As I suggested in a previous post, as the Catholic world reacts to the “Invocation for Peace” that took place at the Vatican on Pentecost, the mettle of individuals is being made known.
Fr. Dwight Longenecker, for example, has provided a veritable case study for the typical modus operandi of many so-called “conservative” Catholics in the face of such events; a multilayered approach consisting of condescension, mind-bending illogic and contradiction, all neatly packaged in a cloak of denial.
On Saturday, the day before the big event, Fr. Longenecker stepped up to the plate in defense of Pope Francis on his blog. Well, sorta…
What he really did was take a bat to those who don’t appreciate, as apparently he does, the nuances between Catholics and non-Catholics “being together for prayer, but not prayer together,” having lifted this quote from a damage-control paper issued by the Pontifical Council for Interreligious Dialogue in May.
“It is in the subtle distinctions,” Fr. Longenecker proposed for the benefit of those who may lack the intellectual heft to see what he sees, “that true discernment lies.”
Oh the sublimity!
To be clear, I don’t necessarily think that Fr. Longenecker is so much enthralled with his own erudition as he is convinced of a far more dangerous proposition; namely, that everything that comes out of Rome, including every last word and deed of the popes, can be defended as nourishment for the soul.
“Being together for prayer, but not prayer together.”
The hairsplitting ecumaniacs who cook this stuff up would be a source of amusement if not for the tragic consequences of their agenda.
Belittling those, like me, who just don’t get it, Fr. Longenecker writes, “You’d think Pope Francis was just about to convert to Islam, become the chief Imam and turn St Peter’s into a mosque,” smugly assuring readers that the pope himself isn’t likely to recite Muslim prayers.
Maybe Fr. Longenecker just needs a little more time to get his hands around this papacy thing.
Apparently he doesn’t quite comprehend the fact that the Petrine Office, and the person who occupies it (even if that man be a Jesuit), carry unparalleled gravitas; so much so that the pope, in just a moment’s time, can literally alter the course of human history.
Even without dropping to his knees in the direction of Mecca, simply inviting Muslim clerics to pray from that condemnable book of blasphemies known as the Qur’an, at the Vatican, the place recognized as the very heart of the Catholic Church by people the world over, in his presence, before a delegation of cardinals, lends an entirely unwarranted degree of prestige to a dangerous and false religion that is utterly hostile to the mission that Christ gave to His Church.
If it takes a deep appreciation for “subtle distinctions” in order to convince oneself that this an acceptable response to our first obligation; namely, to render unto the Lord the honor and reverence that He is due, count me out. I’ll just continue sentire cum ecclesia, thank you very much.
To Fr. Longenecker, by contrast, the pope’s interfaith powwow “is part of his role as the premier spiritual leader in the world.”
Oh, really? And what does this say about the Holy Roman Pontiffs that came before the conciliar storm? Are we to believe that the poor popes of old also lacked an appreciation for subtle distinctions?
The hubris of those who operate as if the likes of Pope Pius XI, who promulgated the most important (and most widely ignored) encyclical on ecumenism of the last century, Mortalium Animos, were in some way lacking in their own approach to the spiritual leadership role of their exalted office is truly stunning, and unfortunately, entirely commonplace.
If pressed to identify exactly what has changed since then, the defenders of newchurch ecumenism have nothing of substance to offer. (Please, if you who are reading this are among them, prove me wrong so I can sleep better at night.)
It’s not as though the popes prior to the groovy 1960’s never took the time to consider the possible merits of such interfaith gatherings as that which took place on Pentecost under Pope Francis; in fact, they gave considerable thought to the matter and condemned them out of hand as a danger to the Faith, and for damn good reason.
Undaunted, Fr. Longenecker launched into an unconvincing apology for the “Muslims-and-Catholics-worship-the-same-God” theory, stating:
Islam is not a pagan religion. It is a Christian heresy. It formed in Christian lands and is a legalistic oversimplification of Christianity. The closest comparison we have in our culture to Islam is the Mormon religion. Both are heretical offshoots of Christianity. They therefore worship the same God we do–albeit in a defective way.
No, Father, your alma mater (Bob Jones University) espouses Christian heresy; Muslims don’t espouse “Christian” anything.
Heresy is “the obstinate post-baptismal denial of some truth which must be believed with divine and catholic faith.”
Not only are the tenets of Islam not of “post-baptismal” Christian origin, they aren’t exactly a secret.
According to this false religion and its unholy writ (the Qur’an from which the “prayers” were read on Pentecost at the Vatican) the god they worship revealed to the prophet Muhammad through the angel Gabriel that “Christ, the son of Mary, was no more than a messenger” sent to prepare the way for guess who? Muhammad!
So much for that whole Prince of Peace idea, eh?
It doesn’t take a doctorate in sacred theology to see that Islam isn’t simply a matter of worshipping “the same God in a defective way;” it’s a religion that worships a defective god; a decidedly false one.
Fr. Longenecker, however, considers this but “legalistic oversimplification of Christianity,” when in truth it is nothing less than the wholesale rejection of Christianity.
In other recent posts on his blog, Fr. Longenecker labors to defend his position on Islam; you can torture yourself by reading them over there if you’d like, but this raises an interesting question:
Why is it so important for the defenders of the “Invocation for Peace” to demonstrate that the false god of Islam to whom so many lies and blasphemies are attributed is the “same God” that we worship?
Could it be that Fr. Longenecker and other likeminded men of “true discernment” understand just how contrary to the Faith such interfaith events would be if in fact the Islamic god is a false diety?
Apparently so.
“Some Catholics who are already edgy about Francis and uneasy about his stance on matters see this [Invocation for Peace] as yet another compromise–a potentially disastrous Koran kissing ‘Assisi moment’ –referring to Pope John Paul II’s inter faith service in Assisi in 1986,” he wrote.
Elsewhere he attempts to minimize Pope Francis’ offense, saying, “Notice this is not taking place in a Catholic Church.”
Setting aside the sacred significance of the Vatican as a whole, this raises yet more questions still.
What if the “Invocation” did take place in a Catholic Church? Are we to assume that Fr. Longenecker would have joined Neanderthals like me in voicing an objection on behalf of Our Lord?
One wonders, but I seriously doubt it.
And yet, it would seem as if Fr. Longenecker’s own sensus Catholicus, such as it is, is poking at his Christian conscience; telling him that the polish pope was indeed guilty of inexplicable abominations.
Like all good “conservatives,” however, he too applauded the canonization of “John Paul the Great.”
In the end, Fr. Longenecker would only go so far as to say of the Pentecost fiasco:
If I had my druthers Pope Francis would follow the example of Benedict in this matter. When he met with leaders of other faiths he would simply observe a moment of prayerful silence together with them.
That’s all well and good, but he seems to have forgotten that the abdicator had his own “Assisi moment.” In any case, he didn’t explain why this would have been preferable. Again, it may very well be that he recognizes, on some level anyway, the lunacy of it all and is struggling to find his sea legs on this Barque in a tempest.
As it is, Fr. Longenecker ended his assault against dullards like me who felt compelled to publicly object to the globally disseminated dishonor Our Blessed Lord endured on Pentecost at the hands of His Vicar by saying, “Those who are getting all nervous [about the pope’s recent shenanigans] should take a deep breath.”
To which I can only suggest that Fr. Longenecker would serve his flock well by expelling a little less breath explaining away the offenses that are heaped upon Christ in our day and a little bit more defending His honor.
Dear Mr. V.–
you said it. I know.
Whaaaaaaat ?—— “—–part of his role as the premier spiritual leader in the world.” huh?????
———-
With shepherds like these, who needs enemies?
I’m going to have to raise my nausea quotient in order to get through this entire {100 yr long,} episode, to be quite honest.
Fr. Longenecker blathers on often by qualifying his entries with words similar to: “I’m not a Traditional Catholic myself, {not wanting to be identified with the quasi’s,} but they’re so darned adorable—-,”–etc. etc. ad nauseum.
Mama mia.
I thought it was great that many of the people who commented on his blog saw through the bull.
BTW, did you hear that the Muslim prayed for conquest over the infidel?
I don’t whether to laugh or cry.
laugh, dear JamesTheLesser,
a healthy capacity for humor—– we will need for what is before us. And BTW, I thought that was great too.
I did see that horrendous prayer in text, yes.
Peace be to you.
So uh, where is Father’s collar? And I thought the title of his blog was particularly appropriate, considering the contorted, perverted “logic” of his apologia (or shall we call it “sycophantologia”?): “Standing On My Head.”
“If you read no more than the headline you’d think Pope Francis was just about to convert to Islam, become the chief Imam and turn St Peter’s into a mosque. Not so.” – ah yes, the old straw man fallacy: create a false scenario and then debunk it as though you’ve debunked the actual issue.
To borrow an analogy from “St. Corbinian’s Bear” regarding a spouse caught meeting his lover for dinner: Honey,
“We’re not eating together, we’re just together, eating”
And no, marital infidelity is not really funny, or something to joke about.
But Isn’t that really the point?
Old and New testament as well as clearly defined past papal encyclicals, describe these kinds of activities by the Bride of Christ as acting as a whore. They bring down the wrath of God in the end, if not fully repented beforehand. And frankly, we’re getting worn out from adding to our own penances daily, in order to atone for these terrible sins and assaults on God and Our Lady.
Thank you Louie for not reneging on your journalistic integrity and making like an ostrich in the name of saving the Church from further scandal.
Thank you for seeing how ridiculous it is for you poor brother reporters and commentators and teachers, to continue to boldly speak out against all the ravages against Holy Mother Church done by lay people and Bishops who imitate the Pope, while ignoring the most damaging ones at the top, and even attempting to whitewash them, telling themselves they are helping preserve something, while the building burns to the ground, leaving only the remnant faithful and their Lord, who is keeping His promise to remain with her to the end, and what looks to all the world, like the death of the Church.
We are left comparing outrages to determine which deserves more of our time and attention and sacrifices–the promotion of sacrilegious reception of the Eucharist by souls not in a state of Grace, or the promotion of indifferentism by example along with the outright rejection of Christian duty mandated by the Son of God whose Church this is, and who is being outrageously put through the passion all over again by His own ministers. They spit in His Holy Face with these actions, and scourge Him and lay His cross upon Him and His followers, driving in the nails in and continue to grin and hug one another while employing their spin-doctors for damage control, which isn’t fooling anyone.
All you have to do is google: “Did the Catholic Church reverse it’s Dogmas after Vatican II? and then set aside a month to read all the blogs and essays calling us out for our hypocrisy at still claiming to teac ” no salvation outside the Church”, and belief in the Real Presence, which can now be desecrated by receiving in a state of unrepented, unconfessed , ongoing Mortal Sin-not promulgated officially but taught by personal example and phone calls made public and not denied…which the “Catholic” Press ignores or mitigates depending on what day of the week it is.
Except for people like Louie, Steve Skojec, the Bear, and sites like Creative Minority Report…where we find Saints who help us preserve our sanity.
God love them, and help their compatriots to come to their senses and follow suit for all our sakes, as we offer up these latest sufferings together.
God Bless us all.
It’s scary. It’s as if many believe that the Church started in the 1960’s. :-/
Dear James The Lesser
Your point is something to consider. Many of the victims of this modernist church of darkness (dare I say “subsisting” ) within the True Church, probably have no clue as to the way things once were, as their teachers made every effort to denigrate the past, apologize for it, and get them to ignore it as if it were all some error of cave-man thinking compared to the “progressive” more enlightened theologies of the “me and now” generation. They and their children likely comprise the main body of it’s working, financial supporters now, making it vital to court their favor to keep the collections adequate–which explains a lot of the pulpit mush being dished out over the last 50 years.
Fr. Chad Ripperger wrote a commendable article describing the distinction between Conservative and Traditional Catholicism (http://bit.ly/UtYHLy) which seems particularly relevant given the latest developments in the Catholic blogging scene.
A sympathetic word to faithful Catholics who fear that they may never have access to holy priests: ponder
these words of (of all people) Jorge Bergoglio, and take from them whatever comfort you can:
“Pope Francis also noted the history of Japanese Catholics, who survived without priests for two centuries after missionaries were expelled in the 17th century. When missionaries were finally permitted to return, the Pope added, they found ‘all the communities in order, all baptised, all catechised, all married in the church.'”
Not claiming Divine inspiration for this, but I WAS praying when it came to me just now:
“Credo of a Roman Catholic”
I believe you are with us, Oh Dear, Saving Lord,
And I pray at this moment that You be adored,
as Three Persons in One God- revealed by You
and proclaimed through the ages, till Vatican II
when the shepherds that guard us asked wolves to come in,
and sit down in the sheepfold to re-define sin.
What they didn’t expect as they worked in the dark,
was the light of your Spirit, from one tiny spark,
of the Fire of Your Love that still dwells in the heart
of every true Christian your Grace keeps apart
from the paths of the devil that lead to perdition
as they gratefully cling (like old bats) to Tradition.
Amen.
Spoken like a true sour faced neo-palagian, attached to a kind of fashion, while behaving like a querullous and disillusioned pessimist, you sad Christian, you.
———
adapted from Mr. Bones.
http://thatthebonesyouhavecrushedmaythrill.blogspot.com/2013/12/the-pope-francis-little-book-of-insults.html
Thank you, Louie. It’s about time someone started to disassemble this smarmy priest. I’ve had a couple of jousts with him. His neo-clericalism is stunning.
1. You are right on Fr. Longenecker. People need to open their eyes.
2. As to heresies, it can be a matter of definition. In his book, “The Great Heresies,” Hilaire Belloc included a long chapter, “The Great and Enduring Heresy of Mohammed.” It’s free on the Internet. He wrote: “Mohammedanism was a *heresy*: that is the essential point to grasp
before going any further. It began as a heresy, not as a new religion. It
was not a pagan contrast with the Church; it was not an alien enemy. It
was a perversion of Christian doctrine. Its vitality and endurance soon
gave it the appearance of a new religion, but those who were contemporary
with its rise saw it for what it was — not a denial, but an adaptation and a
misuse, of the Christian thing. It differed from most (not from all)
heresies in this, that it did not arise within the bounds of the Christian
Church. The chief heresiarch, Mohammed himself, was not, like most
heresiarchs, a man of Catholic birth and doctrine to begin with. He
sprang from pagans. But that which he taught was in the main Catholic
doctrine, oversimplified. It was the great Catholic world — on the frontiers
of which he lived, whose influence was all around him and whose
territories he had known by travel — which inspired his convictions. He came
of, and mixed with, the degraded idolaters of the Arabian wilderness, the
conquest of which had never seemed worth the Romans’ while.”
Everything Bergoglio says and does can be spun a million different ways. That is because he is not grounded in the faith. If that makes you dizzy, do not watch EWTN. They are masters at making Bergoglio sound and look like he is actually Catholic–which he is NOT!
PS- Have you heard that Father Justin Wylie is being “disciplined” for trying to save historic Holy Innocents Church in Manhattan from closure. Could it be that Holy Innocents is in danger because it has the daily TLM—the only REAL sin!
I just ripped this clown on his blog….now i have to see if my post goes through.
“…the typical modus operandi of many so-called “conservative” Catholics in the face of such events; a multilayered approach consisting of condescension, mind-bending illogic and contradiction, all neatly packaged in a cloak of denial.” Yes, this is exactly what we’re getting from conservative Catholic media outlets, and I recently withdrew my support from one of them because of outright lies. This outlet (who shall not be named) invited all of us who disagree with their editorial view to quit supporting them if we don’t like it, and I took them up on it. I guess they’ll have to do another cruise to make up for the decline in revenues.
I do think that the invitation to prayer should never have been made by Pope Francis in the first place.
On the other hand, Pope Francis is head of state of the Vatican.
“BTW, did you hear that the Muslim prayed for conquest over the infidel?”
–
The Spirit of the Council conveniently abandoned the principle of non-contradiction, so this is not really an issue.
–
(Perhaps there will be a future ecumaniacal gathering where the Muslims will detonate IED on the Catholic side of the square, to be immediately followed by the surviving prelates indignantly chastising those who don’t realize that “Islam is a religion of peace”.)
“On the other hand, Pope Francis is head of state of the Vatican.”
–
Which is entirely irrelevant to Catholics expressing criticism for his words and actions that harm the faith, as previous popes, all theologians of any note, numerous saints, and canon law command us to do.
There is some support even among Traditionalists for calling Islam a Christian heresy; for example, Malachi Martin said this, and happened to believe that at some point there would be a mass conversion of Muslims. (He cited devotion to the Mother of God, which is common among some of them, as evidence of this.)
–
However, this is quite irrelevant to the current question: public prayer with manifest heretics is just as forbidden as such with infidels. And, since the Catholic Encyclopedia defines “infidels” as the unbaptized, which obviously includes Muslims, that would indeed seem to be the more accurate word.
–
The question as to whether or not we “worship the same God” must include the distinction of objective vs. subjective. There is only one God to worship, so he is the only God that *can* be worshipped. But is a Muslim who consciously rejects the revelation of God’s Triune nature truly worshipping Him in prayer?
–
Islam embraces some truly grotesque errors regarding the Divinity; theirs is a God who can contradict Himself, and who has no true love for mankind whatsoever. It also sanctions some of the most despicable behavior (sexually and otherwise) imaginable. (NOTE TO ECUMANIACS: they still butcher their women. Girls, actually, usually. They mutilate them! For those who have the stomach for it search out Ann Barnhardt’s horrific video.)
–
It’s a perfect sign of the madness we live in now that a man like Fr. Longnecker stands among the cognescenti while Mr. Verrecchio is marginalized for speaking the plain Catholic truth that was proclaimed from the highest heights for 19 centuries (persecution or no).
–
“They may have the churches, but we have the true Faith.”
ditto, de Maria, with shepherds like these.
Louie wrote: “The hairsplitting ecumaniacs who cook this stuff up would be a source of amusement if not for the tragic consequences of their agenda.” This is the Truth of it. And the Pope is not the “premier spiritual leader in the world”, he is supposed to be the Vicar of Christ, a sovereign contradiction to the world – as Popes used to be, prior to roncalli.
–
It would seem Longnecker is a prime example of someone who likes to ‘fudge the Faith’ so as not to have to swallow the bitter pill of the real treachery going on. Those who like to fudge the faith, employ “a multilayered approach consisting of condescension, mind-bending illogic and contradiction, all neatly packaged in a cloak of denial” and they insist that after all these Houndini-contortions, all and sundry should follow suit. And no amount of Catholic Proof, of Catholic Truth, of Catholic Fact, of Catholic Faith will move them away from the altar of brand-vii-catholic.
“A similar object [false ecumenism] is aimed at by some, in those matters which concern the New Law promulgated by Christ our Lord. For since they hold it for certain that men destitute of all religious sense are very rarely to be found, they seem to have founded on that belief a hope that the nations, although they differ among themselves in certain religious matters, will without much difficulty come to agree as brethren in professing certain doctrines, which form as it were a common basis of the spiritual life. For which reason conventions, meetings and addresses are frequently arranged by these persons, at which a large number of listeners are present, and at which all without distinction are invited to join in the discussion, both infidels of every kind, and Christians, even those who have unhappily fallen away from Christ or who with obstinacy and pertinacity deny His divine nature and mission. Certainly such attempts can nowise be approved by Catholics, founded as they are on that false opinion which considers all religions to be more or less good and praiseworthy, since they all in different ways manifest and signify that sense which is inborn in us all, and by which we are led to God and to the obedient acknowledgment of His rule. Not only are those who hold this opinion in error and deceived, but also in distorting the idea of true religion they reject it, and little by little. turn aside to naturalism and atheism, as it is called; from which it clearly follows that one who supports those who hold these theories and attempt to realize them, is altogether abandoning the divinely revealed religion.”
–
http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Pius11/P11MORTA.HTM
–
The Popes of Christmas past didn’t need to mind-bend-logic, they were mercifully clear, concise and authentic – and Catholic.
Muslims don’t worship the same God. They worship a strange “god”. They are separated from the true God by virtue off violating the first commandment and therefore in mortal sin. They are in bondage to the devil….so in essence worshiping the devil in place of God, the Holy Trinity. Who else would command/inspire them to slaughter innocent Catholics?
“Don’t you hate it when that happens? You’re hosting a big interfaith peace event with Jews, Muslims, and “Christians”, and then the Muslim imam ad libs the text he had previously submitted and adds a prayer for “victory over the infidels.” Bummer!”
–
http://www.novusordowatch.org/wire/muslim-peace-prayer-infidel.htm
That’s so not ecumenical!! Wait… it’s only Catholics that have to forsake their Faith and religion for ecumenism.
Belloc called Islam a Christian heresy but never took that idea in the direction Dwight has.
What is it with the shaved head and goatee? Is he going to go Mad Sheepdog on us?
precisely, but don’t tell a committed novus ordoite that or else he’ll have to turn into a pretzel again trying to explain it away.
Amadan, the enemy isn’t going to attack Longnecker the way he did Fr. Corapi (who, so sadly, apparently lost the battle) because, well – he’s already doing his work (unbeknownst to him I am sure) in the battle that really counts now.
–
So, no black goatees for him anytime soon, I believe.
Gotta admit. This past weekend’s prayer invocation was a body blow to me. I still haven’t really recovered yet.
As the Spanish saying goes, “No hay mal que por bien no venga” – there is no evil out of which good cannot come. God allows evil to draw a greater good out of it. Maybe this blasphemous event will be the wake-up call to many catholic souls such as yourself. Bergoglio is not a friend of the faith. Whatever his internal disposition or motivations for his manner of acting, that is an objective fact.
–
Pray to Our Lady for guidance – She will lead to the Truth.
I practically have memorized the First Vatican Council’s teaching on the nature of the papacy. I know, in my mind at least, that when the Holy Father is neither teaching or governing he is capable of making mistakes. But man, this was a BIG mistake!
This explains the Longnecker-syndrome well:
–
“Novus Ordo conservatives hold to continuity of both institution and of doctrine, worship and discipline. Observing the continuity of institution (the material aspect of the Church), Novus Ordo conservatives do mental gymnastics in order to see continuity of doctrine, discipline, and worship. They descend into a religion of a naked emperor, that is, they make a groundless and truly insane act of faith, with absolutely no motives of credibility, believing Modernism to be Roman Catholicism. In their minds they cover the naked of the emperor — the apostasy of Francis — with bolts and bolts of cloth which they manufacture in their imagination. They spin and spin new theories which connect the new religion to the old.”
–
http://mostholytrinityseminary.org/SCSF%20June%202014.pdf
From the same article by Bishop Sanborn:
–
“The Novus Ordo religion is dying. Because the Catholic Church can never be the vehicle of error, heresy, and apostasy, the Novus Ordo religion is gradually dying, since it has no power to attract the human race, as the Catholic Faith does. It is true that it has managed to poison the minds of billions of Catholics, to destroy their faith, and to lead them to hell. But it is incapable of reproducing itself. It is shriveling up, unable to draw the young to itself. Despite the Novus Ordo religion’s takeover of the Catholic institution, it has none of the force and vigor of the Catholic Faith. It has become a religion of old men and old women, who are ironically enthusiastic about the Novus Ordo. The young people have, overall, lost their faith, and are disillusioned by the emptiness, shallowness, and phoniness of the Novus Ordo. They show up occasionally for baptisms, weddings, and funerals, and may be found on the list of “parishioners,” but they are, on the whole, absent from the pews on Sunday. All of the statistical life-signs of the Catholic Church are down miserably since the Novus Ordo takeover. What is yet worse, nearly all the people who are still in the Novus Ordo pews are heretics or apostates.”
–
http://mostholytrinityseminary.org/SCSF%20June%202014.pdf
I would add, “nearly all the people who are still in the Novus Ordo [heirarchy] are heretics or apostates.”
my dear salvemur,
Thank you so much for expressing all of this here. Have you connected with the treasure trove of Bp. Sanborn’s audio homilies on the site? Deeply edifying to hear a cleric speaking sans effeminacy, the way almost all spoke prior 1955 or so, and oh, my beloved Papa Pius XII. It you are not aware of them, please ask & I will link to it. One Ave for my eldest, please?
dear Edu,
Well stated and succinctly as always. Thank you.
I’ll not refrain from stating that the current occupant’s statements and actions are those of one who is an enemy of the Faith, whether the current occupant knows it or not and whether he wants to be or not. As you so well indicate, only His Majesty judges the interior of the man.
brethren,
As deeply disturbing, {to say the least,} the event was—
doesn’t it have to be admitted that the current occupant’s statements regarding his characterization of and slander against The Mother of God by saying that Our Queen possibly had doubts—–was profoundly worse?
Will, do.
–
It’s a great mercy to come across incarnate Catholics who think like Catholics, preach like Catholics, pray like Catholics and speak with the mind of the Church that is out there for any seeker to recognise as Catholic! I’ve heard Bishop Sanborn on TrueRestorationRadio, but thanks for the heads up on the site:
–
http://mostholytrinityseminary.org/sermons.html
dear salvemur,
Thank you for your prayers.
And of course, for Bp. Sanborn exculsively:
have tissues ready, tear jerkers, in a {not effeminate post VII way,} but a good way—-
http://www.traditionalcatholicsermons.org/index_files/BishopSanbornSermonArchives.htm
Thanks to all of you who blog here–there are many good thoughts to ponder in what you have all written today, and we appreciate them.
We are reminded of a quote from Steve Skokec’s reply section following his article a month or so ago “It doesn’t take a Rigorist”, which struck us as a rare gem, regarding the ongoing battle in the Church between those who propose to lead the world by example( and often a bad one) , and those who follow Christ’s mandate as it has always been followed prior to Vatican II:
Mr. Skojec said, ” I get the need to establish common ground. But I also know – know with more certainty than almost anything else I know about Catholicism – that it is the unfailing consistency of Church teaching, the nobility of liturgy, the mystery of the sacraments, the unflinching adherence to seemingly fantastic beliefs, it is these things which make Catholicism appealing. Our religion demands much, but it offers much in return. Diminish the appeal of the Church and there’s no reason to cross the Tiber, whether it’s because you’d rather practice birth control, worship at home on Sunday, or eat meat on Fridays. We cannot be first among equals with other religions. Either we’re the gorgeous, impossibly majestic but ultimately inescapable narrow gate, or we’re a giant bureaucratic anachronism trying to look young and hip when others are doing the whole Jesus thing much better according to the zeitgeist.
I submit that merely interesting these people in having another look will never be outweighed by failing to offer to them all that Catholicism is, has been, and should be. There’s something to be said for Pascal’s wager. Something to be said for finding yourself having a cold sweat about NOT joining up as you lay awake thinking about eternity, and whether you really need to get on the Catholic train to get there.”
Amen, Steve. God bless us all with the wisdom and courage to continue boldly speaking out for the sake of every soul who will hear and respond to God’s call to conversion to the One, True, Faith, till the end of time.
Sorry for the typo above–it’s Steve Skojec properly spelled.
I wish I could be there. Such immense hope-let us pray for these youthful shepherds of the Church.
———-
http://sspx.org/en/news-events/news/pray-fridays-ordinands-4212
———-
To take place tomorrow, on the Feast of St. Anthony of Padua.
Forewarned is forearmed! Listened to the top one (from 2009) – this is the sort of clear, erudite and Triumphant preaching we need! ‘The Church must pray for supernatural help against Her enemies…everyday…men are dependent upon God for everything that is good.’
–
http://traditionalcatholicsermons.org/BishopSanbornSermonArchive/BpSan_TheHolyRosary_10-04-09_2147.mp3
–
I remember someone saying once, that he didn’t pray to God for an easy life, but he prayed to God for the strength to get through whatever is necessary.
–
‘Oh Powerful Virgin, like the Tower of David, a thousand shields hang upon it. All the armour of the brave!’
It’s mind boggling to think this ecu-maniacal meeting was done on Pentecost! The day that Peter stood up and told the Jews that they crucified our Lord and needed to repent and be baptized.
Sanborn may sound like sweet candy to the ear but he is a schismatic that has severed communion with every Catholic except his little sect. Also, if you believe, as he does, that we are in a interregnum then his elevation to “bishop” would be invalid, as it is a violation of canon law to ordain bishops during a period between Papacies. Further, why would Sanborn be exempt from being affected by the chastisement? It smacks of the attitude, “thank you Lord that I am not like them”. Beware of those in sheep’s clothing but inside are ravenous wolves. Sanborn has set himself up as the savior of Catholicism in these turbulent times. But he pits you against your brothers. This a spiritual battle. Sanborn, no thanks! I’ll trust that the Lord is in control. There are still Faithful among those that the blanket statement of “heretic” is thrown over.
Two FSSP priests attacked, one dead in Phoenix AZ:
http://www.abc15.com/news/region-phoenix-metro/central-phoenix/police-priest-shot-killed-in-downtown-phoenix-second-priest-hurt-police-searching-for-suspects
http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.co.uk/2014/06/urgent-prayer-request-fssp-priests.html
prayers from new york city
Oh my word. This totally broke my heart. Lord have mercy and may your faithful servant’s memory be eternal.
Bishop Sanborn is a valid Apostolic Son, who performs valid sacraments and teaches the True Faith. For a start in the post-priestly VII church ‘schismatic’ is a neo-anachronism. Unlike vii bishops of Rome, Bishop Sanborn doesn’t make a living casting pearls before swine .
_
Remember JPII:
–
St Peter said, ‘Thou art Christ, the Son of the Living God’. Who did Wolytja say Christ was? 22/10/78 First homily of Wojtyla – “please listen once again, today in this sacred place [St Peter’s Square], to the words uttered by Simon Peter. In those words is the faith of the Church. In those same words is the new truth, indeed, the ultimate and definitive truth about man: the son of the living God—”You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.”
–
Wojyla’s writings and speeches and actions are steeped with his ‘gospel of man’; his the new god. Wojtyla preaches that Christ is every single human being.
–
Evangelium Vitae: ‘The Gospel of life is something concrete and personal for it consists in and of the very person of Jesus…the Gospel of God’s love for man; the Gospel of the dignity of the human person; and the Gospel of life, are one single and indivisible Gospel. This is why man – living man – is the primary and fundamental way for the Church.’ It is most interesting to note that in English this last sentence is rendered incomprehensible – I had to read it in Italian and it there it is plain.
–
Pope Saint Pius X E Suprimi Apostolatus: “this according to the same apostle [St Paul] is the distinguishing mark of Antichrist; man has with infinite temerity put himself in the place of God, raising himself above all that is called God; in such wise that although he cannot utterly extinguish in himself all knowledge of God, he has contemned [viewed with contempt] God’s majesty and, as it were, made of the universe a temple wherein he himself is to be adored. “He sitteth in the temple of God, showing himself as if he were God” (II. Thess. ii., 2).
–
Another Wojtyla quote, ‘so that consciences can be freed in the full truth about man, who is christ’. 22/02/84
–
anti-saint and anti-pope Wojtyla and his religion of man.
–
Now if you were a priest who cared about his Faith would you think it pleasing to God to promote a Wojtyla?
–
As for Paul VIs rites – if we are not willing to attend montini’s mass, why do we think montini’s new rites for ordination are valid?
–
http://www.fathercekada.com/2013/11/06/1968-rite-of-episcopal-consecration-valid-or-no/
–
we are living through, if not THE Great Apostasy, a great apostasy – Catholicism isn’t a brand endorsed by the latest bishop of rome who is free to overturn the centuries of unified wisdom of Peter’s successors – it is the True Faith.
dear JamesTheLesser,
I beg you to refrain. Do not assume, if you are, that our suggestions are borne out of ignorance. You do not know what is the intent of the man nor do you know what is in his heart. And your statements are faulty.
———–
It is necessary for you to offer to a validly ordained priest of the Holy Catholic Church, who defends the Truths of the Faith, the same charity you requested for yourself at an earlier time.
———–
Furthermore, I know Bp. Sanborn and he is my friend. In a time of abject poverty decades ago he was the only solid Catholic priest who exercised authentic priestly care to my newborn, myself, and my older children.
———-
In these times where most wells are empty, I found Truth from one who provided it to me at his great hardship.
Abide by what salvemur has to say.
Peace be to you.
Well said. The treachery of VII seems Sisyphian in its proportions at times. We are simply Faithful Catholics unwilling to bow to baal as the vii-heirarchy would have us do. Happily VII, like Sisyphus, is a myth that will pass away.
–
p.s. James, the counter-church also has striven to through out Traditional teaching on apostolic succession, which is why they felt free to change ordination rites. Meanwhile, authentic Catholicism teaches, ‘That all therefore might know, for the Holy Church governs by no other ministers than those of apostolic succession. Article 9 Creed, Trent 2 paragraph.’ Yet bergoglio endorses the new rites and not only that but endorses protestants as ‘brother bishops’.
The man would have you believe that the FSSP are heretics. Do you believe this? I reject this notion. Funny how the discussion was Sanborn and you divert by pointing out the sins of JPII and make blanket statements about “novus ordos”. Too much listening to Sanborn me thinks. Where modernists are under every bed and behind every lamp post. If you believe Sanborn is the only true representative hierarchy of Catholicism they you have bought in to the cult of personality. Need I remind you he also guilty of schism from the SSPX, who he in his self appointed authority has deemed heretics as well.
What a terrible, terrible tragedy. This is the savage, barbaric level to which western society has descended into. My prayers go out for repose of the soul of the young priest (Fr Walker, only 29 years old!) brutally murdered and for the full recovery of Fr Terra.
–
These two priests must have been souls in God’s own heart, who must have been safely leading their flock into holiness and green pastures. Surely this is the reason why they were picked out by Satan for this crime.
–
REQUIEM aeternam dona ei, Domine, et lux perpetua luceat ei. Requiescat in pace. Amen.
Sorry, I have no respect for a man that divides the body of Christ. No matter how many pre-VII documents he can quote or how pious he may appear.
Salvemur, a young faithful FSSP Priest was just murdered and yet you assail anyone that doesn’t buy into your narrow minded views as “novus ordos”. In my estimation that would include most on these boards, the poor Priest and even Louie who admits to having gone to a Novus Ordo mass. Why don’t you bugger off and go spew your sedevacantist garbage elsewhere. Where you can high five your sede buddies in sede triumphalism.
no diversion intended, rather the crux of the matter – good men like Bishop Sanborn would not give up Christ and align themselves with the montinis and wojtyla’s of this world, and I mean the world. If you were an ‘alter Christus’, would you?
–
at any rate, in time, we all learn to recognise authenticity – recognising the lack of it is not much fun though.
dear JamesTheLesser,
You know not from whence you speak. Only you can correct that. In the meantime, according to the dictates owner of the blog, you have the right to speak
———–
That said, it is a good time to point out something that I’ve referred many times over the months here, which is obvious to most but evidently to some not so.
——
This is a blog. We are commenters. Nothing more, and most probably less. We drink what we hope is clear water. If we find it rusty, we spit it out. The need to badger and flagellate must be moderated by all. We know nothing about one another so therefore, know that we attempt to be as charitable as we can and assume that we are devoid of the full picture.
——–
That includes you , me and everyone.
p.s. not being omniscient, these murders are news to me. There does seem to be an assumption of ill-will sometimes, which I think would please our enemies. It certainly isn’t helping us.
Kyrie eleison.
I have been nothing but kind to you. You linked to a person that I feel is a danger to Catholics who are suffering. Instead of suffering for our Lord the man presents a position that everything is peaches and cream in his camp and therefore everyone else that calls themselves Catholic is a heretic getting what they deserve. Also, I’m sick of the false dichotomy. It goes something like this …. You question Sanborn so you are just like Montini and agree with everything he did, you’re a modernist “Novus Ordo”. I’m so sick of that sort of childish attitude. As far as you opining to have me banned, who is charitable now? You would actually desire to have me banned because I oppose those that try to further tear the body of Christ apart by espousing the sedevacantist position??? I now question why you are here, on a blog, of a man that doesn’t hold your view.
Dear James the Lesser
We have abstained from your ongoing conversation with deMaria and others because of our lack of information about the topics you have been discussing, yet we have been following them, in order try to understand all of your opinions.
After reading deMaria’s last one, the one you seem to be responding to here, it seems you mistook her mention of being charitable and moderating ourselves to be some kind of threat to you which she didn’t intend at all.
Before you posted your reply, we were composing one to second her thoughts regarding the fact that we are all just blogging here, all have varied opinions, and that’s a GOOD thing, as long as each of us remember to be respectful of the others as persons–including you. We think that’s what she meant. We hope that helps you feel as we do, that your feelings and ideas are not being mocked. If others reject them, they have their reasons, and for the sake of peaceful discussion, you also should try to allow them to express those ideas contrary to your own. God Bless us all.
Thank you for the information and link. The prayer list on the second one included the victims, their families, and the perpetrators–who likely are in the most danger of losing their eternal souls.
We are praying for all. God Bless you.
dear JamesTheLesser,
Read the derogatory words you have written earlier , my friend, in response to another, not me. Please remain civil, as you are now doing. That has nothing to do with issues discussed.
And I’ll repeat,–emphatically,
We know nothing about one another so therefore, know that we attempt to be as charitable as we can and assume that we are devoid of the full picture.
You assume way too much
This thank you was for Bigfred for the info on the priests who were attacked.
Like I said, I have been nothing but kind to deMaria. She jumped all over me because I criticized Sanborn. BTW, it wasn’t even her comment I responded to.
Now, charity is a two way street, no? I noticed you singled me out. News of a tragic death and brutal beating of 2 FSSP Priests was posted here and people were commenting on it. Yet…. We still have certain people giving quotes that most Catholics (that would include the FSSP, which is in communion with Rome) are heretics and apostates. Apparently the ability to read souls comes natural when one becomes sedevacantist. With all this talk of charity… why am I singled out? Or do you find blanket insults to the majority of folks on this blog as charity?
Yet, the derogatory comment that nearly everyone is a heretic is lost on you. Oh the irony.
One thing is clear as a bell. Wherever people seek the Truth, and even especially when they are passionate and sincere about it, the Devil seeks to use whatever means we provide–any chink in our armor, any tiny bit of frustration that he can flame into anger, to divide us further than our ideas already do.
One way to fight that is to make sure we always see him as the number one enemy, rather than venting our wrath on whatever soul we are trying to help save from his eternal clutches.
Maria, I made comments about a public figure that has no bones about airing his views in public. I have not made any derogatory comments about posters on this blog. You are attempting to make me out to be a bad guy and I don’t appreciate it. I would ask you to refrain and acknowledge the fact that I have not been uncharitable to you. Sanborn claims that those associated with the modern Church, including NO, FSSP & SPPX are heretics or apostates. Many on this blog would fall under this blanket. I asked another poster if he/she agreed with this as well. To which he/she did not respond. While pondering the death of a FSSP Priest it would really make one stop to consider the seriousness of such a claim just thrown out there, don’t you think?
dear James the Lesser,
You really have done me a disservice, if you think I singled you out because I think your ideas are incorrect in any way . You seemed to be getting very upset–and I didn’t pick up on anyone else’s feeling that way, so I was attempting to calm things down. As I said, I am totally ignorant of the topic, which may be why I missed feeling personally insulted by the comments about folks like us being heretics. Yet even if I had picked up on that, I’d have to honestly say I’m used to it after all these years, and don’t consider myself affected at all by name-calling, because I know full well I’m a faithful Catholic. I haven’t joined any groups at all, just attend a Latin Mass three times a week, and try to talk to Novus Ordo priests and parishioners whenever I can, to explain what they are missing, and how they’ve been cheated of their heritage, like I used to be, and how modernism has infected their thinking. Many actually listen to me, and I’ve seen a few change over the last 20 years..
So please don’t feel picked on by me, or singled out for criticism.
Since Louie allows people with differing views to use this site, and they appear to passionately hold their views because they believe it is for the greater good of souls, I don’t take their passion as anything but genuine kindness from their point of view. I looked at deMaria’s next statement to you, and see that she too seems to be getting vexed and maybe even angry.
I hope you both with be able to let that go in favor of continued discussions for the benefit of everyone–including people like me who have had no contact with either of the organizations to which you belong. I wish these divisions would stop growing, and there would be no need for anyone who feels like we all do, to go anywhere but to their local parish to be fed by the Bread of Life and with true doctrine. Some day soon, I believe God will intervene to help us all.
In the meantime, please James and de Maria and all, don’t beat one another up. There are enough attacks going on in the world. Let’s keep them out of here, at least.
dear JamesTheLesser,
You are right. You did not make a derogatory comment about another commenter. You made a derogatory comment directly to the commenter-to his/ her/our faces.
Nevertheless, it’s probably not my place to seemingly correct anyone. Far be it from me, in fact.
brethren,
my parish, one in which the Traditional Roman Rite has been offered once each Sunday along with “OF” for about 3 years by a diocesan Traditional priest, is being closed. This, on backlash of a controversy in high profile this past week on Trad postings, to which it is too painful to link, but all here probably know that to which I refer.
The humble priest knew me, made a very old building accessible to my wheelchair, my hands, the alter rail { and others severely handicapped,} for kneeling, etc. Please pray for this gentle priest, and for me,
For anyone who wants to suggest that I am insensitive by asking for prayers at the heels of the tragic deaths of an FSSP priest, please don’t.
One of my sons was an FSSP seminarian and I know very well the goodness of most.
Peace be to you.
De Maria, I find derogatory sedevacantist remarks towards fellow Catholics offensive. Didn’t stop that person from continuing. I wouldn’t expect you to care though. You immediately jumped to their aid and made me the bad guy.
By the way, it is NOT the parish which is mentioned in the high profile postings. It is a small and very poor one, we believe it is the domino effect, in my ignorance for lack of a better term.
God love you.
James, when you arrived here you were the recipient of a pompous ‘holier than thou’ attitude. Now you are dishing out that same thing, but worse. If you want to appoint yourself as the anti-schism czar, then at least try to do it politely and with some emotional control.
Saying things like “your narrow minded views” and “bugger off” to salvemur is uncalled for. So is the profanity that you used against Cyprian the other day.
I’ve been on very many forums of all kinds over the years. I’ve heard it all, seen how things can get ruined, and have even received more than one or two death threats. Politeness will work better on a blog like this.
Fred, you are right. Thank you.
Well spoken, James. I’ll tell you something, I’d never heard of SV until a year ago when I came online after I saw that Francis chose to do Maundy Thursday with criminals. I’d always had respect for Lefebvre, based on the little that I knew: he had been hammered for insisting that he will keep saying the same Latin Mass that had been said for so many years. He seemed very principled, not acting out of personal ambition. That’s when I first questioned if a pope can do wrong things. It was a shock to me.
So here we all are, living out a big moment in history. I don’t mind seeing how other people think. We are all ultimately on the same side, we are few in number, and I think we need to build numbers to… to do what? How do we oppose the even worse things that are right coming around the corner? I don’t quite know what there is to do. But I do know that I want to be part of being on the side of right versus wrong
“Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for justice sake…”
As soon as I saw Francis say that about Mary’s doubts, I figured he was really talking about himself. I think he resolved his doubts by convincing himself that liberal humanism is the true faith.
JamesTheLesser,
–
If you feel de Maria has offended you in any way (I’m not saying she has) please forgive her and let it go. If you have been offended without reason, use this as an opportunity to increase in humility and love for Our Lord. We are all sinners in this blog. We all need to forgive and be charitable to each other.
–
Rather than be bickering and in-fighting, I think we should all be grieving the terrible murder of the Fr Walker in Phoenix now.
Fred, my actions and language were inexcusable and I will not attempt to make excuse. I messed up and am sorry. I think it hits home for me when certain people make blanket statements about an entire group of people that are all different in their state of life. When such statements using prejoratives to condemn all and any associated… it is not just. I can only think of my 80 yr old parents (God bless em) being lumped in. As far as what to do to turn it around? I don’t know. I’ve attempted to contact the FSSP to get a mission started in my area. It will begin by contacting my Archbishop. A daunting task.
Thanks, Indignus, I figured that. Btw, I deliberately spell it as ‘bigfred’ with the little ‘b’ so as not to seem bombastic 🙂
But I like the name because it evinces what that bombastic bigot Obama sneers at : the country boy clinging to bibles and guns.
ABSOLUTELY! Thank you. I am sorry!!
If history is any guide, there will be a conservative counter-reaction when the liberals not only take over everything but then start their usual purges – a la what’s being done to the FFI. (I’m nearly sure that the vast majority of Catholics have never heard of that situation.)
FSSP and SSPX should be having a lot of recruits. I wonder: can a priest of any order request to be released so he can join another order? Does that kind of thing happen?
dear bigfred,
Yes, dependent on the order, the charism and the vows. As you know, vows can be dispensed, changed by the superior or even the reigning Pontiff. And the change can be singular in nature,i.e.–given to only that one individual and for the first time, etc.
Sorry if I intruded on your conversation, but I thought your questions were interesting. I apologize if it is an intrusion.
De Maria… I am reaching out to you to offer a heartfelt apology for my attitude and anything that offended you. You are a nice, well meaning person and I very much would like to have you as a friend that helps strengthen my Faith journey.
I am sorry. God love you…. And so do I.
bigfred, gotcha.
But watch yer language. The O word is one of the few that turns “indigus” into indignent.
We still have a quote on the wall of our kitchen-from Janet Reno on 60 minutes years ago when we were home-schooling:
“A cultist is one who has a strong belief in the Bible and the Second Coming of Christ; who frequently attends Bible studies; has a high level of financial giving to ta Christian cause; home schools their children; has accumulated survival foods and has a strong belief in the Second Amendment; and who distrusts big government. Any of these may qualify, but certainly more than one of these characteristics would cause us to look at this person as a threat, and his family being in a risk situation that qualified for government interference.:
We didn’t relax till the last one finished high school.
.
correction: indignant-you know us gun-totin’ hicks can’t spell, either.
If there’s going to be a group hug next, please give me a heads up so I can come back when it’s over–it’s why I don’t like the N.O. (lol)
I give up.
dear Indignus famulus,
heh,heh,–you spoiled it for me. I was just about to morph into what possibly might have been the first Trad drama queen.
It’s unfortunate, but not surprising, that we’re seeing this infighting here. I say ‘not surprising’ because in this time of mass confusion (due to the “negligence of the pastors”), oftentimes “anything goes”.
–
Note that from here on out I will be speaking from the point of view of the SSPX, which I believe to be the original & primary upholder of Tradition in this time of general apostasy.
–
The new sacramental rites, while in every single case the result of a disturbing and even diabolical application of ecumenitis (I believe it was Dr. von Hildebrand who coined that word), are not “invalid” – in fact, it is nonsensical to speak of a rite itself as “valid” or “invalid”; rather such applies to a given instance of its use. Can these rites be used to confect valid sacraments? What is necessary for this, of course, are form, matter, and intent. In fact, the forms are still valid – the still contain the necessary minimums.
–
Intent is the bigger issue: there are certainly cases these days where priests do not intend to “do what the Church does” regarding the Eucharist or even other sacraments. Does God have some solution for this problem for the case of faithful who are inculpable? I think so, to some extent.
–
So, Fr. Cakeda is wrong. He is wrong about many things, starting with his insistence that individuals are both able and bound to declare with moral certainty that a man canonically elected supreme pontiff is actually *not*.
–
While some theologians were of the opinion that a pontiff loses his office immediately upon becoming a heretic (that is, guilty of formal heresy), and some believed that such a pope lost his office only when the Church officially declared him a heretic, *all of them taught* that the pontiff must continue to be treated as the supreme pontiff of the Catholic Church until such time as he is formally removed from power (ostensibly by the College of Cardinals).
–
Brian McCall discusses this in a recent Remnant article. John Salza and C. Ferrara have also written very good pieces on the errors of the sede position over the years.
–
The sede position is wrong because it requires diving deep into subjectivism: it requires one to presume to know that a person is a formal heretic, beyond doubt. I believe that Francis could be the worst pope the Church has ever had, considering the moral & spiritual damage he is doing (though he’s doing nothing other than continuing the Spirit of the Council which he did not create himself), and he is most clearly a material heretic, but I can’t say that he is an obstinate, public heretic: that he holds to heresy intentionally and despite specific warnings. Even if I could say that, I am *still* bound as a Catholic to treat him as the pope.
It’s unfortunate, but not surprising, that we’re seeing this infighting here. I say ‘not surprising’ because in this time of mass confusion (due to the “negligence of the pastors”), oftentimes “anything goes”.
–
Note that from here on out I will be speaking from the point of view of the SSPX, which I believe to be the original & primary upholder of Tradition in this time of general apostasy.
–
The new sacramental rites, while in every single case the result of a disturbing and even diabolical application of ecumenitis (I believe it was Dr. von Hildebrand who coined that word), are not “invalid” – in fact, it is nonsensical to speak of a rite itself as “valid” or “invalid”; rather such applies to a given instance of its use. Can these rites be used to confect valid sacraments? What is necessary for this, of course, are form, matter, and intent. In fact, the forms are still valid – the still contain the necessary minimums.
–
Intent is the bigger issue: there are certainly cases these days where priests do not intend to “do what the Church does” regarding the Eucharist or even other sacraments. Does God have some solution for this problem for the case of faithful who are inculpable? I think so, to some extent.
–
So, Fr. Cakeda is wrong. He is wrong about many things, starting with his insistence that individuals are both able and bound to declare with moral certainty that a man canonically elected supreme pontiff is actually *not*.
–
While some theologians were of the opinion that a pontiff loses his office immediately upon becoming a heretic (that is, guilty of formal heresy), and some believed that such a pope lost his office only when the Church officially declared him a heretic, *all of them taught* that the pontiff must continue to be treated as the supreme pontiff of the Catholic Church until such time as he is formally removed from power (ostensibly by the College of Cardinals).
–
Brian McCall discusses this in a recent Remnant article. John Salza and C. Ferrara have also written very good pieces on the errors of the sede position over the years.
–
The sede position is wrong because it requires diving deep into subjectivism: it requires one to presume to know that a person is a formal heretic, beyond doubt. I believe that Francis could be the worst pope the Church has ever had, considering the moral & spiritual damage he is doing (though he’s doing nothing other than continuing the Spirit of the Council which he did not create himself), and he is most clearly a material heretic, but I can’t say that he is an obstinate, public heretic: that he holds to heresy intentionally and despite specific warnings. Even if I could say that, I am *still* bound as a Catholic to treat him as the pope.
Archbishop Lefebvre, humble missionary servant and protector of the Faith undefiled, pray for us.
Our Lady Seat of Wisdom guide us.
James The Lesser
You DO know I was just trying to lighten things up, right?
I’m sure I speak for many when I say it takes a big man to apologize sincerely as you have just done, and I’m glad to see it..
..
de Maria
don’t let me stop you…this group could use a smile…
Indignus, what is Latin for kumbaya? And I mean the old Latin, not that newfangled stuff that’s used for texting 🙂
de Maria, that was no intrusion at all from you and in fact I’d think that’s how all blogs should work, with people cross-talking a lot.
Thanks for the answer. So a followup (from anybody): would liberal superiors (using the term lightly) block defectors? Or would they happily say ‘good riddance’ to conservatives? I would love it if conservative priests could and would vote with their feet.
And her twin (in more ways than one) Napolitano eventually succeeded her, with the same attitudes.
I actually now hesitated using the W word, knowing the NSA probably has an alert filter for that. I.e., the ’93
(that’s @Indignus — and nice to meet you, btw)
—
…and now we only need one more comment to break 100. Anybody hear any good Francis jokes lately? A pope, a rabbi and an imam do what??
bigfred,
HIC VENI (but you’ll need a guitar)
true.
bigfred
Nice ta meet you too. Don’t know one about the imam, but
Have you heard of the guy trying to discern which seminary to choos–Dominican or Jesuit? Both founded by Spanish Saints–Dominic and Ignatius. Both founded to combat heresy. Dominicans the Albigensians and the Jesuits the Protestants.
So which is best? Have you met any Albigensians lately?t
Up the middle somewhere Catholic Thinker stated that Fr Cekada is ‘wrong’. It is my understanding that sede-vacantists in no way go against any professed and Tradionally held legalities with regards to papal elections. They recognise that a heretic cannot legally, according the long and venerable Tradition of the Church be elected as pope. Therefore, if it can be proved that person did not meet the criteria of the Faith before the conclave, he did not received the blessing of the Holy Ghost on his election. They also recognise that public heresy in an elected pope immediately removes any legal claim he previously had to be pope. Sede-vacantists are not night fly-by-night fellows, they are in this for the long haul, and when the occupiers of Rome are sent packing because ‘we the pew-punters’ are no longer willing to call God a liar by believing he has given us valid apostate, heretical and downright filthy popes, they will be there to help us pick up the peices. And thank God. Sede-vacantist know Christ, they know their Faith and they know their Church; and they know the motives of those trying to dissolve all of these.
–
Does anyone visiting this site really want to dare to say that the Holy Ghost gave us VII, the Novus Ordo, the Assisi scandals, the child-abuse scandals, the clown masses, the church of man preached by elected popes, and Jorge Bergoglio? We cannot name one pope since Roncalli who hasn’t openly sinned for all the world to see against the very 1st of the Ten Commandments because there isn’t one – and added to that not one who confessed this most grave of public sins. This is something an authentic Vicar of Christ would not be capable of doing.
If anyone is interested in the Traditional teaching of the Church regarding a legal pope the following is a sede-vacantist’s response to the claims of John Salza:
–
http://www.novusordowatch.org/the_chair_is_still_empty.htm#.U5p6-LFtU-I
–
http://www.novusordowatch.org/wire/comedy-hour-with-john-salza.htm
@Catholic Thinker: Only in the spirit of filial correction, I have to point out several inaccuracies in your statement.
First, though, I believe it is wrong to speak from a position of certainty about exactly what is wrong with the Church right now, and how it will be corrected.
It is clear to me that Francis doesn’t hold the faith and hence cannot order me to believe what he believes or to do what he commands. How this situation
(his defection from the faith) will be resolved formally at the highest level of the Church is not known to any of us, though; a definitive statement awaits a faithful Pope or the return of Our Lord himself.
For example, if a future Pope declares that Francis was a heretic from prior to his elevation than the sedevacantists will be vindicated since Francis’ papacy will be null and void and there will have been an interregnum at least the duration of the reign of Francis.
Also keep in mind that a saint of the Church actually supported an antipope during the Great Western Schism. If a saint of the Church can support an antipope, I don’t know how any of us can present themselves as being certain about how this period of great confusion will be resolved.
Regarding your statements that I claim are inaccurate I present them as follows:
(1) Your statement about holding heresy may give the impression that it is unclear exactly what the consequences of a Pope holding heresy are. A person (including a Pope) who, knowing what the Church teaches on a matter of faith that must be held by all catholics, decides firmly to reject that teaching separates from and places himself outside the Church as a consequence of divine law. The Church may formally acknowledge that person’s defection through ecclesiastical (canon) law, but the separation from the Church does not require a formal proceeding by the Church. A pope who knowingly defects IS outside the Church as a consequence of divine law and loses his Office since someone outside the Church cannot command within the Church. Pope Leo XIII stated this general principle in Satis Cognitum, so this is not an unresolved issue still percolating in the minds of theologians – the general principles are settled. The only issue that isn’t settled is exactly how to remove a Pope who has defected from the faith from the office he no longer holds.
(2) Your statement that sedevacantism requires “a diving deep into subjectivism: it requires one to presume to know that a person is a formal heretic, beyond doubt” finds no basis in either the teachings of Our Lord, or of His Church. Regarding Our Lord, he continually warned of false teachers, and provided objective measures by which to gauge their truth or falsity – do they have the appearance of something that we should expect positive goods from (a fruit tree as opposed to a thistle) and do they, in fact, bear good fruits. Applying this fruit tree analogy of Our Lord requires objectivity, not subjectivity. For example,
Our Lord’s analogy requires us to make a first determination – are we dealing with a fruit tree or a thistle? Are we dealing with someone that has a reputation for orthodoxy or heterodoxy? Then we are required to make a final determination – are the fruits good – are the results of a teaching when practiced good or bad? And Our Lord never made these warnings the sole province of authorities – these are instructions given to all the faithful. And this only makes sense because Our Lord was warning the faithful against those in authority. So Our Lord warned the faithful that they might be placed in situations where they have to determine whether someone preaching in his name should be accepted or rejected.
Have these principles laid out by Our Lord been reflected in Church Law? Yes, they most certainly have – examine Paul IV’s bull Cum Ex Apostolatus Officio. Paul IV feared the election of a heretic, so he issued that bull wherein the faithful were instructed that if a heretic were to be elevated to the Papal Office – the election would be null and void without a formal declaration from the Church. If the bull stated positively that no declaration to render null the election of a heretic was necessary how do the faithful reach that determination – they reach that determination by exercising their own power of reason since the bull also assumed that the election of the heretic may be unanimous! The bull assumes that the entire college of cardinals could defect as well!
When you focus on the culpability of the heresy – whether the person is a material or formal heretic you err. That issue is only relevant to ecclesiastical proceedings against the supposed heretic himself and whether and how he should be punished. To the faithful it doesn’t matter whether he is a material or formal heretic – they only need to determine whether his objective words and deeds accord with the catholic faith. If his words and deeds do not objectively accord with the faith a catholic can rightly conclude that he does not hold the faith and hence cannot command obedience. This is only logical – it doesn’t matter from the perspective of the faithful why the heretic doesn’t hold the faith – all we know is that he doesn’t hold the faith and anything he preaches is suspect.
So while the faithful owe docile filial obedience to a faithful superior – if reason indicates that a superior has defected or doesn’t hold the faith that superior is to be rejected.
Regarding the NO service, I believe the more relevant question is whether it is a schismatic rite. It certainly isn’t a received and approved rite handed down to us, and it deviates from the traditional definition of a mass so do those who participate in the NO service separate themselves from the Church by attending it?
p.s. if anyone can provide a reason why it is acceptable for Catholics to dialogue with and explore with and ‘meet where they are at’ every manner of atheist, false-religionist, heretic, even committing sacriligious acts with some in public at the highest levels, participating in abominable ceremonies with them (withness jpii), become public apostates etc., but not someone who refuses, according to very reasonable and faithful arguments, not to treat a heretic as if he were the Vicar of Christ, I really would be interested to know. Why is a sede-vacantist, who is a Faithful Catholic, treated with derision? The Church provides for the possibility of heretical and apostate anti or false popes; we have been told by Our Lord and His apostles there will be great apostasy, and when someone reaches this recognition for very good reasons they are treated with far more vitriol than the terrible prelates and destoyers of the Faith who take the weekly pew-punters hard earned dosh to do so. This makes absolutely no sense to me.
Catholic Thinker answered your question perfectly in 41.
I would also add that Saints such as St Alphonsus Ligiuori, and some of the greatest theologians, taught that when the universal Church accepts the Pope upon his election that this is an infallible sign that he his the legitimate successor to Peter. It doesn’t matter how bad he can be or what evil he does, he is Pope until formally removed by those that have the authority to do so. An authority that doesn’t belong to a Priest or layman. Also, the idea that a Pope would be invalid due to being wicked before his elevation is a heresy condemned at the Council of Constance.
Sedevacantist are the most vitriol people I’ve ever run across. They are far less worried about their own sanctification then they are condemning others. This is my observation. They have whole websites dedicated to pointing out the sins of others. I’ve never been met with more hate then from sedevacantists, on various forums. They love to tell you that you are on your way to hell. I’ve heard it personally from many a sedevacantist. This has happened in every age of the Church when a group views themselves as God’s chosen few. They become crusaders against the reprobates.
As far as I can see Novus Ordo Watch is dedicated to the True Faith – the ‘wire’ part of the site is dedicated to waking people up from their Novus Ordo stupor or torpor or whatever. Part of that is recognising who the enemy is. Once one has recognised the enemies of Christ one can then begin to form a proper Catholic conscience which the NO does not permit.
–
As far as sede-vacantist forums go, I have never come across all this hate-spewing you’ve encountered – I guess we must visit different sites. What I do read is a lot of gallows humour – crucial these days – Truth telling – and fed-up-ness with treachery – this isn’t hate.
–
Sede-vacantism, most importantly, unlike heretical ‘popes’ and Vatican II do not takeover your Mass, your mind, your faith and your morals and ‘update’ them into something unChristly.
You’ve successfully shown the danger of sedevacantism. It is making fellow Catholics an “enemy”. I’ve seen the dialogues on twitter between novusordowatch and other Catholics. It always results in insults and that person denying the Catholicity of the person that doesn’t subscribe to his theory. If anything novusordowatch helps to solidify people in their poor understanding of the Faith by argumentation and triumphalism.
@James: You are unfamiliar with the analysis. Being wicked in a way that does not involve heresy, apostasy or schism does not place one outside the Church. So the fact that someone is wicked before elevation to the Papacy in way that does not involve heresy, apostasy or schism does not mean he cannot be Pope. As Catholics we are obliged to obey a wicked Pope who is not a heretic, apostasy or schism as long as he does not order us to do evil.
The analysis of the situation of a Pope who is a heretic, apostate, or schismatic is entirely different. Heresy, apostasy and schism are different from other sins because the sin, if firmly held, places one outside the Church. Someone outside the Church cannot command in the Church. Pope Paul IV in his bull Cum Ex Apostolatus Officio treated of the situation where a papal claimant is a heretic from the time before his elevation to the Papacy. His treatment of the situation was not deemed to be novel by any analyst and rather to be merely the application of the universal church teaching that a heretic, apostate or schismatic is outside the Church and cannot command within the Church. Pope Paul IV said that the elevation of a heretic to the papal office IS NULL AND VOID WITHOUT A FORMAL DECLARATION BY THE CHURCH and the faithful are not required to obey the heretic. The Pope obviously implied that since a declaration was not necessary to recognize a heretical claimant as a heretic, it was certainly in the realm of a layman’s responsibility to determine that a claimant is in fact a heretic, apostate or schismatic.
You need to exercise some caution in making blanket statements since your claim about the Counsel of Constance is absolutely wrong and not borne out by the bull Cum Ex Apostolatus Officio. Your incorrect statements actually mislead the faithful. In this regard you are a FALSE TEACHER.
dear Cyprian,
Thank you for this, and prior above offering on the topic. You are the voice of reason.
They are not ‘making’ enemies anymore than they are forcing Catholics to go against the Faith, James. They point out very clearly if certain people whom the world and Church look to as Catholic exemplars are, in fact, speaking or acting against the Faith. The Church has always done this – which is why every shade of heresy had a man’s proper name.
–
p.s. Cyprian’s response above is well worth reading.
dear salvemur,
this–just a personal opinion, really.
But straight talk, that is never prefaced by bland niceties, is often seen as too crass or even, if you will, vitriol —today. In my pre-1955 experience of Catholic life, such straight talk was the way Catholics spoke with one another & engaged the world! As I’ve said before here, Pope Pius XII’s public statements, and even the sound of his voice, {not purposely staged to seem “humble,”} would be viewed , I think anyway, today–as “brutal.”
The effeminization of the Church and the culture. Just my opinion, though.
Right, because authoritative pronouncements by the Church and opinion pieces on a blog or Twitter are the same thing. By what authority does Novusordowatch have to declare an individual lay Catholic or Priest “not” Catholic? This is done on a daily basis. Perhaps you are unaware. I’ve seen him insult Priests that offer the TLM on many occasions on Twitter. Father Z is a favorite target of his. He insults him by putting Priest in parenthesis. And if fact declares that he is not a Priest. This is just wrong. And if you think he is not creating enemies you have either never seen some of these actions or are turning a blind eye.
This post was intended for salvemur.
Don’t take this the wrong way, I’m in no way defending the atrocities of the popes you mentioned, as coming from the Holy Spirit. But your’re assuming that everything a Pope does is Holy? Doesn’t that contradict the facts of reason that all of them are humans, capable of personal sin as well as faulty judgment. The things you have listed are innovations and personal preferences, that make most of us want to have been martyred at birth, nevertheless, they are not unchanging Truth or promulgated as such.
Also, isn’t the fact that the media has made everything each pope does so well publicized, a factor in our even knowing about many of these things? Do you know that the popes prior to John XXIII never did anything like that? I’m sure you’re aware of the papal history.
It’s true that the atrocities of modernism have increased in my view, but it doesn’t follow that since the Holy Spirit would never desire them, that they were done my a man who is not a valid pope. Other reasons would have to dictate that. For example, the claim that Benedict XVI resigned under any form of coercion would invalidate the next conclave and nullify Francis’ election. But you want to go back to John XXIII, and the arguments about that election don’t seem provable one way or the other at this point.
Dear James the Lesser
Glad to see you back on the job here. We are not as well informed as you appear to be on this subject, but having read a few more of these posts you are addressing, it have become very obvious that many propaganda techniques are being employed rapid-fire by those you are addressing, including name calling, ridicule, blanket generalizations, authoritative-sounding declarations and “band-wagon” thinking i.e. everyone jump in and agree before the victim can respond. They are all present in many of these blogs. We believe in allowing people to state their differing views, but not using professional deceitful techniques like this, without being called out. Thank you for your continued efforts on behalf of folks like us, who wish to remain faithful to the True Church without being labeled as dupes, idiots, servants of Satan or weak willed. etc.
Though we should always concentrate primarily on the objective, rather than subjective issues, it does seem to me that it can be said that holding to the seed vacantist position can be an emotional reaction. The sede vacantist, understandably injured by the words and actions of the pontiff, says to himself “He is not il papa!”. It is directly analogous to a person who, gravely injured by his own father, might say out of hurt and anger, “You are not my father!”
The difference is that while one cannot deny the objective fact of biological fatherhood, there are certain appeals one can make to assert that a pope is actually not.
The sede vacantist position, in addition to its other, fatal problems, quickly leads to logical absurdities. Let’s imagine that one morning a pontiff wakes up, has breakfast, thinks for a bit, then decides he does not believe in the Virgin Birth. Let’s imagine he does completely, willingly accept this heresy – he is a formal heretic. Is he, at the moment, no longer the pope? The Church is then without a Father, unbeknownst to all? Then, perhaps the next day he reconsiders, and repents from his earlier sin of heresy – is he now pope again? Or should a new conclave be called.
This isn’t contrived or irrelevant: all the sede apologists claim the pontiff loses his office (or never has it) due to formal heresy. The fact that the heresy is not public & manifest in this case doesn’t matter.
In any case, I don’t intend to rebut the general sede argument here by any means. This has been done, ably, by professional Traditionalist apologists such as John Salza and Chris Ferrara. In addition, Brian McCall recently published an article that contains what we might call the final nail: the fact that even though there were theologians who taught that a pope lost his office upon becoming a formal heretic, even they still held that the faithful were bound to treat the man as pope until the Church had deposed him. No theologian who has ever spoken on the topic declared that the faithful were able, much less bound, to make the determination of sede vacant themselves. This makes all the arguments from the theologians moot.
A bad father is still one’ father. What is the response to a father who commands evil? Does one obey always since the father is the God-appointed head of the family? Of course not; one resists such a father and refuses to obey objectively evil commands. The authority of the supreme pontiff, which is indeed supreme in juridical matters over the entire universal Church, is of type but like substance to the authority of a father of a family. It too has limits, as the theologians (and at least several popes) have taught. So, we resist a bad pontiff, who commands things un-Catholic, but we cannot claim that he is not still il Papa.
Re-posting with paragraph breaks:
–
Though we should always concentrate primarily on the objective, rather than subjective issues, it does seem to me that it can be said that holding to the seed vacantist position can be an emotional reaction. The sede vacantist, understandably injured by the words and actions of the pontiff, says to himself “He is not il papa!”. It is directly analogous to a person who, gravely injured by his own father, might say out of hurt and anger, “You are not my father!”
–
The difference is that while one cannot deny the objective fact of biological fatherhood, there are certain appeals one can make to assert that a pope is actually not.
–
The sede vacantist position, in addition to its other, fatal problems, quickly leads to logical absurdities. Let’s imagine that one morning a pontiff wakes up, has breakfast, thinks for a bit, then decides he does not believe in the Virgin Birth. Let’s imagine he does completely, willingly accept this heresy – he is a formal heretic. Is he, at the moment, no longer the pope? The Church is then without a Father, unbeknownst to all? Then, perhaps the next day he reconsiders, and repents from his earlier sin of heresy – is he now pope again? Or should a new conclave be called?
–
This isn’t contrived or irrelevant: all the sede apologists claim the pontiff loses his office (or never has it) due to formal heresy. The fact that the heresy is not public & manifest in this case doesn’t matter.
–
In any case, I don’t intend to rebut the general sede argument here by any means. This has been done, ably, by professional Traditionalist apologists such as John Salza and Chris Ferrara. In addition, Brian McCall recently published an article that contains what we might call the final nail: the fact that even though there were theologians who taught that a pope lost his office upon becoming a formal heretic, even they still held that the faithful were bound to treat the man as pope until the Church had deposed him. No theologian who has ever spoken on the topic declared that the faithful were able, much less bound, to make the determination of sede vacant themselves. This makes all the arguments from the theologians moot.
–
A bad father is still one’ father. What is the response to a father who commands evil? Does one obey always since the father is the God-appointed head of the family? Of course not; one resists such a father and refuses to obey objectively evil commands. The authority of the supreme pontiff, which is indeed supreme in juridical matters over the entire universal Church, is of type but like substance to the authority of a father of a family. It too has limits, as the theologians (and at least several popes) have taught. So, we resist a bad pontiff, who commands things un-Catholic, but we cannot claim that he is not still il Papa.
If you are a supporter of Archbishop Lefebvre, as I believe you’ve indicated in the past, please be aware that he expelled from the Society priests holding the views your are complimenting. Sede vacantism is an error, and one that very much tends to sow bitterness and loss of faith (as in the supernatural virtue) wherever it is sown.
–
(The Archbishop allowed the view that a future pope or council might nullify post-conciliar actions, or even popes, or even the council, but recognized, by the teachings of the theologians as well as common sense, that he had no authority to make such declarations himself.)
Cyprian, wrong again… this is the error that you hold that was condemned at the council of Constance. Note: whoever holds this view is ANATHEMA.
“If the pope is wicked and especially if he is foreknown, then as Judas, the Apostle, he is of the devil, a thief, and a son of perdition, and he is not the head of the holy militant Church, since he is not a member of it.” (Denz . 646. See also Denz . 661)
Please retract your slander against me.
Your attempt to refute my arguments by reducing them to absurdities are unavailing if the Church has never adopted your reasoning for rejecting sedevacantism. You are a simple layman and your thought experiments gain validity in this argument only if some Church authority has adopted them. Please provide a citation to a Church authority that used your example of a fickle Pope who switches from heretic to faithful member over coffee. If you cannot your thought experiment can be rejected out of hand as the musings of a mere layman.
The unmentioned theologians you rely upon do not outrank a Pope. Pope Paul IV in Cum Ex Apostolatus Officio decreed that the elevation of a heretic to the papal office was null and void. The relevant provisions of the bull are reproduced here:
” 6. In addition, [by this Our Constitution, which is to remain valid in perpetuity We enact, determine, decree and define:]
that if ever at any time it shall appear that . . . the Roman Pontiff, prior to his promotion or his elevation as . . . Roman Pontiff, has deviated from the Catholic Faith or fallen into some heresy:
(i) the promotion or elevation, even if it shall have been uncontested and by the unanimous assent of all the Cardinals, shall be null, void and worthless;
(ii) it shall not be possible for it to acquire validity (nor for it to be said that it has thus acquired validity) through the acceptance of the office, of consecration, of subsequent authority, nor through possession of administration, nor through the putative enthronement of a Roman Pontiff, or Veneration, or obedience accorded to such by all, nor through the lapse of any period of time in the foregoing situation;
(iii) it shall not be held as partially legitimate in any way;
(iv) to any so promoted . . . as Roman Pontiff, no authority shall have been granted, nor shall it be considered to have been so granted either in the spiritual or the temporal domain;
(v) each and all of their words, deeds, actions and enactments, howsoever made, and anything whatsoever to which these may give rise, shall be without force and shall grant no stability whatsoever nor any right to anyone;
(vi) those thus promoted or elevated shall be deprived automatically, and without need for any further declaration, of all dignity, position, honour, title, authority, office and power.
7. Finally, [by this Our Constitution, which is to remain valid in perpetuity, We] also [enact, determine, define and decree]:
that any and all persons who would have been subject to those thus promoted or elevated if they had not previously deviated from the Faith, become heretics, incurred schism or provoked or committed any or all of these, be they members of anysoever of the following categories:
. . .
(ii) the laity;
. . .
shall be permitted at any time to withdraw with impunity from obedience and devotion to those thus promoted or elevated and to avoid them as warlocks, heathens, publicans, and heresiarchs (the same subject persons, nevertheless, remaining bound by the duty of fidelity and obedience to any future Bishops, Archbishops, Patriarchs, Primates, Cardinals and Roman Pontiff canonically entering).
These provisions establish that the elevation of a heretic to the papacy is null and void (see 6i); no formal declaration to deprive the elevated heretic of authority is required (see 6vi); and the laity can withdraw their obedience from the elevated heretic (see 7ii). Also note the crucial distinction regarding how the heresy is manifested by the false claimant – he need only appear to have deviated from the faith. This is crucial – I stated above that based on the divine law established by Our Lord we are concerned only with objective information like words and deeds manifested in the external forum and not subjective information like internal states of mind. Thus Pope Paul IV was unconcerned with whether the person was a material or formal heretic – according to Pope Paul IV he need only appear to have deviated from the faith. After all, this should be the rule. The Pope is the Vicar of Christ and the proximate rule of faith so it only makes sense that a person who is so careless or deficient in his knowledge of the faith that he cannot avoid the appearance of being a heretic is not a proper candidate for the Papacy and should not be elevated to the office. Otherwise the faithful may develop the false belief that it doesn’t really matter how well one holds the faith.
So it seems that Pope Paul IV was a sedevacantist. Prima facie you have to recognize these provisions as binding on you because a Pope promulgated them.
Cyprian, Cum Ex Apostolatus is dealing with those that are “caught or confessed or convicted”. There are proper Church authorities to determine this, I’ll give you a hint, it ain’t you. Funny, the same bull states that a validly elected Pope can be judged by no one. Unless, you can present an official Church document that presents the anathemas of each and every man elected Pope, prior to their elevation, since Pius XII, you are without an argument. They were all validly elected. They were all accepted by the universal Church. Again, a criteria St. Alphonsus Liguori, doctor of the Church, states is a sign of infallibility. The fact that you don’t like them doesn’t add up to a hill of beans or make your stance credible.
First, as I believe I stated, my brief post was not intended to be a thorough rebuttal to the entire sede vacantist error – rather, I referred to reader to other sources (which I have to suspect you are not familiar with, given that the theologians who have spoken on this issue are apparently mysterious to you).
–
It seems you missed the point. You aren’t qualified to decide who is a formal heretic or who is not: nowhere does Paul IV imply that the judgement of formal heresy be left to layman. Tather, as the theologians have taught, it is the Church that must make such a judgement, meaning a superior of the accused.
–
Here’s a riddle for you: there is absolutely no doubt that Pope John XXII publicly (and obstinately!) taught the heresy I previously mentioned. The pontiff you refer to, Paul IV, lived after John XXII. Did Paul IV declare John XXII’s pontificate to have been null? Of course not. So, I think it’s back to the drawing board.
–
I am going to do some homework. It has been some time since I carefully considered the sede vacantist question (since I rejected it, that is, several years ago). Since this phenomena is pernicious in Traditionalist circles (at least on the Internet), and has found a home here on Louie’s blog, I will do what I can.
–
Let me say that I can relate to the sede position. Upon reading some statements of theologians and popes, in isolation, and looking at the modern popes, it seems to fit. The problem is that these quotes cannot be considered without their qualifications. The problem is that the sede mindset, taken to its logical conclusions, brings Catholicism itself crumbling down.
–
After all, St. Peter could have been called a heretic: he taught, via his actions, that “there is no longer Jew nor gentile”.
Nice read, except you don’t have the authority to depose anyone, let alone, a Pope…. or to declare his election null & void. Paul IV also states, in the very same bull, that a validly elected Pope can be judged by no one. You’re in a pickle. You’re not part of the tribunal, or council, to judge a Pontiff a heretic and you’re not allowed to judge a validly elected Pope, without the lose of your Faith.
Check mate…… You lose.
“Therefore, if anyone says that it is not according to the institution of Christ our Lord Himself, that is, by divine law, that St. Peter has perpetual successors in the primacy over the whole Church; or if anyone says that the Roman Pontiff is not the successor of St. Peter in the same primacy: let him be anathema.”
Cardinal Billot (during the reign of PIus X)
“Finally, what one may think of the possibility or the impossibility of an heretical pope, there is at least one point absolutely clear which no one can put in doubt, and it is that the acceptance, the adherence, of the Universal Church to a pope will always be, by itself, the infallible sign of the legitimacy of such-and-such a pontiff; and consequently of the existence of all the conditions required for legitimacy.” And this is based on the Church’s attribute of Indefectibility as defined by “the promise of the infallible Providence of Christ [that] ‘the gates of hell shall not prevail against it’ and ‘Behold, I am with you all days even unto the end of the world.’ For the adherence of the Church to a false pontiff would be the same thing as its adherence to a false rule of Faith, since the pope is the living rule of the Faith that the Church has to follow, and that in fact, She always follows.”
I agree. When I read the papal encyclicals of the Pius Popes or the Leos etc. the clarity is like fresh mountain air. This to me, is mercy – they in no way attempt to confuse the faithful or conflate Truth with error.
Further up someone accused certain blogs of ‘blanket generalizations, authoritative-sounding declarations and “band-wagon” thinking i.e. everyone jump in and agree before the victim can respond.” The ‘victims’ don’t need to ‘respond’. Exactly how does that Italian ‘nun’ on the Lucifer-Factor proclaim the True Faith? How does an imam calling for the destruction of Christianity at the behest of a papal claimant proclaim the True Faith? I have NEVER come across a post on Novus Ordo Watch that was rash or uninformed. Blimey – Truth is Truth – if we don’t like it or can’t handle it walk away – God will leave us in our sins if we really prefer. The long and the short of it is sedevacantists argue reasonably according to the Faith and the teaching of the Magisterium. If you don’t like the conclusions they reach, then you’d better know the Faith and the Magisterium as intimately as they do before making ‘blanket generalizations, authoritative-sounding declarations and “band-wagon” thinking i.e. everyone jump in and agree before the victim (sedevacantists) can respond.
I meant to say that St. Peter *denied*, via his actions, that there is no longer distinction between Jew & gentile. Oops.
This is nothing but a strawman. The Pope is not the Pope because a nun sang on a TV show?? You’re smarter than that. It is DIVINE LAW that there will be a Pontiff till the end of time. It is DOGMA. “according to Christ”. Whether the Pope will be good or bad is beside the point. The fact is… if there is no Pope then Catholicism falls and the dogmas are lies. We’re going through a chastisement. What makes you think a good Pope is deserved right now? Does God owe us?
@James: There are two factual situations where sedevacantism arises (1) where the papal claimant is a heretic before his elevation and (2) where a validly elected non-heretical Pope defects and loses the faith after his elevation. Your argument about a validly elected Pope being judged by no one does not apply since it can be argued that Pope Francis had heterodox ideas from prior to his elevation. He falls into category (1) and not (2). In that case we need rely on arguments based only on the bull. In the case of a heretic being elevated to the papacy the bull decrees that election is null and void. That means the heretic never becomes Pope!!!!! If the election is null and void no formal declaration is required. Item 6vi codifies this. You can argue that this is a disciplinary law that has been superseded by later provisions of canon law, but you have to provide the citations and the arguments. In the absence of such arguments this bull is binding upon you – you cannot reject it out of hand. Again, in the case of a heretic being elevated to the papal office, this bull decrees that the elevation is null and void (see 6i); no formal declaration to deprive the elevated heretic of authority is required (see 6vi); and the laity can withdraw their obedience from the elevated heretic (see 7ii). It does not say that the laity require permission from anyone to withdraw their obedience from the false claimant.
You completely leave out the fact that if Francis was a heretic before election he was not brought before a tribunal and excommunicated. Therefore any if, ands or buts are meaningless. He was validly elected and accepted by the Universal Church and his prior offenses are of no consequence. you also ignore the fact that you don’t have the authority. If, in the future, he is a declared a heretic then you will be vindicated. Until then he is your Pope. And this is God’s will. All authority comes from Him. He is in charge.
Again you also ignore the fact the same bull says “caught or confessed or convicted”. NOWHERE does it say a layman gets to decide for himself. This would be a complete injustice on the part of the Church to abandon the Faithful in such a scenario. To believe our Father in Heaven would let that happen is mind boggling.
You are citing one infallible Church teaching against another possibly infallible Church teaching. In such a case you should read them so as not to contradict each other – this only requires that you read VI to be decreeing that the successors will always share in the primacy and that a lengthy interregnum between valid Popes does not defeat the guarantee of perpetual successors. After all, there is always an interregnum between successive Popes – why does a longer one defeat the guarantee when the shorter ones did not?
If you believe a non-infallible statement by a Cardinal can win out over a possibly infallible papal decree try this one: Cardinal Torquemada believed it would be a schismatic act to substitute a new mass in place of the mass codified in Quo Primum. Do you think Paul VI and all those who attend the new mass are schismatics in view of Cardinal T’s statement?
They don’t contradict each other. The bull was not written in a vacuum. Did Paul IV mean to cast aside the whole authority of the Church to handle such a scenario? You seem to think so. I don’t. I believe our Lord and the Vatican I dogma’s crystal clear teaching on perpetual successors. I dont have to jump through hoops or invent theories of what it “really meant”.
A schismatic, according to Catholic teaching, is one that separates themselves from the Roman Pontiff. So anyone that separates from the Roman Pontiff and creates a new Mass would indeed be a schismatic. Even St. Augustine said their sacraments and perfect worship wouldn’t save this type. Your example was apples and oranges. And also a diversion from the topic we were discussing.
You’re not paying attention. Yesterday I made reference to 2 Thessalonians wherein St. Paul taught that a generation that no longer loved the truth and consented to iniquity would be sent the operation of error that they would believe lying. Maybe that is what is going on now. So many Church teachings have been corrupted by the conciliar church without significant complaint by the laity we are being punished with the operation of error.
Cyprian ~ “You’re not paying attention. Yesterday I made reference to 2 Thessalonians wherein St. Paul taught that a generation that no longer loved the truth and consented to iniquity would be sent the operation of error that they would believe lying. Maybe that is what is going on now. So many Church teachings have been corrupted by the conciliar church without significant complaint by the laity we are being punished with the operation of error.”
………………………………………………………………………………………………………
I am paying attention. You don’t get it. This doesn’t mean the Pope is not the Pope. It means he is caught up in it. Either willingly or by diabolical deception. That is why we must pray for him. Like Peter, who was thinking worldly, and Jesus “get behind me satan”.
You either don’t understand the bull, or you are arguing in bad faith. In either case you will mislead the faithful so you should stop with your easily-refuted knee jerk responses.
Items 6 and 7 of the Bull deal with a potential situation where a person who is elevated to the papacy appears to have defected from the faith from prior to his elevation. These two provisions do not deal with a situation where a person who has already been excommunicated is elevated to the papacy. This bull was authored during the protestant revolt. Pope Paul IV was concerned that a Cardinal who had defected to protestantism might be elevated to the papacy. He wasn’t concerned about an excommunicated person being elevated – but rather with someone who appeared to have deviated from the faith being elevated.
No, he wasn’t throwing out the whole authority of the Church – he was making sure that those who wield authority in the Church were, in fact, Catholic. You are essentially arguing for the position that faithful Catholics have to tolerate a situation where those who wield authority are only nominally catholic and actually can hold heterodox beliefs publicly and for long periods of time.
James you’ve just used the logic you claimed I was using in an illogical way. I was talking about people accusing, I guess, Novus Ordo Wire, of “blanket generalizations, authoritative-sounding declarations and “band-wagon” thinking”. To which my response was, they simply do not post rash or uninformed articles. As far as I know they are still waiting for the best translation on Bergoglio’s latest interview before commenting – they certainly did not jump on the first translation and never do. At any rate I most certainly am not qualified to keep arguing this stuff – the ‘long and short’ part of my comment stands.
–
p.s. if you feel qualified to argue against sv’s position then you must give someone at least the leeway to post links to some air-tight logic based on authentic Faith published by sedevacantists, because, while I don’t feel at all able to refute what I read, if you do, I would like to see you do so, genuinely.
–
This in particular:
–
http://mostholytrinityseminary.org/Bishop%20Williamson%20Response.pdf
That is only one sense of schism – schism can also refer to division wherein the conciliar church divided itself from the Catholic Church by adopting a new rite and suppressing the old rite. A strong argument can be made that the latin rite was more than a mere discipline and had been canonized as an infallible part of the universal ordinary magisterium. Hence, Paul VI had no authority to suppress the Latin Rite and substitute a new rite. His doing so represented a rejection of tradition and hence was a schismatic act.
The fact that we may be beset by a diabolical deception or the operation of error does not suspend the divine law that those who command in the Church have to be in the Church. Our Lord established this divine law when counseled us to reject false teachers and not to tolerate them since they are ravening wolves.
Catholicism is not a free for all where judgements are left to the whims of individual opinion.
I explained to you that this statement of the Counsel of Constance is a general principle. It deals with the general principle of wickedness. If you know that someone was wicked from prior to his elevation that does not invalidate his elevation unless that person is wicked in a special way. Heresy, apostasy and schism are special cases of wickedness because unlike other instances they they place the person outside the Church. Do you deny that heresy, apostasy and schism place someone outside the Church? Pope Leo XIII stated in Satis Cognitum that: “No one, therefore, unless in communion with Peter can share in his authority, since it is absurd to imagine that he who is outside can command in the Church.” Apparently Pope XIII didn’t believe that those outside the Church can command either – does the anathema apply to him as well? Further, if it was a universal teaching held by the Church that a pope who was a heretic from prior to his elevation can ascend to the office and exercise its authority why did Pope Paul IV even bother including item 6 in his bull Cum Ex Apostolatus Officio? He included item 6 because he was codifying a universal teaching of the church also held by Pope Leo XIII – that to command in the Church one has to be a member of the Church.
Ironic, he says that Christ gave us a Magisterum and Hierarchy to infallibly proclaim Truth. And that Christ will be with this Magisterum to guide the Faithful. Christ said He will be with His Church till the end of time. So this is a living Magisterum. Only problem is he rejects the very Magisterum he defends. If the entire living Magisterum has placed itself outside the Church then the gates of hell have triumphed, Christ lied and the Catholic Church has been toppled. Of course to avoid this absurdity he offers a solution. The solution is that the living infallible Magisterum is alive and Christ is guiding the Church through….. well.. himself, Sanborn. On top of that there is a paranoia that everyone outside his controlled sphere is evil. He loves to be the judge and call people heretics. I would avoid this man. He sounds like a cult leader.
You are spreading misinformation. Item 6 of Cum Ex Apostolatus Officio does not deal with someone who has already been excommunicated. It does not even mention excommunication! In fact, it is ridiculous to believe that a Pope would have wasted his time including item 6 in the bull if it only dealt with claimants who already had been formally excommunicated by the Church. The bull was issued because the Pope feared a cardinal who had already defected to protestantism but had escaped Church discipline would be elevated to the papacy. Hence the standard applied by item 6 is not whether the claimant has been previously excommunicated but whether from prior to his elevation he appeared to have deviated from the faith. On its face the literal words of this provision apply to someone who has not formally been excommunicated by the Church.
Further, you continually state that lay people are not competent authorities to identify and reject public and pertinacious heretics. You apparently believe that it is the will of the Almighty that unless a Church authority identifies a heretic as such the faithful are stuck and must obey him. That is not what Our Lord taught – Our Lord warned against false teachers and provided guidance on how to identify them. Further, Pope Leo XIII quoted St. Augustine in Satis Cognitum recognizing that the rejection of heretics has occurred in the past partly through the efforts of the laity:
“When we see the great help of God, such manifest progress and such abundant fruit, shall we hesitate to take refuge in the bosom of that Church, which, as is evident to all, possesses the supreme authority of the Apostolic See through the Episcopal succession? In vain do heretics rage round it [the church]; they are condemned partly by the people themselves, partly by the weight of councils, partly by the splendid evidence of miracles.”
I repeat what I reproduced above from Satis Cognitum. In Satis Cognitum Pope XIII quoted St. Augustine recognizing along with St. Augustine that the rejection of heresy in the past has been accomplished partly through the efforts of the common people:
“When we see the great help of God, such manifest progress and such abundant fruit, shall we hesitate to take refuge in the bosom of that Church, which, as is evident to all, possesses the supreme authority of the Apostolic See through the Episcopal succession? In vain do heretics rage round it; they are condemned partly by the judgment of the people themselves, partly by the weight of councils, partly by the splendid evidence of miracles.”
Where does Piux XII say you have a right to question his validity as successor of Peter and reject him if you, by personal judgement, believe he is a formal heretic? You are not allowed to judge the Pope. You are treading in dangerous waters my friend.
James – this isn’t the way I understood it. Bishop Sandborn, according to my meagre mind and faith, is drawing on 1900 + years of Magisterium from which to argue – i think – and reiterating the Holy Voice of the infallible Magisterium, affirming that the Church of Christ, meaning the Holy Roman Catholic Church, does not become a swinger according to the whims of any generation – to me that means the swinging vatcan 2. My reading is that a ‘papal claimant’ who eschews the infallible Magisterium of the Church of which he can only be privileged to be a custodian, fails in his claim; meanwhile Christ’s Church with the blessedly infallible tools of Tradition, History and Scripture, continue.
As long as a successor to St. Peter holds and proclaims the faith whole and undefiled he has nothing to fear from private judgment. Really, now, lets reduce your beliefs to their logical extreme. Basically you are claiming that all teachings of the faith are so complex that when a dispute arises about one of them the dispute always has to be submitted to church authority. Thus. all you have to do to subvert the Church is manage to get change agents at the choke points, e.g., the Papacy or positions within the hierarchy having to do with doctrine. Those false leaders are then free to teach error unfettered even about simple church doctrines because gatekeepers like you will shout private judgment when the faithful recoil from false teachings and raise a hue and cry about them.
Sorry, it doesn’t work like that. For example, the beginning of the rejection of the Nestorian heresy started when Eusebius who at that time was a layman recognized that Nestorious was preaching a christological heresy. The hue and cry raised by the faithful caused the Church to call a council and to reject Nestorianism. So as recognized by Pope Leo XIII and St. Augustine both the faithful and the Church hierarchy as well as the Almighty have a role to play in rejecting heresy and heretics.
Another great comment, Cyprian: ‘change-agents and the choke-points’; this is a clear way of putting it.
–
No Catholic worth the name would suggest that the teaching on marriage can ‘evolve/change’, so that a Catholic may rightly believe that marriage is dissoluble; yet Bergolio teaches exactly that. So, either we accuse the Holy Ghost – the third person of the Holy Trinity – of overthrowing the teaching of the Second Person of the Holy Trinity – or we reach the reasonable and Faithful conclusion that whoever is teaching this is contradicting the teaching of the Holy Trinity period – and simply not follow the faleshood or the falsifier.
–
“Saint Paul in Galatians I:8-9 states: “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. 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.” Notice that he does not tell them to sift the teacher of falsehood for tidbits of good doctrine, but instead tells them to reject him altogether. Let him be anathema.This doctrine is also in conformity with Pope Paul IV’s bull Cum ex apostolatus of 1559, which calls for the utter rejection of a Roman Pontiff found to be heretical, and not for the sifting of his doctrine.”
http://mostholytrinityseminary.org/Bishop%20Williamson%20Response.pdf
–
papal claimant does not always equal Vicar of Christ. If is always did, the Church and Her Magisterium would never have needed to make provisions for the possibility.
Excellent quote Salvemur. Hey, how about we go to the Vatican and hold up protest signs? I’m afraid that if I don’t publicly voice my outrage that false doctrine is being foisted on the faithful I’m just as bad as those doing the foisting. If only the common folk would recognize that they have a duty to safeguard doctrine as well!
James the Less, do you actually know what bugger off means?
Fr. Longnecker remains on my “Don’t Read Or Listen To Anything Written Or Spoken By This Person” list. Perhaps unfairly, perhaps not.
Some years ago, he was leading a pilgrimage to Italy around the time I was searching for a traditional group to go to Italy with. I politely asked him if the daily Mass whilst on pilgrimage would be the TLM. Seemed obvious since it was advertised on Rorate Caeli’s site but I just wanted to make sure because I wasn’t aware that he was considered a traditional priest.
His reply was, ‘no, he’ll be offering the Novus Ordo. But rest assured, he’d be bringing us to a monastery or two that offer the Novus Ordo in Latin’! I thanked him for the response and said that the Novus Ordo in Latin isn’t the point, and isn’t even close to being the same thing as the TLM. And thanked him for his time. Still politely, I thought. He seemed to take offense that I’d presume to question his knowledge about the two different rites. Got a little testy with me and I decided that he’s just a perfect example of a convert. He doesn’t know yet how much he doesn’t know.
To Salvemur:
–
“Up the middle somewhere Catholic Thinker stated that Fr Cekada is ‘wrong’. It is my understanding that sede-vacantists in no way go against any professed and Tradionally held legalities with regards to papal elections. They recognise that a heretic cannot legally, according the long and venerable Tradition of the Church be elected as pope. Therefore, if it can be proved that person did not meet the criteria of the Faith before the conclave, he did not received the blessing of the Holy Ghost on his election. They also recognise that public heresy in an elected pope immediately removes any legal claim he previously had to be pope. Sede-vacantists are not night fly-by-night fellows, they are in this for the long haul, and when the occupiers of Rome are sent packing because ‘we the pew-punters’ are no longer willing to call God a liar by believing he has given us valid apostate, heretical and downright filthy popes, they will be there to help us pick up the peices. And thank God. Sede-vacantist know Christ, they know their Faith and they know their Church; and they know the motives of those trying to dissolve all of these.”
–
You’ve captured the essentials of the sedevacantist position. Now allow me to explain why it is indeed wrong.
–
First of all, the Church has never issued any official teaching whatsoever on whether or not a pontiff automatically loses his office upon becoming a formal heretic (or, the corollary, that such cannot be elected in the first place). Your first assumption – and that of the sedes is general – is wrong. As is widely known, there have long been two schools of thought on this question, one attributed to Bellarmine, one to Suarez. The latter taught that a pontiff did not lose his office unless and until he was deposed by the Church.
–
The second point is even more damning than the first. Even Bellarmine, the sede go-to-guy, who did teach that a supreme pontiff lost his office ipso facto upon becoming a formal heretic, taught that *he must still be publicly treated as the pope until such time as he is deposed by the Church*.
–
http://www.remnantnewspaper.com/Archives/2013-0315-siscoe-sedevacantism.htm
–
Of course, sedevacantists never mention either of these things. Either one of them destroys their position. The simple fact is that there is no support whatsoever, none, by any known theologian in the Church’s history, of the sedevacantist position, which is that a person can know with moral certainty both that a canonically-elected pope is actually not and that he should be treated as such without any judgement by the Church.
–
The sedes may actually be correct that Francis is not a true pope, but they are dead wrong when they claim that they can know that with moral certainty, that he must not be treated as pope, and that they have the authority to condemn others who do.
–
“Does anyone visiting this site really want to dare to say that the Holy Ghost gave us VII, the Novus Ordo, the Assisi scandals, the child-abuse scandals, the clown masses, the church of man preached by elected popes, and Jorge Bergoglio? We cannot name one pope since Roncalli who hasn’t openly sinned for all the world to see against the very 1st of the Ten Commandments because there isn’t one – and added to that not one who confessed this most grave of public sins. This is something an authentic Vicar of Christ would not be capable of doing.”
–
If you cannot believe that a true pope is capable of grave public one cannot get past St. Peter. It is as simple as that. Christ acts through a priest in a state of moral sin to confect valid sacraments, and He does not instantly depose His Vicar for sin either – even sins against the Faith, the most serious sins possible, and many and very grave.
To Salvemur:
–
“Up the middle somewhere Catholic Thinker stated that Fr Cekada is ‘wrong’. It is my understanding that sede-vacantists in no way go against any professed and Tradionally held legalities with regards to papal elections. They recognise that a heretic cannot legally, according the long and venerable Tradition of the Church be elected as pope. Therefore, if it can be proved that person did not meet the criteria of the Faith before the conclave, he did not received the blessing of the Holy Ghost on his election. They also recognise that public heresy in an elected pope immediately removes any legal claim he previously had to be pope. Sede-vacantists are not night fly-by-night fellows, they are in this for the long haul, and when the occupiers of Rome are sent packing because ‘we the pew-punters’ are no longer willing to call God a liar by believing he has given us valid apostate, heretical and downright filthy popes, they will be there to help us pick up the peices. And thank God. Sede-vacantist know Christ, they know their Faith and they know their Church; and they know the motives of those trying to dissolve all of these.”
–
You’ve captured the essentials of the sedevacantist position. Now allow me to explain why it is indeed wrong.
–
First of all, the Church has never issued any official teaching whatsoever on whether or not a pontiff automatically loses his office upon becoming a formal heretic (or, the corollary, that such cannot be elected in the first place). Your first assumption – and that of the sedes is general – is wrong. As is widely known, there have long been two schools of thought on this question, one attributed to Bellarmine, one to Suarez. The latter taught that a pontiff did not lose his office unless and until he was deposed by the Church.
–
The second point is even more damning than the first. Even Bellarmine, the sede go-to-guy, who did teach that a supreme pontiff lost his office ipso facto upon becoming a formal heretic, taught that *he must still be publicly treated as the pope until such time as he is deposed by the Church*.
–
http://www.remnantnewspaper.com/Archives/2013-0315-siscoe-sedevacantism.htm
–
Of course, sedevacantists never mention either of these things. Either one of them destroys their position. The simple fact is that there is no support whatsoever, none, by any known theologian in the Church’s history, of the sedevacantist position, which is that a person can know with moral certainty both that a canonically-elected pope is actually not and that he should be treated as such without any judgement by the Church.
–
The sedes may actually be correct that Francis is not a true pope, but they are dead wrong when they claim that they can know that with moral certainty, that he must not be treated as pope, and that they have the authority to condemn others who do.
–
“Does anyone visiting this site really want to dare to say that the Holy Ghost gave us VII, the Novus Ordo, the Assisi scandals, the child-abuse scandals, the clown masses, the church of man preached by elected popes, and Jorge Bergoglio? We cannot name one pope since Roncalli who hasn’t openly sinned for all the world to see against the very 1st of the Ten Commandments because there isn’t one – and added to that not one who confessed this most grave of public sins. This is something an authentic Vicar of Christ would not be capable of doing.”
–
If you cannot believe that a true pope is capable of grave public one cannot get past St. Peter. It is as simple as that. Christ acts through a priest in a state of moral sin to confect valid sacraments, and He does not instantly depose His Vicar for sin either – even sins against the Faith, the most serious sins possible, and many and very grave.
@Catholic Thinker:
——–
As discussed above with James the Lesser, sedevacantism covers two possible scenarios – (1) where a papal claimant was elevated to the papacy after he became a heretic and (2) where a papal claimant defected from the faith after he was elevated to the papacy.
———
Pope Paul IV addressed the situation covered by (1) completely in his bull Cum Ex Apostolatus Officio. In this bull he set forth that if it appeared that a papal claimant had deviated from the faith from prior to his election, the elevation of the heretic to the papacy was null and void (see 6i); no formal declaration to deprive the elevated heretic of authority was required (see 6vi); and the laity can withdraw their obedience from the elevated heretic (see 7ii). These provisions of the Bull are authoritative and prima facie pre-empt ANYTHING said by a theologian or doctor of the church that encompass situation (1) and reach a different conclusion. This is part of the papal magisterium. Prima facie, nothing written by a doctor of the church or theologian can contradict it. The only way that this bull can be attacked is if a later enactment of a Pope or of canon law can be shown to have superseded it and established a different disciplinary law. If you read commentary about this bull nowhere has any commentator concluded that a member of the faithful could withdraw his obedience from a Pope who was a heretic from prior to his elevation only with a permission granted by some church authority.
———
In fact, provisions (6) and (7) were a failsafe provision because they set forth that the elevation of the heretic was still invalid even it was made unanimously by all of the Cardinals. Pope Paul IV assumed that it might be possible that all legitimate church authority could be subverted. In such a situation the election was null and void; the claimant never becomes pope; the elevation is totally void and not valid in any way; and the faithful have no duty to obey the heretic elevated to the papal office.
———–
Admittedly on its face items (6) and (7) of the bull do not cover sedevacantism situation (2) identified above where the pope defects from the faith after his elevation.
———–
I read the Siscoe article cited above. He does not treat the Bull Ex Cum Apostolatus Officio at all! Towards the end he makes mention of situation (1) that we have been discussing, but it is perfunctory compared to the rest of his article which deals with situation (2). He makes mention that Pius XII issued an ecclesiastical law that allowed Cardinals that were excommunicated or had other problems under canon law to participate in the conclave, and concludes that if an excommunicated cardinal is elected he must be Pope! Is he sure about that one? That would contradict the divine law that someone outside the Church cannot command within the Church!
———
Items 6 and 7 of the bull cover a situation where a claimant appears to have deviated from the faith from prior to his elevation. Francis was not excommunicated or under any of the other items mentioned by Siscoe so that provision of Pius XII apparently does not encompass Francis’ situation. Item 6 of the bull, however, does arguably encompass Francis’ situation. A member of the faithful could conclude from the antics of Francis when he was archbishop that he “appeared to have deviated from the catholic faith or fallen into some heresy”. Heck, a member of the faithful could conclude that he had totally apostatized from the picture of him lighting the menorah at a jewish service alone! That is active participation in a non-catholic right and makes it appear that Francis had become a jew! It is impossible for you to conclude otherwise unless you can read minds.
——–
So unless you can advance an argument that the Bull is a dead letter and no longer controlling, the argument stands. If you offer a rebuttal. keep in mind that it can be argued that the Bull is an infallible decree, or that it merely reduced to written law a universal and infallible teaching of the Church.
Cyprian: “@Catholic Thinker: Only in the spirit of filial correction, I have to point out several inaccuracies in your statement.
First, though, I believe it is wrong to speak from a position of certainty about exactly what is wrong with the Church right now, and how it will be corrected.
It is clear to me that Francis doesn’t hold the faith and hence cannot order me to believe what he believes or to do what he commands.”
–
What a curious juxtaposition of statements above. “It is wrong to speak from a position of certainty… It is clear to me that Francis doesn’t hold the faith and hence cannot order me to believe what he believes or to do what he commands”.
–
The error of the sedevacantist position is essentially claiming to be able to know with moral certainty that a canonically-elected pope is actually not the pope – they claim such moral certainty that they condemn anyone who disagrees as a heretic, and constantly condemn each other as well for minor variations in the position.
–
–
Cyprian: “How this situation (his defection from the faith) will be resolved formally at the highest level of the Church is not known to any of us, though; a definitive statement awaits a faithful Pope or the return of Our Lord himself.
For example, if a future Pope declares that Francis was a heretic from prior to his elevation than the sedevacantists will be vindicated since Francis’ papacy will be null and void and there will have been an interregnum at least the duration of the reign of Francis.”
–
No, actually, such a declaration from a future pontiff – which may well occur – would not at all vindicate the sedevacantist position, which, again, is that individual Catholics should refuse communion with a pontiff based on their own private judgement that he is a formal heretic and on the [entirely erroneous] belief that such a person (or even a material heretic) is to be removed from public office without any judgement from the Church. As we will see below, that is not Catholic teaching. Even the theologians (which is not all of them, and this is *not* Catholic doctrine) who held that a formal heretic pope loses his office also taught that a judgement from the Church was still necessary before he was publicly deposed. The sedevacantist position ignores critical distinctions like the internal vs. external bonds of the Church and the position of ecclesiastical law in relation to divine law.
–
http://www.remnantnewspaper.com/Archives/2013-0315-siscoe-sedevacantism.htm
–
“Also keep in mind that a saint of the Church actually supported an antipope during the Great Western Schism. If a saint of the Church can support an antipope, I don’t know how any of us can present themselves as being certain about how this period of great confusion will be resolved.”
–
I’m well aware of this, but it has little to do with the sede position. During the Schism, since there were multiple claimants, it was possible to make an incorrect decision regarding who of them was the actual Vicar – this would be an intellectual, not moral, failing. If your point would be just that sedevacantists can be people holding to intellectual error with no moral culpability – and thus capable of heroic Catholic virtue – I would agree, theoretically. (Unfortunately, the sede world is filled with little to no saintly behavior, it seems.)
–
–
Cyprian: “Regarding your statements that I claim are inaccurate I present them as follows:
(1) Your statement about holding heresy may give the impression that it is unclear exactly what the consequences of a Pope holding heresy are. A person (including a Pope) who, knowing what the Church teaches on a matter of faith that must be held by all catholics, decides firmly to reject that teaching separates from and places himself outside the Church as a consequence of divine law. The Church may formally acknowledge that person’s defection through ecclesiastical (canon) law, but the separation from the Church does not require a formal proceeding by the Church. A pope who knowingly defects IS outside the Church as a consequence of divine law and loses his Office since someone outside the Church cannot command within the Church. Pope Leo XIII stated this general principle in Satis Cognitum, so this is not an unresolved issue still percolating in the minds of theologians – the general principles are settled. The only issue that isn’t settled is exactly how to remove a Pope who has defected from the faith from the office he no longer holds.”
–
This statement is filled with the basic errors of sedevacantism:
– No consideration of how formal heresy is determined.
– The erroneous belief that a pontiff is publicly deposed without any judgement from the Church – no theologian has ever taught that. (You allude above to “removal” of a pope – a pope who has not been removed by the Church is still pope to the world: that is what the theologians cited by the sedevacantists taught.)
– No distinction between the Body & Soul of the Church (the sin of heresy cuts one off from the latter, not the former).
–
Canon law dictates how we are to determine when public, formal heresy is present – and that is indeed the relevant condition:
http://www.scripturecatholic.com/feature-articles/Feature_-_The_Errors_of_Sedevacantism.pdf
–
“While, according to Divine Law, formal heresy results in self-expulsion from the Church without the need for a declaratory sentence, ecclesiastical law (can 2223.4) *requires a declaratory sentence* (sententia declaratoria dari debet) of said heresy if the common good of the Church requires it.”
–
I note that you use the phrase “*decides* to reject” above – which implies formal heresy – pertinacity of the will – yet below you argue that even material heresy is sufficient cause for laymen to depose a pope. Which is it?
–
The 1917 code of canon law teaches that to knowingly and willingly assist in the propagation of heresy (canon 2316), or to actively assist at sacred functions of non-Catholics (ibid.) only renders a man suspect of heresy.
–
– As the Salza article referenced above notes, Pope Pius IX remained in communion with a public heretic – are we then to take him as an anti-pope, and Vatican I as an invalid council?
–
Siscoe notes: “However – and this point is important when considering the sedevacantist position – the loss of faith does not, in and of itself, sever a man from the body of the Church. Let me repeat that: A mortal sin against faith does not, in and of itself, sever a man from the body of the Church. And if the man who loses the faith happens to be pope, he does not thereby lose his office. This is a crucial point that is often missed by even the most learned defenders of the sedevacantist position.”
–
Suarez said: “[T]he faith is not absolutely necessary in order that a man be capable of spiritual and ecclesiastical jurisdiction and be able to exercise true acts which demand this jurisdiction …. The foregoing is obvious, granted that, as is taught in the treatises on penance and censures, in case of extreme necessity a priest heretic may absolve, which is not possible without jurisdiction. (…) The Pope heretic is not a member of the Church as far as the substance and form [soul] which constitute the members of the Church; but he is the head as far as the charge and action; and this is not surprising, since he is not the primary and principal head who acts by his own power, but is as it were instrumental, he is the vicar of the principal head, who is able to exercise his spiritual action over the members even by means of a head of bronze; analogously, he baptizes at times by means of heretics, at times he absolves, etc., as we have already said”.
–
Bellarmine – the theologian most cited by sedes – agrees: “[O]ccult heretics are still of the Church, they are parts and members… therefore the Pope who is an occult heretic is still Pope. This is also the opinion of the other authors whom we cite in book De Ecclesia. …the occult heretics are united and are members although only by external union; on the contrary, the good catechumens belong to the Church only by an internal union, not by the external”.
–
Note that a prelate who has not been judged a heretic *by the Church* is – at best – an occult (private) heretic. Individual Catholics cannot pronounce anyone a heretic in terms of ecclesiastical law.
–
Garrigou-Lagrange: “This condition is quite abnormal, hence no wonder that something abnormal results from it, namely, that the pope becoming secretly a heretic would no longer be an actual member of the Church [the soul], according to the teaching as explained in the body of the article, *but would still retain his jurisdiction by which he would influence the Church [the body] in ruling it. Thus he would still be nominally the head of the Church*, which he would still rule as head, though he would no longer be a member of Christ, because he would not receive that vital influx of faith from Christ, the invisible and primary head. Thus in quite an abnormal manner he would be in point of jurisdiction the head of the Church, though he would not be a member of it.”
–
Siscoe notes that “In all the discussions this author has had with defenders of the sedevacantist position, only two have been aware of this important point. All others erroneously believe that the sin of heresy (internal forum), and consequent loss of faith, severed a man from the body of the Church, thereby causing a pope who losses the faith to lose his office.”
–
– I believe you need to read Leo’s encyclical again. It does not teach specifically what you claim it does.
–
–
Cyprian: “(2) Your statement that sedevacantism requires “a diving deep into subjectivism: it requires one to presume to know that a person is a formal heretic, beyond doubt” finds no basis in either the teachings of Our Lord, or of His Church. Regarding Our Lord, he continually warned of false teachers, and provided objective measures by which to gauge their truth or falsity – do they have the appearance of something that we should expect positive goods from (a fruit tree as opposed to a thistle) and do they, in fact, bear good fruits.
Applying this fruit tree analogy of Our Lord requires objectivity, not subjectivity. For example,
Our Lord’s analogy requires us to make a first determination – are we dealing with a fruit tree or a thistle? Are we dealing with someone that has a reputation for orthodoxy or heterodoxy? Then we are required to make a final determination – are the fruits good – are the results of a teaching when practiced good or bad? And Our Lord never made these warnings the sole province of authorities – these are instructions given to all the faithful. And this only makes sense because Our Lord was warning the faithful against those in authority. So Our Lord warned the faithful that they might be placed in situations where they have to determine whether someone preaching in his name should be accepted or rejected.”
–
First of all, you’re engaging in some pretty serious private interpretation of Scripture here.
–
Of course people have to make such judgements to live their lives – such judgements do not supersede nor make superfluous ecclesiastical law. Did Our Lord command His disciples to reject pastors He had put in place based on their private judgements? Not at all. Is the average Christian capable of making such judgements? Of course not.
–
Christ ordered His Jewish followers to obey the sinful, hypocritical Pharisees because they held the Seat of Moses – the God-given source of authority in the Old Covenant.
–
Whether or not we’re going to obey an individual command from a prelate vs. recognizing his office are two very different things. This is why Archbishop Lefebvre correctly decided he could not obey commands that lead to the destruction of the Church, and also even entertained the possibility that John Paul II would be condemned by a future pope while also recognizing that he did not have the means or the authority to make such a determination and pass judgement on the pope himself.
–
–
Cyprian: “Have these principles laid out by Our Lord been reflected in Church Law? Yes, they most certainly have – examine Paul IV’s bull Cum Ex Apostolatus Officio. Paul IV feared the election of a heretic, so he issued that bull wherein the faithful were instructed that if a heretic were to be elevated to the Papal Office – the election would be null and void without a formal declaration from the Church. If the bull stated positively that no declaration to render null the election of a heretic was necessary how do the faithful reach that determination – they reach that determination by exercising their own power of reason since the bull also assumed that the election of the heretic may be unanimous! The bull assumes that the entire college of cardinals could defect as well!”
–
Please see the Salza paper I referenced earlier, which is a quite thorough refutation of this sede argument:
–
http://www.scripturecatholic.com/feature-articles/Feature_-_The_Errors_of_Sedevacantism.pdf
–
–
The bull nowhere gives the faithful themselves the power to judge a pope a formal heretic and remove him from power – those are poor inferences. Only a pope can determine if a cardinal has fallen into formal heresy; he must be judged so by the pope. No post-conciliar pope was condemned as a heretic by the reigning pope whilst a cardinal or at any other time.
–
–
Cyprian: “When you focus on the culpability of the heresy – whether the person is a material or formal heretic you err. That issue is only relevant to ecclesiastical proceedings against the supposed heretic himself and whether and how he should be punished. To the faithful it doesn’t matter whether he is a material or formal heretic – they only need to determine whether his objective words and deeds accord with the catholic faith. If his words and deeds do not objectively accord with the faith a catholic can rightly conclude that he does not hold the faith and hence cannot command obedience. This is only logical – it doesn’t matter from the perspective of the faithful why the heretic doesn’t hold the faith – all we know is that he doesn’t hold the faith and anything he preaches is suspect.”
–
You are again displaying some rather basic errors here: it is completely false that material heresy only severs one from the Soul of the Church. If you understood the definition of material heresy, you would know that it might not involve any sin at all, much less mortal sin against the faith (which does cut one off from the Church). Material heresy can be nothing more than intellectual error; a person can hold to heresy in invincible ignorance. Formal heresy, which is sin, and mortal sin, is the deliberate embrace of heresy.
–
To throw out just one data point here, Pope John XXII was undoubtedly at least a material heretic: he taught the heresy that the blessed will not see the Beatific Vision until the end of time. At no point did anyone declare him to have lost his office, or even attempt to remove him from power.
–
The position you are espousing leads quickly to complete anarchy. By your reasoning, St. Peter’s pontificate could have been rejected by the faithful for his refusal to have communion with gentiles, which could be asserted to be borne out of heresy – a denial of the revocation of the Old Covenant, that there is now “no longer Jew nor gentile”.
–
–
Cyprian: “So while the faithful owe docile filial obedience to a faithful superior – if reason indicates that a superior has defected or doesn’t hold the faith that superior is to be rejected.
Regarding the NO service, I believe the more relevant question is whether it is a schismatic rite. It certainly isn’t a received and approved rite handed down to us, and it deviates from the traditional definition of a mass so do those who participate in the NO service separate themselves from the Church by attending it?”
–
First of all, you are correct that the Novus Ordo Rite itself is not a received and approved Rite of Mass of the Catholic Church – it has no Apostolic origins whatsoever. However, you are again demonstrating your very faulty foundations here by the lack of any distinction between material and formal heresy. Do you honestly believe that people who through no fault of their own are not aware of the deficiencies of this Rite severe themselves from the Church by attending it? Of course they do not – they have not committed mortal sin against Faith.
–
With no offense intended, you write as if you are not familiar with the common refutations of the sedevacantist position. I’ve provided only very cursory rebuttals here – please read the links I have provided above and see if your beliefs are unchanged.
John Salza missed something of great importance in the Bull – that the standard for knowing when to apply provision 6 is included in the Bull on its face. The provisions of item 6 are triggered “if ever at any time it shall appear that . . . the Roman Pontiff, prior to his promotion or his elevation as . . . Roman Pontiff, has deviated from the Catholic Faith or fallen into some heresy”. “It shall appear” is a much less stringent standard than, e.g., that the candidate had to have been formally excommunicated prior to his elevation. In other words only the appearance of deviating from the faith or falling into heresy is required to activate item 6.
———
John Salza does not even mention this fact and immediately assumes that the provisions of item 6 are only triggered by the outcome of a formal ecclesiastical proceeding – e.g., the excommunication of the papal claimant. Item 6 on its face says no such thing! He missed that the standard appears on the face of the provision! No ecclesiastical proceeding or sentence is required – only the appearance of having deviated from the faith or falling into heresy triggers item 6.
——–
Thus I am on solid ground and your statement about participation in non-catholic rites rendering someone only suspect of heresy in canon law actually supports my position not yours. Someone who is suspect of heresy has done or said something that gives the appearance that he has fallen into heresy. If canon law did not state that participation in non-catholic rites raises a suspicion of heresy I would be wrong to premise my argument on this fact but it does.
BTW, if you argue that “it shall appear … that he deviated from the catholic faith or fallen into some heresy” means formal execution within the context of the bull it does not. Pope Paul IV conditioned the application of other portions of the bull on a formal conviction or excommunication (see item 2). So by inference item 6 is not so limited – had he wanted to limit it to situations where the candidate had been formally excommunicated or convicted he would have done so like he did with item 2. The fact that he did not means it is not so limited.
Cyprian, you did not come anywhere close to refuting the material in the links I posted. You didn’t even attempt to address the main thesis. With respect, I would encourage you to cease attempting to perform as a private theologian with the power to pronounce popes deposed. I would also suggest you read both those papers again.
———
I’m going to cease debating you here now because it appears this would go on forever – as it usually does with sedevacantists. I will leave things as they stand for the audience to decide.
———
I also ask you to please consider posting sedevacantist arguments here on Louie’s blog. I do not speak for Louie in any fashion, but this is not sedevacantist territory and such material is really just a distraction (at best) to the topics at hand.
@Catholic Thinker: You act as if you have a horse in this race, and will do anything to shut this argument down, including trying by gross mischaracterizations of my arguments and digs at my intelligence to anger me so I personalize this dispute. Ha Ha! I won’t rise to the bait.
———
Regarding this dispute, strictly speaking it is about the Bull, and what rights it accords the laity, if any. It is not about sedevacantism. I interpret this Bull to allow me as a member of the laity to withdraw obedience from a putative Pope if certain conditions are met. I believe in the circumstance of the current claimant these conditions are met. I have an internally consistent reason based on a document from the Papal magisterium for withdrawing my obedience from this Pope.
———-
You apparently fear the Bull and rely on a half-baked article by a private theologian to reject it out of hand. You also apparently attend an SSPX chapel. The SSPX recognize the Pope as the visible head of the Church but reject his authority over them and therefore disobey him. How exactly do you justify disobeying a Pope who you nonetheless recognize as the visible head of the Church? You reject the conciliar Popes because they teach heresy. But teaching heresy would place them outside the Church – but you still recognize them as Popes? You have an internally inconsistent reason for not obeying the conciliar Popes.
———
Regarding my supposed “not coming anywhere close to refuting the material” you posted that is your opinion. The only material you advanced regarding the Bull was the article by John Salza. If I refute John Salza’s article my interpretation of the Bull will stand until you advance better arguments.
———-
I don’t need to read and re-read John Salza’s article because from my first reading of his article it was clear that he either didn’t understand how item 6 operates, or he positively misrepresented how it operates.
———–
On the first page of his article he reproduced item 6, which I also reproduce here:
” 6. In addition, [by this Our Constitution, which is to remain valid in perpetuity We enact, determine, decree and define:]
that if ever at any time it shall appear that any Bishop, even if he be acting as an Archbishop, Patriarch or Primate; or any Cardinal of the aforesaid Roman Church, or, as already has been mentioned, any legate, or even the Roman Pontiff, prior to his promotion or his elevation as Cardinal or Roman Pontiff, has deviated from the Catholic Faith or fallen into some heresy:
(i) the promotion or elevation, even if it shall have been uncontested and by the unanimous assent of all the Cardinals, shall be null, void and worthless;
(ii) it shall not be possible for it to acquire validity (nor for it to be said that it has thus acquired validity) through the acceptance of the office, of consecration, of subsequent authority, nor through possession of administration, nor through the putative enthronement of a Roman Pontiff, or Veneration, or obedience accorded to such by all, nor through the lapse of any period of time in the foregoing situation;
(iii) it shall not be held as partially legitimate in any way;
(iv) to any so promoted . . . as Roman Pontiff, no authority shall have been granted, nor shall it be considered to have been so granted either in the spiritual or the temporal domain;
(v) each and all of their words, deeds, actions and enactments, howsoever made, and anything whatsoever to which these may give rise, shall be without force and shall grant no stability whatsoever nor any right to anyone;
(vi) those thus promoted or elevated shall be deprived automatically, and without need for any further declaration, of all dignity, position, honour, title, authority, office and power.”
——-
When analyzing this section, John Salza underlined certain portions to emphasize them. He underlined “or even the Roman Pontiff, prior to his promotion or his elevation as Cardinal or Roman Pontiff, has deviated from the Catholic Faith or fallen into some heresy.” He then concluded that the standard for triggering the consequences identified in item (6) was if the Roman Pontiff “has deviated from the faith or fallen into some heresy”. Now “has deviated” or “fallen” implies certainty, and only a Church authority can formally determine whether someone has deviated from the faith or fallen into heresy. Alright. So John Salza must be right that before the Catholics identified in item (7) of the Bull can withdraw their obedience from the Pope, there has to be a formal Church proceeding adjudging him to be a heretic, right?
——–
Not so fast. John Salza only underlined the portion that emphasized certainty. Taken as a whole, the standard established in the sentence does not imply certainty but only possibility – this is how the sentence actually reads (with non-pontiff references deleted): “if ever at any time it shall appear that . . . the Roman Pontiff, prior to his promotion or his elevation as . . . Roman Pontiff, has deviated from the Catholic Faith or fallen into some heresy.” There is a huge difference between “has deviated from the faith” and “appears to have deviated from the faith”. On its face the Bull establishes that the consequences identified in item 6 are triggered if the papal claimant appears to have deviated from the faith or fallen into some heresy, not that he has been adjudicated formally to have deviated from the faith or fallen into heresy.
——–
Why is this distinction important? Because any properly catechized Catholic can make a determination that someone “appears to have deviated from the faith.” No Church authority is required for that.
———
One has to ask why John Salza missed this argument because it is based on a plausible reading of the text of the Bull itself. In fact, my proposed reading makes more sense since it does not requires entire words to be ignored. It is also noted that John Salza establishes a maze of hoops that have to be navigated before the consequences identified in 6 are triggered but this is nonsensical – one of the consequences identified is that the elevation of the heretic is null and void without a formal declaration! All these questions render his article a dubious authority at best.
———-
Further, John Salza does not understand why the Bull was enacted. This Bull was enacted because Pope Paul IV feared that a Cardinal who had defected to protestantism may be elevated to the Papacy. He also feared that the elevation would be unanimous indicating the hierarchy of the Church would have been subverted. If evidence came to light that made it appear that a papal claimant had deviated from the faith or fallen into some heresy from prior to his elevation the elevation would be null and void. The faithful would not have to wait for some declaration from a subverted hierarchy that may never come but could recognize it as null and void immediately as soon as the evidence of defection came to light.
———–
One can understand why Pope Paul IV enacted such seemingly draconian legislation. The operation of the Bull would seem to exclude those from the Papacy who only appear to have deviated from the faith but may actually have not done so. Pope Paul IV must have thought that the appearance of heresy -as opposed to actual heresy – among the hierarchy may be enough to corrupt some souls among the faithful and lead them to ruin. Since the salvation of souls is primary, those who are so careless that they cannot escape the appearance of being heretics or having deviated from the faith should be excluded from the papacy along with actual heretics.
——-
How would the hierarchy of the Church avoid the supposed anarchy that would result if the Bull was treated as controlling law and not a dead letter? It would elevate to the papacy only those whose orthodoxy was unquestioned from prior to the elevation.
“I interpret this Bull to allow me as a member of the laity to withdraw obedience from a putative Pope if certain conditions are met.”
—
Quite obviously. You go ahead and do that. If you think this is what the Catholic Church is, frankly, you’re nuts.
—
I’m going to make just one more comment to your response: “Further, John Salza does not understand why the Bull was enacted. This Bull was enacted because Pope Paul IV feared that a Cardinal who had defected to protestantism may be elevated to the Papacy.” It is preposterous for you to believe that “John Salza does not understand why the bull was enacted” given that that reason is the most common of knowledge as well as shouted from the rooftops by every sedevacantist who thinks he’s found his trump card. Rather, comments like this demonstrate that your own position is formed in a vacuum and that, it would seem, you will defend it at all costs.
—
You can have the last word, which I’m pretty confident you’ll take. I debate for the audience, and I say to the audience, read the papers by Siscoe and Salza referenced above.
You called me nuts for uttering this statement: “I interpret this Bull to allow me as a member of the laity to withdraw obedience if certain conditions are met” This statement is not something I made up out of whole cloth or assumed. It is essentially a paraphrase of section 7 of the Bull which reads as follows:
———-
“7. Finally, [by this Our Constitution, which is to remain valid in perpetuity, We] also [enact, determine, define and decree] that any and all persons who would have been subject to those thus promoted or elevated if they had not previously deviated from the Faith, become heretics, incurred schism or provoked or committed any or all of these, be they members of anysoever of the following categories:
(i) the clergy, secular and religious;
(ii) the laity;
(iii) the Cardinals, even those who shall have taken part in the election of this very Pontiff previously deviating from the Faith or heretical or schismatical, or shall otherwise have consented and vouchsafed obedience to him and shall have venerated him;
(iv) Castellans, Prefects, Captains and Officials, even of Our Beloved City and of the entire Ecclesiastical State, even if they shall be obliged and beholden to those thus promoted or elevated by homage, oath or security;
shall be permitted at any time to withdraw with impunity from obedience and devotion to those thus promoted or elevated and to avoid them as warlocks, heathens, publicans, and heresiarchs (the same subject persons, nevertheless, remaining bound by the duty of fidelity and obedience to any future Bishops, Archbishops, Patriarchs, Primates, Cardinals and Roman Pontiff canonically entering)
——–
To help you along I will spell out for you how this section of the Bull operates. In the first sentence of section 7, the Bull identifies persons who ordinarily would be subject to those in authority had those in authority not deviated from the faith: “that any and all persons who would have been subject to those thus promoted or elevated if they had not previously deviated from the Faith, become heretics, incurred schism or provoked or committed any or all of these, be they members of anysoever of the following categories.”
——-
The Bull then specifies with particularity who these people are by identifying the categories:
“(i) the clergy, secular and religious;
(ii) the laity;
(iii) the Cardinals, even those who shall have taken part in the election of this very Pontiff previously deviating from the Faith or heretical or schismatical, or shall otherwise have consented and vouchsafed obedience to him and shall have venerated him;
(iv) Castellans, Prefects, Captains and Officials, even of Our Beloved City and of the entire Ecclesiastical State, even if they shall be obliged and beholden to those thus promoted or elevated by homage, oath or security;”
Taken together, these categories comprise the living members of the Church.
——–
The Bull then gives permission to anyone who falls into one of categories (i) – (iv) to withdraw their obedience from one so elevated:
–
“shall be permitted at any time to withdraw with impunity from obedience and devotion to those thus promoted or elevated and to avoid them as warlocks, heathens, publicans, and heresiarchs (the same subject persons, nevertheless, remaining bound by the duty of fidelity and obedience to any future Bishops, Archbishops, Patriarchs, Primates, Cardinals and Roman Pontiff canonically entering).”
———-
Applying this provision to myself, I am a member of the laity (category (ii)) who would ordinarily be subject to the Roman Pontiff had he not deviated from the faith or fallen into some heresy. Since he appears to have deviated from the faith or fallen into some heresy I am given permission by this Bull to withdraw my obedience from him. These are the literal words of this Bull. I did not make them up. Calling me nuts is nothing more than a cheap ad hominem attack launched by you because the facts don’t favor you.