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.”
“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)
“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)
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.Yes, yes, we know you believe Lefebvre’s position is schismatic. You should just declare yourself pope.
If it is dogmatically certain that the V2 papal claimants are legitimate, then you are, with dogmatic certainty, a schismatic.
If the legitimacy of the V2 papal claimants is dogmatic fact, then was Archbishop Lefebvre a heretic for openly calling into question their legitimacy?Typical weak sede sauce with chips.
Archbishop Lefebvre clearly disagrees that their legitimacy is dogmatic fact.
Archbishop Lefebvre:
Yes, yes, we know you believe Lefebvre’s position is schismatic. You should just declare yourself pope.
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.”
Sededoubtism with a deference to resolution by the Church was Archbishop Lefebvre's true position ... a position not unlike that of Father Chazal.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.
ARCHBISHOP LEFEBVRE WAS NOT A DOGMTIC SEDEPLENIST !!!
dogmatic facts are not infallible
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.
Notice Johnson's compelling logical argument: "weak sede sauce with chips".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.
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.
From your own citations:In which case, you call Lefebvre a heretic!
So let me distill your first substantive point from the ad hominem bluster.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:
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.
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.
In which case, you call Lefebvre a heretic!
"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.)
... 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.
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).
Here are the foundations of sede-doubtism.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.
Theological Maxim assented to by many theologians: papa dubius nullus papa. [a doubtful pope is no pope]
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:
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.This^^^
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.
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.Interesting post; I’ll look into this.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 .
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.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".
.
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!
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.
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.
Doubt is the dogmatic position of Lad, who says it was also +ABL's, or almost +ABL's .
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.
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.Ahem, Bellarmine thought such a thing could never come to pass, but laid out the argument as purely academic.
.
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.
Nothing but ad hominems and puerile taunts and attempting to change the subject by Johnson.More nonsense:
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).
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.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.
.
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.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.
.
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.
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".
Just like in the army, Durango: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.
You respect the rank, not the man.
Making it personal is the first (and most fatal) mistake.
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:
He considers those who understand that the pope is the pope to be in schism - yes, he is confused.
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!
That's an over-simplification.
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.
.
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:
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.
every time I quote Lefebvre acknowledging that we acknowledge the conciliar popes, but resist their harmful teachings
Lad can correct me, but after reading hundreds of his posts (as you have done too), I interpret his theory as saying that:1) You are projecting. I have no doubts regarding the legitimacy of the conciliar popes;
.
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.
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.
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;
In my position, it's as a bit simpler:
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.
That a few schismatic sede bishops (?) reject that peaceful and universal assent is no more relevant that Lutheran or Old Catholic bishops doing so.
If I were a priest, I would offer Mass “una cuм famulo tuo papa nostro” but then leave out the name, expressing sededoubtism.
Lad can correct me, but after reading hundreds of his posts (as you have done too), I interpret his theory as saying that: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."
.
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.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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
From the very beginning of this crisis, only a very, very few had doubts/confusion as regards the pope's validity.
I would say a traditional catholic implicitly and explicitly rejects V2 and new-rome's authority to replace the True Mass at all
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.
“…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 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
It is absolutely complex. For example, give me 50 sedes and i'll give you probably 50 different answers on the papal question.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.
.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.I liked reading Drew's arguments in those threads.
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.
And Drew destroyed you.
You may even stop being a flat-earth sympathizer.
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.
You reject the pre-Vatican II Magisterium on EENS and NFP.
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.
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
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:
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.
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.
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.
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 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.
You don’t want to get into the universal consent argument, because it highlights just how crazy your homemade theory is:
You should be banned from this forum for deceiving simpler minds.
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).Total sede lie.
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)
: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.
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
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
You don’t seem to be able to perceive a qualitative distinction between “it is not impossible” and “I doubt he is pope.”
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.
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.
: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.
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.
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.
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.
Then you are a Sedevacantist, and the seat is vacant.
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.
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?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.
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.
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?
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?
I cannot be sure what exactly happened.
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).
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.
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?
But we have to come to grips with how we can say that it's OK for Catholics to basically ignore the Magisterium.
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 don’t seem to be able to perceive a qualitative distinction between “it is not impossible” and “I doubt he is pope.”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."
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.”
No, they don't have to answer these questions. You're absolutely right.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*
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.
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.
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:QuoteI 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.
QuoteQuoteI 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.
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.
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.
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)
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.
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. |
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.
The priest bows over the Altar and says silently: 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.