Skip to main content

Do both Sedes & Neoconservatives believe that every act of Governing & Ambiguous Teaching of Vatican II Popes & other Popes such as Pope John XXII are Infallible contrary to Vatican I?

 Sedevacantism - Angelus Press

 https://novusordowatch.org/wp-content/uploads/ferrara-reversible-magisterium-great-facade.png

-  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." - The Catholic Monitor

Here is what Vatican I expert Fr. Chad Ripperger, PhD, in his book "Magisterial Authority" says to Lewis and others who it appears are "proximate to heresy":

"[T]reat[ing] ALL papal statements as if they are infallible... is proximate to heresy because it rejects the precise formulation of the conditions of infallibility as laid out in by Vatican I... by essentially saying that the pope is infallible regardless of conditions."

"... Worse still, those who were to follow a pope who was in error in a non-infallible teaching which is taught contrary to something that is infallible is not, therefore, excused."
(Magisterial Authority, Pages 5-14) - The Catholic Monitor 

There is a difference between "material" heresy and "formal" heresy. A Pope can be a "material" heretic -- i.e. he can actually hold personal heretical views (as did John XXII) since a Pope is only infallible when making Ex Cathedra statements to the Universal Church on matters of faith and morals.

HOWEVER, a Pope cannot be considered a formal heretic until/unless a duly formed juridical body within the Church examines his alleged "heresies" and requests a retraction or repudiation of any of his positions which are actually found to be contrary to Church doctrine, and only -- if then -- such a Pope refuses to repudiate and/or correct his personally held beliefs.

If such a Pope were to recant his errors and repent of them in such a circumstance, he is not a formal heretic. - Gloria.tv  [
https://gloria.tv/post/ccfWZin62bJ13DBwFas3Gwojt/replies]

[The Catholic Monitor wonders if Sedevacantists and Neoconservatives are united and of one mind on one belief:]

Do both Sedes and Neoconservatives both believe that every act of governing and ambiguous teaching of  Vatican II popes and other popes such as Pope John XXII are infallible contrary to Vatican I?

Is it possible that Sedes and Neoconservatives may be infallibly definitely united and of one mind on this
subject?

https://www.thecatholicmonitor.com/2022/06/semi-modernists-francistrads-like.html

- This problem is exacerbated by our current historical conditions. As the theological community began to unravel before, during and after Vatican II, those who considered themselves orthodox were those who were obedient and intellectually submissive to the Magisterium, since those who dissented were not orthodox. Therefore the standard of orthodoxy was shifted from Scripture, intrinsic tradition (of which the Magisterium is a part) and extrinsic tradition (which includes magisterial acts of the past, such as Pius IX’s Syllabus of Errors), to a psychological state in which only the current Magisterium is followed.

Neoconservatives have fallen into this way of thinking. The only standard by which they judge - orthodoxy is whether or not one follows the current Magisterium. As a general rule, traditionalists tend to be orthodox in the sense that they are obedient to the current Magisterium, even though they disagree about matters of discipline and have some reservations about certain aspects of current magisterial teachings that seem to contradict the previous Magisterium (e.g., the role of the ecumenical movement). Traditionalists tend to take not just the current Magisterium as their norm but also Scripture, intrinsic tradition, extrinsic tradition and the current Magisterium as the principles of judgment of correct Catholic thinking. This is what distinguishes traditionalists and neoconservatives

Inevitably, this magisterialism has led to a form of positivism. Since there are no principles of judgment other than the current Magisterium, whatever the current Magisterium says is always what is “orthodox.” In other words, psychologically the neoconservatives have been left in a position in which the extrinsic and intrinsic tradition are no longer included in the norms of judging whether something is orthodox or not. As a result, whatever comes out of the Vatican, regardless of its authoritative weight, is to be held, even if it contradicts what was taught with comparable authority in the past. Since non-infallible ordinary acts of the Magisterium can be erroneous, this leaves one in a precarious situation if one takes as true only what the current Magisterium says. While we are required to give religious assent even to the non-infallible teachings of the Church, what are we to do when a magisterial document contradicts other current or previous teachings and one does not have any more authoritative weight than the other? It is too simplistic merely to say that we are to follow the current teaching. What would happen if in a period of crisis, like our own, a non-infallible ordinary magisterial teaching contradicted what was in fact the truth? If one part of the Magisterium contradicts another, both being at the same level, which is to believed?

Unfortunately, what has happened is that many neoconservatives have acted as if non-infallible ordinary magisterial teachings (such as, for instance, the role of inculturation in the liturgy as stated in the Catechism of the Catholic Church) are, in fact, infallible when the current Magisterium promulgates them. This is a positivist mentality. Many of the things that neoconservatives do are the result of implicitly adopting principles that they have not fully or explicitly considered. Many of them would deny this characterization because they do not intellectually hold to what, in fact, are their operative principles. - Fr. Chad Ripperger, F.S.S.P. [http://www.latinmassmagazine.com/articles/articles_2001_sp_ripperger.html] - The Catholic Monitor comment section [https://www.thecatholicmonitor.com/2022/06/a-catholic-monitor-discussion-on.html]

The Catholic Monitor would like to recommend Fr. Paul Kramer's book "On the true and the false pope: The case against Bergoglio" to Sedevacantists on the difference between Francis and Pope Benedict XVI:

On the true and the false pope: The case against Bergoglio Paperback – November 15, 2021...

... This volume examines the question of the validity or nullity of Jorge Bergoglio’s and Pope Benedict XVI’s claims on the papacy, according to the same criteria as employed by St. Bernard of Clairvaux (canonical validity of election and orthodoxy in faith) in his examination of the claims of Innocent II and Anacletus II on the papacy. In this work I systematically present the case against Jorge Mario “Francis” Bergoglio, and prove that Benedict XVI is still the only legitimate claimant to the papal throne and sole holder of the Petrine munus at the present time.

This volume also presents a summary of the main points of the Catholic doctrine on papal heresy in a compressed form, with new material and arguments explaining points which were only touched upon in the first volume, such as the essential distinction between episcopal and papal authority, so as to make the Church’s doctrine on the question of papal heresy more easily and clearly understandable.
(Soft cover edition)
[https://www.amazon.com/true-false-pope-against-Bergoglio/dp/1945658266]

Next, as all Catholic Monitor (CM) readers know the CM comment section has been having a lively ongoing discussion with Sedevacantists and Francis advocates who are possibly Traditionalists as well as conservatives (Neoconservatives) for the last few weeks. Below are discussions where some of the above quotes were taken from:

Anonymous said…
An ecumenical council defined the gates of hell as the death dealing tongue of heretics. Formal heresy has nothing to with being admonished, but it’s defined as KNOWINGLY teaching heresy. Furthermore, canon law says that heretics are automatically ex communicated, and it wouldn’t make sense for an automatic penalty to require any declaration or paper work. We cannot judge a true pope, but we can judge a heretical pope, because by embracing heresy he is no longer Catholic, and hence no longer the pope. If we couldn’t understand he’s a heretic before any official declaration, nobody could judge him at all, because the first see is judged by no one. Finally both sacred scripture and Vatican I say that the pope’s faith cannot fail, and I don’t think that was a rhetorical flourish, for if the pope’s faith could fail the Church could not be indefectible.

When we put all those points together we see that sedevacantism theology on the pope is correct in principle on most points. It’s weakness would be lack of apostolic succession.

I am no sedevacantist but I have read traditional Catholic dogmatic and moral theology.
Anonymous said…
Sedevacantism is an attractive position, because it provides a refuge for people that don't have the Eastern Rites like I have in my area.

"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."

-Munus gone after he gave up the See of Peter. Left the chair Vacant. Beneplenism, Benevacantism ultimately leads to sedevacantism in a different flavor.
Fred Martinez said…
https://www.thecatholicmonitor.com/2021/04/is-pachamama-conservative-mike-lewis.html

Here is what Vatican I expert Fr. Chad Ripperger, PhD, in his book "Magisterial Authority" says to Lewis and others who it appears are "proximate to heresy":

"[T]reat[ing] ALL papal statements as if they are infallible... is proximate to heresy because it rejects the precise formulation of the conditions of infallibility as laid out in by Vatican I... by essentially saying that the pope is infallible regardless of conditions."

"... Worse still, those who were to follow a pope who was in error in a non-infallible teaching which is taught contrary to something that is infallible is not, therefore, excused."
(Magisterial Authority, Pages 5-14)
Fred Martinez said…
Anonymous,

As I said to your apparent friend Steve O'Reilly:


"Why are you [who apparently don't think there have been antipopes in Church history] so obsessed with Francis being infallibly definitely the pope to the point you are a afraid of cardinals and bishops correcting your definitively infallibly non-heretical Francis on "communion for adulterers" which apparently may be the opposite of your position maybe if Aqua is reading you right and now you are apparently defending his "communion for adulterers" new cardinals? Would you love Pope Mcelroy as much as you love Francis? Would you be against correcting a future Pope Mcelroy? Would you be against correcting a future Pope James Martin? Would you love Pope James Martin as much as you love Francis?"
Fred Martinez said…
Do both Sedes and Neoconservatives both believe that every act of governing and ambiguous teaching of Vatican II popes and other popes such as Pope John XXII are infallible contrary to Vatican I?

Is it possible that Sedes and Neoconservatives may be infallibly definitely united and of one mind on this
subject?

https://www.thecatholicmonitor.com/2022/06/semi-modernists-francistrads-like.html

- This problem is exacerbated by our current historical conditions. As the theological community began to unravel before, during and after Vatican II, those who considered themselves orthodox were those who were obedient and intellectually submissive to the Magisterium, since those who dissented were not orthodox. Therefore the standard of orthodoxy was shifted from Scripture, intrinsic tradition (of which the Magisterium is a part) and extrinsic tradition (which includes magisterial acts of the past, such as Pius IX’s Syllabus of Errors), to a psychological state in which only the current Magisterium is followed.

Neoconservatives have fallen into this way of thinking. The only standard by which they judge - orthodoxy is whether or not one follows the current Magisterium. As a general rule, traditionalists tend to be orthodox in the sense that they are obedient to the current Magisterium, even though they disagree about matters of discipline and have some reservations about certain aspects of current magisterial teachings that seem to contradict the previous Magisterium (e.g., the role of the ecumenical movement). Traditionalists tend to take not just the current Magisterium as their norm but also Scripture, intrinsic tradition, extrinsic tradition and the current Magisterium as the principles of judgment of correct Catholic thinking. This is what distinguishes traditionalists and neoconservatives

Inevitably, this magisterialism has led to a form of positivism. Since there are no principles of judgment other than the current Magisterium, whatever the current Magisterium says is always what is “orthodox.” In other words, psychologically the neoconservatives have been left in a position in which the extrinsic and intrinsic tradition are no longer included in the norms of judging whether something is orthodox or not. As a result, whatever comes out of the Vatican, regardless of its authoritative weight, is to be held, even if it contradicts what was taught with comparable authority in the past. Since non-infallible ordinary acts of the Magisterium can be erroneous, this leaves one in a precarious situation if one takes as true only what the current Magisterium says. While we are required to give religious assent even to the non-infallible teachings of the Church, what are we to do when a magisterial document contradicts other current or previous teachings and one does not have any more authoritative weight than the other? It is too simplistic merely to say that we are to follow the current teaching. What would happen if in a period of crisis, like our own, a non-infallible ordinary magisterial teaching contradicted what was in fact the truth? If one part of the Magisterium contradicts another, both being at the same level, which is to believed?

Unfortunately, what has happened is that many neoconservatives have acted as if non-infallible ordinary magisterial teachings (such as, for instance, the role of inculturation in the liturgy as stated in the Catechism of the Catholic Church) are, in fact, infallible when the current Magisterium promulgates them. This is a positivist mentality. Many of the things that neoconservatives do are the result of implicitly adopting principles that they have not fully or explicitly considered. Many of them would deny this characterization because they do not intellectually hold to what, in fact, are their operative principles. - Fr. Chad Ripperger, F.S.S.P. [http://www.latinmassmagazine.com/articles/articles_2001_sp_ripperger.html] 
 
Below is the post from which the above comments were made:
 

 

Comments

T said…
That the pope is not always speaking infallibly doesn't mean he cannot err. But it also doesn't mean he can teach heresy in all circumstances if he does not speak ex cathedra. God will not bind us to accept the teachings and governance of a pope if something he says can lead us to hell. But as the divinely instituted teacher we are expected to obey him because God gives him grace to lead us. We believe in papal primacy. All the schismatics deny it.

If Francis were the pope, we would have to submit to his primacy. But the things he is teaching and doing will lead to hell if obeyed since it contradicts what Jesus said. We cannot obey, nor can we decide to correct the doctrine of papal primacy. If we are traditionalists, we can only ask if we are sure he is the pope and clear any doubts.
Aqua said…
Fred: One of your best posts. I hope it gets the readership it deserves. So many are falling away for so many different reasons. I have felt the same pressure personally, within the family. My wife was asking me today about questions topical on your web site ... most Catholics, I suspect, are facing the same existential questions. We have lost the way! Where is our Light? Where is our path? What we have known is now changed and we are unmoored.

We have to see through the smoke of deceptions and lies and look to the pure white light of Jesus, in the Constant Magisterium of the Church with which God blessed us in his great love and wisdom to deal with moments of crisis, just like these truly unprecedented times.

This post is very helpful. I will spend some time in the links.
Anonymous said…
"AAnonymous,

As I said to your apparent friend Steve O'Reilly:


"Why are you [who apparently don't think there have been antipopes in Church history] so obsessed with Francis being infallibly definitely the pope to the point you are a afraid of cardinals and bishops correcting your definitively infallibly non-heretical Francis on "communion for adulterers" which apparently may be the opposite of your position maybe if Aqua is reading you right and now you are apparently defending his "communion for adulterers" new cardinals? Would you love Pope Mcelroy as much as you love Francis? Would you be against correcting a future Pope Mcelroy? Would you be against correcting a future Pope James Martin? Would you love Pope James Martin as much as you love Francis?""

I never said that there have not been Anti-Popes in the church...If Francis is one...he'll be declared as such later by another Pope or a council.
Aqua said…
Anonymous (presumably Steven O'Reilly in disguise ... he sure writes like him) said "If Francis is one...he'll be declared as such later by another Pope or a council."

I'm sure he will be.

Possibly, if we are truly at the end of time (which is guaranteed ... we just don't know when), then God Himself will declare it at the Last Judgement: ("The Last Judgment will reveal that God’s justice triumphs over all the injustices committed by his creatures and that God’s love is stronger than death." CCC 1040).

Either way, I declare him so now as any number of Catholcics have done throughout time - based on clear, convincing, obvious evidence that is freely available to the public - not to mention our non-lying eyes.

I hereby do declare: Pope Benedict XVI active reigning Supreme Pontiff, due to application of Canons 332 and 188 and a clear manifestation of total, ongoing error of abdication. I disregard the imposter antipope - total and complete disregard, not even a prick from the ol' conscience. And I anxiously wait for the Cardinals and Bishops to assemble and do their duty before God.
Anonymous said…
@Aqua you'll accept a Pope that's elected by Bergoglio's Cardinals?
Ignatius said…
https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/pope-francis-gives-private-audience-to-pro-lgbt-priest-known-for-pagan-practices/
Aqua said…
@Anonymous: They are not Cardinals if they were placed there by an antipope. The current Papal crisis does not shake my Catholic faith. The Faith is not the Pope, correct? I think it would be good to recall basics, about what we believe and why we believe it.

We will have to just wait and see, won't we?
Anonymous said…
@Aqua so then the church does not need a Pope? So like the sedevacantists..you'll be saying that Benedict XVI had been the last true Pope...but Pius XII is their last true Pope.
Aqua said…
Anonymous … you remind me of a character from a book, Screwtape. Always looking for an angle. Not interested.
Anonymous said…
@Aqua We'll see how it all plays out. You're looking for an angle to promote the SSPX & Beneplenism...always!
Ignatius said…
Modernism has infected the veins of the church...and that's the real enemy. Benedict being the Pope still...that's of little matter at this point because the modernists continue to infect the church.
T said…
If Benedict is not the pope, who is? Bergoglio contradicts the purpose of a pope. We need a pope. not just any leader dressed in white. The synodal church is veering into apostasy.
Anonymous said…
T as far as it looks from a legalistic point of view in the church...Bergoglio had been elected by the college of Cardinals in 2013...Aqua can't prove it is an invalid conclave, neither can any of the other Beneplenists...all they have is the Munus argument and it's a weak one at best.
Aqua said…
Anonymous: "all they have is the Munus argument"

It's the only fact that matters, Steven.
Anonymous said…
@Aqua We'll call it the "big lie" of 2022 for Catholics...that Benedict is supposedly still Pope...even though he's already refuted your position as a Cardinal and said that Francis is the Pope from his own mouth..
Aqua said…
The big lie of 2022 is that the Papacy is still intact and a standard of unity for the Faithful, to lead us to Christ.

Justina said…
If Aqua can't prove that the 2013 conclave was an invalid one, Anon can't prove it was valid, either. The important thing to notice here is that he doesn't even try. When people like Aqua put forward rational, empirically-based arguments impugning Bergoglian legitimacy, what they get by way of reply are thoughtless, repetitive ad hominem tactical diversions--and kindergartenish ones, at that.

People, for instance, say to Beneplenists, "You have no right to determine who is or isn't the Pope of the Catholic Church. You're not a Cardinal!" Yet it doesn't seem to dawn on the very people advancing this line of thought that they themselves aren't Cardinals, either.

Glaring inconsistencies of this kind pockmark what passes for the "Will the Real Pope Please Stand Up?" debate in general. This reality itself is very telling: one side--Aqua's--faces the evidence head-on, seeking to make sense of a kaleidescopic situation, while the approach of other side comes down to this: "Shut up and go away! I'll just keep jamming the combox, until you do." Evidently people like Anonymous believe that whoever behaves the most obnoxiously online is the one who gets to say which guy in white is the "real Pope." (I don't recall that passage in UD Gregis--do you?)

Someone who actually is a Cardinal of the Catholic Church--namely, Gerhard Mueller--recently characterized the situation since the non-resignation of Benedict XVI (I say "non-resignation" not only because of the munus issue, but also because someone who is no longer Pope doesn't speak, act, and live like he still is, among other things) as "unprecedented." Strong term. If this situation has never cropped up in Church history before, then it is the Aquas of this world who are right to ask questions and to seek clarification, and to go on doing so until something makes sense, rather than being intellectually satisfied with the stark raving nonsense which goes by the name of "the Pontificate of Francis" these days, and rather than being bludgeoned into silence by people like Anon for whom stark raving nonsense apparently suffices.
Anonymous said…
@Justina

"If Aqua can't prove that the 2013 conclave was an invalid one, Anon can't prove it was valid, either. The important thing to notice here is that he doesn't even try. When people like Aqua put forward rational, empirically-based arguments impugning Bergoglian legitimacy, what they get by way of reply are thoughtless, repetitive ad hominem tactical diversions--and kindergartenish ones, at that."

-I can prove it by simply asking you this question..Did a single Cardinal challenge the conclave of Francis? NOPE

Aqua is entitled to his opinions, even his doubts...but they have no authority in the church to declare that Francis isn't the true Pope as he publically has been doing.
Anonymous said…
@Justina

I never said that Aqua didn't provide interesting arguments..but kindergarten arguments are simply like the Munus argument. It's got nothing to stand on.
Justina said…
You never said why Bergoglio should be regarded as Pope, either, and you never do.
Aqua said…
Justina, much appreciated.

No one should think they have this figured out.

Everyone should be tirelessly active until it is.
Aqua said…
Anonymous - I have every right in the world to demand that what the Cardinals produced is in accord with Depositum Fidei. They gave me an Emeritus Pope for the first time in history. Christ didn't do that. These Cardinals did. Sources please. Footnotes. Who is this "Emeritus" you ask me to accept as a matter of Faith?

Source it out and explain it all in detail, and I'll consider it for what it is - an essential part of the Constant Magisterium within the Sacred Deposit of Faith.

The most I've ever heard you say on the matter is it's a simple choice ... no big deal. Wrong.

The Hierarchy has rights. They also have responsibilities. And now, I demand an explanation of this deformation within the Papal Office that began with an invalid resignation of Ministerium and a "remaining firmly and forever within St. Peter's fold". The Cardinals have a duty to act to explain themselves when there is doubt. If they are secure, that shouldn't be a problem at all. Simple. Sources. They have them, right?
Aqua said…
Anonymous said: "Did a single Cardinal challenge the conclave of Francis? NOPE"

"Invalid by the law itself" (Canon 188)

Not: "invalid when the assembled Cardinals that made the original error re-affirms their error by official affirmation when collected in privy Council)" (Cqnon ???)
But: ("invalid by the law itself").

Your standard of valid/invalid does not reference the applicable Canon Law. Nor does your standard of valid resignation reference the applicable Canon Law.

Words matter.
Law matters.
T said…
The strongest argument for me is that Vatican I didn't only define papal infallibility but clarified primacy too. The pope is the supreme governer and teacher of the Church. Even when he is not speaking infallibly he is not free to teach heresy (heresy such as the death penalty being contrary to the gospel; it being a sin to convince anyone of the truth of the fate; that apostates are members of the Church). Even his governance of the Church must be obeyed, per Vatican I. If he were the pope he can ban any mass he wants, and no one could judge him, not his mother, not the had of the Jesuits, not even the cardinals, no, God alone. But that is only if he's the pope. When we see that his teachings are heresy and his governance destructive of the Church we can't but help to wonder about the contrapositive.

What most trads do is deny the primacy, which was settled before Vatican II. That is heretical or schismatic, and they do it because they hold it as an axiom that Francis is pope. NOW has an interesting challenge. Read the documents of Vatican I, but replace "roman pontiff" with "Pope Francis". You will find that you cannot accept this dogmatic council if Francis is the roman pontiff.

So if Francis is pope legally, it is a Pyrrhic victory. I don't Jesus gave much credit to legalists His first coming, since the Jewish religious gang had many human-legal reasons to reject Him, even considering him a sinner for healing on the Sabbath and telling an ex-cripple to take up his mat and walk.
T said…
And that is legally because no one speaks up, not legally according to the intention of the law.
Aqua said…
Anonymous said: ".but kindergarten arguments are simply like the Munus argument. It's got nothing to stand on."

And your intellectual powerhouse argument leaves us with a deformed Papacy and an apostate "Pope".

Remember what Christ said, "unless you are converted and become like a little child you will never enter the Kingdom of Heaven" (Matt 18:3)

And what did he say about the Pharisees who were, oh so smart, and always looking for the angle to trip Him up with their intellectual prowess and catch Him in error? "27 Woe to you scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites; because you are like to whited sepulchres, which outwardly appear to men beautiful, but within are full of dead men's bones, and of all filthiness.
28 So you also outwardly indeed appear to men just; but inwardly you are full of hypocrisy and iniquity". (Matt 23:27,28)

The argument is "simple" because the Canon Law is simple. No matter how low a Catholic is in learning, he can know who his Pope is, and not be led into damnation by a false Pope. And that is allowed, according to Sacrd Tradition. In fact, historically it is considered an essential element of the Faith.

BTW: I'll match your "Munus" and raise you a "See of Peter". Your argument rests on that and that alone. The only problem for you is that mine is in the Canon; yours is not.
Aqua said…
T said: " If he were the pope he can ban any mass he wants, and no one could judge him ..."

That may be true, in theory, but at the same time, no true Pope would EVER ban a valid Mass, especially one such as that of Pope St. Pius V, who guaranteed it until the end of time in his Papal Bull Quo Primum.

Notice how a true Pope *CAREFULLY SOURCES* everything he writes in Sacred Tradition - everything.

- extract from intro to Quo Primum establishing its legitimacy to the Priests and the Faithful -

From the very first, upon Our elevation to the chief Apostleship, We gladly turned our mind and energies and directed all our thoughts to those matters which concerned the preservation of a pure liturgy, and We strove with God’s help, by every means in our power, to accomplish this purpose. For, besides other decrees of the sacred Council of Trent, there were stipulations for Us to revise and re-edit the sacred books: the Catechism, the Missal and the Breviary. With the Catechism published for the instruction of the faithful, by God’s help, and the Breviary thoroughly revised for the worthy praise of God, in order that the Missal and Breviary may be in perfect harmony, as fitting and proper – for its most becoming that there be in the Church only one appropriate manner of reciting the Psalms and only one rite for the celebration of Mass – We deemed it necessary to give our immediate attention to what still remained to be done, viz, the re-editing of the Missal as soon as possible.

Hence, We decided to entrust this work to learned men of our selection. They very carefully collated all their work with the ancient codices in Our Vatican Library and with reliable, preserved or emended codices from elsewhere. Besides this, these men consulted the works of ancient and approved authors concerning the same sacred rites; and thus they have restored the Missal itself to the original form and rite of the holy Fathers. When this work has been gone over numerous times and further emended, after serious study and reflection, We commanded that the finished product be printed and published as soon as possible, so that all might enjoy the fruits of this labor; and thus, priests would know which prayers to use and which rites and ceremonies they were required to observe from now on in the celebration of Masses.

Let all everywhere adopt and observe what has been handed down by the Holy Roman Church, the Mother and Teacher of the other churches, and let Masses not be sung or read according to any other formula than that of this Missal published by Us. This ordinance applies henceforth, now, and forever, throughout all the provinces of the Christian world, to all patriarchs, cathedral churches, collegiate and parish churches, be they secular or religious, both of men and of women – even of military orders – and of churches or chapels without a specific congregation in which conventual Masses are sung aloud in choir or read privately in accord with the rites and customs of the Roman Church. This Missal is to be used by all churches, even by those which in their authorization are made exempt, whether by Apostolic indult, custom, or privilege, or even if by oath or official confirmation of the Holy See, or have their rights and faculties guaranteed to them by any other manner whatsoever.

- end quote -

Notice in TC, how Bergoglio sources his authority? He references himself. At the most he references VII, but mostly just himself and his own writings. And rather than connect his act to that of all his predecessors ... he just takes an axe and chops up everything he doesn't like.

It is very much like the valid election. "Why is it valid? Because I said so".
Anonymous said…
@Aqua I have a lot of respect for you, regardless of what you think about me...go back to the Roma Locuta Est articles that refute your position. I do not dare say that you are not a Catholic. Are you becoming a schismatic? that's a different story.

https://www.catholic.com/audio/caf/is-francis-pope-munus-vs-ministerium - this is a newer one that I listened to, interesting even if you disagree Aqua.

Aqua said…
Notice also, in that extract, Pope St. Pius V's constant use of "we", rather than "I".

He is not just Pope. He is one of the line of every *valid* Pope who ever lived and ever will live because Christ Himself guaranteed unity within the Rock.
Justina said…
Aqua, a couple years ago there was a contest for "Best Blank Book Title," and I entered: "On These Rocks: Scriptural, Historical, and Theological Foundations of the Benedict/Bergoglio Bi-Papal Arrangement."

It won.
Aqua said…
Anonymous: Very gracious of you, and I appreciate it. We disagree profoundly on a point I consider is elemental, directly affecting my salvation and that of those I love. But you have always been civil, very unusual these days, you ably present the other side of the argument, and I very much respect that.
Aqua said…
Justina:

™️ It! 😎
Aqua said…
Anonymous: As for whether or not I am becoming a schismatic ... what could possibly lead you to ask me that question, knowing what you know from what I write over literally the last few years? That is the antithesis of what I am in every quantifiable way. Asking the question does not reflect well on you - because it is so obviously untrue.
Aqua said…
They called (call) LeFebvre a schismatic, and yet he will undoubtedly be seen as a Saint, hero (Doctor) of the Church one day, for his stand against unlawful authority, careful obedience to lawful authority and profound overarching submission to Christ in His unchanging Depositum Fidei.
T said…
Aqua:

I agree I don’t think a legitimate pope would,I just mean to say if he decides to do any governance, excommunicate any bishop, he could, were he definitely the pope. All popes are given grace by the Holy Spirit.

The fact that many things he does do can no wise be obeyed raises doubts about his status as pope. It’s just taking the contrapositive.
Aqua said…
Anonymous: in ref to “schismatic” …

Recall the topic of Fred’s article on which we are commenting here - “Do both Sedes & Neoconservatives believe that every act of Governing & Ambiguous Teaching of Vatican II Popes & other Popes such as Pope John XXII are Infallible contrary to Vatican I?”

In which leads by referring back to one of the most obvious, definable, overt, early departure from the Faith -

- quotes excerpted from above post -

“ 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."

So, as I’ve asked you many times before … who is in true schism when a lowly Layman has latched on to Dogma and the Pope is publicly, forcefully, officially teaching others to depart from Dogma? Schismatic? That is *precisely* the choice faced by Arbp LeFebvre, now facing all. Same choice, no longer theoretical; now personal and very real.
Anonymous said…
@Justina @Aqua

Universal acceptance of a conclave that is legal is one reason for having to accept the terrible Pope that is Jorge Bergoglio...

It is a mortal sin to call for the resignation of a Pope apparently, interesting read:

https://catholicism.io/2018/11/10/is-it-a-sin-to-call-for-the-resignation-of-a-pope/

Anonymous said…
Mr. Salza explains it very well, universal acceptance.

http://www.trueorfalsepope.com/p/peaceful-and-universal-acceptance-of.html

" In The Church of the Word Incarnate, Cardinal Journet wrote the following about the peaceful and universal acceptance of a Pope:

"[T]he peaceful acceptance of the universal Church given to an elect, as to a head to whom it submits, is an act in which the Church engages herself and her fate. It is therefore an act in itself infallible and is immediately recognizable as such. (Consequently, and mediately, it will appear that all conditions prerequisite to the validity of the election have been fulfilled.)

"Acceptance by the Church operates either negatively, when the election is not at once contested; or positively, when the election is first accepted by those present and then gradually by the rest.[4] The Church has the right to elect the Pope, and therefore the right to certain knowledge as to who is elected."[5]
"
Anonymous said…
@Aqua

"So, as I’ve asked you many times before … who is in true schism when a lowly Layman has latched on to Dogma and the Pope is publicly, forcefully, officially teaching others to depart from Dogma? Schismatic? That is *precisely* the choice faced by Arbp LeFebvre, now facing all. Same choice, no longer theoretical; now personal and very real."

Any errors that Francis/Bergoglio teaches that contradict the faith because of his own misunderstanding of the faith..I'll do the exact opposite of anything that he recommends to resist any risk of losing my salvation. You're not in formal schism yet...you'll be if you reject the next Pope's conclave.
Aqua said…
Anonymous: how did Justina put it ... oh, yes, there it is ... "... people like Anon for whom stark raving nonsense apparently suffices."

I have been telling you the same thing, and, just like your debate with Mazza it is as if I never spoke ...

I am not calling for the Pope to resign, because he is not the Pope.

I lightly skimmed through your link, and it's funny - the aurhor, Ron Conte, keeps referring to things that apply to an actual Pope. Sorry to say, for you, they do t apply to this antipope whom you insist on supporting in his occupation.

He says this: "3. In truth, the Pope is protected by the grace of God. He cannot teach heresy or grave error. He cannot commit apostasy, heresy, or schism. He cannot commit any of a range of mortal sins: those that would gravely harm the Church, the Faith, or the salvation of souls. He cannot have an evil intention in anything he does that pertains to the Church."

Yet - as Fred Martinez has clearly demonstrated right here on this blog, right here in this post, as a matter of fact if you went back and actually read it ... this man teaches heresy, grave error, has committed apostasy (the Abraham Indifferentist center, the Wicca ceremony, Pachamama plants on St. Peter's high altar, veneration of idols etc) ... on and on and on. You know the drill.

Bergoglio is the precise definition of what Conte says a Pope cannot be. And he is right. Because Bergoglio is not Pope.

I wonder if it is a mortal sin to encourage poor souls to follow the illegal authority of a Pope into schism with Depositum Fidei and known individual sins, such as sodomy, and sacrelige of Eucharistic desecration. Ignorance might be an excuse. Might.
Anonymous said…
@Aqua I'm well aware that you believe that he is not the Pope. Just for sharing in general...it's a mortal sin to call for a valid/true Pope to resign..unless he's a notorious heretic then the Cardinals can deprive him.

"Yet - as Fred Martinez has clearly demonstrated right here on this blog, right here in this post, as a matter of fact if you went back and actually read it ... this man teaches heresy, grave error, has committed apostasy (the Abraham Indifferentist center, the Wicca ceremony, Pachamama plants on St. Peter's high altar, veneration of idols etc) ... on and on and on. You know the drill."

Has any Cardinal come out and said that Francis is a formal heretic?
Aqua said…
Anonymous said: "You're not in formal schism yet."

"They have the buildings. We have the Faith". (Persecuted Bishop Saint Athanasius)

https://sspx.org/en/letter-st-athanasius

I, like Athanasius, keep the faith intact and whole while you follow a Pope down diverse and unknown paths. It's quite simple. Stay in the lane of Depositum Fidei. Stick with Priests who will keep me there.

You might question, however, where the person you follow as Pope is taking you. You don't spend a lot of time talking about that, I've noticed. Conte, your link author, asserts very strongly you have to go where Holy Father goes. Are you? Consistently and on every point that matters to the "Pope" ... are you? Any equivocation on that point renders your position ... suspect.
Aqua said…
Anonymous: "Has any Cardinal come out and said that Francis is a formal heretic?"

Do I need a Cardinal to tell me it is against Catholic Dogma to allow sodomites into communion with Holy God?

Are you serious?

Wicca witchcraft ceremony for Holy Mass, or in the heart of Christendom, attended by the Pope and his senior Cardinal advisors. What say the Cardinals to that? Good?
Anonymous said…
"
Do I need a Cardinal to tell me it is against Catholic Dogma to allow sodomites into communion with Holy God?

Are you serious?"

You and I both know that's the truth and church's teachings...but Francis is basically allowed to say anything he likes...they seem to only consider it "personal opinion" vs him formally teaching but we know that's BS. Amoris Leatitia is just one example. I agree with you a lot of things Aqua.
Anonymous said…
@Aqua

If you can't get the Cardinals to formally act, there's no depriving Francis of any authority inside the church then if they fail to do anything.
Aqua said…
Anonymous 5:17 - I don't doubt he has authority. I doubt that it is Divine in origin.

And I am not trying in any way to deprive him of anything, since that is not my responsibility. I just need to know who the valid Pope is so I can believe and act accordingly. As my Priest(s) have repeatedly told me, (numerous TLM and NO) it is acceptable to disagree on who the Pope is.

I am not trying to get anyone above me to act, except to stay in my own lane, make my views known to the authorities where I am, and take care to be in fidelity to the Deposit of Faith through the Constant Magisterium in my tiny place in the Catholic Body of Christ.

You said: "... but Francis is basically allowed to say anything he likes...they seem to only consider it "personal opinion" vs him formally teaching ..." ; but as Fred Martinez has shown, in this very blog post, (and elsewhere), he *HAS* formally taught and used his "magisterial authority" to teach that heresy for sure, and also others. That one AL error by itself, before anything else, is game over. The implications of allowing just that, officially promulgated, and insisted upon practically within the Church are catastrophic.

That he does this not just once, but consistently, is proof not that he is a bad Pope, but that he is no Pope - as Conte himself (your link) infers.
Debbie said…
Aqua, you'll find the answer to your last question you commented on at NVP at Novus Ordo watch.org. They're very careful and all their work is footnoted and documented.
Anonymous said…
@Debbie

Mario Derksen is not one to put out information that is not footnoted. I've spoken to him many times.
Anonymous said…
@Justina

By the way, you can insult me or think whatever you want. That's your prerogative. Aqua has made good points, interesting responses. It'll never change my mind about Beneplenism...because the difference is that I look at what Benedict has said during his last audience, what he's even said after he's been retired for 3-4 years after it all happened...the mans own words and they simply refute Beneplenism. He commented as Cardinal in 1989 on the profession of faith:

“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.”


Now Justina, these are Ratzinger's words not mine...
Debbie said…
Anonymous, I'm a newbie and I was struck by what I've been reading and listening to over there. The clarity.....it's so....Catholic.
T said…
Anon, so you’re going to accept he’s the pope but just not his teachings and governance? How does this not contradict the Catholic dogma of papal primacy? If you say a man is your Holy Father you have to live with the logical consequences of it.

That you can’t do that says something.

He’s not just a “bad pope” but a non-Catholic pope.
Debbie said…
TSays: "How does this not contradict the Catholic dogma of papal primacy? If you say a man is your Holy Father you have to live with the logical consequences of it."

And the SSPX is excused from this?

Aqua said…
Debbie, yet you attend their Parishes.

Have you told your Priest there your Sede views?
T said…
I’m not saying it doesn’t. R and R is not something I struggled with.

I think sedevacantism is also wrong because apostolic succession is the 4th mark of the Church. Neither of these alternatives jive with Catholic theology.
Debbie said…
Actually, I've not yet attended an SSPX Mass. It's my understanding though that there still are sedes within the Society. Please don't misunderstand me. I love Ab. Lefebvre and the SSPX priests. Lefebvre had a front row seat to the destruction of the Church and was very vocal about that. Bp. de Castro Mayer was telling anyone who would listen at the 88 consecrations that "we had no pope". The SSPX were divided between the R&R position (a position you rightly point out is not Catholic) and sedevacantism. Lefebvre was understandably torn between the two positions. Ultimately he chose the R&R position.
Debbie said…
SSPX and sedevacantists have preserved Apostolic succession by consecrating bishops. The whole point of why Lefebvre did what he did.
Anonymous said…
@Debbie An SSPX mass is slightly different vs a sede mass. You can find reduced 1955 missals online and compare them to the 62. The SSPX has a lot of priests that believe that they're trying to do good etc. The one problem is that they add a condition for infallibility that never existed in regard to their interpretation of the Vincentian canon. They say that they follow the past Popes...but then say ok Francis is the Pope. There's a problem there because Pope Leo XIII in his Apostolic Letter Epistola Tua explicitly says that you can't pit one Pope against another. Go read it sometime.

The SSPX is in a more difficult position vs FSSP and ICK. As far as recognizing Francis as Pope goes.

The society also has the problem of using Novus Ordo Bishops as people refer to them as...for ordinations of their priests. They'll even get a local FSSP priest to come say mass if their priest has to be out. So the SSPX is not this perfect solution as people believe that it is. Fr. Cekada himself pointed out a lot of their problems.
Debbie said…
"..
I’m not saying it doesn’t. R and R is not something I struggled with."

Not sure how you can say this, and yet tell a Francis supporter they must submit. This is a contradiction. These contradictions are what led me to the conclusion the sedes are right. Plus their arguments are sound and clear and preserve papal infallibility. Do they have ALL the answers? No. But they're Catholic and don't contradict.
Aqua said…
Anonymous @8:10 said: "... what he's even said after he's been retired for 3-4 years after it all happened...the mans own words and they simply refute Beneplenism."

The fact he said anything at all while "retired" ... the man's own actions simply refute Frannyplenism.

A man who commits error, continues to profess the error. It doesn't surprise me. It doesn't change the fact that the Papacy has been transformed - with all predictable consequences.

The fact that he continues to hold the error does not prove the error is therefor true.
Aqua said…
Debbie said: "Lefebvre was understandably torn between the two positions. Ultimately he chose the R&R position."

Which was the position taken by St. Paul (Gal 2:11).

Which refutes the notion that Popes have godlike powers to never be wrong.

Peter was flawed from the moment he was chosen, and he remained flawed for his entire life. So?

LeFebvre chose the path of St. Paul - correction directed toward inner unity centered on Christ.
Debbie said…
Aqua....and St. Peter repented of his error. Which conciliar pope has done that?

Modernism....the synthesis of all heresies.
Anonymous said…
@Aqua

Steven O'Reilly needs to be on another debate, Aqua this time around. Mazza did a poor job of defending his arguments. O'Reilly had prevailed in the debate. I haven't seen Steven comment for a long time on here. I think he's moved on from Fred and Co.
Aqua said…
Debbie,

Ok, then I give you Liberius who was the Arian heretic Pope who persecuted Athanasius for decades. Had him removed and exiled numerous times - he of the "they have the buildings we have the faith" encouragement.

https://sspx.org/en/news-events/news/similar-crises-modernism-and-arianism-9290

Was Pope Liberius confronted by Athanasius? Certainly. Did he repent? No. He had him removed and exiled. Liberius' "repentance" came over time, not immediately. Ultimately, he too became a hero of the Faith. But he stood so alone, almost the entire Church, unitedmagainst not just Athanasius but the now "repented" Pope.

One lesson from this? Disputes amongst the hierarchy can be a sign of health, not disease, the Body fighting spiritual pathogens. Cures are not always Immediate. Convalescence sometimes takes time.

The Sede position? It lops off their heads. It does not work toward unity from within.

https://sspx.org/en/sedevacantism-catholic-4

- A relevant quote from this article's conclusion -

"So we see today that in standing against the modernists who are in control of the Church one may be required to look like a schismatic in order to practice the one true Faith. The line is very thin and hard to define. The hard-core sedevacantists are way over the line even though they may not be able to see it. The hard-core sedevacantists reject the Church in the same manner that Lucifer (bishop) did during the time of Athanasius. They reject the pope and everyone but themselves. They reject the papacy by claiming it is vacant while misquoting infallibility and ignoring the visibility of the Church, and they lean on the teachings of Gallicanism to obtain bishoprics whose roots come from Old Catholic bishops and their seminaries. Indeed, may we all pray for the pope."

One thing I always notice about the Sede is they never answer the questions about connections between vacancy and specific acts. It is a general removal of all things Conciliar. Specifically - what was the moment Benedict XVI was deprived? John Paul I? Etc. I remain with the careful specificity of Arbp LeFebvre and his overarching concern for unity and correction. Athanasius did not pronounce Sede Vacante. LeFebvre did not pronounce Sede Vacante. Neither do I.
Debbie said…
Aqua says: "Which refutes the notion that Popes have godlike powers to never be wrong."

When it comes to faith and morals, true popes certainly do have "godlike" powers in that they are protected from teaching error.
Aqua said…
Debbie, thanks but I have zero interest in talking to Mario Derksen. All my questions, the significant important questions, I direct to my Priest ... as I always have since I became Catholic. I am comfortable, in my answers, that I am in accord with Sacred Tradition, because I obey it at the source - the mouthpiece of which is my Priest, ordained in the formulas of Trent; expert in the Depositum Fidei.

I don't even question that.

There is no example in Tradition of Sede Vacante movements, and I will stand with the examples of Athanasius and LeFebvre.
Aqua said…
Debbie - In your comments, you never answer the essential point: when, what, how was any specific Pope (there are five of them) invisibly separated by God from his Office?
Anonymous said…
@Aqua she is going sede, it's pretty obvious.
Debbie said…
Aqua, funny you should bring up St. Athanasius I just yesterday read this:

(a) not a single other contemporary writer refers to it, and
(b) Athanasius himself, even in one of the two passages where he [6] refers to Liberius as having yielded to the sufferings which he underwent through his banishment, goes out of his way to praise Liberius for having remained faithful to communion with him. (Apologia Against the Arians – Migne, Patrologia Græca, Vol. XXV, col. 409)

If you want the link to the whole article I'll be happy to post it.
Debbie said…
BTW Aqua, it was not me who suggested Mario Derksen...it was one of the many anonymous' on here....which seemed to disappear
T said…
I’m trying to show him the Phyrric victory in claim that Francis is legally, definitely pope.

If he doesn’t submit to the man he calls pope he calls the Church before Vatican II wrong. But if he admits that Francis is doubtfully pope, he can still refuse to submit to him, as he said he would. This has nothing to do with ex cathedra pronouncements and everything to do with papal primacy.

Sedevacantism has flaws too, even though they are not immediately apparent until you step into it. How does NOW explain how apostolic succession has not stopped. Were it a matter of simply having faith, anyone could take up the mantle of apostle hood if they had valid orders. But apostles are sent.

I became sede to reject Francis and had to claim Benedict was a heretic too for logical consistency’s sake. But I never thought this man is a heretic while everyone accepted him. Yes, he scandalized and erred, said some materially heretical things that seemed deviant from the faith, but he never did or say something that made it clear He hated Jesus Christ or wanted to destroy the Church. He never blasphemed the Blessed Virgin or even the Trinity. I became a sede because of the trads who insisted Francis is definitely pope.
Aqua said…
" “For almost all of the astonishing 45 years of his episcopate, it was Athanasius against the world and for the Faith.”[67] The Council of Arles in 353, except one bishop, *including even the two papal legates*, condemned Athanasius.[68] At the Council of Milan, 355, “All present *but the three staunch bishops and the two papal legates* signed the condemnation of Athanasius.”[69] Athanasius was not condemned because he was a heretic, but rather because he stood against everyone else including the councils of the times. He was condemned because of the disunity he was causing in the Church and because of false charges brought against him by his enemies.

Pope Liberius *became* a supporter, from correction, though not necessarily immediately.

Fraternal correction, from within. That. Results may not be instant. That's ok. Continue the work.

The Sedes cannot answer very important questions - primarily related to authority and factual narrative. It is a dead end.

Debbie - and with that I'm done talking Sede. I did not become Catholic so that I could then become a Sede.
Debate is fine, but no advertising. If you think someone has a good argument state the argument, but don't advertise for them.
Aqua said…
Quote extract: “Athanasius was not condemned because he was a heretic, but rather because he stood against everyone else including the councils of the times. He was condemned because of the disunity he was causing in the Church …”

That is so similar to this crisis.

What ultimately made Athanasius a Saint in the eyes of the Church was that he remained within the Church and within Sacred Tradition. Catholic Time heals all error. Remain faithful.
Anonymous said…
@Fred I see Aqua advertising for the SSPX all the time on here. The SSPX has its problems.

@Debbie you'll be able to find your own sede resources/friends out there I'm sure.
Debbie said…
T, you say you became sede to avoid Francis. I became BiP to avoid Francis. Then when people started saying Francis was the logical progression of all the VII popes I took a closer look at Benedict. PLUS the ecumenism, religious liberty (at that time I didn't even know the terms for these heresies) really, really bothered me. How could this be when I strongly believe in papal infallibility? Then one time I remember spouting off to Michael Matt at how ridiculous R&R was, when it hit me like a ton of bricks that that WAS the SSPX. And I greatly admired (still do!) Ab. Lefebvre. So I started digging into the SSPX. I found out about all the tension within the Society regarding sedevacantism. Next I read the sede's defense against the accusation of disunity within their camp and their answer really resonated...of course there is disunity, there's disunity among all of Catholicism, because there is no pope.....THE standard of unity for Christians on earth. Their position simply makes a lot more sense to me.

One anecdote about SSPX I just recently learned: their position on episcopal consecrations has changed. They used to say the VII consecrations were invalid, but then in 2005 changed their position. Why in 2005? Cardinal Ratzinger was made pope and he was consecrated a cardinal in 77, under the new rite.

To Aqua, to answer your question about when, how, why...it begins with John XXIII. I could link to a 1997 article from SiSiNoNo/Asia (SSPX as you undoubtedly know) regards to John XXIII, but only if Fred will allow.

Debbie said…
Aqua said way back in this thread: "....no true Pope would EVER ban a valid Mass, especially one such as that of Pope St. Pius V, who guaranteed it until the end of time in his Papal Bull Quo Primum."

But this is exactly what did happen. A priest needed an indult to say the TLM.
Aqua said…
Anonymous said: “Debbie you'll be able to find your own sede resources/friends out there I'm sure.”

That sounds like a cult.

SSPX is in the Apostolic Line, dispute it however you may, their Ordinations and Sacraments all follow the formulas of Tradition, carefully in accord with Depositum Fidei, Seminaries full, young happy Priests lead most parishes (including my own) whose sole purpose it is to lead me and mine (including special needs kids) to heaven through the orthodox, timeless Catholic Faith of Sacred Tradition. Call that whatever you want - I call it water in the desert. It’s not even a question whether I will drink it until the RCC is healed, restored … which will take time and faith and perseverance in the Truth.
Anonymous said…
The SSPX is a cult, especially the Third order folks...they have no canonical status in the church, they're not even part of it.

If she is going Sede, you can't force her to be SSPX.
Debbie said…
Aqua says: "SSPX is in the Apostolic Line, dispute it however you may, their Ordinations and Sacraments all follow the formulas of Tradition, carefully in accord with Depositum Fidei,"

For clarity, the same is true of sedevacantists. Much of sedevacantists groups came from the SSPX. Not trying to be argumentive...just want to clarify that the sedes have Apostolic lineage too.
Anonymous said…
@Debbie

The majority of the sede priests or bishops came from the SSPX. SSPV split, and they had disagreements with the direction of Lefebvre and even accused him of giving into modernism by accepting the 62 missal.

I know Aqua thinks that he is trying to save your soul and I commend him for the efforts..but all I can say is from my experience being around the sedes...they have no end game solution for the problem. They're just waiting for God to give us a Pope that is like a Pius XII again.

The other issue is, you're going to be limited for locations that have the sacraments too, so it's almost like being in a spiritual desert. They argue that it is necessary for the faithful to keep the faith by avoiding the Novus Ordo and even some sede priests say avoid the SSPX too.
Debbie said…
Anonymous 9:45, sedes readily admit they don't have all the answers. But who does? I simply don't believe the VII Church is the true Church. How is it that some trads will say, "this isn't the Church anymore". But then insist the popes who gave us this Church are true popes. To believe the popes who gave us this mess and confusion are true popes simply does not make sense to me. Not to mention what it does to papal infallibility.
T said…
Apostolic succession is not the same thing as unity. The thing that makes the Catholic Church apostolic is that there is an unbroken line of successors to the apostles. As a mark of the Church, any Church without it is not Christ’s Church. They may have the faith, but they lost the mark of apostolocity.

Some things may be a mystery, but without apostles there is no Church. That’s what leads me to conclude sedevacantism is impossible.

I won’t try to dissuade you anymore. But do read materials from ex-sedes.

Sorry I couldn’t convince you. I hope that wherever you go God keeps you in His Mercy.
Debbie said…
Thank you anonymous. Same to you.
Aqua said…
T said: "As a mark of the Church, any Church without it is not Christ’s Church. They may have the faith, but they lost the mark of apostolocity.

"Some things may be a mystery", (indeed), "but without apostles there is no Church. That’s what leads me to conclude sedevacantism is impossible"

That has to serve as my upvote. I believe this. And I am comfortable with the "some things have to be a mystery" assertion also. I can know something is true, even though I can't personally explain everything about it. I accept it as a matter of faith. I say the Creed and I mean it as if my soul depends on it.
Anonymous said…
The sedevacantists argue that there is still a magisterium left, that the Bishops could come together and elect a new Pope if they had no other choice to keep the faith going etc..

No Cardinals left after Pius XII's are basically gone.

So it makes an interesting scenario, but the sedevacantists I'd argue are trying to be the most traditional/orthodox in their practices. The best advice I've ever heard in some cases actually came from Sede priests, even if I didn't fully agree on their position. Things about your daily prayer life ,etc. They just gave good advice.
Debbie said…
For months I've been questioning the sedevacantists position and voiced it here and at other sites hoping to be convinced it was wrong because I was afraid. Unfortunately (or maybe I should say fortunately) the only answers I got were not not very satisfying. Then I looked into their arguments more closely and found them very reasonable, clear and Catholic. If there are any clear and theological arguments against it, I'd like to hear it. When it was pointed out that IF the VII Church and it's popes were valid, their teachings on ecumenism and religious liberty would by default have to include the sedes. Win, win.

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