Over the past month, I’ve posted several articles in defense of the Sovereign Rights of Christ the King, in particular as reflected in the eminent freedom of His Church from the dictates of civil rulers in matters pertaining to her mission. This post will be far briefer.
During a recent press conference (via video, of course), Italian Prime Minister Giuseppe Conte commented on his decision to continue his nation’s ban on public Mass, saying:
For weeks the Church has been trying to convince the government to allow the celebration of the Holy Mass, but for scientists it is still too risky.
This one sentence represents what certainly appears to be the mindset of most self-identified Catholics today – the government is in control of such matters, and so the most any churchman can do is try his best to influence the civil authority’s decisions.
This realization is causing many Catholics the world over to ask, Since when does the State have the authority to dictate terms to the Church?
Though typically uttered in a rhetorical sense, there is a definitive answer. Here, I will provide it; along the way, we’ll also discover both where and how.
When: December 7, 1965
Where: Vatican City
How: The Second Vatican Council’s Declaration on Religious Freedom
But wait! That document is all about demanding the very religious freedom we’ve lost!
This right of the human person to religious freedom is to be recognized in the constitutional law whereby society is governed and thus it is to become a civil right … Therefore, the right to religious freedom has its foundation not in the subjective disposition of the person, but in his very nature. In consequence, the right to this immunity continues to exist even in those who do not live up to their obligation of seeking the truth and adhering to it and the exercise of this right is not to be impeded, provided that just public order be observed. (DH 2)
Pay close attention to what you just read, first, by making note of who is being addressed:
The Council is speaking directly to the State; that is, to the civil authorities that govern. The Declaration continues by making it perfectly clear to the State that the right to religious freedom most certainly can be impeded when doing so preserves just public order.
And who exactly is empowered to decide how best to preserve just pubic order? If you answered, “the State,” you are correct.
More could certainly be said about the conciliar text, but in the interest of keeping it simple, we’ll stop here.
CONCLUSION: If you, like so many other Catholics throughout the world, have been wondering, Since when does the State have the authority to dictate terms to the Church? please allow me to clarify:
The State never has, and never will, have authority over the Holy Roman Catholic Church. The conciliar church, by contrast, granted to the State the right to impede it from carrying out its activities in the name of public order.
Today, we are simply witnessing the results of that act.
If there was ever any question in your mind as to whether or not the institution presently operating in Rome under the direction of Jorge Bergoglio – the same that gave us the Second Vatican Council, the Novus Ordo, and an avalanche of erroneous proclamations since – is the Holy Roman Catholic Church, hopefully recent bitter experiences, by the grace of God, have served to open your eyes.
I posted this comment under an earlier post on this blog entitled “SSPX: Defending its own no matter how wrong”. I’m reposting it, with a minor edit for clarity’s sake, because I think it is directly relevant to the issue at hand here. Here it is:
It’s all fine and good to assert that the church is not subject to the purely secular authority and is even the watcher of the secular realm.
But what if the church- the human institution, that is- goes awry and into the wrong? For example, by promulgating a faith which is at odds with both reason and revelation as preserved in Tradition?
Or, what if the church is found to be engaged in great scandals involving behavior which is directly contrary to natural law- like covering up the abuse of children and adolescents on a large scale?
What then? Who watches the watcher then?
Louie, you’re one of the valiant few speaking up on this. I salute you.
Where I am, the SSPX is even more pitifully neurotic and enslaved to the state than the FSSP. I’ll thus be going to the FSSP here on Sunday so I don’t have to register etc., and for other reasons.
Related, hear Tucker’s words near the end of this video:
Pitiful. Just plain pitiful.
That is an astute question, NobisQuoquePeccatoribus, and the answer is suggested in the last paragraph of this post.
The Church – as in then true Church of Christ – simply cannot promulgate a faith which is at odds with both reason and revelation as preserved in Tradition. She never has and never will. She is a Holy Mother!
The “conciliar church,” on the other hand, does so with abandon. The advent of an imposter church, a counterfeit of the true Church, which presents itself as the Catholic Church, has long been predicted. It’s here. It’s in Rome. Jorge Bergoglio is its current leader. It’s false doctrines make that much plain to those who, by the grace of God, have eyes to see.
Thanks for your questions!
Thank you for taking the time replying to my post, Mr. Verrecchio. I appreciate that.
I have one question which follows, I think logically from what you wrote both in your comment and in your original blog post:
If there is a true visible, institutional church somewhere out there in the world that the “conciliar”, “impostor” one mimics, where is it to be found?
Dear Sir. Just fantastic. Thank you and God Bless you
The Apostolic Succession is contained within the Roman Catholic Rite of Holy Order to diaconate, priesthood, and episcopal consecration wherever the valid Rite as codified by the Council of Trent is being used without a break in continuity. That is where the true Church is! Deo gratias!
P.S. Thank you, Mr. Verrecchio, so very much.
Nobis: To answer your question “where is a true, visible church”, I suggest you read this article:
What we can definitely say is that the institutional church in Rome cannot be the true Roman Catholic Church because it does not contain its four marks, one, holy, catholic and Apostolic, it has not confirmed but incorporated heresies into its teachings, the documents promulgated in Vatican II are not clear but ambiguous which is a clear sign they are not to be trusted, and the continuous and harmful to the faith and to the soul changes since that council could not be something the true Catholic Church could ever approve of.
Where did this heresy that there is a right to religious freedom adopted in Vatican II come from?
Non other than John Courtney Murray:
Fr. John Courtney Murray, SJ, was a modernist American Jesuit who introduced a new teaching in Catholic Church-state relations in the 1940s, and this novelty was in clear opposition to the official Catholic doctrine, clarified by Popes Gregory XVI, Pius IX, Leo XIII, and Pius XII. The true teaching on Church-state relations, that of the Catholic confessional state, was so well-known and so clear that virtually every dogmatic theology textbook in seminaries around the world expounded the very same teaching in the same terminology: that the ideal is a Catholic state, and this Catholic state must be indirectly subject to the Church.
Murray’s biggest antagonists in the United States were Fr. Francis J. Connell, CSsR, Mgr. George W. Shea, and Mgr. Joseph Clifford Fenton, all teaching at the Catholic University of America at the time. In addition, Fenton was the editor of the American Ecclesiastical Review, a magazine for clergy and laity that prided itself on defending orthodox Catholic teaching in strictest obedience to the Holy See. Fenton’s review published a substantial amount of the debate with Murray in its pages in the 1950s.
Cardinal Ottaviani, then Pro-Secretary of the Holy Office, came to Fenton’s defense in a lecture given at the Lateran University on March 2, 1953, though the controversy continued. In 1954, Cardinal Giuseppe Pizzardo, then Secretary of the Holy Office, ordered Murray to retract certain published errors on the topic, and by 1958, the Holy Office was preparing an official condemnation of Murray and also Jacques Maritain (another major thinker behind Vatican II) — it was only the death of Pope Pius XII on October 9 of that year that prevented publication and enforcement of the condemnation, since the Church became eclipsed with the rise of John XXIII and the Vatican II Church.
It is quite telling that the author of the above snippet, Joseph M. White, admits that Fenton’s position — which was simply the orthodox and mandatory Catholic position before the council — has since been “eclipsed” and that Murray’s position was “unorthodox” and “dissenting” but has since become the teaching of Vatican II. This is exactly what we’ve been trying to show at Novus Ordo Watch: that the Vatican II Church is a false church preaching a false doctrine in contradiction to the Roman Catholic teaching before John XXIII.
Forget the fabled “hermeneutic of continuity”, folks. It is a sham. The reality is the contradiction between the two religions: Only one position can be true – the other is false.
“The Censuring of John Courtney Murray” by Robert Nugent, The Catholic World (Jan/Feb and Mar/Apr 2008)
John Courtney Murray: Theologian in Conflict by Donald E. Pelotte (NY: Paulist Press, 1975)
“Catholic Principle and the American Experiment: The Silencing of John Courtney Murray” by Joseph A. Komonchak, U.S. Catholic Historian 17 (Winter 1999): 28-44.
The Diocesan Seminary in the United States by Joseph M. White (IN: University of Notre Dame, 1989)
Duties of the Catholic State in Regard to Religion by Cardinal Alfredo Ottaviani (March 2, 1953)
“But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach a gospel to you besides that which we have preached to you, let him be anathema.” (Gal. 1:8)
“When religion is manifested by external acts and, in a special manner, by a cult or rite, the ecclesiastical and civil authorities have the right and duty to prohibit those acts which are harmful to the social good. […] Consequently, the error of Catholic Liberals is deservedly condemned, because they contend that full liberty is to be given to everyone and that error is to be repressed only by an exposition of truth. […] …if we posit the fact that the good of [a non-Catholic] society demands that the various kinds of divine worship enjoy the same serenity as the true religion, then what today is called freedom of conscience and of worship can be tolerated. Therefore, the Roman Pontiffs do not absolutely condemn these freedoms; but they do forbid that these liberties be considered as rights which must be granted to error or to false religion.” (A. Tanquerey, Manual of Dogmatic Theology, vol. 1, par. 280.d; 281.a.2; 281.b.2)
The Conclave of October 1958: Roncalli takes over and begins the Vatican II Church
Fr. Sylvester Berry warns in 1927: “Satan will set up a False Church”
I am fully in favor of the Priests being able to offer Mass during these times, and anyone who wants to attend should be able to do so.
That said, I would also being favor of requiring anyone who willingly chooses to break quarantine guidelines by going to Mass should be required to sign a waiver that releases the taxpayer-funded National Health Service of Italy from providing any Covid related care. You want Caesar’s health care, fine, follow Caesar’s health guidelines. If you want to do otherwise, that is fine too, but don’t come crying to Caesar if you get sick. Mark 12:17
BTW, this is the same attitude I have about people who refuse to wear motorcycle helmets or fasten their seatbelts.
“What we can definitely say is that the institutional church in Rome cannot be the true Roman Catholic Church because it does not contain its four marks, one, holy, catholic and Apostolic.”
Actually, I think you’re quite right in your description of the church based in Rome calling itself the “Roman Catholic Church”…with the exception of the word “Apostolic”.
The church based in Rome is most definitely “one”. That is to say it is united to the authority in Rome, more or less.
It is “holy” in the sense that it is “set apart”- which is the most absolute sense of the word itself.
It is also “catholic” in the most absolute, abstract sense of the word. That is to say that one can find the Novus Ordo and all that comes with it in virtually any corner of the world.
But is it “Apostolic? No. Very much not so.
Forgive me. I made a typo.
“Right” should read as “wrong”. Here’s my correction. Sorry.
“Actually, I think you’re quite wrong in your description of the church based in Rome calling itself the “Roman Catholic Church”…with the exception of the word “Apostolic”.”
I’m reposting my reply to Katherine for the sake of clarity. I apologize for any confusion.
“What we can definitely say is that the institutional church in Rome cannot be the true Roman Catholic Church because it does not contain its four marks, one, holy, catholic and Apostolic.”
Actually, I think you’re wrong right in your description of the church based in Rome calling itself the “Roman Catholic Church”…with the exception of the word “Apostolic”.
The church based in Rome is most definitely “one”. That is to say it is united to the authority in Rome, more or less.
It is “holy” in the sense that it is “set apart”- which is the most absolute sense of the word itself.
It is also “catholic” in the most absolute, abstract sense of the word. That is to say that one can find the Novus Ordo and all that comes with it in virtually any corner of the world.
But is it “Apostolic? No. Very much not so.
I tried to post the word “right” wtih strikethrough font in my edit. It didn’t work. I’m sorry for any confusion.
The correct word is “right”. I think that the Church in Rome is most definitely one, holy (in that it is set apart) and that it is catholic (universal).
It is most definitely not grounded in the Apostolic Tradition however.
That’s the real crux.
…we’ve been trying to show at Novus Ordo Watch…”
Can you also show that the the infallibility of the Pope is solidly based in Apostolic Tradition?
Not sure what you’re trying to say.
Looks like we’ve got an Old Catholic on our hands
Ah, Novus Ordo Watch, that glorious fountainhead of truth and unbiased objectivity
“To answer your question “where is a true, visible church”, I suggest you read this article:
I’m not sure what the author of that forum post you linked is trying to say. I don’t see how it addresses the question I posed to Louie.
I should add that don’t think the author is using the term “common sense ” with the same meaning that Aristotle and Aquinas utilized the term. He’s appropriating the term and applying a meaning to it which neither Aristotle nor Aquinas intended for it.
That’s true but ignores his penultimate paragraph.
Vermeullarmine – While I don’t identify as an “Old Catholic”, and I certainly have never “gone to church” with any of them, I have come to have a kind of sympathy with them inasmuch as they rejected the hyperpapalist ideology formalized and canonized by Vatican I.
I wouldn’t be too harsh on NOW. The general tone there tends to be a bit shrill, overbearing and self-righteous. But that website is a pretty good resource and repository of information in spite of all that.
The SSPX has utterly and completely capitulated to the conciliar church. At our chapel, they are asking us to sign up for Mass because they are required to keep a record of the attendees per the city order!
Whatever the city wants the city gets. In Maryland, Holy Communion was banned by the governor and the Society chapel there complied. It’s unbelievable. Perhaps the reason the recent unveiling of their horrific crimes is coming to light is because they have denied the sovereign rights of Christ the King. The facade is crumbling and what we are seeing is that they weren’t really guardians of Tradition after all.
Dear St John Chrysostom when asked by his parishioners ,”What did Jesus mean when He said it would be worse than Sodom and Gomorrah in the End Time ?”, responded by stating that even His Ministers would become sexually perverted.
Tradition is gone with Apostasy. Therefore, it could not be found in Rome or in the SSPX either.
ABS, is that what you said to Bishop Barbarito when he had his toadees read his letter accusing the whistle blower Fr John Gallagher of being “insane” at every Mass to coverup his own negligence ?
… which was defined dogmatically by Pope Pius IX at the First Vatican Council.
Don’t be such a snow flake, Sarto. The SSPX has apostolic succession. No other group has it. So stop the nit picking!
The SSPX is going to end up being the Church. If you know of any other candidates, now is the time to add input that has meaning. In Portugal will the Faith be preserved. The SSPX is there awaiting orders.
Vermeullarmine- consider what the implications of personal infallibility are:
It would mean that God overrides, suspends or annihilates the intellect and free will of a human being- an individual given a designation of Pope by other human beings- and renders that person into a sort of oracle.
Now consider this: intellect and free will are the very essence of a human being. We’re God were to temporarily override, suspend or annihilate those core parts of one’s humanity, He’d be performing an act of un-creating. God is a creator- indeed He IS THE One Creator. This is to say that He brings things into being from non-being. He doesn’t first create things which are in His
image and likeness like individual human beings and then later change His mind and annihilate them. Sure, all creatures are absolutely imperfect and finite in relation to Him. But non-being isn’t a thing, and its therefore an absurdity to suggest that God “adds” non-being to any creature in any manner. Which is exactly what He’d be doing to the intellect and free will of a man designated pope if infallibility were a thing: He’d be essentially annihilating him.
BTW, Vermeullarmine. Using an argument from authority such as “Vatican I dogmatically defined it” is the weakest sort of argument.
That is, of course, unless you believe that ecumenical synods are, for lack of a better way of describing it, a sort of seance in which The Holy Ghost is channeled and possesses men, first and foremost The Pope, in order to reveal up-until-then occult dogmas like papal infallibility.
But that notion find no source in Apostolic Tradition. Furthermore it would also be otherwise ahistorical and lastly completely ridiculous.
Dear Sweepy. The letter of the Bishop read at Mass did not say the priest is insane.
O, and ABS never said Dear Sir. Just fantastic. Thank you and God Bless you to Bishop Barbarito but facts and truth have never prevented you from exercising your obsessions.
You require lies and imagined scenarios for you to continue to bear false witness against a faithful catholic.
Sweepy, keep it up, satan is pleased.
Brainless, You hop on every Catholic Blog and defend this Bishop with your lies and it really is sickening.
” Bishop Barbarito kept Worczak in active ministry until 3/03. Parishioners said they were not informed as to why he was removed. The diocese offered to pay for counseling (past or future) but refused to admit to liability, saying the statute of limitations had passed. On diocese’s list 11/13/18.”
“ABS, you are posting all over these blogs on this story defending a Bishop who told everyone this priest is insane.
I am also in the Diocese and wonder why both the Sheriff and Detectives are raising Fr Gallagher’s quick actions in reporting the hx pederast’s groomer of male youth.
Your posts are like so many other Catholics I have known who liked or disliked a priest based on nothing but sentiment without the hard facts.”
ABS……..my neighbors and priests I know along with the PBC Sheriff wo wrote to the Vatican were ALL disgusted with the slander of the “insanity” letter read at every Mass against Fr John Gallagher and FYI the Diocese ONLY won against his lawsuit for slander because the Diocesan Lawyers pleaded separation of Church and State re: Barbarito and other Bishops get away with their cover ups when Judges do not want to be accused of contradicting the Constitution……
Thus, Good priests who blow the whistle on their pervert enabling Bishops are silenced !!!
ABS, get lost pro sodomite troll.
Yes ABS Satan IS pleased with stupid parishioners like yourself defending a Bishop as “holy” who harbors sexually abusive clerics and then LIES about it. Here Barbarito claims he did “background checks” ? He fails to admit all Bishops are entitled to and get files on every priest that comes into their Diocese from the previous Diocese where they were in.
“In August 2018, Pennsylvania named 300 priests accused of sexual abuse in a bombshell grand jury report. Monsignor Thomas Benestad was on that list. According to the Diocese, Benestad relocated to Boca Raton in 2007 after a medical leave and assisted at Ascension Catholic Church on Federal Highway in Boca for two years. They say he passed background checks, and it wasn’t until 2011 they received word of the allegations and he was ordered to refrain from all forms of Catholic ministry.”
Barbarito refused to release the names of credibly accused priests in his Diocese …….why?
You are as insane as the priest you defend.
Brainless, You hop on every Catholic Blog and defend this Bishop with your lies and it really is sickening.
Everyone reading this thread can see it is you who introduced this off topic controversy.
ABS just made the mistake of responding to you.
From now on ABS will simply ignore your obsessional insipidity
“It would mean that God overrides, suspends or annihilates the intellect and free will of a human being- an individual given a designation of Pope by other human beings- and renders that person into a sort of oracle.”
Couldn’t this same line of logic be extended to Joshua and his infallible interpretation of dreams, the prophets, and the other inspired writers of Scripture?
I don’t think your particular implication necessarily follows regarding infallibility, nor do I think the quality of infallibility is equivalent to an act of “un-creating”.
“Couldn’t this same line of logic be extended to Joshua and his infallible interpretation of dreams, the prophets, and the other inspired writers of Scripture?”
Yes. Without question.
The OT isn’t completely literal/historical anyhow. It’s basically an admixture of history, legend, myth, verse, etc.
But that’s a whole other issue entirely which I don’t wish to delve into. Not in a combox anyhow.
When Our Lady of the Rosary returns to Fatima a seventh time, it will be at the SSPX chapel there.
NQP, provided that certain conditions are met (I believe there are four: intending to speak infallibly, making it known that one intends to speak infallibly, speaking ex cathedra, and speaking on matters of faith or morals) a Pope does indeed have the right and the ability to define certain dogmas. Nor can a Pope declare as dogma something that directly contradicts earlier Church teaching. The question of free will is nonsensical here: a Pope can choose to clarify some point of doctrine through a dogmatic declaration, or he can choose not to. And through the whole history of the Church, the Holy Ghost has not permitted the Pope to make a single dogmatic declaration that is heretical or otherwise directly contradicts the doctrines of our faith as found at least in embryonic form in the Scriptures. I hope this clarifies things.
Brainless Troll, it may appear I am “off topic” , but we both know I am revealing who you really are so the decent Catholics on this blog will not engage with Bishop Barbarito’s Toadee who defends the indefensible.
I AM INSANE along with Fr John Gallagher ????
So says Barbarito’s friend ABS……
I tend to agree with you Rushintuit.
If I ever spoke harshly to in the past, Akita, I’m sorry!
Protecting perverts is nit picking?
Pardon me, but you’re a idiot. Our Lord setup our salvation using imperfect individuals. All the more credit to Our God. If you didn’t have an internet, you’d have no life at all. Careful, you’re about to throw eternal life away too!
“The OT isn’t completely literal/historical anyhow. It’s basically an admixture of history, legend, myth, verse, etc.
But that’s a whole other issue entirely which I don’t wish to delve into. Not in a combox anyhow.”
And… just like that you make yourself suspect.
But for the sake of clarity, it’d be good to know.
Where do you stand on the Genesis Account, and the condemned Heresy of heliocentrism?
Nit picking? According to the holy cult of the SSPX:
The Novus Ordo Missae is valid and sometimes good.
Novus Ordo ordinations are valid.
Novus Ordo confessions are valid.
Novus Ordo annulments are valid, unless someone has doubts.
The new rite of episcopal consecrations are valid.
Add to that, they have homo pedophile priests who are being protected by their superiors.
So…what exactly makes them different from the Novus Ordo?
And no, they are not going to end up being the Church. We are watching them commit suicide in real time. They will go down with everyone else and then it will be time for the restoration.
You’re a flipping idiot.
Those imperfect individuals not only ruined the lives of those entrusted to their care, but also their souls. How many have lost their faith? It is obvious you use the internet–how else do you get to this blog? You blame God (or give credit to God) for these imperfect individuals. Strange!
You may not make it. I know your type, nothing is ever good enough. You’re bitter. Your daddy wanted a son but got you instead. Seek the help of a professional.
Not that I can recall Rush. I don’t comment much here.
I think the Church & State distinction is somewhat overstated. If the State includes Christian governors, Christian citizens, and Christian laws, then the State is part of the Church and vice versa. What we’re really talking about is the purview of two bureaucracies: the clerical bureaucracy and the civil bureaucracy. In modern states it’s the civil bureaucracy which controls public space, and since liturgy is by definition a ‘public act of worship’, it’s the civil bureaucracy which judges whether that space should be open or not.
>>> The SSPX is going to end up being the Church.<<<
What are they now? Catechumens?Candidates?
Catholics in training? Potential prospects? The junior league?
They’re no better than FSSP and conciliar church. Like the burnt incense before the idols, they’ve bowed down and left their grain.
JESUS CHRIST IS HIGH PRIEST, SOVEREIGN KING OF KINGS, LORD OF LORDS.
No other law required.
Vermeullarmine wrote: “NQP, provided that certain conditions are met (I believe there are four: intending to speak infallibly, making it known that one intends to speak infallibly, speaking ex cathedra, and speaking on matters of faith or morals)”
Where does it all this find its basis in divine revelation contained within the Apostolic Tradition?
Vermeullarmine wrote: “a Pope does indeed have the right and the ability to define certain dogmas.”
Please explain what your mean when you say “define certain dogmas” because I wish to understand what you mean exactly:
-Do you mean that the pope has the right to define dogmas necessary to genuine faith and therefore salvation which have already been defined?
-Or do you mean that he has the right to define new ones- ones which are likewise necessary- which have not hitherto been defined?
Vermeullarmine wrote: “Nor can a Pope declare as dogma something that directly contradicts earlier Church teaching.”
The phrase “Church teaching” is a bit nonspecific. It could encompass a large and varied number of things- from things like liturgical rubrics and legal rulings which are, respectively, rather subjective and highly contextual to the very core dogmas of revelation and faith found in Apostolic Tradition. So what do you mean when you say “church teaching”?
Vermeullarmine wrote: “The question of free will is nonsensical here: a Pope can choose to clarify some point of doctrine through a dogmatic declaration, or he can choose not to.”
Not sure what this has to do with anything.
Vermeullarmine wrote: “And through the whole history of the Church, the Holy Ghost has not permitted the Pope to make a single dogmatic declaration that is heretical or otherwise directly contradicts the doctrines of our faith as found at least in embryonic form in the Scriptures.”
There are many things which need to be said here. I’ll try to be as brief as possible.
What you seem to be saying here is that infallibility is a sort of “negative protection” granted by the Holy Ghost to a man whom a group of other men designate as Pope.
The fact that something which is possible has (arguably) never yet happened does preclude that it could ever happen. I would have to say that if the pope is truly a man and therefore has a rational intelligence and free will, it is possible for him to utter something publicly against faith, Tradition and the natural law (morals) under the 4 guidelines for an infallibility statement however unlikely it may be. If you object to this and claim that it is absolutely impossible that he could ever do such, then you have to concede, logically, that the Holy Ghost is overriding the intelligence and free will of the Pope with a special mystical power to prevent him from uttering such words and phrases. In other words, you’d have to concede Pope is a sort of marionette or sock puppet of the Holy Ghost.
So therefore I have to disagree with you and likewiseobject to you characterizing question of free will as “nonsensical” (frankly I’m confused by your choice of word). Confining infallibility to a sort of “negative protection” by the Holy Ghost – of not uttering a very specific set of words or phrases- DOES very much bring the issue of free will which I brought up into play.
Finally, when one confines infallibility to such a tiny negative protection, it is like saying that a cold-blooded murderer is not a murderer simply because he never solemnly uttered a phrase such as “I hereby declare that killing one’s neighbor is intrinsically good and just…and BTW I really like doing it”. This is to say that ones actions and habits speak much louder than ones words, especially such confined and specialized words. Consider that in light of all of the men who’ve held the office of Pope since Vatican II.
Now on to “embryonic form” as you’ve used it here.
It seems you’re making an analogy when it comes to revealed dogmas: that people can acquire a “deeper” understanding of mysteries like The Incarnation, The Trinity, The Eucharist, etc over time….and like an embryo grows into a newborn, into a toddler, into an adolescent, and so on, so does our understanding of these things over time.
I hate to be the bearer of bad news to you, but no one cannot acquire a truly “deeper” understanding of HOW any those things can really be. It’s as simple as that. Human language can only express finite things, and mysteries of faith pertain directly to the infinite God Whom we cannot know directly, form an idea of, and therefore form words to fully express Him. So I’d have to say that the analogy you make here is deeply flawed.
A mystery, by definition, entails a large degree of both unknown and uncertainty due to the fact that they are simply above our ability to understand. It’s important to point out that these mysteries are not CONTRARY to right reason though. I would ask you to consider this then: we can only know THAT the aforementioned things are indeed real. I cannot overstate how important this distinction is when it comes to matters of divine revelation: the distinction between “HOW (it is)” and “WHAT/ THAT (it is)”. We cannot know the former, but we can certainly know the latter. The means of knowing the latter is Apostolic Tradition: they were revealed by a real, historical person- Jesus- Who claimed to be God Incarnate and gave signs validating that He is Who He claimed to be.
So…I reiterate that there really is no genuine “growth” or “deepening” of understanding of these things. At the very best there is only speculation or analogy, and one has to be extremely careful and cautious with both. The old phrase “fools rush in…” is very pertinent here. Therefore in principle I oppose any attempt to “develop doctrine”, acquire a “deepening” or “growth” of understanding of these things. Even more I oppose in principle any attempt to define any “new” dogma.
I would say that the consequences of “development of doctrine” and “defining” new dogmas could be summed up as followed
-It has warped any sort of a truly Christian metaphysic (i.e. philosophy) by introducing all manner of subjectivist, neo-Platonic and gnostic ideas.
-It has mangled Apostolic Tradition by reading back both “new” dogmas/revelations “of the Faith” into that Tradition which either simply aren’t there (e.g. Immaculate Conception), are highly dubious (i.e. original sin), or are accessory to faith and salvation at best (e.g.: The Assumption of Mary) and has warped to one degree or another the understanding of some genuine dogmas/revelations grounded in Apostolic Tradition( e.g. applying the notion of “transubstantiation” to the Eucharist)
Vermeullarmine wrote: “I hope this clarifies things.”
It clarifies for me where you are coming from. But it what you’ve written doesn’t clarify the issue at hand. Quite the contrary, in fact.
Typo correction. Apologies.
“…does preclude…” should read “….does NOT preclude…”
NQP: I read your very long-winded response, and towards the end I was struck by what appeared to be a denial or at least doubt of certain doctrines (in some cases defined dogmas) of the Catholic Faith. However it left room for misinterpretation on my part so I would like you to clarify:
1: Do you accept the dogma of Mary’s bodily assumption into Heaven as defined by Pius XII in 1950?
2: Do you accept the dogma of the Immaculate Conception as defined by Pius IX in 1854?
3: Do you accept the Church’s teaching on Original Sin?
4: Do you accept the principle of Papal infallibility, as expressed at the First Vatican Council?
I had forgotten what a mind numbing experience reading comments here is. My2pennies, Catherine Farto and Disco Ann, I have to tell you, its like watching 2001. You know, the part when Hal’s memory is being shut down. Poor Hal just gets dumber and dumber as time passes.
Dear Rush—-Do you use insults to respond because you have no response?
NQP: I stand by my comment that the conciliar church, the new church born in Vatican II, is not the true Catholic Church. It clearly doesn’t have the first mark of the true Church, that of oneness.
The Second Vatican Council’s documents on the identity of the Church, on ecumenism, on religious liberty, separation of Church and state, and its heresy that the Covenant of the Jews was not superceded by the New Covenant of Jesus Christ all deny what the Church has always taught. Thus, it has separated itself from the Catholic Church creating a new religion as these doctrines have clearly been condemned from the Catholic Church. It also is incrementally making its governance like that of a political democracy, thus denying that the Church instituted by Christ is a monarchical and hierarchical Church.
Its invented liturgy, the Novus Ordo, is primarily a Protestant worship service elevating man above God and making its central principle a community meal, rather than the re-presentation of Christ’s sacrifice on Calvary. A list of doctrinal differences between the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass and the Novus Ordo liturgy can be found here and this alone, proves it does not hold the mark of oneness:
Alphonsus Jr: FYI: This video has been blocked by Fox.
The Dogmatic Constitution Pastor Aeternus of the First Vatican Council (1870), lays out Catholic doctrine and dogma on the Papacy.
For the Holy Spirit was promised to the pope not so that he might, by his revelation, make known some new doctrine, but that, by his assistance, he might religiously guard and faithfully expound the revelation or deposit of faith transmitted by the apostles.
Indeed, their apostolic teaching was embraced by all the venerable fathers and reverenced and followed by all the holy orthodox doctors, for they knew very well that this See always remains unblemished by any error, in accordance with the divine promise of our Lord and Savior to the prince of his disciples: I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail; and when you have turned again, strengthen your brethren.
This gift of truth and never-failing faith was therefore divinely conferred on Peter and in this See so that they might discharge their exalted office for the salvation of all, and so that the whole flock of Christ might be kept away by them from the poisonous food of error and be nourished with the sustenance of heavenly doctrine. Thus the tendency to schism is removed and the whole Church is preserved in unity, and, resting on its foundation, can stand firm against the gates of hell.
But since in this very age when the salutary effectiveness of the apostolic office is most especially needed, not a few are to be found who disparage its authority, we judge it absolutely necessary to affirm solemnly the prerogative which the only-begotten Son of God was pleased to attach to the supreme pastoral office of the pope.
Therefore, faithfully adhering to the tradition received from the beginning of the Christian faith, to the glory of God our savior, for the exaltation of the Catholic religion and for the salvation of the Christian people, with the approval of the Sacred Council, we teach and define as a divinely revealed dogma that when Pope Francis speaks EX CATHEDRA, that is, when, in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, the pope defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole Church, he possesses, by the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter, that infallibility which the divine Redeemer willed his Church to enjoy in defining doctrine concerning faith or morals. Therefore, such definitions of the pope are of themselves, and not by the consent of the Church, irreformable.
So then, should anyone, which God forbid, have the temerity to reject this definition of ours: let him be anathema.
Yes they are a glorious fountainhead of truth and clearly biased in favor of the one, true Catholic religion.
Obviously YOU are the id
” Our Lord setup our salvation using imperfect individuals. All the more credit to Our God. ”
He warned perverts that they would be better off drowned with a millstone rather than scandalizing innocent little children thus, keeping them from knowing Him.
“I had forgotten what a mind numbing experience reading comments here is. My2pennies, Catherine Farto and Disco Ann, I have to tell you, its like watching 2001.”
Just to give you some helpful advice: comments like these are not only unnecessary, they also harm the credibility of your own arguments (by association, if nothing else).
Amen a thousand times to that!
If the Novus Ordo is good, Our Lady of La Salette was lying, Our Lady of Fatima was mistaken and the Miracle of the Sun was just a passing comet. You are dummer (sic) than a load of wood.
Bishop Williamson blames the clerical pedophile problem on the Novus Ordo Mass.
Another thing to remember, not to exclude communism, but Russia had 2 errors before the errors of communism came into existence. One they rolled tobacco in paper, I say that just to try and be funny, yet surely an error that has spread across the whole world! But they actually invert the divine order when the Czar appointed the Patriarch of the Orthodox church. So through Vatican II, Russia’s error of Caesar over the “church” has spread through the whole world!
I wonder if the error you pointed out is one of the 52 errors of Vatican II that the SSPX Nuns at St. Mary’s in Kansas used to teach all of their graduates?
I will suggest as a reference ‘The Great Sacrilege” by Fr. James Wathen. In particular the early chapter on Papal Authority and Papal Infallibility can be useful in discussions here. A link is provided here for the pdf.https://www.cathinfo.com/files/TheGreatSacrilegeCI.pdf
Horrible! Infernal words.
“…the divine promise of our Lord and Savior to the prince of his disciples: I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail; and when you have turned again, strengthen your brethren.”
Jesus prayed that Simon Peter’s faith would not falter. In doing so God did not override the apostle’s free will or turn him into a sort of oracle.
What sort of God would do the latter? Not the The Father Whom Jesus spoke of Who creates mankind ex nihilo in His Own image and likeness in order that they might all know and love Him, but rather a chimerical god-like figment who manufactures automatons or puppets.
“…Indeed, their apostolic teaching was embraced by all the venerable fathers and reverenced and followed by all the holy orthodox doctors, for they knew very well that this See always remains unblemished by any error…”
To be fair and to put things into a more historical context rather blithely and ahistorically stating that Rome is and has always been absolutely without errors, I’d offer this:
The church of Rome was regarded from a very early on with a particular esteem because it was co-founded by Peter- the natural leader and spokesperson of Jesus’ Apostles, and Paul- the wide-traveling, prolific letter-writing and preaching Apostle to the gentiles who was key in developing the church into a truly universal- Catholic- and not merely Jewish thing. Rome was therefore seen as possessing the most pure expression of the Apostolic Tradition and therefore was looked to by other local or regional churches when disputes arose (for example the theological disputes between the Alexandria and Antioch during the 1st millennium.). This is a far from exhaustive treatment on my part, but since I’ve been been of being long-winded….
It’s a bit of a stretch, to say the least, to read back a divinely granted charism of personal infallibility granted to the bishop of Rome into this historical reality.
Typo correction: “… to put things into a more historical context rather blithely and ahistorically stating”
“…to put things into a more historical context rather THAN somewhat blithely and ahistorically stating…”
Wow Rush. You turned nasty on a dime.
The defense of the perverts in the SSPX reminds me of the defense of the perverts in the Novus Ordo sect.
“They’re no better than FSSP and conciliar church. Like the burnt incense before the idols, they’ve bowed down and left their grain.”
Although I believe this sort of thing can happen in any group, I do believe that praying the mass una cum heretics is a large part of the problem.
Oh brother Ratio, are you off base as is Prisca…………Watch the Williamson interview I posted. SSPX has plenty of pervert clerics so the TLM is zero Grace to curb the devilish appetite of lust.
It is not magic people. The heart and soul of the Penitent participating in the Mass must be in the right place.
Guess what? We had clerical pervs long before Vat 2 and the stupid Nervous Ordo. Read St Peter Damian’s Treatise.
SSPX will be there Prisca? Ya think?
They need to sweepoutteirfilth first too.
Listen to Fellay and Williamson, appointing KNOWN and admitted sspx clerical child molesters to run their damndable camps. A year or two tucked away at the priest retreat at Montgarten, France and they are okayed to go have access to children by running their stupid camps. These “priests” are either perverts themselves or they are brain dead just like ABS above…………..
Can pedophiles be rehabilitated? Some say “No”.
How convenient that your diagnosis of the problem just happens to fit neatly with your sedevacantist worldview.
I’d say that the V2/conciliar Church does seem to be “one” because it pledges formal allegiance and designates final authority to the current man recognized as pope in the Vatican- Bergoglio. This, and because has a very unified rite of worship found in the Novus Ordo rite.
Those together would seem to signify a kind of unity. So therefore I reiterate that I believe that the lack of Apostolicity- which is to say deviation from Apostolic Tradition- is the real indication that this organization produced by Vatican II is not what so many would-be Catholics think it is.
On a different note,
In the chart linked, one difference listed between the “Traditional Mass” and the “Novus Ordo Missae” is that in the former of the two rites, the understanding is that:
“The priest alone can confect the Eucharist and Mass…”
Let me focus on the word “confect”. And let me be emphatically clear at the outset of what I wish to say that in no way, shape or form am I defending the Novus Ordo rite.
I believe that “confect” is an extremely poor word choice and it lends itself to a prior misunderstanding of the reality of the Eucharist. This misunderstanding is the theologization commonly known as “transubstantiation”
I believe that there is little to indicate in either the Roman Canon, understood in its original sense, or in the broader Apostolic Tradition that the officiant (priest, bishop) “transubstantiates” and therefore “confects” anything at all. I’ll try to explain why as briefly as I can:
Transubstantiation never became a thing until the 12th or 13th century. In principle, as I stated in my earlier comments addressed to Vermeullarmine, I oppose the idea of coming up with a new fundamental dogma that has no basis in Apostolic Tradition. In fact, by its own terms, transubstantiation is a theologization: a theological attempt to explain Tradition. Unfortunately, it delves into what, at the time it became a thing during the Middle Ages, would have been considered to be “science”. This is to that it purports to be a scientific explanation of a mystery of the faith. Just as bad, it fails to take into account the Roman Canon’s clear theology. Finally, it makes a mishmash of the whole notion of substance in Thomist thinking (which is not to say that it originated with Aquinas, although he did later defend it) as something somehow “standing under” (which is a terrible translation of the original Greek concept- “ousia”) according to which the accidental appearances have no essential connection to the substance. In actual fact, it’s doubtful that in good Thomist thinking that accidental products such as bread and wine can even be understood as “substances” in the true sense. It is far more arguable that they are rather somewhat temporary agglomerations of elements. The unfortunate effect of all this is to transform the sacrifice of the Mass into a sort of conjuring act, a magic show. In actual fact the Roman Canon’s theology reflects Jewish concepts of what sacrifice is all about–but with the obvious differences brought about because the True Sacrifice here is Jesus on Calvary.
My understanding of the Roman Canon is that the Institution Narrative is exactly that- a narrative -not the consecration by offering to the Father. It recalls to the faithful that we are doing what we’re doing- offering bread and wine- because we were instructed to do so by Christ, “who on the night before he suffered …” and it recalls the connection between what we’re doing and what Christ then did.
After the Institution Narrative the Canon explains that what we’re doing is asking the Angel (Jesus) to carry our offerings (plural: “iube hæc perférri”) to the heavenly altar to be offered to the Father (which is why, I take it, the Eastern liturgy points out that there’s one priest- Jesus). Finally the offering takes place with the only elevation that’s original : echoing “Unde et memores…” (…offérimus præcláræ maiestáti tuæ de tuis donis ac datis). The elevations which are prescribed in the missal at the “hoc est enim corpus meum…” and “hic est enim calix…” were medieval innovations presumably based upon transubstantiation.
The Canon concludes with:
Per quem hæc ómnia, Dómine, semper bona creas, sanctificas, vivíficas, benedícis et præstas nobis.
Per ipsum, et cum ipso, et in ipso, est tibi Deo Patri omnipotenti, in unitáte Spíritus Sancti,
[Elevans parum Calicem cum Hostia, dicit:]
omnis honor, et glória.
With this action of offering to the Father, Jesus takes over in the Heavenly Temple joining our offering to his own eternal self oblation. In other words, the true action is taking place in the Heavenly Temple. This, I should add, is the point of Paul’s epistle to the Hebrews; we no longer need to sacrifice in the Jerusalem Temple. Jesus is actually acting for us in the the True, Heavenly Temple of which the Jerusalem Temple was only a likeness. And why our officiants (they’re not called “priests” in the New Testament) are qualified by faith rather than family descent as the Jewish priests priests were (claiming descent from Aaron). This because the One True Priest is Jesus.
This is not an exhaustive treatment of the topic. But I hope it sheds at least a little light.
“Verm”, it’s really just a different way of recognizing the fact that “when you lie down with dogs, you rise up with fleas.”
John Common- Very good and pertinent point.
Take it upon yourselves to alter the Canon of the Mass to jibe with your self-made theological speculations, why don’t you?
Haven’t altered anything “Verm”. During periods of sedevacante there is no pope named in the Canon. However it is novel to pray una cum a non-Catholic in the Canon. Or do you think Francis is Catholic?
Besides, I never said that my belief was definitely true or that it was the only issue. What I did say was that I believed that a large part of the problem was praying una cum a heretic in the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.
Now would you like to provide some ideas why the Novus Ordo sect and the SSPX have such a problem with perversion in their ranks? Or are you just here to take jabs at my conclusions to show off your rabid anti-sede-ness?
“Take it upon yourselves to alter the Canon of the Mass to jibe with your self-made theological speculations, why don’t you?”
Notwithstanding how thoroughly the Canon was obliterated by the Novus Ordo (which goes without saying), the alteration was already done when John XXIII inserted St. Joseph into the Canon.
It comes across as a self-defeating criticism (especially when, AFAIK, the name of the Pope would be omitted during a time of vacancy anyway, so it’s not like the Canon is actually being changed).
My2cents…….C’mon 2cents you know the answer to that ! No No No that is why some even begged for chemical castration.
Fr Gerald Fitzgerald who was the founder of the Order of the Paracletes treated problem priests and came to the conclusion they could not be reformed. He purchased and island and begged the Vatican to allow him to keep child molester priests there away from children.
He warned the Bishops repeatedly. Instead the Bishops used these priests in Paraclete treatment facilities to be supply priests where there was a need. That is why so many children were abused wherever these priests in Paraclete facilities were located.
SSPX did and does shelter chester molester priests and laity.
Never send your children to any of their camps.Even if the priest in charge is not a pervert, the majority of their priests are sorely lacking in common sense .
“the Czar appointed the Patriarch of the Orthodox church. So through Vatican II, Russia’s error of Caesar over the “church” has spread through the whole world!”
Duh…………..and the Borgia’s who made Popes ?
“There was no uniform procedure for papal selection before 1059. The bishops of Rome and supreme pontiffs (popes) of the Catholic Church were often appointed by their predecessors or by political rulers”
Learn your history before posting.
Yes, if im accused of being a rabid partisan of the indefectible, visible Roman Catholic Church, with Francis as Pope despite the man’s personal flaws and heterodox beliefs, then I plead guilty.
No human authority is permitted to depose a pope, not even the College of Cardinals, as the Pope surpasses them in authority. Obviously refusing to go along with him when he does or says something heterodox is a different matter. As you sedes refuse to distinguish, you’re forced to make up bizarre and baseless conspiracy theories about Benedict XVI’s resignation being fake or whatever – but he’s an antipope anyway from the sede worldview so that’s a moot point.
The result is that we eventually get whackjobs like In Caritas who think the Church literally ceased to exist in 1958 of some pathetic Mumbo jumbo like that.
I will pray for you sedes.
You do realize that, in rejecting transubstantiation as the fundamental understanding of what takes place during the Mass, you are rendering yourself anathema, right?
The general thrust I get from you in a lot of posts, regarding fidelity to Apostolic Tradition, seems to be that any honest developments or clarifications are to be rejected. However, this leaves the Church in position or fighting the same battles over and over, when these various clarifications (or thelogizations, as you call them) arose precisely in response to the heresies of the day.
In addition, I find your comment about whether “good Thomists” can think about bread and wine having “substances” to be quite interesting, because it seems to betray a lack of experience with St. Thomas’s Summa Theologiae, as Question 75 of the Third Part is **entirely focused** on transubstantiation.
Lastly, I find your claim that it has “no basis” in Apostolic Tradition to be highly dubious. It’s hard to ignore the rather emphatic “This is my Body,” or “This is my Blood” from the Last Supper, in conjunction with His entire discourse in John 6 regarding how we must partake of the flesh and blood of the Son of Man, or else we will not have life within us.
I find your comments fascinating in general, but your blanket assertion that transubstantiation as a dogma has **no** foundation in Apostolic Tradition is quite simply silly.
“No human authority is permitted to depose a pope, not even the College of Cardinals, as the Pope surpasses them in authority. Obviously refusing to go along with him when he does or says something heterodox is a different matter. ”
Of course no one can depose a true Pope. Sedes would agree with you there. However, that is not the argument being made.
The only reason a Pope could be “deposed”, as it were, is because they’ve already publicly committed sins that sever them from the Church (such as heresy or apostasy), and as such have been deprived of their jurisdiction by divine law. In other words, they would no longer be Pope, only after which could they be deposed, for the First See is judged by no one except God.
If Francis is Pope, you owe him obedience in his magisterial teachings as is proper to religious obedience. If you refuse to go along with his teachings (ordinary or extraordinary), you implicitly profess that he is not the Pope, and not a Catholic.
I don’t know why the concept of public heretics losing their office ipso facto (which is literally centuries old as a concept) is so difficult to grasp, but the fact that you can speak so casually of the Pope professing heterodoxy should be disquieting.
I see Verm still has no real answer.
Dear Sweep–You are right. Unfortunately, no amount of rehab treatment could guarantee that a pedophile will not strike again. To allow a pedophile to have access to children is, in itself, a criminal act. There is no excuse and saying you’re sorry is pathetic. People who live in glass houses should not throw stones. The SSPX does not deny these charges and, therefore, the SSPX cannot be trusted.
See I knew you knew the answer you posed !
We spent a short time in the SSPX because I do love the TLM.
The priest was extremely popular, especially with the mothers of sons. He had a “commando” group for the boys. ( Dressed like the youth in the Nazi Vichy regime before and during the war complete with berets, sweaters and badges) The mothers vied to get their boys noticed by said priest. I worked briefly at their summer camp for girls at the behest of the priest. In that short time I learned quite a bit about the inner workings of the SSPX……..Our own chapel priest was a homosexual. The women at the Chapel did not realize this…….It was former SSPX seminarians. Young men who eventually told me after we left the Society. They were with him in Winona . Then a friend told me how he made a pass at her young son in law when he visited their home for dinner. She also noted he could not get his face out of any mirror he saw in her home. Tinted contacts , drenched in cologne , discreetly patting a friend’s son in law’s rear end in her home and secretly best friends with Urrutigoity. Finally confirmation from three men in their early thirties.
He is STILL being praised online by SSPX adherents and his homilies are online .
I would say note the vanity and lack of humility.
Dear Sweep, Thanks for speaking up and sharing the truth. We need to warn others as best we can.
Some folks, especially women, have no “gaydar”. A Society priest who is into his looks, shoes, custom made cassocks and drools over lace and vestments and displays a lack of humility? Yeah, I’ve seen that. One word: Chicago.
For all my disagreements with Ann Barnhardt, she does have some good zingers.
Her term for such individuals was “liturgical fetishists.”
Why would refusing the magisterial teachings of a particular pope or ecumenical council necessarily indicate a refusal to accept that he’s the “true” pope. To take an example, the SSPX officially rejects at least portions of several of the documents of Vatican II but continues to explicitly affirm the legitimacy of all the post-V2 popes. Sedevacantism does not necessarily follow from rejecting V2.
“Why would refusing the magisterial teachings of a particular pope or ecumenical council necessarily indicate a refusal to accept that he’s the “true” pope. To take an example, the SSPX officially rejects at least portions of several of the documents of Vatican II but continues to explicitly affirm the legitimacy of all the post-V2 popes.”
In other words, the Pope speaks, *you* (or the SSPX) decide?
That’s not a very Catholic attitude to have.
The Pope is the Teacher and Shepherd of the whole Church, thus, the whole Church is so bound to hear and follow him that if he would err, the whole Church would err.
Now our adversaries respond that the Church ought to hear him so long as he teaches correctly, for God must be heard more than men.
On the other hand, who will judge whether the Pope has taught rightly or not? For it is not for the sheep to judge whether the shepherd wanders off, not even and especially in those matters which are truly doubtful. Nor do Christian sheep have any greater judge or teacher to whom they might have recourse. As we showed above, from the whole Church one can appeal to the Pope yet, from him no one is able to appeal; therefore necessarily the whole Church will err if the Pontiff would err.
(St. Robert Bellarmine, De Romano Pontifice, Book IV, Chapter 3; Ryan Grant translation)
You are saying that the Pope can teach in their magisterium that which the Church had previously condemned as erroneous or heretical (for this is a conclusion that follows if you believe the SSPX can reject portions of Vatican II – ostensibly a true ecumenical Council, promulgated by an allegedly true Pope – and do so legitimately).
Does that not strike you as a little odd, that the SSPX has taken it upon themselves to determine whether the **Pope** is being orthodox or not?
The chaos in that discussion under this and other threads, recurring themes, mixed up threads, mixing logic with experiences, lack of distinction of human factor, almost ubiquitous lack of faith in redemption, naiveté, constant protestantism which is rooted in a Luther like unhealthy scrupulous obsessions with perfectionism and toddler like impatience – that chaos is very telling. Is it all sedevacantism can do?
Let’s give it a bit more time before we will judge how SSPX (or any other religious organization) develop their social consciousness and what they decide going long run. Once it will become obvious that the plandemic is just a scheme behind totalitarian forces operating in this world. This is not just 1 or 2 months long war which just stared, but definitely just a beginning of a totally new quality. Perhaps people will wake up, wether they faithful imprisoned in NO post V2 bubbles or some “unite clans” noetrads or perhaps-confused SSPXers or church-correct sedevacantists so focused on a vicar of Christ while they lose rational thinking and overreact to anything which does not seem to be perfect any more.
“You’re a flipping idiot”
In charity, you were doing fine until your last sentence.
Andy, given you are new to these discussions and topics, it might behoove you to be more patient and to study more about the positions before making judgments yourself.
First: believe it or not, the overall ideas and principles of sedevacantism have been discussed far more thoroughly and with more precision in places besides the AKACatholic combox (which given its format, doesn’t lend itself well to repeated back and forth debates).
Here’s a quick primer: http://www.fathercekada.com/2013/11/19/sedevacantism-a-quick-primer/
Second: Andy, for what it’s worth; before breaking out tired arguments regarding Luther-esque scrupulosity or that sedes are simply Protestants by another name, maybe you should look around to see if that particular objection has ever been addressed? https://novusordowatch.org/2015/12/sede-private-judgment/
Apologies to Prisca Ann…I confused your excellent comment with one of Ratio’s .
You are so very correct in pointing out that SSPX is no better than FSSP. I personally know one of the pastors who , before he was Ordained , told both myself and my daughter that he was a homosexual .It was a no brainer since he was very flamboyant and vocally proud of his sexual orientation.
No problem for the FSSP . He is also pictured with Cardinal Burke in the Internet.
Here is something which I believe is pertinent to the origin blog post and offers material for discussion:
The determination that the Pope is a manifest heretic or apostate DOESN’T TURN ON THE AUTHORITY OF THE PERSON RENDERING THE DECISION, BUT ON THE COMPETENCY OF THE PERSON. Anyone educated in the faith is competent to recognize heresy or apostasy on many relatively straightforward articles of the faith. The current Papal claimant has given all faithful Catholics grounds to withdraw their obedience from him under the teachings of Pope Paul IV ; Cum Ex Apostolatus. He explicitly authorizes the faithful to withdraw their obedience from a Pope whose APPARENT PUBLIC DEVIATION FROM THE FAITH BECOMES KNOWN TO THEM AFTER HIS ELEVATION !!! Pope Paul IV authorized the faithful to withdraw their obedience in such a situation EVEN IF THE CHURCH HAD NOT YET ACTED !!!
1 The photograph, so-called “Pope Francis” is depicted lighting a Menorah candle while he actively participates in a non-Catholic worship service. From this photograph, and since St. Robert Bellarmine teaches that we must judge from the objective reality of a person’s actions, and not from a subjective understanding, I conclude so-called “Pope Francis” is either a Jew or a religious indifferentist.
2. news accounts, so-called “Pope Francis” is described as signing an agreement with the representative of a non-Catholic so-called “religion”, wherein the agreement recites that the Catholic Church agrees that the Almighty wills the diversity of “religions”. From these news accounts and St. Robert’s teaching, I conclude so-called “Pope Francis” is a religious indifferentist.
3. news accounts and photographs, so-called “Pope Francis” is described and depicted as participating in a pagan “religious” service featuring a pagan female fertility deity. From these news accounts and St. Robert’s teaching, I conclude Pope Francis is either a neo-pagan or a religious indifferentist.
How anyone can believe he is a faithful Catholic at is beyond me.
The general thrust I get from you in a lot of posts, regarding fidelity to Apostolic Tradition, seems to be that any honest developments or clarifications are to be rejected.”
Two different things- development and clarification.
In the case of the former, yes you’re absolutely correct.
In the case of the latter, I’d say that it depends on the circumstances and the individual.
The New Testament gives us virtually everything we need to know about Jesus. I’d say it’s the cornerstone of Apostolic Tradition.
However, this leaves the Church in position or fighting the same battles over and over…”
Yep. That’s correct.
“….when these various clarifications (or thelogizations, as you call them) arose precisely in response to the heresies of the day.“
This is very true. Even Aquinas recognized this and acknowledged such in a more obscure part of the Summa. Theo.. I can’t recall it at the moment though. I’ll have to look it up.
Often times good intentions, like trying to win converts, have unforeseen consequences.
NQP, the “general thrust” I get from all of your posts is that you like to create doubt. While never fully denying a doctrine of the Faith, you add a tad of uncertainty. This is classic modernism that you practice. The Church sought to clarify matters for 1925 years but you want to rehash such established doctrines as transubstantiation. I believe you do this because your rational naturalistic mind cannot comprehend the concept. Well guess what? No created mind can comprehend the concept. It was divinely revealed and we are duty bound to assent to it based on the authority of those who taught it. We do not assent only if we can comprehend if from a rational or naturalistic framework. I have been reading your comments and have tried to label your point of view. Sometimes you seem to be coming from a schismatic orthodox position and other times as a Gallican Old Catholic Vatican I dissenter. Either way, both points of view were condemned, but your tactic is most assuredly modernistic. Create confusion, doubt, and ambiguity.
NQP, PS- so please feel free to call me an “hyperpapalist.” If you were to review all papal teachings for 1925 years you will never find any admonition from any Pope telling the faithful to be on guard against too much fidelity to the Roman Pontiff. Nor will any Pope ever warn the flock to be leery against “hyperpapalism.” Where you will find phrases like “hyperpapalism”, “papolatry,” or “ultramontanism” will be in the writings of enemies of the Church such as schismatics, Gallicans, Freemasons, and protestants. That is the company you keep when you warn us of hyperpapalism.
“The New Testament gives us virtually everything we need to know about Jesus. I’d say it’s the cornerstone of Apostolic Tradition.”
This sounds awfully close to “Sola Scriptira”, FYI.
Besides, the New Testament itself says that the Church is the pillar and ground of the truth, not a written testimony. The Good News was being preached and taught for years before a single Gospel or Epistle was ever written.
It is the Church herself that is the cornerstone of Apostolic Tradition, not the New Testament, for the former came prior in time to the latter.
Next, regarding development vs. clarification:
1) Would you consider the Athanasian Creed and Nicene Creed to be “developments” or “clarifications” of the Apostles’ Creed?
2) Who decides whether a doctrine is a development or merely a clarification?
Tom A wrote: “Well guess what? No created mind can comprehend the concept. It was divinely revealed…”
Think about what you’re saying here. You’re saying transubstantiation is an “incomprehensible concept”. That’s a contradiction in terms. A concept by definition is comprehensible.
I would say, rather, that the Eucharist is an incomprehensible reality which is before us. Therefore, any attempt by using human words or concepts to either explain or express it fully is bound to either fall short or worse turn it into a set of “clear and distinct ideas” which fit together logically like Lego bricks or the pieces of a puzzle. In principle I oppose that sort of thing with extreme prejudice in matters of divine revelation.
And…that’s all, folks.
Tom A wrote: “…and we are duty bound to assent to it based on the authority of those who taught it.”
I strongly disagree.
We are not “duty bound” to assent to the teachings of “those” men in the church. All human beings are imperfect and fallible. We therefore don’t have any “duty” in the absolute sense which you imply here towards anyone but God. Rather, we’re bound to accept the testimony of God Who is Incarnate in Jesus by way of reasoned belief- which in turn is how I define faith.
Put this way, any authority which the church might have is from God. It finds it source in the record of historical His Self-Revelation in Jesus as preserved and passed down in the Apostolic Tradition, which we who would be faithful in turn based our faith- our reasoned belief- in Jesus upon.
Tom A wrote: “We do not assent only if we can comprehend if from a rational or naturalistic framework.”
I’m guessing by “rational” you mean “rationalistic”- which ostensibly rejects faith and holds that all ideas are clear and distinct (think Descartes, Kant, Hegel, etc, etc, etc). For the sake of discussion, I distinguish between “rational” and “rationalistic”. This is an important distinction.
That being said, if you mean that our faith is, as I said above, a reasoned or “rational” belief- I agree.
A Simple Man wrote: “In addition, I find your comment about whether “good Thomists” can think about bread and wine having “substances” to be quite interesting, because it seems to betray a lack of experience with St. Thomas’s Summa Theologiae, as Question 75 of the Third Part is **entirely focused** on transubstantiation.”
I’m not sure what you’re trying to say here.
It seems that you’re using an argument from authority (Aquinas) and likewise proof-texting using the Summa Theo.. That’s a weak argument.
I admit without reservation that Aquinas did defend transubstantiation (and for the record here I have read his treatment of it in the Summa Theo.). That doesn’t validate it though. He also defended original sin, and that doesn’t validate that either. The point here is that Aquinas wasn’t right about everything; he proceeded in many things he treated theologically from a fundamentally Augustinian POV. And that’s not a complement to Aquinas.
The most important thing, IMO, to take away from reading Aquinas is his recognition of God as Being/“esse”/Act/”I AM” (all those terms are more or less interchangeable). That’s, if you will, the key and central nugget of his philosophy.
NQP, well at least you are a gentleman and have good
Combox manners. Though. I entirely disagree that your position is Catholic.
A Simple Man wrote:
“NQP wrote: ‘The New Testament gives us virtually everything we need to know about Jesus. I’d say it’s the cornerstone of Apostolic Tradition.’
This sounds awfully close to “Sola Scriptira”, FYI”
Not at all.
The New Testament is our primary source document of Apostolic Tradition. That is to say it emerged from that Tradition, not the other way around as some rather confused Protestants and otherwise generally labeled fundamentalists seem to think. When the Apostles were alive they themselves were living sources of Tradition since they personally knew and witnessed Jesus. But 2,000 years later, we are far removed from any living witness and memory of Jesus. So we rely on that Tradition as passed down. The NT is our primary and most expansive source, but not sole, source of it. The Roman Canon is another source, for example.
A Simple Man wrote: “Besides, the New Testament itself says that the Church is the pillar and ground of the truth, not a written testimony.”
What are you citing from the NT? In any case I’d say that Jesus Himself is our Truth, not the church He founded.
A Simple Man wrote: “The Good News was being preached and taught for years before a single Gospel or Epistle was ever written.”
Yes I agree.
You wrote, “It seems that you’re using an argument from authority (Aquinas) and likewise proof-texting using the Summa Theo.. That’s a weak argument.”
On the contrary, you previously wondered whether good Thomists could even speak of bread and wine having substances. Against this, the originator of Thomistic thought spoke quite plainly (and often) of bread and wine having substances, so who’s naturally going to take precedence when it comes to what a ‘good Thomist’ would think, you or St. Thomas?
Meanwhile, notwithstanding your distaste for the theology of St. Augustine (which you’ve made more than apparent elsewhere, and that is not a complement to yourself), are you implying that the doctrine of Original Sin has no basis in Tradition (because you seem to imply St. Thomas was in error for defending it)?
“What are you citing from the NT? ”
1 Timothy 3:15.
Jesus is indeed the Truth, and He founded a Church to teach, guard, and exposit that Truth.
Those are mere subjective observations, where do I judge anybody?
Also, my main point is to give more time before we evaluate how churchman reacted to plandemic. I do not have a problem with an initial decisions of suspending masses when we faced unknown. I might have a big problem with further determinations as we learn more about the situation.
A Simple Man:
I learn from and read pre V2 sources and never interacted with sedevacantists before to be honest. The protestant thing is of my own, uninfluenced observation as a matter of fact.
Is a disinterest in sedevacantism line of though something bad? Or a sin?
Commentor andy, I took an excerpt from what you wrote, corrected it for spelling and grammar, and reposted it here.
I think you hit the nail on the head. I think you also may have said more than you realize- in a good way.
“Perhaps some people will wake up- whether they are faithful imprisoned in NO post V2 bubbles, “unite the clans” Neo-Trad, or perhaps-confused SSPXers or church-correct sedevacantists so focused on a vicar of Christ- while the rest lose rational thinking and overreact to anything which does not seem to be perfect any more.”
I particularly like your characterization of sedevacantism as “church-correct”. That’s very astute. Well said.
A disinterest in the idea in and of itself isn’t something I have the authority to judge you on.
However, as far as an explanation for the current situation facing the Church goes, it offers the most consistency with pre-V2 doctrine on ecclesiology and theology, in my experience.
I would definitely recommend taking a cursory glance at John Daly’s website https://romeward.com/ for perhaps the most reasonable treatment of sedevacantism that I’ve seen (since, as a relatively minority position amongst traditional Catholics, those who have a very acrimonious attitude appear as a greater proportion of sedevacantists than for other theories).
I am arguing that an inversion of the faith existed when a pope was appointed by a Caesar. The pope and the bishops of the world have the right and duty to directly and indirectly depose of despotic kings and dukes. That’s the proper divine order. The soul brings the body under it’s subjection, the body does not bring the soul under it’s subjection!