"I'm struggling though in understanding how all the post VII Popes are not also antipopes. Most especially JPII for his Koran kissing, Assisi... help me to understand how the Sedevacantist are not correct"
Vatican I clearly teaches that popes will reign perpetually against Sedevacantism:
"[T]he
true doctrine concerning the establishment, the perpetuity, and the
nature of the apostolic primacy. In this primacy, all the efficacy and
all the strength of the Church are placed. (Vatican I, Pastor Aeternus,
chapter 1)" (UnamSanctumCatholicm.com, "False Principles of Sedevantism
(Part 1)).
Br. Alexis Bugnolo explains some other problems with Sedevacantism:
Sedevacantists
hold in general that there have been no true popes since Pius XII. They
accept the error of Luther that there is no authority or unity in the
Church except that which is given the individual by the virtue of Faith.
Thus, holding themselves as purer than all others, after the manner of
Jansenists, they judge nearly everyone a heretic and thus outside of the
Church. Their special target is all who hold an office which comes down
through Apostolic Succession, because that is the real threat to their
error and their egos."
[https://fromrome.info/2020/01/19/flagship-of-sedes-presages-ppbxvi-movement-victory-in-2020/] - Fred Martinez
One of the great Catholic Monitor commenters, Debbie, said the following to me and the knowledgeable commenter Aqua:
"Fred and Aqua. I'm struggling though in understanding how all the post VII Popes are not also antipopes. Most especially JPII for his Koran kissing, Assisi, changes to the catechism. Please help me to understand how the sedevacantist are not correct."
Here is our response:
To make the claim that the Seat is vacant requires some level of certainty that a false belief is held and pertinaciously, persistently being advanced. It is one thing to be confident a Papal pronouncement is not in accord with the Magisterium and to feel confident thereby in ignoring it. It is another to say that the Pope is thereby outside the Faith and deprived of his Office.
I see no evidence that Popes JP II or Benedict XVI promulgated heresy in their role as guardian of the Magisterium. Assisi was a dangerous moment, but not pertinacious or persistent in subsequent acts and official pronouncements. They must be inextricably bound to the heresy to feel confident in rendering judgement as a Layman the Pope is deprived.
The important distinction in this debate is this: Bergoglio is not Pope, so it is not a question if depriving him of the Office. The current question is whether we must accept the pertinacious, persistent error imposed upon us of a Pope who either does not possess the Papal Munus - or - whether more than one Pope can possess the Papal Munus together. THAT heresy is staring us in the face every day. That heresy is based on a resignation statement that is official and upon which the Cornerstone of the Church rests. It is core and existential and clearly defined. And it persistently insisted upon by the actors in question.
So I am not a Sede because the Seat is not vacant. No proof has ever been offered that a valid Pope has persistently, pertinaciously advanced any heresy, such as those I listed above. Benedict XVI might, in the current circumstance, but has not been probed and questioned, so we don’t know for certain the whys and wherefores to declare heretical error. There may be eminently reasonable reasons, given present dangers, why he did what he did.
And for Bergoglio - he is a child playing in a sandbox that does not belong to him. His errors are not Papal errors and do not fit into the question you pose, above. Antipopes always do, I imagine, precisely what this one does.
I feel confident in declaring on my own authority according to the quantifiable record that Benedict retains his Munus and is Pope.
I feel equally confident that no other validly elected Pope has embraced heresy quantifiable, pertinaciously and persistently in such a way that a declaration should and could be made that he has lost the Faith and thus his Office.
I read the link you posted when it first came out Fred, but I'd forgotten about it. It is helpful to link Arianism/semi-Arianism to modernism/semi-modernism. And Aqua, I guess you're saying the same thing in a different way. To be clear I have been totally on board with the BiP position and pray for Pope Benedict as such. I've been accused more than once of being too black and white. I've always hated gray areas, but believed that was a good thing.
It sure will be a glorious testament to God when this is all settled and the Church becomes a beacon of light again.
I see what happened at Assisi - that was bad. Did JP II leave the Church and his Office at the conclusion of that day?
Arbp LeFebvre chose to consecrate his Bishops in direct response to Assisi, seeing thereby the existential threat to the Church in the long term. He was willing to risk excommunication to ensure the survival of his Order, guardians of Tradition. As he put it in a sermon, shortly thereafter (1978): "If one day they shall excommunicate us because we remain faithful to these theses, we shall consider ourselves excommunicated by Freemasonry."
That is a loaded prepositional “If”. But by it he implies the Pope is treading on thin theological ice. And since he was, I suppose his official position is they were. And I don’t disagree.
excuseme for asking... but, are you visually impaired? or impaired on your mind?... or you just are self-blinded? Your point is: "I see no evidence that Popes JP II or Benedict XVI promulgated heresy in their role as guardian of the Magisterium."...
for ratzinger:
So, acording to you, to teach that "The 'catholic church SUBSIST IN Christ's Church" its not A GIGANT heresy ? really? and the "hermeneutic of continuity" neither?
and for wojtyla:
to place a NEW religion with...
a) new mass
b) new rosary
c) new evangelization
d) new "saints"
d) new "ecumenism"
c) new "sacraments"
d) new exorcisms
should I go on?
so, according to you, to make a FULL NEW religion (instead of the 'traditional one') does not count as appostasy?
what kind of visually impaired are you?
"[T]he true doctrine concerning the establishment, the perpetuity, and the nature of the apostolic primacy. In this primacy, all the efficacy and all the strength of the Church are placed. (Vatican I, Pastor Aeternus, chapter 1)" (UnamSanctumCatholicm.com, "False Principles of Sedevantism (Part 1)).
Br. Alexis Bugnolo explains some other problems with Sedevacantism:
Sedevacantists hold in general that there have been no true popes since Pius XII. They accept the error of Luther that there is no authority or unity in the Church except that which is given the individual by the virtue of Faith. Thus, holding themselves as purer than all others, after the manner of Jansenists, they judge nearly everyone a heretic and thus outside of the Church. Their special target is all who hold an office which comes down through Apostolic Succession, because that is the real threat to their error and their egos." [https://fromrome.info/2020/01/19/flagship-of-sedes-presages-ppbxvi-movement-victory-in-2020/]
And what is your solution to this? Have you declared the Seat vacant? At what specific point in time, which Pope ended the line? You mention JPII - what specifically separated JPII from his seat and excommunicated him to hell forever? You also mention Benedict - was he validly elected Pope or were all Conclaves rendered invalid at some prior point such that all subsequent “Popes” were in reality *anti*Popes?
Do you still go to Mass? Where? Do they have a Pope in your Church? Bishops? If you have Priests, who Ordains them? Is the Apostolic line ended? Under what Apostolic line of authority are Sacraments administered (if any)? What is the nature of your Church? Because my experience is that Sedes do not have Church or Sacraments … the Roman Catholic Church is ended indefinitely.
I don’t disagree things are bad. I am not prepared to render personal judgement of heresy against a validly elected Pope, absent evidence of official denial of Dogma - persistent, pertinacious denial of specific Dogma in official capacity. That I have not seen - in the manner in which this antipope has demonstrated (consecration of Pachamama on the High Altar of St Peter’s).
In short - I take the specific position of SSPX on these matters (ref my quote of Arbp LeFebvre, above).
BTW - Pax Christi! Christus vincit! Christus regnat! Christus imperat!
From your link (I remember that exchange) this excerpt - “They accept the error of Luther that there is no authority or unity in the Church except that which is given the individual by the virtue of Faith. Thus, holding themselves as purer than all others, after the manner of Jansenists, they judge nearly everyone a heretic and thus outside of the Church.”
I have had many an exchange with Sedes, have even attended Sede Mass (did not receive Sacranents there); the Priest was ~ 95; there is no other after him. My experience with Sedes us that they are well meaning, extremely earnest, very well informed as a result, but … wrong in their base assumptions. And I am truly sorry for them because they are lost sheep, which we ALL risk being - hanging by a thread as we are in this tragically deformed Church under Satan’s blitzkrieg attacks.
I have carefully considered their position and reject it for the reasons you, Bugnolo, others, (myself) have stated. As Bugnolo says - they are Jansenist who run the risk of apostatizing like Skojec.
The Seat may well be vacant at some future point - but the Apostolic line remains, for now, through Benedict XVI. That is my firm belief. I converted to the RCC because I was convinced of its claim to Apostolic authority. I will do everything in my power to keep that line in sight, no matter how Satan attacks, encourages diversions from and clouds the true way.
This statement is almost verbatim what my Priest said to the Faithful in his Homily about the purpose of SSPX. They are nothing more than spiritual EMTs. They are consumed in their Vocation with healing and restoring the spiritually sick.
I find that much more compelling than your message of hopelessness - the gravest of all sins.
There are those doing the work of remedying the apostasy *encouraged by* Satan but not yet total. The Apostolic Line remains. The Holy Sacrifice is still offered on the Altar. Holy Mother Church lives … and She needs us.
And thank you too Neofito....your tone and lack of charity/humility are confirmation that Br. Bugnolo is correct.
“Choose one way, or another”, you said. What is the optimal choice in your opinion? I chose “one way”; so what is “the other”?
Sede: The Apostasy is complete, total, the Apostolic line is broken and can never be retrieved, the visible Church Militant is dead, we must worship God without Sacraments as best we can, the Holy Sacrifice is ended, hope in this life is ended until the Eschaton.
Me: Heresy and Apostasy (not just Apostasy) is visible and rampant, the Apostolic line is damaged, the visible Church Militant is sick and in need of medical help, we must still worship God within the Sacraments, the Holy Sacrifice remains among us, hope in this life is the Priesthood faithful to Tradition acting as “EMTs” to the sick, suffering, dying.
All power flows from God. The governments of the world receive their power from God, not the other way around. The "beheading" of the Church (the usurpation of the papacy by the enemies of Christ) was merely the manifestation of the natural trajectory stemming from events that began back in the 14th century with Luther's Protestant Reformation. The precursor to this event can be witnessed when Christ appeared to the King of France and petitioned the king to consecrate France to the His Sacred Heart. When this request was willfully ignored by the king(s), after 100 years, the government of France was infiltrated by her enemies, and the king (Louis XVI) was beheaded. This was NOT a coincidence, but a precursor sign that was given by an all merciful God to those in His Church.
To remain inside the corporate organization calling itself "the Catholic Church" headquartered in Rome is like refusing to leave a ship that is sinking. And it is sinking under the weight of its own sin.
By my comment that one must choose to go one way or the other, I mean that one must choose to align himself either with God's Law revealed to His Church in its DOGMA, or he can choose to align himself with an organization that has retained all of the physical appearances of a church including a its traditional "structures" (both physical buildings and ecclesiastical hierarchy)but is gutted of all divinely inspired dogma.
There is NO ROOM for compromise in this choice. Just as it was impossible for the early Christians to believe in the TRUTH of Jesus Christ and His Resurrection, and yet still attend their former way of worship in the Temple, so too is it in our day. One CAN NOT claim to be a faithful worshiper of Jesus Christ and the Church He established and yet still recognize an apostate hierarchy (bishops as well as pope) as their authority.
This INCLUDES sects such as the SSPX, FSSP, etc. Although these sects like to portray themselves as "life boats" distanced from their "mother ship" in Rome, their willful refusal to cut the tethers to that sinking ship will eventually take them down with it. The ONLY reason those within these sects refuse to see this HAS TO BE because they are unwilling to give up the "benefits" they perceive themselves to get from this relationship.
"[T]he true doctrine concerning the establishment, the perpetuity, and the nature of the apostolic primacy. In this primacy, all the efficacy and all the strength of the Church are placed. (Vatican I, Pastor Aeternus, chapter 1)" (UnamSanctumCatholicm.com, "False Principles of Sedevantism (Part 1)).
Br. Alexis Bugnolo explains some other problems with Sedevacantism:
Sedevacantists hold in general that there have been no true popes since Pius XII. They accept the error of Luther that there is no authority or unity in the Church except that which is given the individual by the virtue of Faith. Thus, holding themselves as purer than all others, after the manner of Jansenists, they judge nearly everyone a heretic and thus outside of the Church. Their special target is all who hold an office which comes down through Apostolic Succession, because that is the real threat to their error and their egos." [https://fromrome.info/2020/01/19/flagship-of-sedes-presages-ppbxvi-movement-victory-in-2020/]
You presume much. I understand why you do. I disagree with why you did - in the strongest of terms.
That is a personal choice; a solemn choice. I sincerely urge you to reconsider and work out your Faith within, rather than without the Church.
God bless you! [https://www.thecatholicmonitor.com/2022/02/taylor-marshall-finally-admitted-that.html]
"[T]he Pope... WHEN he is EXPLICITLY a heretic, he falls ipso facto from his dignity and out of the Church, and the Church MUST either deprive him, or, as some say, declare him deprived, of his Apostolic See."
(The Catholic Controversy, by St. Francis de Sales, Pages 305-306)
Taylor Marshall finally admitted that "Pope Francis teaches HERESY: Pope Pius XII condemned the heresy of Francis":
Pope Francis on Feb 2 2022, taught, "that in Christ no one can ever truly separate us from those we love because the bond is an existential bond, a strong bond that is in our very nature...who have denied the faith, who are apostates." Pope Pius XII taught the exact opposite when he wrote of those: "who have not been so unfortunate as to separate themselves from the unity of the Body, or been excluded by legitimate authority for grave faults committed....as does schism or heresy or apostasy." Pope Francis is condemned by Pope Pius XII. Only one can be right on this matter. [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rzxvFNb59Ug]
Now, the question is will he do a Steve Skojec and a Bishop Athanasius Schneider cop out:
One of the great heroes in the present crisis Latin language expert Br.
Alexis Bugnolo recently stated that those with teachings like Skojec "on
what happens to heretics" without mentioning his name including
"Cardinals and Bishop" may be in "heresy":
"We are left with repeated examples that defy explanation. Those
Cardinals and Bishop who have the reputations for being the most
conservative, who often speak in the defense of many truths, openly
reject catholic teaching on what happens to heretics. To do such a
thing is itself a heresy, because it is asserting that entire dogmatic
and canonical tradition of the Church on heresy is not true."
"Heretics will never out heretics. I just hope that this principle is
not verified in the case of the men of whom we speak, and that they are
only cowards, not heretics."
[http://catholicmonitor.blogspot.com/2019/11/why-is-schneider-apologist-of-franciss.html]
Br. Bugnolo stated that in the comment section of the Catholic Monitor to this article:
Why is Schneider a Apologist of Francis's "Apostasy" by
Defending the Manifest Heretical Papacy of Francis against a Pope, Two
Doctors of the Church and "all the ancient Fathers"?
"[T]he apostasy... even Pope Francis, unfortunately, defends."
Doctor of the Church St. Robert Bellarmine said:
"The manifest heretical pope ceases per se to be pope... This is the opinion of all the ancient Fathers."
Bishop Schneider who admits that Francis "defends" the "apostasy" or heresy of idolatry, unfortunately, claims a manifest heretical pope can not as Doctor of the Church St. Francis de Sales says be "deprived" of "the Apostlic See" by the Church. Schneider by claiming Francis's heretical papacy can't be judged by the Church is implicitly defending the Francis "apostasy" or heresy of idolatry.
Is Schneider's opinion true or false?
Here is the answer from a POPE to Schneider's opinion and all the Francis apologists who claim that a heretical pope can't be judged by the Church:
Pope Innocent III (1198-1216) in "Si Papa":
"'Let no mortal being have the audacity to reprimand a Pope on account of faults, for he whose duty it is to judge all men cannot be judged by anybody, unless he should be called to the task of having deviated from the faith. (Si Papa)'"
"Pope Innocent III: 'For me the faith is so necessary that, whereas for other sins my only judge is God, for the slightest sin in the matter of the faith I could be judged by the Church.' (propter solum peccatum quod in fide commititur possem ab Ecclesia judican)"
(The Remnant, "Answering a Sedevacantist Critic," March 18, 2015)
Moreover, the important theologian Dominique Bouix in, Tractatus de papa, ubi et de concilio oecumenico, vol. II , pars IIIa, cap. iii, p. 653ff, responded to Schneider's opinion:
The second part, in which we hold that those excommunicated by perfect excommunication, which the Supreme Pontiff can determine, are separated from the body of the Church, is taught as Catholic doctrine by Pius XII in the encyclical Mystici corporis: AAS 35 (1943) 202ff.
1057. This whole thesis of ours is clearly taught by Pius XII and the Catechism of the Council of Trent.[16]
Pius XII writes: “But in truth, only those are to be numbered amongst the members of the Church who have received the laver of regeneration and profess the true faith, who have not miserably separated themselves from the community of the Church or through most grave crimes been separated by the legitimate authority…For this reason, those who are divided from one another in faith or government are unable to live in the one Body of this sort and in its divine Spirit…Nor should it be thought that the Body of the Church, because it is insigned with the name of Christ, consists, even in this time of terrestrial pilgrimage, only of members outstanding in sanctity, or that it is constituted only of the company of those who are predestined by God to sempiternal felicity…Indeed not every crime, even if a grave wickedness, is of such kind that of its very nature it separates man from the Body of the Church—as do schism, heresy, or apostasy.”
In the Catechism of the Council of Trent we read:
“Only three sorts of men are excluded from the Church: firstly, infidels, then heretics and schismatics, and finally excommunicates: pagans indeed, because they have never been in the Church, nor ever known it, nor been made partakers of any Sacrament in the society of the Christian people; heretics and schismatics, because they have revolted from the Church, for they no more pertain to the Church, than do deserters to the army from which they have defected: yet it must not be denied that they are in the power of the Church, as ones who may be called to judgment by her, punished, and condemned by anathema. Finally also excommunicates, because by the judgment of the Church have they been excluded from her, and do not belong to her communion until they come to their senses. But concerning other men, though they be wicked and criminal, it is not to be doubted that they yet persevere in the Church.”
1058. Dogmatic value. The first part, concerning heretics, apostates, and schismatics, is implicitly defined, particularly in the Council of Florence: D 714. The second part, on excommunicates by perfect excommunication, is Catholic doctrine, especially from the words of the encyclical of Pius XII, Mystici corporis Christi, recently cited by us above.
1059. The first part is proved. Heretics, apostates, and schismatics are not members of the Church...
1060. The same doctrine is confirmed by the authority of testimonies of the holy Fathers.
a) On heretics. Tertullian: “If they are heretics, they cannot be
Christians” (R 298). St. Hilary: “I am a Catholic; I do not wish to be a
heretic. I am a Christian, not an Arian.” St. Jerome: “Heretics pass
judgment upon themselves, receding from the Church of their own will.”
St. Augustine: “Sever yourselves from the members of the Church, sever
yourselves from its Body. But what still might I say, in order that they
might segregate themselves from the Church, since they have already
done this? For they are heretics; they are already without.” The
controversy on the rebaptizing of heretics, which was agitated thence
from the middle of the third century, supposed as recognized by all that
heretics are outside of the Church.[17]
b) On schismatics. Cyprian: “But what pertains to the person of
Novatian…you know that we in the first place ought not to be inquisitive
of what he taught, since he taught from without. Whosoever he is and of
whatever condition, he is not a Christian who is not in the Church of
Christ…he who neither held fast to fraternal charity nor ecclesiastical
unity, has lost even that which he was previously.” St. Jerome: “Between
heresy and schism, we think there to be this difference, that heresy
imports perverse dogma; schism, on account of episcopal dissension,
separates from the Church…moreover, no schism does not fabricate for
itself a heresy, so that it might seem to have receded from the Church
rightly.” St. Augustine: “Heretics and schismatics call their
congregations churches. But heretics, thinking falsely about God,
violate the faith itself; but schismatics burst free of fraternal
charity through hostile divisions, although they believe those things
which we believe. For this reason, heretics do not belong to the
Catholic Church, because she loves God, nor schismatics, because she
loves the neighbor” (R 1562). St. Fulgentius: “Most firmly hold and
doubt not at all, that every one baptized outside of the Catholic Church
is unable to become a partaker of eternal life, if before the end of
this life he has not returned and been incorporated to the Catholic
Church. Most steadily and in no way doubt, that not only all pagans, but
also all Jews and all heretics and schismatics, who finish this present
life outside of the Catholic Church, are to enter into the eternal
fire” (R 2274-5). Pelagius I: “Pollute not a mind ever Catholic by any
communion of schismatics. It is clear that the Body of Christ is one,
the Church is one…our Savior taught: a vine separated from the grapevine
cannot be good for anything, but fire for burning…Do not think that
they either are or can be called the Church. And indeed since, as we
have said, the Church is one…it is clear that there is no other but that
which is founded in the apostolic root.”[18]
[https://lumenscholasticum.wordpress.com/2016/12/05/fr-salaverri-on-whether-heretics-apostates-schismatics-and-excommunicates-are-members-of-the-church/]
Why is Schneider a apologist of Francis's "apostasy" by defending the
manifest heretical papacy of Francis against a pope, two Doctors of the
Church and "all the ancient Fathers"?
Pray an Our Father now for reparation for the sins committed because of Francis's Amoris Laetitia.
And thank you too Neofito....your tone and lack of charity/humility are confirmation that Br. Bugnolo is correct. - Debbie said…