Author Topic: Francis Issues Desiderio Desideravi on Mass (Read 10139 times)

Ladislaus · « **Reply #105 on:** June 30, 2022, 01:10:02 PM »

Quote from: SperaInDeo on June 30, 2022, 12:26:20 PM

But, when you go on the warpath against R&R it is like I’m reading the thoughts of an entirely different person. It seems to go from one promoting a kind of trad-ecuмenism, to one a hair’s breadth away from promoting dogmatic sedevacantism. It’s like watching a suicidal character assassination.

I think that the distinction you're missing between the two is that I am a dogmatic indefectibilist, but am open on the dispositon of the papacy itself. At the end of the day, I don't really care, and it's a disputed question, whether the pope question is answered by a sedevacantism, sedeprivationism, sede-impoundism (Fr. Chazal), Siri thesis (the one I myself hold to), that Paul VI / Montini (and possibly others) were blackmailed, that there was an imposter Paul VI to replace Montini, etc. There were 5 opinions regarding the disposition of a heretic pope, and none of them (well, except perhaps one) have been condemned or definitively rejected by the Church. And I'm perfectly fine with the position of Archbishop Lefebvre, who upheld that this degree of destruction is not possible due to the protection of the Holy Spirit over the papacy, but then prescinded from forming a definitive judgment regarding the resolution of the problem while deferring to Church authority.

Unfortunately, however, those who lack the ability to grasp subtlety and nuance, have morphed Archbishop Lefebvre's position into this new brand of R&R, that is absolutely not Catholic. It's both heretical and blasphemous ... and that is the source of my ire.

It is not possible that the Holy Catholic Church can become so corrupt in doctrine, in worship, and in its cultus that Catholics are obliged to sever communion with it in order to please God and to save their souls.

So, no, when Holy Mother Church is being accused of having become a whore, no, I'm not going to tolerate that. That is both heresy and blasphemy, and it needs to be called out as such. And I'll continue to do so with every fibre of my being.

epiphany · « **Reply #106 on:** June 30, 2022, 01:38:16 PM »

Quote from: Ladislaus on June 30, 2022, 01:10:02 PM

I think that the distinction you're missing between the two is that I am a dogmatic indefectibilist, but am open on the dispositon of the papacy itself. At the end of the day, I don't really care, and it's a disputed question, whether the pope question is answered by a sedevacantism, sedeprivationism, sede-impoundism (Fr. Chazal), Siri thesis (the one I myself hold to), that Paul VI / Montini (and possibly others) were blackmailed, that there was an imposter Paul VI to replace Montini, etc. There were 5 opinions regarding the disposition of a heretic pope, and none of them (well, except perhaps one) have been condemned or definitively rejected by the Church. And I'm perfectly fine with the position of Archbishop Lefebvre, who upheld that this degree of destruction is not possible due to the protection of the Holy Spirit over the papacy, but then prescinded from forming a definitive judgment regarding the resolution of the problem while deferring to Church authority.

Unfortunately, however, those who lack the ability to grasp subtlety and nuance, have morphed Archbishop Lefebvre's position into this new brand of R&R, that is absolutely not Catholic. It's both heretical and blasphemous ... and that is the source of my ire.

It is not possible that the Holy Catholic Church can become so corrupt in doctrine, in worship, and in its cultus that Catholics are obliged to sever communion with it in order to please God and to save their souls.

So, no, when Holy Mother Church is being accused of having become a whore, no, I'm not going to tolerate that. That is both heresy and blasphemy, and it needs to be called out as such. And I'll continue to do so with every fibre of my being.

So many "sede" options... never heard of "sede-impoundism".

It also seems to me that "this new brand of R&R" is pride at its worst.

ServusInutilisDomini · « **Reply #107 on:** June 30, 2022, 01:48:05 PM »

Quote from: Ladislaus on June 30, 2022, 01:10:02 PM

So, no, when Holy Mother Church is being accused of having become a whore, no, I'm not going to tolerate that. That is both heresy and blasphemy, and it needs to be called out as such. And I'll continue to do so with every fibre of my being.

Upvote.

Do you have to reach a certain level to upvote? Where are the rules?

SperaInDeo · « **Reply #108 on:** June 30, 2022, 01:48:51 PM »

Quote from: Ladislaus on June 30, 2022, 01:10:02 PM

I think that the distinction you're missing between the two is that I am a dogmatic indefectibilist, but am open on the dispositon of the papacy itself. At the end of the day, I don't really care, and it's a disputed question

Quote

And I'll continue to do so with every fibre of my being.

Authoritatively undefined “subtle” theology for the layman aside, this does not compute.

ServusInutilisDomini · « **Reply #109 on:** June 30, 2022, 01:56:18 PM »

Quote from: epiphany on June 30, 2022, 11:36:53 AM

Pope Honorius (+638) was pope until his death even though he taught heresy. It was not until forty years after his death that the Third Council of Constantinople (680-81) condemned Honorius a ‘heretic’.

I can't stand people smearing Popes and Church teaching so here is a thorough refutation of this falsehood.

Pope Honorius was condemned for allowing heresy to spread. TRUE, but IRRELEVANT.
For a pope to ipso facto lose his office he must be a manifest or notorious, which means PUBLIC, heretic. Pope Honorius was definitely not a public heretic, furthermore he was neither a private heretic.
Pope Honorius was condemned for publicly teaching heresy. FALSE.
The question was also raised by a Cardinal, “What is to be done with the Pope if he becomes a heretic?” It was answered that there has never been such a case;
~ (Abp. John B. Purcell, quoted in Rev. James J. McGovern, Life and Life Work of Pope Leo XIII) Imprimatur by Abp. James Quigley of Chicago (1903)

This is refuted by a simple singular fact: THE LETTERS WERE MADE PUBLIC THIRTY YEARS AFTER HONORIUS’ DEATH! He did not publicly teach; this is as private as it gets.
However, allow me to go even further and agree with Cardinal Louis-Nazaire Begin writing in 1925 (before Vatican II):
To this I respond that I do not deny the condemnation; on the contrary, I admit it according to what I said moments ago; but I distinguish the word heretic, which is quite imprecise and was still more so at the time of the councils in question. It was designated not only to those who professed the heresy knowingly and obstinately, but also to those who benefited it in any manner whatsoever, be it by their silence and negligence when their responsibilities obliged them to take action, be it by defending persons or the writings of heretics, be it even due to their communication with these heretics, or that they involuntarily admitted their doctrines. You see that under the same appellation were found comprised a throng of individuals whose culpabilities were very different, or even non-existent when the will did not take part.
Do not think I have imagined this distinction in favor of Pope Honorius; I wish to prove right away my assertion.
At the first council of Nicea, the word “heretic” was applied to Theognis and Eusebius of Nicomedia. The same appellation was given to Theodorus and John at the Council of Chalcedon. What was their crime? They did not openly attack the enemies of the faith; they were given no other reproach.
The First Lateran Council, held in 649 under Pope St. Martin I, recognized that the intentions of Emperor Heraclius in his Ecthesis or profession of faith could have been upright; however, as it was liable to benefit the Monothelite heresy in some way, the Council passed condemnation on the writing and the author, calling them “impious” and “heretical.”
These examples suffice to make you understand that the same qualifications in the councils’ language did not presuppose the same degree of culpability, and that to be called a “heretic,” it was not necessary to formally profess heresy; it sufficed to have taken part in it, even in a far removed and, at times, involuntary manner. From this, I conclude that Honorius could have been condemned as a heretic by these three councils, and that he in fact was, not for having taught error, but solely for not having exerted the necessary vigor in his duties as Head of the Church, for not having vigorously used his authority to repress heresy, for having prescribed silence about the manner of expressing a truth, and having thus contributed to the diffusion of error.
This is the same conclusion which was reached by almost everyone who dealt with this question during the (First) Vatican Council. Dom Guéranger, Abbot of the Solesmes Benedictines (!!!), said on the matter, “The real Sixth Council, the one to which the Roman Pontiff gave the necessary and canonical form, the one which requires the respect of the faithful, condemned Honorius only as an unfaithful guardian of the deposit of the faith, but not as having himself been an adherent of heresy. Justice and truth forbid us from going beyond that.”
La Civiltà Cattolica, the scholarly Roman periodical which you already know, also wrote about this issue: “The (Sixth) Council did not judge the writings of Honorius heretical, and did not reject him as teaching error. But it did judge him guilty of prescribing silence, which Sergius advised him to do, and which permitted the error to grow and strengthen. It is in this respect that it condemned Honorius.”
I summarize this lesson by saying:
1. That the docuмents on which the famous question of Honorius rest are authentic;
2. That this Pontiff defined absolutely nothing in his letters, but only prescribed silence on the singleness or duality of operations and wills in Jesus Christ;
3. That his letters to Sergius are irreproachable from the point of view of doctrine because they clearly express, and in multiple instances, the Catholic truth of two operations in Jesus Christ;
4. That he was condemned by the Sixth Council, not for having taught error, nor as a formal heretic, but only for not pitting himself against the propagation of Monotheletism with the zeal and energy which his exalted duties as Head of the Church required;
5. That, in light of the exceptional circuмstances in which Honorius found himself, he personally seems most worthy of pardon and even not guilty.
https://novusordowatch.org/primacy-infallibility-pope-honorius-i/
The false notion that pope Honorius was a manifest heretic was throughout history held only by Protestants, Eastern Orthodox, and semi-traditionalists after Vatican II as shown.

SeanJohnson · « **Reply #110 on:** June 30, 2022, 02:08:35 PM »

Quote from: Ladislaus on June 30, 2022, 09:16:31 AM

I actually agree with the Dimond Brothers ... their argument was extremely solid. Commentaries are not infallible, and I think there was a knee-jerk assumption that this was St. Peter in most commentaries. Even if it were St. Peter, St. Paul was rebuking him for hypocritical behavior rather than teaching error. St. Peter never imposed Judaizing requirements on St. Paul et al. but just caved to those who treated the non-Judaized Christians as "second-class" Catholics. So, as per usual, this R&R argument falls flat. This is in the same category as the "faith is greater than obedience" fallacy.

Nor was my issue with OP the simple fact that he disagreed with the (man he considers to be) pope on this issue, but with the tone. AT BEST, when a Pope is mistaken, Catholics are entitled to a respectful disagreement. SeanJohnson's attitude (assuming Bergoglio is the pope) would be a grave sin and a scandal. "With all due respect to the Holy Father, I must disagree with some of the statements he made ..." is the best that can be justified.

Aren’t you the same hypocrite who just upbraided VCR only one day ago for accusing others of committing mortal sins, and here you are yammering on again about me allegedly committing mortal sins?

What a hypocrite: Flinging out girlish anathemas without ever realizing you’re falling under your own condemnation!

Who can take this self-serving windbag seriously???

SperaInDeo · « **Reply #111 on:** June 30, 2022, 02:27:03 PM »

Quote from: SeanJohnson on June 30, 2022, 02:08:35 PM

Aren’t you the same hypocrite who just upbraided VCR only one day ago for accusing others of committing mortal sins, and here you are yammering on again about me allegedly committing mortal sins?

What a hypocrite: Flinging out girlish anathemas without ever realizing you’re falling under your own condemnation!

Who can take this self-serving windbag seriously???

Don’t cast stones from glass houses.

It is possible that he is materially schismatic being sede, but you can’t say that he is formally. Now, if he keeps taking his anathemas too far all bets are off. Lad has advocated attending Eastern Catholic Churches (almost 100% of which are in the Diocese) for their valid sacraments and non-judgmental demeanors, but R&R is outside the Church for “subtly heretical theological OPINIONS on the unprecedented Crisis”? Give me a break.

How about we all take a Cathinfo fast and prep?

SeanJohnson · « **Reply #112 on:** June 30, 2022, 02:27:37 PM »

Quote from: Ladislaus on June 30, 2022, 01:10:02 PM

.

It is not possible that the Holy Catholic Church can become so corrupt in doctrine, in worship, and in its cultus that Catholics are obliged to sever communion with it in order to please God and to save their souls.

So, no, when Holy Mother Church is being accused of having become a whore, no, I'm not going to tolerate that. That is both heresy and blasphemy, and it needs to be called out as such. And I'll continue to do so with every fibre of my being.

In reality, it is your ignorance (and pertinacity in refusing to recognize the existence of) the authentic magisterium, which leads you into your schism, and delusional belief that R&R make the Church a wh*re.

In reality, you are a heretic who believes all church teaching is infallible, and therefore (because of the error above), there is no pope or hierarchy, and you have to descend into the murky waters of Siriism to save your contorted faith.

But too proud to admit your first error, you thrash and wail to protect your novel and heretical vision of the Church, without it ever occurring to you that, if you were right that the “church” and popes can’t error, there is really no reason to distinguish between the ordinary and extraordinary magisterium, since EVERYTHING is infallible one way or the other (which is stupid).

SeanJohnson · « **Reply #113 on:** June 30, 2022, 02:28:52 PM »

Quote from: SperaInDeo on June 30, 2022, 02:27:03 PM

Don’t cast stones from glass houses.

It is possible that he is materially schismatic being sede, but you can’t say that he is formally. Now, if he keeps taking his anathemas too far all bets are off. Lad has advocated attending Eastern Catholic Churches (almost 100% of which are in the Diocese) for their valid sacraments and non-judgmental demeanors, but R&R is outside the Church for “subtly heretical theological OPINIONS on the unprecedented Crisis”? Give me a break.

How about we all take a Cathinfo fast and prep?

Not a bad idea.

DecemRationis · « **Reply #114 on:** June 30, 2022, 02:39:12 PM »

Quote from: SperaInDeo on June 30, 2022, 10:14:40 AM

Quote
Ladislaus:

I actually agree with the Dimond Brothers ... their argument was extremely solid. Commentaries are not infallible, and I think there was a knee-jerk assumption that this was St. Peter in most commentaries. Even if it were St. Peter, St. Paul was rebuking him for hypocritical behavior rather than teaching error. St. Peter never imposed Judaizing requirements on St. Paul et al. but just caved to those who treated the non-Judaized Christians as "second-class" Catholics. So, as per usual, this R&R argument falls flat. This is in the same category as the "faith is greater than obedience" fallacy.

Haydock Commentary and Cornelius a Lapide Commentary agree: it is St Peter. Clement of Alexandria thought it was not St Peter (and nobody takes him seriously) and all the Fathers thought it was St Peter. Can't post pictures for some reason.

The Submissive Ones (Lad and DL), you see, submit their judgment and opinion to the Church and her authorized teaching, and forswear "private judgment," except, apparently, when their judgment (I won't call it private, since, well, they say they don't exercise "private" judgment) goes against the considered judgment of the "unanimous consent of the ancient fathers and doctors of the Church" (as the Haydock and Rheims NT of the 16th Century tell us is the view regarding Cephas of Galatians 2 being the first pope) - then they go with their judgment, whatever you call it (nay, it's not their "private" judgment - just ask them: they are the Submissive Ones).

Lad is particularly entertaining to the extent to which he forebears exercising his . . . judgment (if not "private" judgment, we can safely say it is his, at least). For Lad thinks his opinion on the absolute necessity of water baptism for salvation is "extremely solid" (like his view of the Dimond interpretation of Cephas not being the Cephas in Galatians 2), i.e., correct, true, not erroneous, and, in this instance, on a not exactly trivial matter concerning salvation.

But the Ordinary, Universal Magisterium of the Church, when it teaches in the Catechism of Trent that it is possible for one to be saved by a desire for baptism, like that which a catechumen may possess, if one does not indeed make it to the reception of water baptism but possesses true faith and true contrition, the OUM is . . . well, I don't know what, since it is indefectible, i.e. never erroneous, according to Lad. Perhaps its judgment is in the same nowhere land between "private" judgment and something else - search me - sort of like Lad's judgment (and DL's) about the Cephas of Galatians 2.

Hey, they may be inconsistent and hypocritical (in how they sling "private judgment" around), but at least they are not "impious bastards" like the R & R . . . or are they? After all, it is only Lad's judgment (private?) that the R & R are "impious bastards," and I'm not exactly sure what that is - it's not private (ask him), and certainly not the Church's (cf. Lad's and the Church's distinct viewpoints, e.g., BOD), although he, like the Church, may be "indefectible" as he defines it, since teaching grave error as to vital issues concerning salvation does not deprive one of that state.

Perhaps "impious" or "bastard" means something other than what most of us think it means, like "indefectible" (which may actually involve grave error regarding a matter intimately bound up with salvation, according to Lad). The combined term may turn out to be something positive and glorious.

He may even be paying R & R "impious bastards" a compliment.

DecemRationis · « **Reply #115 on:** June 30, 2022, 03:19:00 PM »

Quote from: 2Vermont on June 30, 2022, 06:57:54 AM

Sitting in Moses' seat pales in comparison to sitting in Christ's Seat.

Vermont, that sounds good, but it was the same Chair, with the same infallibility in teaching: both spoke for God, and taught with His authority. Listen to the Scriptures: the example of Israel is an example for our instruction:

Quote

Romans 15:4 - For what things soever were written, were written for our learning: that through patience and the comfort of the scriptures, we might have hope

1 Cor. 10:11 - Now all these things happened to them in figure: and they are written for our correction, upon whom the ends of the world are come.

Again, Our Lord told us that the Pharisees "sat in Moses seat" and had his authority, and that they should be listened to: do what they say, etc.. But he also said they could (and did) teach some things that were contrary to the word of God.

See the attached annotations from the original, Douay translation (1609) of Deuteronomy 17:9.

gladius_veritatis · « **Reply #116 on:** July 01, 2022, 12:47:50 AM »

Quote from: Stubborn on June 30, 2022, 10:17:32 AM

What Catholics do not do, is we do not expel popes from the Church as if that is our religious obligation - not even in this day and age.

No, but they can "expel" (what is this, grade school?) and have, in recent times, expelled themselves. What is more, the entity from which they have expelled themselves is clearly NOT Holy Mother Church -- which is why there is any resistance at all, much less one that is long-standing and worldwide -- but rather a ravenous Whore who devours her own children, decade after decade. Holy Church, like Her Master before Her, died, at least in a mystical sense -- Her body and Her soul were separated. God alone can reunite them and it will be glorious to behold. Hold fast in what promise to be wild days ahead. Godspeed.

gladius_veritatis · « **Reply #117 on:** July 01, 2022, 12:51:25 AM »

Quote from: SeanJohnson on June 29, 2022, 07:15:47 AM

It only “instructs” in an indirect way, via “lex orandi, lex credentials.”

Are "lex credentials" akin to "street cred"?

Stubborn · « **Reply #118 on:** July 01, 2022, 06:10:42 AM »

Quote from: gladius_veritatis on July 01, 2022, 12:47:50 AM

No, but they can "expel" (what is this, grade school?) and have, in recent times, expelled themselves. What is more, the entity from which they have expelled themselves is clearly NOT Holy Mother Church -- which is why there is any resistance at all, much less one that is long-standing and worldwide -- but rather a ravenous Whore who devours her own children, decade after decade. Holy Church, like Her Master before Her, died, at least in a mystical sense -- Her body and Her soul were separated. God alone can reunite them and it will be glorious to behold. Hold fast in what promise to be wild days ahead. Godspeed.

Yes, expelled is akin to grade or elementary school, as it is through the most fundamental, basic and elementary Catholic theology that we must look at this matter of the pope. Do *that* and all the advanced, sophisticated and technical theological ideas and opinions cast before us here on CI fall apart.

It is the fundamentals, the basic tenets of our holy religion that the sedes abandon - as they must in order to make it just confusing enough through their advanced theology to conform to their own narrative.

Holy Mother the Church will remain - and while, like Christ, she may get beaten and bruised, she will most certainly, like Christ, remain spotless until the end of time. A hundred heretic popes and hierarchy, along with all the billions of sheep that follow them and help to spread the heresies will never change that.

This above truth is all but inconceivable to sedes, at least the sedes who insist the Church must have legitimate popes or it is/will be destroyed - meanwhile, the sedes themselves insist that for 60+ years there has been no pope, yet they have kept the faith for those 60+ years without one thank you very much.

ServusInutilisDomini · « **Reply #119 on:** July 01, 2022, 06:29:38 AM »

Quote from: Stubborn on July 01, 2022, 06:10:42 AM

Yes, expelled is akin to grade or elementary school, as it is through the most fundamental, basic and elementary Catholic theology that we must look at this matter of the pope. Do *that* and all the advanced, sophisticated and technical theological ideas and opinions cast before us here on CI fall apart.

It is the fundamentals, the basic tenets of our holy religion that the sedes abandon - as they must in order to make it just confusing enough through their advanced theology to conform to their own narrative.

Holy Mother the Church will remain - and while, like Christ, she may get beaten and bruised, she will most certainly, like Christ, remain spotless until the end of time. A hundred heretic popes and hierarchy, along with all the billions of sheep that follow them and help to spread the heresies will never change that.

This above truth is all but inconceivable to sedes, at least the sedes who insist the Church must have legitimate popes or it is/will be destroyed - meanwhile, the sedes themselves insist that for 60+ years there has been no pope, yet they have kept the faith for those 60+ years without one thank you very much.

The question is not whether she will get beaten and bruised, that has obviously happened. But can the Church beat and bruise herself? Obviously not, and her faith must remain spotless, of course, which all have understood to mean she can promulgate no heresy.

There is no precedent of a heretical pope. On the other hand, we have much precedent on the vacancy of the See. Please illuminate me, after how long a vacancy has the Church defected? Is it 3 years? Ten and a half and three days? Thirty eight?
Obviously a defection must have a qualitative difference from a mere vacancy, a difference which only a hypothetical heretical pope can constitute.

I seriously can't understand how one may think that one moment the Church is fine and the other it has defected by the mere passage of time. Ridiculous. Please stop saying that because I know you don't believe it.

Here we have the Church teaching what constitutes defection:

These matters having been treated with thorough-going exactness, we bear in mind what was promised about the holy Church and Him who said that the gates of hell will not prevail against it (by these we understand the death-dealing tongues of heretics); we also bear in mind what was prophesied about the church by Hosea when he said, I shall betroth you to me in faithfulness and you shall know the Lord; and we count along with the devil, the father of lies, the uncontrolled tongues of heretics and their heretical writings, together with the heretics themselves who have persisted in their heresy even to death.

~ Second Council of Constantinople, Sentence against the Three Chapters

Was this complex theology? I seriously hope not.

Author Topic: Francis Issues Desiderio Desideravi on Mass (Read 10139 times)

Ladislaus

Re: Francis Issues Desiderio Desideravi on Mass

epiphany

Re: Francis Issues Desiderio Desideravi on Mass

ServusInutilisDomini

Re: Francis Issues Desiderio Desideravi on Mass

SperaInDeo

Re: Francis Issues Desiderio Desideravi on Mass

ServusInutilisDomini

Re: Francis Issues Desiderio Desideravi on Mass

SeanJohnson

Re: Francis Issues Desiderio Desideravi on Mass

SperaInDeo

Re: Francis Issues Desiderio Desideravi on Mass

SeanJohnson

Re: Francis Issues Desiderio Desideravi on Mass

SeanJohnson

Re: Francis Issues Desiderio Desideravi on Mass

DecemRationis

Re: Francis Issues Desiderio Desideravi on Mass

DecemRationis

Re: Francis Issues Desiderio Desideravi on Mass

gladius_veritatis

Re: Francis Issues Desiderio Desideravi on Mass

gladius_veritatis

Re: Francis Issues Desiderio Desideravi on Mass

Stubborn

Re: Francis Issues Desiderio Desideravi on Mass

ServusInutilisDomini

Re: Francis Issues Desiderio Desideravi on Mass