As regular readers of this space are well aware, while I am convinced beyond all doubt that Jorge Mario Bergoglio is not a member of the Body of the Church and thus not her visible head on earth (i.e., he is an anti-pope), I’m not a sedevacantist properly speaking.
That said, it occurs to me that very few among us – me first and foremost – have ever really taken the time to weigh, firsthand, the arguments put forth by those who hold the sedevacantist position.
At most, we read articles, attend conferences, and listen to interviews wherein sedevacantism is addressed by those who reject it, but good luck finding a sincere back-and-forth conversation between someone like me – a non-sedevacantist who genuinely wants to know the truth – and someone who actually holds that position and can explain why, in his opinion, it best explains the ecclesial crisis that all of us recognize.
With this in mind, I have undertaken to use the Patria Podcast as a platform for conducting a series of interviews with John Lane, a longtime sedevacantist from Australia, who – agree with him or not – has a gift for explaining, in a straightforward and non-combative manner, why he believes the sedevacantist theory is perfectly consistent with Catholic tradition.
In the process, he refers often to the pre-conciliar magisterium of the Church and the traditional theology manuals that clearly explain it, touching on such matters as the papacy (e.g., its rights, its privileges, and our duty toward it) and ecclesiology (e.g., the nature of the Church’s God-given unity, its indefectibility, and its visibility), subjects that speak directly to the very heart of the post-conciliar crisis.
As Mr. Lane made clear to me before we began this effort, he has no interest in convincing others to adopt his point of view; rather, his only motivation is to share his opinions, in light of the true faith, in the hope that doing so will help viewers better navigate the minefield otherwise known as the Catholic landscape in our day.
To make that outcome even more likely, I’ve set up an email address where viewers can submit questions – the more challenging the better: SedeQandA@akaCatholic.com
NOTE: Please don’t pose questions in the form of a 300 word essay. Neither John nor I have time to consider lengthy emails. Keep your questions brief and direct, and we’ll look forward to addressing as many as we’re able.
So, please, jump in and invite others to do likewise, starting with the first two episodes below. I hope to add a new one each week moving forward. I think many will be surprised to discover just how much so-called “traditionalists” have in common with men like John Lane. In all cases, our conversations promise to be edifying.
So, I have been watching this episode 7 when I could this week and I am bothered by this gentleman’s answer about the question on where do we look for authority now. He basically says that we attend the parish church that the Bishop canonically establishes and follow the faith but he says it as if that’s so insignificant as to be nothing when ironically that’s it. You follow the Catholic faith and you receive Sacraments from the Priest that the Bishop sends you. And this is what the SSPX does not have. The Pope did NOT send the faithful any of those SSPX Priests and the ones I’ve met seem extremely holy aside from being gaslighting liars. I want a Pope and I want one right now.
Thank you for your efforts, Mr Verrechio.
There is no true peace without the unchanging unchangeable Holy Catholic Apostolic Faith, and any one remaining faithful to what God gave us as the sole means to salvation knows that one cannot have peace with the apostate world, including the proponents of grave and terrible extreme evils who claim to be successors of the Apostles. Public pertinacious heresy is knowable by every Catholic who is of the age of reason, who can objectively know and understand the Faith, and thus profess same, and objectively competent to make the sacrament of Confession, etc. Manifest heresy by its nature puts those who hold it outside of the One True Holy Church created for us by God, through the Incarnate Second Person of the Holy Trinity to carry on the soul-saving action of His Holy Passion, Death and Resurrection. In this evil apostate world, remaining a faithful Catholic means suffering and sacrifice, with hardly a faithful bishop or priest to be found to lead one, but plenty of persecution by those claiming to not only be in the Catholic Church, but have authority in it. Suffering and sacrifice are by their nature, not easy, and we do not have much temporal peace here in this earthly life, because we cannot be in unity with the apostate world and the evil it attempts to impose on us, including most perniciously from the leaders of the apparent temporal institutions of the Church, who are not part of the true Holy Catholic Church. Lord God Almighty have mercy upon us, and grant us the graces we need to persevere in the One Holy Faith to death; as we pray unceasingly for the repentance and conversion of those who have rejected the Never-ending objective Truth in Faith and morals.
Okay now I have watched much of the 9th and I’m annoyed. This is what I was provided by an SSPX Priest when I told him that I know that Jorge is not the Pope. This is from a little chart he provided me that delineated clearly the views of the SSPX. Now you tell me this is not the opposite of what Mr. Lane claims about the SSPX views. That Father Pagliarani would never say this? I hope not because it’s nonsense but as it was provided within the format of a chart, I think it’s clearly the Society’s pat response regardless. “We believe, as defined at Vatican I in 1870 by the Constitution Pastor Aeternus, that not everything the Pope does or says is infallible, but only those things which adhere to the specifically defined requirements (examples: the infallible dogmatic definitions of the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption, but not encyclicals, administrative acts, etc.).” I’m so tired of everyone being so dishonest.
Where John is talking about the NO speaker who said not to go to certain parishes, another terrible thing is a Protestant who was thinking of converting who said Catholics aren’t united. We have the trads, the sedes, the “conservatives”, the NO Catholics, those who think Benedict is pope, and more. He was right. The lack of unity is not Catholic. As someone else pointed out, it’s one of the things that comes from a lack of leadership. A lack of leadership also is not Catholic.
And also, I just read this in the Atlanta Constitutional Journal, ‘Also Tuesday, the governor’s office announced a patient who tested positive for the disease became the first transferred to Hard Labor Creek State Park, which will be used for isolating and monitoring patients who may have been exposed to virus. “This site was specifically chosen for its isolation from the general public and ability to house mobile units in the short term,” said Homer Bryson, head of Georgia’s emergency management agency. “State public health staff will monitor the individual’s progress and work together with state law enforcement to ensure the safety of the community and the patient.’
Why the heck are they shipping someone with Coronavirus, otherwise known as just the flu, to Hard Labor State Park? They aren’t taking anyone in my family to HARD LABOR STATE PARK! What the heck is going on? I am upset. I do not like anything going on right now, at all.
That’s actually AJC https://www.ajc.com/news/more-testing-georgia-resulting-more-coronavirus-cases/7gbE6UN93ksAGBm05wMoQN/
Sorry to blow up your combox, Mr. Verrecchio.
You are rambling. You did not understand anything that was said.
AWSOME talk! So happy to listen to Mr Lane and be able to understand him. Can’t wait to hear more.
I enjoyed these conversations very much. Thanks Louie and John.
I was not one of the first ones to get on the Internet nor was I among the last to do so. But I have studied and read Sedevacantist arguments since I first got on the Internet. Through the years they have discovered documents of the magisterium that they interpret in ways to defend their conclusions, documents they did not use years ago. They have never proven their position beyond reasonable doubt, and there are some good reasons to doubt their conclusions are correct. I see them as faithful Catholics, the only thing they can be convicted of is being “proximate to heresy” if Fr. Kramer is correct.
“If a law is broken for 10 years then what the faithful are doing to break the law, becomes the law?” That may be the case with things pertaining to discipline. But if the Mass was a discipline only, then Quo Primum would not be infallible, because it would not pertain to doctrines of faith or morels. Fr. Gregory Hesse argued the Mass is more then just a discipline, and that it pertains to doctrines of faith. Lex orandi, lex credendi “the law of prayer is the law of faith,” not discipline, but law of faith, that is, of faith, it’s law and it pertains to faith. Also he said dogma on the Mass was defined that pertain only to the Roman Rite and not the other Rites. I would include that it looks to me like the Church can define things pertaining to the Roman Rite and not other Rites, infallibly, as dogma, only because the Roman Rite is the universal Rite, and it pertains to doctrines of faith. The conditions that must be met to define a dogma is that it must pertain to a doctrine of faith or morals and it must be addressed to the universal Church. Quo Primum is infallible because it meets those two conditions, it’s a doctrine of faith and it’s addressed to the universal Church because the Roman Rite is the universal Rite. Besides Pope St. Pius V outlawed all liturgies that were less the 100 years old, not 10, that is, he didn’t respect a 10 year custom when it comes to liturgy! Didn’t the Church give us masses later outlawed by Pope St. Pius V? Your only defense of them is that they were local usages, but that was the time of the Protestant Revolution, they may have been as bad as the N.O.? So you can only be scandalized by the fact that a liturgy that needs to be outlawed came from Rome instead of local usage. How is it that an non-dogmatically defined liturgy coming from Rome is worse then Religious Liberty coming from a general council and thus – magisterium? In both cases the Church admits she is fallible, because she has not used the proper terms to claim otherwise. In Quo Primum she uses the proper terms to claim the TLM is infallible and dogmatic!
I would be of the opinion that rejecting heresy is part of our duty as faithful Catholics, and standing up to heresy is a part of our duty when our superiors fail in that area.
John Lane is not a sedevacantist at all. That’s just gibberish.
He is in practice, a zealous SSPX supporter, with a few reservations. His position is contradictory at best, he utterly refuses take his “private” position to it’s logical conclusions. The SSPX have even funded Salza and Siscoe’s book against sedevacantism. They say it’s heresy. Total contradiction.
And Lane endorses them?
That was most frustrating to hear through. He even mocks most sedevacantists position near the end of part two. He says that they “think” they stand up for Christ, against Una Cum masses. They have a good laugh about that too.
The Saints adhering to anti-popes in the past, and referred to as an excuse for today, is nonsense. Sorry Louie, the “anti-popes” they adhered to were at least outwardly Catholic, and valid matter for popes. Confused is one thing, apostasy another. Don’t flatter yourself as a Saint quite yet.
The present situation is totally different and incomparable. But, I’ve noticed that most of the many “traditionalists” can get along quite well without a pope for so long, and they happily choose their own pastors, without any doubt in themselves, without being sent.
Persecution is for someone else in the future, but not for us.
That in itself evidences the Church’s lack of a Pope. A real Pope would tell all of us to work together and commission a study of the past 60 years or so from a purely theological standpoint, taking every possible relevant theological and ecclesiological principle into account, to provide (and he would enforce) the definitive understanding of our present circumstance. And real Catholics (traditionalists all) would follow him as they have always (and alone) truly listened to the Voice of Peter.
Real superiors, and in particular that ultimate real superior a Pope would as such be perfectly incapable of heresy. It has been the blithe easy ability of the Vatican leadership during and since Vatican II to fall into heresy (and all the more so obviously, heresy after heresy, leader after leader, all failing all in a row as to evidence that also the problem runs far deeper than merely the personal failings of these men) that so evidences that they have no legitimate claim to the Roman Catholic papacy.
At the outset, you state that “As regular readers of this space are well aware, while I am convinced beyond all doubt that Jorge Mario Bergoglio is not a member of the Body of the Church and thus not her visible head on earth (i.e., he is an anti-pope),” That is the very definition of a “sedevacantist,” so it is incomprehensible to be saying “I’m not a sedevacantist properly speaking.” As can be seen, “sedevacantist” can cover a broad range of meaning, and John Lane is not the whole breadth of possible interpretations or explanations (such as they are) as known within the sedevacantist community, but only one single and very particular school of thought.
The problem with sedevacantism is that it rests upon an ahistorical ideology of sorts which one might call “hyperpapalism”.
It presumes the quasi-divine character of both the Pope of Rome (infallibility) and the Roman Church itself (indefectible).
Neither of these have any real basis in Apostolic Tradition. The esteem given to the bishop and see of Rome is a historical fact, granted. But that esteem rested upon that fact that Peter AND Paul- who in the early days of the church were both widely regarded to express the purest form of Apostolic Tradition -settled there and founded the Roman Church (and later were martyred).
That’s why the BOTH Peter AND Paul are mentioned throughout both the Ordo and the Canon of the (traditional) Roman liturgy.
Infallibility and indefectibility were later theological “developments”…and not at all towards the good.
NQP,
Those qualities of infallibility and indefectibility should reasonably follow from the fact that the Church was founded by Christ to lead men to eternal salvation, no?
For what use would the Church be if she were fallible in her teachings and could err?
What use would she be if she could defect from our Lord and spread a false gospel?
“It [the Catholic Church] presumes the quasi-divine character of both the Pope of Rome (infallibility) and the Roman Church itself (indefectible).”
I had a hunch that you were not a Catholic.
The sole raison d’être of the institution we call “the church“ is to protect and transmit the Tradition of God’s public, historical Self-revelation in the person of Jesus.
Its foundation- one might call such its “rock” -is reasoned belief in Him based upon this Tradition. That “reasoned belief” is what we commonly call “faith”.
Jesus gave Simon that name “rock” for just that: he confessed faith in Him based upon his own first-hand witness of Him. We all in turn, centuries later, instead rely upon the testimony of Peter and the other Apostles about Jesus. This Apostolic Tradition forms the basis of our faith in Jesus, and our faith in turn is what unites us both to Him and also to our brethren.
Simon Peter’s confession of faith, however, didn’t give him superpowers of “infallibility”.
Much less did it bestow “indefectibility” upon the human institution we call “the church”.
If one or both were so, they would in effect override our powers of reasoning and the freedom of our will- which are together His Image in each of us. That would be absurd.
His Image = God’s Image.
Typo.
I should add here that sedevacantism is really nothing more than attempt to prop back up the failing hyperpapalist ideology I mentioned. It seeks to restore something which, put quite simply, was not really a thing in the first place.
This ideology developed over centuries. How and why it developed is a complex historical question which can’t be treated in-depth in a combox. However, one can say with assurance it took a definite shape and form in the mid and late 19th century under Popes Pius IX and Leo XIII.
mothermostforgiving- Considering the current condition of the Roman Church- doctrinally, liturgically, etc- and considering the person/persons who ostensibly have the title and office of Pope of Rome (Bergoglio? Ratzinger? Both??), I’d say the burden of proof falls upon those who hold fast still to the notions of infallibility and indefectibility.
A Simple Man- I don’t see how it follows.
Faith in Jesus, or anything else for that matter, by definition entails some degree of uncertainty and incomplete knowledge. Therefore, it is possible for the purely human part of the church to stray from Him.
In my experience many Catholics (not to mention other Christians) are saddled with the erroneous notion that faith entails absolute certitude and knowledge. Or they confuse certitude with trust. Either way, in the minds of many people, faith seems to be a big muddle or confusion.
If we had absolute certainty and complete knowledge, we’d have no need for faith.
To “A Simple Man” I appreciate your comments and insights very much.
I agree and therefor NobisQuoquePeccatoribus doesn’t have access to the sacraments either.
NBQ,
Your notion of faith is not what the Church teaches it to be. Per the Catholic Encyclopedia: “Objectively, [faith] stands for the sum of truths revealed by God in Scripture and tradition and which theChurch (see RULE OF FAITH) presents to us in a brief form in her creeds, subjectively, faith stands for the habit or virtue by which we assent to those truths. ”
In like manner, asserting that the Church which Christ founded must by necessity be infallible in teaching and indefectible in her doctrine does not in any way override our own reasoning or our free will.
After all, Christ Himself was infallible and indefectible; that did not stop people from turning away from Him.
james,
True. John Lane contradicted himself terribly. He makes as though his disagreement with many others in the SSPX, of whether or not the Church has an anti-Christ false pope, is a small matter. His absurd solution, is that he keeps his belief to himself.
You are also correct that False Francis who opposes our Lord Jesus’ teachings, is not the same as confusion about who is the true pope during a time of turmoil and debate.
This program is a train wreck, Louis made an error by putting the search for common ground, ahead of the Truth.
.
Jesus Is The Truth.
Yes, today, we can see and hear the obstinate heresies with our own eyes and ears, via video as if we were in their physical company; as well as read any of the heretical written documents as soon as they are published online. No room for uncertainty, as in prior times before TV, internet, instant communications orally and in writing. Lord God Almighty, have mercy upon us!
He seems not to know the inerrant Deposit of Faith to which we assent by act of the will, the Act of Faith is made in respect of the fixed, unchangeable body of Holy Faith.
He seems not to know the inerrant Deposit of Faith to which we assent by act of the will; the Act of Faith is made in respect of the fixed, unchangeable body of Holy Faith.
NQP, what you say sounds very Gallican and very Eastern. I know many Eastern Catholics who see the Pope as nothing more than a figure head while they claim that all they need is Tradition. Protestants claim all they need is Scripture. What is needed is a Rule of Faith and that has always been the Papacy. Take away the Pope, and it all unravels. Sticking to Tradition will have the same disastrous results as Sola Scriptura.
ASM- A few remarks:
What the Catholic Encyclopedia is referring to is what we call the “Deposit of Faith”. Commentor Lynda points this out. That is not the sense of the word I was referring to: a concrete verb rather than an abstract noun. BTW, the Catholic Encyclopedia is hardly “infallible”…or better put free from errors.
When you say “Church which Christ founded is infallible” who or what exactly, in the real world, is infallible? Only a person can be infallible in a proper usage of the term. Saying that, for example, a phrase uttered, or a tree, or a car is “infallible” is not a good use of the word.
You say:
“After all, Christ Himself was infallible and indefectible; that did not stop people from turning away from Him.”
This is of course very true, and it is seems to be true today of the Roman Catholic Church: over time it has come to stray from Apostolic Tradition which preserves the memory of Revelation in favor of what could be called a false tradition and a subsequent false notion of faith based on “internal religious experience”- a vague sort of gnosticism.
I’d add also that Jesus alone, being both God and man, is the only Person Whom one can properly call “infallible”.
Tom A., consider this:
Any legitimate “rule of faith” has to have a basis in God’s real, historic, public Self-Revelation in the person of Jesus. The memory of that is the essence of the Apostolic Tradition.
BTW, even the Pope himself is or at least once formally was held accountable to that Tradition: such was in the now discarded oath sworn by a newly election Pope at his coronation.
BTW Tom A., your remark about “sounding Eastern”:
What can be said about the Eastern rites, whether Catholic or “Orthodox”, is that they don’t suffer anywhere nearly as much from the influence of Augustine as the Western rites and Protestant sects do. I’d say that this applies both to the Eastern and Oriental rites
That’s not to say that they don’t have their own ecclesiological and theological issues. Most of the Eastern rite churches are heavily under the influence of Gregory of Palamas for example. Likewise they by and large subscribe to a very ahistorical “patriarchical” ideology somewhat analogous to the “hyperpapalist” one of the Western Catholic Church.
There’s plenty more which could be said, but for now…
No, the “burden” will fall on those who stand before God and will have nothing to say in answer to the question “Why did you not have faith in Me? Why did you not hold fast, and unquestioningly, to the teaching of the Church—even in the day of the devil’s onslaught against My Church? Why did you doubt that I would deliver you, even if you had no Mass to attend? The Rosary was there for you as well as the lives of the saints for you to follow.”
@NQP: What do you make of the description of the Church in 1 Timothy 3 : 15:
–
“But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.”
–
I understand this in an ontological sense that the “Church IS the pillar and foundation of the truth” (to adopt an alternate and more familiar translation). I don’t see how the Church being DIVINELY INSTITUTED as the PILLAR AND FOUNDATION OF THE TRUTH could in any sense DEFECT. Given this definition as the starting point, how could one understand the Church to have defected? I don’t see how that is possible.
–
I could understand that it may appear to some that the Church has defected, but isn’t that really the misunderstanding of attributing fallible and sinful human behavior to a Divine Institution?
The “memory” of Christ’s revelation, or better known as Tradition would be useless if it were not for Divine Assistance over the centuries. You call that “hyperpapalism” but I call it absolutely required to keep man from corrupting the Faith. The record shows that the Faith remained uncorrupted till 1958. Ergo the conclusion that Divine Assistance was removed in 1958 for whatever reason God so deigned.
Poor, poor Tom A, another gnostic, implacably miscreant fool, just as NQP, but each in his own right.
You spewed this non-Catholic gibberish, you pseudo-intellectual, heretical fool:
–
“Ergo the conclusion that Divine Assistance was removed in 1958 for whatever reason God so deigned.”
–
Pope Leo XIII infallibly taught this in, “Satis Cognitum”:
–
“But, as we have already said, the Apostolic mission was not destined to die with the Apostles themselves, or to come to an end in the course of time, since it was intended for the people at large and instituted for the salvation of the human race. For Christ commanded His Apostles to preach the “Gospel to every creature, to carry His name to nations and kings, and to be witnesses to him to the ends of the earth.” He further promised to assist them in the fulfilment of their high mission, and that, not for a few years or centuries only, but for all time – “even to the consummation of the world.” Upon which St. Jerome says: “He who promises to remain with His Disciples to the end of the world declares that they will be for ever victorious, and that He will never depart from those who believe in Him” (In Matt., lib. iv., cap. 28, v. 20). But how could all this be realized in the Apostles alone, placed as they were under the universal law of dissolution by death? It was consequently provided by God that the Magisterium instituted by Jesus Christ should not end with the life of the Apostles, but that it should be perpetuated. We see it in truth propagated, and, as it were, delivered from hand to hand. For the Apostles consecrated bishops, and each one appointed those who were to succeed them immediately “in the ministry of the word.” ”
–
And also this:
–
“For it is the nature and object of a foundation to support the unity of the whole edifice and to give stability to it, rather than to each component part; and in the present case this is much more applicable, since Christ the Lord wished that by the strength and solidity of the foundation the gates of hell should be prevented from prevailing against the Church. All are agreed that the divine promise must be understood of the Church as a whole, and not of any certain portions of it. These can indeed be overcome by the assaults of the powers of hell, as in point of fact has befallen some of them.”
–
Save you soul Tom A; submit to the divine, living, perpetual as unchanging and unending, Ordinary and Universal Magisterium, or perish into Hell for all eternity. I pray that you do. Amen. In caritas.
Dear Melanie. There is really nothing to fret about.
Read The Commonitory by St Vincent of Lerins and rest in the peace of Christ and let the Church decide these captious matters.
Francis is the Pope until the Catholic Church (not individuals) says otherwise.
As well intentioned as individuals may be, they have no authority do decide who is and isn’t Pope as Jesus established His Church and gave it the authority.
St Vincent teaches us that God allows prelates to try and impose novelties on the church as the way He tests us to see if we love Him. If that happens we stick with what has always been believed and taught – Tradition.
As love is an action, how does it show love for us as individuals to presume to have the authority to decide who is and isn’t Pope?
Jesus is, has always been, and will always be (Until the Parousia) the head of His One True Holy Roman Catholic Church and so we endure this captious chaos in perfect serenity because we have the peace of Christ.
If one can not suffer these trials absent anxiety and fear ASK (Ask, Seek, Knock) Jesus for His peace and slough off the little stuff.
And it is all little stuff
ABS,
Since individuals exist in the Church and we, including Cardinals and Bishops, must FIRST make an individual and personal judgment about the status of the person of the Pope before collectively casting our /their ballot, then it is absurd to use the argument that the Church must first decide, as if the Church collectively makes the decision in a vacuum without the consideration of Her individual members. It is perfectly Catholic to use our God given reason to judge a manifest heretic for what he is and conclude the obvious based on Catholic teaching.
God bless.
And the Amateur heretic returns,
You poor, poor, poor, miscreant, pseudo-intellectual, sophomoric, imbecile, who has the audacious gall to write such non-Catholic gibberish as this, in utter defiance and rejection of Pope Paul IV’s infallible Apostolic Constitution, “Cum Ex Apostolatus Officio”, you jingoistic moron. The Amateur imbecile writes:
–
“As well intentioned as individuals may be, they have no authority do decide who is and isn’t Pope as Jesus established His Church and gave it the authority.”
–
Pope Paul IV infallibly and Authoritatively teaches and commands in, “Cum Ex…” section 6:
–
“In addition, that if ever at any time it shall APPEAR that any Bishop, even if he be acting as an Archbishop, Patriarch or Primate; or any Cardinal of the aforesaid Roman Church, or, as has already been mentioned, any legate, or even the Roman Pontiff, prior to his promotion or his elevation as Cardinal or Roman Pontiff, has DEVIATED from the Catholic Faith or fallen into some heresy:
–
(i) the promotion or elevation, EVEN IF IT SHALL HAVE BEEN UNCONTESTED and by the UNANIMOUS CONSENT OF ALL THE CARDINALS, shall be NULL, VOID, AND WORTHLESS;
–
(i) 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 to be Bishops, or Archbishops, or Patriarchs, or Primates or elevated as Cardinals, or as Roman Pontiff, NO AUTHORITY SHALL HAVE BEEN GRANTED, nor shall it be considered to have been so granted either in the SPIRITUAL OR TEMPORAL DOMAIN;
–
(v) each and all of their words, deed, 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 AUTHOMATICALLY, and WITHOUT NEED FOR ANY FURTHER DECLARATION, of all dignity, position, honour, title, authority, office, and power.
–
You now stand corrected and judged by the divine, living, perpetual, Ordinary and Universal Magisterium, heretic, so called Amateur Brain Surgeon. God save your heretical, lost, abysmal soul. I pray that He does. In caritas.
Tom A.- How do you define “Divine Assistance”?
St. Cyprus news- I’d simply say that Jesus- The Word of God made Flesh -is our Foundation. We’re united to Him by way of faith, hope and ultimately love. We come to faith- which is to say actually living the reasoned belief we have in Jesus (and hope and love) -in turn by way of Apostolic Tradition.
The job of the church is simply to protect and transmit the Apostolic Tradition and not “screw” with it by either embellishing or taking anything away from it. I’d argue that this was the original understanding which the both the Apostles and the faithful after then had, not the hyperpapalist “magisterium” and “theological development”/“development of doctrine” which has come to characterize the Church of Rome over the centuries.
BTW St. Cyprian I’m sorry for the typos.
I’m typing on my smart device and it “corrects” my typing ad hoc.
“Why did you not hold fast, and unquestioningly, to the teaching of the Church?”
MMF- isn’t the whole issue which so-called “traditional” Catholics have with changes made to liturgy and doctrine based upon them actually “questioning the Church”?
Likewise isn’t the theory of sedevacantism based upon “questioning the Pope” essentially?
When you use a word like “unquestioningly”, you render faith in Jesus- reasoned belief in Him -into a sort of blind belief in the absurd and end up rendering Jesus into a sort of despotic cartoon figure.
“When you use a word like “unquestioningly”, you render faith in Jesus- reasoned belief in Him -into a sort of blind belief in the absurd and end up rendering Jesus into a sort of despotic cartoon figure.”
YOU say I render faith in Jesus into a caricatural (MY word) absurdity. I do no such thing. Satan is always at man’s elbow to persuade him to doubt, and always leavening that persuasion with a dose of pride—man’s pride in his abilities, his maturity, and, most of all, his intelligence. Our job is to humbly submit to that which the Paraclete has guided us to follow. Like little children, no?
Hmm. “Caritas” means what? Nice form of charity with your language…you can disagree without being disagreeable.
If you’re following the writings of Pope Paul IV, who is a “non-pope” by Sede standards, than your argument doesn’t work.
Confusion reigns supreme these days.
“…humbly submit to that which the Paraclete [the Holy Ghost] has guided us to follow…”
Jesus promised the Holy Ghost aka Paraclete to His Apostles in order that they would be reminded of all that He said and did.
That’s the long and short of the Holy Ghost aka Paraclete as far as I can see. It is God reminding His Apostles about their actual knowledge and experience of Jesus.
I’d argue therefore that the Holy Ghost aka Paraclete is not some sort of magician or “infuser” of previously unknown…or much less secret/occult…knowledge or power or “grace”.
Dear pigg0214 All the Bishops and virtually the entirety of over a billion catholic faithful accepted the election of Francis which makes it an infallible dogmatic fact.
As to judging whether of not he is guilty of the crime of heresy is difficult to determine (and it isn’t our job anyways) because he is a Jebbie (and likely the victim of poor seminary training) and so while he seems a material heretic it matters little whether or not ABS or thee thinks he is a formal heretic.
That is for the Church to decide.
Dear Caritas. You missed the opportunity to say “Now go away or I shall taunt you a second time.”
When you use a word like “unquestioningly”, you render faith in Jesus- reasoned belief in Him -into a sort of blind belief in the absurd and end up rendering Jesus into a sort of despotic cartoon figure.
Does faith preclude doubt?
Diriget Deus, I think you must be mixing up your Roman Numerals bc otherwise that’s a real goofy thing to claim about sedevacantists.
Amateur Brain Surgeon wrote- “Does faith preclude doubt?”
No.
Faith is reasoned belief. So by definition it entails some degree of uncertainty and unknowing.
Although the Faith is above and beyond natural reason, it can never by necessity conflict with right reason which is available to man in his God-given nature.
“Although the Faith is above and beyond natural reason, it can never by necessity conflict with right reason which is available to man in his God-given nature.”
I essentially agree with you here. Though I’d substitute the word “Faith” with “Revelation”.
Actually the Roman rite is not a “universal” rite.
There is no “universal” rite. Liturgical rites are a matter of custom. That is to say that they arise out of cultural expression. They’re not Revelation per se even if they express Revelation.
The fact that there even are other rites is an empirical proof of this.
Pius V issued Quo Primum in 1570 as a matter of discipline within a historical context:
1.) The degradation of the Latin rites which had been going on for decades, if not centuries, up that that point.
2.) The spreading of Protestant liturgical rites and the confusion which came about from that.
Quo Primum did not and does not “divinize” the Roman Rite by any means.
Many so-called “traditionalists” mistakenly argue this point in their earnest to oppose the Novus Ordo rite. They use Quo Primum as a “proof text” against the New Ordo and take it out of the historical context in which Pius V actually issued it. Their intention is good, but it is nonetheless ignorant of history.
The bull was a matter of discipline because it pertains specifically to a published liturgical book which contains a specific liturgical rite: that of Rome and the Pope. Pius V used his authority to try to curtail the rampant abuse done to the Latin rites up to that point by basically saying “I am the Pope of Rome. Here is a revised Roman Rite of Mass. This rite can be used anywhere by anyone.”.
There was nothing “infallible” or “divine” about Quo Primum. Pius V was by all accounts a good churchman, had real faith in Jesus and understood his responsibility to preserve and pass on Tradition.
That being said…
Personally I believe that, specifically, the Roman Canon found in all traditional Latin rites (including the Roman rite) expresses the essence of what Jesus told His Apostles to do in a more perfect way than any non-Latin rite.
However, others might disagree with me about the Canon.
Well, well, well, what do we now have before us? One by one, soon if not already, you all shall become your own brands of “Home Aloners”, by the Divine Decree of Almighty God, the very PUBLIC sacrileges shall dwindle if not cease altogether. Oh the irony. I read a silly blog post asking if the faux Bishops’ decrees are a foretaste of the “coming” Antichrist who will cause all Masses to cease; you know, the oh-so-obvious and horned bogey man whom you all presume you will recognize straight away? Satan’s craftiness hasn’t ceased; he continues to confound you with his trickery to keep you living the lie unto the very end. Of course it all has already happened, just as Sr. Lucia cryptically warned, and as prophesied by Our Lady of LaSalette in whose very direction St. John the Evangelist – dressed as Bishop at Knock – gazed at the very moment of her Coronation in France. Time grows short for all to beg God’s mercy and ask Him for the Light of Faith to SEE and break free from the deception to which so many stubbornly and desperately adhere (i.e. their OWN will, comfort and preference).
May God have mercy on ALL of our wretched souls.
VERITAS DOMINI MANET IN AETERNUM
Poor, poor, effeminized, Diriget,
Evil has no rights, you fool, as evil takes souls to Hell; while each is infinitely valuable to the One Who Willed the human person into existence, ex nihilo. Heresy murders eternal souls. Yours’ is an effeminized, “charity”, purely affective, while at once devoid of Truth, as souls are plunging into Hell in apostasy, you fool. You have no concept of the objective as intellective truth, which can only exist in true Caritas. Amen. True Caritas first and foremost, as Deus Caritas Est. The Theological Virtues, Faith, Hope and Caritas, have as their true object, Almighty God, with Caritas the First, as Caritas is Eternal. Save your soul you miserable wretch. I pray that you do. In caritas.
I think you mean “Pope Paul VI, who is a “non-pope” by Sede standards….” But it’s an easy mistake to make, esp. if one has dyslexia 😉
And again you miserable apostate, Amateur heretic,
–
You utterly affront, after correction, the divine, living, perpetual as unchanging and unending, Ordinary and Universal Magisterium, in the Authoritative teaching with his full Apostolic power, of Pope Paul IV in his singular Apostolic Constitution, “Cum Ex Apostolatus Officio”, section 6, apostate. The Church has, “decided”, you pseudo-intellectual, sophomoric, imbecilic moron, and it Authoritatively taught this in 1559, by divine Providence, you hideous apostate to the True Faith. Pope Paul IV clearly and Authoritatively taught as copied for you, that it MATTERS NOT HOW MANY MEN NOR WHO THEY ARE, give assent to a false Pope, that does NOT as it CANNOT change the DOGMATIC FACT that he NEVER COULD HAVE BEEN POPE, you utterly imbecilic, intellectively infantile, jingoistic moron. And again, there is NO CRIME OF HERESY NEEDED TO BE JUDGED, you sophomoric idiot posing as a Catholic. Pope Paul IV infallibly taught that the would be, “Bishop”, has only to, “DEVIATE FROM THE FAITH”, to compel the laity to know, deFide, that the man NEVER EVER RECEIVED Episcopal Consecration, regardless of how much time he APPEARED to hold Ecclesial Office, you jingoistic fool. Save your soul apostate or be damned to Hell with your Prince for all eternity, you miserable, hideous wretch. I pray that you do. In caritas.
Lynda, remember what Padre Pio would often say to his spiritual children? “Pray, trust, and don’t worry.” I’m just beginning to experience the cross of social and intellectual isolation which goes with rejecting the pernicious V2 and Novus Ordo errors and novelties. But it is a gift from God to be able to see the disturbing truth that we are in fact living during the long prophesied “Great Apostasy” as well as the “Eclipse of the Church.” I believe the theological arguments for the sede postition to a great extent need the buttressing of the historical arguments, such as are in the “Papal Imposters” video, along with the evidence of a nuclear threat against the Vatican during the 1958 conclave. padrepioandchiesaviva.com/Grave_Reasons_of_State.html
The other articles there are disturbingly informative as well.
Add to that the recent studies undeniably proving that Sr Lucia was replaced by an imposter and the historical evidence keeps mounting. sisterlucyimposter.org
The reality, however unpleasant, tragically appears to be much more sinister than many Francis critics and Benedict and JPII supporters state. Padre Pio “around 1960,” as Fr Gabriel Amorth, later chief exorcist of Rome, recalls, told him, “You know, Gabriele? It is Satan who has been introduced into the bosom of the Church and within a very short time will come to rule a false Church.” (Interview with Fr Amorth by José María Zavala, in The Best Kept Secret of Fatima)
In 1963, at the beginning of Paul VI’s reign, Padre Pio embraced Father Luigi Villa three times, saying to him: “Be brave, now…for the Church has already been invaded by Freemasonry!” and then stated: “Freemasonry has already made it into the slippers of the Pope!” Fr Villa was commissioned by Padre Pio to expose and fight against Ecclesiastical Freemasonry, and then Pius XII gave him a Papal Mandate to do so.
padrepioandchiesaviva.com/Padre_Pio___Fr.html
“Rome will lose the faith and become the seat of the Antichrist. The Church will be in eclipse.” (Our Lady of La Salette, 1846)
I think Louie means that he thinks Benedict is still pope. But then he will have to try to explain the heresies of Benedict. The 5 minutes of white smoke on Oct. 26, 1958 are the key to the conundrum. whitesmoke1958.com and “Papal Imposters”:
youtube.com/watch?v=2-VqjJW_lOM&t=1153s
Mr. John Lane is correct about Catholic Theology being higher in the hierarchal order then canon law, but many post comments on this website are putting canon law above Catholic Theology?
It’s interesting how Cardinal Burke says magisterium is a resent theological term referring to the duty of the Church to teach and safeguard the faith as it has been handed down in Tradition. But then he goes on to say, weather you say it is magisterium or not, if it’s not in agreement with what the Church always taught and practiced, then it can’t be magisterium. His statement is true, but confusing to the laity, because the Church never claimed that the “Authentic” magisterium is infallible, therefore it is fallible, and therefore heresy can exist in the so called magisterium, yet when it does, it’s not really magisterium!
Mr. John Lane is correct when he says traditional Catholics are the most obedient Catholics, for traditionalists are following the infallible decrees of the Church and the modernist revolution has always operated on the pastoral and fallible levels of the magisterium that is the authority exercised by the modern Church never exceeds the “Authentic” fallible level of authority. And what’s worse, when they engaged the fallible “authentic” magisterium, at least in the case of Vatican II, they either did it unintentionally or purposely engaged it by engaging in a bait and switch scam.
It’s interesting how Cardinal Burke says magisterium is a resent theological term referring to the duty of the Church to teach and safeguard the faith as it has been handed down in Tradition. But then he goes on to say, weather you say it is magisterium or not, if it’s not in agreement with what the Church always taught and practiced, then it can’t be magisterium. His statement is true, but confusing to the laity, because the Church never claimed that the “Authentic” magisterium is infallible, therefore it is fallible, and therefore heresy can exist in the so called magisterium, yet when it does, it’s not really magisterium!”
In previous comments I’ve stated that I’m not fond of the word or the idea “magisterium” as it applies to the institutional church.
This excerpt from your comment sort of exemplifies why: its a complete muddle and a novel “development” in theology.
Whether you care for Burke or no (I’m no fan of him myself), he’s pretty much correct about “magisterium”.
Better to stick to Apostolic Tradition.
ASB,
Go to the novus ordo mass they have provided you with. Absorb it. Let it teach you. Accept Vatican II in its entirety. Believe and assent to every word. Absorb it and let it sink deep into your soul. Then see if you still hold the Faith.
Bigamoeba – you are isolated because less than 1% of people care about their soul. 99% care only about their belly (or underbelly). You are true brother (or sister) of Christ. The rest is stew being readied for the Hell.
So, just to clarify what you are saying, I have right to show ‘respect’ to successors of Peter – by thinking and doing precisely what I want? It is like a child writing birthday card to mother, but secretly sneaking out of house behind her back. That is very Protestant! True respect is manifested in the first place by obedience. To do otherwise is to say Lord, Lord, but doing ones own thing. If I am not mistaken, Christ himself condemned that kind of ‘respect’!
What “church” would that be? The “church” full of heretics? You’re waiting for a lot of heretics to condemn Bergolzebub as a heretic? You’ll be waiting a long time.
Unfortunately, Melanie’s confusing is not entirely surprising. I count myself a sedevacantist and John Lane is NOT good at what one might lightly call “sedevacantist apologetics”. He’s frankly all over the place, which probably comes of treating with the SSPX.
That is an excellent commentary on Lane’s position. He uses half arguments to justify his own association with the SSPX. He is in everything except the descriptor he claims, an R&Rer.
“Likewise isn’t the theory of sedevacantism based upon “questioning the Pope” essentially?”
Suggestion: go and read about sedevacantism before you pontificate about sedevacantism. You clearly don’t have a clue.
Dear brother in Christ, the holy men and women, the martyrs and saints, so lacking in our evil world – they we ought to try to emulate. It is truly Hell on Earth, due to the mass apostasy. I like your Crusader motif – that is the zeal, perseverance, courage needed. We are a tiny, tiny remnant. I’ve been suffering that isolation for decades – as has anyone who wants to obey God, His Holy Laws and to acknowledge objective truth, attainable by our natural reason, as well as the fuller truth coming from the grace of God, when we obey Him. The true Church and the true Faithful and those who seek God are going through unprecedented suffering, a kind of Passion, if we ever ask God to unite our suffering with His Holy Will, to make us holy, help the repentance of apostates, heretics, those in obstinate mortal sin. Forgive my poor phraseology – on top of the trauma which we Catholics are trying to endure, I have chronic condition which has a severely-deleterious effect on my thinking, memory, word-usage. Lord, have mercy. We need to help and support each other.
This very combox is nothing less than a microcosm of the REAL cause of the disaster and problem the world is facing in THESE LAST DAYS.
All. Opinions. Are. Worthless.
For the love of God, seek the Truth while you still have a little time. Submit to Truth so as to die a Catholic no matter the cost; you may as well as you are all the real “Home-Aloners” now. You have very little to lose now in doing so.
Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart of Mary, pray for us.
Take note: 3/22/70 – 3/22/20.
The beginning and hopefully the end of N.O. “mass”. 50 years.
Beginning this Sunday there will be almost NO public faux Masses of any sort to be found; this is their crowning (corona) moment. Touché.
The above opinion is such an atrocious disaster that I wouldn’t even know where to begin.
V R S N S M V
ASB, you are correct. All opinions are worthless. Especially yours.
V R S N S M V
Tom,
I gave up my opinions. All of them. They were leading me to hell. You, on the other hand, are blinded and lack reading comprehension because you can’t hear nor comprehend simple instructions, i.e. Christ’s Voice in the Perpetual and Living Magisterium. You are right in one aspect, that being that there is no Pope to authoritatively CHANGE what has been left to us to follow. You’re going to be obstinate right to your impending end, aren’t you? You, AS YOU SAID IT, are “DOOMED and left to wander”, not me. Good luck with that – with doing YOUR OWN WILL. “As above, so below”.
V R S N S M V
Veritas DOMINI Manet in AETERNUM
ASB wrote- “Christ’s Voice in the Perpetual and Living Magisterium.”
Christ’s voice is actually found in Apostolic Tradition because it contains the record and memory of the public, historical self-revelation of God Who actually IS Him (and not merely things He said and did).
When you use a word like “magisterium”, it has negative ramifications. What it does is renders the institutional church, or at least individuals within it such as the Pope, into a sort of oracular mechanism which has/have a sort of privileged hotline to God.
Once you start putting absolute credence in private or privileged divine knowledge/inspiration/revelation given to either an institution or individuals therein, all basis for faith as both reasoned and reasonable belief begins to crumble. You end up a fideist, a gnostic and a cultist.
James, you have pointed out many of the things I saw in the first interviews as well. Isn’t it any wonder he stopped posting to his “sedevacantist” forum. Someone once told me he is basically an R&R/SSPX adherent, and I didn’t believe it. Now I see it.
I do hope Louie seeks out a sedevacantist who has more conviction and is much clearer in their stance. Hopefully. John Lane is just the starting point for him.
Mr Verrecchio, you should read this: https://inveritateblog.com/2020/03/17/indefectibility-and-una-cum/#more-645
anna mack- I stand upon what I said about sedevacantism.
To be clear though, I believe that sedevacantism is an individual position which is very much in line with Tradition therefore very Christian and Catholic. If authority in the institutional church is founded upon manifest faithfulness to Jesus, then it follows that someone loses that authority if and when he knowingly and persistently denies or ceases faithfulness (=actually BEING faithful and not merely confessing faith). They have “vacated” their “see” of authority in doing so. It’s our responsibility as individual Christians to recognize when this happens.
What I do NOT believe, however, is that “sedevacantism” as a sort of ideology which originated among “traditionalists” in the decade following V2 is an end in itself and a solution to the crisis the church has been since then. In a previous comment I stated why I believe this, and I’ll repost it here:
“The problem with sedevacantism is that it rests upon an ahistorical ideology of sorts which one might call “hyperpapalism”.
It presumes the quasi-divine character of both the Pope of Rome (infallibility) and the Roman Church itself (indefectible).
Neither of these have any real basis in Apostolic Tradition. The esteem given to the bishop and see of Rome is a historical fact, granted. But that esteem rested upon that fact that Peter AND Paul- who in the early days of the church were both widely regarded to express the purest form of Apostolic Tradition -settled there and founded the Roman Church (and later were martyred).
That’s why the BOTH Peter AND Paul are mentioned throughout both the Ordo and the Canon of the (traditional) Roman liturgy.
Infallibility and indefectibility were later theological “developments”…and not at all towards the good.”
BTW, I’m sorry if I’m repetitive.
The long and short of my position is that the hyperpapalist mentality/ideology which we (and I include myself when I say “we”) Roman Catholics have been indoctrinated into has been shown to be very wanting in terms of validity in the past 60 or so years.
But even V2 and the New Missal aside, it is even MORE wanting in terms of validity when held up to the light of historical record and Apostolic Tradition.
I read Sanborn’s recent post on his website.
The post as a whole is actually very confused. Here are some noteworthy items which I consider to be the real substance of the post:
-He is very correct in this excerpt:
“There is a document published by Pope Paul IV [Cum Ex Apostolatus] in the sixteenth century dealing with the problem of a heretical pope, but even concerning this there is controversy as to whether it still applies, and about its true meaning.
The point is that there is nothing clear and certain about how to deal with the problem. The early theologians said that a heretical pope would certainly lose office, but not until he was declared a heretic. Later theologians argued that he would lose the office ipso facto, that is, by the very fact of being a public heretic, without any need of declaration.”
– Sanborn is somewhat correct when he states that popes since V2 have tried to impose something alien upon the faithful. He says “religion”, but I’d say it is rather a new and alien “faith”. Religion and faith are two entirely different things. Furthermore, one is hard pressed to call faith in Jesus a “religion” in the proper sense of the word.
-Sanborn is confused when he says that the indefectibility of institutional Roman Church is a matter of dogma and therefore found in Revelation. He uses a Matthew 28:20 as a proof text for this. One is hard-pressed, again, to demonstrate that Jesus was speaking about the Roman Church.
I just noticed, only the first two discussions with John Lane are listed in this page. Will the other since then also be listed? Are they listed anywhere else (other than a Google search or like on YouTube)?
“I’m not fond of the word or the idea “magisterium” as it applies to the institutional church.”
I’m not fond of self-denial, but it is necessary if I want to save my soul. We need to humbly and thankfully receive whatever Christ through Mother Church gives us and asks us to submit to, and the magisterium is an essential part of that. Your attitude reminds me of the disciples who found the eating of Christ’s flesh a “hard saying” and walked away from him.
This reply is belated. I’m sorry about that:
My apologies for the misspellings in that comment.
But if you sensed a bit of theatre of the absurd in what I said, it is because I was trying to show that the notion of “Magisterium” is flawed at best, absurd at worst.