Back in September of 2015, two weeks before the Ordinary Synod of Bishops on “The Vocation and Mission of the Family in the Church and Contemporary World” convened, I wrote:
I’d say that we have more reason than not to believe that the outcome has already been determined, and guess what? It will be precisely what the “God of Surprises,” aka Jorge Bergoglio, wants it to be.
Others went even further to suggest that the post-synod document was already substantially written before the bishops even met.
Well, it seems every bit as reasonable to believe that head-in-the-sand neo-cons have all but composed their responses to “Amoris Laetitia” – the post-synod exhortation that will be unveiled on Friday, April 8th at 11:30 am Rome time.
George Weigel, for instance, tipped his hand last week in a piece entitled, Things that can’t change. (And no, he isn’t referring to the minds of papalatrous Conciliarizers like himself.)
Let’s take a look at some noteworthy excerpts.
When the Second Vatican Council was putting the finishing touches on one of its key documents, the Dogmatic Constitution on the Church (Lumen Gentium), Pope Paul VI proposed that it include a statement that the pope is “accountable to the Lord alone.”
The suggestion was referred to the Council’s Theological Commission, which, perhaps to Pope Paul’s surprise, flatly rejected it: the Roman Pontiff, the Theological Commission noted, “is . . . bound to revelation itself, to the fundamental structure of the Church, to the sacraments, to the definitions of earlier Councils, and other obligations too numerous to mention” …
As for those “other obligations too numerous to mention,” they include the pope’s accountability to the ways things are, which is another boundary to papal authority.
So, according to Weigel, “the way things are” is a “boundary to papal authority.”
OK, that sounds rather Catholic, and yet (Quo Primum aside) he apparently believes that the centerpiece of Catholic life, the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass such as it had been celebrated in the Roman Rite for some 1,500 years, wasn’t?
Can you say cognitive dissonance?
Though it is eminently difficult to take the opinions of such men seriously, let’s continue:
As is his wont, Cardinal Walter Kasper was first out of the starting blocks, announcing that the [post-synod] apostolic exhortation (whose date of publication he got wrong) would be a first step in vindicating his proposals for a “penitential path” by which the divorced and civilly remarried could be admitted to holy communion …
This, of course, set off a counter-reaction in the conservative and traditionalist sectors of the Catholic blogosphere, where the bait was swallowed and all manner of dark speculations about what-it-would-mean-if-Cardinal-Kasper-were vindicated ensued.
Weigel dismissed these treatments as the product of “various Catholic spin machines.”
As of last week, he could get away with that characterization.
What if come Friday, however, we discover that Pope Francis really does propose what amounts to “first steps” that will effectively lead to the divorced and civilly remarried (and God only knows who else) being admitted to Holy Communion, what then?
Weigel answered in no uncertain terms:
What was striking about the spinmeisters in this instance was that both the progressives and the conservatives/traditionalists seem to have a false understanding of what popes can do.
By declining Paul VI’s suggestion about a papacy “accountable to the Lord alone,” Vatican II made clear that there are limits to what popes can do. On the bottom-line matters at issue in the two recent Synods, for example, no pope can change the settled teaching of the Church on the indissolubility of marriage, or on the grave danger of receiving holy communion unworthily, because these are matters of what the Council’s Theological Commission called “revelation itself:” to be specific, Matthew 19.6 and 1 Corinthians 11.27-29.
So, if only we really understood what popes can and cannot do, we would realize that there’s no real cause for concern!
What a load of nonsense.
No serious Catholic (in fact, not even Walter Kasper) has argued that there will be a change in “settled teaching.”
All concerned realize that the pope cannot actually change the doctrine of the faith, but what “traditionalists” know very well, and neo-cons are determined to deny, is that he can change the way in which those “settled teachings” are expressed and lived via the policies, disciplines and practices he chooses to promote; either by word or by deed.
If nothing else, the realities of post-conciliar Catholic life demonstrates just how much havoc a merely “pastoral” exercise with no doctrinal value of its own can effect. Of course, this is a lesson entirely lost on the recalcitrant neo-conservatives for whom the Almighty Council serves as golden calf.
Weigel goes on to provide the final touches on what we can well expect to be the neo-con reaction to the post-synod document regardless of just how “revolutionary” it actually is (to quote the serene and profound papal theologian of choice):
It seems inevitable, alas, that the spin is going to continue, no matter how the pope phrases his call for the pastoral accompaniment of the divorced and civilly remarried.
We may hope that the articulation is not so ambiguous that the battle of the spinners will continue ad infinitum and ad nauseam. But in all of that spilt ink, and amidst all those flashing pixels, let’s remember that there are things in the Church that don’t change, because they can’t.
That’s Vatican II.
Please allow me to sum up what I expect to be the neo-con take on Amoris Laetitia:
– Let not your heart be troubled; there has been no change in ‘settled teaching.’
– There’s nothing to see here folks, this is nothing more than a call for ‘pastoral accompaniment.’
– Relax, the firestorm is a result of ‘ambiguous language’ and nothing more.
“That’s Vatican II” alright; at least according to the Weigels of the world…
Doctrinal theology and pastoral theology are two sides of the same coin. It’s impossible to alter one and not to affect the other.
The Triune God is eternally and so intimately involved with creation that the rational soul cannot deny His fingerprints everywhere in it. (With apologies to St. Paul’s Letter to the Colossians — talk about the Social Kingship of Christ! —- and St. Bonaventure.)
The only time the “God of Surprises” (aka Jorge Bergoglio) will surprise me is when he says or does something Catholic–aka Catholic!
In Portugal, the dogma of the Faith, will always be preserved by a faithful remnant and thankfully, in other places as well.
As of late I’ve been relegated to attending the 7:30 am Novus Ordo in my parish as opposed to the 1:00 pm at another Archdiocesan parish where the TLM is offered. The Novus Ordo priests have never once mentioned anything about anything…Except that we’ve got it wrong….the Jews did not crucify Jesus . It was Ciaphus and Co and we have read the Gospels incorrectly ect ect….oh yes and inclusion and change …just buzzwords that stick in the craw but little else. I have little doubt that the Exhortation will pass quietly in Novus Ordo land and the doings will be business as usual and slip under the radar of the parishoner.
No doubt this will be just another VII experience for Archdiocesan parishes …life goes on ..it’s just us ..the perenial complainers …who live in the past…ect ect ect……very frustrating indeed and very very sad too. I’ve also come to realization that the little grey heads at church( who are about ten years older than my dyed grey head )who like myself attended many TLMs in their day, went quite happily on this NO journey without so much as a shrug….and Pope Francis is doing what all the rest have done ….nothing new in their view.
Theresa, let us not forget Bergoglio came on the scene as Pope after 50 plus years of very thorough brainwashing. His strange agenda is planted in very fertile soil. The only way to combat this is to adhere to the Sacred Deposit of Faith given by Our Lord to His apostles, to promote the TLM and all the sacraments, to expose the crisis in the church and to pray, pray and pray some more.
Theresa, resr assured. You are the only one there who has a clue.
It’s not a good idea to participate in something that offends God. A lot of factors played into the mess the Church is in today. The biggest one is the new mass. How one prays defines how one believes. The NO is not Catholic, it’s Protestant.
Yes …Rushintuit, I agree that the Novus Ordo Is Luthers Mass ….I also believe that Our Divine Savior is truly present in the Blessed Sacrament there ….as long as the words of consecration are according to rubrics. I’m not a theologian so I’m not in a position to debate anything with those who I’m sure are more learned than I ….quite honestly I’m not ready to miss mass yet …perhaps that time will come I’m just not there yet.
Yet the “Catholic Church” promotes non-Catholic worship and made it almost impossible to engage in Cathollic worship due to evil disciplinary laws? Yo no comprendo.
I understand how you feel. The Third Commandment says we have to keep the Sabbath holy. It is the Church who says the best way to do that is to go to Mass. If the Church does not provide you with a Catholic Mass, then you are dispensed. So how do you keep the Sabbath holy? You stay at home, say an extra rosary and read the Epistle and Gospel from your missal.
The Christ of the Crucifixion,
is the Christ of the Resurrection,
is the Christ of the Eucharist
John Cardinal O’Connor
Why would you choose a pic of a man w/his anus in the air waiting to be screwed for GW and neocons but a smiling pic of +Lefebvre for previous post labelling “SSPX Regularization: A gift for ‘confused Catholics'”.
You say that Fellay has not given up any of +Lefebvre positions: but when did +Lefebvre say that he agreed w/95% of VC2? When did +Lefebvre call Jews his older brothers? When did +Lefebvre make a distinction between homosexuals and pedophiles and/or homosexual and pedophile “acts” as Fellay did in his recent interview w/Conflict Zone (at 19:30) (is there a difference between a Catholic and Catholic ‘acts’)? Do you think +Lefebvre would say it was “an unhappy time” when he stood up and paid fines against the Muslim invasion of Europe (same interview at about 5)? What is the role of a Catholic society and the religious shepherds of that society? +Lefebvre died excommunicate because he consecrated bishops so that the transmission of the priesthood, the sacraments and the Faith would continue on this earth–who is carrying on that mission: +Wmson or +Fellay who is handing SSPX on a silver platter to Francis?
While you sit in the pews of St. Alphonsus (that celebrates Divine Mercy Sunday & every other calendar and discipline abuse of VC2 including the N.O. most of the time) w/a geriatric priest who brags he was “delegate of the Urban Vicariate in 1997. During that time, he helped organize a popular evangelization event along Baltimore’s Inner Harbor area. “That was really neat,” Monsignor Bastress said, “and a real accomplishment.”, and would no doubt say the sodomite mass if Lady Lori assigned it and the N.O. mass most of the time, Fellay states that +Lefebvre left because of the new mass (not due to consecration of bishops) and that if only the New Mass was celebrated reverently/ strictly (Like GW and all neocons state) +Lefebvre would not have left (and Fellay said that behind the back of his congregation (WHO is the neocon(artist))): “On one occasion,” the Spanish cardinal recalled, “Bishop [Bernard] Fellay, who is the leader of the Society of St. Pius X, came to see me and said, ‘We just came from an abbey that is near Florence. If Archbishop [Marcel] Lefebvre had seen how they celebrated there, he would not have taken the step that he did. “The missal used at that celebration was the Paul VI Missal in its strictest form,” the cardinal added.” [strict forms (!?)]
Will SSPX priests be a force for tradition (or same as you when your adulterous ‘friend’ dies will any priest and N.O. mass do just fine) or forced to say the New Mass (burn that pinch of incense to Satan–as +Lefebvre refused including removing 2nd confiteor J23 1962 change)? Fellay already accepted when he signed the preamble and filed it at the Vatican (and even though Fellay strategically “withdrew” when his flock threatened desertion the doc is still on file there):
“7. We declare that we recognise the validity of the sacrifice of the Mass and the Sacraments celebrated with the intention to do what the Church does according to the rites indicated in the typical editions of the Roman Missal and the Sacramentary Rituals legitimately promulgated by Popes Paul VI and John-Paul II.
“8. In following the guidelines laid out above (III,5), as well as Canon 21 of the Code of Canon Law, we promise to respect the common discipline of the Church and the ecclesiastical laws, especially those which are contained in the Code of Canon Law promulgated by John-Paul II (1983) and in the Code of Canon Law of the Oriental Churches promulgated by the same pontiff (1990), without prejudice to the discipline of the Society of Saint Pius X, by a special law. ”
To paraphrase Jesus Christ, “when you (and Fellay) get your own heads out of a place the sun don’t shine, maybe you will be able to see clearly to get your brother’s head out of the dirt. “
The New Mass was never made officially binding and therefore was not a universal law of the Church, but rather a wish of of a bad Pope.
There are many half truths and things taken out of context above. I have already looked into most of those claims but people will have to go to the sources to reach a good conclusion. I will give an example from the above that does not prove what you imply it does: Felley said he agreed with 95% of Vatican II so he is a liberal. That reasoning is too simple. Fr. Hesse said he agreed with 90% of Vatican II. Would you say he is liberal? Archbishop Lefebvre said that much of Vatican II was Catholic or only ambiguous and those things that were ambiguous should interpreted in a Catholic way. Furthermore, 5% poison is a hell of alout of poison. And why is accepting the New Code of Canon law a bad thing as long as you ignore a few things here and there? If John Paul II was a true Pope then he has that authority. Plus Felley said they would have a special law that would exempt them from those things that are wrong or problematic (like Communion for certain Protastant sects if given permission). Is saying that the New Mass is valid wrong? Also Felley wrote that to a Cardinal who was saying they were schismatic. That was never going to the bases of an agreement. It is broad anyways so if you have an agenda you can misconstrue what he said. Why doe the SSPX still openly say the New Mass is illicit and that Vatican II has errors? If Felley conspires secretly to lead people to accept VII and the New Mass then he is doing a piss poor job. The burden of proof is on the accusers and those accusers better be right because they have had no scruples about calling Felley a liar and malicious man. At the very least that is logically deduced from what they say.
Ps Lefebvre accepted the 1962 Missal except for the removal of a second confetior. Technically, Communion of the faithful is not actually apart of the Mass for what that’s worth.
Also, Devine Mercy Devotion may actually be legit. I disagree with some of what this site says on other matters, but what they say here is pretty solid:
The 1962 missal is used for a canonical reason. Once there is a state of emergency in the Church, Canon Law only allows the latest acceptable course. As for the rest of your disorganized logic, you should probably be less critical and do more thinking.
” +Lefebvre died excommunicate because he consecrated bishops so that the transmission of the priesthood, the sacraments and the Faith would continue on this earth”
Not quite. Strickly speaking the Russian and Eastern Orthodox, even though schismatic and heretical, have a perfectly valid priesthood and sacraments. It did not all depend on +Lefebvre. Perhaps he should have taken that one Bishop and we would not be having this conversation. We’ll never know because he chose otherwise. And we do know that the Russian Orthodox will play a vital role in the future of the Faith on earth. That’s according to Our Lady of Fatima.
“Catholic Church” in quotes? As in, the Church isn’t REALLY the Church anymore because some layman with no authority decided so? Sounds like sedevacantism! So here we go again:
Sedevacantism: A Bridge Too Far
The dogmatic sedevacantist position is one that appears as a legitimate solution to this crisis in the Church (the worst in Her history) only to those who have not yet fully explored its ramifications and/or do not know her theology well enough. In point of fact, there are at least several “one-shot kills” of the position – simple facts that, in and of themselves, render it untenable – impossible and leading directly to material heresy. We will explore a few of them here.
Before we begin, there is something else to note: The dogmatic sedevacantist position actually *encompasses* the “recognize & resist” response to wayward prelates (which is what the Church really teaches, more or less) that they mock, but simply takes it further – at least one bridge too far (and sometimes as many as 30 or so). Those who recognize prelates the Church has validly elected (as the Church and even common sense require, in the end), but decline to accept their non-binding, non-infallible teachings (again, as the Church commands) use their intellects and actual, binding Church teaching to determine what is congruent with that teaching and what is not – just as God and the Church have always required. Sedevacantists do the same, but then, continue where they have no logical or lawful right to go, declaring that a pope the Church has elected is not really a pope because the individual determines he is a heretic either before or after his election. So, when the sede disparages the position that the popes and theologians have aspired, to recognize but resist prelates with false (but non-binding) teachings, they condemn their own position as well, essentially.
Concerning that critical determination of heresy, it is here where the dogmatic sedes first go wrong – and these errors in premise result in large errors in conclusion. The fact (as has been thoroughly demonstrated by Robert Siscoe over the past few years, causing sede leaders to (futiliy) shift their arguments, etc.) is that there is no theologian in the history of the Church who ever sanctioned what the sedes do: Making the critical determination of formal (obstinate) heresy a matter of private judgment. Bellarmine, the sedes’ go-to theologian, was explicit in the fact that the determination of formal heresy is something that belongs to *the Church*: the Church must, at the least, issue two formal warnings to an erring pontiff before it declares him *to have judged himself* (since he can be judged by no man).
To continue past that, the basic tenet of dogmatic sedevacantism – that men canonically elected pope are actually *not*, and that an individual can determine this for himself and then insist upon it as a *public fact* that mus be accepted by all – can be proven false rather simply and from several different angles. Here are a few:
1) The Fourth Ecumenical Council of Constantinople, Canon 10: The Church directly and formally considered the question of whether or not the faithful can formally separate from any prelate sans judgment by the Church, and the answer was no. Sedevacantists live materially under the anathema the council declared:
“… this holy and universal synod justly and fittingly declares and lays down that no lay person or monk or cleric should separate himself from communion with his own patriarch before a careful enquiry and judgment in synod, even if he alleges that he knows of some crime perpetrated by his patriarch, and he must not refuse to include his patriarch’s name during the divine mysteries or offices.”
Fr. Cekada, in a perfect display of what sedevacantism is really about, objects that this canon that says one can’t depose prelates doesn’t apply to the prelates he wants to separate from because he’s declared them deposed! It comes back to his judgement, which he insists must be regarded as factual and accepted with ecclesiastical (if not divine) faith, regardless of any “careful enquiry and judgment in synod”.
So, already, we can say sedevacantism is false: QED.
2) The Church’s public acceptance of a supreme pontiff is itself proof of his validity; the theologians agree that it is a dogmatic fact. I.e., if we didn’t know if we ever had a pope we wouldn’t know ANYTHING: We wouldn’t know the dogmas he’d proclaimed (directly or via ratification of an ecumenical council’s teachigs) were true or not. Thus, the Holy Ghost would not allow, could not allow the visible Church to accept a pope as such if he were not. Anarchy (such as the anarchy of sedevacantism) would be the result if the Church did not have certainty in the validity of a papal election: Not only would no one ever know if we had a pope or not at the present time, no one could ever have even moral certainty in the validity of past popes, and thus no one could grant even ecclesiastical faith to *any* of the Church’s dogmas (since the validity of the promulgating pontiff would not be morally certain). (And we do have sedevacantist leaders extent who have declared invalid popes that reigned centuries ago that the Church has always recognized as valid pontiffs, so this not some kind of theoretical red herring.)
(Note that the exceptions such as the Western Schism do not undo this rule: In such cases there obviously was *not* universal acceptance of the pontiff.)
3) The Visibility of the Church: The Church’s visibility is one of her three attributes – necessary qualities that follow directly from her nature – and sedevacantism leads directly to a denial of it (or her indefectibility, which is an even more serious breach of Catholic doctrine).
This visibility has both material and formal aspects: Materially, people can identify the Church by her visible members & hierarchy and also (the important, formal part) know that this is the Catholic Church, by her Marks. For God to command that souls enter this Church (as He does) as the Ark of Salvation, it must be formally visible. As Christ’s incarnate, physical Body was visible, so is that of His Church. (And as He is composed of two natures, divine and human, so is the Church – one can err, one cannot.)
The notion of an invisible Church (with visible members) was, of course, one of the primary errors/denials of the early “Reformers”, and that is exactly where sedevacantists have pitched their tent today – as with the Protestants, it is essentially a necessary consequence of their position. Sede leaders have advanced models of the Church that are identical to the Protestant definition. But the Church cannot be invisible; it cannot be hidden; it cannot be some visible entity other than what it was in the past. Any of these things destroy the Church’s teachings regarding her visibility. Sedevacantism tosses this to the wind with their talk of the “false church of Vatican II”. If this Church is now false, where, now, is the Catholic Church? Clearly they cannot point to any specific Church that has her four Marks and necessary attributes. They know this and do not try; that is how they end up with the Protestent definition of the Church.
(Somewhat related to visibility is the mark of universality (catholicity). Theologians have discussed two two aspects of catholicity: right & fact. The former of these means that the Church always had the aptitude to spread throughout the world, and the latter that it did, in fact, do so. Van Noort, among others, notes that once the Church became universal in fact (spread to many nations) this characteristic became a permanent, necessary quality of it. Thus, once the Church (visible as she always has been and will be) became spread broadly among many nations, this so-called moral universality became a permanent property. The Church is now formally visible throughout virtually the entire world, perpetually – everyone (generally speaking) knows of the Catholic Church. It can never be the case that the Church that was once so broadly visible can cease to be visible, formally, anywhere. It will also never be reduced to a number or size that lacks moral universality – a *tiny* remnant.)
I think there are more one-shot killers such as these but that will suffice.
We can say it’s intuitively obvious that the Church just can’t work the way the sedes assert. If personal heresy (judged authoritatively by a third-party individual) were enough to deprive a pope of his ecclesiastical office (or prevent him from obtaining it), no Catholic at any time in history would know if we had a pope or not and thus no Catholic in the world at any time or place could have ecclesiastical faith in anything the Church has ever taught as definitive. This point is intentionally reiterated for effect.
God hasn’t given us a Church, perpetual, indefectible, and immaculate, the infallible Ark of Salvation, yet so ridiculously fragile and subject to individual whim as they imagine. It can’t have been meant to work that way and it does not work that way. Realizing how terrible this crisis of modernism is, seeing the Church bruised and bloodied, is indeed impetus for *exploring* notion such that the pontiffs who have ruled over this ruin were and are not truly popes. However, it simply is not possible to conclude so without embracing not only logical absurdities but material heresy as well.
So, concluding that sedevacantism just doesn’t work, what’s a Catholic to do when faced with Popes who at least seem to undermine Catholic doctrine in their statements and practices, and even foist (but not authoratively) a new Rite of Mass upon the entire Roman Church designed to subjugate Catholic dogma so as to appeal to heretics? Fortunately, the answer to that query is essentially provided by the theologians and popes of old. The below is nothing but the barest of introductions to the subject.
Sedevacantists like the papal bull Cum Ex Apostolatus Officio because they think it justifies their position. However, Cum Ex Apostolatus Officio speaks of *valid popes*: “the Roman Pontiff… who may judge all and be judged by none in this world, may nonetheless be contradicted if he be found to have deviated from the faith”. Here we have a veritable R&R proof-text, don’t we? We have a Supreme Pontiff telling us in a papal bull no less that the faithful should, indeed, “contradict” (resist) a pope who has “deviated from the faith”. Implicit in the statement is the notion that human beings must be willing to use their intellects to determine what is congruent with the defined, infallible Faith and what is not. He is to be resisted, but certainly there no justification for declaring him deposed.
St. Bellarmine, Doctor of the Church: “We must point out, besides, that the faithful can certainly distinguish a true prophet (teacher) from a false one, by the rule that we have laid down, but for all that, if the pastor is a bishop, they cannot depose him and put another in his place [recognize]. For Our Lord and the Apostles only lay down that false prophets are not to be listened to by the people [resist], and not that they depose them [recognize]. And it is certain that the practice of the Church has always been that heretical bishops be deposed by bishop’s councils, or by the Sovereign Pontiff” (from De Membris Ecclesiae, as quoted in True Or False Pope, pp 645-646; bracketed portions are from True of False Pope). So, the sedes’ go-to theologian tells us that false prophets are “not to be listened to” *and* specifically that they “not depose him”.
Pope Adrian II: “It is true that Honorius was posthumumously anathematised by the Eastern churches, but it must be borne in mind that he had been accused of heresy, *the only offense which renders lawful the resistance of subordinates to their superiors, and their rejection of the latter’s pernicious teachings*” (Cited by Billot, Tractatus de Ecclesia Christi, as quoted in True or False Pope, pp 647, emphasis mine).
The canon Si Papa, part of canon law for around eight centuries, says this: “Let no mortal man presume to accuse the Pope of fault, for, it being incumbent upon him to judge all, he should be judged by no one, unless he is suddenly caught deviating from the faith.” (This quote is sometimes attributed directly to Pope Innocent III; it is likely not his, but clearly reflects not just theological opinion but Church law. It is also used by sedevacantists themselves to justify individuals’ formal separation from/deposition of a pontiff, but it clearly justifies no such thing.)
Of course, there are many more such quotations, from theologians including Aquinas, that could be brought to bear.
These teachings of the theologians and papal Magisterium are congruent with what the Magisterium teaching about itself, in that it is the Deposit of Faith that is the primary rule of faith, with the Magisterium secondary. The secondary Rule cannot contradict the primary without losing its essence and validity. Aquinas: “We believe the successors of the apostles only in so far as they tell us those things which the apostles and prophets have left in their writings” (De Veritate, as quotes in True or False Pope, pp 648). Aquinas points out that it is the virtue of Faith that allows Catholics to sense error – Catholics have the blessing of the Church as Mother and Teacher, but, especially in abnormal times, no Catholic can leave himself without the benefit of both his intellect and the enlightenment of the Holy Ghost.
This post is intended to be as brief, given the venue. I recognize that references are not provided consistently. If you’d like to challenge any particular point, please go ahead, and I will respond with more detail and references.
Finally, for a thorough demonstration on how the leaders of the sedevacantist movement have completely and absolutely failed to meaningfully engage, much less refute, Salza & Siscoe’s new work, have a look here:
The SSPX Bishops were made exactly according to Canon Law as the Church is in a state of emergency. The SSPX kept the only link with Tradition and you can’t do that with one Bishop appointed by the Vatican. You can’t trust the Vatican who controls Ecclesia Dei who controls the FSSP and the indult people. That leaves the SSPX. The SSPX is not a fringe group as everyone seems to insist. Christ’s promise to preserve the Church has continued only through the charism of the SSPX.
rushintuit, I’m just a pewsitter, but I worked for people I didn’t trust, who controlled everything around me, and it didn’t destroy me. I think it made my faith stronger. God loves all the rest of us, as well as the SSPX. God bless.
Are you just trying to “win” with verbiage?
I’ll put it in the form of a syllogism:
1) The Catholic Church cannot teach errors, encourage non-Catholic worship, and give evil disciplinary and moral laws.
This I don’t think anyone would disagree with.
2) Paul VI and company officially gave us just that, and even fifty years later popes have sanctioned heretics taking communion. interfaith abominations like Assisi, and give encyclicals that depart from Church teaching.
You might disagree with this but here is what Paul VI wrote:
“At last all which regards the holy Ecumenical Council has, with the help of God, been accomplished and ALL THE CONSTITUTIONS, DECREES, DECLARATIONS, AND VOTES HAVE BEEN APPROVED BY THE DELIBERATION OF THE SYNOD AND PROMULGATED BY US. Therefore, we decided to close for all intents and purposes, WITH OUR APOSTOLIC AUTHORITY, this same Ecumenical Council called by our predecessor, Pope John XXIII, which opened October 11, 1962, and which was continued by us after his death. WE DECIDE MOREOVER THAT ALL THAT HAS BEEN ESTABLISHED SYNODALLY IS TO BE RELIGIOUSLY OBSERVED BY ALL THE FAITHFUL, for the glory of God and the dignity of the Church… WE HAVE APPROVED AND ESTABLISHED THESE THINGS, DECREEING THAT THE PRESENT LETTERS ARE AND REMAIN STABLE AND VALID, AND ARE TO HAVE LEGAL EFFECTIVENESS, so that they be disseminated and obtain full and complete effect, and so that they may be fully convalidated by those whom they concern or may concern now and in the future; and so that, as it be judged and described, ALL EFFORTS CONTRARY TO THESE THINGS BY WHOEVER OR WHATEVER AUTHORITY, KNOWINGLY OR IN IGNORANCE, BE INVALID AND WORTHLESS FROM NOW ON. Given at Rome, at St. Peter’s, under the [seal of the] ring of the fisherman, December 8… the year 1965, the third year of our Pontificate.”8
If you don’t believe me, read this article: http://www.novusordowatch.org/vatican-ii-infallible.htm
That doesn’t change the fact that the bishops in union with the pope have been teaching errors in the form of exhortations, encyclicals and official teachings. Do research on the Vincentian canons and see if it means what you think it means. RnR and Old Catholics are two peas in a pod when it comes to deciding what is Catholic.
Finally, canonisations are infallible. John Paul 2 is a saint, and soon Paul VI and Mother Theresa will be too. The only way to deny this is to deny the ones pushing this.
3) Therefore Paul VI and company are not members of the Church.
Which of the two premises do you deny?
The Shismatic Russian Eastern Orthodox are a good example of how it can be possible to have a valid liturgy while practising false doctrines on the married incontinent priesthood, contraception and the thrice divorce and remarried receiving communion.This should be a warning that to simply attach oneself to a traditional liturgy is no guaranty of upholding Catholic doctrines. Traditional liturgy of course is a better guarantee of upholding Catholic doctrine but it is not a complete guarantee of upholding Catholic teachings as the Shismatic Russian Easyern orthodox demonstrate. We can all attest to so called Trads that accept the teachings on NFP and who have no clue as to the obligation of perfect and perpetual continence for married clergy that is rooted in theological foundations since apostolic times. I do not romanticize the Schismatic Russian Orthodox for fear of misleading people into believing that a practised liturgical orthodoxy is the be all and end all that will in the end save the day. Doctrine is more important to get correct and straight before the liturgy. If one gets the doctrines right a proper liturgy will naturally follow. If one doesn’t get doctrine right it is possible to follow and maintain a valid traditional liturgy as the schismatic orthodox demonstrate. These schismatics will still be a dead member of the Church for espousing false doctrines. What good is receiving a valid sacrament when one is a dead member and remains obstinate in ones sin? Like I said I would be very careful in upholding the schismatic orthodox to be perhaps the ones to save the day. I am not saying that this could never happen if they convert but it appears to me to be romanticising the schismatics steadfast adherence to not changing their liturgy as the reason for them being the heroes in the end.
My statements are OBJECTIVE. That means that the heresies in the Church are rampant. Anyone can see that the Church is full of heresy from the top down. To judge an individual soul would be SUBJECTIVE. Only God can judge a person’s heart. My intent is not to put anyone down. Tradition is the key for a Catholic. But, if a Novus Ordo Catholic is acting in good faith, there is no sin for that person. The clergy will get zapped for their false teachings.
If you people want to care more about your radical leftism than your faith, then just leave the Church. You’re making yourself liars by pretending to be Catholic when you ignorantly and condescendingly put down anything and anyone that doesn’t fit your contemporary American leftist agenda. Conservative Catholic bloggers and magazines don’t do this; they simply make their case. This is because conservative Catholicism, although often falling into the same trap of politics over the Church as leftists do, at least adheres to real Catholic teaching.
If you want to be Catholic, drop your pride and arrogance and stop pretending like you’re better than the Church. The Church is not your guide, Christ is not your guide – you yourselves are your guide, led along like sheep by our culture and leftism.
Just leave the Church already, it obviously plays second fiddle to the rest of your contemporary individualistic beliefs. Stop being a fraud. If you want to follow yourself, go ahead. Leave the Church to people who actually believe its teachings instead of making yourself liars and fostering unnecessary division, like the snake in the garden or those that St. Paul opposed.
“We believe we can affirm, purely by internal and external criticism of Vatican II, i.e. by analysing the texts and studying the Council’s ins and outs, that by turning its back on tradition and breaking with the Church of the past, it is a schismatic council.” (Le Figaro, August 4, 1976)
Archbishop Lefebvre, 1976, minnesota:
“Some say the Council was good and has good, but only the reform is bad. But that is not true! Why? Because when Rome gave the reform, they always say the reforms they do, they do in the name of the Council. In the name of the Council! It is evident that all reform came from the Council, and if the reform is bad, it is impossible that the Council is good and all reforms are bad. Because that is the authentic interpretation of the Council by Rome!”
“We have never wished to belong to this system that calls itself the Conciliar Church. To be excommunicated by a decree of your eminence…would be the irrefutable proof that we do not. We ask for nothing better than to be declared ex communione…excluded from impious communion with infidels.” (Open Letter to Cardinal Gantin, July 6, 1988, signed by 24 leading SSPX priests, doubtless with Archbishop Lefebvre’s approval)
“We consider as null…all the post-conciliar reforms, and all the acts of Rome accomplished in this impiety.” (Joint Declaration with Bishop de Castro Mayer following Assisi, December 2, 1986)
“I’ll put it in the form of a syllogism:
1) The Catholic Church cannot teach errors, encourage non-Catholic worship, and give evil disciplinary and moral laws.
This I don’t think anyone would disagree with.
2) Paul VI and company officially gave us just that, and even fifty years later popes have sanctioned heretics taking communion. interfaith abominations like Assisi, and give encyclicals that depart from Church teaching.”
As I & others have demonstrated again time and again, you and other sedevacantists have grossly oversimplified understandings of critical concepts like the various levels of assert required different types of teachings, which leads to your errors – big errors in premise cause massive errors in conclusion. The level of assent required is dependent upon the **intention to bind**, the subject matter (is it faith & morals, the only subjects of Catholic doctrine?), and the type of language employed (an unclear proposition leaves nothing to assent to).
As quoted in Michael Davies’ Pope John’s Council, Dom Paul Nau. O.S.B., “cites a number of authors regarding the attitude Catholics should have towards statements of the Ordinary Magisterium: ‘…that of inward assent, not as of faith, but as of prudence, the refusal of which could not escape the mark of temerity, **unless the doctrine rejected was an actual novelty of involved a manifest discordance between the pontifical affirmation and the doctrine which had hitherto been taught**.’” Hmm – think that might be important?
No less an authority than Dr. Ludwig Ott (author of the seminal work Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma) notes that, “The ordinary and usual form of papal teaching activitiy is not infallible. Further, the decisions of the Roman Congregations (Holy Office, Bible Commission) are not infallible. Nevertheless, normally they are to be accepted with an inner assert which is based on the high supernatural authority of the Holy See (assensus internus supernaturalis, assensus religiosus). The so-called silentium obsequiosum, that is ‘reverent silence’, does not generally suffice. **By way of exception the obligation of inner agreement may cease if a competent expert, after a renewed scientific investigation of all grounds, arrives with a positive conviction that the decision rests on an error**.” Wow – things may not be as trivially simple as you imply!
Your logic is so faulty it does not withstand any serious scrutiny whatsoever. We have several examples of popes teaching material heresy publicly, not to mention leading the faithful astray by bad example (starting with St. Peter); we have the case of the Arian crisis where 90-99% of the episcopate defected from the faith and led souls into grave error. No Catholic source has ever asserted that even one of those bishops immediately lost his public office, much less that the Church ceased to be the Church. This is because the public and private forums, the Body and Soul of the Church, are distinct.
Your quote from Paul VI doesn’t demonstrate what you intend in the least. Paul asserts that the ecumenical council was valid (as traditionalists recognize and sedes deny) and that it is owed “religious observance”. As we’ve seen, that does not imply in the slightest the rejection of that which contradicts the Deposit of Faith.
Pope Paul ALSO said this, in his general audience of January 12th, 1966: “In view of the pastoral nature of the Council, it avoided any extraordinary statements of dogmas endowed with the note of infallibility, but it still provided its teaching with the authority of the Ordinary Magisterium, which must be accepted with docility *according to the mind of the Council concerning the nature and aims of each document*.” According to the mind and nature – see above regarding levels of assent. In fact, none of the documents contain ANY new teaching intended to bind Catholics – period. They contain previous teaching along with novelties and ambiguous formulas. All sides have acknowledged that, actually.
The Council’s own Theological Commission, cited by the Secretary of the Council, Archbishop Pericle Felici, in a theological note appended to the Dogmatic Constitution of the Church: “In view of the conciliar practice and the pastoral purpose of the present Council, this sacred Synod defines matters of faith and morals as binding on the Church **only when the Synod openly declares so**. Other matters which the sacred Synod proposes as the doctrine of the supreme teaching authority of the Church, each and every member of the faithful is oblige to accept and embrace according to the mind of the sacred Synod itself, which becomes known either from the subject matter or from the language employed, according to the norms of theological interpretation” (emphasis mine). Of course, there are ZERO OCCURENCES of the documents of Vatican II using doctrinal language intending to bind. Could you name one? Of course not.
Honestly, are you trying here, or do you really just want or need to believe the Church has vanished? Here’s a hint, from what you replied to here: It can’t. If it did, it was never the Church in the first place; the Church never existed. Period. That’s Catholic teaching.
“3) Therefore Paul VI and company are not members of the Church.”
Unfortunately you don’t understand what theologians actually teach about Church membership either. Regarding public membership, what is necessary are criteria that are also public. Here is what Fr. Sylvester Berry, echoing Bellarmine, has to say (emphasis mine; taken from “True Or False Pope”):
“Three conditions are absolutely necessary *and of themselves sufficient for membership*: Initiation by baptism; External profession of the true Faith *which is had by submission to the teaching authority of the Church*; Submission to the ruling authority *of the Church*.”
What this is saying, among other things, is that the very definition of a heretic (which means “choosing”) is someone who *rejects the Church as the rule of Faith*. Professing material heresy alone does not suffice at all to severe one from the Body of the Church – as much as the people it angers might wish it so.
(You cite no sources for anything you assert here – why is that?)
Like I said in what you’re responding to, if what you say is true, nobody could ever know if any pope was valid, throughout history, and thus if ANY Catholic teaching from the EM were actually de fide since all require papal promulgation. Your system leads immediately to total absurdity. Dogmatic sedevacantism is an enterprise for the ignorant and the angry.
“Which of the two premises do you deny?”
The correct answer to your sophistry is that your premises are nonsensical because they fail to make critical distinctions, and, furthermore, even your conclusion has an error – it would not follow even if your premises were true. You need to go back to the drawing board and broaden your sources beyond fellow dogmatic sede vacantists.
The fact that you attempted to dismiss my arguments with a wave of the hand demonstrates that aren’t interested in considering them, as they are quite powerful indeed. An ecumenical council forbids exactly the fundamental exercise of sedevacantism and you just aren’t interested? That’s a matter of will over intellect, something that does seem to be woven into dogmatic sedevacantism pretty thoroughly. I suggest you try a bit harder to use your God-given intellect.
Regarding your promotion of that nowatch drivel, here’s a little something:
Since you again asserted here the error that all Church disciplines are infallible I’m going to repeat something I’ve told you before: They are not. Church disciplines are only “infallible” in the sense that they directly reflect doctrine. That is what all the theologians I see say, anyway – who are yours? What’s your reference for these blanket assertions?
” Well, let us take the condemnation of us that the pope made in the Moto Proprio. This condemnation is based on “an erroneous concept of Tradition.” In fact, the pope, in the Motu Proprio, condemns us because we do not accept “living Tradition.” But the way in which this “living Tradition” is understood was condemned by Saint Pius X in his encyclical Pascendi against modernism, because it entails an evolution based on history, which destroys the notion of dogma, defined for always.
Tradition, according to them, is something that lives and evolves. This “living Tradition” is now the Vatican II Church. It is very serious and denotes a modernist spirit. This new doctrine, because that is what it is, is formally condemned by Pope Saint Pius X. The Church carries Tradition with it. We cannot say something contrary to that which the popes declared in the past. We cannot allow such a thing. It is impossible.”
I dismiss it out of hand, because it repeats points that sedevacantists have already refuted. It’s not my job to refute it if you keep posting the same thing over and over again when all you need to do is study the sedevacantist position to understand why these old points have been refuted. I take it that you don’t believe the last fifty years have been taught through ordinary means, universally by the popes and bishops in union with them? That is infallible too. It’s called the universal, ordinary magisterium. Like I said, you may want to research the true meaning of the Vincentian canon.
I would like sedevacantism to be false but the evidence goes the other way. So I go with the evidence. My desires have nothing to do with what is real.
“I dismiss it out of hand, because it repeats points that sedevacantists have already refuted. It’s not my job to refute it if you keep posting the same thing over and over again when all you need to do is study the sedevacantist position to understand why these old points have been refuted.”
Sorry, but that doesn’t make sense. You have never attempted to address any of what I’ve posted here. The last time we went around, you complained you “weren’t allowed” to “prove” sedevacantism here, yet you can and do post anything you like. At that point I issued a simple challenge which you ignored.
“I take it that you don’t believe the last fifty years have been taught through ordinary means, universally by the popes and bishops in union with them? That is infallible too. It’s called the universal, ordinary magisterium.”
Another display that you do not read what is posted here – your assertion is another basic sede fallacy that I have addressed here in the recent past, dirctly to you.
First, you conflate the OM and the OUM – these are two distinct things. Secondly, while the OUM is infallible, its exercise is stricly bounded similar to the EM (else it could not be!). Here is some of what I said to you before: ** In fact, the very defining characteristic of that belonging to the OUM is that it is congruent with Tradition – that it has been believed universally in time & space. Novelties, by very definition, are excluded. **.
The object of the OUM (and every de fide definition) is the Deposit of Faith itself. But the OUM also has another characteristic (which the Extraordinary Magisterium, by its nature, does not share in the same, direct sense), which is that to be part of it a teaching has to have been promoted universally in time and space – “always and everywhere”. This is a defining characteristic of what we call the OUM which distinguishes it from the mere Ordinary Magisteriium.
Van Noort, in The Sources of Revelation, says this: “The exercise of the ordinary and universal Magisterium (OUM) includes the whole gamut of divese actions by which the pope and bishops dispersed throughout the world, either by themselves or through various kinds of helpers, **continuously expound doctrine on faith and morals**… Clearly, if a truth is capable of being declared an object of divine-catholic faith through the force of this ordinary and universal teaching, there is required such a proposal as is unmistakenly definitive. **The proposal must be of such a nature that without any misgivings, it is proven that the doctrine in question is taught throughout the entire world as revealed**, and, consequently, as something necessarily to be believed by every Catholic.”
Church-approved theologian Rene Berthed: “The [Ordinary] Magisterium is universal when it proclaims the Faith of the Church unaltered throughout history. The notion of universality comprises two dimensions: extension in space and duration in time… This is how the theologians have always understood it.” (These are taken from True Or False Pope.)
This means novelties need not apply. (Ambiguities need not apply for assent either, given that one can’t given assent to something unclear. That’s another strike. And then there is the lack of intent to bind…)
Your logic chain is this:
1) The OM is infallible
2) Vatican II was an exercise of the OM
3) Vatican II clearly contains errors
4) Therefore Vatican II was not really a council of the Catholic Church and/or the promulgating pope was not really a pope
Your model contains serious errors in its premises, as with the other examples of basic sede logic you’ve posted here (and, yes, I’m familiar with them). To reiterate – for the next time you bring this up – to assign any action of the episcopate, or any conciliar document in its entirety, with the Ordinary Universal Magsiterium, is an error. For a teaching to belong to the OUM, it simply cannot contradict other doctrine. And, it must be taught as a matter of faith or morals *with the intent to bind*, another critical characteristic lacking in the documents of Vatican II, which is most easily proven (I have done so above).
(This is also another example of the ridiculous fragility of the sede position. Even when counciliar documents ARE infallible, they are only so in their solemn definitions, which are always unmistakably delineated: There is always a clear pronouncement, with an intent to bind. To assert with a vague hand wave that ALL the content of ALL the documents of ANY ecumenical council are “infallible” is total nonsense, but doubly so with Vatican II, which went out of its way to tell us that it contains “new new teachings” with the “intent to bind the faithful.)
What you did here is once again change the subject. You asserted, quite falsely, that you’d previously addressed my arguments above, then made a new one, which you’ve also made here before and had refused here before. You are out of your league because you have relied on sedevacantist sources with their gross errors in philosophy to form your premises.
Oops – there’s a little something here I didn’t address directly.
“I take it that you don’t believe the last fifty years have been taught through ordinary means, universally by the popes and bishops in union with them? That is infallible too. It’s called the universal, ordinary magisterium.”
The OUM is universal, by definition in space AND TIME. You can see that in the quotes I provided, above. All the bishops agreeing to an error at the same time (even if that could be proven) does not make that part of the OUM – sorry.
In a sense this is a tautology: An incorrect teaching cannot be infallible! Obviously. However, this sede argument can’t work to undo the Church, because, again, nothing taught by Vatican II, or since – even if we can say that NOTHING is taught clearly OR with intent to bind – has been taught “always and everywhere”. That is exactly how we know they are novelties.
Yet one more clarification (boy I’d love to be able to edit posts here): When I said, “…nothing taught by Vatican II, or since – even if we can say that NOTHING is taught clearly OR with intent to bind – has been taught ‘always and everywhere'”, clearly, I meant *nothing new*. As everyone has always acknowledged, the documents contain a lot of orthodox teaching (it’s the embedded novelties – those “other opinions” Cardinal Kaspar has spoken of – that ruin the documents).
So, to be part of the OUM – which is infallible – by definition a teaching has to be universal in space AND time – that “always & everywhere”. These are basic things; everyone knows that all Catholic teaching resides in the Deposit of Faith, at least implicitly. The actions of formalizes dogma (which happens via both the OUM and the EM) serves to do just that – crystalize teaching into something highly explicit.
So, when DH does (or least seems to) assert that human beings have an intrinsic right to hold error, since the *opposite* is an infallible teaching of the OUM, we know that this Vatican II spin can’t be. And we don’t assert that this ambiguous document that seems to try to serve all masters has proven the council false or its promulgating pontiff false because – again – there is a) no specific, formal, clear teaching and b) no intent to bind. Further, since we DO have clear teaching on this subject, we can cling to it and quite freely take the pope up on his offer to be bound by these new documents “only when they specifically declare [that]”. That happened zero times.
And, regarding the teachings of prelates that may be in (possibly innocent) error, again, we are not only free but bound to use our God-given intellects together with actual, defined teaching to determine what is congruent with that and what is not. This is nothing new at all – it’s what Catholics have always done.
It’s impossible to know what would have happened if +Lefebvre had taken that one bishop. God could have worked with that and maybe other bishops would have come out of the woodwork. You can’t just assume the worst.
What will save the day is the Pope consecrating Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary followed by the conversion of Russia to the Catholic Faith. This is a Fatima prophecy so I expect this to occur probably sooner rather than later. The fact that they have held on to an apostolic succession in their priesthood and a received and approved liturgy makes this all the more plausible, once “Russia’s errors” are corrected.
I told you to research the true meaning of the Vincentian many times. Here’s a link to get you started: http://novusordowatch.org/wire/true-vincentian-canon.htm
It’s called ordinary and not extraordinary for a reason. You say that universality includes both space and time, but it appears to involve either space or time. The last fifty years has involved universality in space. Before the Internet how would people be able to check if their pastors were teaching according to tradition? What about before widespread literacy? All that the average man could do was listen to the pope and the bishops in union with him. Was the average man expected to have an annotated Denzinger?
Concerning my posting regarding the ban, salvemur has disappeared. I think Louie carried through on his promise. In any case, you claimed to have studied both the R&R and sedevacantist position. However, the articles and talking points you have posted show that you have not studied the sedevacantist position, because these are objections already answered by sedevacantists, such as OUM and the Vincentian canon. I have no interest in repeating the same points in my own words when you can just go to sources such as Novus Ordo Watch and research it yourself. Not only am I not a writer, I am not eloquent either and it is not a good use of my free time to reproduce the careful and complete research of others. Copying and pasting full articles in comboxes rather than just linking to the pages seems dumb, since they update articles from time to time and I am not the original author of the work. In either case they back it up with references to preV2 teaching and theology.
So, once you have honestly studied the SV position, get back to me and we can have a discussion about it. Both you and I have to know who the pope is, where the Church is, and what to obey or resist. Our salvation is dependent on doing the truly Catholic thing. When I do read your posts it appears that you have not researched the SV position, at least from primary sources. S&S’s new book has old arguments. If you wish, I could give you links discussing some of your points and answer anything not covered by the links. Is this an acceptable term for the discussion?