On June 10th Pope Francis met with roughly 60 Franciscans of the Immaculate along with the man he appointed to oversee the order as Pontifical Commissioner, Fr. Fidenzio Volpi.
The most detailed account of the meeting to be published to date comes from Andrea Tornielli of La Stampa, some excerpts of which follow.
Pope Bergoglio proved to be well informed on all issues, following the matter closely, and several times showed his appreciation for father Volpi, quelling rumours that the actions of the government of the commissioner and his collaborators were undertaken without the Pope’s knowledge.
Based on the steady stream of unvarnished hostility flowing from the lips of Pope Francis toward traditionalists (aka Catholics) over the entire length of his fifteen month pontificate, has there ever been any reason to doubt the influence of his hand in the mistreatment of the FFI? I never did.
On the motu proprio, Pope Francis said he did not want to deviate from the line of Benedict XVI, and reiterated that the Franciscan Friars of the Immaculate remained free to celebrate the old mass, even if for the moment, in light of the controversies surrounding the exclusive right to use that missal – an element that did not constitute part of the founding charisma of the institution – they required “a discernment” with the superior and with the bishop if it concerned celebrations in parish churches, sanctuaries and teaching houses.
In other words, the pope told the prisoners that they are free to travel abroad, even if for the moment they must first seek the gatekeeper’s permission, which may or may not be given, to have the cell unlocked and the shackles removed from their ankles.
Needless to say, anyone who has ever taken the time to read Summorrum Pontificum knows perfectly well that the restrictions under which the FFI are being required to operate are the very definition of a “deviation” from “the line of Benedict XVI.”
No surprise here. The neo-modernists as a whole, in case you haven’t noticed, whether in a parish setting, a diocesan office, or a pontifical commission in Rome, operate from the presumption that they are the smartest, most well-informed people in the room.
The Pope explained that there must be freedom, both for those who wish to celebrate with the old rite, and those who wish to celebrate with the new rite, without the rite becoming an ideological banner.
Without becoming an ideological banner… This phrase falls squarely into the “doth protesteth too much” category; otherwise known in Freudian terminology as “psychological projection.”
You see, for intrepid protectors of tradition like Cardinal Ottaviani, Cardinal Bacci and Archbishop Lefebvre; men for whom Christ Our Redeemer and King always occupied first place, when it came to the Novus Ordo, their concern centered around an awareness that the rite “deviates most seriously from the theology of the Catholic Mass.” (cf “Ottaviani Intervention” sent to Pope Paul VI on Sept. 25, 1969)
Those, on the other hand, who operate under the influence of that conciliar poison which causes one to behave as if “all things on earth should be related to man as their center and crown” (Gaudium et Spes – 12), the same individuals who are determined to shove this deficient rite down our collective throats, for them the eye of the current liturgical hurricane most certainly rotates around concerns ideological; i.e., earthbound matters pertaining almost exclusively to the social order.
One question concerned the interpretation of the II Vatican Council … He then responded to the objection according to which the II Vatican would only be a castoral council, which has damaged the church.
A “castoral” council. Ha! This no doubt innocent typographical error has just found a new home in the Tradwriter’s lexicon.
Castoral Council: (noun) A council of the Holy Catholic Church, the net result of which is the swift and effective detesticulation of her sacred pastors.
I’m sure that an opportunity to put it in play will present itself soon enough.
He then reminded them that all councils have provoked uproar and reactions, because the demon “does not want the church to become strong”. He also said that we must move forwards with a theological and not ideological hermeneutic of the II Vatican.
So many claims…
All councils have provoked uproar and reactions.
Yes, but let us not forget that Vatican Council II is unique in that it was a castoral exercise. (Wow, that didn’t take long.)
Seriously, there is no comparison to be made between the likes of the Nicea and Constantinople Councils and Vatican II as the latter was not called upon, in the face of certain heresies, to settle profound doctrinal questions via the issuance of dogmatic definitions.
Why on earth would a council charged with rearticulating the well-established sacred deposit of Christian doctrine “pure and integral, without any attenuation or distortion” provoke uproar and reactions in the Church?
There’s only one reason; it didn’t.
The demon “does not want the church to become strong.”
This is absolutely correct, which is precisely why the demon has been dancing with delight ever since the Vicars of Christ, from Paul VI to Francis, chose to hang their zucchetti almost exclusively on the text of a council that managed, in the course of roughly three years, to confuse the doctrine of the faith as established with precision and clarity over the course of the preceding nineteen centuries.
We must move forwards with a theological and not ideological…
Always with the ideology, this one!
Francis also said that he had wanted the closure of the theological institute within the Franciscans of the Immaculate (STIM), so that the seminarists would study in the pontifical theology faculties of Rome. He then explained that the Church guarantees orthodoxy through the Pope.
Ah, yes… “the pontifical theology faculties of Rome,” wherein every tradition-minded instructor, well aware of the screws that have been tightened upon the FFI, walks on egg shells for fear of inviting suspicion of having their own crypto-Lefebvrian tendencies.
And let’s get something straight: While it may be said that the authority vested in the Petrine Office, when legitimately exercised in service to the doctrine of the faith as guardian and teacher, is a guarantor of orthodoxy; every individual pope at any given time? Not so much.
Pope Francis? You decide.
Oh, Louie!,
Every time we think you’ve reached your pinnacle of sentence construction with the last blog, you top it. This is priceless!.
—–
“a castoral council, which has damaged the church…. Ha! .. ..” A council of the Holy Catholic Church, the net result of which is the swift and effective detesticulation of her sacred pastors.”
——
Over the past 40 years we’ve had occasion as parents to object to the lack of effectiveness of State and local penal codes against the detestable crime of Rape. Detesticulation came up as a solution, but while it would likely deter recidivism, could be too easily misused by being applied to the innocent–as you point out in this post. Let’s hope the spiritual results are less permanent than the physical ones would be, and that the real “perpetraitors” of these crimes are converted before death and/or prevented by God from further abuse .
—–
We’re recall another instance in which a “small c” was applied to the Church and created very large problems….. But that’s another blog.
Does anyone know whether the idea has been proposed of forming a new branch of the FFI which would allow the liturgical preferences of the Majority to prevail, while not preventing the minorities from freely enjoying theirs?
Feckless Frankie just doesn’t seem to understand the whole concept of Tradition. Bragging about dragging off the helpless captives to Rome, where they will be forced to serve their new masters? That’s the wrong Roman tradition to be emulating, Frankie.
–
Kidding aside, this looks like a case of Friendly Frankie just trying to shmooze the FFI victims and thereby forestall any critical statements from them. With Manelli being old and sickly, maybe it will work. I remember when Hanoi Jane Fonda met with a group of vets for a few hours several years ago, and they emerged all speaking well of her. That surprised me, but it shows the effectiveness of star power combined with superficial charm.
–
Still, the LaStampa article ends with this: “Two of [the participants] expressed their bafflement over the treatment of father Stefano Manelli. One of these two seminarists a few days later announced his decision to leave the noviciates.” Maybe that guy will show up in the resistance one day. The next time I read someone saying “we must pray for Francis”, I’ll pray for that seminarian instead.
What has happened with the nuns? They looked very genuine, pious and innocent – unlike the radical feminist that Finagling Frankie had dispatched to punish them. (She gives new meaning to the term “Papal bull”.)
–
Somehow the nuns seemed feisty. Maybe they will be the ones to embarrass Frank.
LOL!!!!!! “Papal bull”
The more time passes the less our focus on June 18, 1968 when Pope Paul VI signed an Apostolic Constitution to change the Roman Catholic rite of ordinations. That might just make 46 years of invalid ordinations. No one wants to even consider that possibility, knowing full well what that would mean to the Church and its sacramental life. It is better to cross our fingers and hope for the best. Yet, before us lies enough argument from PPXII Apostolic Constitution Sacramentum Ordinis (1947) on the validity requirements for the sacrament of Holy Orders. The Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, SACROSANCTUM CONCILIUM of December 4, 1963 directed that the ordinations: bishop, priest, and deacon needed updating as is found in number #76 of the document: “Both the ceremonies and texts of the ordination rites are to be revised. The address given by the bishop at the beginning of each ordination or consecration may be in the mother tongue.” In the above noted document, an Apostolic Constitution, declares, “Since in the revision of the rite it was necessary either to add, delete or change certain things whether to restore to the texts greater fidelity to the ancient texts or to express better the effects of the sacrament, We have deemed it necessary, both to clear up all controversy and to obviate anxiety of conscience, to declare what things in the revised rite are to be said to pertain to the essence of the rite. Hence, in virtue of Our supreme Apostolic authority, We decree and determine the following, with regard to the matter and the form in the conferring of each sacrament.” With the ink chronologically not having dried on the document of PPXII, the new ordination rites contrary to his Apostolic Constitution, were approved.
46 years later and here we are with a cloud of doubt hovering over us about the backbone of the sacramental life: the validity of holy orders. That which most gored at the resistance of the Catholic Church was the place of holy orders. All the groups battling against the Church knew that was the primary target that had to go. With all the bishops, the canon lawyers, theologians, professors, it got by. I thought the bishops of England were a scandal under Henry VIII, but they had their heads to lose as Cardinal Fisher did. One day when the time is just ripe, the issue will arise and we will have a huge scandal on our hands. Even the present pope was ordained a priest after the proclamation of the new rite for ordinations on December 13, 1969 a year and a half later.
What to do…what to do?
Also, by the way, we ought to look into the Congregation for Religious Life, and see what is going down there too. I presume the pope, bishop of Rome, that is, wants “no opposition, no opposition” …echoes of Henry VIII in a “Man for all Seasons”.
rcaamo,
There’s a passionate young man living in Kansas, who claims that because there were no valid popess around anymore, it was the will of God, that his parents were correct, along with a few supporters, in declaring him officially “Pope Michael”.
—–
There is also a brother Dimond who preaches from Most Holy Family Monastery on these same issues, and presents similar arguments..
—–
There are folks like us, who have stayed in regular parishes over the last 60 plus years, participating in both N.O. and Traditional Rites, trying our best to learn and keep the Faith and pass it on while correcting errors.
—–
There are those who associate with the FSSP and SSPX, and some of those say they are Sede Vacantist because of what their rightly formed consciences tell them.
——-
There are also folks like bidfred, whom nobody dares pidgeonhole. Hee hee.
—-
The point is, with all that is going on, we need Jesus help more than ever, while we continue to search for the answers to all of these differences. One thing this blog site has shown us is that each person seems sincerely to be seeking the truth–about Truth itself, authority, disobedience, defiance when necessary, sin and virtue –regarding all of it.
—–
Our advice is don’t lose heart or hope. And if you really want to discuss your particular concern, try to narrow it down to cite a specific. We read every word you wrote, and without going elsewhere to search, haven’t a clue as to the particular words of the form that you believe invalidated the ordination rite–or was it that olive oil was not being used everywhere–we heard that somewhere, that Crisco was okayed and that changed the matter?.
—-
hope this helps. God Bless.
I thought this had been considered and placed ad acta. I remember a lengthy Angelus Magazine article (reprinted from Sel de la Terre) on this very subject: http://bit.ly/1rFeiTn. Or did I miss something important here?
What about Byzantine Catholics? Are they just chopped liver?
Dear JamesThe Lesser,
We hope you’re joking, the list was by no means complete, and only meant to point out that people of different beliefs regarding validity, are all represented here. Byzantine Catholic Rites may be one of the safest havens right now, for those who are confused, and so inclined.
I was kinda joking. In all seriousness, it is a viable option that nobody seems to consider. I spent some time at a Romanian Greek Catholic Church. I’ve also been to a Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church and a Melkite Church. If there are some that are concerned about the validity of the Latin Church, and your state in life allows, then why not consider going Byzantine?
I think the following sentence is by far the most important point made by Francis during that meeting:
“The Pope said that although it is has been pastoral, it contains doctrinal elements and is a Catholic council, reaffirming the line of the hermeneutics of reform in the continuity of the one-subject church, presented by Benedict XVI in his speech to the Roman Curia in December 2005.”
—–
Let that sink in for a minute.
—–
If I am correct, what the bishop of Rome is really trying to do, is attempting to “disarm” the VII demographic time bomb. Or to be more precise, Francis knows that the hippie church is a dieing church. He knows that once that generation goes to meet Our Maker, there will be no “doctrine” left to uphold all the novelty of the ’60’s church. And since VII was ONLY A PASTORAL council, it can be easly abrogated at the first future council of Econe ( 😉 ) by applying the “very words” of the first VII Hall of Fame pope, JXXIII and by his successor PVI. And that truely frightens Francis.
——-
And should give all Catholics a good fuzzy feeling inside.
—–
St. Michael Archangel, ora pro nobis.
I’m reminded of the way that Bergoglio pried open the hands of a young altar boy with a comment like “are your hands stuck together with glue?”
http://youtu.be/2QgP0YaOLT4
And then when he was finished forcing the child’s hands apart after a struggle on the part of the child he said something like “there that’s better”. That one event told me that Bergoglio HATES anything that is evenly remotely part of Catholic tradition. And he was willing to go as far as to publicly humiliate a young faithful Catholic child. This was a public act of rape. It violated the child’s innocence in a brutal physical way. He simply over-powered the child. And also a papal kiss for this child. And a photo-op. But no mercy. This is the same way he treats the Franciscans of the Immaculate.
+ + +
I’m reminded once again of the slaughter of the innocents. It is as if the VII gang was told in a prophecy that the Christ child is born and they use every method to try to kill him (abortion) or so corrupt him (sex education and porn) so that he is unable to accomplish his divine mission. Perhaps in this case the new future pope that will lead the Church out of this wilderness has been prophecized and this is the target of the ruthless persecution. (The 3rd Fatima secret?) One of those priests of the Fransicans of the Immaculate could one day become Pope… or perhaps that altar boy.
Dear Michael,
The horror of that moment on your link, brought back our own nightmare-many years ago now, when the local Bishop required us to submit to the decisions of a local priest and his liberal assistant (nun-in-a-mini-skirt and sheer blouse from n order promoting transcendental meditation and yoga and altar dancers) to determine whether our older home-schooled children would be allowed to be confirmed with their school’s confirmation class. Our entire family was present, and she walked up to our youngest, saying “What beautiful children!” She then put one hand on either side of our youngest’s face, and said, “I can’t BELIEVE what your parents are depriving you of!”
That was only the beginning as the priest then presented us with his own heresies, and the Bishop said he would allow the Confirmations but only if we submitted to their authority and decisions as to whether they would be permitted-as our show of obedience to him.
You’re right. Abuse of authority is a form of spiritual rape–and not just of children, but of their parents who have to overcome the temptations to hatred and violence they engender.
I thought I was over the internal rage of that moment by now, but your link took be right back to it. Our local Bishop said “he’d have talk with them, but reminded us we were subject to their authority and decisions about whether the Confirmations would be authorized, as a sign of obedience to his authority.
Good Morning all! Just as a bit of news the document for the preparation of the
SYNOD OF BISHOPS III EXTRAORDINARY GENERAL ASSEMBLY THE PASTORAL CHALLENGES OF THE FAMILY IN THE CONTEXT OF EVANGELIZATION INSTRUMENTUM LABORIS VATICAN CITY 2014 is promulgated: http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/synod/documents/rc_synod_doc_20140626_instrumentum-laboris-familia_en.html
At first reading it seems to be a compilation of responses from around the world. After VII, I am always suspicious of a meeting that gathers to discuss then decide. My experience is that a meeting is to make the final determination by a yes or no vote to the already formed conclusions. Anything is possible at a meeting when the principles of the document are not already decided. Here is the section that is given about receiving Holy Communion:
95. A good number of responses speak of the very many cases, especially in Europe, America and some countries in Africa, where persons clearly ask to receive the Sacraments of Penance and the Eucharist. This happens primarily when their children receive the sacraments. At times, they express a desire to receive Communion to feel “legitimized” by the Church and to eliminate the sense of exclusion or marginalization. In this regard, some recommend considering the practice of some Orthodox Churches, which, in their opinion, opens the way for a second or third marriage of a penitential character. In light of this suggestion, countries having a major number of Orthodox Christians noted that, from their experience, this practice does not reduce the number of divorces. Others request clarification as to whether this solution is based on doctrine or is merely a matter of discipline.
(I would just like to remind everyone, in case you missed it, that this site has a forum. Participation is welcome, should you be so inclined.)
re: purging the novus ordo of its priesthood:
–
http://www.novusordowatch.org/purging-priesthood.pdf
–
http://www.fathercekada.com/category/epis-cons-68-rite/
–
The Apostolic Body is what ‘needs’ to go for modernists.
Would that the Franciscans gave first obedience to God and His faithful vicars rather than drinking from the poisoned font of VII.
–
some more fruits of VII and its bizarre vicahz:
–
http://callmejorgebergoglio.blogspot.co.uk/2014/06/sex-on-table.html
–
http://callmejorgebergoglio.blogspot.co.uk/2014/06/franciscan-friars-in-full-communion.html
“it shows the effectiveness of star power combined with superficial charm”
–
that’s a vii-vicah in one.
salvemur,
–
Thanks for the links. I was not previously aware of Fr. Cekada’s paper.
–
With all due respect to the learned Fr. Cekada, however, I don’t find his argument convincing. If, as he explains, substituting “cleanse” for “baptize” does not invalidate the rite of baptism – despite the fact that “cleanse” is not a univocal term – then why should we consider the conferral or holy orders invalid on the grounds that “spiritum principalem” or “spirit of governance”, which obviously intends to signify the powers of the Holy Ghost to be conferred upon the recipient, is not univocal? Why is it a matter of accidence in the first case, but a matter of substance in the second?
–
Also, applying the same rigorist approach to the form of Pius XII would further lead one to declare that it was invalid. The phrase “dew of heavenly anointing”, for example, would not pass Fr. Cekada’s test of being strictly univocal for the “grace of the Holy Ghost”. Given that the rite under Pius XII is beyond all suspicion, Fr. Cekada’s criterion appears far too stringent, and to be applied by him in an ad hoc manner.
Thank you Matthew for that link to Angelus Magazine. Obviously, it is a huge article for consideration. Who am I to question all these documents from the Reformation through to Leo XIII “Apostolicae Curae” of September 18, 1986, to the document of PPXII quoted above. So much emphasis was put on the matter and form and its intrinsic importance for valid ordination. Leo notes in his document: “32. Many of the more shrewd Anglican interpreters of the Ordinal have perceived the force of this argument, and they openly urge it against those who take the Ordinal in a new sense, and vainly attach to the Orders conferred thereby a value and efficacy which they do not possess. By this same argument is refuted the contention of those who think that the prayer, “Almighty God, giver of all good Things”, which is found at the beginning of the ritual action, might suffice as a legitimate “form” of Orders, even in the hypothesis that it might be held to be sufficient in a Catholic rite approved by the Church”. The essence of the “Summum sacerdotium sacri ministerii summa” is so sensitive for the life of the Church and Apostolic succession that the Church needs to be especially vigilant in this matter.
dear salvemur,
In the continued interest of seeking truth, we wonder if you’d agree that there may be too much of a knee-jerk tendency among suffering Catholics today, and web-sites inclined to that, to dump all the blame for every abuse onto VII? This occurred to us after watching your two above-links.
—
The first shows what happens today when pagans are given free use of a Church without supervision, and the second, when sinful friars are apparently freely allowed by their superiors to commit scandal by supporting gay pride, using materials advertising Pope Francis’ absurd question, “who am I to judge?”
—
Are the documents of Vatican II directly responsible for either of those atrocities, or are they more the result of the sinful spirit of the times which infected the whole world, including, apparently so many of the Council’s attendees prior to and during the 1960’s? Were the clergy growing lax in denouncing sin before the Council, don’t we have to honestly blame that for the unchecked growth in immorality?
—–
The current Pope provides an additional atmosphere of laxity and the absurd quote for their signs. Is that a greater scandal than the pre-VII Borgia Pope who supported sex outside of marriage and the breaking of vows of celibacy by regularly and for many years having women in the Vatican and a family of seven children of whom he was very proud and whom he placed in high-ranking positions in the Church?
—-
Our point is, there are obvious other causes for these particular sins and abuses and scandals that may have very well occurred if the NO were never promulgated and the Council had never been held.
Dear Indignus,
–
Vatican II is an easy target, for obvious reasons. In my own research, I’ve found that the seeds of many of the problems we face today were sown long before Vatican II. As I see it, addressing the problems of the post-Vatican II period without exploring the true causes of those problems will not accomplish anything but creating more divisions within the Church. I could provide several concrete examples, but doing so tends to ruffle feathers which few want ruffled.
There is a talk by Robert Sungenis, found on YouTube, called “Was God Behind the Ambiguities of Vatican II” . I would highly recommend it. It’s excellent, IMHO.
Dear Matthew,
Agreed. The fact that so many rightly quote St. Pius X ‘s encyclical on the modernism we see everywhere, demonstrates that. Although he was said to have been gifted with miracles and visions before his death, he wrote of what he saw growing all around him in the world, and apparently among the clergy.
—-
One hopeful thought. Jesus started with such a relatively small number of faithful followers, who went out to the ends of the earth just speaking the Truth, guided by the Holy Spirit and the Graces of God, regardless of the consequences.
—-
The Old Testament contains numerous examples of God using small numbers of faithful, to accomplish seemingly impossible things. All of them felt ill equipped and unworthy.
—-
We are brought here together using modern technology, but we are no less blessed than they to have the gifts we speak of so often here, and we find it greatly encouraging to think about what God may be doing through all of us, right now, to accomplish His plans. Some of us may even be martyred the old-fashioned way, by shedding our blood before this is all over. But isn’t it great to know that we feel so passionate about the need to share what God has given us and done for us, that we would even be willing to offer that fate, for the good of souls? If we aren’t feeling that strongly about it, we should be.
That reminds me: PLEASE everyone remember to pray the “Jesu, dulcissime” today, the Feast of the Sacred Heart, either privately (for a partial indulgence) or publicly (for a plenary indulgence).
–
http://www.preces-latinae.org/thesaurus/Filius/ActusRep.html
Guys, this happened way before VII ….in fact in the OT. Jesus said that the Father allowed divorce for his people to happen because of the hardness of hearts. In other words he allowed it for their own destruction. Because that’s what they WANTED. They could have remained faithful but willfully chose sin. Apply this lesson to today.
Dear James,
What we’ve watched so far of it, sounds good and balanced. Here’s the link:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hzGzIposjY0
Thank you for that. Suggest people recite it after Communion if a Mass is possible.
With all due respect, you are kidding? What is the most revolutionary thing to happen in the entire history of the Church? It wasn’t the reformation ’cause that was plain as the nose on Cranmer’s face. It was VII. The Art of War makes the claim that one has mastered the art when those who have been conquered don’t even know it. Sound familiar? Plus, this might be a stupid question, but who’s ‘we’?
p.s. It was a VII pope who changed the canon. Slipped in the innocuous name of St Joseph so that the precedent of changing the previously sacrasanct canon becomes norm. It was a VII pope changed the mass, the rites of ordination. It was a VII pope that changed the teaching on religious indifference. It is the novus ordo – vii – mass that practices abominations daily; there’s no point in me going on because we should all know this by now. Yes holy week changed under Pius XII but he in no way handed down that change as law. There is a before and after catholicism that exists, purportedly, within the one and the same Church, which didn’t happen during the Reformation where the revolution remained outside the Church. If there is a serious view amongst Traditionally minded people that VII is not pivotal – basically the unavoidable bottle-neck of all the rubbish that is coming out of the novus ordo church, we really are boiled frogs.
Perhaps I’m misunderstanding you, but it seems that your view of the Church is that she has little impact on not only the world but herself. Therefore if error is being taught through her representatives and promulgated, that can in no way directly result in abuses?! It’s sort of like saying, we can’t really blame Marx for the all the communist abuses of the 20th century? Well, yeah, we can – they well up from the same evil source. Trying to distance ‘vii’ from it’s fruits, in the interest of seeking truth, is not particularly truthful. BY THEIR FRUITS – it’s not that hard to get.
“Fr. Cekada’s criterion appears far too stringent, and to be applied by him in an ad hoc manner.” Stringent is good when it comes to the Apostolic Body, ad hoc is not something I would ascribe to the research of Fr. Cekada.
p.s. the above are replies to I.F.
Dear Indignus. The world seems possessed by demons that cannot stand the sight of anything pure and so they search for ways to corrupt the youth. They seek to initiate them through anti-baptism. Usually this involves some sort of sexual initiation like in the pagan mystery cults. They attempt to seduce through temptations, but those who refuse to take the bait are targeted and forced into degradation. Then most of us despair thinking we are no longer worthy of the love of God and that we have become “one of them”. But God has the power to lift us up no matter how far we have fallen and to restore us to that initial state of innocence. Pray for that nun and that priest. And ask God to forgive them/us and to “save them/us from the fires of hell”.
p.s. it’s worth while to point out the no one – clergy or otherwise – has made a refutation of Fr Cekada’s arguments. One reason could be they simply don’t want to draw attention to the issue. Another could be they simply can’t make a stong argument against.
Here’s the original study:
–
http://www.traditionalmass.org/images/articles/NewEpConsArtPDF2.pdf
–
and some other links plus an interview regarding the study:
–
http://www.fathercekada.com/2013/11/06/1968-rite-of-episcopal-consecration-valid-or-no/
p.s. it’s important to remember that VII, the New Mass, the New Rites of Ordination, the new Ecumenism, and the New Popes, are not optional by the standards of VII – which declared itself binding, lawful and dogmatic – usurping all the claims to authority and absolute law of the Church proper. So either we take our oath to the Novus Ordo, its abuses, its lies, its koran-kissing-jugs out at mass-talmud touting-imam-mooching-whoamItojudge-popes and believe that these things are the work and will of the Holy Ghost, or we stop being castrati and go, ‘one of these things is not like the other’ – in no way would the Holy Ghost teach the novus ordo, religious indifference and sacrilege at mass; in no way would the Holy Ghost change the True church legitimately into something freemasons find laudable; in no way would the Holy Ghost mutate the Catholic (layman or clergy) into a divorce-friendly, abortion-supporting, sodom and gomorrah-endorsing wanna-be Lutheran, or wanna-be evangelical, or wanna-be rabbi or wanna-be atheist.
and it is simply dishonest to try and separate these fruits from the tree – Christ knows it, and deep down, we know it.
” the pre-VII Borgia Pope who supported sex outside of marriage and the breaking of vows of celibacy by regularly and for many years having women in the Vatican and a family of seven children of whom he was very proud and whom he placed in high-ranking positions in the Church?” you’ll have to give me the reference for where Borgia called a synod in order to universally magisterialize these sins as no longer sinful. I can’t find it.
–
“Every familiarity should be avoided, not only with those impious libertines who openly promote the character of the sect (freemasonry) but also with those who hide under the mask of universal tolerance, respect for all religions, and the craving to reconcile the maxims of the Gospel with those of the revolution. These men seek to reconcile Christ and Belial, the Church of God and the state without God.”–Pope Leo XIII, Encyclical Custodi di Quella Fede, par. 15, Dec. 8, 1892″ Pope Leo contradicts none of his pedecessors, but VII and its popes do. So who is authentic? Who speaks with the authority of the Holy Ghost? The before or the after?
People will use VII to justify their liberalism…. and on the opposite spectrum people will use VII to justify their schism. Christ knows it, and deep down, we know it.
didn’t you get the VII memo, James? there’s no such thing as schism or heresy anymore, just out dated catholics and the world.
p.s. the latest from sedevacantist watch – solemn revereng valid Mass – authentic homily, stern and wholesome teachings, in Full communion with the Apostolic Body of the Church of Christ and the Popes – except the recent novus ordo heretics who teach that atheists and the ‘other’ faiths are automatically justified in Christ (something utterly unApostolic) – but wait there’s more – the sedevacantists don’t even slag off the heretics by given them imaginative insulting appellations – stay tuned for more sedevacantist scandals tomorrow.
by their fruits.
–
and black is still black, and therefore white is still white; I don’t care if an angel from heaven or St Paul tries to convince me otherwise, or even UNho-koran-kissing-jugs out at mass-talmud touting-imam-mooching-whoamItojudge-popes.
Dear salvemur,
It seems you are right in suggesting you misunderstood us. Our many prior posts demonstrate we readily acknowledge bad fruits resulting in serious abuses which can be directly related to VII, so your Marx analogy does not apply to our thinking.
—-
As we said in our response to your #11 post above, we object to the blanket, highly emotional approach of those who wish to blame VII as the original source for every abuse which appeared after VII, including those which Pius X warned would result from the modernism already clearly evidenced in his time. Your example of a pastor’s laxity in allowing a typical worldly pagan film crew into his Church, is an example of laxity which could have taken place whether or not VII or the changes in the Mass ever happened. Thus we are seeking truth.
Salvemur, trust me brother, I feel your frustration. I believe what is lacking is a fear of the Lord. Every manner of sin has run rampant because of it. But …..you seem to keep flirting with sedevacantism. A position that would demand you to sever communion with most of the people that post here. The Saints tell us no amount of scandal justifies schism. Fr. Cedaka may have some wise things to say but he’d probably also be the first to admit he’s not in communion with any of us. In fact he’d probably call into question our baptism. And he would say our communions and confessions are not valid because he doesn’t regard anything in the post concilliar Church as valid. And to be honest, the more you read his stuff & post it the more you I can see it influence you and the you start to sound more like a schismatic, who’s posts become more irrational. Please avoid sedevacantist resources.
If a sedevacantist priest called into question our confirmations and the sacraments we have received (I don’t understand why a Trinitarian formula baptism would be called into question, although Fr. Hesse once said that baptisms in the vernacular in some ‘new world’ indiginous tongue (don’t remember which) would be invalid because the language simply could not authentically translate ‘Holy Ghost) – back to the point – that priest would be calling into question the sacraments we had received, why? Cause it’s gonna make rich? or famous? Voris has 40,000 Facebook followers, NOWatch 400, so that can’t be it. Why, just cause he couldn’t stand being wrong? That’s alot of work to convince three people you are right. So, what could the reason be?
indignus, who’s ‘we’? you’re not ERII flirting with Rome are you? That would be headlines. no doubt since there is no such thing as no pope or an anti-pope or the non-contradiction in Holy Ghost teachings or an argument that includes emotion that can ever be valid, or rotten fruits from a rotten tree, this non-dispute is a complete waste of comment boxes.
Our point about the Borgia Pope(s) was that Pre VII Popes scandalized the world and the Church with personal sins and error, relating that to Pope Francis’ scandalous actions and suggestions and modernist language. (He has not yet promulgated them, either)
Vatican II was deliberately not declared dogmatic according to the command of Paul VI, and a pastoral council’s errors are open to future correction.
—-
Pope Leo never contradicted his predecessors and post VII Popes have done so. Very true in our view. Your question based on that fact, as to who is “authentic” appears to be the subject of all the disunity we have viewed between the FSSP, SSPX, SV’s and others on this blog. Coming as we do from a different background than those, one that recognizes all the same evils yet has not made any “pronouncements” on the status of the Papacy as a result of them, we have been listening, reading, thinking and continuing to explore all the reasons given for the conclusion made–such as yours.
—–
But as you can see, there is not much agreement among those groups, yet all of them seem to be sincerely seeking the truth, as we are. So we choose to hold back until such time as we are convinced in good conscience to change our current beliefs that it is beyond our vocations and place and position, to judge the “authenticity” of the Pope. Hence we rely in that matter, on faith in Jesus’ promise to remain with His Church. And we remain with her, waiting for a Pope who will restore things and bring cause for true unity among all of us.
—–
We love the TLM, but last night there were none available. So we went to the only Friday evening Mass we could find, driving an hour–and were the only people in the chapel other than the NO Priest. He said a reverent Mass, gave a wonderful, orthodox homily, and we handed him a copy of the beautiful “Jesu Dulcissime” that Matthew recommended yesterday. He looked it over, and said, “THIS is REAL prayer!” Thank you.
——–
p.s. that should be non-non-contradiction of Holy Ghost teachings since as evidenced and roundly exampled by VII popes, contradiction is indeed Church teaching and something we should pay proper obiesance to if it comes forth from the white cassock – after all Daniel and all those saints had simply got it wrong when they didn’t concede their faith in the face the darius’ and ceasars – poor sad schismatics – if only they’d had Wojtylas and Bergoglio’s to explain to them the utter unnecessity of their sacrifice and how they were destroying unity.
Dear salvemur,
No, we’re not kidding, but we’re not sure what you are referring to with that question.
—-
“We” are a faithful Catholic husband and wife, (parents and grandparents), who are posting together on this blog, grateful for having discovered Louie and his various endeavors, , and all the posters here, after 40 years of doing all we could to live as Catholics despite all the persecution that has entailed.
—–
We could argue that your “art of war” theory, that people who are unaware that they are engaged in a war, are more vulnerable to being conquered–can be applied to everything that has happened since Eve was first tempted. Satan has plans which don’t end till God ends them.
—–
As to what is the most revolutionary thing to happen in the entire history of the Church, we could argue that Pope Pius X labeled modernism as the synthesis of all prior heresies, so no individual heresy today would top that or be new.
—- However, even the mis-perception by many, that the errors abounding since Vatican II are the new Official Dogma of the Church and are a direct contradiction to what used to be Dogma, we would agree may be the worst revolutionary thing to happen in the history of the Church, as it potentially leads to the damnation of the most souls.
—– What seems far worse to us, though, is the fact that the Hierarchy is so infected with souls who seem diabolically disoriented , and who outnumber those who are not, that no CORRECTION of these errors has taken place over the past 50 years, at least not enough to suppress their growth. And now we have a Pope who seems to embrace them in a way that would make Satan think he has won this battle–which he hasn’t, of course.
—-This is why we put so much emphasis in our lives on praying for the Consecration of Russia to come, and why we have about tripled our previous efforts in that regard, and highly recommend that to everyone here.
The declarations in VII insist on its dogmatic status. Bergoglio, that old modernist used pre-vii declarations to canonize VII via wojtyla and roncalli, the solemn grandeur of which even Benedict hadn’t used. So what is one to make of this? The Holy Ghost does not teach against Himself. He does not yesterday speak as Leo did and tomorrow as VII does. He does not hold up appalling faithlessness as saintly. Or, contradiction has been ordained and what was unholy yesterday is holy today, because the man who walks onto the balcony after the conclave says so. It seems that the answer from most is just, ‘shuttup and go to mass, and try to ignore the obvious’. At any rate I can’t see what, looking through the lens of VII, the martyrs died for – i don’t think any of us will be required to die for our faith if the new ecumenism is True.
Please see just above #12 for our response to this.
salvemur–this response of 11:40 June 28 was to your 10:15 pm June 27. It’s frustrating the way replies seem to move around at times.
Salvemur, so now you see that the position your are drifting in is so kooky that only a miniscule number can accept it as Truth. When a handful of guys in the heartland of the US make themselves out to be the only remaining valid Priesthood and living Magisterum then you may want to reconsider.
salvemur,
Your seem to repeat frequently that Vatican II claims to be dogmatic, which it officially does not. The fact that it contains references within it’s documents to Dogmas that were affirmed from the past -, and that those references have been frequently used to foster that misconception, to this day, does not make those misperceptions any truer.
@JamesTheLesser: You use “sedevacantist” in an Alinskyite manner to slight those who hold positions in good faith. I am not interested in categorical buzzwords and rhetoric that are intended to slander people and demarcate certain topics as beyond consideration by the faithful. Sometimes you and Catholic Thinker sound like concern trolls who will agree with everything traditional EXCEPT the proposition that the Pope could ever do anything that would place himself outside the Church.
—–
Do you know Fr. Cekada’s position in detail? Can you identify exactly which propositions of his you disagree with? Like St. Peter, I demand that you give a reason for your position.
—–
You are so vociferous in your denunciation of so-called “sedevacantists”, you give the impression that nothing a Pope could do would ever cause you to recognize him as a heretic. Is this true? Would you continue to recognize a papal claimant as Pope no matter what he does?
—–
Just to light a fire under your behind, Pope Francis, when archbishop, referred people believed to be possessed to a Lutheran minister for exorcism. Also while archbishop, he received blessings in public from so-called “evangelical” ministers. Since being elevated to the papal office, he has referred to an evangelical as a “brother bishop”. He also received the so-called Archbishop of Canterbury as if he was what he claimed to be, and also accepted a blessing from. From these public actions, I conclude that Pope Francis holds heterodox ideas about protestant sects and protestant orders. In fact, I argue that his reception of a blessing from Justin Welby is a rejection by deed of the teaching of Pope Leo XIII in Apostolicae Curiae that Anglican orders are invalid. Since his apparent holding of these heterodox ideas on protestant orders has been of long duration, why cannot I conclude that he is a pertinacious heretic?
Cyprian,
Your last line of #14 asks, …”why cannot I conclude that he is a pertinacious heretic?
—–
We’ve seen it written in a number of places that:
St. Robert Bellarmine believed that a true Pope could never fall into heresy. He taught this. However, he did not hold it as theologically CERTAIN. That is why he went on to treat the pope-heretic question.
He goes on to say that if a pope would fall into heresy, he would cease to be pope…and for that reason and that reason only…he may be judged by the Church. The Church is not judging a Pope…it would be judging a Heretic. The First See is judged by no one.”
salvemur said, “the sedevacantists don’t even slag off the heretics by given them imaginative insulting appellations”.
The insults that I hurl at Frankie the Philistine disturb you, salvemur?
I could care less if you go SV or not, because in our times we have not just a non-Catholic pope but an anti-Catholic pope. Therefore, no one can declare with certainty about what is the right thing to do: to resist from within or without. I’d wish you well either way. But if you feel insecure enough in your decision that you have to try to argue people into agreeing with you, and play ‘holier than thou’? [shrug]
I tend to evaluate clergy et al. case by case.
Btw, I insult Frankie because he deserves it and so I like doing it. I treat him with the respect that he deserves, which is very little. Moreso, I am trying to take some of the aura off of him, which comes along with his position and he uses that aura to help him spread his evil.
The good Fr Hesse chuckled over how pope Honorious was exhumed, dressed in raiment so he could be stripped of it, then tossed into the Tiber. Are you also holier than Fr. Hesse was?
This is somewhat akin to ~1776 and watching the troops from Connecticut arguing with the troops from Virginia while the Redcoats are burning the town. We need some liberal atheists commenting in here to bring things back into focus.
…. in the mean time, we get this over at Rorate Caeli: The unstoppable advance of the SP.
http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2014/06/the-unstoppable-summorum-pontificum-1.html
——
The Holy Ghost righting the Barque of St. Peter. 🙂
——-
And just like the last sentence states, please pray for Portugal, where the hippie church is deeply rooted. And also keep Malta in your prayers, where the ’68 would rather sink than save themselves.
Cyprian (or are you also Salvemur), NOwatch and gang are self identified sedevacantists. Sorry if that hurts your feelings. It’s a theological position that holds that all the Popes, bishops and Priests since Pius XII are now invalid. Apparently you hold to this. Perhaps you got correspond with Cardinal Raymond Burke and inform him that not only is he not a Bishop but he isn’t even Catholic. Perhaps you can set him straight and tell him “because NOwatch said so”. You can’t have your cake and eat it too.
dear bigfred,
liberal atheist- isn’t that a redundancy? lol. 🙂
—–
We read all your reasons for mocking Pope Francis, and while we are amused by your continuous creativity, we worry that you will be judged by God someday for not following the example of King David, who defended the corrupt King Saul, refusing to harm him in any way, even in self defense, all due to his respect for Saul’s being “anointed by God” as King.
—–
We are doing enough suffering now for the souls in Purgatory, that we don’t need you added to the list. What if you get a year for every time you mocked the Pope?.
@Indignus famulus: On the facts that I described Cum Ex Apostaltus Officio is by far the more pertinent authority. Since you jumped into this, what is your opinion on the last question I asked? Are his actions consistent with someone who holds the Catholic faith?
Indignus, you’re going to love it when I mock up a photo showing Frankie sharing a bubble bath with Bruce Jenner. All very ecumenical, of course.
Armaticus, does anyone track these things and even present the data in a graph? If so, have you got a URL?
“We need some liberal atheists commenting in here to bring things back into focus.”
–
Indeed. Over on the forum I posted some of the highlights from the comments section of a NCR article on the recently published Instrumentum for the upcoming synod. Among them was this gem:
–
“Sadly, I think a synod is only about how to better teach the laity, not how to better learn from them.”
–
These people are so far off the reservation, it’s absurd. But it does help to put things in perspective.
I see that once again Cyprian is here badgering commenters with his sedevacantist errors. I will re-post what I’ve posted to other of Louie’s posts, well-aware that Cyprian will keep talking, insisting that his arguments are being misrepresented when in fact the entire sedevacantist thesis has been undermined.
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:
–
“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.”
–
– conclusions quite false: He never implied to reject valid pastors based on this!
– he ordered followers to obey the pharisees on the Seat precisely because they had divine authority despite their sins
–
–
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!”
–
As I stated earlier:
–
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. Rather, 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.
–
Only a pope can determine if a cardinal has fallen into FORMAL heresy; 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.”
–
– contradicts self – material heretic isn’t severed! material heresy only error of intellect! pertinacity in the will required
– lack of understanding of material vs. formal heresy.
– JXXII was definite material heretic – nobody claimed he was not the pope. Nobody.
– his position would lead to total anarchy. faithful could have rejected peter by his reasoning!!
–
“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
–
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 – lease read the links I have provided above and see if your beliefs are unchanged.
Here’s the link omitted above (the blog software will flag a post with more than one URL):
—
http://www.scripturecatholic.com/feature-articles/Feature_-_The_Errors_of_Sedevacantism.pdf
dear bigfred,
–
No graphs, but Wikkimissa does a fair job of keeping tabs on where the TLM is being celebrated around the world. Finland isn’t on there yet, but I imagine it will be updated soon.
–
http://honneurs.free.fr/Wikini/wakka.php?wiki=PagePrincipalEn
To the audience, I say read the aforementioned article by Siscoe and see if you do not agree that the entire sede thesis is shattered. Among other things, NO THEOLOGIAN IN THE HISTORY OF THE CHURCH EVER TAUGHT WHAT THEY DO: that a pope is deposed from public office with no action the Church whatsoever by virtue of formal heresy.
—–
In addition to that trump card, it is not Church teaching that formal heresy causes a pontiff to lose office in the private domain – this was a disputed point upon which the Church has never ruled (this seems to make little difference to sedevacantists, who themselves are the ultimate arbiter of all things theological). Though such a person is certainly removed from the Soul of the Church, the Body is another matter.
—–
Though the objective (their arguments) are the actual matter, it is difficult to avoid observations regarding the way in which they present them. It is generally screed, long on invective and ad hominems and quite short on reasoning that does not involve logical leaps. Just look at the garbage on novusordowatch for plentiful examples.
—–
This subjectivity and lack of charity and civility extends to within their body as well: they are constantly judging each other, and by “judging” I mean in the most holistic, subjective sense: they pronounce each other [formal] heretics (rare is it that we see them make the proper distinction between material and formal heresy), refuse each other communion, etc. Of course, this is just what they do with non-sedes: pronounce people “heretics” for “remaining in communion” with souls they have declared to be non-Catholic.
—–
It’s just sad to see, frankly, but such is the state of utter confusion in the Church at present, which is due, indeed, to those “failures” of the “upper hierarchy” who have been seduced by “diabolical disorientation”.
Cyprian, Since heterodox is defined as neither orthodox nor heretical, why would you cite heterodox behavior as a making the pope a heretic. While we agree, (in our HO), that much of what Pope Francis does is greatly heterodox, and seems to give free reign to heretics to persist in their beliefs, would that alone make him a heretic?
—-
To answer your question, many of the pope’s actions seem heretical to us.
—-
Regarding Cum Ex Apostaltus Officio, we did hear Fr. Hesse state that while the bull was infallible, the statement regarding heresy prior to election of a pope was an administrative matter and not covered by the teaching of infallibility. It’s this type of controversy that prevents us from making formal judgments on this matter.
dear bigfred,
We have to go scrub our minds’ eyes now… SPARE US SPARE US.. WE’RE BEGGING …:-)
Here’s an example of what I’m talking about from right here (above): “Btw, I insult Frankie because he deserves it and so I like doing it. I treat him with the respect that he deserves, which is very little.”
—–
Anyone who does not understand that subjective judgement and outright hate – which is what this is and believe me I use that word VERY rarely – is not behavior becoming of a Catholic needs to retire back to the drawing board. Sorry. Never in the history of the Church could we find any saint showing such lack of civility and charity towards ANY human being no matter what the circumstances.
—–
Here’s something to think about: martyrs earn the title only when they forgive their murderers before the crime is committed. Does the attitude expressed above seem to have such a spirit?
—–
Here are some comments from Bishop Fellay I think are relevant:
—–
“Keeping the faith cannot be merely theoretical. There is such a thing as what I would call “theoretical” faith: the faith of someone who is capable of reciting the Creed, he has learned his catechism, he knows it, he is capable of repeating it, and of course this sort of faith is the beginning; you have to have it, or else you do not have the faith. But this faith does not yet lead to heaven. This is what you have to understand. The faith that Scripture speaks about is the faith that is—to use the technical expression—informed by charity. Saint Paul was speaking about this relation between Faith and Charity when he said to the Corinthians: “If I should have all faith, so that I could remove mountains,” (which is no small thing, since a faith that can move mountains is not something you see every day!) “and have not charity, I am nothing…. I am only a sounding brass or a tinkling cymbal….”
—–
It is not enough to make great professions of faith; it is not enough to attack or condemn errors; many think that they have fulfilled their duty as Christians when they have done this, but that is an error. I am not saying that you should not do it; it is one part, but the faith that Saint Paul and Sacred Scripture speak about is informed faith, in other words, faith imbued with charity. Charity is what gives form to faith. Charity is the love of God and consequently the love of neighbor. Therefore it is about a faith that turns toward this neighbor who is certainly in error and reminds him of the truth, but in such a manner that, thanks to these reminders, the Christian will be able to sow the faith, reestablish someone in the truth, lead this soul toward the truth. Therefore it is not a bitter zeal; on the contrary it is a faith made warm by charity.”
@indignus Famulus: Pope Francis actions as whole with respect to the protestants give the appearance that he believes protestant sects are “Churches” and that protestant ministers have valid orders. To hold that position with respect to protestant orders clearly conflicts with Apostolicae Curiae. Is this not heresy? Is it not a deviation from the Catholic faith?
@JamesTheLesser: “Sedevacantism” is an inopportune term because it focuses on an effect – that the chair is empty – and not the cause – that the occupant does not hold the faith. You apparently are so wrapped up in not being a sedevacantist, that you don’t appreciate this analysis. When you look at it from the perspective of whether the claimant holds the faith, the current situation isn’t difficult to understand.
—–
A majority of Cardinals no longer believe that one has to hold the Catholic faith whole and inviolate to be in the Church. Public heretics are tolerated in the hierarchy and not removed. They elevate to the papacy like-minded candidates. This is the result of free will on the part of weak men. There is only one human being that was preserved from sin – Our Lady. As a consequence of this the Cardinals are not preserved from sin or any particular category of sin and can lapse into heresy and as a group elevate heretics to the papal office.
—–
When the Catholic Faithful are conditioned to focus on the effect – the empty chair – they often jump to knee-jerk conclusions driven by emotional needs for security. For example, “It can never happen – because that would mean the Holy Ghost has deserted the Church.” Or, “It hasn’t happened because no matter what the claimant says or does I will explain it away.”
—–
The proper starting point for the analysis should always be the necessary precondition for wielding authority in the church – for one to command in the Church one has to be in the Church. To be in the Church is simple – one merely has to hold the faith whole and inviolate.
—–
When viewed from the perspective of the necessity of holding the faith the prospect of multiple invalid Popes isn’t difficult to understand. Those who place no importance on holding the faith whole and inviolate elevate like-minded candidates to the papacy. In other words, the current situation is merely the result of malfeasance on the part of the College of Cardinals that has stretched now for over a generation.
—–
I note that you will not answer the questions because you have taken the cue from one of Mr. V’s prior blog posts: Defending the Indefensible. You can’t defend what he does, but you will fight to the death for his right to continue doing it!
Dear Cyprian,
“Pope Francis’ actions ..gives the appearance that he believes….
To hold that position conflicts… is this not Heresy?”
You clearly have made personal assumptions about his beliefs in this regard, which, though they seem reasonable, are not PROVABLE.
Were he to express those sentiments in writing, for example, you would have much more of a valid argument. But he would still have to teach them regardless of correction, i.e. pertinaciously, for him to be a heretic on that score.
For example, he could very well believe the Protestants have NO valid orders, and yet believe it is harmless to accept their blessings, and call them his brother bishops, because he is not as intelligent as people think, and does not realize the scandal he is causing.
—
He could also have an agenda to break as many traditions and use as few of the prudential cautions of the past as possible, because he relishes being a shocker and gets a kick out of the publicity from it, while so many praise his humility in the press at the same time.
—
He may like to laugh at the reaction from Traditional Catholics before bed every night. Any or all or none of that could be true. That is our point..
The spokesmen for Econe has arrived!
Thanks, Matthew. I was going to add Finland, but somebody beat me to it. It is here: http://honneurs.free.fr/Wikini/wakka.php?wiki=FinlandE
–
I corrected a typo on that page (no registration necessary). However, I don’t seem to have privileges to edit the main English page. So I can’t add a link on the main English page to the Finland page. I also did not find a way to contact the admin there.
–
It seems that the Mass described by the RC article in Ljubljana, Slovenia is not the same one as the (weekly?) one here: http://honneurs.free.fr/Wikini/wakka.php?wiki=SloveniE
in Zaklanec. Slovenia is also not in the list on the main English page.
Dear Catholic Thinker,
As you may have noticed, we have been regularly cajoling the “Francis”-basher on this blog, with admonitions regarding his answering to God for them some day, and David’s respect for Saul as God’s annointed..etc. to no apparent avail.
While we agree with you that his viewpoint “he deserves it” does not suffice as an excuse for it, we would argue that calling it HATE would require him to not only deplore the actions of the man, but to desire that he lose his soul and end up eternally in Hell. As he has never expressed any such sentiment, perhaps you might want to revise your judgment on that somewhat.
We’re sure he can speak for himself, and hope he will not disappoint us by stating his intentions towards the Pope are that nefarious.
LOL! Everything you says presupposes that you have authority to declare anyone or anything invalid. YOU DON’T. Apparently, you just like to go round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round…in an attempt to convince everyone that you do. Maybe you’re just attempting to convince yourself.
That sounds a bit like a bitter, cynical comment, directed at a person, rather than a position or attitude.
He said that he “enjoys” insulting the man. While I’m quite willing to be corrected, that smacks of “hate” for me. But, you’re right, the word may involve some inference (not warranted). I retract it.
—–
What word would you use? And can you cite a source for the assertion that “hate” must include willing damnation? I would say that that is an extreme of hate, but not a necessary quality. (It would also seem to imply that those who deny the existence of Hell are not capable of hate.)
Next you’ll give us the Church document that states a lay person can judge/depose a Pope, such as you have done, correct?
So… Catholic Thinker, you are publicly judging and condemning me for being judgmental about Frankie? You wreak with hypocrisy.
–
You’ve been a bad boy, now go straight to bed with no supper for you. While there, read up on John the Baptist.
–
Also, try not be be so egotistical. Read a little about the sin of pride. That’s a good boy, now off with you.
Correction: he said that he “likes” (not “enjoys”) insulting Francis.
—–
Of course, the words are synonyms.
So you reserve your pretend “charity” for those that you agree with, and then spout insults at those you don’t like. And no, your silly pretensions about how you criticize comments and don’t insult people don’t fly. You are just being snide.
Synonyms? ACT, what is a synonym for “pompous ego”? I’ll use it in my next comment to you.
–
And try to have the common decency to address me and refer to me by name.
I suppose I should point out, for anyone who was not aware that Cyprian was speaking sarcastically, that I am no “spokesman” for Econe or the SSPX. I attend Society Masses and as such do obviously hold to the basic Society position regarding the crisis.
Fred, I think you need to recognize the difference between blunt correction and a lack of charity. I bear you no ill will – I assure you. May this be exposed as a lie on the Last Day when every thought, word, and deed is revealed if it is such.
—–
Thus, I do not “like” insulting you. I would never brag about enjoying insulting you. In fact, I do not INSULT you at all. Rather, I took issue with the attitude your comments displayed.
—–
I will not engage in any further back & forth of this nature. Take it or leave it. I pointed out what I did for the sake of the audience; this is the type of thing that smears the reputation of Traditionalism.
As I said below, I didn’t judge or condemn you at all – I condemned the notion of taking pleasure in insulting people, which is what you stated you do. This is what Christians are called to do.
—–
As for the rest of it, could you prove my point any better? You ought to be ashamed of yourself. I will certainly not stoop to this level.
I’m curious: Are you really so egotistical that you presume anyone would actually think you are a spokesman for the SSPX or Econe? REALLY?!?
–
I will pray that you might achieve some humility one day – and not the fake Francis kind, either. I’m starting to wonder if you actually like and admire Francis’ personality and his underhanded ways. Do you? That’s a serious question, not a disguised insult. (I don’t hold to the practice of insulting people while pretending that’s not what I’m doing. Try it sometime.)
–
Do you like and admire Francis personally, aside from theological differences?
Pronouns are a sign of lack of decency? I was responding to another post and thus referring to you indirectly.
—–
As for my ego, you may infer what you will. I am sure you will consider this snide as well, but you are responding exactly as sedevacantists typically do to having their errors and spite called-out.
—–
My concern – the reason for the posting – is that people not yet familiar with Traditionalism, not yet understanding the crisis in the Church, see this sort of thing and run away. Who can blame them?
—–
Since you seem a man of many words, perhaps you should take a stab at defending your enjoyment of hurling insults, since it appears you aren’t about to retreat from it.
@JamesTheLesser: Back on June 9 you said this:
——
“I feel EXACTLY like you. It’s exhausting. And to boot… I find sedevacantism absolutely ridiculous. I see no fix for the Church. I just don’t know what to believe anymore. They say God punishes the Church by sending bad leaders. He must really be mad as it seems He has almost completely abandoned His Church. But what of those that WANT to be faithful???”
——
I cite JamesTheLesser against JamesTheLesser:
——
“LOL! Everything you says presupposes that you have authority to declare anyone or anything invalid. YOU DON’T. Apparently, you just like to go round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round…in an attempt to convince everyone that you do. Maybe you’re just attempting to convince yourself.”
——
In your June 9 comment how did you reach the conclusion that we have been sent bad leaders? By “presupposing that you have the authority to declare anyone or anything bad”? So apparently you believe that you are the only one who is permitted to criticize the goings-on in the Church. I note also that you managed to toss in a gratuitous criticism of sedevacantism in your June 9 comment when the comment you were replying to made no mention of it. Interesting that sedevacantism is never too far from your mind, isn’t it?
With your pompous and dishonest attitude, “ought to be ashamed of yourself” is not a judgment or insult. You prove nothing but your own hypocrisy.
I think more readers would be put off by the pompous and egotistical attitude that you continuously display. You seem to participate here only to try and demonstrate your superiority. (It’s not working.)
Hi Fred,
—–
One can rarely make assumptions about what every single person on the Internet who reads something will know. I just thought it prudent to point out that I do not have some hidden agenda. I’m not sure it’s logical for you to draw inferences about my ego from that.
—–
You just can’t understand how I would assert that we should not take pleasure in insulting Francis yet still find him unlikable? Honestly? As a matter of fact, I have to constantly check myself from falling into uncharitable thoughts regarding Pope Francis. There is nothing at all that I “like” about him – not a thing. I will never hesitate to call out the implicit and explicit errors in his statements, criticize his terrible prudential decisions (such as the maltreatment of the FFA!), and cringe over his constant disparaging of all things Traditional. But I recognize him as the pope because he is the pope, and I am not going to take pleasure in insulting him. I hope that is clear enough.
ACT said, “Since you seem a man of many words, perhaps you should take a stab at defending your enjoyment of hurling insults, since it appears you aren’t about to retreat from it.”
–
I also enjoy pushing pins into bags of hot air. I bet you can’t guess who is the most pompous bag of hot air here. Would you like a hint?
–
That’s a “correction”, not an insult. I’m willing to help you improve yourself. But you do need to try.
“He may like to laugh at the reaction from Traditional Catholics before bed every night.”
–
I just had the mental image of Pope Francis sitting in bed, fully pajama’ed, with a glass of warm milk in one hand and an iPad in the other, scrolling through the comments here at this blog, chuckling softly to himself. Is that something I need to confess?
@Catholic Thinker: No one, and I mean no one, would interpret my comment as bitter or cynical. It was just calling you out for what you apparently are, and trying to make light of it. You want to personalize this and I absolutely refuse!
ACT, you keep trying to frame things to suit yourself, but that doesn’t wash. You don’t find enjoyment in insulting Francis, but you do apparently take a lot of pleasure in acting pompously and trying to assert your superiority.
–
You also presume to criticize others here and claim that’s okay. Have you really been getting away with those stratagems? Then today is your lucky day, I am here to correct you.
–
Btw, I asked if you like Francis *personally*, including the way he operates. I asked because you remind me of him..
Well, Fred, again, I have to say your inferences are off a bit. However, I’m sure I could stand to be more humble.
—–
As for why I participate, it’s not really for a “social” aspect – you’re right about that. My free time is quite limited. As I said a moment ago, I responded because I think such sentiment is not becoming of a Catholic and I get very tired of neo-Catholics constantly painting Traditionalists as bitter and uncharitable. I love the Church and I do what I can do defend Her, which actually means defending Traditionalism too. I think I do probably have as good a reason as most for posting here. And excuse me for suspecting that you’d be far less hostile to my person if I agreed with your positions.
—–
As for your *constant* attention on my personal qualities – again, I was wondering if you might speak to the issue that has apparently upset you so much: Do you believe it’s good & holy to enjoy insulting a person (anyone)?
Fred, I’m stepping out now, and this will be the end of our specific discourse here. So far you have demonstrated that you are obsessed with my personal qualities, or lack of them, but show no interest in discussing the issue that has elicited this invective from you. It is necessary that I point this out.
—–
By the way, I said a Hail Mary for you, and will add a decade to that while I’m in the car. I always appreciate prayers for me as well.
Cyprian, I’d like nothing better than to keep things non-personal. That’s how adults behave. Your comment struck me as sarcastic (were you serious that I was a spokesman from Econe?), but – you’re right – there’s no bitterness there! You win that one.
ACT said, ” And excuse me for suspecting that you’d be far less hostile to my person if I agreed with your positions.”
–
You do need to be excused for that, because once again you make an underhanded aspersion – snidely implying that I criticize you for reasons other than your behavior — that I don’t like your positions so I choose an underhanded way to criticize you. You REALLY can’t stop being snide, can you?
—
Btw, I don’t care much what position you take. I’d already said as much today, in a general comment (not directed at you), before you appointed yourself the High Holy Censor of someone else’s blog.
Your pompous egotism *is* the issue, ACT.
–
Drive safely.
ACT said, “It is necessary that I point this out.”
–
Yes, I know that you always feel compelled to get in a last criticism. Maybe you can’t help yourself.
To ACT: I will make this crystal clear: I hereby declare that I absolutely **enjoy** fighting evil. Yes, I do. It is very rewarding. You tried turning that into something that it is not. No supper for you today.
–
That should not have required an explanation to anybody.
And please also see the excellent article at Rorate:
http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2014/06/de-matteis-answers-dissident-leader-of.html
“Sententiae theologicae ad fidem pertinentes” (i.e. theological opinions pertaining to the faith). Quite interesting.
–
“The perennial Traditio Ecclesiae, is, therefore, the first hermeneutical criteria of Vatican II.” Excellent.
@Indignus Famulus: Item 6 of Cum Ex Apostolatus Officio sets forth that “if 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” the election is null and void without further declaration. That means the claimant NEVER BECOMES POPE. The particular consequences of such an elevation are set forth in item 6 as follows:
“(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.”
——
You admit that his actions objectively are irreconcilable with Catholic doctrine, but then you state that subjective information unknown to me may exonerate him. That is irrelevant – only the APPEARANCE of heresy or deviation from the faith is needed to trigger item 6. This provision merely seeks to canonize what has always been the teaching of the Church – that to command in the church one has to be in the church and that as a matter of divine law a heretic places himself outside the Church. That is why no formal declaration is necessary – the willful adoption of heresy or deviation from the Catholic faith ipso facto places one outside the Church without formal judgment. A heretic damns himself to Hell for professing heresy regardless of whether or not the Church gets around to excommunicating him.
——
But the Bull goes beyond those who are actually heretics and encompasses those who APPEAR to be heretics. Why is this? Because Pope Paul IV was apparently of the same mind as St. Robert Bellarmine who said in comment the following about the Pope Liberius – Antipope Felix controversy:
——
“Then two years later came the lapse of Liberius, of which we have spoken above. Then indeed the Roman clergy, stripping Liberius of his pontifical dignity, went over to Felix, whom they knew [then] to be a Catholic. From that time, Felix began to be the true Pontiff. For although Liberius was not a heretic, nevertheless he was considered one, on account of the peace he made with the Arians, and by that presumption the pontificate could rightly [merito] be taken from him: for men are not bound, or able to read hearts; but when they see that someone is a heretic by his external works, they judge him to be a heretic pure and simple [simpliciter], and condemn him as a heretic.”
——-
Similarly, I cannot read the heart or mind of Pope Francis, but I certainly can conclude that he does and says things that give the impression objectively “that he appears to have deviated from the faith or fallen into some heresy.”
——-
In such a situation, item 7(ii) of the Bull permits me as a member of the laity to withdraw my obedience from the false claimant. By withdrawing my obedience I only speak for myself – I don’t seek to remove the false claimant from Office. I am familiar with what Fr. Hesse had to say about the Bull – that it did not spell out exactly how the false claimant would be removed – but it DOES spell out that a member of the laity CAN withdraw his obedience from the claimant with impunity.
@Indignus Famulus: You also express doubt about Pope Francis’ pertinacity. I remember a hue and cry was raised when he called the evangelical a “brother bishop” and then, despite that hue and cry, he treated Justin Welby the same way (as if he was a real bishop). He already has ignored filial correction about a great many of his public acts and statements, but he persists in his errors. What exactly does he have to do to prove his pertinacity?
Fred, one fights evil by attacking *it* – not by attacking people. God judges the soul – we are not fit to judge any living human being holistically as “evil”. You’ve heard “hate the sin, love the sinner”? Doctor of the Church St. Augustine said that. Christ said the same thing.
Hi Fred,
—–
I’m back now (obviously). Firstly, let me state that this will be my last reply to you (unless you post some new *position* or sede material, in which case I may well respond). You have proven yourself unwilling to have any discussion of *issues* here. You did nothing but hurl insult after insult at me instead (which, I take it, you “like”, as with the pope) – this was not any attempt at conversation, or about the issues. All because I had the audacity to point out that taking pleasure insult is not admirable!
—–
Even if you did believe what you do regarding my subjective disposition, it’s pretty clear it’s nothing but a matter of spite to keep hurling the same invective again and again and again. What point is there to that? Why not just move on?
—–
Secondly, even for those fixated on personal attacks, clearly one loses the debate if there’s *no* discussion of the issues whatsoever. I was about to conclude that you are unwilling to defend the notion that it is good and holy to take pleasure in insulting someone, but now I see the post below that I just responded to suggests that you are defending it, under the guise of “fighting evil”. See my response there.
—–
You made no negative comments on my personality or posts here until I criticized your “I like to insult the pope” attitude. That is the basis of my conclusion that your responses now are indeed a response to *that*, in particular. I do stand by it, from where I sit here.
—–
You seem to conflate confidence in a position with arrogance. They are not at all the same thing. I do not believe that taking pleasure in insulting someone is good – in fact, I think it’s a sin, and I’m quite confident in that assessment. I am also quite convinced, based on reading their material for nearly a decade, that *in a general sense* those who hold the sedevacantist position have some element of bitterness, and are prone to personal insults and spite against their opponents. (Again, one need only peruse sources like NOWatch and the Dimond bros to see these things.)
—–
Humility as a virtue regards how we relate to *God*. I am humble before Him, I assure you. I would not dare to suggest I possess the virtue to a heroic extent, by any means, but, on a daily basis I stand in awe that Christ deigns to make Himself my food. I think often of the Father telling St. Catherine, “I am Who Am, and you are the one who is not.” Dwelling on this results in humility – we’re absolutely nothing without Christ. We can perform no good act save by His grace. Any skill or good quality we possess is His gift. We are pathetic blobs of clay, and intrinsically inclined to sin at that.
—–
Lastly, regarding “censorship”, that word would imply that I’m attempting to silence people. It seems that it is you who is attempting to silence me with your bullying. (It seems the fact that I didn’t back down fueled your anger.)
—–
It’s true that I find the proliferous sedevacantist posting here exasperating, but it’s also true that the blog author does *not* hold that position. True, that doesn’t mean he doesn’t want that kind of posting here – I have no idea. I’m not sure if he thoroughly reads the comments or not. (If he does, he ought to get some time out of Purgatory for suffering through this exchange, eh? :-))
Cyprian,
We are not trying to goad you on about this, as we respect anyone’s right to seek the truth sincerely. But it seems you exclusively quoted to us the Bull that was said to be not infallible, -regarding the necessity of the candidate for the Papacy to be free of heresy—which we (you may recall) mentioned was the reason we felt we had no conclusive proof that your belief was correct with certainty.
—
We have read other statements that contradict it, and argue that other Popes remained in office validly, who at one time or another gave the appearance of believing heresies.
—–
Can you cite any Church fathers or other sources which support you belief as part of “long-understood” tradition? We understand it to be a topic not frequently discussed with the laity. It is, after all very compelling, if it is true. When we first heard of it, and read it, we found it hard to consider it as simply an administrative matter that could be changed from Pope to Pope, because it dealt with such an important thing as the validity of the Supreme Pontiff.
—–
One reason we are reluctant to take in on face value that way, is the Bull Cantate Domino, which on reading, sound as if there are no exceptions whatsoever, and yet we all know there is Baptism of Desire, which it does not mention.
—–
Have fun with this one, all….
🙂
I see now: you were just pointing out that I’m taking the Society position. Of course. Perhaps I was a bit sensitive there. But, I speak for no one but myself.
—–
For what it’s worth I do agree that you’ve been entirely charitable and non-personal in past debates. Would that all sedevacantists were similar.
—–
Sedevacantism is (I believe) an error, but for some it is nothing more than an intellectual error. What I mean is that there are those souls who don’t exhibit the qualities of, say, NOWatch or the Dimonds. That is refreshing to see. However, I do believe there is a reason that, in my experience at least, most do. (The reason is that the position itself encourages subjective judgement.)
—–
If you continue to post sede material here, I’ll continue to respond to it, non-personally (as I’m able to).
Hmm – I just got done complimenting you on the fact that you seem to be one of the (rare) sedevacantists who bread & butter isn’t personal invective, but now I see I’ve been called a “troll”.
—–
That just makes no sense. A “troll” is somewhere who frequents forums, etc., opposed to his views with the express purpose of riling people up. Since the owner of the blog you’re commenting on is not a sedevacantist, if anyone is a troll here, it’s you, my friend. Not that I’m saying that.
—–
Regarding your persistent confusion over the errors of sedevacantism, this excellent article answers your objections:
—–
http://www.remnantnewspaper.com/Archives/2013-0315-siscoe-sedevacantism.htm
http://www.scripturecatholic.com/feature-articles/Feature_-_The_Errors_of_Sedevacantism.pdf
—–
Was St. Peter’s action of publicly rejecting Christ consistent with the Catholic faith?
You need to learn to make these critical distinctions:
—–
– The appearance of heresy vs. material heresy
—–
– Material vs. formal heresy
—–
– The Body vs. the Soul of the Church
—–
– The occult (private) vs. public domain
—–
Do you understand any of these distinctions? Why do you not use them when making your arguments? The first two are quite germane to what you’re asserting here.
—–
Even by the theologians the sedes cite – which is still not Church doctrine – only formal heresy causes the pontiff to lose his office, but even then he is still pope in the public domain until he has been deposed by the Church. That is what Bellarmine, upon which all the sede arguments are based, teaches.
Dear Catholic Thinker,
Thank you for your thoughts on this subject and for pointing out the incongruity of ours regarding atheists being unable to hate by that definition.
—-
This Catholic Encyclopedia definition is a bit long, but it covers the points we are discussing:
HATRED IS A vehement aversion entertained by one person for another, or for something more or less identified with that other. Theologians commonly mention two distinct species of this passion.
• One ( odium abominationis , or loathing) is that in which the intense dislike is concentrated primarily on the qualities or attributes of a person, and only secondarily, and as it were derivatively, upon the person himself.
—
• The second sort ( odium inimicitiae , or hostility) aims directly at the person, indulges a propensity to see what is evil and unlovable in him, feels a fierce satisfaction at anything tending to his discredit, and is keenly desirous that his lot may be an unmixedly hard one, either in general or in this or that specified way.
This second kind of hatred, as involving a very direct and absolute violation of the precept of charity, is always sinful and may be grievously so.
—–
The first-named species of hatred, in so far as it implies the reprobation of what is actually evil, is not a sin and may even represent a virtuous temper of soul. In other words, not only may I, but I even ought to, hate what is contrary to the moral law.
—
Furthermore one may without sin go so far in the detestation of wrongdoing as to wish that which for its perpetrator is a very well-defined evil, yet under another aspect is a much more signal good.
—-LET US PRAY THIS DESCRIBES BIGFRED:
For instance, it would be lawful to pray for the death of a perniciously active heresiarch with a view to putting a stop to his ravages among the Christian people. Of course, it is clear that this apparent zeal must not be an excuse for catering to personal spite or party rancour. Still, even when the motive of one’s aversion is not impersonal, when, namely, it arises from the damage we may have sustained at the hands of others, we are not guilty of sin unless besides feeling indignation we yield to an aversion unwarranted by the by the hurt we have suffered. This aversion may be grievously or venially sinful in proportion to its excess over that which the injury would justify.
I said you and JTL “sound like” concern trolls because you are ever vigilant about the so-called errors of sedevacantism. I didn’t say you “are” concern trolls. We know your position already! For all you know a sedevacantist may be proclaimed a saint by a true Pope in the future for heroic perseverance in the truth during a period of great confusion!
Dear Catholic Thinker,
We posted a Church definition under #23 above, but your interchange with bigfred left it in the dust. If you’re interested it’s got a few things to say about this very topic which seem to apply.
Dear Bigfred,
Please read our post after #23 on what the Church teaches about this, it says you can even wish the death of a heresiarch if it’s for the benefit of those he’s harming.
CYPRIAN SAID: “Item 6 of Cum Ex Apostolatus Officio sets forth that “if 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” the election is null and void without further declaration. That means the claimant NEVER BECOMES POPE.”
—–
Can’t you see how silly the results of this exegesis are? “Shall appear” – to whom? No qualifications whatsoever? This is entirely subjective. What if there was a first century Christian who was convinced that since St. Peter had apparently “deviated from the Catholic faith” by denying the Lord or by refusing communion with gentile Christians he was not actually pope?
—–
There must be more to the story – there must be another meaning to “appear”. It turns out there is:
—–
http://www.scripturecatholic.com/feature-articles/Feature_-_The_Errors_of_Sedevacantism.pdf
—–
As Salza notes: “First, the 1917 Code says that the Pope is the sole judge of the Cardinals. Canon 1557, par. 1-2 says: “It belongs entirely to the Roman Pontiff to judge…Cardinal Fathers / Cardinal Priests.” Moreover, canon 1558 says: “In the causes of which canon 1556, 1557 treat, the incompetence of any other judge is absolute.” In other words, only the Pope and no one else – can judge a Cardinal in doctrinal or disciplinary matters. The Pope’s authority is absolute (est absoluta) in this regard. Unlike the Pope, who has no judge, the Cardinals do have a judge – and it is the Pope alone. Therefore, the Pope alone determines if a “Cardinal…prior to his elevation as Roman
Pontiff, has deviated from the Catholic Faith or fallen into some heresy.”
—–
This means that (at least after 1917, when this Code went into effect) a reigning pope *would have had to declare a cardinal a heretic to make his election invalid*. As Salza notes, “Thus, ecclesiastical law follows Our Lord’s directive: ‘tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector’ (Mt 18:17). While the person in Matthew 18 was publicly suspected of a transgression, Jesus tells us to treat him as excommunicated only after the Church judges the matter.”
—–
One of the consistent errors of sedevacantists is to failing to consider ecclesiastical law, concentrating only on divine law. But, in fact, ecclesiastical law exists, and for good reasons – such as the fact that the Church would be reduced to anarchy if any layman could decide if a validly-elected pope was actually pope based on his private inferences.
—–
There are more aspects of the 1917 Code (which every sedevacantist I know of considers valid) that undermine the sede position; see Salza’s article for details. And, as he notes, “…it is in the best interests of the Catholic Church to know whether we have a valid Pope. Nothing more important for the Church could possibly be imagined. Hence, a declaratory sentence proclaiming a Cardinal’s pre-election heresy “must be given.” If such an ecclesiastical declaration were not required, the Church would never know with certainty whether Divine Law has been violated, and this uncertainty would undermine the Church’s very mission and existence. This also means maintaining the Sedevacantist position (that a given papal election is invalid) in the absence of a declaratory sentence *attacks* the best interests of the Church. ”
—–
We must also keep in mind that two other Piusi have made declarations that might seem to contradict the Bull at hand:
—–
Pope St. Pius X: “None of the Cardinals may be in any way excluded from the active or passive election of the Sovereign Pontiff under pretext or by reason of any
excommunication, suspension, interdict or other ecclesiastical impediment” (Vacante Sede Apostolica, 1904).
—–
Pope Pius XII: “None of the Cardinals may, by pretext or reason of any excommunication, suspension, or interdict whatsoever, or of any other ecclesiastical impediment, be excluded from the active and passive election of the Supreme Pontiff” (Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis, 1945).
—–
Ecclesiastical law exists to prevent anarchy in the Church – exactly the sort of anarchy that sedevacantist communities foster and demonstrate.
—–
Another way to state essentially the same fact is to make the distinction between the Body and the Soul of the Church, as Siscoe does.
Darn it – posted in the wrong place. Sorry about that.
CYPRIAN SAID: “Item 6 of Cum Ex Apostolatus Officio sets forth that “if 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” the election is null and void without further declaration. That means the claimant NEVER BECOMES POPE.”
—–
Can’t you see how silly the results of this exegesis are? “Shall appear” – to whom? No qualifications whatsoever? This is entirely subjective. What if there was a first century Christian who was convinced that since St. Peter had apparently “deviated from the Catholic faith” by denying the Lord or by refusing communion with gentile Christians he was not actually pope?
—–
There must be more to the story – there must be another meaning to “appear”. It turns out there is:
—–
http://www.scripturecatholic.com/feature-articles/Feature_-_The_Errors_of_Sedevacantism.pdf
—–
As Salza notes: “First, the 1917 Code says that the Pope is the sole judge of the Cardinals. Canon 1557, par. 1-2 says: “It belongs entirely to the Roman Pontiff to judge…Cardinal Fathers / Cardinal Priests.” Moreover, canon 1558 says: “In the causes of which canon 1556, 1557 treat, the incompetence of any other judge is absolute.” In other words, only the Pope and no one else – can judge a Cardinal in doctrinal or disciplinary matters. The Pope’s authority is absolute (est absoluta) in this regard. Unlike the Pope, who has no judge, the Cardinals do have a judge – and it is the Pope alone. Therefore, the Pope alone determines if a “Cardinal…prior to his elevation as Roman
Pontiff, has deviated from the Catholic Faith or fallen into some heresy.”
—–
This means that (at least after 1917, when this Code went into effect) a reigning pope *would have had to declare a cardinal a heretic to make his election invalid*. As Salza notes, “Thus, ecclesiastical law follows Our Lord’s directive: ‘tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector’ (Mt 18:17). While the person in Matthew 18 was publicly suspected of a transgression, Jesus tells us to treat him as excommunicated only after the Church judges the matter.”
—–
One of the consistent errors of sedevacantists is to failing to consider ecclesiastical law, concentrating only on divine law. But, in fact, ecclesiastical law exists, and for good reasons – such as the fact that the Church would be reduced to anarchy if any layman could decide if a validly-elected pope was actually pope based on his private inferences.
—–
There are more aspects of the 1917 Code (which every sedevacantist I know of considers valid) that undermine the sede position; see Salza’s article for details. And, as he notes, “…it is in the best interests of the Catholic Church to know whether we have a valid Pope. Nothing more important for the Church could possibly be imagined. Hence, a declaratory sentence proclaiming a Cardinal’s pre-election heresy “must be given.” If such an ecclesiastical declaration were not required, the Church would never know with certainty whether Divine Law has been violated, and this uncertainty would undermine the Church’s very mission and existence. This also means maintaining the Sedevacantist position (that a given papal election is invalid) in the absence of a declaratory sentence *attacks* the best interests of the Church. ”
—–
We must also keep in mind that two other Piusi have made declarations that might seem to contradict the Bull at hand:
—–
Pope St. Pius X: “None of the Cardinals may be in any way excluded from the active or passive election of the Sovereign Pontiff under pretext or by reason of any
excommunication, suspension, interdict or other ecclesiastical impediment” (Vacante Sede Apostolica, 1904).
—–
Pope Pius XII: “None of the Cardinals may, by pretext or reason of any excommunication, suspension, or interdict whatsoever, or of any other ecclesiastical impediment, be excluded from the active and passive election of the Supreme Pontiff” (Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis, 1945).
—–
Ecclesiastical law exists to prevent anarchy in the Church – exactly the sort of anarchy that sedevacantist communities foster and demonstrate.
—–
Another way to state essentially the same fact is to make the distinction between the Body and the Soul of the Church, as Siscoe does.
Sorry about that. I will check out your reply.
Thanks for the reference – I admit I don’t believe I’ve read that page of the CE before.
—–
I am aware that saints taught it was good to pray for the death of a bad pope. I can’t recall who that was offhand. However, such saints surely also prayed for his conversion & salvation. Praying for a person’s death does not by any means imply hatred. St. Rita prayed for the death of her own sons so that they would not commit the mortal sin of murder in avenging their father’s death.
—–
I enjoy your posts, and I apologize for suspecting an anti-SSPX agenda formerly. However, at some point, one must choose a position, rather than entertain them all. 🙂
@ACT: You give me great opportunity to expand my level of patience because you continually insult my intelligence and ignore responses that refute your positions.
Regarding the so-called distinctions I need to learn:
——
The appearance of heresy vs material heresy:
Whether the claimant is culpable (a formal heretic) or blameless
(a material heretic) is irrelevant; he need merely APPEAR to be a heretic or to have deviated from the faith for the purposes of the Bull and in general. Both Pope Paul IV and St. Robert Bellarmine agreed that the loss of office could be triggered by the mere APPEARANCE of heresy. The Bull on its face says that “If 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” then the elevation is null and void without further declaration.
——-
St. Robert stated the following in discussing the Pope Liberius – Antipope Felix controversy:
“Then two years later came the lapse of Liberius, of which we have spoken above. Then indeed the Roman clergy, stripping Liberius of his pontifical dignity, went over to Felix, whom they knew [then] to be a Catholic. From that time, Felix began to be the true Pontiff. For although Liberius was not a heretic, nevertheless he was considered one, on account of the peace he made with the Arians, and by that presumption the pontificate could rightly [merito] be taken from him: for men are not bound, or able to read hearts; but when they see that someone is a heretic by his external works, they judge him to be a heretic pure and simple [simpliciter], and condemn him as a heretic.”
——-
Here, St. Robert recounts how to the Roman Clergy Liberius appeared to be a heretic and was thus replaced by Felix who was true pope for a time. According to St. Robert, the Roman Clergy was correct in what they did because Liberius appeared to them to be in league with the Arians and thus a heretic.
——
To reiterate: the Bull makes no mention of the culpability of the claimant – if he APPEARS to be a heretic or to have deviated from the faith loss of office is triggered automatically. Further, St. Robert excludes an examination of the culpability when he states “men are not bound or able to read hearts”. If the claimant by his external works is judged a heretic he is condemned as a heretic and may be deprived of office.
——
Material vs. Formal Heresy
That distinction is covered above. The controlling issue is whether the Claimant appears to be a heretic – for him to appear to be a heretic he obviously has to espouse heresy. He can’t be a material heretic, a formal heretic, or appear to be a heretic without espousing heresy. Both Pope Paul IV and St. Robert agree the appearance of being a heretic is enough to trigger loss of office.
——-
The Body vs the soul of the Church:
Strictly speaking this distinction is irrelevant – we are only concerned with loss of office/withdrawal of obedience – either may be triggered by the APPEARANCE of holding heresy. Nonetheless, please provide a citation to the authority you are relying upon that willful and with full knowledge the adoption of heresy does not sever one from the body of the Church. For my position that the sin of heresy severs one from the Body of Christ I rely upon Mystici Corpus Christi 23 which states:
“For not every sin, however grave it may be, is such as of its own nature to sever a man from the Body of the Church, as does schism or heresy or apostasy.”
——
Occult vs Public Domain
Anything I claim is relevant to this dispute is based on PUBLIC actions or statements by the papal claimant. I conclude that his public actions and statements give the appearance that he has deviated from the faith or fallen into heresy.
ACT, you are quite the pompous and lying doofus. Now you say that my posts are “a matter of spite”. You are the most judgmental person here, constantly slinging personal insults while claiming that you don’t do so. You are snide, hypocritical and immature (though you apparently think that being snide is being ‘adult’.)
–
Now you judge that sedes are sinful. Hypocrite again – it’s hard to keep up with how often you do that. I can’t address then all.
–
I think your typical prayer of humility goes like this: “Thank you, Lord, that I am so much better than everyone – and so humble about it, too”. Maybe you should be referred to as Frankie Jr.
–
Yes, I charitably refrained from telling you what a pompous egotist you are until you thought you could run your passive-aggressive tactics on me: snide, semi-veiled insults combined with holier-than-thou arrogance. I have been hearing recently of your passive-aggressive kind on Catholic sites, you are the first I’ve actually encountered… using your tactics to try and impose your passive-aggressive ways on others as the only approved way, while whining about your victimhood. As such, you never actually absorb what is said to you, you just obfuscate and get in your needling while claiming that everybody else does that. You claim that being passive-aggressive is being holy.
–
Btw, I don’t think that you yourself are evil, just that you are entirely self-obsessed and selfish. I suspect you’ve spent your life as a high-school civics teacher and that went to your head somehow.
–
Yes, I do enjoy pushing pins in your bag of hot air. You really should thank me.
–
I do understand that you now withdraw from the field because you are being exposed and can’t handle it. C’est la vie.
Okay, Indignus(s). I did read it. Be so kind as to explain what you are pointing out. Frankie is the heresiarch?
–
But don’t answer if you feel that would expose you to the passive-aggressive mini-tirades of you-know-who 🙂
Re: ACT.
–
I have to address one more, this is fun. After ACT spent hours pompously lecturing and trying to stop me from insulting and lampooning Frankie, he says:
================
“Lastly, regarding “censorship”, that word would imply that I’m attempting to silence people. It seems that it is you who is attempting to silence me with your bullying. (It seems the fact that I didn’t back down fueled your anger.)”
================
Maybe to ACT, it depends on what the meaning of “is” is (a la Bill Clinton).
–
ACT, I haven’t been angry all day. I see you as truly amusing. Want to know why?
–
As far as Louie, I bet he’s getting a chuckle out of this. He’s not the feminized, passive-aggressive type. Ever heard of Toby Keith, ACT?
Pope Leo XIII Satis Cognitum:
———
Regarding the necessity of being in the Church to command in the Church:
“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.”
———-
Pope Leo XIII quoting St. Augustine on the importance of the vigilance of the faithful in rejecting heresy and heretics:
“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.”
Heretics are condemned partly by the judgment of the people themselves! And by St. Augustine no less!
——
Although hints were made (by me) that the Bull could be contested as not being infallible or having been superseded by other ecclesiastical law, despite my prompting no one made any arguments along these lines (including you). A suggestion that such an argument can be made, however, does not constitute an argument.
——
The fact that heretics may have held the papal office in the past, if true, is no justification that they should or they actually can hold office. Failure of Church discipline is not an argument or justification for these situations – but merely an explanation on why they occurred.
——-
To review:
——–
– Heretics are outside the body of the Church – Pope Pius XII Mystici Corpus Christi
– Those outside the Church cannot command in the Church – Pope Leo XIII Satis Cognitum
– The appearance of heresy is enough to cause loss of office – Pope Paul IV and St. Robert Bellarmine
– The people themselves have played a role in rejecting heretics – St. Augustine as quoted by Pope Leo XIII.
Whether as a result of the Bull or of these teachings taken together, the position I have advocated for – that a member of the laity can withdraw their obedience from an heretical papal claimant – can hardly be said to have been subverted by any of the arguments presented by the contenders herein.
Dear Catholic Thinker,
Thank you for your kind remarks, (shortly before comment #24), and no need to apologize for any former misunderstandings–it happens all the time when dealing with the written word. Dark suspicions are almost second nature these days, but sincerity and Love for God and His Church shine out to dispel them given time.
—–
We took the last part of your statement as apparent friendly chiding, when you wrote “However, at some point, one must choose a position, rather than entertain them all” , but it got us to thinking about this as a core issue.
We wonder what prompted you to say that.
Could we not remain ideologically just as we are, inquiring after the ideas and thoughts of others who sincerely seek to know and do God’s will, and sharing our research and thoughts while awaiting Divine help for everyone to come to unity of thought about what that is?
—–
And wouldn’t you agree that the persons of even slightly lesser intelligence than most encountered here on Louie’s blog, which seem rather exceptional, would not be likely able to grasp as much as most here do about these issues? Would they also be expected by God to assess all this for themselves, or to pick someone to trust to do that for them in such times where trust is the problem?
—–
And we find it hard to believe Jesus expects His flock to shoulder such heavy burdens as these. St. Paul says not to delve into things too sublime–which we take to mean don’t fret, God will provide all you need.
—-
We recall Our Lord’s words that when His shepherds would fail Him, He Himself would teach. And we know He sent His Mother to help us as we wait for the Consecration of Russia and time of Peace with her triumphant, Immaculate Heart (today’s feast)
Not that there is any harm in seeking truth as all seem to be doing here, but we think we’ve made all the choices we have to make for now, by continuing to keep our Baptismal and Confirmation promises, on a daily basis, seeking holiness and living in love.
–What other choice do you consider is necessary?
CYPRIAN SAID: “The appearance of heresy vs material heresy:
Whether the claimant is culpable (a formal heretic) or blameless (a material heretic) is irrelevant; he need merely APPEAR to be a heretic or to have deviated from the faith for the purposes of the Bull and in general. Both Pope Paul IV and St. Robert Bellarmine agreed that the loss of office could be triggered by the mere APPEARANCE of heresy. The Bull on its face says that “If 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” then the elevation is null and void without further declaration.”
—–
Yes, we’ve seen this quote many times now. I’ve read the bull.
—–
“Appearance” is *subjective* – it is a property of the subject, not the object. It cannot be that a pontiff could lose his ecclesiastical office if he “appeared” to be a material heretic *to just anyone* – that is, if some person, somewhere, thought that he might have said something suspect of heresy, even without culpability. How could the Church function – even in normal times – if this were the case?
—–
How about Pope Liberius or Pope John XXII, for starters. Or St. Peter, for that matter. Could you answer this question: Did St. Peter “appear” (again, to whom?) to deviate from the faith when he publicly denied the Lord? Did John XXII, when he taught the heresy that the blessed do not yet possess the Beatific Vision? No contemporary or subsequent authority of any kind ever claimed that John XXII had lost his office. There are other examples.
—–
Honorius, on the other hand, might have been a formal heretic: however, Bellarmine is among those who denied he was ever condemned at Constantinople.
—–
Bellarmine, once again, also taught that publicly the pope remained pontiff – he retained his ecclesiastical office in the body of the Church – unless and until the cardinals declared him deposed. And, once again, his teaching that heresy results in loss of office privately was never affirmed by the Church, and theologians of equal weight (Suarez) disagreed.
—–
Paul IV’s bull did not mean to put aside ecclesiastical law (nor, incidentally, is it even infallible – it is not formulated as doctrine).
—–
—–
CYPRIAN SAID: “St. Robert stated the following in discussing the Pope Liberius – Antipope Felix controversy:
‘Then two years later came the lapse of Liberius, of which we have spoken above. Then indeed the Roman clergy, stripping Liberius of his pontifical dignity, went over to Felix, whom they knew [then] to be a Catholic. From that time, Felix began to be the true Pontiff. For although Liberius was not a heretic, nevertheless he was considered one, on account of the peace he made with the Arians, and by that presumption the pontificate could rightly [merito] be taken from him: for men are not bound, or able to read hearts; but when they see that someone is a heretic by his external works, they judge him to be a heretic pure and simple [simpliciter], and condemn him as a heretic.’
——-
Here, St. Robert recounts how to the Roman Clergy Liberius appeared to be a heretic and was thus replaced by Felix who was true pope for a time. According to St. Robert, the Roman Clergy was correct in what they did because Liberius appeared to them to be in league with the Arians and thus a heretic.”
—–
Thank you for bringing this up. Who, again, deposed Liberius? THE CHURCH DID. Not you, not I. The highest authority extant outside of the pontiff himself did this. Felix became the pope because he was elected.
—–
(I suppose you are aware that subsequent pontiffs have defended Liberius? The most common belief seems to be that he was simply weak, and excommunicated Athanasius under coercion – not that that was any excuse for his behavior.)
—–
If the College of Cardinals declares Francis to be a heretic, I would not contest their action.
—–
—–
CYPRIAN SAID: “Material vs. Formal Heresy
That distinction is covered above. The controlling issue is whether the Claimant appears to be a heretic – for him to appear to be a heretic he obviously has to espouse heresy. He can’t be a material heretic, a formal heretic, or appear to be a heretic without espousing heresy. Both Pope Paul IV and St. Robert agree the appearance of being a heretic is enough to trigger loss of office.”
—–
It is enough to trigger the loss of office if the Church then deposes him, yes.
—–
—–
CYPRIAN SAID: “The Body vs the soul of the Church:
Strictly speaking this distinction is irrelevant – we are only concerned with loss of office/withdrawal of obedience – either may be triggered by the APPEARANCE of holding heresy. Nonetheless, please provide a citation to the authority you are relying upon that willful and with full knowledge the adoption of heresy does not sever one from the body of the Church. For my position that the sin of heresy severs one from the Body of Christ I rely upon Mystici Corpus Christi 23 which states: ‘For not every sin, however grave it may be, is such as of its own nature to sever a man from the Body of the Church, as does schism or heresy or apostasy.'”
—–
Now we get to the meat of it. One reference is in one of those two articles that I’ve referenced multiple times now. Here you go:
—–
http://www.remnantnewspaper.com/Archives/2013-0315-siscoe-sedevacantism.htm
—–
The Catechism of Pope St. Pius X explains the body and soul of the Church as follows:
—–
“Question: In what does the Soul of the Church consist? Answer: The Soul of the Church consists in her internal and spiritual endowments, that is, faith, hope, charity, the gifts of grace and of the Holy Ghost, together with all the heavenly treasures which are hers through the merits of our Redeemer, Jesus Christ, and of the Saints”.
—–
“Question: In what does the Body of the Church consist? Answer. The Body of the Church consists in her external and visible aspect, that is, in the association of her members, in her worship, in her teaching-power and in her external rule and government”.
—–
Pius’ use of “Body” in MCC was as a different aspect – simply the Church as a whole. He was glossing over the distinction between soul & body as referred to by Pius X, which is, after all, rarely relevant.
—–
Suarez: “**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”.
—–
Even Bellarmine said that even a formal, private heretic does not lose his office: “Occult 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”.
—–
Why is this extremely pertinent (even though we’re only speaking of private heresy)? Because this proves that Bellarmine recognizes the difference between body & soul when it comes to ecclesiastical office. Even he, Saint & Doctor, and sedevacantist go-to theologian, taught that a pope does not lose his office until removed from the *body* of the Church through some valid process of ecclesiastical law.
—–
So, we see that the distinction between “body” and “soul” is quite relevant indeed to the sedevacantist position.
—–
—–
CYPRIAN SAID: “Occult vs Public Domain
Anything I claim is relevant to this dispute is based on PUBLIC actions or statements by the papal claimant. I conclude that his public actions and statements give the appearance that he has deviated from the faith or fallen into heresy.”
—–
Again, what about St. Peter? John XXII? Even Honorius, defended by subsequent popes (Ok; I’ve played both sides of this one in a sense)?
—–
Pope Adrian VI, of course, said this: “It is beyond question that [the pope] can err even in matters touching the faith. He does this when he teaches heresy by his own judgment or decretal. In truth, many Roman Pontiffs were heretics.” _Popes_ were heretics – not anti-Popes. (I suspect he was referring to material heresy, but, as we have seen, even a formal heretic retains his formal office in the Body of the Church unless and until deposed by the Church – *according even to Bellarmine*, the theologian considered most “friendly” to the sedevacantist position.)
—–
Again [Salza], “the 1917 Code says that the Pope is the sole judge of the Cardinals. Canon 1557, par. 1-2 says: “It belongs entirely to the Roman Pontiff to judge…Cardinal Fathers / Cardinal Priests.” Moreover, canon 1558 says: “In the causes of which canon 1556, 1557 treat, the incompetence of any other judge is absolute.” In other words, only the Pope –and no one else – can judge a Cardinal in doctrinal or disciplinary matters. The Pope’s authority is absolute (est absoluta) in this regard. Unlike the Pope, who has no judge, the Cardinals do have a judge – and it is the Pope alone. Therefore, the Pope alone determines if a “Cardinal…prior to his elevation as Roman Pontiff, has deviated from the Catholic Faith or fallen into some heresy.” Ecclesiastic law does not get thrown out the window at the whim of laymen who believe the pope “appears” this or that. If this were the case there would be absolutely no need for ecclesiastical law – it would be entirely extraneous. And the Church would be an anarchist stew.
—–
Could we really believe that either St. Bellarmine or Pope Paul IV intended laymen to, individually, decide if the reigning pontiff “appeared” to be a heretic and then reject or approve of him accordingly? Of course not. The sedevacantist position is the result of selective reading and (it would appear) wishful thinking.
Yes, good point that not all have the intellect necessary to tackle these issues. Every soul is obligated to seek truth with the faculties he has available, of course. No one is judged for that which he is not culpable. (And even most non-Traditionalists attending Novus Ordo Masses are, I think, not culpable, betrayed by their pastors as they have been.)
—–
Regarding staking a position, I meant mainly with respect to sedevacantism, which I believe is a clear error. It is a reaction to the crisis. There is a reason that every major figure in the Traditionalist movement in the past 50 years has rejected it (yes, that is true).
—–
God bless.
Dear bigfred,
Hey, you’re talking to two people who raised teenagers in the nineties and never once needed a marriage counsellor. You really think there’s anyone or anything left in this world that we fear? 🙂
Our point– just doing our usual, breaking into somebody else’s barrage of statements with words from the Church–leaving you guys to decide where any shoes fit and where they don’t.
Nobody on this blog seems to be arguing that the Pope isn’t a heretic, BTW, -e just realized there are more things we’re morally allowed to pray for, than just his conversion. 🙂
I doubt Paul IV would allow laity to judge and depose a Pope. According to Cum Nimis Absurdum he didn’t even allow laity to be around Jews. In fact, if you believe everything Paul IV wrote is infallible then you must also believe Jews should be put in ghettos, wear yellow hats and work slave labor jobs. Sounds like he was quite paranoid… He was even for imprisoning his own Cardinals that he didn’t like. In fact he is said to have stated, “Even if my own father were a heretic, I would gather the wood to burn him”
“Under the ancient Law, the High Priest did not wear the Rational except when he was vested with the pontifical robe and was entering before the Lord. Thus we do not say that the Pope cannot err in his private opinions, as did John XXII; or be altogether a heretic, as perhaps Honorius was. Now when he is explicitly a heretic he falls ipso facto from his dignity and out of the Church, and the Church must either deprive him, or as some say, declare him deprived, of his Apostolic See, and must say as St. Peter did: Let another take his bishopric” [Acts 1]. (2) – St. Francis De Sales
“St. Jerome – in saying that a heretic departs on his own from the Body of Christ – does not preclude the Church’s judgment, especially in so grave a matter as is the deposition of a pope. He refers instead to the nature of that crime, which is such as to cut someone off from the Church on its own and without other censure in addition to it – yet only so long as it should be declared by the Church… So long as he has not become declared to us juridically as an infidel or heretic, be he ever so manifestly heretical according to private judgment, he remains as far as we are concerned a member of the Church and consequently its head. Judgment is required by the Church. It is only then that he ceases to be Pope as far as we are concerned” (John of St. Thomas). (4)
Another question that arises is whether or not a heretical Pope would retain his authority if he had not been publicly declared guilty of heresy by the proper authorities and removed from office. Fr. Paul Laymann, S.J., who also lived at the time of Bellarmine and Suarez, addressed this very point. Fr. Laymann was considered one of the greatest moralists and canonists of his day. He served as a Professor of Philosophy at the University of Ingolstadt from 1603 to 1609, Professor of Moral Theology at the Jesuit house in Munich from 1609 to 1625, and as a Professor of Canon Law at the University of Dillingen from 1625 to 1632. In the following quote, which was written less than 70 years after Pope Paul IV issued the Bull Cum ex Apostolatus Officio, the distinguished Professor of Canon Law wrote the following about a heretical Pope who was being tolerated by the Church:
“It is more probable that the Supreme Pontiff, as a person, might be able to fall into heresy and even a notorious one, by reason of which he would merit to be deposed by the Church [opinion of Suarez], or rather, declared to be separated from her [opinion of Bellarmine]. (…) Observe, however, that, though we affirm that the Supreme Pontiff, as a private person, might be able to become a heretic and therefore cease to be a true member of the Church, (…) still, while he were tolerated by the Church, and publicly recognized as the universal pastor, he would really enjoy the pontifical power, in such a way that all his decrees will have no less force and authority than they would if he were truly faithful.” (5)
“[I]n the first place” wrote Bellarmine, “it is proven with arguments from authority and from reason that the manifest heretic is ‘ipso facto’ deposed. The argument from authority is based on Saint Paul, who orders that the heretic be avoided after two warnings, that is, after showing himself to be manifestly obstinate – which means before any excommunication or judicial sentence (…) Therefore… the Pope who is manifestly a heretic ceases by himself to be Pope and head, in the same way as he ceases to be a Christian and a member of the body of the Church; and for this reason he can be judged and punished by the Church.” (6)
As we can see, according to Bellarmine a manifest heretic is one who remains obstinate “after two warnings”. Such manifest obstinancy reveals pertinacity in the will, which is necessary for a materially heretical statement to qualify as formal heresy in the external forum. By remaining obstinate after a solemn and public warning, the Pope would, in a sense, pass judgment upon himself, thereby showing himself to be a heretic properly so-called. It is for this reason, according to Bellarmine, that the Pope – “who judges all and is judged by no one” – can himself be judged and punished by the Church.
But the question arises: who would have the authority to issue a solemn and public warning to the Pope? The eminent eighteenth century Italian theologian, Father Pietro Ballerini, addressed this very point. He wrote: “The Cardinals, who are his counselors, can do this; or the Roman Clergy, or the Roman Synod, if, being met, they judge this opportune”. Then, after citing St. Paul’s letter to Titus (the same portion St. Bellarmine cited as his authority), Fr. Ballerini added:
“For the person who, admonished once or twice, does not repent, but continues pertinacious in an opinion contrary to a manifest or public dogma – not being able, on account of this public pertinacity to be excused, by any means, of heresy properly so called, which requires pertinacity – this person declares himself openly a heretic. He reveals that by his own will he has turned away from the Catholic Faith and the Church, in such form that now no declaration or sentence of any one whatsoever is necessary to cut him from the body of the Church. (…) Therefore the Pontiff who after such a solemn and public warning by the Cardinals, by the Roman Clergy or even by the Synod, maintained himself hardened in heresy and openly turned himself away from the Church, would have to be avoided, according to the precept of Saint Paul. So that he might not cause damage to the rest, he would have to have his heresy and contumacy publicly proclaimed, so that all might be able to be equally on guard in relation to him. Thus, the sentence which he had pronounced against himself would be made known to all the Church, making clear that by his own will be had turned away and separated himself from the body of the Church, and that in a certain way he had abdicated the Pontificate, which no one holds or can hold if he does not belong to the Church”.
. The following is taken from Elements of Ecclesiastic Law by Sebastian B. Smith, D.D., Professor of canon law.
“Question: Is a Pope who falls into heresy deprived, ipso jure, of the Pontificate?
Answer: There are two opinions: one holds that he is by virtue of divine appointment, divested ipso facto, of the Pontificate; the other, that he is, jure divino, only removable. Both opinions agree that he must at least be declared guilty of heresy by the church, i.e., by an ecumenical council or the College of Cardinals. The question is hypothetical rather than practical”.
“Under the ancient Law, the High Priest did not wear the Rational except when he was vested with the pontifical robe and was entering before the Lord. Thus we do not say that the Pope cannot err in his private opinions, as did John XXII; or be altogether a heretic, as perhaps Honorius was. Now when he is explicitly a heretic he falls ipso facto from his dignity and out of the Church, and the Church must either deprive him, or as some say, declare him deprived, of his Apostolic See, and must say as St. Peter did: Let another take his bishopric” [Acts 1] – St. Francis De Sales
Thanks for posting the additional quotes from the Siscoe piece, James. (I posted only what I thought was the most powerful material for the sake of brevity.)
—–
(As for the Church “tolerating” a pope, one could say we are in that situation!)
@ACT: Thats a good one about Pius XII didn’t actually understand the supposed distinction you are making. He said heresy, apostasy and schism separate one from the body of the Church. I take him at his word.
Your argument about the supposed fact that if a layman makes a judgment about the heretical appearance of a claimant that makes it a subjective determination whereas if competent church authority makes the determination it is an objective determination is totally ridiculous. The objective facts don’t change – they are apparent to both the laity and to competent church authority.
A lot of your argument against the Bull really consists of your subjective determination that no Pope, in making a prudential judgment, would ever empower the laity to withdraw their obedience from an heretical claimant without a formal declaration from the Church. But that’s what the Bull says! It draws no distinction between the categories in 7 and all are equally permitted to withdraw their obedience. Your argument isn’t with me, but really with Pope Paul IV! So this is the second time in your response that you are second-guessing a Pope. You really do need to practice some humility!
Regarding St. Robert that is reading a lot into very little. He didn’t say that the laity could not withdraw their obedience from Liberius until the Roman Clergy acted. Why would the outcome be any different between the laity and the Roman Clergy once it became apparent that Liberius had deviated from the faith?
You really need to take a step back and consider that many poor souls are being actively misled to their ruin by Pope Francis. Pope Francis, in speaking about sodomites, was widely interpreted as confirming them in their sin when he said “who am I to judge?” He apparently counseled a woman in an adulterous second marriage to present herself for communion when she had no firm purpose of amendment to quit the second marriage. This was widely publicized. By so doing he was counseling both the woman and the priest administering communion to commit grave sin. In the context of the bacchanal that is WYD he counseled impressionable young people to make a mess! The list can go on and on! He rejects proselytizing non-Catholics saying it is solemn nonsense. He confirms non-Catholics in their false religions.
——-
Pope Paul IV feared a man like this, and also feared his particular judgment if he did nothing to try to prevent a man like his from being elevated to the papacy. Keep the actions of Pope Francis in mind when you read the introductory part of Pope Paul IV’s bull:
“By virtue of the Apostolic office which, despite our unworthiness, has been entrusted to Us by God, We are responsible for the general care of the flock of the Lord. Because of this, in order that the flock may be faithfully guarded and beneficially directed, We are bound to be diligently watchful after the manner of a vigilant Shepherd and to ensure most carefully that certain people who consider the study of the truth beneath them should be driven out of the sheepfold of Christ and no longer continue to disseminate error from positions of authority. We refer in particular to those who in this age, impelled by their sinfulness and supported by their cunning, are attacking with unusual learning and malice the discipline of the orthodox Faith, and who, moreover, by perverting the import of Holy Scripture, are striving to rend the unity of the Catholic Church and the seamless tunic of the Lord.
1.In assessing Our duty and the situation now prevailing, We have been weighed upon by the thought that a matter of this kind [i.e. error in respect of the Faith] is so grave and so dangerous that the Roman Pontiff,who is the representative upon earth of God and our God and Lord Jesus Christ, who holds the fulness of power over peoples and kingdoms, 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. Remembering also that, where danger is greater, it must more fully and more diligently be counteracted, We have been concerned lest false prophets or others, even if they have only secular jurisdiction, should wretchedly ensnare the souls of the simple, and drag with them into perdition, destruction and damnation countless peoples committed to their care and rule, either in spiritual or in temporal matters; and We have been concerned also lest it may befall Us to see the abomination of desolation, which was spoken of by the prophet Daniel, in the holy place. In view of this, Our desire has been to fulfil our Pastoral duty, insofar as, with the help of God, We are able, so as to arrest the foxes who are occupying themselves in the destruction of the vineyard of the Lord and to keep the wolves from the sheepfolds, lest We seem to be dumb watchdogs that cannot bark and lest We perish with the wicked husbandman and be compared with the hireling.”
——
In light of these ominous introductory remarks you really believe that Pope Paul IV did not intend to give permission to the faithful to withdraw their obedience from the heretical Pope he feared, even when his Bull says exactly that?
Not at all, Bigfred. I used to call Bergoglio Skankie Frankie but Catholic Thinker kicked up a fuss so I stopped. I was referring ‘skankie frankie’s constant insults and how the SV don’t play his game.
p.s. I agree skankie frankie does deserve insulting – if only to keep him a proper level of disrespect in people’s estimation.
p.s. re the ‘holier than thou’ not sure what Fr Hesse has to do with the current state of my soul, but I was waiting for someone, anyone, to make a clear and faithful argument against the sedevacantists, but no one has.
–
p.s. re the ‘dogmatic’ status of VII, Indignus, I hope you are right that I’m wrong:
–
“It was the final session of the Council, the most essential, in which the Pope [Paul VI] was to bestow upon all humanity the teachings of the Council. He announced this to me on that day with these words, ‘I am about to blow the seven trumpets of the Apocalypse.'”
–
–Jean Guitton, ‘Nel Segno dei Dodici,’ interview with Maurizio Blondet, Avvenire, October 11, 1992; qtd. in Atila Sinke Guimarães, Animus Delendi I, Los Angeles, CA: Tradition in Action, 2000, p. 57
–
“Notification” attached to Lumen Gentium expressly states that whatever “the Sacred Synod proposes as being the doctrine of the Supreme Magisterium of the Church must be received and embraced by each and every one of Christ’s faithful” Moreover, anyone who cares to consult the 1965 volume of the Acta Apostolicae Sedis can see at a glance that Paul VI promulgated the gravely erroneous religious liberty text and many others on 8th December 1965 with all the formalities that could be required if he had been a true pope promulgating sound and obligatory truth. Here is an extract: “…we order and command that all that the Council has decided in synod be sacredly and religiously held by all of Christ’s faithful, unto the glory of God… These things we edict and prescribe, decreeing that this present letter must ever be and remain firm, valid and efficacious and obtain and retain its full and integral effects…Given at Rome, under the fisherman’s ring…”
–
since I don’t read latin I cannot ‘at a glance’ look up the ’65 AS and make sure.
p.s.s. bigfred, you might enjoy my poem in the forum called ‘cold-calls of chaos frankie’ – my ‘humble’ response to his argentianian down the phone magisterium.
it’s under ‘general discussion’ – cold-calls. given that it’s been years since i’ve written a poem, although my iambs are pretty messed up, i don’t think it’s too bad for ‘off-the-cuff’.
i might well, be kooky, but that would be sincere kookiness; so given that we get to heaven on intentions and not deeds or prayers these days, does that mean Ahz maiht be saved?
“The declarations in VII insist on its dogmatic status.”
—–
Where are you getting such a thing? It’s difficult to imagine a more false statement about this council. On the contrary, the promulgating pope specifically stating that *nothing* in the conciliar documents was binding on the faithful unless specifically stated – there were no such occurrences.
—–
The documents of Vatican II are infallible only when restarting already established doctrine and dogma (which they do quite frequently). This does not mean they command no assent, since they are documents of a valid ecumenical council promulgated by a pope, but what would be their teachings other than existing doctrine? No one can say, 50 years later! Everyone knows the documents are not only ambiguous but intentionally so.
—–
For doctrine to *exist* it must be specified in precise language – doctrine, by definition, is precise.
—–
It is, of course, the sedes that are under the impression that Vatican II carries much more weight than it does. Their root error is the same as the neo-Catholics – every conciliar document and every papal statements is somehow binding the faithful to some teaching, even if no teaching can be found. This is a mechanism that stands up to no scrutiny by the light of the history & teachings of the Church.
—–
Michael Davies’ “Pope John’s Council” does an excellent job in detailing the various levels of assent to be given to Church teaching, etc. Classic Traditionalist works such as this are the product of much more rigor and sense than sedevacantist websites.
On the contrary, the promulgating pope himself specifically stated the council to be *not* dogmatic – more than once. There are other inaccuracies in this post as well that I will try to speak to another time.
I know, but I make sure to check them out.
James, no I’m not Cyprian, it should be real clear that my level of debate is on a lower class all together. I only have one ‘account’ on Louie’s site – I presume that’s standard, and salvemur is it.
I think this: ” “Sedevacantism” is an inopportune term because it focuses on an effect – that the chair is empty – and not the cause – that the occupant does not hold the faith.” is one of the most straight forward elucidations of SV I’ve come across – so I’ll make sure to site Cyprian if I use it.
@indignus, Bergoglio’s intentions are not provable, but our Blessed Lord gave us a ‘Judgementalism for Dummies’ means of discerning things and people, ‘by their fruits’; by his fruits ‘skankie frankie’ is a protestant in black boots marching his way to perdition and encouraging a generation to follow him so’s he doesn’t have to feel lonely. This man does not hold the faith. This is infuriatingly obvious. But, since VII preaches that intentions and not deeds or fruits matter, go with that then.
a couple of days ago you quoted Bergoglio, I presume with disgust, and his, black is white if i say so, statement. did you judge that to be a pile horse smellies? I did.
p.s. I was talking to James, there but the reply thing put me on shuffle.
At least we can agree on one thing. Nobody who posts here seriously subscribes to the ‘who am I to judge’ bull promulgated by Bergoglio – ‘Bergoglio’ out of charity to those who are superstitiuous about other titles, such as Frankie, or Skankie Frankie, or, indeed, Frank Humblestone.
Thanks for the link, MCM.
–
“Father Lanzetta explains that the teaching of Vatican II is placed on the lines of the Church’s Ordinary Magisterium, without demanding adherence of faith to it. “The most adequate theological qualification on the documents examined by us, salvo meliore iudicio, seems to be that of sententiae teologicae ad fidem pertinentes: questions on which the magisterium has still not pronounced itself definitively, of which negations could lead to placing in danger other truths where truth is guaranteed in its intimate link to Revelation.” (pp. 430-431).” So does this mean that Fr L is right and we can just go, ‘VII – phooey!’ ‘Cause others have told me, no.
–
“…Today, however, there is an attempt to substitute orthodoxy with “orthopraxy”…The international theological publication “Concilium” dedicated its latest number to the theme: From “anathema sit” to “Who am I to judge?”…The authors define orthodoxy as “metaphysical violence””
–
Rome might disagree on our place in the sv continuum here, but I think the neo-modernist-anti-churchists would agree where we are on the “crypto-lefebvrianism” continuum – we are all ‘metaphysical violence – ers’. Don’t know about you guys, but since Christ came with a Sword, It’s kind of comforting to me.
p.s. What ever happened to Frankie Humblestone and his Humblemobile? and his Humbleloafers, and his HumbleF-Bombs?
…and this. From Chartres. 🙂 First time in 50 YEARS, and coming to a parish near you…. 😉
——
http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2014/06/for-first-time-in-nearly-50-years.html
——
” I am the true vine, and my Father is the vinedresser. Every branch in me that bears no fruit he cuts away, and every branch that does bear fruit he prunes to make it bear even more. You are clean already, by means of the word that I have spoken to you. Remain in me, as I in you. As a branch cannot bear fruit all by itself, unless it remains part of the vine, neither can you unless you remain in me. I am the vine, you are the branches. Whoever remains in me, with me in him, bears fruit in plenty; for cut off from me you can do nothing. Anyone who does not remain in me is thrown away like a branch — and withers; these branches are collected and thrown on the fire and are burnt.”
John 15:1-8
—–
Burn baby, burn.
—–
On a PS, 2 Novus Ordo ordinations in the dioceses of Rome this year. That’s right folks, TWO.
“Thank you for your kind remarks, (shortly before comment #24), and no need to apologize for any former misunderstandings”
–
Oh please… Indignus(s), ACT exhibited the typical kind of behavior often seen on blogs: when he bit off mode than he could chew, he then suddenly and for the first time started kissing-up to others here that he habitually treats with condescension. I have seen this very many times before. It’s not kindness, It’s just him looking for allies to save him from the hole he’d dug. If you reread the comments, you’ll see his pattern.
Indignus(s) said: “just realized there are more things we’re morally allowed to pray for, than just his conversion.”
–
I had thought about that a few weeks ago, when there were the stories of his health. But if he were to suddenly kick the bucket, he would instantly assume mythic status and then his like-minded successor would probably be able to ram through any of the liberal changes that the bad guys are pining for.
–
But yes, interesting concept.
AFT said, ” good point that not all have the intellect necessary to tackle these issues”.
–
There is once again the Grand Self-Exalted Emperor of Egotistical Niceness issuing forth forth his passive-aggressive insults. He probably can’t restrain himself, though. I am starting to pity him.
I’ll have to repost this here at the bottom so Indignus(s) doesn’t miss it.
–
===========
–
[initially quoting Indignus’ reply to ACT]
“Thank you for your kind remarks, (shortly before comment #24), and no need to apologize for any former misunderstandings”
–
[now my remark]
Oh please… Indignus(s), ACT exhibited the typical kind of behavior often seen on blogs: when he bit off mode than he could chew, he then suddenly and for the first time started kissing-up to others here that he habitually treats with condescension. I have seen this very many times before. It’s not kindness, It’s just him looking for allies to save him from the hole he’d dug. If you reread the comments, you’ll see his pattern.
–
===========================
–
But you know, for the first time the Grand Self-Exalted Emperor of Egotistical Niceness is at least behaving himself, granted it’s for the wrong reasons.
–
He’s even using smilies?!? That’s the first time I’ve seen that. So he has learned somewhat, at least temporarily.
Yes, salvemur, and I’d wondered what was up when Bussing* Bergoglio pulled the roadside stunt just the other day, since he hadn’t done his humble people’s pope routine for a while. Why resurrect the routine then?
–
Just wait until October when his shmooze offensive goes into ultra high gear.
–
*Bussing = kissing, not public transport
–
====
–
Btw, salvemur, I did see (and understand) your replies to me above. I haven’t visited the forum section yet.
Only two? Unbelievable. But then, the FFI seminarians were dragged off to Rome; that’ll boost the stats.
It’s the feast of Saints Peter and Paul, who proclaimed the True Faith when it wasn’t the slightest bit seasonable, politically correct or safe to do so.
–
Saint Peter and Saint Paul pray for us.
–
“Thou has fed us with bread from heaven, O Lord. Through the prayers of Thine Apostles, keep us from all harm. Through our Lord.”
It is sad to see some of the bickering and internecine fighting going on in this thread. I don’t understand why people should take so personally a comment made from a 100% anonymous person, who you have not seen in your life, nor will you ever do.
–
I am NOT saying we shouldn’t be discussing these issues (sedevacantism, Francis etc). Or even that we shouldn’t discuss them in a virile, passionate way. But the manner in which this is done can potentially be revealing about the true intentions and/or motivations of the commenter.
–
While the devil’s minions are busy at work feverishly battering down the few remaining gates that lead into the Mystical Body that still remain relatively intact (the “Demolition of bastions” spoken of by Card Ratzinger “The great restorer of tradition”) true and faithful catholics are too busy holding at each other’s throats to notice that the enemy is whizzing past as we speak triumphantly entering into the Bride of Christ.
–
I think Salvemur gets the bigger picture we are facing:
–
“At least we can agree on one thing. Nobody who posts here seriously subscribes to the ‘who am I to judge’ bull promulgated by Bergoglio – ‘Bergoglio’ out of charity to those who are superstitiuous about other titles, such as Frankie, or Skankie Frankie, or, indeed, Frank Humblestone.”
–
God help us.
PS I might add that some of the bickering going on in this thread seems puerile to say the least. Good Lord.
It is quite amazing to see you keep going on & on & on long after I started ignoring you. I haven’t seen this kind of personal fixation in awhile, anywhere. It is – very odd.
—–
If you could see past your emotions for half a second, you might have noticed that in my statement about intellect I was echoing a statement by the poster I was responding to. Yes, it is true that there are souls who find the state of confusion in the Church extremely difficult to navigate.
—–
I will now go back to ignoring you. And praying for you, as I did yesterday. I’m off to Mass, and will not let this incredibly childish hostility undermine my peace.
And what about the fact that the bull can’t abrogate ecclesiastical law, especially that defined after it? What about the fact that an individual pope has no power to give the faithful a power they do not possess, binding after the end of his pontificate? What about the fact that this is not even doctrine, and not infallible?
—–
What about the fact that Bellarmine, who is the theologian sedevacantists always use, clearly states that a pontiff, even if he has lost his office in the private sphere due to heresy, still holds his office publicly unless and until deposed by the Church?
—–
What about all of the other evidence here you did not respond to?
My wife, who is the more level-headed one here, has suggested that I reply to this to make some clarifications for you, so I will do that – even though this nonsense is indeed making a mess of the blog.
—–
I need to let you know that I don’t much care what people think of me here. I post what I post in the interests of truth & the Church; God can judge me, for he knows the heart. Nothing you say is going to make me stop commenting here. Not having the time may do that, but not you. Please be aware of that. Please also be aware that in virtually all moderated forums, personal attacks are not tolerated; you wouldn’t last long in one of them with this kind of behavior.
—–
I took IF to task previously for stating that the SSPX are in schism: this is not true and it is a pet peeve of mine, to be honst. I apologized when it became clear that the comment was made in honest ignorance. This is how civil adults behave. I don’t believe there is any grudge here. I don’t believe there is anyone thinking about it except for you.
—–
You are obviously angry with me because I took you to task for stating that you “like” “insulting” the pope. I’m glad I did so. I’d do it again. That sort of thing makes Traditionalists look terrible in the eyes of the world. Instead of meaningfully defending this statement (which isn’t defensible), or just retracting it, you have gone on a personal tirade against me. It is nothing but an invective-filled personal attack that has nothing to do with what I post. It is childish and embarrassing, and it’s making a mess of the comments section here. I urge you to just stop, for the sake of the peace of your own soul. Even if you think you have good reason to detest me, you’ll feel better if you just put it out of your head.
—–
Now, we really are off to Mass.
@ACT: Regarding whether the Bull is or isn’t in effect, I argue that the principles Pope Paul IV relied upon to draft this Bull are still controlling and dictate the same result:
– Heretics are outside the body of the Church – Pope Pius XII Mystici Corpus Christi
– Those outside the Church cannot command in the Church – Pope Leo XIII Satis Cognitum
– The appearance of heresy is enough to cause loss of office – Pope Paul IV and St. Robert Bellarmine
– The people themselves have played a role in rejecting heretics – St. Augustine as quoted by Pope Leo XIII.
Whether as a result of the Bull or of these teachings taken together, the position I have advocated for – that a member of the laity can withdraw their obedience from an heretical papal claimant – can hardly be said to have been subverted by any of the arguments presented by the contenders herein.
——
Regarding the string of quotes provided by JTL, they mainly have to do with the arguments some have made that a Pope has to be warned twice or that once suspected of being an heretic only Church authority can remove him.
——
Regarding warnings, the conciliar Popes have been warned by others in the Church and they have persisted in their errors. Pope Francis has been evidencing heretical ideas about protestant sects and orders for many years now despite public criticism so isn’t he presumed to be a heretic at this point?
——
Regarding the purported necessity of Church Authority to depose the Pope that is contradictory. The Pope is judged by no one. As soon as he deviates from the faith or falls into heresy there is no need to judge him since he has already placed himself outside the Church. That is why Pope Paul IV thought no further declaration was necessary and included item 6(vi) in the Bull.
—–
At times, it appears you also actively mislead. The statement by St. Robert you are relying upon here has to do with occult (secret) heretics and is irrelevant to this discussion. You are using this quote to imply that when St. Robert stated elsewhere that the appearance of heresy in the public forum would deprive one of office he didn’t really mean it. You are acting like the metaphorical lawyer who in attempting to win an argument throws everything into the mix – like throwing spaghetti against a wall – to see if any of it sticks.
——
This isn’t about persuasion – this is about truth. We should be statesmen here, not sophists.
well dear brethren look what you have been up to !!
I think in family bickering is wonderful, to be quite honest.
Here’s a little levity!!
—
and God love you.
Warning; for those who think the SSPX is in schism, take a forty minute walk, get over yourselves, and then return.
Enjoy.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K0N9cHz1A0c
dear A Catholic Thinker,
Just to say I’m making a novena to St. Gerard Majella for you & your wife.considering you mentioned the blessed event coming your way at another time. {mentioned in the below video also by Fr. Alphonsus Maria, BTW.}
dear A Catholic Thinker,
Just to say–to reiterate my gratitude to you , which I addressed to you at another time, which is here linked scroll up–
https://akacatholic.com/the-easy-life/#comments
—
you stepped aside out of an earlier discussion, bc of your concern for my spiritual well-being in response to what you perceived to be a threat to me, considering what I had revealed about myself once. Just wanted to be sure you received my response and to again express my gratitude.
—
To respond with genuine care to another, now–that is Catholic. Peace be to you.
de Maria,
–
I very much appreciate your comments on this blog but here I must firmly and respectfully disagree. There is a big difference between constructive criticism and bickering; the latter is always destructive to the peace within a family in proportion to the degree in which it is practiced. Why can’t we discuss these important issues like adults? What would a newcomer to this blog, perhaps someone weak in the faith and easily scandalised, think when reading some of the comments here? Would they be edified? I don’t think so. To St Augustine is attributed the following quote, and I think we can apply it here:
–
“In essentials, unity; in non-essentials, liberty; in all things, charity.”
dear Edu,
Well, of course I see what you’re saying. Maybe I didn’t read enough? Was it that bad?
—
If you or anyone took my comment as not taking anyone seriously who was negatively affected by poor behavior here, including me, I’m sorry. What you say cannot be argued against.
Within that context though, no one faint hearted is going to get past Mr. V.’s mature humor and what I consider to be refreshing sarcasm to say the least. Mr. V. admits publicly himself not everyone has the stomach for his blog.
—
Some folks are blunt, I, myself, can get highly this and that. {Obviously}
—
Once again, I cannot argue your valid take on this. That said, you just cannot know that someone is going to be turned off by vigorous, strident talk. It might be just what might draw someone in, especially considering the blather of niceness out there. i.e.–not everyone is looking to be bored to the death by another Fr.————ooops, never mind.
In an inclusion I made above at the beginning, I mentioned the Congregation for Religious in general and their perspective on this present topic of both the men and women of the FFI. I found this article from the Remnant Newspaper as a secondary source that may shed some light on this ongoing development: http://remnantnewspaper.com/web/index.php/articles/item/677-crypto-modernist-congregation-for-religious-suspects-nuns-of-being-catholic
Dear salvemur
re: your ps to us above #17
We too hope we are right that you are wrong about this. We go about this process with the hope that God will bless us with the truth, so we can live by it, and hopefully help others who are in search of it.
We may not be able to discern the answers regarding the Popes, but it has not been a problem for us regarding obedience, as we do what they say when we know it to be right, and have never had to disobey. When Rome said go be ecumenical, we spoke with a Hindu and several Protestants, about what we know the Church always taught–their need to convert before Death. We don’t much care if the Pope approves of that or not, and don’t think it’s likely he’ll call us to complain.
-:-)
—
Here’s what we found most recently on the issue you mentioned:
Pope Paul VI:
“There are those who ask what authority, what theological qualification, the Council intended to give to its teachings, knowing that it avoided issuing solemn dogmatic definitions backed by the Church’s infallible teaching authority. The answer is known by those who remember the conciliar declaration of March 6, 1964, repeated on November 16, 1964. In view of the pastoral nature of the Council, it avoided proclaiming in an extraordinary manner any dogmas carrying the mark of infallibility.” (General Audience, December 1, 1966, published in the L’Osservatore Romano 1/21/1966)
——
http://catholicapologetics.info/modernproblems/vatican2/vatican.htm
—–
God Bless you.
Dear salvemur,
We posted a reply just now to your p.s. to us just above #17.
Didn’t want you to miss it, as it may help your search for truth on this, as it did ours.
“appears” to be heretical (in the papal document under discussion): In order for the statement to make sense, to be internally coherent, to be reasonable, to be of any effect – the meaning of “appear” must be taken to be that synonymous with “on its face”, that is the heresy is (without more) manifest. That any interpretation other than heresy is not reasonably admissible, without more.
Thanks much for the kind words.
—–
In about three weeks we’ll know if we have an Anastasia — or a Peter Marcel. 🙂
This whole affair of the FFI is especially difficult for built into the heart and rule of the Franciscan Order is reverence for the Holy Father and the Church of Rome:
The Rule of St. Francis (of 1223)
Chapter 1. In the name of the Lord begins the life of the Friars Minor
The Rule and life of the Friars Minor is this, namely, to observe the Holy Gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ by living in obedience, without property, and in chastity. Brother Francis promises obedience and reverence to his holiness Pope Honorius and his lawfully elected successors and to the Church of Rome. The other friars are bound to obey Brother Francis and his successors.
@Indignus. That’s interesting. I might be splittin hairs to suit myself, but your concept of ‘ecumenical’ belongs to the Timeless Church’s teaching on ‘mission’, not to the second council or the universalist teachings of its popes and their strange prompting; so when you speak of obedience, I would say, correct me if I’m wrong, it has little to do with paying homage to the current person of the pope and everything to do with obeying the Petrine Office established by Christ. This, to me, is exactly what the sedevacantists do – keep and preach the Truth of the Church of Christ, and when the one in the white cassock is blatantly defying this Truth, give him no obiesance at all. And thank God, because if Abp Lefebvre and the men he ordained into the Apostolic Body and Faith had all, instead (and that’s a huge ‘instead’) obeyed Montini and Wojtyla, it is high likely that the Apostolic Body and indeed the Faith would be less than a vestige these days and the false teachings of the council and its white-cassock-wearers would have all but swallowed us up with their error. God always raises up True and mightly bishops to make sure the wormtongue’s who make claims to Christ are seen for what they are and are not followed.
–
How these appalling critters claiming Peter’s Chair can ‘pray’ with false-religionists and not weep over the fact that those they are ‘praying’ with, are, in Truth, be left to drown in their original sin without the Grace of Baptism is mind-boggling. But Wojtyla taught freemasonic universalism with a twist – he taught all humans are now alreadly ‘justified’ (whether they believe truth or lies), by virtue of the incarnation which has somehow made us all defacto Christs whether or not we reject Christ Who is God, and thereby saved. Whereas freemasonry teaches that we are justified by our humanity, regardless of the incarnation of the second-person of the Holy Trinity, and regardless of what we believe or don’t believe. This is very rabbinical. The morning prayer for Jews is to thank God for their soul, ‘which is pure’ – not stained by original or personal sin (this purity, perhaps does not extend to ‘gentiles’).
@Indignus. That’s interesting. I might be splitting hairs to suit myself, but your concept of ‘ecumenical’ belongs to the Timeless Church’s teaching on ‘mission’, not to the second council or the universalist teachings of its popes and their strange promptings; so when you speak of obedience, I would say, correct me if I’m wrong, it has little to do with paying homage to the current person of the pope and his ‘magisterium’ and everything to do with obeying the Petrine Office established by Christ and its Timeless Magisterium. This, to me, is exactly what the sedevacantists do – keep and preach the Truth of the Church of Christ, and when the one in the white cassock is blatantly defying this Truth, give him no obeisance at all. And thank God, because if Abp Lefebvre and the men he ordained into the Apostolic Body and Faith had all, instead (and that’s a huge ‘instead’) obeyed Montini and Wojtyla, it is highly likely that the Apostolic Body and indeed the Faith would be less than a vestige these days and the false teachings of the council and its white-cassock-wearers would have all but swallowed us up with their error. God always raises up True and mightly bishops to make sure the wormtongue’s who make claims to Christ are seen for what they are and are not followed.
–
How these appalling critters claiming Peter’s Chair can ‘pray’ with false-religionists and not weep over the fact that those they are ‘praying’ with, are, in Truth, be left to drown in sin without the Grace of Baptism is mind-boggling. But Wojtyla taught freemasonic universalism with a twist – he taught all humans are now alreadly ‘justified’ (whether they believe truth or lies), by virtue of the incarnation which has somehow made us all defacto Christs whether or not we reject Christ Who is God, and thereby saved. Whereas freemasonry teaches that we are justified by our humanity, regardless of the incarnation of the second-person of the Holy Trinity, and regardless of what we believe or don’t believe. This is very rabbinical. The morning prayer for Jews is to thank God for their soul, ‘which is pure’ – not stained by original or personal sin.
Rorate on the ‘collapse of Catholicism in Latin America’:
–
http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2014/06/the-collapse-of-catholicism-in-latin.html
de maria: I agree. Once upon a time people could ‘speak’ so as to be heard without having the effect of sending people out of the room. I think we need de-‘sensitivity’ training.
Heheh. I don’t mind a bit of ‘puerile’ in the right context and so long as it doesn’t interrupt the ‘adults’ too much.
Dear Edu. I think we can attribute this bickering — at least in part to the “Francis effect”. Bergoglio has been busy sowing the seeds of division and conflict. One of his goals seems to be to create a schism so great that it will rip the Church apart. Of course Vatican II already created a schism — the “rupture” which Ratzinger attempted to deny by covering it up with his totally contrived “hermeneutic of continuity”. The schism in the extraordinary case of VII was on the part of the Church heirarchy which dragged the vast majority of the faithful along with it. But after so many years a “status quo” had emerged. Bergoglio is doing everything in his power to disrupt that “status quo”. He is “rocking the boat” and he doesn’t care if this causes the whole ship to sink to the bottom of the sea. And we scramble about in confusion. And although Bergoglio is the agent, this is another of those poisonous fruits of the VII anti-council.
Dear Salvemur,
you wrote: “so when you speak of obedience, I would say, correct me if I’m wrong, it has little to do with paying homage to the current person of the pope and everything to do with obeying the Petrine Office established by Christ”
Agreed.
—
But do you really consider “obedience” to consist of “paying homage” to the man, ever? Our opinion is that we obey Christ, and the job of His Vicar is to preserve the Truths He taught. If his personal interpretation of them is in error, we have no obligation to follow him into that error. Our rightly formed consciences–according to Church teaching–are to be the final arbiter of our actions in questions like that-where obeying commands are concerned.
—-
You said you may be splitting hairs here, but are you really trying to say that we must make a declaration that the Chair of Peter is currently vacant, in order to ignore an invalid directive that comes from its occupant to the Faithful?
—-
If so, this is where we differ from your line of thinking, with all due respect.
The council documents, we agree, need to be restated, revised, etc, in order to eliminate this modernist idea of false ecumenism and the twisting of the meaning of true religious liberty into indifferentism, and away from guaranteeing the freedom to practice the Only True Faith.
But the fact that those badly worded portions of the documents have been used by many to justify even worse things, makes us more grateful the council was just pastoral, because a future Pope can fix that, and we are allowed to ignore what is bad in it, and warn others of its dangers in the meantime.
——
The point we’re trying to make is that one doesn’t have to be a sede vacantist in order to continue living according to the True Faith, and without being in any sinful disobedience to the authority of the magisterium. So far, they haven’t promulgated the atrocities they appear to us to believe.
—–
And since we don’t feel qualified to judge their status, and there is so much confusion and so many differing views -even about these very obviously intelligent, committed and informed clergy and laity cited so often in these posts, we feel more and more certain that God doesn’t even want us to try to make such definitive judgments, as lay persons.
—-
We have no disrespect for anyone posting here who disagrees with that, and are pretty sure, if we were still raising young children, we would wish for an FSSP near us, for the safety of their Faith, especially when Confessing.
—–
We are currently reading SSPX literature on their reasons for condemning the Novus Ordo, and although we agree with almost all of the criticisms of it, wholeheartedly, we see so many false conclusions being asserted as facts drawn directly from individual opinions, that we so far, are not convinced they are correct. Still, we understand fully, as we said above, why any parent would prefer them to a parish run by modernists, who might corrupt their children.
—–
Cyprian has repeatedly listed the “Appearance” of heresy by the Pope in his list of reasons for personally withdrawing his obedience from him.
We hope to comment further on that in a short while, as we are researching that idea, and have some thoughts to share on it.
But what we are saying for now is that there is no need to formally withdraw one’s obedience entirely, when the rule of conscience applies to these discrepancies between the age-old teachings and current orders.
So we wonder what that concept of withdrawing obedience really means.
Thank you for your ideas on these matters.
——
—-
Dear bigfred,
We’re responding here because it’s very obvious you’ve just used that gifted mind of yours to come up with a string of cleverly insulting epitaphs, only to totally waste it on a false accusation that makes you look like -well, since you say you appreciate straight talk–just what you are describing here, sad to say.
We were the posters A Catholic Thinker was answering in the post from which you extracted those words, obviously removing them from the context in which they demonstrate no such arrogance as you imply. We were complimenting the posters on this blog in a way that they obviously merit in truth–as the conversations are mostly on a level you don’t find in the average newspaper or magazine today, much less in the general public. It takes no arrogance or sense of superiority to note that, and you are smart enough obviously to realize that. So your removal of that context appears to be a deliberately snide, sneaky attempt to discredit a man who is innocent of that charge, to further your ongoing tirade against him.
You are only demonstrating the exact opposite by keeping this going that way.
To quote a normally amusing man we met here,
“YOU go to bed without supper tonight.”
Responding to more of the passive-aggressive attacks posted daily against me by the group’s egomaniacal hypocrite:
–
“You are obviously angry with me ”
–
You are again daring to tell me what is in my mind, hypocrite? I’ve already said that I am not angry, that instead I find you amusing.
–
“because I took you to task for stating that you “like” “insulting” the pope.”
–
There is the typical passive-aggressive double-speak: “took you to task” really means “issued a series of underhanded insults”.
–
“I ’m glad I did so.”
–
You dare to enjoy criticizing me, hypocrite? Or will you come up with some dishonest rationale that ‘being glad’ and ‘enjoying’ are two different things?
–
“I’d do it again.”
–
Then you’ll get more of the same, hypocrite. It is *you* who are stinking up the comments section here with your pompous, passive-aggressive attacks and dishonest double-standards… all a central part of your very un-Christian behavior.
–
It is *you* who are giving the impression that Traditional Catholics are imperious and snooty double-talkers who have no true Christian heart. If Louie were to look at his pageview stats over the past months and find them mysteriously declining, while other anti-Francis sites’ stats are increasing (because Freaky Francis disaffects more and more), then he’d have to look squarely at **you** and your very few supporters as being the reason. You are using his blog for your own egotistical purposes. Grow up and stop your childish ways, you are like a five-year-old who can only think, “I want, I want, I want”.
———————
–
“I need to let you know that I don’t much care what people think of me here.”
–
You pompously thus confirmed that you are all about, “I want, I want, I want”. You certainly don’t care about driving away potential blog followers.
The above is obviously directed to the group’s egomanical hypocrite. I think everybody very well knows who he is: ACT (he that think he gets mistaken as the official spokesperson for SSPX)..
–
Amusing as usual, he also said, “My wife, who is the more level-headed one here, has suggested that I reply to this”. Hiding behind your wife’s skirts? Haha! You certainly do not know who Toby Keith is.
Indignus(s): you can hover your mouse over the clock symbol of any post here that you want to cite, then right-click and copy the link location to use for pasting. Like so:
https://akacatholic.com/the-imprisonment-of-the-ffi-continues/#comment-21538
Here we see that ACT has a hissy-fit and puts on an archetypical display of the passive-aggressive manner of insulting someone, while simultaneously claiming that he is being altruistic:
–
” It is nothing but an invective-filled personal attack that has nothing to do with what I post. It is childish and embarrassing, and it’s making a mess of the comments section here. I urge you to just stop, for the sake of the peace of your own soul. Even if you think you have good reason to detest me, you’ll feel better if you just put it out of your head.”
Here is an example of what the “charitable” and non-judgmental ACT had posted to someone else above:
“I see that once again Cyprian is here badgering commenters with his sedevacantist errors.”
–
Dear bigfred,
Do you by any chance suffer from Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder?
or have you just not heard the definition of insanity, i.e.
repeating the same actions over and over and over and expecting a different result? 🙂
Dear bigfred,
Brother in Christ, you’re making yourself look more and more obsessed and foolish with each additional posting on that subject. The sheer number of them is doing that. It’s looking like the spite and malice you were accused of, is driving it. Please stop, so we all can get on with more meaningful discussions.
Sincerely in Jesus’ Holy Name
Dear bigfred,
We just spotted this. Thank you very much, it will be of great help.
From: https://akacatholic.com/the-imprisonment-of-the-ffi-continues/#comment-21527
——————
It never ends from ACT:
ACT: “It is quite amazing to see you keep going on & on & on long after I started ignoring you.”
–
Let me translate his doublespeak: when he falsely promises over and over that he will be “ignoring”, that means he wants to get in some more underhanded insults, then try to forestall any response. He cannot even fathom that he contradicts himself within in one single sentence, breaking his promise while talking about his promise. Yet he dares to brag about his supposed “intellect”?
————————————————–
ACT: “I haven’t seen this kind of personal fixation in awhile, anywhere. It is – very odd.”
–
There is perpetual hypocrisy again: he himself is fixated on trying (and failing) to counter most of what I say here, even my lampooning of Freaky Francis. Having registered his objections previously, he could have left it go at that. But no, instead he appoints himself to be the censor on somebody else’s blog — even gleefully threatening above that he’ll “do it again”.
–
More transparent hypocrisy from him: when I respond to his insults, that is “fixation”. When he responds to post more insults, that is not.
—–—————————–
ACT: “If you could see past your emotions for half a second”
–
There is yet another display of his style of snide insults, insinuating that I am driven by “emotions”. He thus disparages my motives and also once again dares to assume that he knows my motives (which violates his own precept, thereby displaying his hypocrisy again).
——————————
ACT: “you might have noticed that in my statement about intellect I was echoing a statement by the poster I was responding to. Yes, it is true that there are souls who find the state of confusion in the Church extremely difficult to navigate.”
–
I have to laugh again, but that is certainly *you* 🙂
—–—————————
ACT: “I will now go back to ignoring you. And praying for you, as I did yesterday. I’m off to Mass, and will not let this incredibly childish hostility undermine my peace.”
–
In the passive-aggressive world of ACT’s hypocrisy, saying “this incredibly childish hostility” is somehow not being insulting.
–
The fact is, ACT, that I am dissecting your dishonest words in exactly the same way that I have been doing with Francs and Dolan and other double-speakers, here and on other blogs.
–
He also once again has demonstrated his pattern: getting in his insults, then declaring that he will be “ignoring” which is his stratagem to try and forestall any response to his insults. And he dares to call anyone else “childish”?
–
But then, it’s “all about me, me, me” and “my, my, my” for you, isn’t it. ACT?
Do you now presume to insult me, Indignus?
–
While ACT repeatedly goes at length, posting his snide insults ot me, you didn’t respond to him that way, did you? In oyr mind, what gives you the right to be insulting me?
–
In fact, your insults to me about Francis are what might have spurred ACT to begin his own assaults.
Thanks for the link. Impressive statistics of the Church development in Latin America. The conclusion is worth repeating:
In the aftermath of the Second Vatican Council, whose influence in Latin America was widely and deeply felt by all the faithful in the region since the beginning, in particular by way of radical and immediate liturgical upheaval and of the various “Latin American conference documents” (Medellín, Puebla, Santo Domingo, Aparecida), it can only be said that, as the Latin American Church insisted on a poorly-understood and anti-traditional version of Christian poverty, making what the hierarchy thought would be a “preferential option for the poor,” the poor made a preferential option for Protestantism. As the Church abandoned traditional spirituality and worship for mundane politicized concerns and liturgy, many faithful looked for authentic spirituality wherever they could find it. They found it elsewhere.
Dear bigfred,
We doubt whether anyone on this blog would “presume to insult you” after seeing what you’ve been up to after taking offense to A Christian Thinker yesterday.
—-
You may recall your making comments in previous posts, about the need for people on Louie’s blog to have “thick skins” and making the statement that you have less of a problem in that area, having been on political sites prior to this.
—-
We got the impression from those words, that you would take more than the average amount of personal chiding, or even corrections, without any overboard reactions.
—–
Anyone can see from reviewing the last day’s posts, that A Christian Thinker was not spending his energy replying to you with name-calling designed to insult and aggravate you more, but appears clearly to have been attempting repeatedly to answer your accusations with reason, designed to calm you and reverse the agitation you kept exhibiting in your replies.
—–
The number of posts you made after that, without any response from him, seems to demonstrate an unwillingness to let it go, that reached an obsessive height. Hence our questions to you are not to attack you personally, but to hopefully get you to laugh it all off and put it away. What you are continuing seems a selfish use of the space Louie provided for reasoned discussions.
—–
We’re sorry you took it as a personal attack on you, it isn’t. We hope you will revise that opinion that our criticisms are in any way one-sided. Your actions keep causing re-actions that are legitimate. They amount to bully-techniques.
And we don’t like bully techniques.
p.s.
Our apologies to A CATHOLIC THINKER for mistakenly referring to you as A Christian Thinker…unintentional error
St. Augustine’s sermon from today’s Liturgy of Hours
…Ev?en in the midst of this life of tears and tribulations, what happiness, what great joy it is to realize that we are God’s flock!
You are the Shepherd of Israel…The Guardian of Israel will not slumber, nor will He sleep….He keeps watch over us when we are awake…when we sleep.
—-
What are goats doing here in the flock of God? …goats though destined for the left—mingle with those on the right. They are tolerated for now, but will be separated later. In this way the patience of the flock develops and becomes like God’s own patience. For it is He who will do the separating.
—–
Dear Lord, we acknowledge that sometimes we are the goats and other times act more like your sheep, help us in all our weaknesses to become more like You, and to be patient with one another, out of love for you. Amen.
Dear Catholic Thinker,
We didn’t yet have time to view your link with this one, so pardon us if our points are already answered in it.
We too, thought about Peter’s public denial in relation to this discussion on Papal Heresy, and had to dismiss it as not applicable for a couple of reasons
1. His lies were based on personal cowardice–fear for his life–and not really a declaration of his true beliefs or any rejection of Christ that was demonstrated before or after that time. More impulsive, even though predicted by Jesus.
2. We didn’t know when, exactly Jesus made him Pope (or the Rock), and
3. The Apostles were told to go and wait for the coming of the Holy Spirit on Pentecost, when they were obviously filled with His Grace and perhaps even endowed with the Charisms we now recognize contribute to Papal Infallibility?
Just some ideas to consider…
2.
Comments are closed for this post. Take a look at the latest post re: Blog Comments.