.
Another quote from Meg (not sure how to quote from two different posts at the same time) -
Just scroll down after you made the first quote to the appropriate one and click " INSERT QUOTE
Voila!
Why the red highlighting?
Welcome to the forum.
-
Quote from: Stubborn on Yesterday at 01:02:19 PM (https://www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/what-is-msgr-vigano-saying-here/msg846150/#msg846150)
The dogma is that the Holy Ghost will not allow a pope to teach heresy to the whole Church when he defines a doctrine ex cathedra, not when he teaches in his official capacity as pope.
.
This goes against (condemned) Proposition 22 of the Syllabus of Errors (https://www.papalencyclicals.net/pius09/p9syll.htm):
22. The obligation by which Catholic teachers and authors are strictly bound is confined to those things only which are proposed to universal belief as dogmas of faith by the infallible judgment of the Church. — Letter to the Archbishop of Munich, “Tuas libenter,” Dec. 21, 1863.
I don't see the connection. Of course the Catholic teachers, especially the pope are obligated to teach all the Catholic truths and not just ex cathedra definitions. The conciliar popes have not defined anything ex cathedra so again, where's the connection?
The dogma on papal infallibility states that the pope enjoys the divine protection from error when he speaks ex cathedra, that is, when he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to the universal Church, this is the meaning of the term "ex cathedra."
The dogma of papal infallibility, by stating in what respect the pope cannot err, admits, in effect, that in all other areas of his vast prerogatives the pope is completely fallible. What this means is that papal fallibility is as much a part of the dogma as papal infallibility.
Understanding that "new doctrine" = heresy, V1's saying that there is no divine protection for new doctrines means exactly that. It does not mean that the pope cannot or will not preach heresy, rather, it means that should the pope preach heresy, there will be no divine protection, which suggests that popes could indeed preach heresy - because there will be no divine protection if/when he does.
-
Just scroll down after you made the first quote to the appropriate one and click " INSERT QUOTE
Voila!Welcome to the forum.
Why the red highlighting?
Ha! Thanks Nadir. I never knew how to do that either...and I guess I never asked!
-
.
While it would be impossible for the last 5 or 6 papal claimants to be true popes given their profession of heresy, it is not at all impossible that they were not true popes but only heretics claiming possession of the Holy See.
We are guaranteed that the Holy Ghost will not allow a pope to teach heresy to the whole Church in his official capacity as pope. We are not guaranteed that everyone who puts on a white cassock and claims to be pope will be the pope.
One of the most evident proofs of sedevacantism is the argument that any other explanation of the crisis is impossible.
Indeed. This is one of the most absurd arguments for R&R that I've ever seen, and is actually a proof for the opposite. If there men were popes, it is THEN that the Holy Ghost would have been "on vacation" ... allowing these men to wreck the Church using the papal office. That is precisely what the protection of the Holy Ghost over the papacy means.
R&R completely ignore Archbishop Lefebvre's statements where he agrees with the SVs that this degree of destruction is impossible given the protection of the Holy Ghost over the papacy. He simply doesn't know HOW this is happening, and does agree that SV is a possible answer to explain what has happened. Instead R&R distort Archbishop Lefebvre into some Old Catholic.
-
It is important to recognize that this is a mere opinion of some reknowned theologians (opposed by other reknowned theologians), and not Church teaching.
According to Arnoldo da Silveira, nearly all the defenders of the opinion that "God will never permit that a pope should fall into heresy" (i.e., the "first opinion" in S. Bellarmine's classifications) -which include S. Bellarmine, Suarez, Bouix, Billot, Pighi, and others- did not hold this opinion as certain, but only as "more probable."
This means they did not consider it impossible that a pope could be a heretic, only improbable.
It is also important to recognize that the adherents of this opinion named above (with the possible exception of Pighi), only and precisely because they consider that opinion as uncertain, go on to entertain other improbable positions (i.e., S. Bellarmine's classification of opinions 2-5), arguendo.
This is, as per usual, the WRONG perspective on the problem. All we know is that the Conciliar Church is not the Catholic Church, a false religion, and we know that the Holy Spirit would not allow legitimate papal authority to do these things. As to why ... whether these men are heretics, or for some other reason, that's where one could debate the "opinions". I for one hold that they were illegitimate first due to the fact that Cardinal Siri held the papal office until his death in 1989, and then starting with Ratzinger they haven't been valid bishops. Or one could argue that a Montini, for instance, did legitimately hold the office, but was being blackmailed on account of his sodomy (not out of the question). In that case, all his acts were null and void, as they were done under duress. I don't even care if someone wants to claim that the real Paul VI was locked away or drugged and replaced by a double. One can always debate the details, but one cannot debate the fact that the Conciliar Church is not the Catholic Church, and that this was not established by legitimate papal authority.
And this here is why Archbishop Lefebvre did not come out publicly as a sedevacantist ... because while he agreed in principle that the Holy Ghost's protection of the papacy would prevent the wreckage, he was less certain about how this actually came about. I have no issues with that position. Unfortunately, he did not emphasize this point enough so that generations of his followers have now basically become Old Catholics and have rejected the fact that the Church and the papacy are guided by the Holy Spirit and prevented from doing exactly what we've seen here.
-
Quote from: Yeti on Yesterday at 10:31:57 AM (https://www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/what-is-msgr-vigano-saying-here/msg846129/#msg846129)
While it would be impossible for the last 5 or 6 papal claimants to be true popes given their profession of heresy...
It is important to recognize that this is a mere opinion of some reknowned theologians (opposed by other reknowned theologians), and not Church teaching.
According to Arnoldo da Silveira, nearly all the defenders of the opinion that "God will never permit that a pope should fall into heresy" (i.e., the "first opinion" in S. Bellarmine's classifications) -which include S. Bellarmine, Suarez, Bouix, Billot, Pighi, and others- did not hold this opinion as certain, but only as "more probable."
This means they did not consider it impossible that a pope could be a heretic, only improbable.
It is also important to recognize that the adherents of this opinion named above (with the possible exception of Pighi), only and precisely because they consider that opinion as uncertain, go on to entertain other improbable positions (i.e., S. Bellarmine's classification of opinions 2-5), arguendo.
Well said de Lugo!
-
Just scroll down after you made the first quote to the appropriate one and click " INSERT QUOTE
Voila!Welcome to the forum.
Thanks for that.
-
The conciliar popes have not defined anything ex cathedra so again, where's the connection?
Because the Universal Ordinary Magesterium is infallible.
-
Look at the difference in perspective between Msgr. Vigano here, and another famous lettre from the FSSPX:
Msgr. Vigano: Roman modernists intend to destroy the Church -
"It is evident that this relentless action of war against traditional Catholics includes a strategy and a tactic, and that it corresponds to a plan devised for decades to destroy the Church of Christ and replace it with its ecuмenical, globalist, and apostate counterfeit. It would be foolish to think that they act without a purpose and without organizing themselves.
Bergoglio’s election in the conclave of 2013 was also planned: let’s not forget the emails between John Podesta and Hillary Clinton about the need to promote a “springtime of the Church” in which a progressive pope modifies its doctrine and morals by enslaving them to nєω ωσrℓ∂ σr∂єr ideology.
Action against Benedict XVI was planned to push him to resign. The subversive work of the innovators at the Council was planned. The action of progressives loyal to Bergoglio was planned in the synods, in the meetings of the curial dicasteries, in the consistories. On the other hand, behind the enemies of Christ and the Church, Satan always hides with his plots, his deceptions, his lies."
FSSP (Abbe Simoulin): The Roman modernists do NOT wish to destroy the Church -
"That being said, can we really consider this authority as working for the destruction of the Faith? It would seem more accurate to call it an authority that does not profess the Faith, or does not confess it in its integrity, and that professes notions that are dangerous or even against the Faith. For there is a distinction to be made between an intention to destroy the Faith and an effect that was not directly wished for (https://sspx.org/en/ecuмenism-silent-apostasy-index). It is clear that this loss of the Faith is a consequence of the conciliar doctrine that has been professed for the past 50 years, but can we say that this was and still is the intention of its promoters? If such were the case, these authorities would no longer have the Faith and would no longer be formally Catholic, and to believe this would be implicitly sedevacantist."
https://sspx.org/en/news-events/news/avoiding-false-spirit-resistance-3764
No wonder there is no collaboration between Msgr. Vigano and the FSSPX: The former attributes evil intentions (supported by volumes of external evidence), while the latter believes the damage is incidental, and the modernists want to encourage Tradition. Who can forget Msgr. Fellay telling the Australian faithful that Rome's offer of an agreement is not a trap, and "they want to do good to us?"
This comment by the SSPX's Econe "bursar" is more evidence that the SSPX was created to merely be
the Revolutionaries' controlled opposition.
-
This is, as per usual, the WRONG perspective on the problem. All we know is that the Conciliar Church is not the Catholic Church, a false religion, and we know that the Holy Spirit would not allow legitimate papal authority to do these things. As to why ... whether these men are heretics, or for some other reason, that's where one could debate the "opinions". I for one hold that they were illegitimate first due to the fact that Cardinal Siri held the papal office until his death in 1989, and then starting with Ratzinger they haven't been valid bishops. Or one could argue that a Montini, for instance, did legitimately hold the office, but was being blackmailed on account of his sodomy (not out of the question). In that case, all his acts were null and void, as they were done under duress. I don't even care if someone wants to claim that the real Paul VI was locked away or drugged and replaced by a double. One can always debate the details, but one cannot debate the fact that the Conciliar Church is not the Catholic Church, and that this was not established by legitimate papal authority.
And this here is why Archbishop Lefebvre did not come out publicly as a sedevacantist ... because while he agreed in principle that the Holy Ghost's protection of the papacy would prevent the wreckage, he was less certain about how this actually came about. I have no issues with that position. Unfortunately, he did not emphasize this point enough so that generations of his followers have now basically become Old Catholics and have rejected the fact that the Church and the papacy are guided by the Holy Spirit and prevented from doing exactly what we've seen here.
Archbishop Lefebvre was not a closet sedevacantist. He only considered the possibility, which is not that far-fetched. He rarely spoke about the problem with the Pope. For him, it was Rome (most of the hierarchy) that was the problem. Modernism was and is system-wide problem. That's why the Archbishop didn't spend much time focusing on the Pope, as you sedevacantists do. The problem wasn't just about the Pope. It was about a Modernist sect occupying the Church. Sedevacantists want to make it all about the Pope, and thus not address the problem of Modernism.
-
For him, it was Rome (most of the hierarchy) that was the problem. Modernism was and is system-wide problem.
The Universal Ordinary Magesterium is infallible, and the canonized popes of Vatican II preach a different religion. To acknowledge there is a discontinuity with pre-Vatican II Catholicism, but its apostates can remain the head, would mean the Catholic Church has defected.
-
The Universal Ordinary Magesterium is infallible, and the canonized popes of Vatican II preach a different religion. To acknowledge there is a discontinuity with pre-Vatican II Catholicism, but its apostates can remain the head, would mean the Catholic Church has defected.
What did Archbishop Lefebvre say about that? Do you even know? Because he did believe that the post-Vll popes were still popes. If you believe something different, that's your choice, but I'm going with what +ABL believed. That's my choice.
By focusing solely on the Pope as the problem, sedevacantists are letting the real and grave problem of Modernism off the hook. Perhaps that's the goal of sedevacantism, which would be to not allow traditional Catholics to see the bigger picture. But as long as some of us remember what +ABL really stood for, we'll still be able to see the bigger picture and not lose sight of it.
-
What did Archbishop Lefebvre say about that? Do you even know?
We do know because he and + de Castro Mayer famously wrote their 'Open Letter' to JPII and informed him that if he went ahead with Apostasy at Assisi they 'would no longer be able to call him pope'.
-
I had the incorrect wording - it's been a while since I looked at it - but here it is:
"If the Synod under your authority perseveres in this direction, you will no longer be the Good Shepherd."
Here is the link from the SSPX website and it's near the very bottom before their signings - 1985 joint letter to Pope John Paul II - District of the USA (sspx.org) (https://sspx.org/en/1985-joint-letter-pope-john-paul-ii)
-
Because the Universal Ordinary Magesterium is infallible.
Yes, always infallible. The pope is not the Church nor the Church's magisterium.
-
Yes, always infallible. The pope is not the Church nor the Church's magisterium.
This is absolutely false. The magisterium and the Church as a whole exist par excellence in the person of the pope. The Church exists, in its fullness and its plenitude, in the person of the pope. You are absolutely wrong to say that the pope is not the Church's magisterium. In fact, the other members of the magisterium derive their authority only from the pope. Pope Pius IX said, "I am tradition. I am the Church (https://catholicherald.co.uk/the-pope-most-like-francis/)." And he was absolutely correct. And it is true of every pope.
-
We do know because he and + de Castro Mayer famously wrote their 'Open Letter' to JPII and informed him that if he went ahead with Apostasy at Assisi they 'would no longer be able to call him pope'.
Where in that docuмent does it say that they 'would no longer be able to call him pope?'
I can only see where it says....'you will no longer be the Good Shepherd.' That's not necessarily the same thing. And for the remainder of his life, +ABL did refer to JP2 as Pope.
We know about +ABL's letters to the Pope. I was referring to his rhetoric. Because that's what the sedevacantists have - rhetoric, and it's mostly about how Francis, and all of the other Vll popes, aren't really popes. As if that is all that really matters. But that wasn't the main problem with +ABL. He was concerned about the situation of why the Modernists were doing what they were doing, and the problems that it caused. Like I said - the bigger picture.
-
Where in that docuмent does it say that they 'would no longer be able to call him pope?'
Like I said - the bigger picture.
For the first statement, it sounds like you passed over my very next post?
The bigger picture is the fact that the Universal Magersterium is infallible and that it's impossible for the Catholic Church to lead souls astray. Vatican II is a different religion.
-
This is absolutely false. The magisterium and the Church as a whole exist par excellence in the person of the pope. The Church exists, in its fullness and its plenitude, in the person of the pope. You are absolutely wrong to say that the pope is not the Church's magisterium. In fact, the other members of the magisterium derive their authority only from the pope. Pope Pius IX said, "I am tradition. I am the Church (https://catholicherald.co.uk/the-pope-most-like-francis/)." And he was absolutely correct. And it is true of every pope.
Popes have taught that the Church's magisterium is "unable to be mistaken,” has "immunity from error” and “could by no means commit itself to erroneous teaching.”
Should not common sense dictate that if what the popes taught above is true absolutely, and it is, then they cannot be talking about human beings at all, not even popes? It is by the errors of the V2 popes, that we know with certainty of faith that neither they or any of the popes are the Church's Magisterium.
The Church's magisterium is "all that has been handed down as divinely revealed by the ordinary teaching authority of the entire Church spread over the whole world, and which, for this reason, Catholic theologians, with a universal and constant consent, regard as being of the faith." - Pope Pius IX..... Now if you re-read my first paragraph and reference this paragraph, you should have a better understanding of what the Church's Magisterium is, why it has immunity from error, and above all why the magisterium is not the pope.
-
For the first statement, it sounds like you passed over my very next post?
The bigger picture is the fact that the Universal Magersterium is infallible and that it's impossible for the Catholic Church to lead souls astray. Vatican II is a different religion.
Sorry - my mistake. You didn't provide a link for the Assisi docuмent. I got them mixed up. Regarding Asissi - didn't JP2 go ahead with his horror at Assisi? And didn't +ABL still refer to him always as the Pope, despite the horrors at Assisi?
I'm not going to get into the 'universal magisterium is infallible' argument, since +ABL did not focus on that, as far as I know, and Stubborn is far better at addressing that issue than I am.
-
While that excerpt seems to sound sedevacantist, in the full context I don't think he is.
Abusing the vicarious power of Christ and placing oneself outside the succession by proposing heterodox doctrines, or by imposing norms that refer to them, makes this intrinsic link with Christ the Head and with His Mystical Body, the Church, disappear. In fact, the Pope’s vicarious power enjoys all the prerogatives of absolute, immediate, and direct authority over the Church only to the extent that it conforms to its main purpose, which is the salus animarum, always following in the wake of Tradition and fidelity to Our Lord.
Furthermore, in the exercise of this authority, the Pope enjoys the special graces of state always within the very specific boundaries of this purpose; these graces have no effect where he acts against Christ and the Church. This is why Bergoglio’s furious attempts, however violent and destructive, are inexorably destined to break, and one day will certainly be declared null and void.
Although at first he says that to propose heterodox doctrines would place one outside of the Church (implying that Bergoglio is outside of the Church and therefore not the Pope), he goes on to say that Bergoglio's destructive actions are only ineffective in that any destructive action of any pope would be ineffective, because the Pope's power only enjoys its prerogatives "to the extent that it confirms to its main purpose".
To me, that's an indication that he still sees Francis as Pope to some extent. Nevertheless, he describes Francis' actions as destructive and ineffectual, and he derogatively refers to him as Bergoglio. To me, that indicates a pseudo-sedeprivationist belief: "Francis is the Pope, but he doesn't actually exercise papal authority".
He's not a proper sedeprivationist though, because he seems to say that Francis isn't exercising papal authority just because he intends to use it for the wrong purposes, rather than having lost it (or never had it) entirely. I'm uncomfortable with this position because it leads to judging the Pope on each and every one of his acts and deciding whether or not they're Catholic enough. That seems to me to be a Protestant mindset--"I'm only obedient when my private judgement tells me I should be". That's not obedience at all, really.
-
To me, that's an indication that he still sees Francis as Pope to some extent. Nevertheless, he describes Francis' actions as destructive and ineffectual, and he derogatively refers to him as Bergoglio. To me, that indicates a pseudo-sedeprivationist belief: "Francis is the Pope, but he doesn't actually exercise papal authority".
I agree. In the years I've been following him, I have never once seen him refer to Bergoglio as Francis (except one time, in a derogatory manner), much less Holy Father or His Holiness. He has entertained the possibility of a Bennyvacantist scenario, but deferred to the Church to make the final determination. So he would appear to have position similar to that of Archbishop Lebevre ... except that he is indeed far more rhetorically derogatory toward Bergoglio than +Lefebvre was toward his Conciliar predecessors.
-
So he would appear to have position similar to that of Archbishop Lebevre ... except that he is indeed far more rhetorically derogatory toward Bergoglio than +Lefebvre was toward his Conciliar predecessors.
Wait... I'm having a premonition!
It's all coming together now... I can see it.
Pope Bergy is going to make Archbishop Vigano the next Bishop of the SSPX.
Even Bp. Williamson has given it his blessing.
The traditional Catholic movement will be saved! :incense:
-
Wait... I'm having a premonition!
It's all coming together now... I can see it.
Pope Bergy is going to make Archbishop Vigano the next Bishop of the SSPX.
Even Bp. Williamson has given it his blessing.
The traditional Catholic movement will be saved! :incense:
I know you're saying this tongue-in-cheek... but you might actually be on to something.
I've had a pet theory for quite a while, that Francis's "long game", if indeed he has one, is to corral all TLM adherents under the aegis of the SSPX, with possibly the FSSP being urged to merge into them, to quarantine the traditionalist bacillus, if you will, and then in short order, get rid of all diocesan TLMs.
Add Vigano and Schneider as two more SSPX bishops --- Schneider is younger than Fellay or Galaretta either one, he's about my age --- and you have a phenomenon that is, to say the least, interesting. Neither of those three is exactly eaten up with old age. Not getting any younger, but neither are they octogenarians like Francis or Vigano.
What happens after all TLM adherents (those who care to, anyway) get put into a kind of ecclesiastical containment area, well, that could go various ways.
-
Wait... I'm having a premonition!
It's all coming together now... I can see it.
Pope Bergy is going to make Archbishop Vigano the next Bishop of the SSPX.
Even Bp. Williamson has given it his blessing.
The traditional Catholic movement will be saved! :incense:
Hardly. +Vigano has swung far to the right of the current Modernist-infested neo-SSPX. Putting him in charge of SSPX would set them back 10 years in terms of the absorption plan. +Vigano says that V2 is unsalvageable and must be pitched, while +Fellay believes that it’s 95% Catholic and the rest can be interpreted according to Tradition. +Vigano has strongly opposed the Plandemic, the abortion-tainted jab, the Great Reset, and globalism, while SSPX have been muted. Rare is the SSPX criticism of Bergoglio, while +Vigano hasn’t stopped. Your mind is warped against +Vigano for some unknown reason.
-
I know you're saying this tongue-in-cheek... but you might actually be on to something.
I've had a pet theory for quite a while, that Francis's "long game", if indeed he has one, is to corral all TLM adherents under the aegis of the SSPX, with possibly the FSSP being urged to merge into them, to quarantine the traditionalist bacillus, if you will, and then in short order, get rid of all diocesan TLMs.
Add Vigano and Schneider as two more SSPX bishops --- Schneider is younger than Fellay or Galaretta either one, he's about my age --- and you have a phenomenon that is, to say the least, interesting. Neither of those three is exactly eaten up with old age. Not getting any younger, but neither are they octogenarians like Francis or Vigano.
What happens after all TLM adherents (those who care to, anyway) get put into a kind of ecclesiastical containment area, well, that could go various ways.
+Schneider is more of a possibility for that role, except why a need to replace +Fellay, who is probably of nearly identical mind as +Schneider? Of the 4 consecrated by +Lefebvre, the most conservative is ousted and not getting any younger, while the second-most conservative, +Tissier, is out of commission, while +Galaretta has been a non-factor from day one. Rome will probably allow SSPX to ordain the likes of a Father Paul Robinson ... and then it’s over for the “experiment of Tradition”.
What’s interesting is that in the beginning, +Tissier had the reputation of being the most liberal, but +Fellay somehow left him in the dust. And I don’t think +Tissier has changed. +Fellay has ... quite possibly compromised through Krah ... just as various politicians had been compromised by Epstein. Among other things, +Fellay’s ardent protection of child rapists is inexplicable outside of some such nefarious “influence”.
-
+Schneider is more of a possibility for that role, except why a need to replace +Fellay, who is probably of nearly identical mind as +Schneider? Of the 4 consecrated by +Lefebvre, the most conservative is ousted and not getting any younger, while the second-most conservative, +Tissier, is out of commission, while +Galaretta has been a non-factor from day one. Rome will probably allow SSPX to ordain the likes of a Father Paul Robinson ... and then it’s over for the “experiment of Tradition”.
What’s interesting is that in the beginning, +Tissier had the reputation of being the most liberal, but +Fellay somehow left him in the dust. And I don’t think +Tissier has changed. +Fellay has ... quite possibly compromised through Krah ... just as various politicians had been compromised by Epstein. Among other things, +Fellay’s ardent protection of child rapists is inexplicable outside of some such nefarious “influence”.
Ooh la la! Is this a consensus among Americains, that Msgr. de Mallerais is the most liberal? Frankly, I always thought of him as the most rigourous, but somewhat servile. In Rivarol of 2012, he was every bit as strong against an accord as the Résistance, at a time when Msgr. de Galarreta seemed to suggest (at Villepreux) that it was practically impossible that Msgr. Fellay and the majority at the General Chapter could err in prudential matters in regard to an accord with Rome (a level of infallibility not even enjoyed by the pope). Prior to that had said he was willing to head in a new direction so long as the rest of the Fraternity was united in doing so. My perspective is that Msgr. de Mallerais is principled, but weak constitutionally, while Msgr. de Galarreta is weak in principle (the temporal good of the Fraternity seems to come before fidélité). Certainly, I could be wrong.
-
Hardly. +Vigano has swung far to the right of the current Modernist-infested neo-SSPX. Putting him in charge of SSPX would set them back 10 years in terms of the absorption plan. +Vigano says that V2 is unsalvageable and must be pitched, while +Fellay believes that it’s 95% Catholic and the rest can be interpreted according to Tradition. +Vigano has strongly opposed the Plandemic, the abortion-tainted jab, the Great Reset, and globalism, while SSPX have been muted. Rare is the SSPX criticism of Bergoglio, while +Vigano hasn’t stopped. Your mind is warped against +Vigano for some unknown reason.
I don't think this is what will happen with Vigano either; however, I could totally see Bergoglio or his successor making the SSPX the TLM Headquarters of the "Conciliar Church" once he gets rid of the ED communities and diocesan TLM's.