Author Topic: Are there any anti una cuм people on cathinfo? (Read 28374 times)

Ladislaus · « **Reply #110 on:** May 05, 2021, 12:08:10 PM »

Quote from: DecemRationis on May 05, 2021, 11:30:50 AM

Then you are a Sedevacantist, and the seat is vacant.

Not necessarily. The only condition is that the destructive acts that we see here did not emanate from the Church's authority.

Father Chazal's sede-impoundism works nicely, or some sedeprivationist variant of Cajtean / John of St. Thomas. I do not rule out that Paul VI was blackmailed. I am personally of the opinion that Siri had been elected and the Church was put into a state of eclipse. Or sedevacantism is very possible as well.

This is the same line of thinking Archbishop Lefebvre articulated in that famous audio.

He declared out of the gate that it is not possible that the Pope, who is protected by the Holy Spirit, could perpetrate such destruction. So he beings speculating. Was Montini out of his mind? Was he being blackmailed? He didn't think so. He said then that it's possible that the See is vacant. But then he concludes with it being a mystery.

Archbishop Lefebvre never jettisoned the notion that this degree of destruction is not possible due to the fact that the Holy Spirit guides the Church and keeps the papacy generally free from error. He often stated that he might have to go sedevacantist, but preferred to wait, to leave it to the Church's authority to decide this "some day".

So I echo these sentiments 100%. I cannot be sure what exactly happened. I do not rule out the Montini being blackmailed theory either. But we don't have smoking gun proof of any of this, just suspicions and doubts and speculation.

I'm not a sedevacantist. I am an indefectibilist, and that indefectibilism leads to serious doubts and questions about who these men are. And that's as far as we can go absent the intervention of Church authority.

I agree with the R&R (and sedeprivationist) criticism of sedevacantism that you can't, as a principle, have Catholics going around effectively deposing popes. While you can explain sedevacantism to "Aunt Helen," what give "Aunt Helen" the right to conclude on her own that the See is vacant?

Ladislaus · « **Reply #111 on:** May 05, 2021, 12:11:45 PM »

I need to find again that audio recording of the Archbishop. I transcribed it at one point here on CI. Despite SeanJohnson's wishful thinking, it's clear that the Archbishop entertained the notion that the See might very well be vacant, but he held back on coming out with it and wished to defer to the Church's authority, which is actually the right attitude. +Vigano does the same thing. He speculated that it's possible that Bergoglio might have been invalidly elected, but said this must be determined by the Church.

SeanJohnson · « **Reply #112 on:** May 05, 2021, 12:48:40 PM »

Quote from: Ladislaus on May 05, 2021, 12:11:45 PM

I need to find again that audio recording of the Archbishop. I transcribed it at one point here on CI. Despite SeanJohnson's wishful thinking, it's clear that the Archbishop entertained the notion that the See might very well be vacant, but he held back on coming out with it and wished to defer to the Church's authority, which is actually the right attitude. +Vigano does the same thing. He speculated that it's possible that Bergoglio might have been invalidly elected, but said this must be determined by the Church.

Despite Ladislaus's wishful thinking, I don't perceive a whole lotts doubt in this Lefebvre sermon:

http://stas.org/en/media/video/dvd/sermons-archbishop-marcel-lefebvre-english-2711

Transcription:

Archbishop Lefebvre:

"You know that some people, and, uh, I must say that some priests were with us, and they tried to lead us into schism.

"And they say there is no pope, no pope now, no cardinals, no bishops, no Catholic Church.

"We are the Catholic Church.

"I don't say that.

"I don't accept that.

"That is schism.

"If we abandon Rome; if we abandon the pope, the successor of St. Peter, where are we going?

"Where?

"Where is the authority of the Church?

"Where is our leader in the Church?

"We can't know where we are going.

"If the pope is weak; if he don't do his duty; it's not good.

"We must pray for this pope.

"But don't say that he is not the pope."

There follows a lengthy dissertation on the case of Paul resisting St. Peter, as well as the condemnation of Pope Honorious, whom the Archbishop also noted never lost the papacy.

https://www.cathinfo.com/crisis-in-the-church/sermon-5-popes-present-sunday-april-27-2014-by-fr-chazal/

ByzCat3000 · « **Reply #113 on:** May 05, 2021, 01:14:58 PM »

Quote from: Ladislaus on May 03, 2021, 03:46:21 PM

Yes, that's pretty close. Xavier actually takes it a step further. Not only does he assert that the legitimacy of the V2 papal claimants is dogmatic fact, but he also does not believe that the New Mass is substantially harmful (just less perfect) nor that there is any substantial error in Vatican II. HOW on earth does that justify being in anything other than full submission to what he believes to be the Catholic hierarchy?

When I first questioned him about that, his response was two-fold ...

1) look at the fruits of the SSPX

AND

2) some devil/demon said "Econe was on the right path" during an Exorcism in the 1970s.

I haven't read through all the thread yet, but just wondering, why do laypeople even have to come to a "definitive" conclusion about whether the NO is licit or not? Why can't they just say "listen, I think its sketch for XYZ good reason, Rome says we can attend the SSPX (see here: https://wdtprs.com/2020/04/ask-father-whats-the-truth-about-the-sspx/ ) they pray for the pope, they haven't joined a sect, and even Rome doesn't seem to think the laity are responsible for the issues with the SSPX one way or another since they say you can attend there" and so go to the SSPX? Why do the laity need to answer *any* high level theological questions in order to justify attending the SSPX? If the person feels that the SSPX church is the church that's going to benefit them the most spiritually, it seems like they can attend there.

And no, that's not me endorsing relativism. This is just me saying not even Rome says you can't attend there.

DecemRationis · « **Reply #114 on:** May 05, 2021, 01:46:55 PM »

Quote from: Ladislaus on May 05, 2021, 12:08:10 PM

Not necessarily. The only condition is that the destructive acts that we see here did not emanate from the Church's authority.

Father Chazal's sede-impoundism works nicely, or some sedeprivationist variant of Cajtean / John of St. Thomas. I do not rule out that Paul VI was blackmailed. I am personally of the opinion that Siri had been elected and the Church was put into a state of eclipse. Or sedevacantism is very possible as well.

This is the same line of thinking Archbishop Lefebvre articulated in that famous audio.

He declared out of the gate that it is not possible that the Pope, who is protected by the Holy Spirit, could perpetrate such destruction. So he beings speculating. Was Montini out of his mind? Was he being blackmailed? He didn't think so. He said then that it's possible that the See is vacant. But then he concludes with it being a mystery.

Archbishop Lefebvre never jettisoned the notion that this degree of destruction is not possible due to the fact that the Holy Spirit guides the Church and keeps the papacy generally free from error. He often stated that he might have to go sedevacantist, but preferred to wait, to leave it to the Church's authority to decide this "some day".

So I echo these sentiments 100%. I cannot be sure what exactly happened. I do not rule out the Montini being blackmailed theory either. But we don't have smoking gun proof of any of this, just suspicions and doubts and speculation.

I'm not a sedevacantist. I am an indefectibilist, and that indefectibilism leads to serious doubts and questions about who these men are. And that's as far as we can go absent the intervention of Church authority.

I agree with the R&R (and sedeprivationist) criticism of sedevacantism that you can't, as a principle, have Catholics going around effectively deposing popes. While you can explain sedevacantism to "Aunt Helen," what give "Aunt Helen" the right to conclude on her own that the See is vacant?

You're simply trying to avoid the conflict between indefectibility and perpetuity, or between indectibility and the fact that 6 popes who have been elected with the unanimous consent of something like 10,000+ bishops (as Sean has pointed out) have promulgated laws and rites or taught things that amount to the defection of the Church.

You like logic, right? Well, it seems to me your doing something like violating the law of the excluded middle: if these popes are not the Magisterium, the seat is vacant; if they are, its not, and all the conditions of the Magisterium apply (indefectitility, etc.).

You're however not saying the seat is vacant, which is the necessary conclusion to your indefectibility doctrine, because:

Quote

I agree with the R&R (and sedeprivationist) criticism of sedevacantism that you can't, as a principle, have Catholics going around effectively deposing popes. While you can explain sedevacantism to "Aunt Helen," what give "Aunt Helen" the right to conclude on her own that the See is vacant?

You're in a box because, with the Magisterium as your formal motive and proximate rule of faith, you have nowhere to go - you can't declare the See vacant, and yet, if it's not, indefectibility goes out the window.

However, if dogma is the proximate rule of faith, the problem is gone, and sense and logic prevail.

In a roundabout way, you've come to the root of the problem: the only authority which can declare the See vacant has already declared that it's not - by electing those popes! This is where universal acceptance comes in, because that acceptance triggers the election of a true pope and that election triggers your indefectibility.

In other words, if the Magisterium is your proximate rule, they've shut down your position and indicated it's invalidity by the election of these very popes by that Magisterium.

Quote

I cannot be sure what exactly happened.

Sure. I appreciate that.

But if I see something from a distance and I'm not sure what it is but it clearly has wings, I might not know what it is but I know it's not a man because men don't have wings. I don't need more facts to make that determination; it's simple logic and an understanding of what a man is.

But it's not simple logic for you because you rely upon "the Magisterium" to tell you if it's a bird or a man or whatever. And you're looking at something with wings that the Magisterium has already said is a man . . . and so you're in a pretzel and nonplussed.

This is your problem, and the problem with your doctrine.

CathInfo.com

Author Topic: Are there any anti una cuм people on cathinfo? (Read 28374 times)

Ladislaus

Re: Are there any anti una cuм people on cathinfo?

Ladislaus

Re: Are there any anti una cuм people on cathinfo?

SeanJohnson

Re: Are there any anti una cuм people on cathinfo?

ByzCat3000

Re: Are there any anti una cuм people on cathinfo?

DecemRationis

Re: Are there any anti una cuм people on cathinfo?