Catholic Info

Traditional Catholic Faith => The Sacred: Catholic Liturgy, Chant, Prayers => Topic started by: Cryptinox on January 25, 2021, 08:05:34 PM

Title: Are there any anti una cuм people on cathinfo?
Post by: Cryptinox on January 25, 2021, 08:05:34 PM
I have been wondering this since most of the people here don't seem to be anti una cuм sede or not. If you are anti una cuм how far do you take it? Do you simply believe that you can't attend una cuм if you are sede or do you believe every single mass where Francis is mentioned is a sacrilege? Sanborn's group seems to be the latter. I even saw a priest under him say one una cuм mass is more offensive to God than every single abortion ever committed. I don't hold the anti una cuм position but if I did I would probably just hold the view that you can't attend if you are sede but I'd leave it at that.
Title: Re: Are there any anti una cuм people on cathinfo?
Post by: Matthew on January 26, 2021, 08:30:10 AM
That group likes to smash their competition by cheating, basically.

"If you go to one of THOSE competing chapels, you will go to hell!"

How CONVENIENT for Bp. Dolan & co., removing the other Mass options for their parishioners. They're stuck, I guess! Oh darn.
Title: Re: Are there any anti una cuм people on cathinfo?
Post by: Admiral on May 03, 2021, 01:52:09 AM
Yes, I’m a “non una cuм” sedevacantist.  
Title: Re: Are there any anti una cuм people on cathinfo?
Post by: Viva Cristo Rey on May 03, 2021, 02:56:33 AM

Penny Catechism:

https://youtu.be/j2XsE9p7JGo (https://youtu.be/j2XsE9p7JGo)
Title: Re: Are there any anti una cuм people on cathinfo?
Post by: Ladislaus on May 03, 2021, 04:54:36 AM
I know that Bishop Sanborn is sincere about his stance, whereas I do feel there are some politics behind that of Bishop Dolan.
Title: Re: Are there any anti una cuм people on cathinfo?
Post by: Ladislaus on May 03, 2021, 04:56:30 AM
If I were a priest, I would offer Mass “una cuм famulo tuo papa nostro” but then leave out the name, expressing sededoubtism.
Title: Re: Are there any anti una cuм people on cathinfo?
Post by: Stubborn on May 03, 2021, 05:52:03 AM
From Who Shall Ascend?

"We say to you dear faithful people: Ask your priest whether he includes or omits the name of the Pope in his Masses. If he does not, give him no support; and give him no Mass intentions.

Tell him respectfully:

'Father (Bishop), I shall continue to come to Mass here. I have nowhere else to go, and I am bound under pain of mortal sin to assist at Mass on Sunday. But you have done my family and me, and all these other people, a grave injustice. You have exploited my want of theological knowledge to involve me in something which I had no understanding of. I trusted that you knew what you were doing. Now, I am not so sure. I am not going to support your schism in any way.

My family and I have enough difficulty trying to do the right thing, without doing this which is most questionable. Without knowing the science of theology, I can see that it is not necessary for you or for me to know whether Pope John Paul is the legitimate successor of St. Peter. It doesn't hurt anything to pray for him in the Mass; it surely could not be wrong to do so, even if it is an honest mistake. Pope or not, God knows that he who is called John Paul II needs our prayers, as all of us need God's mercy. But to attack the office of the papacy, and to separate oneself from it, is a serious thing to be wrong about.

This Sedevacantism is your opinion. But the Mass not yours, and I know you do not have the right to change a word of it. I have heard you say the same thing about those who brought in the New Mass. And now this is what you have done! You are not being fair, and, it seems to me, you are not being wise. If you insist on being a schismatic, you  should leave our Catholic church and gather your own flock from elsewhere. Tell the people from the first day that you do not accept Pope John Paul II as the true Pope, and see how many return."
Title: Re: Are there any anti una cuм people on cathinfo?
Post by: SeanJohnson on May 03, 2021, 06:23:49 AM
Non Una cuм” and the Resistance
By Sean Johnson,
20 January 2017

Introduction:
As the deterioration of the papacy accelerates under Pope Francis, with revealed doctrine consistently being openly flouted and contradicted, some priests in the Resistance have embarked upon a campaign to make the prayer for the Pope in the canon of the Mass (ie., “una cuм famulo tuo Papa nostro Francisco”) optional.  These usually deny being sedevacantists, instead preferring to argue that, “as the status of the Vatican II and post-Vatican II Popes is uncertain (so they say), likewise, so too ought the rendition of the prayer “una cuм” (which means “One with thy servant, Pope Francis”) be optional, since we cannot be sure he really is a Pope.”

These same priests will often be found wielding a newly created term: “Dogmatic sedeplenists,” by which they mean to adversely describe those Catholics who are rightly intolerant of the suggestion that the recognition of Francis as Pope is optional.  Just as the ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖs created the term “homophobia” (with its connotations of irrational opposition) to make their opponents seem the “bad guys,” create a perception of being unjustly persecuted, and spread the idea that sɛҳuąƖ orientation was merely a choice or personal preference, a similar tactic is used by the “non una cuм” priests:

“Who can say whether Francis is Pope?  As the matter is doubtful, we ought not persecute -or be dogmatic- in the defense or assertion of his Papacy.  We ought to tolerate those with opposing views until the Church settles the matter, etc.  And after all, since we cannot pray for heretics in the Canon of the Mass, it is better to leave Francis’ name out.”

By this artifice, they hope to create sympathy and openness among Resistance Catholics to the idea that one may decide on his own accord whether or not the “una cuм” prayer should be prayed for Francis, or as they now prefer “una cuм Petro.”

Let us review Church teaching to discover whether this is justified and permitted.


What Does the Church Teach About Praying for the Pope in the Canon of the Mass?
In 1756, Pope Benedict XIV promulgated the encyclical Ex Quo,1 (http://sodalitium-pianum.com/non-una-cuм-and-the-resistance/#easy-footnote-bottom-1)which announced to the Church that the “Euchologion”2 (http://sodalitium-pianum.com/non-una-cuм-and-the-resistance/#easy-footnote-bottom-2)  (http://file///C:/Users/K04868/Desktop/Non%20Una%20cuм.doc#_edn2)of the Eastern uniates had been corrected in conformity with Catholic doctrine.  One of the corrections which had taken place was the insertion of the prayer for the Pope (which quite logically was absent in the schismatic Euchologion).

The Holy Father explained:

“But however it may be with this disputed point of ecclesiastical learning, it suffices Us to be able to state that a commemoration of the supreme pontiff and prayers offered for him during the sacrifice of the Mass is considered, and really is, an affirmative indication which recognizes him as the head of the Church, the vicar of Christ, and the successor of blessed Peter, and is the profession of a mind and will which firmly espouses Catholic unity. This was rightly noticed by Christianus Lupus in his work on the Councils: “This commemoration is the chief and most glorious form of communion” (tome 4, p. 422, Brussels edition). This view is not merely approved by the authority of Ivo of Flaviniaca who writes: “Whosoever does not pronounce the name of the Apostolic one in the canon for whatever reason should realize that he is separated from the communion of the whole world” (Chronicle, p. 228); or by the authority of the famous Alcuin: “It is generally agreed that those who do not for any reason recall the memory of the Apostolic pontiff in the course of the sacred mysteries according to custom are, as the blessed Pelagius teaches, separated from the communion of the entire world” (de Divinis Officiis, bk. 1, chap. 12).1 (http://sodalitium-pianum.com/non-una-cuм-and-the-resistance/#easy-footnote-bottom-1) (http://file///C:/Users/K04868/Desktop/Non%20Una%20cuм.doc#_edn3)

It is evident, therefore, that the omission of the prayer for the Pope in the Canon of the Mass is considered by the Church to be a schismatic act, which deprives the violator of communion with the Catholic Church.


But Who is to Say Francis is a Pope?
The “non una cuм” priests attempt to skirt this trap by questioning the legitimacy of Francis’ pontificate: “Sure, this applies to validly reigning Popes, but since it is not certain Francis is a legitimate Pope, it is not clear this passage from Benedict XIV’s encyclical applies to him.”

But is it really true that the legitimacy of Francis’ pontificate is, for a Catholic, a matter open to question?

Siscoe/Salza cite several weighty authorities asserting the contrary: 2 (http://sodalitium-pianum.com/non-una-cuм-and-the-resistance/#easy-footnote-bottom-2) (http://file///C:/Users/K04868/Desktop/Non%20Una%20cuм.doc#_edn4)

1)   Cardinal Billot, S.J. expressly denies that God could allow a false Pope to be recognized as a true Pope:

“Finally, whatever you still think about the possibility or impossibility of the aforementioned hypothesis [a Pope becoming a heretic], at least one point should be considered absolutely incontrovertible, and placed firmly above any doubt whatever: The adhesion of the universal Church will be always, in itself, an infallible sign of the legitimacy of a determined Pontiff, and therefore also of the existence of all the conditions required for legitimacy itself…As will become even more clear by what we shall say later, God can permit that at times a vacancy in the Apostolic See be prolonged for a long time.  He can also permit that doubt arise about the legitimacy of this or that ɛƖɛctıon.  He cannot however permit the whole Church to accept as Pontiff him who is not so truly and legitimately.

Therefore, from the moment in which the Pope is accepted by the Church and united to her as the head to the body, it is no longer permitted to raise doubts about a possible vice of ɛƖɛctıon or a possible lack of any condition whatsoever necessary for legitimacy.  For the aforementioned adhesion of the Church heals in the root all fault in the ɛƖɛctıon and proves infallibly the existence of all the required conditions.”3 (http://sodalitium-pianum.com/non-una-cuм-and-the-resistance/#easy-footnote-bottom-3) (http://file///C:/Users/K04868/Desktop/Non%20Una%20cuм.doc#_edn5)

2)   Msgr. Van Noort asserts the legitimacy of a reigning Pope to be a dogmatic fact (and therefore unquestionable4 (http://sodalitium-pianum.com/non-una-cuм-and-the-resistance/#easy-footnote-bottom-4) (http://file///C:/Users/K04868/Desktop/Non%20Una%20cuм.doc#_edn6)):

“The Church’s infallibility extends to dogmatic facts.  This proposition is theologically certain.  A dogmatic fact is a fact not contained in the sources of revelation, but on the admission of which depends the knowledge or certainty of a dogma or of a revealed truth.  The following questions are concerned with dogmatic facts: Was the First Vatican Council a legitimate ecuмenical council?  Is the Latin Vulgate a substantially faithful translation of the original books of the Bible?  Was Pius XII legitimately elected Bishop of Rome?  One can readily see that on these facts hang the questions of whether the decrees of the First Vatican Council are infallible; whether the Vulgate is truly sacred Scripture; whether Pius XII is to be recognized as supreme ruler of the universal Church.”5 (http://sodalitium-pianum.com/non-una-cuм-and-the-resistance/#easy-footnote-bottom-5)

3)   Fr. Berry’s manual (lauded by both sedevacantists and Catholics) teaches the following:

“A dogmatic fact is one that has not been revealed, yet is so intimately connected with a doctrine of faith that without certain knowledge of the fact there can be no certain knowledge of the doctrine.  For example, was the First Vatican Council truly ecuмenical?  Was Pius IX a legitimate Pope?  Was the ɛƖɛctıon of Pius XI valid?  Such questions must be decided with certainty before decrees issued by any council or Pope can be accepted as infallibly true or binding on the Church.  It is evident then, that the Church must be infallible in judging of such facts, and since the Church is infallible in believing as well as in teaching, it follows that the practically unanimous consent of the bishops and faithful in accepting a council as ecuмenical, or a Roman Pontiff as legitimately elected, gives absolute and infallible certainty of the fact.”6 (http://sodalitium-pianum.com/non-una-cuм-and-the-resistance/#easy-footnote-bottom-6) (http://file///C:/Users/K04868/Desktop/Non%20Una%20cuм.doc#_edn8)

4)   Siscoe/Salza also cite the 1951 work of Fr. Sixtus Cartechini, S.J. “On the Value of Theological Notes and the Criteria for Discerning them (http://file///C:/Users/K04868/Desktop/Non%20Una%20cuм.doc#_edn9)7 (http://sodalitium-pianum.com/non-una-cuм-and-the-resistance/#easy-footnote-bottom-7)” as declaring:
“The rejection of a dogmatic fact is a mortal sin against faith.”8 (http://sodalitium-pianum.com/non-una-cuм-and-the-resistance/#easy-footnote-bottom-8) (http://file///C:/Users/K04868/Desktop/Non%20Una%20cuм.doc#_edn10)

It is therefore scarcely tenable to claim, as the “non una cuм” priests do, that the mandate from Pope Benedict XIV’s encyclical Ex Quo can be evaded on the pretext that it is not certain Francis is a legitimate Pope, when the Church considers that determination to be one of dogmatic fact (and therefore theologically certain).


But We Do Accept Francis as Pope!
One priest I recently corresponded with on this issue said to me, “Anyone who says that I am a sedevacantist is a liar!”

Then in the very next breath, he continued to explain to me that:

-He rejects the authority of Francis;

-He rejects the jurisdiction of Francis;

-He refuses to say the name of Francis in the Canon...

Is that position coherent? [Note: This is a dishonest ploy: These priests are sedeprivationists, which they would superficially distinguish from sedevacantists]

Can one who claims Francis has no authority, or jurisdiction, and whose name he refuses to pray in the Mass, avoid the label of “sedevacantist?”

No.

As (sedevacantist) Bishop Sanborn explained in a well-known article, the prayer “una cuм” is the litmus test for sedevacantism:

“Because the rubrics instruct the priest to leave out the name of the pope or bishop if the see is vacant (i.e., when a pope dies and the new pope is not elected), the mention or non-mention of the name by the priest is a litmus test for the priest’s position about John Paul II [or Francis] and the New Church. If he thinks that John Paul II is the true Pope, successor of Saint Peter, then he must place his name in the Canon. If, on the other hand, he does not hold him to be a true Pope, but a false one, then the priest must not mention his name in the Canon. So this little phrase in the Mass, una cuм, says it all: is he or isnt he the Pope?9 (http://sodalitium-pianum.com/non-una-cuм-and-the-resistance/#easy-footnote-bottom-9) (http://file///C:/Users/K04868/Desktop/Non%20Una%20cuм.doc#_edn11)

And after reaching out to Fr. Anthony Cekada (another well-known sedevacantist priest in America), I received the following response to my question on whether a non-sedevacantist could omit Francis from the Canon of the Mass (in the typically blunt Fr. Cekada fashion):

“The rubrics do not allow this. If there is a pope, his name must be inserted where prescribed. If there is no Pope, the entire phrase is omitted. The idea of inserting something else is simply stupid.”10 (http://sodalitium-pianum.com/non-una-cuм-and-the-resistance/#easy-footnote-bottom-10) (http://file///C:/Users/K04868/Desktop/Non%20Una%20cuм.doc#_edn12)

The same argument would have been made by every other “faction” in the Church: Sedevacantists, SSPX, indult, and conciliar.  All recognize that either Francis is Pope, and you must pray for him in the Canon, or he is not, and therefore you must omit his name.

Therefore, to omit the prayer for Francis, while simultaneously denying one is a sedevacantist, is either incoherent at best, or dissimulating at worst.

In 2007, Fr. Anthony Cekada wrote a lengthy article titled “The Grain of Incense: Sedevacantists and Una cuм Masses,”11 (http://sodalitium-pianum.com/non-una-cuм-and-the-resistance/#easy-footnote-bottom-11)  (http://file///C:/Users/K04868/Desktop/Non%20Una%20cuм.doc#_edn13)which several years later was distilled into an abridged version titled “Should I Assist at a Mass that Names ‘Pope Francis’ in the Canon?”12 (http://sodalitium-pianum.com/non-una-cuм-and-the-resistance/#easy-footnote-bottom-12) (http://file///C:/Users/K04868/Desktop/Non%20Una%20cuм.doc#_edn14)

The purpose of those articles was to explain the importance of the “una cuм” prayer to sedevacantists, and thereby exhort them NOT to attend any Mass which prays for the conciliar Popes. 

Conversely, these arguments are exceptionally useful, by inversion, for explaining to Resistance clergy and laity the importance of maintaining the “una cuм” prayer, and shunning the Masses of any priest who refuses to pray Francis’ name in the Canon:

These examples from our sedevacantist adversaries, applied to the matter of Resistance priests omitting the “una cuм” highlight the absurdity of excising the prayer from the Canon of the Mass, while simultaneously denying they are sedevacantists (i.e., Doing so denies all the above, in addition to contradicting the teaching of the Church in Ex Quo.13 (http://sodalitium-pianum.com/non-una-cuм-and-the-resistance/#easy-footnote-bottom-13)

I would ask them, along with Pope Pelagius I:

“How can you believe that you are not separated from communion with the universal church if you do not mention my name within the sacred mysteries, as the custom is?”14 (http://sodalitium-pianum.com/non-una-cuм-and-the-resistance/#easy-footnote-bottom-14) (http://file///C:/Users/K04868/Desktop/Non%20Una%20cuм.doc#_edn16)


“Well, That is Between the Priest and God, Not Me”
Wrong.

The Holy Mass is a public act of worship, and those who actively participate in it unite their actions to the priest who offers the sacrifice, thereby expressing their acceptance of his position.

Fr. Cekada cites Merkelbach (i.e., The same Dominican moralist taught by the SSPX in its own seminaries, by the way) as teaching  that active religious participation:

“is rightly considered a sign of religious unity.” It constitutes “implicit approval of an exercise of worship.”15 (http://sodalitium-pianum.com/non-una-cuм-and-the-resistance/#easy-footnote-bottom-15)

Fr. Cekada cites several additional Popes and theologians, all expressing the same opinion.

It is not possible, therefore, to discharge oneself from moral culpability from attending “non una cuм” Masses by implementing this fictitious distinction: Whatever mental reservation one might desire to create for oneself, his actions demonstrate his support and agreement with the priest’s act.16 (http://sodalitium-pianum.com/non-una-cuм-and-the-resistance/#easy-footnote-bottom-16) (http://file///C:/Users/K04868/Desktop/Non%20Una%20cuм.doc#_edn18)

But there is also the problem of “insincerity” and communicatio in sacris:

If omission of Francis from the Canon implies schism for refusing to recognize him as head of the Church, then one is quite possibly running into the same preclusions that apply to prevent Mass attendance at Orthodox and other schismatic Masses.

In such cases (unless ignorance, extreme necessity, or double effect would excuse such a course of action), sanctifying grace from the sacrament would not be communicated, since, though it would be produced in the sacrament “ex opere operato,” it would fail to transmit “ex opere operantis,” because of the bad disposition of the subject (i.e., Who would be objectively and knowingly committing a grave sin, and therefore would not be in the state of grace to receive an increase of same).


Conclusion:
There is nothing “optional” in the matter of praying Pope Francis’ name in the Canon of the Mass.

Those few Resistance priests who, on the one hand deny being sedevacantists, and on the other reject Francis’ authority and jurisdiction, and refuse to mention his name in the Canon, are incoherent to say the least.  One must look upon their position with a certain degree of suspicion.  They are sedevacantists in fact, if not by intention, and seem to be in transit to a conscious recognition of that position (even if they deny it today).

As a friend wrote to me:

The ‘non una cuм’ position “resembles a kind of hideous misery of dogmatic sedevacantism, which makes it possible to present a less frightening face to souls disturbed by the current crisis of the church but which, in the end, draws them to the terrain of hard sedevacantism.”

I quite agree:

Do not be deceived, and let their pleas to “tolerance of opinion” fall upon deaf ears.

The Church has explained in her encyclicals (and rubrics) the necessity of praying for the Pope in the Canon of the Mass, and declared those who refuse to do so as severed from communion with the universal Church.

Moreover, the vast majority of approved theologians recognize the identity of the Pope to be a dogmatic fact, and therefore infallible (or at least theologically certain).

Finally, the theologians explain that the knowing laity may not exempt themselves from moral culpability (via mental reservation or practical considerations), as their active participation and public worship are joined to the intentions of the priest.

We must pray for the conversion of such priests, or insist upon their departure from the Resistance, and the laity must be told that it is not possible to attend their Mass venues.
Title: Re: Are there any anti una cuм people on cathinfo?
Post by: Ladislaus on May 03, 2021, 07:31:54 AM

As the deterioration of the papacy accelerates under Pope Francis, with revealed doctrine consistently being openly flouted and contradicted, some priests in the Resistance have embarked upon a campaign to make the prayer for the Pope in the canon of the Mass (ie., “una cuм famulo tuo Papa nostro Francisco”) optional.  These usually deny being sedevacantists, instead preferring to argue that, “as the status of the Vatican II and post-Vatican II Popes is uncertain (so they say), likewise, so too ought the rendition of the prayer “una cuм” (which means “One with thy servant, Pope Francis”) be optional, since we cannot be sure he really is a Pope.”

Fantastic.  So there are Resistance priests who are sede-doubtists?  That's great to here.  They are right to denounce the dogmatic sedeplenists.

Who are these priests and are they still with the Resistance?
Title: Re: Are there any anti una cuм people on cathinfo?
Post by: Ladislaus on May 03, 2021, 07:35:29 AM
Sorry, Sean, but that article is a massive hot mess, conflating one thing after another ... your typical style when you've already come to a predetermined conclusion.

If it is dogmatically certain that the V2 papal claimants are legitimate, then you are, with dogmatic certainty, a schismatic.
Title: Re: Are there any anti una cuм people on cathinfo?
Post by: Ladislaus on May 03, 2021, 07:42:12 AM
If the legitimacy of the V2 papal claimants is dogmatic fact, then was Archbishop Lefebvre a heretic for openly calling into question their legitimacy?

Archbishop Lefebvre clearly disagrees that their legitimacy is dogmatic fact.

Archbishop Lefebvre:
Quote
“You know, for some time, many people, the sedevacantists, have been saying, ‘there is no more pope’. But I think that for me it was not yet the time to say that, because it was not sure, it was not evident…” (Talk, March 30 and April 18, 1986, text published in The Angelus, July 1986)

“The question is therefore definitive: is Paul VI, has Paul VI ever been, the successor of Peter? If the reply is negative: Paul VI has never been, or no longer is, pope, our attitude will be that of sede vacante periods, which would simplify the problem. Some theologians say that this is the case, relying on the statements of theologians of the past, approved by the Church, who have studied the problem of the heretical pope, the schismatic pope or the pope who in practice abandons his charge of supreme Pastor. It is not impossible that this hypothesis will one day be confirmed by the Church.” (Ecône, February 24, 1977, Answers to Various Burning Questions)

“To whatever extent the pope departed from…tradition he would become schismatic, he would breach with the Church. Theologians such as Saint Bellarmine, Cajetan, Cardinal Journet and many others have studied this possibility. So it is not something inconceivable.” (Le Figaro, August 4, 1976)

Heresy, schism, ipso facto excommunication, invalidity of ɛƖɛctıon are so many reasons why a pope might in fact never have been pope or might no longer be one. In this, obviously very exceptional case, the Church would be in a situation similar to that which prevails after the death of a Pontiff.” (Le Figaro, August 4, 1976)

“…these recent acts of the Pope and bishops, with protestants, Animists and Jєωs, are they not an active participation in non-catholic worship as explained by Canon Naz on Canon 1258§1? In which case I cannot see how it is possible to say that the pope is not suspect of heresy, and if he continues, he is a heretic, a public heretic. That is the teaching of the Church.” (Talk, March 30 and April 18, 1986, text published in The Angelus, July 1986)

“It seems inconceivable that a successor of Peter could fail in some way to transmit the Truth which he must transmit, for he cannot – without as it were disappearing from the papal line – not transmit what the popes have always transmitted.” (Homily, Ecône, September 18, 1977)

“If it happened that the pope was no longer the servant of the truth, he would no longer be pope.” (Homily preached at Lille, August 29, 1976, before a crowd of some 12,000)

Quote
“While we are certain that the faith the Church has taught for 20 centuries cannot contain error, we are much further from absolute certitude that the pope is truly pope.” (Le Figaro, August 4, 1976)

“It is possible we may be obliged to believe this pope is not pope. For twenty years Mgr de Castro Mayer and I preferred to wait…I think we are waiting for the famous meeting in Assisi, if God allows it.” (Talk, March 30 and April 18, 1986, published in The Angelus, July 1986)

“I don’t know if the time has come to say that the pope is a heretic (…) Perhaps after this famous meeting of Assisi, perhaps we must say that the pope is a heretic, is apostate. Now I don’t wish yet to say it formally and solemnly, but it seems at first sight that it is impossible for a pope to be formally and publicly heretical. (…) So it is possible we may be obliged to believe this pope is not pope.” (Talk, March 30 and April 18, 1986, text published in The Angelus, July 1986)

Title: Re: Are there any anti una cuм people on cathinfo?
Post by: SeanJohnson on May 03, 2021, 07:52:38 AM
Sorry, Sean, but that article is a massive hot mess, conflating one thing after another ... your typical style when you've already come to a predetermined conclusion.

If it is dogmatically certain that the V2 papal claimants are legitimate, then you are, with dogmatic certainty, a schismatic.
Yes, yes, we know you believe Lefebvre’s position is schismatic.  You should just declare yourself pope.
Title: Re: Are there any anti una cuм people on cathinfo?
Post by: Ladislaus on May 03, 2021, 07:58:27 AM
Sededoubtism with a deference to resolution by the Church was Archbishop Lefebvre's true position ... a position not unlike that of Father Chazal.

ARCHBISHOP LEFEBVRE WAS NOT A DOGMTIC SEDEPLENIST !!!
Title: Re: Are there any anti una cuм people on cathinfo?
Post by: SeanJohnson on May 03, 2021, 08:00:03 AM
If the legitimacy of the V2 papal claimants is dogmatic fact, then was Archbishop Lefebvre a heretic for openly calling into question their legitimacy?

Archbishop Lefebvre clearly disagrees that their legitimacy is dogmatic fact.

Archbishop Lefebvre:
Typical weak sede sauce with chips.
He makes 2 statements in 25 years, never reaffirms them, expels active sedes, institutes oaths against them, but he was allegedly indifferent on the matter.
Notice how Lad equates this with “openly calling into question their legitimacy!”
In fact, he does just the opposite when he decides the Society will officially accept the popes and read their names in the Mass, while expelling those who “openly call into question their legitimacy.”
Title: Re: Are there any anti una cuм people on cathinfo?
Post by: Ladislaus on May 03, 2021, 08:01:16 AM
Yes, yes, we know you believe Lefebvre’s position is schismatic.  You should just declare yourself pope.

No, Johnson, I just demonstrated how Lefebvre was not a dogmatic sedevacantist like you.

Now, answer the question:

If it is dogmatically certain that the V2 papal claimants are legitimate popes, then why wasn't +Lefebvre a heretic ... in your eyes.  After all, it's heresy to even doubt a dogma.

So please explain.
Title: Re: Are there any anti una cuм people on cathinfo?
Post by: Ladislaus on May 03, 2021, 08:03:24 AM
Typical weak sede sauce with chips.
He makes 2 statements in 25 years, never reaffirms them, expels active sedes, institutes oaths against them, but he was allegedly indifferent on the matter.
Notice how Lad equates this with “openly calling into question their legitimacy!”
In fact, he does just the opposite when he decides the Society will officially accept the popes and read their names in the Mass, while expelling those who “openly call into question their legitimacy.”

Notice Johnson's compelling logical argument:  "weak sede sauce with chips".

You embarrass yourself ... which is your custom when you're painted into a logical corner.  You come out swinging with the ad hominems.

There are about a dozen statements above.  Was +Lefebvre a heretic at the time he made those statements?  Were those statements heretical?

Objective analysis of +Lefebvre is this.

1976-1978 ... leaned sedevacantist (after suspension by Montini)
1979-1984/5 ... anti-sedevacantist (hopeful after the ɛƖɛctıon of Wojtyla ... due to Montini being gone and embittered by The Nine)
1984/5-1991 ... leaned sedevacantist (beginning with Assisi and through the "excommunication")

But dishonest types like Johnson pretend that only the 1979-1984/5 +Lefebvre actually existed.
Title: Re: Are there any anti una cuм people on cathinfo?
Post by: SeanJohnson on May 03, 2021, 08:09:09 AM
Sededoubtism with a deference to resolution by the Church was Archbishop Lefebvre's true position ... a position not unlike that of Father Chazal.

ARCHBISHOP LEFEBVRE WAS NOT A DOGMTIC SEDEPLENIST !!!
Lol...he opens the door a sliver, more or less simply acknowledging that, in the same way that dogmatic facts are not infallible, but “only” theologically certain, Lefebvre acknowledges that the legitimacy of a pope may also be “only” theologically certain.
Sedes like Loudestmouth want to blow that up into “Lefebvre said it was an open and disputed question!”
Please.
Title: Re: Are there any anti una cuм people on cathinfo?
Post by: Ladislaus on May 03, 2021, 08:13:17 AM
dogmatic facts are not infallible

So let me distill your first substantive point from the ad hominem bluster.

So your assertion is that dogmatic facts are not infallible.

That's absurd.  They are called dogmatic facts precisely because they are DOGMATIC, certain with the certainty of faith.  These are called "facts" to distinguish them from propositions that are of a theological nature, whereas dogmatic facts are of a historical nature.  So you wrote an entire article on dogmatic facts while having no earthly idea about what a dogmatic fact actually is.

I'll dig up the quotes for you from a Cardinal writing about dogmatic facts during the reign of Pope Pius XII who clearly states that if someone denied the legitimacy of Pope Pius XII, he would be a heretic.
Title: Re: Are there any anti una cuм people on cathinfo?
Post by: Ladislaus on May 03, 2021, 08:17:05 AM
From your own citations:

Quote
It is evident then, that the Church must be infallible in judging of such facts, and since the Church is infallible in believing as well as in teaching, it follows that the practically unanimous consent of the bishops and faithful in accepting a council as ecuмenical, or a Roman Pontiff as legitimately elected, gives absolute and infallible certainty of the fact.
Title: Re: Are there any anti una cuм people on cathinfo?
Post by: SeanJohnson on May 03, 2021, 08:19:06 AM
Notice Johnson's compelling logical argument:  "weak sede sauce with chips".

You embarrass yourself ... which is your custom when you're painted into a logical corner.  You come out swinging with the ad hominems.

There are about a dozen statements above.  Was +Lefebvre a heretic at the time he made those statements?  Were those statements heretical?

Objective analysis of +Lefebvre is this.

1976-1978 ... leaned sedevacantist (after suspension by Montini)
1979-1984/5 ... anti-sedevacantist (hopeful after the ɛƖɛctıon of Wojtyla ... due to Montini being gone and embittered by The Nine)
1984/5-1991 ... leaned sedevacantist (beginning with Assisi and through the "excommunication")

But dishonest types like Johnson pretend that only the 1979-1984/5 +Lefebvre actually existed.
I think you take viagra of the mouth, which never allows your mouth to close.  Your only purpose here seems to be to promote your own asinine homemade theories, and insist upon them with the double stamina only a sede Feeneyite can muster, while bombastically insulting and condemning all who call your bluffs.
When anyone besides Lefebvre assumes the R&R position, they are heretics.
Lad just doesn’t have the balls to come out and call Lefebvre one.
“What would Matthew think?”
Title: Re: Are there any anti una cuм people on cathinfo?
Post by: SeanJohnson on May 03, 2021, 08:20:14 AM
From your own citations:
In which case, you call Lefebvre a heretic!
Title: Re: Are there any anti una cuм people on cathinfo?
Post by: SeanJohnson on May 03, 2021, 08:28:02 AM
So let me distill your first substantive point from the ad hominem bluster.

So your assertion is that dogmatic facts are not infallible.

That's absurd.  They are called dogmatic facts precisely because they are DOGMATIC, certain with the certainty of faith.  These are called "facts" to distinguish them from propositions that are of a theological nature, whereas dogmatic facts are of a historical nature.  So you wrote an entire article on dogmatic facts while having no earthly idea about what a dogmatic fact actually is.

I'll dig up the quotes for you from a Cardinal writing about dogmatic facts during the reign of Pope Pius XII who clearly states that if someone denied the legitimacy of Pope Pius XII, he would be a heretic.
Therefore, given the Lefebvre citations you have mustered which, according to you, “openly question” the legitimacy of popes, which your further sources say it is heretical to do, you must conclude either:
1) Lefebvre was a sede! (Get out their smelling salts!)
Or
2) Lefebvre is a heretic for questioning dogmatic facts!
Doesn’t the absurdity of these options imply to you that you are just a windbag who has no idea what he is talking about?
Title: Re: Are there any anti una cuм people on cathinfo?
Post by: Pax Vobis on May 03, 2021, 08:34:29 AM
The "una cuм" debate is simply, uncharitable legalism, like the Pharisees of Christ's time would invent to divide the people and keep power over them.  In particular, Fr Cekada's article on the subject (God rest his soul) is historically, liturgically and logically wrong.  The whole idea is a Sede power play to keep the laity in the pews. 
.
The prayer itself mentions "and all orthodox believers".  So...if the pope/bishop you are praying for aren't orthodox, then even if you mention them, the prayer doesn't apply to them specifically, but only to their office.  It's so simple there doesn't even need to be a discussion.
Title: Re: Are there any anti una cuм people on cathinfo?
Post by: Ladislaus on May 03, 2021, 08:41:19 AM
The "una cuм" debate is simply, uncharitable legalism, like the Pharisees of Christ's time would invent to divide the people and keep power over them.  In particular, Fr Cekada's article on the subject (God rest his soul) is historically, liturgically and logically wrong.  The whole idea is a Sede power play to keep the laity in the pews.  
.
The prayer itself mentions "and all orthodox believers".  So...if the pope/bishop you are praying for aren't orthodox, then even if you mention them, the prayer doesn't apply to them specifically, but only to their office.  It's so simple there doesn't even need to be a discussion.

I agree.  Even the Dimond Brothers are to the left of Fr. Cekada on this issue:
https://www.mostholyfamilymonastery.com/una-cuм-mass/
Title: Re: Are there any anti una cuм people on cathinfo?
Post by: Ladislaus on May 03, 2021, 08:45:21 AM
In which case, you call Lefebvre a heretic!

Logic 101, Sean.  YOU would call +Lefebvre a heretic.  I on the other hand assert (and back up with citations) that +Lefebvre did NOT consider the legitimacy of the papal claimants to be dogmatic fact, but rather that they were DOUBTFUL.  In your deliberate mischaracterization of +Lefebvre as a dogmatic sedeplenist, it is YOU who logically pain him as a heretic.
Title: Re: Are there any anti una cuм people on cathinfo?
Post by: Stubborn on May 03, 2021, 08:46:20 AM
Lad, you allowed yourself to slide into a state of perpetual and dogmatic doubt (https://www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/non-una-cuм-and-the-resistance/msg604966/#msg604966) as regards the validity of popes. One of the results of this malady is that you see in +ABL that which was never there, then project this non-existent, even false image of him as a means to justify and promote your own "dogmatic doubtism" - as if that's the safest course, which in reality is a very dangerous course since as you must know, God hates "middle of the roaders" i.e dogmatic doubters.

The good +ABL dealt directly and personally, even face to face, off and on for many years with PVI and JP2 - if he had any doubt about the validity of the popes, you need to understand and accept that he would not have left anyone guessing his position in the matter. He would have come right out and told all his flock along with everyone else in the world who already knew why he was in the spotlight, exactly and in no uncertain terms that officially, he doubted the validity of the popes, and also that this is his SSPX's new position. We would expect nothing less of +ABL  if he held to your position.

   

 

   
Title: Re: Are there any anti una cuм people on cathinfo?
Post by: Ladislaus on May 03, 2021, 08:52:28 AM
Here are the foundations of sede-doubtism.

Theological Maxim assented to by many theologians:  papa dubius nullus papa. [a doubtful pope is no pope]

Quote
"They cannot be numbered among the schismatics, who refuse to obey the Roman Pontiff because they consider his person to be suspect or doubtfully elected on account of rumours in circulation...” (Wernz-Vidal: Ius Canonicuм, Vol. VII, n. 398.)

Nor is there any schism if one merely transgress a papal law for the reason that one considers it too difficult, or if one refuses obedience inasmuch as one suspects the person of the pope or the validity of his election, or if one resists him as the civil head of a state.” (Szal, Rev. Ignatius: Communication of Catholics with Schismatics, CUA, 1948, p. 2.)

Neither is someone a schismatic for denying his subjection to the Pontiff on the grounds that he has solidly founded doubts concerning the legitimacy of his election or his power [refs to Sanchez and Palao].” (de Lugo: Disp., De Virt. Fid. Div., disp xxv, sect iii, nn. 35-8.)

Count me among those who "suspect the person of ... or the validity" of Bergoglio and his predecessors.  But then the dogmatic sedeplenists (of whom +Lefebvre was not one) claim not to suspect their person or validity, claiming that there are NO "solidly founded doubts concerning [their] legitimacy ... or ... power".
Title: Re: Are there any anti una cuм people on cathinfo?
Post by: Ladislaus on May 03, 2021, 08:59:19 AM
... you see in +ABL that which was never there, then project this non-existent, even false image of him as a means to justify and promote your own "dogmatic doubtism" ...

[+Lefebvre] would have come right out and told all his flock along with everyone else in the world who already knew why he was in the spotlight, exactly and in no uncertain terms that officially, he doubted the validity of the popes, and also that this is his SSPX's new position. We would expect nothing less of +ABL  if he held to your position.

Are you incapable of reading the English language?  It's right there in black and white where he says that it's quite possible that the V2 papal claimants have been illegitimate.  Obviously he doesn't use the term "sede-doubtism" ... which is something that I myself coined here a few years ago.  Nevertheless, he articulates his DOUBTS about their legitimacy, which is all sede-doubtism is about.  It's a rejection of BOTH dogmatic sedeplenism AND dogmatic sedevacantism, recognizing that this is all based on private judgment and that only the Church can resolve the matter with the necessary certainty of faith to render ANYTHING "dogmatic".  And that is exactly what +Lefebvre did, defer to the Church while personally entertaining it as a possibility.
Title: Re: Are there any anti una cuм people on cathinfo?
Post by: confederate catholic on May 03, 2021, 09:01:18 AM
Quote
In 1756, Pope Benedict XIV promulgated the encyclical Ex Quo,1 (http://sodalitium-pianum.com/non-una-cuм-and-the-resistance/#easy-footnote-bottom-1)which announced to the Church that the “Euchologion”2 (http://sodalitium-pianum.com/non-una-cuм-and-the-resistance/#easy-footnote-bottom-2) of the Eastern uniates had been corrected in conformity with Catholic doctrine.  One of the corrections which had taken place was the insertion of the prayer for the Pope (which quite logically was absent in the schismatic Euchologion).

Absolutely false equivalency here. This correction was to conform with Latin practice, the insertion of the Pope into the canon is foreign to the tradition and had nothing to do with the schism.
Greek practice is the priest remembered his own bishop in the canon, the bishop remembers the bishops who he is in communion with. This was only the practice of Greeks the Slavs following Greek tradition did commemorate the bishop/Pope
Title: Re: Are there any anti una cuм people on cathinfo?
Post by: Stubborn on May 03, 2021, 09:16:44 AM
Here are the foundations of sede-doubtism.

Theological Maxim assented to by many theologians:  papa dubius nullus papa. [a doubtful pope is no pope]
So since you dub yourself a sede-doubtist, and since the maxim is papa dubius nullus papa, you are a sedevacantist. Just come out and admit it already.
Title: Re: Are there any anti una cuм people on cathinfo?
Post by: SeanJohnson on May 03, 2021, 09:19:59 AM
Logic 101, Sean.  YOU would call +Lefebvre a heretic.  I on the other hand assert (and back up with citations) that +Lefebvre did NOT consider the legitimacy of the papal claimants to be dogmatic fact, but rather that they were DOUBTFUL.  In your deliberate mischaracterization of +Lefebvre as a dogmatic sedeplenist, it is YOU who logically pain him as a heretic.
Logic 101, Lad:
Your latest flail adds another reason why your illogic must again indict Lefebvre:
He denies that which all approved theologians declare:
A universally accepted pope is a dogmatic fact.
Only sedes believe otherwise.
Title: Re: Are there any anti una cuм people on cathinfo?
Post by: SeanJohnson on May 03, 2021, 09:22:50 AM
Lad, you allowed yourself to slide into a state of perpetual and dogmatic doubt (https://www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/non-una-cuм-and-the-resistance/msg604966/#msg604966) as regards the validity of popes. One of the results of this malady is that you see in +ABL that which was never there, then project this non-existent, even false image of him as a means to justify and promote your own "dogmatic doubtism" - as if that's the safest course, which in reality is a very dangerous course since as you must know, God hates "middle of the roaders" i.e dogmatic doubters.

The good +ABL dealt directly and personally, even face to face, off and on for many years with PVI and JP2 - if he had any doubt about the validity of the popes, you need to understand and accept that he would not have left anyone guessing his position in the matter. He would have come right out and told all his flock along with everyone else in the world who already knew why he was in the spotlight, exactly and in no uncertain terms that officially, he doubted the validity of the popes, and also that this is his SSPX's new position. We would expect nothing less of +ABL  if he held to your position.

    

  

  
This^^^
The dogmatic doubtist 
Title: Re: Are there any anti una cuм people on cathinfo?
Post by: SeanJohnson on May 03, 2021, 09:25:55 AM
Absolutely false equivalency here. This correction was to conform with Latin practice, the insertion of the Pope into the canon is foreign to the tradition and had nothing to do with the schism.
Greek practice is the priest remembered his own bishop in the canon, the bishop remembers the bishops who he is in communion with. This was only the practice of Greeks the Slavs following Greek tradition did commemorate the bishop/Pope
Interesting post; I’ll look into this.
Title: Re: Are there any anti una cuм people on cathinfo?
Post by: Stubborn on May 03, 2021, 09:36:20 AM
Are you incapable of reading the English language?  It's right there in black and white where he says that it's quite possible that the V2 papal claimants have been illegitimate.  Obviously he doesn't use the term "sede-doubtism" ... which is something that I myself coined here a few years ago.  Nevertheless, he articulates his DOUBTS about their legitimacy, which is all sede-doubtism is about.  It's a rejection of BOTH dogmatic sedeplenism AND dogmatic sedevacantism, recognizing that this is all based on private judgment and that only the Church can resolve the matter with the necessary certainty of faith to render ANYTHING "dogmatic".  And that is exactly what +Lefebvre did, defer to the Church while personally entertaining it as a possibility.
You do not consider the times during those days of his very few quotes you want to use to support something +ABL never supported. The heretical things that we have all been conditioned to over the years were relatively new and always shocking  when he made those passing remarks.

In those days, while you were being raised in the anti-Church like nearly everyone else, nearly all trads questioned the pope's validity, heck, a lot, mabey even most trads - and even other people believed the pope was kidnapped and replaced with a communist double, some believed the pope was purposely somehow kept in the dark about all that was happening. There was so dam much confusion and chaos back then that for +ABL to remark that there is a possibility that the pope might be invalid was nothing more than a few passing thoughts in the sea of scandals, in which the good archbishop was immersed up to his neck fighting the good fight - fighting not only the corrupted church authorities, but also including his own priests from his own seminary.

You need to either be hot or cold, sede or not sede, you cannot go on with your dogmatic sede-doubtism, because that only leads to further confusion in this matter, and it spreads to other matters of the faith.  

Title: Re: Are there any anti una cuм people on cathinfo?
Post by: Pax Vobis on May 03, 2021, 11:12:06 AM

Quote
if he had any doubt about the validity of the popes, you need to understand and accept that he would not have left anyone guessing his position in the matter.
A doubt is not really a "position", which is probably why +ABL didn't feel the need to advertise it.
.

Quote
He would have come right out and told all his flock along with everyone else in the world who already knew why he was in the spotlight, exactly and in no uncertain terms that officially, he doubted the validity of the popes, and also that this is his SSPX's new position. We would expect nothing less of +ABL  if he held to your position.

No, totally disagree.  +ABL was concentrating on creating priests, spreading the Faith, and informing catholics of the dangers of V2.  Exactly what EVERY traditional catholic and cleric should be doing.
.
To insert the controversy of the papacy is not only worthless, but it's also a distraction.  I firmly believe that devil started this controversy, this obsession with the papacy, to divide Tradition and to distract people from living the faith and spreading it.  And boy, did he succeed!
.
Only the Church can rule on the status of the pope, as history has shown time and again.  At no point in the many papal controversies of times past was the question decided during the crisis, but only afterwards, when things calmed down.  Our times are no different.
.

Quote
You need to either be hot or cold, sede or not sede, you cannot go on with your dogmatic sede-doubtism, because that only leads to further confusion in this matter, and it spreads to other matters of the faith.

No.  The question of the papacy (outside of the College of Cardinals) is, by definition, a theory.  Outside of the Cardinals, no catholic - however saintly, however knowledgeable of theology - has any status, any authority or any power to answer the question.  Thus, any and all views on the papal question are opinions only...until the Church decides.  Any catholic with any humility must admit he is a "doubtist", for he cannot say with any certainty, this or that, because it's not his decision, nor his Church.
Title: Re: Are there any anti una cuм people on cathinfo?
Post by: Quo vadis Domine on May 03, 2021, 11:46:19 AM
Logic 101, Lad:
Your latest flail adds another reason why your illogic must again indict Lefebvre:
He denies that which all approved theologians declare:
A universally accepted pope is a dogmatic fact.
Only sedes believe otherwise.

Sean, unfortunately you seem to have forgotten the important word “peaceful”. I will give you the benefit of the doubt and attribute it to an accident, but it is plainly obvious that Bergoglio has had anything but a peaceful “reign”. Also, who are those that have “accepted” him as pope? The guy on the 6:00 news, Bıdɛn, or Cuomo? You need to make and prove the case that non-Catholics can be included in the criteria for universal acceptance. Are the heretics Bıdɛn and Cuomo Catholics in good standing in your book?

There are a significant number of REAL Catholics who don’t accept him as a true pope, so the percentage is not favorable to your case. If you include all those who are Catholic “in name only”, then half of your case is somewhat satisfied (the universal part), but the peaceful part will never be satisfied unless and until Mr. Bergoglio converts back to the Faith he was baptized in.
Title: Re: Are there any anti una cuм people on cathinfo?
Post by: SeanJohnson on May 03, 2021, 12:07:18 PM
Sean, unfortunately you seem to have forgotten the important word “peaceful”. I will give you the benefit of the doubt and attribute it to an accident, but it is plainly obvious that Bergoglio has had anything but a peaceful “reign”. Also, who are those that have “accepted” him as pope? The guy on the 6:00 news, Bıdɛn, or Cuomo? You need to make and prove the case that non-Catholics can be included in the criteria for universal acceptance. Are the heretics Bıdɛn and Cuomo Catholics in good standing in your book?

There are a significant number of REAL Catholics who don’t accept him as a true pope, so the percentage is not favorable to your case. If you include all those who are Catholic “in name only”, then half of your case is somewhat satisfied (the universal part), but the peaceful part will never be satisfied unless and until Mr. Bergoglio converts back to the Faith he was baptized in.

QVD-

Nope.

There are today 5,600 bishops exercising jurisdiction in the Church.

Not a single one of them rejects the legitimacy of Francis’s pontificate.

That’s pretty damn peaceful AND universal.

That a few schismatic sede bishops (?) reject that peaceful and universal assent is no more relevant that Lutheran or Old Catholic bishops doing so.

Peaceful means they accept his legitimacy.

Universal means a moral unanimity (and in this case, even mathematical unanimity).

It seems that to get out of the trap, you would seek to redefine “peaceful,” and make it analogous to “no crisis.”  But in that case,  you would also have to depose all the popes during the Arian and Protestant crises.

This should indicate to you that you have misunderstood (that’s me being charitable😀) the term.
Title: Re: Are there any anti una cuм people on cathinfo?
Post by: Stubborn on May 03, 2021, 12:09:25 PM
A doubt is not really a "position", which is probably why +ABL didn't feel the need to advertise it.
Doubt is the dogmatic position of Lad, who says it was also +ABL's, or almost +ABL's .


Quote
No, totally disagree.  +ABL was concentrating on creating priests, spreading the Faith, and informing catholics of the dangers of V2.  Exactly what EVERY traditional catholic and cleric should be doing.
.
To insert the controversy of the papacy is not only worthless, but it's also a distraction.  I firmly believe that devil started this controversy, this obsession with the papacy, to divide Tradition and to distract people from living the faith and spreading it.  And boy, did he succeed!
You are right, sedeism is all about dividing the faithful and always has been, that is the only reason for it as it serves absolutely no other purpose. And I agree that +ABL was "concentrating on creating priests, spreading the Faith, and informing catholics of the dangers of V2.  Exactly what EVERY traditional catholic and cleric should be doing".

Aside from the few 'off the cuff' remarks Lad keeps quoting as if they reflect the mind of +ABL, the one thing we are certain that +ABL did not do, was opine or decide or promote some type of doubt as regards the popes' status, but if he ever would have done such a thing, we would all know it because he would have made sure that his opinion was well known to all - especially all those within the society he founded, as it is, no one is left to wonder - he believed the pope was the pope.      



Title: Re: Are there any anti una cuм people on cathinfo?
Post by: Durango77 on May 03, 2021, 12:15:04 PM
I stay away from una cuм masses and am sede.  I feel like anyone saying they are in union with Francis has issues.  Especially sspx where Francis exactly says he is not in union with them.
Title: Re: Are there any anti una cuм people on cathinfo?
Post by: SeanJohnson on May 03, 2021, 12:20:31 PM
I stay away from una cuм masses and am sede.  I feel like anyone saying they are in union with Francis has issues.  Especially sspx where Francis exactly says he is not in union with them.

Just like in the army, Durango:

You respect the rank, not the man.

Making it personal is the first (and most fatal) mistake.
Title: Re: Are there any anti una cuм people on cathinfo?
Post by: DecemRationis on May 03, 2021, 12:27:55 PM
QVD-

Nope.

There are today 5,600 bishops exercising jurisdiction in the Church.

Not a single one of them rejects the legitimacy of Francis’s pontificate.

That’s pretty damn peaceful AND universal.

That a few schismatic sede bishops (?) reject that peaceful and universal assent is no more relevant that Lutheran or Old Catholic bishops doing so.

Peaceful means they accept his legitimacy.

Universal means a moral unanimity (and in this case, even mathematical unanimity).

It seems that to get out of the trap, you would seek to redefine “peaceful,” and make it analogous to “no crisis.”  But in that case,  you would also have to depose all the popes during the Arian and Protestant crises.

This should indicate to you that you have misunderstood (that’s me being charitable😀) the term.

Yeah, if "crisis" is the determiner of whether a pope was universally and peacefully accepted we might have more "doubtful" popes than "non-doubtful." Not a slippery slope there but more like a butter slide.

I'd be curious to know the number of Old Catholics, and how they'd compare percentage wise to Sedes and "doubters." I know that's probably impossible, but would be nice to know. 
Title: Re: Are there any anti una cuм people on cathinfo?
Post by: Ladislaus on May 03, 2021, 01:41:54 PM
Nothing but ad hominems and puerile taunts and attempting to change the subject by Johnson.

Archbishop Lefebvre did not consider the legitimacy of the V2 papal claimants to be beyond doubt, i.e. a dogmatic fact, so if Johnson wants to argue about Universal Acceptance, he should have taken it to +Lefebvre.  I'm not going to argue about UA.  I'm simply making the point that +Lefebvre did not consider their legitimacy to be dogmatic fact.

I asked Xavier this same question, BTW, since he was promoting the same notion, and Xavier responded that Archbishop Lefebvre suffered from an ignorance of fact that absolved him from heresy (or something like that ... so Xavier please correct me if I got your argument wrong).
Title: Re: Are there any anti una cuм people on cathinfo?
Post by: Pax Vobis on May 03, 2021, 01:55:07 PM

Quote
Doubt is the dogmatic position of Lad, who says it was also +ABL's, or almost +ABL's .

Stubborn, you of all people should know that there is a difference between a theological discussion (i.e. theory) and a belief (i.e. way of life).  +ABL most certainly entertained sedeism (in many forms), as a theological idea.  So did +Bellarmine, Cajetan, and all the other theologians who studied this question.
.
Ladislaus is no different from 99% of the people on this forum...he has an opinion/theory.  But it's not a BELIEF/fact.
.

Quote
You are right, sedeism is all about dividing the faithful and always has been, that is the only reason for it as it serves absolutely no other purpose.

No, that's not true.  Sedeism as a THEORY, has been around in the Church for centuries.  It's not new. 
.
What is divisive, what satan has used against the Trad movement, is applying a theory as a BELIEF/fact.  Satan has tricked a large # of Trads into 2 errors:  1) That any of the theories on the papal question can be figured out 100%.  2) That this or that opinion is important enough to draw lines in the sand and to stop associating with your fellow Trads.
.
The theory is not the problem, for it can teach catholics on the limits of papal authority and show that God will not leave us destitute in this time of crisis, but that many saints in the past have experienced similar problems and yet, the Church survived.  The problem is one of action - taking extreme measures on one theory or another.
Title: Re: Are there any anti una cuм people on cathinfo?
Post by: SeanJohnson on May 03, 2021, 02:06:59 PM
Stubborn, you of all people should know that there is a difference between a theological discussion (i.e. theory) and a belief (i.e. way of life).  +ABL most certainly entertained sedeism (in many forms), as a theological idea.  So did +Bellarmine, Cajetan, and all the other theologians who studied this question.
.
Ladislaus is no different from 99% of the people on this forum...he has an opinion/theory.  But it's not a BELIEF/fact.
.

No, that's not true.  Sedeism as a THEORY, has been around in the Church for centuries.  It's not new.  
.
What is divisive, what satan has used against the Trad movement, is applying a theory as a BELIEF/fact.  Satan has tricked a large # of Trads into 2 errors:  1) That any of the theories on the papal question can be figured out 100%.  2) That this or that opinion is important enough to draw lines in the sand and to stop associating with your fellow Trads.
.
The theory is not the problem, for it can teach catholics on the limits of papal authority and show that God will not leave us destitute in this time of crisis, but that many saints in the past have experienced similar problems and yet, the Church survived.  The problem is one of action - taking extreme measures on one theory or another.
Ahem, Bellarmine thought such a thing could never come to pass, but laid out the argument as purely academic.
Contrast this with Lad/sedes, who take Bellarmine’s theoretical speculation and thrust it into concrete reality.
Shameful.
Title: Re: Are there any anti una cuм people on cathinfo?
Post by: Pax Vobis on May 03, 2021, 02:19:21 PM

Quote
Ahem, Bellarmine thought such a thing could never come to pass, but laid out the argument as purely academic.

The entire discussion should be academic/theory.
.

Quote
Contrast this with Lad/sedes, who take Bellarmine’s theoretical speculation and thrust it into concrete reality.

Ladislaus has never said that people who disagree with him are in sin.  Sedes have.  So has the sspx (post +ABL).
.
The sspx has told its members not to go to sede chapels and sedes say the same thing.  The devil divided Tradition when "the nine" left.  That was the beginning of the 2 fighting clans.  Can't really blame +ABL, but +Fellay's adminstration ramped up the fight, just as +Dolan and +Sanborn did too.
.
Shame on the Trad clerics of our day.  They've created a mini-V2 crisis, on top of the one coming from new-rome.
Title: Re: Are there any anti una cuм people on cathinfo?
Post by: SeanJohnson on May 03, 2021, 02:22:43 PM
Nothing but ad hominems and puerile taunts and attempting to change the subject by Johnson.

Archbishop Lefebvre did not consider the legitimacy of the V2 papal claimants to be beyond doubt, i.e. a dogmatic fact, so if Johnson wants to argue about Universal Acceptance, he should have taken it to +Lefebvre.  I'm not going to argue about UA.  I'm simply making the point that +Lefebvre did not consider their legitimacy to be dogmatic fact.

I asked Xavier this same question, BTW, since he was promoting the same notion, and Xavier responded that Archbishop Lefebvre suffered from an ignorance of fact that absolved him from heresy (or something like that ... so Xavier please correct me if I got your argument wrong).
More nonsense:
Here is Lefebvre agreeing with Billot:
“Does not the exclusion of the cardinals of over eighty years of age, and the secret meetings which preceded and prepared the last two Conclaves render them invalid? Invalid: no, that is saying too much. Doubtful at the time: perhaps. But in any case the subsequent unanimous acceptance of the election by the Cardinals and the Roman clergy suffices to validate it. That is the teaching of the theologians.
The visibility of the Church is too necessary to its existence for it to be possible that God would allow that visibility to disappear for decades. The reasoning of those who deny that we have a Pope puts the Church in an extricable situation. Who will tell us who the future Pope is to be? How, as there are no cardinals, is he to be chosen? This spirit is a schismatical one for at least the majority of those who attach themselves to certainly schismatical sects like Palmar de Troya, the Eglise Latine de Toulouse, and others.
[…]
Thus, I have never refused to go to Rome at his request or that of his representatives. The Truth must be affirmed at Rome above all other places. It is of God, and He will assure its ultimate triumph.
Consequently, the Society of St. Pius X, its priests, brothers, sisters and oblates, cannot tolerate among its members those who refuse-to pray for the Pope...”
Title: Re: Are there any anti una cuм people on cathinfo?
Post by: SeanJohnson on May 03, 2021, 02:32:52 PM
Ladislaus the Excommunicate:

If anyone says that it is not by the institution of Christ the Lord Himself (that is to say, by Divine Law) that blessed Peter should have perpetual successors in the primacy over the whole Church; or that the Roman Pontiff is not the successor of Blessed Peter in this primacy, let him be anathema. 
Vatican I, Session 4, Ch. 2 
Title: Re: Are there any anti una cuм people on cathinfo?
Post by: SeanJohnson on May 03, 2021, 02:37:30 PM
St. Alphonsus:

It is of no importance that in past centuries some Pontiff was illegitimately elected or took possession of the Pontificate by fraud. It is enough that he was accepted afterwards by the whole Church as Pope, since by such an acceptance he would become the True Pontiff.

 Part 3, Ch.8, §9, emphasis added.
Title: Re: Are there any anti una cuм people on cathinfo?
Post by: Stubborn on May 03, 2021, 02:41:30 PM
Stubborn, you of all people should know that there is a difference between a theological discussion (i.e. theory) and a belief (i.e. way of life).  +ABL most certainly entertained sedeism (in many forms), as a theological idea.  So did +Bellarmine, Cajetan, and all the other theologians who studied this question.
.
Ladislaus is no different from 99% of the people on this forum...he has an opinion/theory.  But it's not a BELIEF/fact.
.
I know it's a theory (opinion), but you don't know what you're talking about because Lad says right here (https://www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/non-una-cuм-and-the-resistance/msg604966/#msg604966) "if you don't at least have a positive doubt, then you have no business being a Traditional Catholic, for you are a schismatic". He considers those who understand that the pope is the pope to be in schism - yes, he is confused. Dogmatic doubt IS his position, it IS his belief, it IS NOT simply his opinion according to everything he posts. According to everything he posts he is a confused sede.

Today he goes onto say here (https://www.cathinfo.com/the-sacred-catholic-liturgy-chant-prayers/are-there-any-anti-una-cuм-people-on-cathinfo/msg745152/#msg745152) that the foundation of his dogmatic doubtism is the maxim papa dubius nullus papa. [a doubtful pope is no pope] - which means since he doubts, he believes there is no pope = he is a sedevacantist according to the maxim.



Quote
No, that's not true.  Sedeism as a THEORY, has been around in the Church for centuries.  It's not new. 
.
What is divisive, what satan has used against the Trad movement, is applying a theory as a BELIEF/fact.  Satan has tricked a large # of Trads into 2 errors:  1) That any of the theories on the papal question can be figured out 100%.  2) That this or that opinion is important enough to draw lines in the sand and to stop associating with your fellow Trads.
Yes, it is true that sedeism is a theory, it is also true that many (most?) sedes make this theory into a dogmatically certain fact, which in turn is the cause of division among the faithful. You can blame the whole thing on satan if you like, but that does not make the people who adhere to the error any less culpable. 
Title: Re: Are there any anti una cuм people on cathinfo?
Post by: SeanJohnson on May 03, 2021, 02:56:09 PM
I know it's a theory (opinion), but you don't know what you're talking about because Lad says right here (https://www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/non-una-cuм-and-the-resistance/msg604966/#msg604966) "if you don't at least have a positive doubt, then you have no business being a Traditional Catholic, for you are a schismatic".

Hey, that was very efficient of Lad:  

Not only does he find another way to call Lefebvre a schismatic, but he contradicts Vatican I all in the same sentence!
Title: Re: Are there any anti una cuм people on cathinfo?
Post by: Durango77 on May 03, 2021, 03:02:25 PM
Just like in the army, Durango:

You respect the rank, not the man.

Making it personal is the first (and most fatal) mistake.
How can a man be part of a body, let alone the head of that body, when that man doesn't profess the basic tenants of the faith?  In my opinion saying that I am in union with that person is not right, because I'm not in union with him, he is not a Catholic, and I'm not in union with non Catholics.
Title: Re: Are there any anti una cuм people on cathinfo?
Post by: Pax Vobis on May 03, 2021, 03:24:48 PM
Quote
Lad says right here (https://www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/non-una-cuм-and-the-resistance/msg604966/#msg604966) "if you don't at least have a positive doubt, then you have no business being a Traditional Catholic, for you are a schismatic".
Lad can correct me, but after reading hundreds of his posts (as you have done too), I interpret his theory as saying that:
.
1) a Traditional catholic, by definition, does have some doubt/confusion about the V2 popes, because they attend a non-rome sanctioned mass.
2) A traditional catholic, by definition, receives sacraments from "schismatic" (new-rome's perspective) priests.
3) A traditional catholic implicitly rejects V2 and new-rome's authority (in favor of Quo Primum's authority) by attendance at non-rome sanctioned Trad masses, just as anyone who attends an indult implicitly accepts V2 and the new mass.
4) Xavier is an example of Ladislaus' hypocritical schismatic fake-trad, because he fully believes that the V2 popes are popes, and yet he attends Trad masses.  He ignores canon law and goes wherever he wants.
.
All Trads are implicit V2 pope doubters.  Sedes are just explicit about the doubt and take it to the extreme.  ...Even most conservative novus ordo-ites are papal doubters.  It's a sign of the times - confusion.
.

Quote
He considers those who understand that the pope is the pope to be in schism - yes, he is confused.

That's an over-simplification.  
Title: Re: Are there any anti una cuм people on cathinfo?
Post by: Ladislaus on May 03, 2021, 03:25:26 PM
Hey, that was very efficient of Lad:  

Not only does he find another way to call Lefebvre a schismatic, but he contradicts Vatican I all in the same sentence!

For the 18th time, Johnson, +Lefebvre did hold a positive doubt ... as has been clearly docuмented.  It is YOU who are schismatic, not +Lefebvre ... not to mention being heretical vis-a-vis the indefectibility of the Church.  You just keep repeating this assertion hoping that if you say it enough it'll become true.
Title: Re: Are there any anti una cuм people on cathinfo?
Post by: Ladislaus on May 03, 2021, 03:27:51 PM
That's an over-simplification.  

It's either deliberate oversimplification or else he can't think straight.  Actually, I think it's a blend of the two.  Due to confirmation bias, he filters out distinctions that don't fit in with his preconceived conclusions.
Title: Re: Are there any anti una cuм people on cathinfo?
Post by: Pax Vobis on May 03, 2021, 03:42:03 PM
There's also different kinds of papal doubts that Trads can have.  When one says "papal doubt" that does not mean only 1 thing.
1.  Spiritual Authority - All Trads implicitly doubt the spiritual authority claimed by V2 popes to do and say the unorthodox.
2.  Material Office - Being a Trad does not necessarily mean one doubts that a pope holds the material office.
3.  Spiritual Office - Being a Trad does not necessarily mean one doubts that a pope still has (in potential) spiritual authority.  Some say (i.e. Sedes) that his spiritual office is lost completely, once he utters heresy or abuses his spiritual authority (#1).  Others (i.e. Fr Chazal) say that his spiritual office is impounded due to material error, but could be regained by conversion.
.
The loss of spiritual authority seems to be agreed upon by all Trads.  #2 and #3 are debated.
Title: Re: Are there any anti una cuм people on cathinfo?
Post by: Ladislaus on May 03, 2021, 03:46:21 PM
Lad can correct me, but after reading hundreds of his posts (as you have done too), I interpret his theory as saying that:
.
1) a Traditional catholic, by definition, does have some doubt/confusion about the V2 popes, because they attend a non-rome sanctioned mass.
2) A traditional catholic, by definition, receives sacraments from "schismatic" (new-rome's perspective) priests.
3) A traditional catholic implicitly rejects V2 and new-rome's authority (in favor of Quo Primum's authority) by attendance at non-rome sanctioned Trad masses, just as anyone who attends an indult implicitly accepts V2 and the new mass.
4) Xavier is an example of Ladislaus' hypocritical schismatic fake-trad, because he fully believes that the V2 popes are popes, and yet he attends Trad masses.  He ignores canon law and goes wherever he wants.
.
All Trads are implicit V2 pope doubters.  Sedes are just explicit about the doubt and take it to the extreme.  ...Even most conservative novus ordo-ites are papal doubters.  It's a sign of the times - confusion.
.

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.
Title: Re: Are there any anti una cuм people on cathinfo?
Post by: SeanJohnson on May 03, 2021, 03:47:56 PM
For the 18th time, Johnson, +Lefebvre did hold a positive doubt ... as has been clearly docuмented.  It is YOU who are schismatic, not +Lefebvre ... not to mention being heretical vis-a-vis the indefectibility of the Church.  You just keep repeating this assertion hoping that if you say it enough it'll become true.
Au contraire:
You have not even come close to showing Lefebvre evince go a positive doubt.  
And of course, I continue to place you in an inextricable trap every time I quote Lefebvre acknowledging that we acknowledge the conciliar popes, but resist their harmful teachings (a position which you never cease to declare schismatic....until you are shown it is Lefebvre saying it).
Title: Re: Are there any anti una cuм people on cathinfo?
Post by: Pax Vobis on May 03, 2021, 03:51:18 PM

Quote
Yes, that's pretty close.  Xavier actually takes it a step further.
Yes, I think Xavier just argues for attention.  We could have a 100+ page thread dissecting the errors of his mindset, of which many people are similar.  It all boils down to relativism, subjectivism and the rejection of objective truth.
Title: Re: Are there any anti una cuм people on cathinfo?
Post by: Pax Vobis on May 03, 2021, 03:52:19 PM

Quote
every time I quote Lefebvre acknowledging that we acknowledge the conciliar popes, but resist their harmful teachings

1.  Spiritual Authority - All Trads implicitly doubt the spiritual authority claimed by V2 popes to do and say the unorthodox.
Title: Re: Are there any anti una cuм people on cathinfo?
Post by: SeanJohnson on May 03, 2021, 03:56:24 PM
Lad can correct me, but after reading hundreds of his posts (as you have done too), I interpret his theory as saying that:
.
1) a Traditional catholic, by definition, does have some doubt/confusion about the V2 popes, because they attend a non-rome sanctioned mass.
2) A traditional catholic, by definition, receives sacraments from "schismatic" (new-rome's perspective) priests.
3) A traditional catholic implicitly rejects V2 and new-rome's authority (in favor of Quo Primum's authority) by attendance at non-rome sanctioned Trad masses, just as anyone who attends an indult implicitly accepts V2 and the new mass.
4) Xavier is an example of Ladislaus' hypocritical schismatic fake-trad, because he fully believes that the V2 popes are popes, and yet he attends Trad masses.  He ignores canon law and goes wherever he wants.
.
All Trads are implicit V2 pope doubters.  Sedes are just explicit about the doubt and take it to the extreme.  ...Even most conservative novus ordo-ites are papal doubters.  It's a sign of the times - confusion.
.

That's an over-simplification.  
1) You are projecting.  I have no doubts regarding the legitimacy of the conciliar popes;
2) Hyperbole: Lefebvre explained that when he called conciliar Rome schismatic, he didn’t mean it in a strictly theological/canonical way, but only insofar as their teachings often represent a break from the past.  He specifically-in the same article- requested people like you stop twisting his thoughts;
3) Nonsense: The essence of Lefebvre’s R&R (quoted by Stubborn, which traps Loudestmouth into silence to this very moment), is that we respect their authority, but reject their harmful teachings.  Loudestmouth says that’s heretical...until he is shown Lefebvre saying it.
PS: Your gratuitous conclusion about all trads being sede doubters was refuted at #1
Title: Re: Are there any anti una cuм people on cathinfo?
Post by: Ladislaus on May 03, 2021, 04:05:41 PM
There's also different kinds of papal doubts that Trads can have.  When one says "papal doubt" that does not mean only 1 thing.
1.  Spiritual Authority - All Trads implicitly doubt the spiritual authority claimed by V2 popes to do and say the unorthodox.
2.  Material Office - Being a Trad does not necessarily mean one doubts that a pope holds the material office.
3.  Spiritual Office - Being a Trad does not necessarily mean one doubts that a pope still has (in potential) spiritual authority.  Some say (i.e. Sedes) that his spiritual office is lost completely, once he utters heresy or abuses his spiritual authority (#1).  Others (i.e. Fr Chazal) say that his spiritual office is impounded due to material error, but could be regained by conversion.
.
The loss of spiritual authority seems to be agreed upon by all Trads.  #2 and #3 are debated.

Well, there are many permutations on this.  In my position, it's as a bit simpler:

MAJOR:  the Church cannot defect in her Mission
MINOR 1:  V2 and NOM present a wholesale destruction of faith and worship in the Church (followed by morals under Bergoglio)
MINOR 2: this degree of destruction would constitute the Church's defection from her Mission
CONCLUSION:  this degree of destruction could not have emanated from the legitimate authority of the Church.

As far as sede-this, sede-that, or sede-the-other-thing, the legitimacy of the Popes is by far a secondary matter that I'm not concerned about.  If someone wants to believe that Montini was replaced by a double, more power to them.  If you want to side with Bellarmine or with Cajetan, or come up with your own, it's all within the range of Catholic opinion only.  I don't really care.

MINOR 1 is generally what I hold to define whether someone is a Traditional Catholic and why I exclude the likes of XavierSem.  If you deny MINOR 1, then you need to make haste back to full communion with the V2 hierarchs.

MINOR 2 is in fact my major point of contention with modern R&R.  +Lefebvre agrees with this Minor, but some modern R&R don't.
Title: Re: Are there any anti una cuм people on cathinfo?
Post by: Pax Vobis on May 03, 2021, 04:09:26 PM

Quote
1) You are projecting.  I have no doubts regarding the legitimacy of the conciliar popes;
2) Hyperbole: Lefebvre explained that when he called conciliar Rome schismatic, he didn’t mean it in a strictly theological/canonical way, but only insofar as their teachings often represent a break from the past.  He specifically-in the same article- requested people like you stop twisting his thoughts;

Then you are doubting one aspect of the V2 papacy - the spiritual authority they claim to have (i.e. just as +ABL defined it - unorthodox teachings).
Title: Re: Are there any anti una cuм people on cathinfo?
Post by: Pax Vobis on May 03, 2021, 04:10:58 PM
Quote
In my position, it's as a bit simpler:

It's an over-simplification, which makes it difficult for everyone to accept.  Theology is often clearer, once you dive into the details.
Title: Re: Are there any anti una cuм people on cathinfo?
Post by: Quo vadis Domine on May 03, 2021, 07:41:17 PM


That a few schismatic sede bishops (?) reject that peaceful and universal assent is no more relevant that Lutheran or Old Catholic bishops doing so.


Let’s trust you implement the same criteria when you throw around the word “schismatic” when you talk about certain bishops who were consecrated without a papal mandate from the man whom they held to be pope. 
Title: Re: Are there any anti una cuм people on cathinfo?
Post by: Struthio on May 03, 2021, 07:43:59 PM
If I were a priest, I would offer Mass “una cuм famulo tuo papa nostro” but then leave out the name, expressing sededoubtism.

Antichrist "Paul VI" loved the home made mass of Bugnini.
Title: Re: Are there any anti una cuм people on cathinfo?
Post by: Stubborn on May 04, 2021, 06:01:21 AM
Lad can correct me, but after reading hundreds of his posts (as you have done too), I interpret his theory as saying that:
.
1) a Traditional catholic, by definition, does have some doubt/confusion about the V2 popes, because they attend a non-rome sanctioned mass.
From the very beginning of this crisis, only a very, very few had doubts/confusion as regards the pope's validity. All those who otherwise kept the faith soon found themselves caring only about maintaining their faith for themselves and their children, without even the slightest regard to the pope's validity. The confusion among the vast majority of the faithful was all but completely limited to: "How does the pope allow all these things to happen."

Quote
2) A traditional catholic, by definition, receives sacraments from "schismatic" (new-rome's perspective) priests.
Since the beginning of this crisis, traditional Catholics receive the sacraments and attend only the True Mass without regard to what new-Rome's corrupt perspective is.


Quote
3) A traditional catholic implicitly rejects V2 and new-rome's authority (in favor of Quo Primum's authority) by attendance at non-rome sanctioned Trad masses, just as anyone who attends an indult implicitly accepts V2 and the new mass.
I would say a traditional catholic implicitly and explicitly rejects V2 and new-rome's authority to replace the True Mass at all -  without any regard at all to the validity of the pope.


Quote
4) Xavier is an example of Ladislaus' hypocritical schismatic fake-trad, because he fully believes that the V2 popes are popes, and yet he attends Trad masses.  He ignores canon law and goes wherever he wants.
Xavier is an indulter, so what? That makes him one who has yet to learn he is part of the problem. Hopefully he will come to figure it out.


Quote
All Trads are implicit V2 pope doubters.  Sedes are just explicit about the doubt and take it to the extreme.  ...Even most conservative novus ordo-ites are papal doubters.  It's a sign of the times - confusion.
You are a trad implicit V2 pope doubter, and Lad is a dogmatic pope doubter, and surly there are many trad implicit V2 pope doubters, but all trads are not V2 pope  doubters. All anyone needs to do to end all doubt, is, with the faith, simply accept reality - and stop with all the various theological hypotheses and theories. All the theories are, are superfluous at best, but mostly being proven wrong by reality, belong in the garbage as they serve no purpose that is any good.     

Title: Re: Are there any anti una cuм people on cathinfo?
Post by: DecemRationis on May 04, 2021, 06:32:18 AM
All anyone needs to do to end all doubt, is, with the faith, simply accept reality - and stop with all the various theological hypotheses and theories. All the theories are, are superfluous at best, but mostly being proven wrong by reality, belong in the garbage as they serve no purpose that is any good.    
Amen. 

Perhaps V2 and the "Conciliar" regime serve that purpose.
Title: Re: Are there any anti una cuм people on cathinfo?
Post by: Pax Vobis on May 04, 2021, 08:33:45 AM
Quote
From the very beginning of this crisis, only a very, very few had doubts/confusion as regards the pope's validity.

If you are talking about the normal laity, then yes, very few.  If you are talking about clerics & intellectuals, they didn't have enough knowledge to doubt - in the beginning.  Once the facts became more clear, once more info was known about Siri, John 23 & Paul 6's background, etc then people had more doubts.  But this is irrelevant to the point I'm making. 
.
My point is that simply saying "I have a doubt about the papacy" is too general.  It means different things to different people.  If one is a real Trad, who rejects V2 and the new mass, then by default, you doubt the V2 machine's assertion that they have the authority to change the mass and doctrine.  This would be a doubt of the papal authority.
.
When sedes say they have a doubt, most are meaning they doubt the pope holds office, due to heresy.  When others say it, they mean they doubt pope x was validly elected at all.  The whole point is that there are many kinds of doubts and this leads to constant bickering, which is unnecessary.
.

Quote
I would say a traditional catholic implicitly and explicitly rejects V2 and new-rome's authority to replace the True Mass at all

Right, this would be a doubt of the limits of papal authority.
.

Quote
You are a trad implicit V2 pope doubter, and Lad is a dogmatic pope doubter, and surly there are many trad implicit V2 pope doubters, but all trads are not V2 pope  doubters.

There are various aspects to the papacy, so there are various things to doubt.  When debating the topic, people need to be more clear. 
Title: Re: Are there any anti una cuм people on cathinfo?
Post by: Ladislaus on May 04, 2021, 09:06:14 AM
All anyone needs to do to end all doubt, is, with the faith, simply accept reality - and stop with all the various theological hypotheses and theories. All the theories are, are superfluous at best, but mostly being proven wrong by reality, belong in the garbage as they serve no purpose that is any good.    

This is nonsense and serves to show how bankrupt your sensus fidei has become.  It's absolutely imperative that every Catholic come to terms in his own conscience with why they refuse submission and subjection to the Roman Pontiff.  You of all people should be intimately acquainted with the dogma that there can be no salvation outside of subjection to the Supreme Pontiff.  Your lip service of "Yeah, he's a real pope" doesn't suffice.

Archbishop Lefebvre:
Quote
“…a grave problem confronts the conscience and the faith of all Catholics since the beginning of Paul VI’s pontificate: how can a pope who is truly successor of Peter, to whom the assistance of the Holy Ghost has been promised, preside over the most radical and far-reaching destruction of the Church ever known, in so short a time, beyond what any heresiarch has ever achieved? This question must one day be answered…” (Le Figaro, August 4, 1976)

“Now some priests (even some priests in the Society) say that we Catholics need not worry about what is happening in the Vatican; we have the true sacraments, the true Mass, the true doctrine, so why worry about whether the pope is heretic or an impostor or whatever; it is of no importance to us. But I think that is not true. If any man is important in the Church it is the pope.” (Talk, March 30 and April 18, 1986, text published in The Angelus, July 1986)

There's a feedback loop between whether you can make peace with the doctrine of Vatican II and whether or not you must remain in subjection to the V2 papal claimants.  Some hold, since they believe these men to be legitimate a priori, that it follows that they must remain in full communion with the hierarchy, and so they set about trying to apply the old "hermeneutic" to reconcile V2 with Tradition.  Others find that this is an exercise in futility and that they're radically incompatible (as +Vigano has recently determined), but then they must deal with the ramifications of that vis-a-vis remaining in subjection to the Holy Father.  This notion perpetuated by modern R&R (and clearly rejected by Archbishop Lefebvre) that it simply doesn't matter, that it's acceptable AS A RULE for Catholics to pick and choose which Catholic teachings they believe are acceptable and which are not, that leads to an erosion of the Church's Magisterium being the rule of faith, whereby individuals replace that rule with their own private judgment.  It's very little different from Protestantism.  While Protestants acknowledge only one source of Revelation, Sacred Scripture, and set themselves up as the interpreter of that Revelation, modern R&R acknowledge TWO sources, but then do exactly the same thing in setting themselves up as interpreters of that Tradition.  In Catholic thinking, it is the Magisterium which is the SOLE legitimate interpreter of Tradition.  Period.  That's the only thing that differentiates Catholics from the Protestant heretics, and you have crossed the line over into Protestantism.  Your constant assertion of believing dogma "as it is written" (derived from a misreading of that passage in Trent) sounds exactly like the Prots who quote lines from Scripture out of context with assumed interpretations.  Half the time, you struggle with basic English comprehension, much less being aware even of what is intended by the original Latin of Magisterial texts.
Title: Re: Are there any anti una cuм people on cathinfo?
Post by: Stubborn on May 04, 2021, 09:23:15 AM
There are various aspects to the papacy, so there are various things to doubt.  When debating the topic, people need to be more clear.
Pax, you are bending over backwards to normalize or naturalize, doubting of the popes validity. FYI, those who claim the  position of sedeism admit they have very little to no doubt at all that the guy is not the pope - THIS is the normal or natural,  even expected result of having serious doubts as regards the popes validity. It really is not so complicated.

A lot of trads have no idea and couldn't care less if the pope is the pope, their main goal is to strive to maintain the faith in this mess, and for them,  deciding the status of the pope or being the least bit concerned or curious as to his validity plays zero part in maintaining the faith.

Then there are trads like myself who have zero doubt that the pope is indeed the legitimate pope, and in striving to maintain  the faith, adhere to the Highest Principle in the Church, namely: "We are first of all under obedience to God, and only then under obedience to man." (Fr. Hesse) and using that as the guide that it is, even if we are all completely wrong about the popes validity, so what?

As I explained a while back:
The truth of the matter is that "we are first of all under obedience to God, and only then under obedience to man".(Fr. Hesse) This means we Catholics remain under obedience to the pope, but only so long as in obedience to the pope we do not offend God. Since the popes have commanded nothing, certainly nothing we can obey without offending God, all we *can* do is remain alert and watch for (albeit do not expect) a command, directive or some other teaching that might bind us - and that we can obey without offending God. This is what faithful Catholics, subjects of the pope do in these times. Again, it is not complicated.
Title: Re: Are there any anti una cuм people on cathinfo?
Post by: Stubborn on May 04, 2021, 09:26:20 AM
This is nonsense and serves to show how bankrupt your sensus fidei has become.  It's absolutely imperative that every Catholic come to terms in his own conscience with why they refuse submission and subjection to the Roman Pontiff.  You of all people should be intimately acquainted with the dogma that there can be no salvation outside of subjection to the Supreme Pontiff.  Your lip service of "Yeah, he's a real pope" doesn't suffice.
This is the typical false perception that nearly all sedes, including yourself, have come to believe, and which I explained the correction in my previous post.
Title: Re: Are there any anti una cuм people on cathinfo?
Post by: Pax Vobis on May 04, 2021, 09:46:19 AM
Quote
Pax, you are bending over backwards to normalize or naturalize, doubting of the popes validity. FYI, those who claim the  position of sedeism admit they have very little to no doubt at all that the guy is not the pope - THIS is the normal or natural,  even expected result of having serious doubts as regards the popes validity. It really is not so complicated.
It is absolutely complex.  For example, give me 50 sedes and i'll give you probably 50 different answers on the papal question.  
.
1.  Was John23 validly elected?  If no, why not?  Because of Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ?  Because of Siri?  Because of the changes to the 62 missal?  Because Pius XII wasn't valid?  etc, etc
.
2.  If John23 was elected validly, when did he commit heresy and lose the papacy?  (insert 20 possible heresies here...)

3.  Same questions for Paul VI, JPII, Benedict, except some added confusion:
4.  Was it due to new-order rites?  Or Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ?  V2?  New Mass?  etc, etc  (insert 5,000 possible heresies here...)
.
Even when sedes say "he's not the pope", they don't agree on why.  Thus, the number of doubts is very great.  It's not just about a valid ɛƖɛctıon.
.

Quote
A lot of trads have no idea and couldn't care less if the pope is the pope, their main goal is to strive to maintain the faith in this mess, and for them,  deciding the status of the pope or being the least bit concerned or curious as to his validity plays zero part in maintaining the faith.
I agree with Fr Wathen that the papal question is not the job of, or the responsibility of laity and simple clerics.  
.

Quote
Then there are trads like myself who have zero doubt that the pope is indeed the legitimate pope, and in striving to maintain  the faith, adhere to the Highest Principle in the Church, namely: "We are first of all under obedience to God, and only then under obedience to man." (Fr. Hesse) and using that as the guide that it is, even if we are all completely wrong about the popes validity, so what?
As a layman, I agree you are allowed to take this stance, but...you also can't ignore the theological history and pretend that there are not questions to be answered.  You can't debate that "it doesn't matter".  If you choose to have a simple view of things, go for it.  For those that want to research the issues (i.e. Fr Chazal's book), you should stay out of the debate.  You can't enforce your simple view on others, just as they can't force their "doubts" on you.  It's an open-ended debate.
Title: Re: Are there any anti una cuм people on cathinfo?
Post by: Stubborn on May 04, 2021, 10:07:41 AM
It is absolutely complex.  For example, give me 50 sedes and i'll give you probably 50 different answers on the papal question.  
.
1.  Was John23 validly elected?  If no, why not?  Because of Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ?  Because of Siri?  Because of the changes to the 62 missal?  Because Pius XII wasn't valid?  etc, etc
.
2.  If John23 was elected validly, when did he commit heresy and lose the papacy?  (insert 20 possible heresies here...)

3.  Same questions for Paul VI, JPII, Benedict, except some added confusion:
4.  Was it due to new-order rites?  Or Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ?  V2?  New Mass?  etc, etc  (insert 5,000 possible heresies here...)
.
Even when sedes say "he's not the pope", they don't agree on why.  Thus, the number of doubts is very great.  It's not just about a valid ɛƖɛctıon.

As a layman, I agree you are allowed to take this stance, but...you also can't ignore the theological history and pretend that there are not questions to be answered.  You can't debate that "it doesn't matter".  If you choose to have a simple view of things, go for it.  For those that want to research the issues (i.e. Fr Chazal's book), you should stay out of the debate.  You can't enforce your simple view on others, just as they can't force their "doubts" on you.  It's an open-ended debate.
For all of this, it is mainly because reality is denied, which in turn fuels their confusion. The rest of the confusion is mainly due to attempting to apply various different hypotheses and theories - while at the same time denying reality.
Title: Re: Are there any anti una cuм people on cathinfo?
Post by: Pax Vobis on May 04, 2021, 10:40:48 AM
Some people are super confused about the papacy and become Sedes due to emotional reaction.  Some who delve into the papal question rationally look at the problem (i.e. Fr Chazal).  Again, you're just making a generalization about 1,000s of people and expecting everyone else to accept your generalization.
Title: Re: Are there any anti una cuм people on cathinfo?
Post by: Stubborn on May 04, 2021, 11:13:06 AM
Some people are super confused about the papacy and become Sedes due to emotional reaction.  Some who delve into the papal question rationally look at the problem (i.e. Fr Chazal).  Again, you're just making a generalization about 1,000s of people and expecting everyone else to accept your generalization.
I don't expect people to accept my generalization, I do think however that if they look into it at all, then they need to look into it with faith and reality, if they do this without including so called theories, then they will conclude on their own that the conciliar popes are indeed popes who are heretics. After that is out of the way, the matter is closed, they can then strive to live their lives as good and faithful Catholics.  
Title: Re: Are there any anti una cuм people on cathinfo?
Post by: DecemRationis on May 04, 2021, 12:19:38 PM
 In Catholic thinking, it is the Magisterium which is the SOLE legitimate interpreter of Tradition.  Period.  That's the only thing that differentiates Catholics from the Protestant heretics, and you have crossed the line over into Protestantism.  Your constant assertion of believing dogma "as it is written" (derived from a misreading of that passage in Trent) sounds exactly like the Prots who quote lines from Scripture out of context with assumed interpretations. 

This is laughable. The only thing? How about devotion to the Blessed Mother and the saints? How about the sacraments and the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass? How about the Holy Rosary? I'm sure you get the picture. 

And you have the nerve to say Stubborn's spouting "nonsense" and is "bankrupt as to the sensus fidei." So says the man that has St. Alphonsus denying the necessity of the sacraments by allowing for justification by an implicit BOD contrary to his reading of Trent, so says the man who "doubts" that the V2 popes are true popes of the true Church while holding that the true Church is indefectible in her sacraments and laws and those same popes have promulgated defectible trash and corruption . . . what's to doubt?

Physician, heal thyself already. 

Some of us worship God, and not men. Your nonsense about the "Magisterium" is what got us into this predicament, and not errors about EENS, which, if the sensus fidei was healthy - like Stubborn's - the heretical V2 popes would have been facing empty pews versus populum in their heretical "Masses" and the populum wouldn't have swallowed it as coming from an "indefectible" magisterium. 

You should go back and read the spanking Drew gave you about dogma being the proximate rule of faith, oh defender of the sensus fidei
Title: Re: Are there any anti una cuм people on cathinfo?
Post by: Ladislaus on May 04, 2021, 01:57:49 PM
This is laughable. The only thing?

Yes, the only thing ... formally speaking.  Particular points of doctrine are material differences.  We're talking about the rule that informs the formal rule of faith.

Based on the maniacal ranting in the rest of your post, it's clear that you too are on the verge of losing the faith.

Drew was exposed for his ignorance.  We had an R&R type join CI at one point who read the referenced thread and agreed that Drew was flat out wrong.  And if you buy into that nonsense, you've all but lost the faith.

You've also gone psychologically unstable based on your recent posting history.
Title: Re: Are there any anti una cuм people on cathinfo?
Post by: DecemRationis on May 04, 2021, 02:40:51 PM
Yes, the only thing ... formally speaking.  Particular points of doctrine are material differences.  We're talking about the rule that informs the formal rule of faith.

Based on the maniacal ranting in the rest of your post, it's clear that you too are on the verge of losing the faith.

Drew was exposed for his ignorance.  We had an R&R type join CI at one point who read the referenced thread and agreed that Drew was flat out wrong.  And if you buy into that nonsense, you've all but lost the faith.

You've also gone psychologically unstable based on your recent posting history.

What's also funny - nay, HILARIOUS - is you calling "maniacal ranting" observations that point out the absurd contradiction between your doctrine of "doubtful" popes and the Church's indefectibiity.  Again - what's to doubt? You've said "doubtful" popes have promulgated defectible garbage, yet what you maintain regarding the papacy and the Church's indefectibility makes their being true popes IMPOSSIBLE, since a true pope of the true Church could never do such a thing. Follow your own "doctrine" to its inevitable logic. 

Empty your bowels or get off the doubt already. 

And follow the logic of your decrying heretical BODers for denying the "necessity" of the sacraments: a doctor of the Church, St. Alphonsus, is a heretic by the same logic, since he allows for a justification by an implicit BOD and you say that Trent at most allows for the "classical BOD" of an explicit desire for the sacrament causing justification, though of course you think even that reading is a misreading by all the doctors, saints, etc. who preceded you in your vast learning and wisdom. 

So, here's what we have: you've made a mockery of the "indefectible" church by your "doubt" - since these possibly true popes have foisted defectible garbage on the Church in her sacraments and laws, and your "doctrine" makes a revered saint and doctor a heretic for denying the necessity of the sacraments. 

But I'm "maniacal" and "psychologically unstable" for following the logic of your profound musings to their inevitable conclusion . . . which you think you can run away from, or cover with claims of "maniacal ranting." :laugh1:

Tell you what: you stop calling brothers and sisters here idiots, heretics, morons etc. and I'll leave you and your contradictions alone. 

Deal?  
Title: Re: Are there any anti una cuм people on cathinfo?
Post by: DecemRationis on May 04, 2021, 02:43:04 PM
Yes, the only thing ... formally speaking.  Particular points of doctrine are material differences.  We're talking about the rule that informs the formal rule of faith.

Based on the maniacal ranting in the rest of your post, it's clear that you too are on the verge of losing the faith.

Drew was exposed for his ignorance.  We had an R&R type join CI at one point who read the referenced thread and agreed that Drew was flat out wrong.  And if you buy into that nonsense, you've all but lost the faith.

You've also gone psychologically unstable based on your recent posting history.

And Drew destroyed you.
Title: Re: Are there any anti una cuм people on cathinfo?
Post by: Matto on May 04, 2021, 02:45:00 PM
Yes, the position of doubt is strange to me. Lad says he doubts between A and B yet he constantly says B is not Catholic so there is no reason to doubt because the doubt means that the non-Catholic position might be true. The only reason to doubt for him would be to doubt between sedevacantism and the full blown Novus Ordo as to him, regular traditionalism is not Catholic. Pretty soon, Lad, you too will be taking Communion in the hand and listening to Bishop Barron podcasts. Who knows. You may even stop being a flat-earth sympathizer.
Title: Re: Are there any anti una cuм people on cathinfo?
Post by: Matto on May 04, 2021, 02:47:41 PM
And Drew destroyed you.
I liked reading Drew's arguments in those threads.
Title: Re: Are there any anti una cuм people on cathinfo?
Post by: Struthio on May 04, 2021, 03:23:35 PM
Based on the maniacal ranting in the rest of your post, it's clear that you too are on the verge of losing the faith.

Drew was exposed for his ignorance.

I think, you underestimate CathInfo readers. Drew and Decem are able to make their points, while you seem to be using the methods of Kindergärtnerinnen and contemporary governments. 
Title: Re: Are there any anti una cuм people on cathinfo?
Post by: Ladislaus on May 04, 2021, 03:25:26 PM
And Drew destroyed you.

If you think that, then you are as much of an idiot as he is.  One need go no farther than to read the Catholic Encyclopedia article on the subject.  Your perception of that debate is shaped only by your confirmation bias.  Drew failed to cite a single theologian to back up his theory ... which was made up out of whole cloth as a justification for R&R.

It is the Magisterium ... and only the Magisterium ... which is the sole interpreter of Tradition, not you, and not Stubborn.
Title: Re: Are there any anti una cuм people on cathinfo?
Post by: Struthio on May 04, 2021, 03:29:33 PM
You may even stop being a flat-earth sympathizer.

Best comment ever on CathInfo.  :laugh2:
Title: Re: Are there any anti una cuм people on cathinfo?
Post by: Matto on May 04, 2021, 03:31:06 PM
It is the Magisterium ... and only the Magisterium ... which is the sole interpreter of Tradition, not you, and not Stubborn.
You reject the pre-Vatican II Magisterium on EENS and NFP. So there is some room for thinking for oneself in your mind. If we all just blindly accepted the magisterium we would be drinking the Vatican II Kool aid because it was given to us by the magisterium, all 3000 Bishops.
Title: Re: Are there any anti una cuм people on cathinfo?
Post by: Ladislaus on May 04, 2021, 03:33:10 PM
You reject the pre-Vatican II Magisterium on EENS and NFP. 

Hardly, but I'm not going to branch off on either of those subjects here.  Run along, take your meds, and go watch some butterflies or something.  Theology is not your strength.
Title: Re: Are there any anti una cuм people on cathinfo?
Post by: DecemRationis on May 04, 2021, 03:36:35 PM
If you think that, then you are as much of an idiot as he is.  One need go no farther than to read the Catholic Encyclopedia article on the subject.  Your perception of that debate is shaped only by your confirmation bias.  Drew failed to cite a single theologian to back up his theory ... which was made up out of whole cloth as a justification for R&R.

It is the Magisterium ... and only the Magisterium ... which is the sole interpreter of Tradition, not you, and not Stubborn.

Go read the CE on baptism(desire) or the necessity of baptism.

"One need go no farther than to read the Catholic Encyclopedia article on the subject."

You're a blast.  :laugh2:
Title: Re: Are there any anti una cuм people on cathinfo?
Post by: Ladislaus on May 04, 2021, 03:37:37 PM
Yes, the position of doubt is strange to me. Lad says he doubts between A and B yet he constantly says B is not Catholic

That's due to your inability to grasp distinctions.  You evidently failed to recognized when I enumerated multiple permutations, including C, D, E, etc.

Evidently I have to say it again.  What cannot be doubted is that the Magisterium cannot fail catastrophically as R&R asserts.  You can argue that the Magisterium has not failed (as conservative Novus Ordites do or as XavierSem does).  You can argue that it's not the Magisterium (as sedevacantists and even sedeimpoundists do).  But you cannot argue a failure of the Magisterium.  Even Archbishop Lefebvre was quite clear on this.  That is the one constraint to which I assert that it's not Catholic.  Within those limits, go to town in terms of the permutations on it.

Modern R&R, which has totally gone off the rails from the position of +Lefebvre, has totally lost its way.  Do I need to quote +Lefebvre on this subject again?
Title: Re: Are there any anti una cuм people on cathinfo?
Post by: Ladislaus on May 04, 2021, 03:41:04 PM
Go read the CE on baptism(desire) or the necessity of baptism.

"One need go no farther than to read the Catholic Encyclopedia article on the subject."

You're a blast.  :laugh2:

Sure, that would not have been sufficient had Drew bothered to produce a single theological source on the subject to challenge the CE.  He had absolutely nothing but his wishful thinking.
Title: Re: Are there any anti una cuм people on cathinfo?
Post by: Pax Vobis on May 04, 2021, 04:15:40 PM
Quote
The only thing? How about devotion to the Blessed Mother and the saints? How about the sacraments and the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass? How about the Holy Rosary? I'm sure you get the picture.
:facepalm:  Who told Catholics that all the above was catholic?   ...The Magisterium...which started with the Apostles and the Church Fathers, who handed down Tradition and who codified Scripture.
Title: Re: Are there any anti una cuм people on cathinfo?
Post by: Stubborn on May 05, 2021, 06:08:14 AM
Sure, that would not have been sufficient had Drew bothered to produce a single theological source on the subject to challenge the CE.  He had absolutely nothing but his wishful thinking.
You are so full of baloney. I mean really full of it.

Drew sited many theological sources, the following sources he referenced are in just the handful of his posts in the first 8 pages of the 76 page thread I looked at, certainly he quoted dozens more in that thread (https://www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/is-father-ringrose-dumping-the-r-r-crowd/) alone....

Drew's theological sources in the first 8 pages....

St. Thomas
Rev. Joseph Pohle, who sites...
Pope Zosimus
Fr. Hesse
St. Alphonsus
St. Cornelius a Lapide

Want to know how many theological sources you bothered to quote in the first 8 pages? ZERO.
That's right, none!

As is typical for you, you quote your own ideas, beliefs and opinions as your theological sources all the time - while claiming your opponents never quote any sources.




 
Title: Re: Are there any anti una cuм people on cathinfo?
Post by: XavierSem on May 05, 2021, 06:40:39 AM
Quote from: Cryptinox
Sanborn's group seems to be the latter. I even saw a priest under him say one una cuм mass is more offensive to God than every single abortion ever committed.

Clearly erroneous and manifestly ridiculous. It would be almost laughable if it weren't so sad. One is a Catholic Profession of Catholic Faith and Catholic Unity. Another is a grave crime against God and a violation of the divine Commandment, Thou shalt not kill. It shows the absurdity and extremism involved in the so-called "anti-una-cuм" position, which is objectively schismatic. It borders on blasphemy to say a holy thing Catholics have always done is worse than one of the greatest modern mortal sins that constitutes an ongoing genocide.

The exact contrary of what anti-una-cuм-ers say is the Truth. It is objectively sinful to drop the name of the universally recognized Pope from the Canon based on one's own private judgment. This is clearly implied by Pope Benedict XIV in Ex Quo. 

"But however it may be with this disputed point of ecclesiastical learning, it suffices Us to be able to state that a commemoration of the supreme pontiff and prayers offered for him during the sacrifice of the Mass is considered, and really is, an affirmative indication which recognizes him as the head of the Church, the vicar of Christ, and the successor of blessed Peter, and is the profession of a mind and will which firmly espouses Catholic unity. This was rightly noticed by Christianus Lupus in his work on the Councils: “This commemoration is the chief and most glorious form of communion” (tome 4, p. 422, Brussels edition). This view is not merely approved by the authority of Ivo of Flaviniaca who writes: “Whosoever does not pronounce the name of the Apostolic one in the canon for whatever reason should realize that he is separated from the communion of the whole world” (Chronicle, p. 228); or by the authority of the famous Alcuin: “It is generally agreed that those who do not for any reason recall the memory of the Apostolic pontiff in the course of the sacred mysteries according to custom are, as the blessed Pelagius teaches, separated from the communion of the entire world” (de Divinis Officiis, bk. 1, chap. 12)."

https://www.papalencyclicals.net/ben14/b14exquo.htm Those who do not for any reason commemorate the Pontiff in the course of the Mass separate themselves from the communion of the entire world which does commemorate the Pontiff. It clearly implies that if the world (the Church) recognizes a Pope, the Priest must do so also. It's 2021 now and over 5000 Bishops publicly recognize the Pope.

There is no sin, at all, involved, in recognizing the Pope, and in publicly professing that recognition by a Priest affirming that he prays "una cuм" during the Canon of the Mass. If a Priest is personally sedevacantist, but wants to work in a non-sedevacantist Society, then he should accept to pray for the Pope as Pope, for the sake of those who assist at his Mass. He can be assured he won't sin doing that.

If the Priest is reasonable, we can make allowance for the difficulties for his conscience. This is what +ABL did, and some wrongly portray +ABL as almost sede because of that. No, that's wrong. +ABL made allowance for the sedes if they would be reasonable. Those who proved unreasonable were expelled in 1983. +Sanborn's position, and those like it, as expressed by that Priest under him, is clearly extremist in the extreme. It is not open to reason. There is hardly anything that can be reasonably done in such cases. If the Priest is open to reason, he will accept praying for the Pope for the sake of those who assist at his Mass believing it to be una cuм the Pope.
Title: Re: Are there any anti una cuм people on cathinfo?
Post by: Ladislaus on May 05, 2021, 07:35:45 AM
So there is a subjective element to it ... similar to what would have been the case during the Great Western schism.  If I was certain that my guy was the pope, I probably shouldn't attend a Mass una-cuм one of (what I believed to be) the Anti-popes.  But if I was uncertain, not sure about, which one was the actual Pope, I don't see that it would be a sin to attend any of the Masses for a decent reason.

Those citations about dropping the name being schismatic assume that the person recognizes that the man is the pope, but refuses to name him; that would constitute a schismatic act.

I hold that we're in a time analogous to that of the Great Western schism, where there's less-than-absolute certainty regarding the identity of the Pope.  Let's not get into the Universal Acceptance issue here, since we've had many threads on the subject.

Assume, for the sake or argument, that there's a serious doubt about the identity of the true pope, under those circuмstances, would it be wrong to assist at either una-cuм or non-una-cuм Masses?  I don't believe so.  I think you could go either way.  Even if you're a sedeprivationist, you could put the name in there given that he holds the office of the papacy, even if he lacks the formal authority on account of heresy, etc.

Given this situation, if I were a priest, I would keep the phrase "una cuм famulo tuo papa nostro" but then not insert the name, as a profession of formal intention to be in Communion with the papacy, even if there's doubt about who that is at the moment.
Title: Re: Are there any anti una cuм people on cathinfo?
Post by: Ladislaus on May 05, 2021, 07:50:11 AM
If the Priest is reasonable, we can make allowance for the difficulties for his conscience. This is what +ABL did, and some wrongly portray +ABL as almost sede because of that. No, that's wrong. +ABL made allowance for the sedes if they would be reasonable. Those who proved unreasonable were expelled in 1983. +Sanborn's position, and those like it, as expressed by that Priest under him, is clearly extremist in the extreme. It is not open to reason. There is hardly anything that can be reasonably done in such cases. If the Priest is open to reason, he will accept praying for the Pope for the sake of those who assist at his Mass believing it to be una cuм the Pope.

Sedevacantism wasn't the primary issue with The Nine.  In fact, I was told by a couple of The Nine that not all of them were actually sedevacantist at the time of their expulsion, and the Nine didn't have issues with those who did offer Mass "una cuм".  Primarily it had to do with NO priests cooperating with the SSPX without being conditionally ordained, with the SSPX acceptance of NO annulments, and the imposition of the 1962 Missal (along with the 1955 Holy Week rites).  Recall that this was at the time where Archbishop Lefebvre was optimistic about relations with JP2 (after Paul VI was gone) and so he was in a more conciliatory spirit.  So the 1980-1984 +Lefebvre actually had a position very similar to that of the more recent one of +Fellay.

That's why I get frustrated with the neo-SSPX vs. Resistance battling about who represents the TRUE spirit of +Lefebvre.  They both do and they both don't.  It depends on whether you're talking about the 1980-1984 +Lefebvre (more like +Fellay) or the 1976-8 & 1984-1991 +Lefebvre (more like the Resistance).

Similarly, +Lefebvre was more anti-sedevacantist from 1980-1984, but then came a hair's breadth from going sedevacantist himself in 1976 (suspension by Paul VI) and then again in 1986 (Assisi).

There simply was no monolithic Archbishop Lefebvre.  Like many Traditional Catholics, he changed his mind and his attitude from time to time.
Title: Re: Are there any anti una cuм people on cathinfo?
Post by: Ladislaus on May 05, 2021, 07:57:32 AM
So there is a subjective element to it ... similar to what would have been the case during the Great Western schism.  If I was certain that my guy was the pope, I probably shouldn't attend a Mass una-cuм one of (what I believed to be) the Anti-popes.  But if I was uncertain, not sure about, which one was the actual Pope, I don't see that it would be a sin to attend any of the Masses for a decent reason.

I might even go a step further.  Applying the principles of probabilism (or semi-probabilism) [St. Alphonsus was first a probabilist and then after his position was criticized, he modified it somewhat], it would likely be morally licit to attend the Mass of any of these popes that you thought could possibly be the Pope.  In other words, if you considered it possible, even remotely possible, that one of these other guys was the pope, you could licitly assist at their Masses.  "Probable" in Latin didn't mean, like the current English, that "it's most likely to be true", but rather that something was "possibly true".  That's why in that one passage on explicit faith, St. Alphonsus referred to one position being MORE "probable" than the other.
Title: Re: Are there any anti una cuм people on cathinfo?
Post by: SeanJohnson on May 05, 2021, 08:02:11 AM
I hold that we're in a time analogous to that of the Great Western schism, where there's less-than-absolute certainty regarding the identity of the Pope.  Let's not get into the Universal Acceptance issue here, since we've had many threads on the subject.

...

Given this situation, if I were a priest, I would keep the phrase "una cuм famulo tuo papa nostro" but then not insert the name, as a profession of formal intention to be in Communion with the papacy, even if there's doubt about who that is at the moment.

This is crazy nonsense:

You don’t want to get into the universal consent argument, because it highlights just how crazy your homemade theory is:

Today’s situation could not possibly be more opposite from the GWS (where large chunks of prelates favored competing claimants, whereas today NONE do): Instead of “two popes for one Church,” we have “one pope for two churches.”

Therefore, there is no pretext for doubting the legitimacy of the pope (we have universal consent), and consequently, there is no pretext for omitting Francis from the una cuм.

Moreover, in the GWS, supporters of the contending claimants would have inserted one name or the other, whereas you are suggesting inserting nothing except an illicit distortion of the rubrics referencing unity with the papacy rather than a pope (which Fr. Cekada rightly calls stupid, and a violation of the rubrics), all because you subjectively doubt.

It doesn’t get any more Protestant than that.

You should be banned from this forum for deceiving simpler minds.
Title: Re: Are there any anti una cuм people on cathinfo?
Post by: Ladislaus on May 05, 2021, 08:07:44 AM
You don’t want to get into the universal consent argument, because it highlights just how crazy your homemade theory is:

No, I am presciding from it here in order to keep the considerations distinct; otherwise the two issues can get conflated.  That is important when logically analyzing issues.  You start be determining the principles in isolation and only LATER apply them to various scenarios.

Your constant puerile outburst are not helpful to the conversation.

So the question is, ASSUMING for now "uncertainty" regarding the identity of the Pope such as what transpired during the Great Western Schism (whether you believe that to be the case or not), WOULD IT BE sinful for someone who adhered to one pope to assist at a Mass "una cuм" one of the other guys.  That helps illustrate the moral principles involved.
Title: Re: Are there any anti una cuм people on cathinfo?
Post by: Ladislaus on May 05, 2021, 08:09:01 AM
You should be banned from this forum for deceiving simpler minds.

You should be banned from this forum for BEING a "simpler mind"  :laugh1:
Title: Re: Are there any anti una cuм people on cathinfo?
Post by: Ladislaus on May 05, 2021, 08:10:50 AM
Therefore, there is no pretext for doubting the legitimacy of the pope (we have universal consent), and consequently, there is no pretext for omitting Francis from the una cuм.

Well, tell that to Archbishop Lefebvre, who most certainly doubted their legitimacy (except for during the 1980-1984 timeframe).
Title: Re: Are there any anti una cuм people on cathinfo?
Post by: SeanJohnson on May 05, 2021, 08:14:04 AM
Well, tell that to Archbishop Lefebvre, who most certainly doubted their legitimacy (except for during the 1980-1984 timeframe).
Total sede lie.
Title: Re: Are there any anti una cuм people on cathinfo?
Post by: Ladislaus on May 05, 2021, 08:21:03 AM
Total sede lie.

“While we are certain that the faith the Church has taught for 20 centuries cannot contain error, we are much further from absolute certitude that the pope is truly pope.” (Le Figaro, August 4, 1976)

“It is possible we may be obliged to believe this pope is not pope. For twenty years Mgr de Castro Mayer and I preferred to wait…I think we are waiting for the famous meeting in Assisi, if God allows it.” (Talk, March 30 and April 18, 1986, published in The Angelus, July 1986)

“I don’t know if the time has come to say that the pope is a heretic (…) Perhaps after this famous meeting of Assisi, perhaps we must say that the pope is a heretic, is apostate. Now I don’t wish yet to say it formally and solemnly, but it seems at first sight that it is impossible for a pope to be formally and publicly heretical. (…) So it is possible we may be obliged to believe this pope is not pope.” (Talk, March 30 and April 18, 1986, text published in The Angelus, July 1986)

“You know, for some time, many people, the sedevacantists, have been saying, ‘there is no more pope’. But I think that for me it was not yet the time to say that, because it was not sure, it was not evident…” (Talk, March 30 and April 18, 1986, text published in The Angelus, July 1986)

“The question is therefore definitive: is Paul VI, has Paul VI ever been, the successor of Peter? If the reply is negative: Paul VI has never been, or no longer is, pope, our attitude will be that of sede vacante periods, which would simplify the problem. Some theologians say that this is the case, relying on the statements of theologians of the past, approved by the Church, who have studied the problem of the heretical pope, the schismatic pope or the pope who in practice abandons his charge of supreme Pastor. It is not impossible that this hypothesis will one day be confirmed by the Church.” (Ecône, February 24, 1977, Answers to Various Burning Questions)

“To whatever extent the pope departed from…tradition he would become schismatic, he would breach with the Church. Theologians such as Saint Bellarmine, Cajetan, Cardinal Journet and many others have studied this possibility. So it is not something inconceivable.” (Le Figaro, August 4, 1976)

Heresy, schism, ipso facto excommunication, invalidity of ɛƖɛctıon are so many reasons why a pope might in fact never have been pope or might no longer be one. In this, obviously very exceptional case, the Church would be in a situation similar to that which prevails after the death of a Pontiff.” (Le Figaro, August 4, 1976)

“…these recent acts of the Pope and bishops, with protestants, Animists and Jєωs, are they not an active participation in non-catholic worship as explained by Canon Naz on Canon 1258§1? In which case I cannot see how it is possible to say that the pope is not suspect of heresy, and if he continues, he is a heretic, a public heretic. That is the teaching of the Church.” (Talk, March 30 and April 18, 1986, text published in The Angelus, July 1986)

“It seems inconceivable that a successor of Peter could fail in some way to transmit the Truth which he must transmit, for he cannot – without as it were disappearing from the papal line – not transmit what the popes have always transmitted.” (Homily, Ecône, September 18, 1977)

“If it happened that the pope was no longer the servant of the truth, he would no longer be pope.” (Homily preached at Lille, August 29, 1976, before a crowd of some 12,000)
Title: Re: Are there any anti una cuм people on cathinfo?
Post by: SeanJohnson on May 05, 2021, 08:53:54 AM
“While we are certain that the faith the Church has taught for 20 centuries cannot contain error, we are much further from absolute certitude that the pope is truly pope.” (Le Figaro, August 4, 1976)

“It is possible we may be obliged to believe this pope is not pope. For twenty years Mgr de Castro Mayer and I preferred to wait…I think we are waiting for the famous meeting in Assisi, if God allows it.” (Talk, March 30 and April 18, 1986, published in The Angelus, July 1986)

“I don’t know if the time has come to say that the pope is a heretic (…) Perhaps after this famous meeting of Assisi, perhaps we must say that the pope is a heretic, is apostate. Now I don’t wish yet to say it formally and solemnly, but it seems at first sight that it is impossible for a pope to be formally and publicly heretical. (…) So it is possible we may be obliged to believe this pope is not pope.” (Talk, March 30 and April 18, 1986, text published in The Angelus, July 1986)

“You know, for some time, many people, the sedevacantists, have been saying, ‘there is no more pope’. But I think that for me it was not yet the time to say that, because it was not sure, it was not evident…” (Talk, March 30 and April 18, 1986, text published in The Angelus, July 1986)

“The question is therefore definitive: is Paul VI, has Paul VI ever been, the successor of Peter? If the reply is negative: Paul VI has never been, or no longer is, pope, our attitude will be that of sede vacante periods, which would simplify the problem. Some theologians say that this is the case, relying on the statements of theologians of the past, approved by the Church, who have studied the problem of the heretical pope, the schismatic pope or the pope who in practice abandons his charge of supreme Pastor. It is not impossible that this hypothesis will one day be confirmed by the Church.” (Ecône, February 24, 1977, Answers to Various Burning Questions)

“To whatever extent the pope departed from…tradition he would become schismatic, he would breach with the Church. Theologians such as Saint Bellarmine, Cajetan, Cardinal Journet and many others have studied this possibility. So it is not something inconceivable.” (Le Figaro, August 4, 1976)

Heresy, schism, ipso facto excommunication, invalidity of ɛƖɛctıon are so many reasons why a pope might in fact never have been pope or might no longer be one. In this, obviously very exceptional case, the Church would be in a situation similar to that which prevails after the death of a Pontiff.” (Le Figaro, August 4, 1976)

“…these recent acts of the Pope and bishops, with protestants, Animists and Jєωs, are they not an active participation in non-catholic worship as explained by Canon Naz on Canon 1258§1? In which case I cannot see how it is possible to say that the pope is not suspect of heresy, and if he continues, he is a heretic, a public heretic. That is the teaching of the Church.” (Talk, March 30 and April 18, 1986, text published in The Angelus, July 1986)

“It seems inconceivable that a successor of Peter could fail in some way to transmit the Truth which he must transmit, for he cannot – without as it were disappearing from the papal line – not transmit what the popes have always transmitted.” (Homily, Ecône, September 18, 1977)

“If it happened that the pope was no longer the servant of the truth, he would no longer be pope.” (Homily preached at Lille, August 29, 1976, before a crowd of some 12,000)

You don’t seem to be able to perceive a qualitative distinction between “it is not impossible” and “I doubt he is pope.”

I myself could accept “it is not impossible,” yet I haven’t the least doubt regarding Francis’s legitimacy.

The coherence comes from recognizing the gulf between “theological certitude” and “infallibly certain.”
Title: Re: Are there any anti una cuм people on cathinfo?
Post by: DecemRationis on May 05, 2021, 09:30:52 AM

:facepalm:  Who told Catholics that all the above was catholic?   ...The Magisterium...which started with the Apostles and the Church Fathers, who handed down Tradition and who codified Scripture.

We are Catholic and different from Prots because we hold to the truth which comes from Christ, which includes the Magisterium, but which the magisterium (the teachers in the seats) can err from. 


Quote
Galatians 1:6-9

[6] (http://www.drbo.org/cgi-bin/d?b=drb&bk=55&ch=1&l=6-#x) I wonder that you are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ, unto another gospel. [7] (http://www.drbo.org/cgi-bin/d?b=drb&bk=55&ch=1&l=7-#x) Which is not another, only there are some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ. [8] (http://www.drbo.org/cgi-bin/d?b=drb&bk=55&ch=1&l=8-#x) But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach a gospel to you besides that which we have preached to you, let him be anathema. [9] (http://www.drbo.org/cgi-bin/d?b=drb&bk=55&ch=1&l=9-#x) As we said before, so now I say again: If any one preach to you a gospel, besides that which you have received, let him be anathema. [10] (http://www.drbo.org/cgi-bin/d?b=drb&bk=55&ch=1&l=10-#x) For do I now persuade men, or God? Or do I seek to please men? If I yet pleased men, I should not be the servant of Christ.

http://www.drbo.org/chapter/55001.htm


Pax, I think a good response to this comes from your own words:


Quote
This whole argument about 'rule of faith' or 'proximate' vs 'remote' is confusing and THAT is what is causing the disagreement, in my opinion.  The only point I'm trying to make is that the Deposit of Faith came before the Church, since Christ's teachings existed before the Church was founded, since Christ taught the Apostles everything before He ascended into heaven and the Church wasn't officially started until 10 days later at Pentecost.  So, which came first, the teachings of the Church or the Church?  The teachings.  What is the role of the magisterium?  To protect and re-teach those teachings.  Thus, the foundation of the Church are its teachings (i.e. doctrine).  Therefore, what is more important, what is being protected, or the protector?  Obviously, what is being protected is more important, therefore doctrine is more important than the magisterium.

https://www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/is-father-ringrose-dumping-the-r-r-crowd/msg599254/#msg599254

Title: Re: Are there any anti una cuм people on cathinfo?
Post by: Ladislaus on May 05, 2021, 09:45:00 AM
You don’t seem to be able to perceive a qualitative distinction between “it is not impossible” and “I doubt he is pope.”

:facepalm: doubt is opposed logically to certainty.  When you say it is not impossible, that means there is no certainty, ergo there's doubt.

I thought you spent time at STAS, and the first course that used to be taught there was logic.
Title: Re: Are there any anti una cuм people on cathinfo?
Post by: Ladislaus on May 05, 2021, 10:08:51 AM
We are Catholic and different from Prots because we hold to the truth which comes from Christ, which includes the Magisterium, but which the magisterium (the teachers in the seats) can err from.

No, you completely ignore the formal motive of faith and rule of faith.  Someone could hypothetically believe all the Church dogmas, but if they discerned these based on their own private interpretation of Scripture, then they do not believe them based on the proper formal motive of faith.  I say hypothetically because in the practical order it's impossible for private interpretation to lead to all of the exact dogmas taught by the Church, which is why there are approximately 23,000 different Christian "denominations" out there.

Indeed, not every pronouncement of the Magisterium is guaranteed to be free from error, but we're not quibbling about the notes or extent of infallibility here.
With the Conciliar Church we have an institution that has become so corrupted that it lacks the marks of the Church, that the Magisterium is thoroughly polluted with Modernism, and is leading souls into grave error.  We have a Universal Discipline that produced and promulgated a Rite of Worship that is offensive to God.  We have the canonization of the chief culprits in this destruction of the Church.  All this, when, taken as a whole, would constitute a defection of the Church.  Or, to put it a different way, when the Church has officially (in its Magisterium, Worship, Canon Law, etc.) gotten so bad and corrupt that it requires that we separate from submission to this teaching and this form of worship, i.e., that it requires the existence of a Traditional movement, then that would constitute a defection of the Church.  If that doesn't, then there's no such thing as a defection of the Church.

We're not talking about a problematic statement or two in Vatican II.  If that's all there was to this, there would in fact be no Traditional movement.  At that point, it would be a situation of respectfully questioning these through the appropriate channels.  See the thread I started regarding all the statements of +Lefebvre declaring that the Conciliar Church lacks the marks of the Church.
Title: Re: Are there any anti una cuм people on cathinfo?
Post by: DecemRationis on May 05, 2021, 10:36:41 AM
No, you completely ignore the formal motive of faith and rule of faith.  Someone could hypothetically believe all the Church dogmas, but if they discerned these based on their own private interpretation of Scripture, then they do not believe them based on the proper formal motive of faith.  I say hypothetically because in the practical order it's impossible for private interpretation to lead to all of the exact dogmas taught by the Church, which is why there are approximately 23,000 different Christian "denominations" out there.

If you followed your "proper formal motive of faith" you wouldn't be here but on Catholic Answers defending the Conciliar Church. If not, tell us why not? On what basis do you reject the magisterium of the Conciliar Church?


Indeed, not every pronouncement of the Magisterium is guaranteed to be free from error, but we're not quibbling about the notes or extent of infallibility here.
With the Conciliar Church we have an institution that has become so corrupted that it lacks the marks of the Church, that the Magisterium is thoroughly polluted with Modernism, and is leading souls into grave error.  We have a Universal Discipline that produced and promulgated a Rite of Worship that is offensive to God.  We have the canonization of the chief culprits in this destruction of the Church.  All this, when, taken as a whole, would constitute a defection of the Church.  Or, to put it a different way, when the Church has officially (in its Magisterium, Worship, Canon Law, etc.) gotten so bad and corrupt that it requires that we separate from submission to this teaching and this form of worship, i.e., that it requires the existence of a Traditional movement, then that would constitute a defection of the Church.  If that doesn't, then there's no such thing as a defection of the Church.

True popes of the true Church could not do this if the Church is "indefectible" as you understand it. Or do you disagree? Please explain. 

How could you not be Sedevacantist then if these popes have taught a universal discipline and rite of worship (among other things) that "would constitute a defection of the Church"? Truly, I'm trying to understand your position.



Title: Re: Are there any anti una cuм people on cathinfo?
Post by: SeanJohnson on May 05, 2021, 10:38:41 AM
:facepalm: doubt is opposed logically to certainty.  When you say it is not impossible, that means there is no certainty, ergo there's doubt.

I thought you spent time at STAS, and the first course that used to be taught there was logic.

Ahem, allow me to introduce you to the concept of "moral certitude."

Moral certitude does not dismiss all possibility of error, but is so overwhelmingly probable, that theoretical plausibility of error is dismissed by the prudent man.

Hence, the unanimous consent of every single bishop over the last 60 years (10,000+ of them) rendering the legitimacy of the conciliar pontificates dogmatic fact, suffices to exclude any reasonable doubt, and provide moral certitude.

This appears to be the source of your error:

You are considering logical certitude where the Church only requires moral certitude.  Consequently, you are actually paradoxically equating moral certitude with doubt!

Lefebvre was morally certain of the legitimacy of the popes, despite his few admissions that they were not infallibly legitimate/certain.
Title: Re: Are there any anti una cuм people on cathinfo?
Post by: Ladislaus on May 05, 2021, 11:04:10 AM
Ahem, allow me to introduce you to the concept of "moral certitude."

Moral certitude does not dismiss all possibility of error, but is so overwhelmingly probable, that theoretical plausibility of error is dismissed by the prudent man.

Right, so you're only morally certain that Our Lady was assumed into Heaven, since you can only be morally certain that Pius XII was the legitimate pope.

You completely misunderstand what is meant by DOGMATIC fact.

Look into the logical maxim "peiorem partem sequitur conclusion".  If the legitimacy of a Pope is not known with the certainty of faith, then any dogmas he promulgates cannot be known with the certainty of faith either.

So you're claiming that in all these quotes by +Lefebvre he was merely expressing hypothetical negative doubts when he's saying that he may be obliged to come out as a sedevacantist.  Just keep telling yourself that, Sean.
Title: Re: Are there any anti una cuм people on cathinfo?
Post by: Ladislaus on May 05, 2021, 11:13:02 AM
If you followed your "proper formal motive of faith" you wouldn't be here but on Catholic Answers defending the Conciliar Church. If not, tell us why not? On what basis do you reject the magisterium of the Conciliar Church?

Just FYI, your "inline" responses make it very difficult to respond to you.  I had to copy-paste your response in after having found another place where you actually wrote some text in the body of your response.

I've already explained this a few times.  I find that the Conciliar Church lacks the marks of the Catholic Church, and therefore its purported magisterium is not the Catholic Magisterium.

As per the teaching of Vatican I, the one place where there's room for reason and private judgment is in actually discerning the notes or authority of the Church in the first place.  Once that is known, the assent of faith is given to the Church's teaching.  Once one recognizes, based on the natural motives of credibility, that the Catholic Church has the authority of Christ, then one submits to that teaching authority, which authority becomes the formal motive of faith, as per the famous maxim of St. Augustine that he would not believe in the Scriptures themselves had the Church not proposed them to him.

Whether or not one understands theologically what exactly is going on, that is in fact the genesis and the raison d'etre of the entire Traditional movement.  This thing over here which calls itself the Conciliar Church, this is not the Catholic Church.  It is unrecognizable.  Thus even the simple faithful can make that discernment.  No theology degrees are needed.
Title: Re: Are there any anti una cuм people on cathinfo?
Post by: DecemRationis on May 05, 2021, 11:30:50 AM
Just FYI, your "inline" responses make it very difficult to respond to you.  I had to copy-paste your response in after having found another place where you actually wrote some text in the body of your response.

I've already explained this a few times.  I find that the Conciliar Church lacks the marks of the Catholic Church, and therefore its purported magisterium is not the Catholic Magisterium.

As per the teaching of Vatican I, the one place where there's room for reason and private judgment is in actually discerning the notes or authority of the Church in the first place.  Once that is known, the assent of faith is given to the Church's teaching.  Once one recognizes, based on the natural motives of credibility, that the Catholic Church has the authority of Christ, then one submits to that teaching authority, which authority becomes the formal motive of faith, as per the famous maxim of St. Augustine that he would not believe in the Scriptures themselves had the Church not proposed them to him.

Whether or not one understands theologically what exactly is going on, that is in fact the genesis and the raison d'etre of the entire Traditional movement.  This thing over here which calls itself the Conciliar Church, this is not the Catholic Church.  It is unrecognizable.  Thus even the simple faithful can make that discernment.  No theology degrees are needed.

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

Quote
As per the teaching of Vatican I, the one place where there's room for reason and private judgment is in actually discerning the notes or authority of the Church in the first place.

Where do you see this "one place" limitation in Vatican I?



Title: Re: Are there any anti una cuм people on cathinfo?
Post by: SeanJohnson on May 05, 2021, 11:42:00 AM
Right, so you're only morally certain that Our Lady was assumed into Heaven, since you can only be morally certain that Pius XII was the legitimate pope.

You completely misunderstand what is meant by DOGMATIC fact.

Look into the logical maxim "peiorem partem sequitur conclusion".  If the legitimacy of a Pope is not known with the certainty of faith, then any dogmas he promulgates cannot be known with the certainty of faith either.

So you're claiming that in all these quotes by +Lefebvre he was merely expressing hypothetical negative doubts when he's saying that he may be obliged to come out as a sedevacantist.  Just keep telling yourself that, Sean.

On the contrary:

It is only the conciliar papacies which are merely "morally certain" (i.e., because of their teaching of error).

But regarding the preconciliar popes, there is no doubt as to their legitimacy at all (i.e., because they never attempted to teach doctrinal error to the universal Church).
Title: Re: Are there any anti una cuм people on cathinfo?
Post by: Ladislaus on May 05, 2021, 12:08:10 PM
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?
Title: Re: Are there any anti una cuм people on cathinfo?
Post by: 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.
Title: Re: Are there any anti una cuм people on cathinfo?
Post by: SeanJohnson on May 05, 2021, 12:48:40 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 (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/ 
Title: Re: Are there any anti una cuм people on cathinfo?
Post by: ByzCat3000 on May 05, 2021, 01:14:58 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.
Title: Re: Are there any anti una cuм people on cathinfo?
Post by: DecemRationis on May 05, 2021, 01:46:55 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. 
Title: Re: Are there any anti una cuм people on cathinfo?
Post by: Ladislaus on May 05, 2021, 02:19:24 PM
But regarding the preconciliar popes, there is no doubt as to their legitimacy at all (i.e., because they never attempted to teach doctrinal error to the universal Church).

And I agree with you completely.  There is in fact zero doubt about the preconciliar popes.

But if we have to ascertain certainty from the orthodoxy of their teaching, that creates a strange convalidation feedback loop where we can't know a priori whether they're legitimate or not.  So who determines whether they've taught doctrinal error?

What if Pius IX was in fact wrong when he condemned religious liberty?  How do we know he was wrong and the V2 papal claimants were right?
Title: Re: Are there any anti una cuм people on cathinfo?
Post by: Ladislaus on May 05, 2021, 02:26:05 PM
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.

No, they don't have to answer these questions.  You're absolutely right.

But we have to come to grips with how we can say that it's OK for Catholics to basically ignore the Magisterium.

Let's say a new St. Pius X comes on the scene (let's say a St. Pius XIII) and condemns some neo-Modernist movement.  What can we say to the neo-Modernists who ignore that condemnation, thumb their nose at St. Pius XIII and say, "meh, you're not teaching infallibly; you've got that wrong.  We'll carry on with our beliefs."  Adopting such an attitude does irreparable harm to the Magisterium, and contradicts everything that's ever been taught about the Magisterium, and the obligation of Catholics to assent to it.

Whatever they do to come to terms with the crisis, it cannot be this neo-R&R attitude ... because that completely erodes Catholicism.
Title: Re: Are there any anti una cuм people on cathinfo?
Post by: SeanJohnson on May 05, 2021, 02:35:01 PM
And I agree with you completely.  There is in fact zero doubt about the preconciliar popes.

But if we have to ascertain certainty from the orthodoxy of their teaching, that creates a strange convalidation feedback loop where we can't know a priori whether they're legitimate or not.  So who determines whether they've taught doctrinal error?

What if Pius IX was in fact wrong when he condemned religious liberty?  How do we know he was wrong and the V2 papal claimants were right?

I think you misunderstood me:

Certitude regarding papal legitimacy comes from universal assent (for both pre- and postconciliar popes).

The reason the TYPE of certitude is different for each is because the latter teach error, but the former did not.

That teaching of error on the part of conciliar popes reduces ever so slightly infallible certitude to moral certitude, opening the door a sliver to the theoretical possibility -however unlikely- of sedevacantism.  But this "sliver" (i.e., the reduction from infallible to moral certitude, in light of teaching error) no more equates to a positive doubt or doubtful conscience that the state of a man having just made what he hopes is a good confession:

He has no infallible certitude his absolution was valid, but THAT DOES NOT MEAN HE DOUBTS IT: Having confidence he has satisfied the requirements of making a good confession, he has moral certitude he has been validly absolved.  He is not in a state of doubt, and if the devil irritates his conscience to try and create doubt, the penitent quickly and persistently disregards the intrusions.

This analogy fits the mindset of Archbishop Lefebvre perfectly.
Title: Re: Are there any anti una cuм people on cathinfo?
Post by: SeanJohnson on May 05, 2021, 02:41:31 PM
But we have to come to grips with how we can say that it's OK for Catholics to basically ignore the Magisterium.

Answer: Its not actually the magisterium (ordinary or extraordinary).  Its what is referred to as the "authentic magisterium," which is something of a misnomer, since the authentic magisterium is not magisterial at all (i.e., Its just the teachings of men who have authority to teach in the universal Church, but whose teachings being novel, lack temporal or spatial "universality.").

This is why none of the errors of the conciliar popes are actually magisterial: As +Vigano observes or suggests, they use the same forms as the Catholic magisterium (e.g., councils, encyclicals, canonizations, etc.), but the substance filling those forms is foreign.

Come to think of it, this realization actually might raise the conciliar papacies back up to infallible certitude (i.e., because their really are no doctrinal errors which are truly magisterial).  Then again, maybe not, because they could still be heretics even if their teachings are non-magisterial (for want of universality).  I would need to think about that one a bit.
Title: Re: Are there any anti una cuм people on cathinfo?
Post by: Ladislaus on May 05, 2021, 02:47:32 PM
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 just keep repeating this over and over despite the numerous times I've explained it.  This is completely false.

All that is necessary to hold is that the Catholic Magisterium cannot go off the rails as badly as it has.  There can be numerous explanations, given that constraint, which do not violate the principle, including the assertion made by XavierSem and others that the Magisterium has NOT in fact gone badly off the rails.  You could adopt the attitude of a Bishop Schneider that there are only a couple minor tweaks needed to reconcile Vatican II with Tradition, and the rest is merely a question of Modernists spinning some ambiguities in their favor.  That position, to be quite honest, is less offensive to a Traditional Catholic understanding of the Magisterium than the R&R promoted by Johnson and other (evidently also yourself lately).

It's also IMO very possible that Montini was being blackmailed, so that the various acts of his were not entirely free and therefore would not have constituted legitimate Magisterium.  Montini has been credibly accused of both sodomy and of being a Communist agent.  There was in fact a group of Communists at Oxford who were known to be a "honey pot" operation to lure in and then blackmail ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖs.

There's the position of Father Chazal that, while the See is not vacant, it has been deprived of all teaching authority due to the heresy of the papal claimants.  Finally, there's the sedeprivationist theory (very similar to Fr. Chazal's) that the See is materially occupied but lacks formal authority.

But of course the Magisterium proper is just the tip of the iceberg.  You also have the defective quasi-Protestant form of worship that many Traditional Catholics hold is offensive to God and a "Great Sacrilege"?  Really, the Holy Catholic Church could promulgate and implement as its normative form of worship a "Sacrilege".  Either you go the XavierSem route of claiming that it's merely less perfect (but not positively defective, harmful, and displeasing to God) or you must decide that this is not the work of legitimate Catholic authority.  To claim that the Church's public worship is Sacrilege is in fact a blasphemy ... and in fact a proposition anathematized by the Council of Trent.

Finally, you throw in the canonization of Montini and Wojtyla ... thereby polluting the catalogue of saints with two of the biggest scoundrels to every (materially) occupy the See of Peter.

There's no recovery for the Church from this kind of smear against it.  None.  At that point the Church has lost all credibility and has defected.
Title: Re: Are there any anti una cuм people on cathinfo?
Post by: ByzCat3000 on May 05, 2021, 02:49:09 PM
You don’t seem to be able to perceive a qualitative distinction between “it is not impossible” and “I doubt he is pope.”

I myself could accept “it is not impossible,” yet I haven’t the least doubt regarding Francis’s legitimacy.

The coherence comes from recognizing the gulf between “theological certitude” and “infallibly certain.”
Ladislaus is using the term "doubt" differently than you do.  He means "doubt" as opposed to certainty, whereas you seem to mean doubt as opposed to something like "relatively certain" or "certain enough that I don't consciously think about the other possibility that much, if ever."
Title: Re: Are there any anti una cuм people on cathinfo?
Post by: SeanJohnson on May 05, 2021, 02:54:07 PM
Explains "authentic magisterium," distinguishing it from the ordinary magisterium.
(https://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/1527/1691/products/6715-01.jpg?v=1478537325)



Excerpt from another good article discussing the authentic magisterium:
https://sspx.org/en/clear-ideas-popes-infallible-magisterium 


Clear ideas on the pope's infallible magisterium

What worries Catholics most in the current crisis in the Church is precisely the "problem of the pope." We need very clear ideas on this question. We must avoid shipwreck to the right and to the left, either by the spirit of rêbêllïon or, on the other hand, by an inappropriate and servile obedience. The serious error which is behind many current disasters is the belief that the "Authentic Magisterium" is nothing other than the "Ordinary Magisterium."

The "Authentic Magisterium" cannot be so simply identified with the Ordinary Magisterium. In fact, the Ordinary Magisterium can be infallible and non-infallible, and it is only in this second case that it is called the "Authentic Magisterium." The Dictionnaire de Theologie Catholique [hereafter referred to as DTC—Ed.] under the heading of "papal infallibility" (vol. VII, col. 1699ff) makes the following distinctions:

there is the "infallible or ex cathedra papal definition in the sense defined by Vatican I" (col.1699);
there is the "infallible papal teaching which flows from the pope’s Ordinary Magisterium" (col.1705);
there is "non-infallible papal teaching" (col.1709).

Similarly, Salaverri, in his Sacrae Theologiae Summa (vol. I, 5th ed., Madrid, B.A.C.) distinguishes the following:

Extraordinary Infallible Papal Magisterium (no. 592 ff);
Ordinary Infallible Papal Magisterium (no. 645 ff);
Papal Magisterium that is mere authenticuм, that is, only "authentic" or "authorized" as regards the person himself, not as regards his infallibility (no. 659 ff).

While he always has full and supreme doctrinal authority, the pope does not always exercise it at its highest level that is at the level of infallibility. As the theologians say, he is like a giant who does not always use his full strength. What follows is this:

"It would be incorrect to say that the pope is infallible simply by possessing papal authority," as we read in the Acts of Vatican I (Coll. L ac. 399b). This would be equivalent to saying that the pope’s authority and his infallibility are the same thing.

It is necessary to know "what degree of assent is due to the decrees of the sovereign pontiff when he is teaching at a level which is not that of infallibility, i.e., when he is not exercising the supreme degree of his doctrinal authority" (Salaverri, op.cit., no. 659).


Title: Re: Are there any anti una cuм people on cathinfo?
Post by: ByzCat3000 on May 05, 2021, 03:05:10 PM
No, they don't have to answer these questions.  You're absolutely right.

But we have to come to grips with how we can say that it's OK for Catholics to basically ignore the Magisterium.

Let's say a new St. Pius X comes on the scene (let's say a St. Pius XIII) and condemns some neo-Modernist movement.  What can we say to the neo-Modernists who ignore that condemnation, thumb their nose at St. Pius XIII and say, "meh, you're not teaching infallibly; you've got that wrong.  We'll carry on with our beliefs."  Adopting such an attitude does irreparable harm to the Magisterium, and contradicts everything that's ever been taught about the Magisterium, and the obligation of Catholics to assent to it.

Whatever they do to come to terms with the crisis, it cannot be this neo-R&R attitude ... because that completely erodes Catholicism.
I think I'm honestly at the point where I think even the answer to that *second* question is going to demand some extra clarity from the Church in the future, and I think that's true regardless of what theory you go with *now*

If you go with Sedevacantism, for instance, you have to figure out why its not OK "normally" for Catholics to question the identity of Popes which have at least enough universal acceptance that there isn't an alternate claimant (I think you'd agree at least that Francis or JPII isn't in competition with *another* pope).  "Why can you deny Francis' pontificate but not Pius XII" is just as logically valid of a question as "why can you accept Francis as a pope but not obey him but not Pius XII"

Whereas if you go with hermeneutic of continuity,  you have a bunch of other questions to answer.  Sure (for the sake of argument) the original 1965 Novus Ordo with ad orientum, gregorian chant, and latin would be acceptable to attend ,but does that mean any old boomer/clown Novus Ordo is offering worship that's truly acceptable to God and that we should attend on pain of mortal sin?  Who answers *that* question?  Its not answered in Vatican II.  Heck, hypothetically even in that event if your only choices are a St Pius V chapel (which isn't dogmatically sede) or a clown mass, which do you choose?  Honestly, at my most liberal (and goodness I waver on things) I'd still feel better about attending the SSPV chapel, though I'd probably decline to present myself for Holy Communion there especially if I clearly didn't have to.

I will say, part of why I lean towards some form of R and R is because "Vatican II was pastoral" isn't really an argument you can make for every council.  Yes, it feels like question begging and yes there are arguments against it, but there are reasons you can use for V2 being pastoral that wouldn't apply to any other council you felt like applying them into.  Whereas "JPII isn't a Pope because I don't agree with him" can easily spiral off into "Pius IX wasn't a Pope because you don't agree with him" and to be honest, if we're just gonna reject Popes *or* councils just because we don't think we can square them with tradition ourselves (rather than for any technical or procedural reason) Eastern Orthodoxy starts to just seem more logically coherent than Catholicism.  Catholicism seems predicated on the fact that if the Magisterium teaches, fulfilling certain rules, you *have* to accept it whether you personally can square it or not.  Of course, this line of reasoning would lead to H of C *if* the arguments for V2's infallibility are sufficiently strong.

As an aside, regarding the moral vs dogmatic certainty thing, I have a very hard time having more than moral certainty about anything.  I always have.  So perhaps I'm not really Catholic, or never really have been, according to some here.  On the other hand, the Lord accepted "Lord I believe, help my unbelief" as a genuine confession of faith it seems, so I don't really understand how "having personal doubts" necessarily entails apostasy as long as you're *believing* what the magisterium says, etc.
Title: Re: Are there any anti una cuм people on cathinfo?
Post by: DecemRationis on May 05, 2021, 04:43:44 PM
You just keep repeating this over and over despite the numerous times I've explained it.  This is completely false.

All that is necessary to hold is that the Catholic Magisterium cannot go off the rails as badly as it has.  There can be numerous explanations, given that constraint, which do not violate the principle, including the assertion made by XavierSem and others that the Magisterium has NOT in fact gone badly off the rails.  You could adopt the attitude of a Bishop Schneider that there are only a couple minor tweaks needed to reconcile Vatican II with Tradition, and the rest is merely a question of Modernists spinning some ambiguities in their favor.  That position, to be quite honest, is less offensive to a Traditional Catholic understanding of the Magisterium than the R&R promoted by Johnson and other (evidently also yourself lately).

It's also IMO very possible that Montini was being blackmailed, so that the various acts of his were not entirely free and therefore would not have constituted legitimate Magisterium.  Montini has been credibly accused of both sơdơmy and of being a Communist agent.  There was in fact a group of Communists at Oxford who were known to be a "honey pot" operation to lure in and then blackmail ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖs.

There's the position of Father Chazal that, while the See is not vacant, it has been deprived of all teaching authority due to the heresy of the papal claimants.  Finally, there's the sedeprivationist theory (very similar to Fr. Chazal's) that the See is materially occupied but lacks formal authority.

But of course the Magisterium proper is just the tip of the iceberg.  You also have the defective quasi-Protestant form of worship that many Traditional Catholics hold is offensive to God and a "Great Sacrilege"?  Really, the Holy Catholic Church could promulgate and implement as its normative form of worship a "Sacrilege".  Either you go the XavierSem route of claiming that it's merely less perfect (but not positively defective, harmful, and displeasing to God) or you must decide that this is not the work of legitimate Catholic authority.  To claim that the Church's public worship is Sacrilege is in fact a blasphemy ... and in fact a proposition anathematized by the Council of Trent.

Finally, you throw in the canonization of Montini and Wojtyla ... thereby polluting the catalogue of saints with two of the biggest scoundrels to every (materially) occupy the See of Peter.

There's no recovery for the Church from this kind of smear against it.  None.  At that point the Church has lost all credibility and has defected.

No, you haven't addressed the points I made. But I've been down this road with you before, so I'll simply rely upon my prior post then for comparison with the above, and leave it at that:


Quote
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 ɛƖɛctıon of a true pope and that ɛƖɛctıon 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 ɛƖɛctıon of these very popes by that Magisterium. 


Quote
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. 

Title: Re: Are there any anti una cuм people on cathinfo?
Post by: DecemRationis on May 05, 2021, 04:53:27 PM
You just keep repeating this over and over despite the numerous times I've explained it.  This is completely false.

All that is necessary to hold is that the Catholic Magisterium cannot go off the rails as badly as it has.  There can be numerous explanations, given that constraint, which do not violate the principle, including the assertion made by XavierSem and others that the Magisterium has NOT in fact gone badly off the rails.  You could adopt the attitude of a Bishop Schneider that there are only a couple minor tweaks needed to reconcile Vatican II with Tradition, and the rest is merely a question of Modernists spinning some ambiguities in their favor.  That position, to be quite honest, is less offensive to a Traditional Catholic understanding of the Magisterium than the R&R promoted by Johnson and other (evidently also yourself lately).

It's also IMO very possible that Montini was being blackmailed, so that the various acts of his were not entirely free and therefore would not have constituted legitimate Magisterium.  Montini has been credibly accused of both sơdơmy and of being a Communist agent.  There was in fact a group of Communists at Oxford who were known to be a "honey pot" operation to lure in and then blackmail ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖs.

There's the position of Father Chazal that, while the See is not vacant, it has been deprived of all teaching authority due to the heresy of the papal claimants.  Finally, there's the sedeprivationist theory (very similar to Fr. Chazal's) that the See is materially occupied but lacks formal authority.

But of course the Magisterium proper is just the tip of the iceberg.  You also have the defective quasi-Protestant form of worship that many Traditional Catholics hold is offensive to God and a "Great Sacrilege"?  Really, the Holy Catholic Church could promulgate and implement as its normative form of worship a "Sacrilege".  Either you go the XavierSem route of claiming that it's merely less perfect (but not positively defective, harmful, and displeasing to God) or you must decide that this is not the work of legitimate Catholic authority.  To claim that the Church's public worship is Sacrilege is in fact a blasphemy ... and in fact a proposition anathematized by the Council of Trent.

Finally, you throw in the canonization of Montini and Wojtyla ... thereby polluting the catalogue of saints with two of the biggest scoundrels to every (materially) occupy the See of Peter.

There's no recovery for the Church from this kind of smear against it.  None.  At that point the Church has lost all credibility and has defected.

I will however add this new comment regarding Father Chazal.

I've been reading his book, and so far he hasn't discussed indefectibility, which even a cursory reading of my exchange with you would indicate it's the critical issue, and he doesn't appear to address it. I haven't read word for word the whole thing, but I've glanced through what I haven't read and I didn't see any treatment of indefectibility, which is the substance of Father Cekada's objection, as I noted in another thread:


https://www.cathinfo.com/crisis-in-the-church/indefectiblity-fr-cekada-v-fr-chazel/msg743831/#msg743831

So Father Chazal doesn't help you, and neither do Bishop Schneider, Xavier Sem, or the others you mention, since none of them, like you, hold that the Conciliar Church has "defected" or that indefectibility is violated by the CC - or would be, if the V2 popes were popes.

The only ones who could help you are the Sedes, but because you're in your "Magisterium is the proximate rule of faith" box, and need the Magisterium to tell you the CC is not the Church, they can't really help you either.
Title: Re: Are there any anti una cuм people on cathinfo?
Post by: Marion on September 26, 2021, 09:51:20 AM
In Catholic thinking, it is the Magisterium which is the SOLE legitimate interpreter of Tradition.  Period.  That's the only thing that differentiates Catholics from the Protestant heretics, and you have crossed the line over into Protestantism.  Your constant assertion of believing dogma "as it is written" (derived from a misreading of that passage in Trent) sounds exactly like the Prots who quote lines from Scripture out of context with assumed interpretations.

This is laughable. The only thing? How about devotion to the Blessed Mother and the saints? How about the sacraments and the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass? How about the Holy Rosary? I'm sure you get the picture.

And you have the nerve to say Stubborn's spouting "nonsense" and is "bankrupt as to the sensus fidei." So says the man that has St. Alphonsus denying the necessity of the sacraments by allowing for justification by an implicit BOD contrary to his reading of Trent, so says the man who "doubts" that the V2 popes are true popes of the true Church while holding that the true Church is indefectible in her sacraments and laws and those same popes have promulgated defectible trash and corruption . . . what's to doubt?

Physician, heal thyself already.

Some of us worship God, and not men. Your nonsense about the "Magisterium" is what got us into this predicament, and not errors about EENS, which, if the sensus fidei was healthy - like Stubborn's - the heretical V2 popes would have been facing empty pews versus populum in their heretical "Masses" and the populum wouldn't have swallowed it as coming from an "indefectible" magisterium.

You should go back and read the spanking Drew gave you about dogma being the proximate rule of faith, oh defender of the sensus fidei.


Viganò seems to reject the false idea of modernists and neo-modernists, who see the Magisterium as the proximate rule of faith, instead of the Dogma proposed by the Magisterium.

Quote from: Viganò
Anyone with common sense can see that it is an absurdity to want to interpret a Council, since it is and ought to be a clear and unequivocal norm of Faith and Morals.
remnantnewspaper.com (https://remnantnewspaper.com/web/index.php/fetzen-fliegen/item/5004-vatican-ii-is-fake-news)

No magisterial interpretation needed for defined dogma.


@Ladislaus
Are you going to call Viganò a "Protestant heretic"?
Title: Re: Are there any anti una cuм people on cathinfo?
Post by: MichaelFullerSSPX on September 26, 2021, 12:15:59 PM

If I'm not mistaken, Bishop Williamson himself admits to doubt as to whether or not Bergoglio is the pope. (He has done this many times, even while Fr. Gruner was alive.) This also, if memory serves correctly, was stated in his most recent interview with Luigi. Bishop Fellay has stated that one day we may say that Bergoglio was not the pope. I don't know a Traditional group that does not doubt the legitimacy of the Conciliar church papal claimants.

The laity that follow those groups sometimes get really crazy against those of the sede position by asserting it is heresy to reject Bergoglio and on one account I was told I must submit to the Dalai Lama if elected pope by resistance faithful.

It would be a good thing if they would pay attention to what the priests and bishops they follow actually say. Dogmatic sedeplenists do the bidding of the nєω ωσrℓ∂ σr∂єr.
Title: Re: Are there any anti una cuм people on cathinfo?
Post by: Ladislaus on September 26, 2021, 03:44:05 PM
If I'm not mistaken, Bishop Williamson himself admits to doubt as to whether or not Bergoglio is the pope. (He has done this many times, even while Fr. Gruner was alive.) This also, if memory serves correctly, was stated in his most recent interview with Luigi. Bishop Fellay has stated that one day we may say that Bergoglio was not the pope. I don't know a Traditional group that does not doubt the legitimacy of the Conciliar church papal claimants.

People don't understand how critical this is.  Normally a pope's legitimacy is known with dogmatic certainty, as a dogmatic fact.  So when comments of this nature are made, this is not actually sedeplenism, but something in between, which I have termed sede-doubtism.  Sedeplenism in the strict sense requires dogmatic certainty, which means that one could no more speculate that Bergoglio is not pope than one could speculate that there might only be Two Persons in the Holy Trinity.

If you were to ask any Traditional Catholic, do you believe with the certainty of faith that Bergoglio is pope, i.e., are you as certain that Bergoglio is pope as you are that Our Lord is present in the Blessed Sacrament ... you'd get a loud cry in unison of heck no.  At best people may have some personal moral certainty.  For most Traditional Catholics, Bergoglio falls squarely into the category of papa dubius ... which of course resolves into nullus papa.  Sede-doubtism reduces, due to the lack of dogmatic certainty, to a practical sedevacantism, the nullus papa.

Moral certainty does not count.  If Bergoglio were to come out tomorrow and solemnly define something, people who don't have certainty of faith regarding Bergoglio's legitimacy could not have the requisite certainty of faith regarding that dogma.  That's why theologians held to the maxim of papa dubius nullus papa.
Title: Re: Are there any anti una cuм people on cathinfo?
Post by: Incredulous on September 26, 2021, 11:04:15 PM
What would it take to make you believe Francis has lost any authority to the papacy (if he ever had any to begin with)?


(https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2Ftse1.mm.bing.net%2Fth%3Fid%3DOIP.Ez22-Cf8J4wGgpMz6Hm0jwHaFo%26pid%3DApi&f=1)


It would be nice to have a Council called to rule and judge the Pope of heresy, but since the visible Holy See has been hijacked, that's not going to happen. 
But we don't need a council in light of Francis's public heresies.

Uttering "Francis's" name in the Canon... do you think that is pleasing to God ?

In Pope Leo XIII's St. Michael's prayer (original long version), he described one Church and two thrones.  Francis is obviously on the false throne.

St. Francis of Assisi warned of a non canonically elected Pope.  Our Lady of La Salette said the Church will be eclipsed.

It's here!  Why be so scrupulous as not skip over the anti-pope's name in the Canon?


Prayers Before Consecration
The priest bows over the Altar and says silently:
Te Igitur
For the Church
Te ígitur, clementíssime Pater, per Jesum
Christum Fílium tuum, Dóminum nostrum, súpplices rogámus, ac pétimus, uti accépta hábeas, et benedícas, hæc + dona, hæc + múnera, hæc + sancta sacrifícia illibáta, in primis, quæ tibi offérimus pro Ecclésia tua sancta cathólica: quam pacificáre, custodíre, adunáre, et régere dignéris toto orbe terrárum: una cuм fámulo tuo Papa nostro N . . . et Antístite nostro N . . . et ómnibus orthodóxis, atque cathólicæ et apostólicæ fídei cultóribus.
Most merciful Father, we humbly pray and beseech Thee, through Jesus Christ Thy Son, Our Lord, to accept and to bless these + gifts, these + presents, these + holy unspotted Sacrifices, which we offer up to Thee, in the first place, for Thy Holy Catholic Church, that it may please Thee to grant her peace, to preserve, unite, and govern her throughout the world; as also for Thy servant N . . . our Pope, and N . . . our Bishop, and for all orthodox believers and all who profess the Catholic and Apostolic faith.

Title: Re: Are there any anti una cuм people on cathinfo?
Post by: Incredulous on September 26, 2021, 11:21:49 PM
What would it take to make you believe Francis has lost any authority to the papacy (if he ever had any to begin with)?


(https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2Ftse1.mm.bing.net%2Fth%3Fid%3DOIP.Ez22-Cf8J4wGgpMz6Hm0jwHaFo%26pid%3DApi&f=1)


It would be nice to have a Council called to rule and judge the Pope of heresy, but since the visible Holy See has been hijacked, that's not going to happen. 
But we don't need a council in light of Francis's public heresies.

Uttering "Francis's" name in the Canon... do you think that is pleasing to God ?  Is the logic that God wants Francis to destroy the visible Church?

In Pope Leo XIII's St. Michael's prayer (original long version), he described one Church and two thrones.  Francis is obviously on the false throne.

St. Francis of Assisi warned of a non canonically elected Pope.  Our Lady of La Salette said the Church will be eclipsed.

It's here!  Why be so scrupulous as not to skip over the anti-pope's name in the Canon?   Let's pray for what few "Orthodox believers" that are left.


Prayers Before Consecration
The priest bows over the Altar and says silently:
Te Igitur
For the Church
Te ígitur, clementíssime Pater, per Jesum
Christum Fílium tuum, Dóminum nostrum, súpplices rogámus, ac pétimus, uti accépta hábeas, et benedícas, hæc + dona, hæc + múnera, hæc + sancta sacrifícia illibáta, in primis, quæ tibi offérimus pro Ecclésia tua sancta cathólica: quam pacificáre, custodíre, adunáre, et régere dignéris toto orbe terrárum: una cuм fámulo tuo Papa nostro N . . . et Antístite nostro N . . . et ómnibus orthodóxis, atque cathólicæ et apostólicæ fídei cultóribus.
Most merciful Father, we humbly pray and beseech Thee, through Jesus Christ Thy Son, Our Lord, to accept and to bless these + gifts, these + presents, these + holy unspotted Sacrifices, which we offer up to Thee, in the first place, for Thy Holy Catholic Church, that it may please Thee to grant her peace, to preserve, unite, and govern her throughout the world; as also for Thy servant N . . . our Pope, and N . . . our Bishop, and for all orthodox believers and all who profess the Catholic and Apostolic faith.