Skip to main content

A Catholic Monitor Comment Section discussion on Sedevacantism: "A False Solution to a Real Problem"

Sedevacantism - Angelus Press

Below is an interesting Catholic Monitor comment section discussion on Sedevacantism:

Fred Martinez said…
https://www.thecatholicmonitor.com/2022/02/is-it-like-in-arian-crisis-with-were.html

Before we move to the next point that Sedevacantists and Francis Traditionalists like Steve Skojec are in agreement that Francis and Benedict as well as John Paul II are the same, let's look at the problems with Sedevacantism.

Number one is Vatican I.

Are they prepared to deny Vatican I?

Vatican I clearly teaches that popes will reign perpetually:

"[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 them:
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/]
Aqua said…
T said: "Traditional Catholic theology would say that schism is not doubting who is pope and so withdrawing obedience (based on reasonable doubt), but it is recognizing someone as true pope and withdrawing obedience."

T: I have had the raw ingredients of this statement floating around in my head, but it wasn't until you condensed it into this simple sequence that it all came together. Clarity.

My Priests have always said some variation on this, in our conversations when I inform them of my position (which I believe I am obliged to do). But this sequence makes the most sense. Thanks.
Debbie said…
T and Aqua:

T said: "Traditional Catholic theology would say that schism is not doubting who is pope and so withdrawing obedience (based on reasonable doubt), but it is recognizing someone as true pope and withdrawing obedience."

This sounds great, but then how is the SSPX not in schism? Or how aren't the sedevacantists not correct when they claim the SSPX are indeed sedes, but just don't know it or admit it? And how do we square what the post conciliar popes, especially JPII and Benedict have done, written and said regarding religious liberty and ecumenism? They both have made it quite clear that being Catholic isn't all that necessary. As Jeremiah said above, one is taking us to the abyss at 100 mph, the other 1000 mph. Kinda like Trump who loaded the gun with "warp speed vaccine" and now Biden fires the bullets with mandatory jab (saw this analogy on Twitter).

Given I (we) KNOW the Catholic faith IS true, how can we reconcile the antics of the past 60+ years by these popes?
Aqua said…
Debbie,
That also is a great question.

When I talked to my Priest(s), I stated my disagreements with his reasoning, which essentially boiled down to what you just said. It makes no sense to me, how you can accept a man as Pope, at the same time you reject, or the cowards way out - ignore - ... almost literally ... *everything* he says and does.

I didn't like the answer I got, especially the last one, since it came far into the "Papa Francesco" rabbit hole - knowing what we know, how is such a view tenable?

I suppose, if I had to give an answer to your question, it would boil down to the SSPX willingness to obedience where possible, obedience to the Seat in Catholic Time transcending the current emergency, obedience to the Sacred Magisterium and the See of Peter where it is in union with it.

There is the Cionci Thesis that says Benedict recognized that the RCC was facing a grave crisis and that he took the Papacy into a state of impediment in order to save the Holy Papal Throne from malign, demonic forces that had it surrounded and still their mercy. *IF* this is true, and there is no doubt the malign forces exist, then the Seat is safe, in hiding, and we are left to make the best sense of it as we can. This is not normal.

It reminds me, very much, of the controversy surrounding who in this world can be saved. Fr Feeney, declared a heretic by the Church and excommunicated, held that only those literally baptized with water could be saved, and all others were damned to hell. The Church, however, holds that "Baptism of Deisre", "Baptism of Blood" and "Implicit Desire" *can*, by God's grace and in accord with His just judgements, *may* save *some* who have by no fault of their own desired the Church but never been exposed, due to circumstance and culture, exposed to the Gospel, the Church and Her Sacrsments. It is a "state of exception", opened by God in His mercy to those struggling to find Him in a sinful, fallen world.

In a similar way - those of us struggling to find the *TRUE CHURCH* when in these evil days it is hidden by such lies and violent usurpations, there will be still "implicit desire", "baptism of blood" etc.

That's how I answer it. We do the best we can. There is no one out there, NO ONE, not one single person who has the crisis all figured out and a clear path to understanding. Many people think they do. They deceive themselves. We are in an emergency, the visible Papacy is deformed, the true Papacy is hidden, and it is our desire and consuming efforts to find the Light that will save us in times such as these.

I will not leave the RCC. That I know for sure. SSPX (and others like them) who are tightly bound to know and deliver Sacred Tradition to the Faithful, who recognize the state of emergency better than I do, and have prepared for it since their founding fifty years ago - SSPX is a refuge. The best that I know. Do they make mistakes? They are not perfect, and they are not the Pope (with Divine protections). They call themselves "field medics". That seems appropriate. We do the best we can. And hope for God's mercy.
Debbie said…
I agree Aqua, NO ONE, not one single person has the crisis all figured out and that would include the sedevacantists. For as long as I can (financially) keep going to my ICK parish, I intend to stay put, but I am confident that even if the sedes are wrong, God will be merciful to them.
Aqua said…
Debbie said: “ … God will be merciful to them”.

The following is related to that …

Been talking a lot lately, with my bride, about who can be redeemed? We are ex-proddies, you see, and … given the train wreck going on within the Catholic Church, side by side with people we know, or have known, who “love Jesus with all their hearts”; who live or lived good “Christian” lives, living God and their neighbor as themselves … can such as these be “saved”? She says - I can’t believe someone like Corrie Ten Boom is dammed to hell”.

And I say - maybe yes, maybe no, but I know what Trent says and it doesn’t leave a lot of room for interpretation.

But, there is more to the story than the definitions of Trent. It’s like when Luther based his heresy on Eph 2:8 (Grace *alone*). There is more to the story of redemption in a complicated, fallen, blinded and deceived world. God is just. But God is also merciful. Both.

Fr Feeney (you may have heard of Feeneyism) took Trent’s definition and based his theological framework on it to the exclusion of the rest of Church Tradition which (of course) leaves room for “circumstances”.

I put your question and reference to Sedes into that category. We live in the time of chastisement, I consider that clear enough. And keeping our faith and belief is not easy. The Church itself is seemingly leading us astray. Persecution is from within, mire even than without. Who is the Pope? Even something that basic isn’t known for sure.

The key phrase is Implicit Desire. We must seek God, through Holy Mother Church, to the extent we *can*, given the circumstances of our particulars.

This link, there are others I can provide, I think is the best at explaining the mind of the Church on redemption in times of exception (which are infinitely variable, and not for us to specifically judge … just to be aware of).

Anyway - this link I think applies to the question of unusual solutions outside of normal, when normal channels (Diocesan) are leading us into sin and separation. There are useful parallels, imo.

https://catholicact.files.wordpress.com/2015/12/eens.pdf
Aqua said…
Just to be safe, here are my other links (SSPX of course)

SSPX Asia

https://www.sspxasia.com/Documents/Catholic_Doctrine/Is-there-no-salvation-outside-the-Catholic-Church.htm

SSPX Part I

https://sspx.org/en/ecumenism-trap

SSPX Part II

https://sspx.org/en/ecumenism-trap-2
Fred Martinez said…
For all anti-SSPXers and other Francis Catholics who like to call everyone they don't like “schismatics" reading this, here from Fr. Dave Nix is the post"The SSPX is Not Schismatic":

https://padreperegrino.org/2022/05/sspx/

Although canonically-irregular, the SSPX (Society of Pope St. Pius X) founded by Archbishop Lefebvre (above picture) in the 1970s, is not schismatic. In traditional papal encyclicals, a “schismatic community” is a Christian community adhering to valid sacraments but without recognizing the primacy of place of Rome or the importance of the papacy. An example of this would be the Eastern Orthodox: The Eastern Orthodox have valid sacraments, but many do not realize the primacy of place of Rome (or believe it was transferred due to error a thousand years ago.) In any case, the SSPX has always recognized the papacy and the primacy of Rome. The reciprocal is also true, namely, that every Pope since foundation of the SSPX in the 1970s has recognized the validity of their sacraments. Thus, they do not fit the classic definition of “schism.” Not even by a long shot....

... On a completely and totally different topic from the above, this is also a definition you should know: A sedevacantist is a traditional Catholic who believes there have been no valid Popes since 1958. I am not a sedevacantist. However, I do not believe sedevacantists are schismatic either. This is also seen in the writings of St. Cajetan who puts an unusual emphasis on conscience for a 16th c. writer:

If someone, for a reasonable motive, holds the person of the Pope in suspicion and refuses his presence, even his jurisdiction, he does not commit the delect of schism nor any other whatsoever, provided that he be ready to accept the Pope were he not held in suspicion. It goes without saying that one has the right to avoid what is harmful and to ward off dangers. In fact, it may happen that the Pope could govern tyrannically and that is all the easier as he is the more powerful and does not fear any punishment from anyone on earth.—St. Cardinal Thomas Cajetan

(No, I am not going to join either of the two above groups. I simply desire to clear up widespread confusion about them.)
Debbie said…
Aqua, yes, I've read Fr. Nix's piece and it reaffirmed what I've been thinking; that the sedes are not in schism. Rome seems to have lost the faith...so it's pretty difficult to believe the sedes are outside the Church, IMO.

I've been to the sede Church that's only a mile from my house three times and the first time I went I was extremely nervous, but as I was driving there (it was raining) a most beautiful double rainbow appeared right as I was approaching the Church. I've not received any Sacraments there, but as it is becoming more and more difficult for me to make the 30 mile trip to my ICK parish daily....I am strongly considering it.

I know I am waffling back and forth, and I do not like it, but that's where I am. I don't see how all the post conciliar popes are not heretics.
Aqua said…
Fred,
Very well put. Helpful. And in alignment with what my Priests have said, though their counsel was more general.
Aqua.
Fred Martinez said…
Debbie said... I don't see how all the post conciliar popes are not heretics.

Debbie,

That was me (Fred) who posted the above

I know you and I don't like Ferrara, but nor does Woods who co-authored the book and I still say:

"The Great Facade" is still where I think you should start on your question above and other questions with pages 12n, 39, 57, 58, etc.

Page 59 says sedes and neo-conservatives embrace the "same error.The Magisterium embraces whatever the Pope says." Unlike Francis the other Vatican II popes didn't do:

LifeSiteNews, "Confusion explodes as Pope Francis throws magisterial weight behind communion for adulterers," December 4, 2017:

The AAS guidelines explicitly allows "sexually active adulterous couples facing 'complex circumstances' to 'access the sacraments of Reconciliation and the Eucharist.'"

Also, "the Church MUST either deprive him, or, as some say, declare him deprived, of his Apostolic See." or we become Protestant-like:

"[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)


- On February 2018, in Rorate Caeli, Catholic theologian Dr. John Lamont:

"The AAS statement... establishes that Pope Francis in Amoris Laetitia has affirmed propositions that are heretical in the strict sense."

- On December 2, 2017, Bishop Rene Gracida:

"Francis' heterodoxy is now official. He has published his letter to the Argentina bishops in Acta Apostlica Series making those letters magisterial documents."

I, too, have a good friend who is a Sede, but I won't join him,for the above reasons , others and the infallible Vatican I:

Are you prepared to deny Vatican I?

Vatican I clearly teaches that popes will reign perpetually:

"[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)).


I hope that is helpful.
Fred Martinez said…
There are no more cardinals alive who were made so by Pope Pius XII which means no more popes will reign perpetually.
Aqua said…
Fred,
“Michael Stephen”, commenting on Non Veni Pacem blog, raises a very interesting speculation about all the events you describe here, and which Debbie has been seeking answers for also, the time period covering the past 60 years (since 1958).

His comments are at the very end of the thread, I link it here.

https://nonvenipacem.com/2022/06/06/question-five-for-the-bip-advocates-of-plan-b-he-did-it-on-purpose-and-knows-he-is-still-pope-why-did-benedict-lie-in-his-final-public-appearance-of-28-feb-2013/

And his comments are intriguing, in that he connects the recent events, which make so little sense, to the Third Fatima Secret which, through the inference drawn from the actions of all Popes who have read the secret, kept it mysteriously hidden, is decisive judgement upon the Church and the world. He concluded that Benedict acted as he did knowing God’s judgement was here; and that Bergoglio is that judgement, or at least its opening chapter.

I’m usually not one for speculations like this, since it is not possible to verify any of it. But this has the ring of truth to it. Something is seriously wrong; bent, broken. This is not normal. The evil and blithe acceptance of evil … and concurrent acceptance of revolutionary alteration of everything - which is what Debbie keeps referring to imo - it’s all just stunning when you stop and think about it. Which leaves room then (for me) for openings to the possibility that the unrevealed judgements in Fatima’s Third Secret from heaven are upon us.

Check it out - “Michael Stephen’s” comment, last in the thread.
Aqua,

Thanks. I'll check it out.
Aqua said…
This comment has been removed by the author.
Aqua said…
This extract (Michael Stephen) is relevant to the discussion:

"The Pope of 1960, John XXIII, had not satisfied those two requests of Mary (of the Third Secret). “These [predictions],” John had noted for his successors, “do not concern our times.” John had refused to publish the text of the “Third Secret.” He had not organized the collegial consecration of Russia to Mary—although he had a made-to-order opportunity to do so when 2,500 Roman Catholic bishops assembled in the Vatican on October 11, 1962, for the opening of his Second Vatican Council.

He could have. Instead, he was largely absent from the Council he called, monitoring the developments on closed circuit tv, interjecting himself only rarely. And the result was a rejection of the message from heaven; a choice instead for a Council that gave us New Church.

The Bishops were all there. The direction from the clearly miraculous apparition of Our Lady was clear and direct. The choice of our Pope in response was specific: "No".

The door of obedience closed with the Council.

Michael Stephen contends - direct connection between that "No" and Benedict's current choice.
Debbie said…
Thanks Fred, and sorry for the mix up. And thank you too Aqua. Always good and thoughtful comments. Going to respond later after a bit more research. I will say now though that I believe God's Mercy will flow to all those committed to the Apostolic faith.....SSPX, ED communities and yes even the sedes. Bellermine makes it clear that a doubtful pope is no pope at all. [https://www.thecatholicmonitor.com/2022/06/lifesitenews-like-remnant-wants-us-to.html?showComment=1655135698532#c2412922050184525969]
 

Pray an Our Father now for reparation for the sins committed because of Francis's Amoris Laetitia.

Pray an Our Father now for the restoration of the Church as well as the Triumph of the Kingdom of the Sacred Heart and the Immaculate Heart of Mary.

Stop for a moment of silence, ask Jesus Christ what He wants you to do now and next. In this silence remember God, Father, Son and Holy Ghost - Three Divine Persons yet One God, has an ordered universe where you can know truth and falsehood as well as never forget that He wants you to have eternal happiness with Him as his son or daughter by grace. Make this a practice. By doing this you are doing more good than reading anything here or anywhere else on the Internet.

Francis Notes:

- Doctor of the Church St. Francis de Sales totally confirmed beyond any doubt the possibility of a heretical pope and what must be done by the Church in such a situation:

"[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)


Saint Robert Bellarmine, also, said "the Pope heretic is not deposed ipso facto, but must be declared deposed by the Church."
[https://archive.org/stream/SilveiraImplicationsOfNewMissaeAndHereticPopes/Silveira%20Implications%20of%20New%20Missae%20and%20Heretic%20Popes_djvu.txt]

- "If Francis is a Heretic, What should Canonically happen to him?": http://www.thecatholicmonitor.com/2020/12/if-francis-is-heretic-what-should.html

- "Could Francis be a Antipope even though the Majority of Cardinals claim he is Pope?": http://www.thecatholicmonitor.com/2019/03/could-francis-be-antipope-even-though.html

 -  LifeSiteNews, "Confusion explodes as Pope Francis throws magisterial weight behind communion for adulterers," December 4, 2017:

The AAS guidelines explicitly allows "sexually active adulterous couples facing 'complex circumstances' to 'access the sacraments of Reconciliation and the Eucharist.'"

-  On February 2018, in Rorate Caeli, Catholic theologian Dr. John Lamont:

"The AAS statement... establishes that Pope Francis in Amoris Laetitia has affirmed propositions that are heretical in the strict sense."

- On December 2, 2017, Bishop Rene Gracida:

"Francis' heterodoxy is now official. He has published his letter to the Argentina bishops in Acta Apostlica Series making those letters magisterial documents."

Pray an Our Father now for the restoration of the Church by the bishops by the grace of God.

Election Notes:  

- Intel Cryptanalyst-Mathematician on Biden Steal: "212Million Registered Voters & 66.2% Voting,140.344 M Voted...Trump got 74 M, that leaves only 66.344 M for Biden" [http://catholicmonitor.blogspot.com/2020/12/intel-cryptanalyst-mathematician-on.html?m=1]

- Will US be Venezuela?: Ex-CIA Official told Epoch Times "Chávez started to Focus on [Smartmatic] Voting Machines to Ensure Victory as early as 2003": http://catholicmonitor.blogspot.com/2020/12/will-us-be-venezuela-ex-cia-official.html

- Tucker Carlson's Conservatism Inc. Biden Steal Betrayal is explained by “One of the Greatest Columns ever Written" according to Rush: http://catholicmonitor.blogspot.com/2021/01/tucker-carlsons-conservatism-inc-biden.html?m=1
 
- A Hour which will Live in Infamy: 10:01pm November 3, 2020:
http://www.thecatholicmonitor.com/2021/01/a-hour-which-will-live-in-infamy-1001pm.html?m=1
 
What is needed right now to save America from those who would destroy our God given rights is to pray at home or in church and if called to even go to outdoor prayer rallies in every town and city across the United States for God to pour out His grace on our country to save us from those who would use a Reichstag Fire-like incident to destroy our civil liberties. [Is the DC Capitol Incident Comparable to the Nazi Reichstag Fire Incident where the German People Lost their Civil Liberties?: http://catholicmonitor.blogspot.com/2021/01/is-dc-capital-incident-comparable-to.html?m=1 and Epoch Times Show Crossroads on Capitol Incident: "Anitfa 'Agent Provocateurs'":
http://catholicmonitor.blogspot.com/2021/01/epoch-times-show-crossroads-on-capital.html?m=1

Pray an Our Father now for the grace to know God's Will and to do it.
 
Pray an Our Father now for America.
 
Pray an Our Father now for the restoration of the Church as well as the Triumph of the Kingdom of the Sacred Heart and the Immaculate Heart of Mary.
 

 

Comments

Anonymous said…
The deeper problem with sedevacantism is that in their view of the church has any authority. They insist that almost the entire Church, the entire hierarchy, defected from the faith, but it in no way affects its marks. Short of a supernatural miracle, it is a church where nobody has authority.

But this contradicts the fact that the true Church has successors straight down from the apostles. None of their hierarchy was sent on an apostolic mission, but they are laymen who claimed the title of apostles.
Aqua said…
Anonymous said: "But this contradicts the fact that the true Church has successors straight down from the apostles."

If they are in the line of Apostles, successors straight down from the apostles, then they should speak with the voice of the apostles, without difference or variation.

The line always has before.

But now the apostles wish to break that line of one body, one voice, one Lord and begin fresh from the morning of Oct 11, 1962. *The* Council is the reference point for the new line of apostles. Traditionis Custodis clearly asserts the core doctrine of the new line: what came before is not compatible with what is now; the old must be suppressed and die, only what is sourced in *the* Council may endure and prevail.

As you say - " ... the true Church has successors straight down from the apostles". Yet those leading us quantifiably wish to break that line; claim the authority of thr line, while breaking continuity of the line.

If the line, to which you refer, remained straight and true, there would not be a current problem. Claimants to the line must demonstrate fidelity to the line.
Anonymous said…
Most of the hierarchy recognizes a probable anti-pope. As such they can all apostasize, not being in union with the true rock. Sedevacantism fails because one of the marks of the Church is apostolic succession. If their position was the right one, it couldn't contradict what the Church has taught about itself. Where they are right is in claiming that heretics are not members of the Church.

It is only the pope keeps the Church from failing. The Church cannot defect from the faith but everyone but the true pope can defect from the Church. Jesus prayed that Peter's faith wouldn't fail. This is very hard to humanly believe but is possible through faith.

There are 2 men in white, but only such one can be the pope. As such there are still apostles left, if only (God forbid!) one. If all the apostles instituted by a true pope die off, then I would have to admit they might be right.
Anonymous said…
Cardinal Ratzinger , refutes Beneplenism a long time ago:

“The second proposition of the Professio fidei states: ‘I also firmly accept and hold each and everything definitively proposed by the Church regarding teaching on faith and morals.’

“The object taught by this formula includes all those teachings belonging to the dogmatic or moral area, which are necessary for faithfully keeping and expounding the deposit of faith, even if they have not been proposed by the Magisterium of the Church as formally revealed. Such doctrines can be defined solemnly by the Roman Pontiff when he speaks 'ex cathedra' or by the College of Bishops gathered in council, or they can be taught infallibly by the ordinary and universal Magisterium of the Church as a ‘sententia definitive tenenda’… Every believer, therefore, is required to give firm and definitive assent to these truths, based on faith in the Holy Spirit's assistance to the Church's Magisterium, and on the Catholic doctrine of the infallibility of the Magisterium in these matters.”

The commentary goes on to explain precisely what truths are contained in the second category and it includes the legitimacy of the election of a Pope:

“The truths belonging to this second paragraph can be of various natures, thus giving different qualities to their relationship with revelation. There are truths which are necessarily connected with revelation by virtue of an historical relationship [i.e., dogmatic facts]; (…) With regard to those truths connected to revelation by historical necessity and which are to be held definitively, but are not able to be declared as divinely revealed, the following examples can be given: the legitimacy of the election of the Supreme Pontiff…”

What is the consequence of denying a truth in the second category? Cardinal Ratzinger explains:

“Whoever denies these truths [second category] would be in a position of rejecting a truth of Catholic doctrine[1] and would therefore no longer be in full communion with the Catholic Church.”

So, according to the official commentary on the 1989 Profession of Faith, issued by Cardinal Ratzinger as head of the Congregation of the Doctrine of Faith, anyone who refuses to give a definitive assent to the legitimacy of the election of the Supreme Pontiff is guilty of denying a Catholic doctrine, and therefore is no longer “in full communion with the Catholic Church” or, said differently, has cut himself off from the Church.

Needless to say, no exception is made for those who reject an election that the Church has accepted as legitimate, based upon their personal speculations of coerced resignations, irregular Conclaves, private interpretation of canon law, and the like. That is because the Church’s acceptance of the legitimacy of an election is an infallible act. If Magisterium accepts the election as legitimate, it must be definitely held as legitimate based on the infallibility of the Church.

Thus, Br. Bugnolo’s theory that Benedict’s abdication was not accepted by Christ because he used the wrong word (ministerium instead of munus), and his consequence rejection of the legitimacy of Francis’ election, is a rejection of what the Church has definitively proposed as a matter of faith, and which “is necessary for faithfully keeping and expounding the deposit of faith.”

-John Salza
Aqua said…
John Salza: Your argument boils down to this: It doesn't matter what word is used to resign, as long as his intent is clear.

But not even his intent is clear. Because he never left the Papacy. He is still there.

Canon Law required a word be used. He didn't use it.

Canon Law requires the See be vacant before a Conclave can be held to fill the See once again. It was never vacant. It now contains two.

Munus ≠ Ministerium.

Remaining as Pope ≠ No longer Pope.

Your argument is bogus.
Aqua said…
John Salza,

PS: saying the See is Vacant, while remaining "firmly and forever within the See" is the definition of substantial error.

Your method is to declare error, not error.

Any Catholic can see, even the illiterate can see, this disaster is without precedent. "Without precedent" is not Catholic.
Anonymous said…
@Aqua I had been quoting Salza...Salza already refuted Beneplenism in 2020. Cardinal Ratzinger refuted Beneplenism before he was ever the Pope...

Former Pope Benedict who has publicly said that Francis is Pope. You can't let go of this idea that you're in error. The SSPX recognizes Francis...even if he's a liberal Pope.
Anonymous said…
"Canon Law required a word be used. He didn't use it."

-It never specifically said in Canon law that the word Munus has to be used for a valid resigation, have said he gave up the See of Peter...Munus is gone.
Anonymous said…
Benedict is just establishing a role for a former Pope after his pontificate has ended...like a former President sets up an office. Is that office the official office of the Presidency? No.

He's not the Pope anymore, he didn't have a substantial error, there had been no plan B or some crazy chess move to expose liberals. Francis has already exposed himself as a liberal and his pals. Benedict is not in the fight anymore...he's got no real authority other than having some friends left in the Vatican. His reign is over.
Aqua said…
Anonymous 5:42

§2. If it happens that the Roman Pontiff resigns his office … (Canon 332.2)

If - Conjunction; “As a conjunction, 'if' often introduces a condition clause“

Condition clause def: “expresses that one thing is contingent on something else. They are so called because the impact of the main clause of the sentence is conditional on the dependent clause.”

Condition clause: “the Roman Pontiff resigns his Office (Munus)

Dependent def: “contingent on or determined by”.

Dependent Clause: “it is required for validity that the resignation is made freely and properly manifested but not that it is accepted by anyone”.

Read all of 332 which defines the authority of a Pope - not a word about Ministerium. Munus, Munus, Munus … every paragraph of Papal authority, 332; 332.2 being a subset.

The only chance your argument has would be if he had *manifested* a vacant See. He did not. He resigned improperly. He remained. Error from beginning to end.

You wish your premise to be true. Wishes and desires, just like all the others in our perverted age who use language like a cudgel, wished so not make a word or action something it manifestly is not.
Aqua said…
Anonymous 6:07

There is no such thing as President Emeritus. Richard Nixon flew off from the WH in a helicopter, then returned to his home in CA, in shame and ignominy. Prince Edward V left England, lived in apartments in France and America for the remainder of his days - cut off from royal titles and privileges. THAT is what all Popes who resigned have always done. Leave, in shame for abandoning Christ, return to their prior state for the rest of their penitential days.

This thing you’re describing - “establishing his new role” - is new, never seen, never sourced, an innovation. You describe it as if it is what Christ established and the Church has always done. Like so much of VII NewChurch, it is just made up and not legally sourced in Canon Law or Sacred Tradition. The Catholic Church does not make stuff up. That which does not belong to Depositum Fidei, Catholics are *commanded* to reject, disobey.
Anonymous said…
@Aqua you're funny...they still call Former Presidents Mr. President...they still establish an office, get staff and some funding. They do it to keep an attachment to the office..Benedict had done a similar thing.

He's not the Pope anymore, regardless of Bergoglio being a terrible Pope. This is reality. Ratzinger himself as a Cardinal as John Salza has proven refuted Beneplenism long before it ever happened. I pray that you ask the SSPX formally if they think that Benedict should still be Pope..you'll be disappointed in their response.
Aqua said…
Anonymous:

"Historically, the title Mr. President was reserved for the incumbent president only, and was not to be used for former presidents, holding that it was not proper to use the title as a courtesy title when addressing a former president.[16][17][18][19][20] According to the official website of the United States of America, the correct way to address a letter is to use "The Honorable John Doe" and the correct salutation is "Mr Doe".[21]" (Wiki)

So ... you're just making stuff up.

Btw, the relevant point was in regards to Presidents who *resigned their Office* (there's been only one); or Royalty (such as Prince Edward). The relevant point was not in regards to those Presidents who had *fulfilled the terms of their Office*; but rather those who *failed* to fulfill the terms of their Office. And as I noted, the dominant theme is shame ... and total, complete separation from their former Office.

A President's term is four years, perhaps eight. When he is done, he retires to his civilian duties of choice.
A Pope's term is for life. When he is done he dies and goes to meet his Maker.

In either case, if they resign their *Office* prior to completion of their term - they are cut off and separated from prior duties and honorifics.

A final point. I hear this a lot from the Frannyplenists - "Bergoglio is a terrible Pope".
Wrong. You have two options. He is either (1) His Holiness, Pope Francis, Monarch of Christ's Kingdom on earth ... or he is ... (2j antipope usurper.

You have chosen to accept him as your Holy Father. Go all in, anonymous. Follow him down whatever paths he may choose to lead you until the end of your life. I say that sarcastically, because I truly hope you don't. But ... if you advocate your position and hold it in faith, then you are bound to it. Obey him. Honor him. Follow him. "Bergoglio is a terrible Pope"; "Recognize and resist" both expressions of budding Protestantism that turns the Monarch of Our Lord Jesus Christ as just a dude with preposterous opinions most or all,of which we can deposit in the nearest trash can.
Anonymous said…
@Aqua

Historically you are correct, but the practice had been changed and that changed as society and former Presidents themselves after the 1950's had secured funding to open their office and still have an attachment to the Presidency in some manner..obviously not having the full authority of the office nor control the military etc. They are simply called that out of respect for their former office.

A Pope should stay there for life, but Benedict changed that. He decided to make it become a possible norm that Popes should retire if they get too old and lack strength to fulfill their duties. I'd prefer to see them there until they are dead.

Francis giving any sort of orders, commands to do something that could put your salvation at risk is completely licit to resist...

You are like the protestants in that you reject the validly elected pontiff completely.
Aqua said…
Anonymous said: "A Pope should stay there for life, but Benedict changed that. He decided to make it become a possible norm that Popes should retire if they get too old and lack strength to fulfill their duties. I'd prefer to see them there until they are dead."

Popes do not have authority to "change anything". Zero authority to do that. None. Every decision they make must be sourced and cross-referenced. Within that, their authority is immense, unlimited actually. Change? Nope.

As to your preference, and mine .... not relevant. They MUST remain Pope until death. Unless they abdicate and separate. They are bound, servants to Sacred Tradition.

Anonymous said: "You are like the protestants in that you reject the validly elected pontiff completely."

To which I respond and refer you back to your own prepositional phrase - "validly elected".

You say "close enough". One word is as good as another. Changing and expanding the Papal Office is discretionary.

It is a Protestant act to reject, ignore, alter the Depositum Fidei and the Canon Law which is derived from it. It is Protestant to say a word means something that it manifestly does not. It is a Protestant to say an action is not what it appears because it does not fit your Protestant narrative. It is a Protestant act to base your beliefs on what you prefer or don't prefer. And it is a Protestant act to contend a Pope and the Church he leads can "change" anything to fit the tenor of the times.

It is not a Protestant act to remain firmly within the bounds of Sacred Tradition and in strict fidelity to Depositum Fidei.

Anonymous says: "Francis giving any sort of orders, commands to do something that could put your salvation at risk is completely licit to resist..."

On that we agree - as in the Divinely ordained Papacy which is now not recognizeable from the perspective of Sacred Tradition and the clear Gospel Words of Jesus Christ. I do, in fact, resist and reject that.
Anonymous said…
@Aqua

Here is the text of 332.2

“If it should happen that the Roman Pontiff resigns his office [munus], it is required for validity that he makes the resignation freely and that it be duly manifested, but not that it be accepted by anyone.”


As is plain as day, the canon states that two things are required for validity, that is freely done and duly manifested. There is NO requirement for "munus" to be used. You add the requirement that Munus must be in there, making stuff up.


Also, if you have a problem with Benedict trying to establish a precendent/change things...go take it up with him. He's still the Pope in your mind, so I'd be curious to see what he'd respond to you with. Oh wait, he's going to say that Francis is the Pope. Just like the SSPX (as you're not a true SSPXer in the sense of being all-in with the society).

I pray that you come to your senses and simply concede that Munus is not required in the canon, even Acosta admitted so...and she's an attorney.

The SSPX, unfortunately, has no canonical status, no ordinary jurisdiction and the man that you claim is not the legally elected Pontiff...he gave them the limited faculties that Benedict did not give them.

Benedict was a better theologian, a better Shepard even though he had his flaws and supported Vatican II enthusiastically. He had canon law experts all around him at the Vatican...apparently he felt that he had the authority to set such a precedent to resign.
Aqua said…
Anonymous said: "You add the requirement that Munus must be in there, making stuff up."

It's literally "in there".

Textbook gaslighting.

Anonymous said: "if you have a problem with Benedict trying to establish a precendent/change things...go take it up with him."

The Faith does not belong to Benedict XVI. He is a servant of the servants of God, all of whom are within the strict bounds of Sacred Tradition and the constant Magisterium. ALL Popes have an equal say. ALL Popes are equally servants to Almighty God. The Church is the Body of Christ, not a secular government which is run by charismatic leaders for material practical purposes. Two visible Popes are not allowed. Two visible Popes (or more, actually ... nothing says they have to stop at two ... we can have a stable of many, many Popes under your logic) is NOT allowed by Christ or Sacred Tradition.

Anonymous said "He decided to make it become a possible norm that Popes should retire if they get too old and lack strength to fulfill their duties."

Which proves, by your own words, that *you know* he resigned in substantial error, that the failure to resign Munus was substantial error, because by your own words HE CHANGED THE PAPACY. You won't admit it, but you know a revolution has taken place within the Papacy Divinely ordained to be a Monarchy of one man, by God Himself.
Aqua said…
Benedict can abdicate. There is no doubt he can abdicate.

But then, he must abdicate in accord with Canon Law, legally promulgated by the previous Pope: he must resign, in writing, the Office.

And then he must *leave* the Office and return to his prior ecclesiastical state within the Church, and he must completely abandon the Office, all its honorifics and titles and connections to Divinely ordained Papal power. He must return to Bavaria, iow. He must take up a private life (which he specifically rejected) in a private home, playing piano and writing books and giving talks and whatever else penitential things he chooses to do as ... Father Ratzinger. THAT is in accord with Sacred Tradition. THEN the Office is vacant, Sede Vacante.
Anonymous said…
He couldn't be called Cardinal Ratzinger again? That had been the previous title that he had. If you used Father Ratzinger...that plays in to the sedevacantists hands. They have called him that since they claim he never had been a real bishop/cardinal etc.
Aqua said…
Cardinal Ratzinger would be fine. Whatever the legal title should be, in accord with Canon Law.
Anonymous said…
I can agree, it'd have been better for Benedict to go be a hermit and put black on. But he chose to keep a more papal look but not have the symbols of authority on like the fisherman's ring or the red shoes etc.

But he's trying to establish a more casual role for a former Pope to take. I don't think it helps matters at all, but he's not being put in prison to rot there like Celestine V had been.

Benedict is not the Pope though, and you understand that on some level but can't admit it.
Aqua said…
And then, another thought occurred ... once you go down the path of accepting a Pope who makes things up according to personal whim and practical calculations, unbound from Sacred Tradition, the Constant Magisterium - what is to prevent any Pope for resigning for any reason he pleases? Health and vigor were reasons chosen by Benedict XVI. Perhaps a future Pope would be compelled to "retire" for political calculations; the Cardinals could compel an unpopular Pope to quietly retire to the stable of Popes, join the others, so that a better Pope, more in alignment with the College of Cardinals' current political and theological views could be selected. Perhaps secular pressure from financially powerful nations might compel a Pope to retire, join the stable of Popes, so that a more practical Papal government could be formed more acceptable to the financial interests of National State powers.

Once you go down the path of "practical", "personal opinion", "necessity of the moment", "the needs of the Church" as guiding reasons to remain faithful or unfaithful to the binding duties of Sacred Tradition within Depositum Fidei ... anything goes. Benedict XVI chose for his reasons ...

As anonymous said: "He decided to make it become a possible norm that Popes should retire if they get too old and lack strength to fulfill their duties." Too old / lacks strength are just one of a multiplicity of infinite reasons any future Pope could follow the same path to "retirement" into the fold with other Popes - "ALL OF THEM safely and forever within the fold of St. Peter".

And with that - you no longer have a Papacy ... not the one ordained by Jesus Christ Our Lord.
Aqua said…
Anonymous said: "I can agree, it'd have been better for Benedict to go be a hermit and put black on. But he chose to keep a more papal look but not have the symbols of authority on like the fisherman's ring or the red shoes etc. But he's trying to establish a more casual role for a former Pope to take."

You understand substantial error occurred.

What you do with that is up to you and your conscience.
Anonymous said…
"Perhaps a future Pope would be compelled to "retire" for political calculations"

-This basically happened already with Celestine V...he couldn't handle the responsibilities of being Pope from a political standpoint..and hated the backstabbing and all the maneuvering that he had to do with Kings and other nobles. But he quit too soon, and I don't think that imprisoning him had been unreasonable, if he had been mistreated as a prisoner..that's a different story. I'd never support that.
Anonymous said…
"And then, another thought occurred ... once you go down the path of accepting a Pope who makes things up according to personal whim and practical calculations, unbound from Sacred Tradition, the Constant Magisterium - what is to prevent any Pope for resigning for any reason he pleases? Health and vigor were reasons chosen by Benedict XVI. Perhaps a future Pope would be compelled to "retire" for political calculations; the Cardinals could compel an unpopular Pope to quietly retire to the stable of Popes, join the others, so that a better Pope, more in alignment with the College of Cardinals' current political and theological views could be selected. Perhaps secular pressure from financially powerful nations might compel a Pope to retire, join the stable of Popes, so that a more practical Papal government could be formed more acceptable to the financial interests of National State powers.

Once you go down the path of "practical", "personal opinion", "necessity of the moment", "the needs of the Church" as guiding reasons to remain faithful or unfaithful to the binding duties of Sacred Tradition within Depositum Fidei ... anything goes. Benedict XVI chose for his reasons ...

As anonymous said: "He decided to make it become a possible norm that Popes should retire if they get too old and lack strength to fulfill their duties." Too old / lacks strength are just one of a multiplicity of infinite reasons any future Pope could follow the same path to "retirement" into the fold with other Popes - "ALL OF THEM safely and forever within the fold of St. Peter".

And with that - you no longer have a Papacy ... not the one ordained by Jesus Christ Our Lord."

-You should send Benedict a letter, and ask him if he's still Pope...ask if him if botched his resignation. I think you'll end up getting a reply that is going to disappoint you and the Beneplenists.
Aqua said…
Anonymous said: “ You should send Benedict a letter, and ask him if he's still Pope...ask if him if botched his resignation.”

I don’t doubt the person who made the error won’t admit to the error. But Canon Law does not specify the permissibility of error, just because the Pope fully intended to make the error all along.

Neither does that mean Catholics must accept such an error, and its redefined Papacy, which even “anonymous” (you?) affirms has fundamentally changed.

Benedict XVI is the Pope … but the Papacy - the one ordained by Christ, the real one, the Divinely sourced one of Sacred Tradition - belongs to every baptized Catholic. This new thing, this Conciliar new thing, you anonymous posters (maybe you’re all one) don’t even try to connect it to Sacred Tradition: “it is because it is”. Not good enough. And it is doomed to fail because it is not of God.
Aqua said…
The error is not dependent on whether it was made intentionally or otherwise.

It is quantifiable and knowable and you don’t even need to be literate to see the error (manifested), much less read the error in a simple declarative single sentence.

Intent is irrelevant.
Anonymous said…
https://soundcloud.com/novusordowatch/tradcast-express-156

-Give this a listen even if you don't agree on the sedevacantist position. I think you'll agree with him on other things.
Aqua said…
Thanks, but no. I have come to my position carefully and over a span of literally years in reference to multiple Traditional sources and numerous Latin Mass Priests. And I have even spent plenty of time on NovusOrdoWatch.

I don’t need your link. Summarize it yourself, and I’ll respond.

This is really, really simple, and in total accord with common sense. Those who accept but resist Francis as Pope; who defend Francis as Pope but advocate we ignore him as Pope … as an evil clown Pope 🤡 as some would have it - their position is not sustainable.
Anonymous said…
Rejecting a Pope that had a valid conclave..has not been declared deprived by a council or group of 8 cardinals at least...that's schism. You're in a worst position than anyone that resists Francis. Sure you can have doubts about a conclave, but if no legal challenge had occurred by the Cardinals...it's over.
Aqua said…
This comment has been removed by the author.
Aqua said…
“Valid Conclave”

The Seat must be vacant for a Conclave to be held.

The Seat is not vacant.

Invalid Conclave “by the law itself”.
Anonymous said…
"For this reason, and well aware of the seriousness of this act, with full freedom I declare that I renounce the ministry of Bishop of Rome, Successor of Saint Peter, entrusted to me by the Cardinals on 19 April 2005, in such a way, that as from 28 February 2013, at 20:00 hours, the See of Rome, the See of Saint Peter, will be vacant and a Conclave to elect the new Supreme Pontiff will have to be convoked by those whose competence it is.

Dear Brothers, I thank you most sincerely for all the love and work with which you have supported me in my ministry and I ask pardon for all my defects. And now, let us entrust the Holy Church to the care of Our Supreme Pastor, Our Lord Jesus Christ, and implore his holy Mother Mary, so that she may assist the Cardinal Fathers with her maternal solicitude, in electing a new Supreme Pontiff. With regard to myself, I wish to also devotedly serve the Holy Church of God in the future through a life dedicated to prayer.

Notice, Pope Benedict the date and time his resignation would come into effect and declared that the See of Peter would be vacant at that time and that a Conclave would be convened to elect a new Supreme Pontiff. It is as simple and simple can be."
-Benedict XVI

"at 20:00 hours, the See of Rome, the See of Saint Peter, will be vacant and a Conclave to elect the new Supreme Pontiff will have to be convoked by those whose competence it is."

-Vacant and then a conclave had been held.
Debbie said…
Aqua you say: "Schism is Indifferentism - placing other Gods, other religions equivalent to Almighty Triune God."

If you truly believe what you say here, then I don't see how you can reconcile the post conciliar popes as true popes either....most especially JPII and even Benedict. That is what has been bothering me for some years now. They did exactly as you stated above.

I see you're no longer interested in the sede position, or reading/listening to their arguments, but if you change your mind, I listened to a very interesting talk by Fr.
Cekada. He went to the SSPX seminary in Econe and was ordained by Ab. Lefebvre. He says Ab. Lefebvre went back and forth regarding sedevacantism. He wasn't putting the Archbishop down, as he was obviously a very holy and faithful servant of Christ. Fr. Cekada claims that to this day their are sedevacantists within the SSPX, but they are ordered not to say anything publicly. Again, if you're (or anyone here) interested I'll put up the link.


Debbie said…
Oh, and also Fr. Cekada claims that at the 88 consecrations No. de Castro Mayer was telling anyone who would listen that we had no pope.
Debbie said…
Bp.....not No.
Debbie said…
Aqua.....oops, you deleted your comment which I quoted you.
Aqua said…
Sorry Debbie, I reached my personal word limit. I’ve said about all there is possible for me to say - and that’s saying something 🤦‍♂️.

I like a good debate, but this one has a distinctly circular quality to it.

It is what it is.
Anonymous said…
@Aqua

It's not about circular...it's about you Beneplenists refusing to accept Benedict's last audience and him making it pretty clear that the See of Peter is going to be Vacant. Benedict himself truly believe it's going to be vacant..

Aqua you say: "Schism is Indifferentism - placing other Gods, other religions equivalent to Almighty Triune God."

"If you truly believe what you say here, then I don't see how you can reconcile the post conciliar popes as true popes either....most especially JPII and even Benedict. That is what has been bothering me for some years now. They did exactly as you stated above.

I see you're no longer interested in the sede position, or reading/listening to their arguments, but if you change your mind, I listened to a very interesting talk by Fr.
Cekada. He went to the SSPX seminary in Econe and was ordained by Ab. Lefebvre. He says Ab. Lefebvre went back and forth regarding sedevacantism. He wasn't putting the Archbishop down, as he was obviously a very holy and faithful servant of Christ. Fr. Cekada claims that to this day their are sedevacantists within the SSPX, but they are ordered not to say anything publicly. Again, if you're (or anyone here) interested I'll put up the link.
"

-Ultimately Aqua and Freddy and the gang..they'll be sedevacantists. Just a different sort of sedevacantism after Benedict is gone. You're either in the Novus Ordo, SSPX or Sede...that's it. Cekada had been formidable, I'll even admit that.
Debbie said…
Fred, thank you so much for allowing these comments, many are so helpful

You've advised me to read True or False Pope and I'm not certain that is a good use of my time. The Fr. Cekada talk I've referenced on this thread is addressing that book specifically. What he says about it rings true to me. He says the purpose of that book is a vicious attack on sedevacantism. That in itself is not a problem for me, but what he (Father Cekada) points out is it's dishonesty. The authors go on and on about the great Ab. Lefebvre's anti-sedevacantism position while completely ignoring his pro-sedevacantism position.

Fr. Cekada, who was ordained by Lefebvre, claims the Archbishop was torn between the two positions. As a Catholic considering the sede position, that totally rings true to me. I think I'd rather take my cues from someone who knew Lefebvre, learned from him than from Salza (a former 32nd degree mason who is still living and able to expose freemasonary).

Personally, I've struggled with antipope Francis giving the SSPX some liberties. To me, something ain't right here. Why would a tradition killing antipope do that?

If Salza had been totally honest and reported Lefebvre's indecisiveness, I'd be more inclined to listen. After all, it appears the good archbishop died believing JPII was a valid pope.

As to Vatican I and the perpetuity of a reigning pope, I don't know. It doesn't spell out how many days, months or years we may have an interregnum. But it does spell out the infallibility of a pope and the indefectibility of the Church.....both of which under VII and it's popes are questionable at best.

As Aqua has stated recently, NO ONE, not one single person has this mess all figured out. So true.

All I know for sure is that under a "Francis" papacy it is impossible to believe Catholicism is true. And under all the "other" post conciliar popes is much the same. Why convert when our very own popes, by both their actions and words indicate all is ok with not only heretics, but any belief in any "deity"?




Anonymous said…
@Debbie I advise you to reach out to the author John Salza, he will call you to explain why he believes Fr.Cekada is wrong if you email him. Contact info is on the true or false pope site.

Salza is very formidable.Lefebvre never said he is sedevacantist, even if he had doubts at times.
Debbie said…
I, nor Fr. Cekada ever claimed Ab. Lefebvre was a sedevacantist. The whole point is that Salza never acknowledged the indecisiveness the Archbishop was plagued with. I want to hear both sides of the issue....not just anti this or that. Fr. Cekada did just that. Admitted lefebvre had doubts. Ultimately he decided a future pope/council would decide the issue. And that is true, but to date there is no pope, no council, no bishop doing anything except insisting Frankenpope is Pope....including the SSPX. And, according to Fr. Cekada there ARE sedevacantists priests within the SSPX, but they're not allowed to speak up. So far, I am not seeing an agenda with a fr. Cekada other than to open our eyes and see. The ICKSP are notably quite on these issues, except like all others insist Francis is Pope. The FSSP are against the SSPX and insist Francis is Pope. The SSPX (even tho some of their priests hold to the sede position) are against the sedes, but also publicly claim Francis is Pope. Sorry, but again, I'm not going to take my cues from someone(s) who appears to have an agenda other than the salvation of our souls.

Perhaps I shouldn't say this out loud, but I feel compelled to and have already alluded to it; but don't you find it odd that a former 32nd degree mason is allowed to live and expose the freemasons? Somethin ain't right.
Debbie said…
Here's a nice compilation of quotes from the saintly Ab. Lefebvre affirming the sedevacante position. For me, right now today, I see absolutely no issue for Catholics to attend either SSPX chapels OR sedevacante Churches. They're both basically one in the same....it's simply the SSPX won't publicly admit it right now.

http://www.fathercekada.com/2012/09/04/pro-sedevacantism-quotes-from-abp-lefebvre/

Ab. Lefebvre, pray for us.
Fred Martinez said…
Debbie commented on "A Catholic Monitor Comment Section discussion on Sedevacantism: "A False Solution to a Real Problem""
5 hours ago
Fred, thank you so much for allowing these comments, many are so helpful You've advised me to read True or False Pope and I'm not certain that is a good use of my time.

Debbie, I never advised you to read "True or False Pope" because I have found have problems with that book, BUT I DID SAY THIS:

Fred Martinez said…
Debbie said... I don't see how all the post conciliar popes are not heretics.

Debbie,

That was me (Fred) who posted the above

I know you and I don't like Ferrara, but nor does Woods who co-authored the book and I still say:

"The Great Facade" is still where I think you should start on your question above and other questions with pages 12n, 39, 57, 58, etc.

Page 59 says sedes and neo-conservatives embrace the "same error.The Magisterium embraces whatever the Pope says." Unlike Francis the other Vatican II popes didn't do:

LifeSiteNews, "Confusion explodes as Pope Francis throws magisterial weight behind communion for adulterers," December 4, 2017:

The AAS guidelines explicitly allows "sexually active adulterous couples facing 'complex circumstances' to 'access the sacraments of Reconciliation and the Eucharist.'"

Also, "the Church MUST either deprive him, or, as some say, declare him deprived, of his Apostolic See." or we become Protestant-like:

"[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)


- On February 2018, in Rorate Caeli, Catholic theologian Dr. John Lamont:

"The AAS statement... establishes that Pope Francis in Amoris Laetitia has affirmed propositions that are heretical in the strict sense."

- On December 2, 2017, Bishop Rene Gracida:

"Francis' heterodoxy is now official. He has published his letter to the Argentina bishops in Acta Apostlica Series making those letters magisterial documents."

I, too, have a good friend who is a Sede, but I won't join him,for the above reasons , others and the infallible Vatican I:

Are you prepared to deny Vatican I?

Vatican I clearly teaches that popes will reign perpetually:

"[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)).


I hope that is helpful.
7:53 PM
Fred Martinez said…
There are no more cardinals alive who were made so by Pope Pius XII which means no more popes will reign perpetually.
Debbie said…
Fred.....my apologies once again. It must have been one of the anonymous' who said that. I read/comment on these threads from my phone, as I got rid of internet to save money. I have to expand the text much to see who is commenting ..but regardless, mea culpa.
Anonymous said…
@Fred Martinez

True or false Pope is an 800 page book that refuted the Sedevacantists at the time. Salza has more recent articles on the site explaining his reasons for abandoning the SSPX. The SSPX and Sedevacantists are both one in the same as they both lack any canonical status or ordinary jurisdiction at all.

@Debbie I am familiar because I had gone to the SSPX for years and they have their problems too. I also attended Sede chapels as the situation got crazier after Pachamama. But then i looked at the story of Archbishop Thuc...Thuc had gone sedevacantist, then had gone back to the Novus Ordo church. That puzzled me...such a good scholar and traditional Archbishop goes and asks JPII for forgiveness on 2 occasions? Thuc connected the dots that he had been going outside the established hierarchy and didn't plan on dying in schism.

There's no agenda..other than to point out that these Beneplenists refuse to accept Benedicts resignation as valid, he gave up the See of Peter and that means the Munus is gone.
Debbie said…
Anonymous, I have been told that what you claim about Thuc is not true. Could you point me to the evidence of this? I'd like to see for myself who is making this claim and if it's credible. Thanks

Fred, Pope St. Pius X says modernism is the synthesis of all heresies. Not the synthesis of all errors, or lapse in judgement. We know the Church has always taught it is a mortal sin to "worship" with and in other places with heretics and false religions, yet JPII and Benedict did exactly that. Very publicly. I don't know how more explicit it needs to be. It seems to me the excuses are just more modernism trying to explain it away. R&R is just not Catholic, imo.
Debbie said…
Anonymous, just a bit of research and the claims you make of Ab. Thuc seem to be false as I have been assured they were. Even wikipedia concludes they are false.
Aqua said…
Anonymous said: "There's no agenda..other than to point out that these Beneplenists refuse to accept Benedicts resignation as valid, he gave up the See of Peter and that means the Munus is gone."

"No agenda". That's funny, actually, the ability of people to deceive themselves.

Your agenda is to ensure a new norm is accepted that allows a Pope to retire from active governance, yet still remain Pope. Your agenda is to deform the Papacy and allow it to exist in a form never seen since Christ established the Rock.

You have an agenda. It obviously means very much to you. It's a seriously perverted agenda, damaging to the Church.

I also have an agenda. It is to sustain the Papacy as it has existed for 2 millenia, since Christ established the Rock.

No, I don't accept a resignation as valid which purports to leave the See vacant, while obviously still occupied by the current Pope who insists he "remains firmly and forever within the enclosure of St. Peter.

Your position is like that of those who say they can determine their own "gender" ... *just by saying so*.

A man says he is a woman, me striates and can give birth. "She" said so, and you can get in serious trouble in this pagan society by pointing out facts of objective nature that contradict the personal testimony of the man who *THINKS* he is a woman. Their gender is frequently "fluid" and is determined by their own feelings and preferences, not objective reality.

*THAT* is your position in regards the See of Peter. "He said it is vacant, therefor it is so; his pronouns are Holiness and Pope Emeritus". Meanwhile, Canon Law (not to mention Sacred Tradition from which it derives) requires specific words be applied and supporting actions be manifestly made in support.

Canon Law requires resignation of Munus. You say any other word is good enough.

Biology says a man is a human being with certain genitalia and xy chromosomes. Gender confused say a man is just a word on a spectrum.

No agenda. You deceive yourself. Your agenda renders the Papacy meaningless, because it is not the same as that given to the Church by God - one man occupies the Office at a time until death ... *OR* ... until he abdicates the Office and manifests his separation completely. THAT is Sacred Tradition. That is in accord with Canon Law. Pope Emeritus? Never heard of it. *Source it* beyond the theologically confused words of the present day, please.
Aqua said…
Anonymous said: "... he gave up the See of Peter, and that means the Munus is gone".

In ref to what I wrote above, in which Modernists use words to declare their own particular reality, Canon 332.2, which actually governs Papal resignation doesn't even mention "See of Peter" ...

"§2. If it happens that the Roman Pontiff resigns his office, it is required for validity that the resignation is made freely and properly manifested but not that it is accepted by anyone."

So ... it doesn't actually mean that the Munus is gone, does it. Especially since the Pope himself insisted as "manifestation" of his act that he remains firmly and forever, safely in the fold of St. Peter in a new and expanded Papacy.

You keep saying the little sentence you quote means something it does not.

In the same way we are faced with men who insist they are women, mensturate and have babies. They keep saying it. They also keep insisting that we agree with them. And now, it seems, it is borderline illegal, certainly dangerous to career prospects to not accept anyone's assertion of gender fluid belief. You can't even point out obvious biological facts without a gender mob and sympathizers descending on you for "hate".

He didn't resign the Munus. He could have. He didn't. He didn't even leave the See of a Peter. He could have. He didn't. And I won't ever stop pointing out the insanity of the position that says a Pope who remains in every way that actually matters (connected to God by valid Munus) is not the Pope.

Anonymous said…
"Your agenda is to ensure a new norm is accepted that allows a Pope to retire from active governance, yet still remain Pope. Your agenda is to deform the Papacy and allow it to exist in a form never seen since Christ established the Rock.

You have an agenda. It obviously means very much to you. It's a seriously perverted agenda, damaging to the Church.

I also have an agenda. It is to sustain the Papacy as it has existed for 2 millenia, since Christ established the Rock.

No, I don't accept a resignation as valid which purports to leave the See vacant, while obviously still occupied by the current Pope who insists he "remains firmly and forever within the enclosure of St. Peter."

-I'm only trying to save you and others from schism out of charity, there's no agenda. Do I personally like the idea of Popes resigning? No. But I'm not in the hierarchy of the church..neither are you.
Anonymous said…
@Debbie

https://www.upi.com/Archives/1984/12/17/Excommunicated-Vietnamese-archbishop-received-back-into-church/9212472107600/

Aqua said…
“Finally, one cannot consider as schismatics those who refuse to obey the Roman Pontiff because they would hold his person suspect or, because of widespread rumors, doubtfully elected (as happened after the election of Urban VI), or who would resist him as a civil authority and not as pastor of the Church.” (Wernz-Vidal, Ius Canonicum [Rome: Gregorian 1937]

"Further, if ever at any time it becomes clear that ... any Roman Pontiff before his elevation as a Roman Pontiff, has strayed from the Catholic Faith or fallen into some heresy, [or has incurred, encouraged or incited schism], then his promotion or elevation shall be null, invalid and void." CUM EX APOSTOLATUS OFFICIO, Pope Paul IV, February 15, 1559

Aqua said…
Anonymous said: "Do I personally like the idea of Popes resigning? No. But I'm not in the hierarchy of the church..neither are you."

The question is not whether you do or don't prefer a Pope resigning. Preference is for Protestants.

The question is whether this Pope did or did not resign. Truth is knowable in the Catholic Church.

If you are following an antipope, then you are the one in schism.

A Pope may either die in Office.

Or

A Pope may abdicate his Office.

Either way - he must fully and irrevocably *leave* his Office.

There is no third option of "retirement" to a life of prayer and contemplation as "Emeritus", safely and forever within the new and expanded fold of St.Peter". That is not possible.
Aqua said…
Anonymous: An article that might help, Fr. David Nix (Padre Peregrino)

https://padreperegrino.org/2022/05/sspx/

In it he shows that it is not a schismatic act to choose to follow the wrong Pope during times of Papal uncertainty and disputations (much more common than abdications, btw), per se, or even to disagree with, possibly even disobey Papal decrees. As he puts it...

"In traditional papal encyclicals, a “schismatic community” is a Christian community adhering to valid sacraments but without recognizing the primacy of place of Rome or the importance of the papacy."

As my traditional, Latin Mass community Priests (both FSSP and SSPX over the span of years) have always put it "it is necessary to recognize the authority and primacy of Pope, but it is not necessary to agree on the *name* of the Pope ... disputes have happened many times over the years (far more often, once again, than abdications) and many times the accepted ultimately turns out to be the antipope. Sacraments and good standing do not depend on your views regarding the current conflict".

So, what I said before about you being in schism for following the wrong Pope is actually not true. Declaring for Bergoglio is not a schismatic act, per se. I would be much more concerned, (if I were you), about support for a multi-occupant Papacy in which full and complete abdication of Office and separation is not precedent to a Conclave - multiple visible Popes. That - supporting a deformed and altered Papacy itself - appears quantifiably schismatic to me; naming the wrong Pope, in a dispute not the true core problem.
Aqua said…
And for the record - because one never knows who is reading such things - my list of Priests who I have informed of my views on the disputed Papac, prior to receiving Sacraments from them, also includes two Novus Ordo Parishes in two different States.

All said precisely the same thing, small variations in phrasing: "It is not a schismatic act to dispute the name of a Pope, as long as you submit to the primacy of the Papacy itself".
Anonymous said…

All said precisely the same thing, small variations in phrasing: "It is not a schismatic act to dispute the name of a Pope, as long as you submit to the primacy of the Papacy itself".

I can agree on that Aqua..

It's not schismatic to believe that a claimant may be the true Pope like in the case of the Great Western schism mess, where people followed anti-Popes thinking they're the true Pope but then later it gets resolved by a council...but there's no other claimants out there. Benedict moved on..

Popular posts from this blog

Bishops of Colorado gave an apparent Vaxx "Exemption" Letter & Stated: "Vaccination is Not Morally Obligatory and so Must Be Voluntary"

Today, the bishops of Colorado gave an apparent Vaxx " exemption" letter (21_8_Vaccine_Exemption_CCC_Fin...docx(20KB)) and stated that "Vaccination is Not Morally Obligatory and so Must Be Voluntary":  COLORADO CATHOLIC CONFERENCE 1535 Logan Street | Denver, CO 80203-1913 303-894-8808 | cocatholicconference.org   [Date]   To Whom It May Concern, [Name] is a baptized Catholic seeking a religious exemption from an immunization requirement. This letter explains how the Catholic Church’s teachings may lead individual Catholics, including [name], to decline certain vaccines. The Catholic Church teaches that a person may be required to refuse a medical intervention, including a vaccination, if his or her conscience comes to this judgment. While the Catholic Church does not prohibit the use of most vaccines, and generally encourages them to safeguard personal and public health, the following authoritative Church teachings demonstrate the principled religious

Does Francis's "Right-hand Man" Parra have a "Sexual Predation against Seminarians, Adultery, and even a Deadly Sex Game...[that] 'might even be a Scandal Surpassing that of McCarrick'"?

  Archbishop Edgar Peña Parra with Francis Today, the Call Me Jorge website asked "What could be so important that Francis interrupted his weekly adulation [Audience] session?": Pope gets a phone call during the Audience. Haven’t seen this before. Then he quickly leaves and says he will be back. pic.twitter.com/npCuPzdnxP — The Catholic Traveler (@MountainButorac) August 11, 2021 It was Abp. Mons. Edgar Robinson Peña Parra, Substitute for the Secretariat of State, who was involved in the recent scandal of mismanagement during the acquisition of a € 300 million building in London. Still no word on what the phone call was about . [http://callmejorgebergoglio.blogspot.com/2021/08/what-could-be-so-important-that-francis.html] Who is Archbishop Edgar Robinson Peña Parra ? Parra according to the Catholic Herald is Francis's "right-hand man"[https://catholicherald.co.uk/roman-curia-the-popes-new-right-hand-man/] In 2019, Life Site News reported that Parra alleged

Might it be Good for all of us & for Francis to Read about the "Gruesome Death of Arius"?

  I have read the letters of your piety , in which you have requested me to make known to you the events of my times relating to myself, and to give an account of that most impious heresy of the Arians , in consequence of which I have endured these sufferings, and also of the manner of the death of Arius . With two out of your three demands I have readily undertaken to comply, and have sent to your Godliness what I wrote to the Monks; from which you will be able to learn my own history as well as that of the heresy . But with respect to the other matter, I mean the death, I debated with myself for a long time, fearing lest any one should suppose that I was exulting in the death of that man. But yet, since a disputation which has taken place among you concerning the heresy , has issued in this question, whether Arius died after previously communicating with the Church ; I therefore was necessarily desirous of giving an account of his death, as thinking that the question woul