Skip to main content

"John Salza" vs. Aqua on is Francis an Antipope or Not

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. -
The Catholic Monitor comment section
 
Below is an interesting Catholic Monitor comment section discussion between the famous commenter Aqua and "John Salza" (and others) on is Francis an antipope or not:

A Catholic Monitor Comment Section discussion on Sedevacantism: "A

https://www.thecatholicmonitor.com/2022/06/a-catholic-monitor-comment-section.html
 
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.

 

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

- If Francis betrays Benedict XVI & the"Roman Rite Communities" like he betrayed the Chinese Catholics we must respond like St. Athanasius, the Saintly English Bishop Robert Grosseteste & "Eminent Canonists and Theologians" by "Resist[ing]" him: https://www.thecatholicmonitor.com/2021/12/if-francis-betrays-benedict-xvi.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…
John Salza did not post as an anonymous person on the site. He had been quoted from his website True or False Pope about an article that he wrote in 2020 refuting Beneplenism...the real John Salza would make an argument for Aqua pretty difficult. I'd even say that Aqua would give him a run for the money, but ultimately John Salza would prevail...
T said…
Bergoglio is going to tempt people to either go sede or go orthodox. Once you make sure you understand why Eastern Orthodoxy is not the tue religion you might want to check out The Sedevacantist Delusion. If neither the SSPX, sedevacantism or other Christian sects can be consistent with history, dogma, reason, there must be some explanation for the enigma that is Bergoglio.

If he were the pope, he wouldn’t be contradicting Jesus. But he is. JPII and Benedict may have done scandalous things, but it never was so manifestly obvious that they willingly contradicted Jesus Christ. Bergoglio is on a class of his own. And that is why I think the anti church will be erected by an antipope false prophet and has not yet, but is in the process of being erected as we speak.
Anonymous said…
It's either accept Vatican II and the Novus Ordo Missae or you're "outside the church". He's made a bad decision. Benedict tried to keep the SSPX within the fold.
Aqua said…
Anonymous: John Salza posted under an "anonymous", and then signed his name at the end.
Anonymous said…
Salza just posted a new article:

http://www.trueorfalsepope.com/p/exposing-sspxs-rejection-of-hermeneutic.html

http://www.trueorfalsepope.com/p/exposing-sspxs-rejection-of-hermeneutic_19.html
Anonymous said…
@Aqua that couldn't have been the real John Salza...as he would've not posted under any anonymous name. He replies publically.
Aqua said…
Anonymous 9:59

The SSPX is manifestly "in the fold", and they have been ever since Arbp LeFebvre proclaimed obedience to every point of doctrine in Vatican II and its subsequent Constitutions that were not overtly heretical. He accepted everything at and above marginal and questionable. He rejected objective heresy, which all Catholics must do, if they wish to remain Catholic.

What Bergoglio did, and the Bishops in union with him, that was a titanic (use of word intentional) mistake was to separate the "Novus Ordo Missae", aka NewMass™️, from the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass as ordained in perpetuity until the end of time by the Pope of Trent's Council, heroic Pope Pius V, in his Quo Primum. Benedict XVI tried to encourage the grace of the Latin Mass to vivify the NewMass. NewMass survived because it was (allegedly) tied to the perpetual Holy Sacrifice of the Mass which predates by Millenia the Papal Bull that established it for all time. One was timeless. The other was created by committee of heretics (literally ... Jews and Protestants contributes) on cocktail napkins.

Traditionis Custodes disconnected that line of life. Bergoglio thought he was lopping off a useless branch, when in truth he was on the wrong side of the cut and the branch was named Novus Ordo, the branch that Benedict XVI and JP II tried to graft onto the Latin Mass tree. Bergoglio killed it. There is now no quantifiable connection, by mutual acceptance, between the eternal Holy Sacrifice of the Mass and this new NO thing. It's all alone, standing naked by itself, and it don't look so good without clothes.
Anonymous said…
@Aqua and Fred Martinez

That is not the real Salza, he had been quoted and the post had been formatted in error. The real John Salza is too focused on the SSPX and refuting their false teachings etc. I highly doubt that Mr. Salza is on this blog at all. Beneplenist propaganda is not something that he seems to be focused on right now.
Aqua said…
I don't really care either way ... his name, however, is signed to the bottom of the post as you can see in the above extracted text. So, it appears he DID post under his name, as you say.
Fred Martinez said…
That is why the CM headline and intro sentence used quotes because only the real John Salza can say if it was him or not:

"John Salza" vs. Aqua on is Francis an Antipope or Not...

... Below is an interesting Catholic Monitor comment section discussion between the famous commenter Aqua and "John Salza" (and others) on is Francis an antipope or not:
Aqua said…
Anonymous1017 (why can't you pick an actual name?): False SSPX teachings? .... good luck making that case.

As time goes by, their position is strengthened day by day as fatigued and demoralized Vatican II New Mass parishioners seek the truth in Sacred Tradition where it may be found.

One side is spinning off into clown world oblivion. The other is advancing the cause of Christ in His Depositum Fidei. Anyone who is serious can see that.
Aqua said…
T@9:04: Your logical progression is sound. The If and then progression is solid.
Debbie said…
T said: "JPII and Benedict may have done scandalous things, but it never was so manifestly obvious that they willingly contradicted Jesus Christ."

St. Joan of Arc famously said during her trial that all she knew was that Jesus Christ and the Church were one in the same and we shouldn't confuse the two. So yes, many of JPII and BXVI's actions and words did
contradict Jesus/Church.

The level of confusion within the Church is unprecedented and we need to figure out why. The standard of unity on earth is the pope.

While +Ab. Lefebvre's R&R position was totally understandable in the early aftermath of VII, the position is not tenable. And whether the SSPX or any trad today likes it or not, the good archbishop did at times support the idea of sedevacantism and other times did not. He was understandably confused. That's just factual.

The disunity among sedevacantists is no indication that the position is false, it's simply the consequence of the truth of their thesis:there is currently no reigning pope, the standard of unity. And of course their theory would apply to all of the disunity within the Church. No valid pope, no unity.

To me, this makes much more sense than trying to square the public antics (which none have publicly recanted) of the post conciliar popes to make one believe that the un-Catholic things they've publicly done and said, that we all can see with our eyes and hear with our ears is somehow now Catholic or Catholic lite, if you prefer.

IMO, sedevacantism does a better job at preserving the Petrine Promise than R&R or believing a public heretic is a valid pope. And if you actually read their arguments, they are clear and easy to understand....kinda like how pre-VII Church used to be.
Aqua said…
Debbie, so I see you’ve made your choice. I’m curious, practically speaking, what that means. Is there a Sede Parish near you? What is their apostolic connection to the line of Bishops? The NovusOrdoWatch guy doesn’t go to Mass any more … hasn’t for years (if memory serves).

What does your Catholic faith look like, practically speaking, given what you say here?
Aqua said…
Debbie,
One last question I always ask a Sede, and it’s a genuine question. When did the Seat vacate; has it been continuously vacant since the genesis; and what was the mechanism through which Sede can be known and verified by the rest of us?
T said…
Debbie,

I am an ex-sede who was scandalized by Bergoglio shortly after he was elected. Sedevacantism looks like the valid answer, but there are flaws based on what the Church teaches. I only recommend The Sedevacantist Delusion if you are strong in the faith and have already deduced that Orthodoxy is false. It sums up why sedevactism cannot be the right answer.

It is written by an ex-sede who lost his faith. But it sums up the problems with sedevacantism.
Aqua said…
Debbie:

The difference between my position and a Sede is that I see a continuous line of valid Popes, up to and including Pope Benedict XVI.

I see nothing that invalidated a Conclave, or its election result.

Unlike some, I don't stand in judgement over invisible machinations preceding snd within Bergoglio's "Conclave", nor do i stand in judgement on his heretical words, acts and documents. I stand in judgement on the clear and convincing evidence of what is required to declare a Pope fully abdicated and separated from his Papal Office prior to the next Pope elected to take his place. If anyone can't read the documents, are not literate or educated, they can still see with their own eyes that something is terribly wrong that puts two visible Popes within the Vatican walls. That is a quantifiable and easily discernible error.

So I can clearly trace my judgement on the obvious antipope's elevation to a specific point in time and a specific set of deviations that are not in accord with specific Canon Law and Sacred Traditions that govern such rare events as *abdications* ... (not retirements, which are impossible).

The Sedes, even the NovusOrdoWatch guy, even those I know personally, have never been able to specify who, when, where, why. Nor can they specify - what next? What now for the Apostolic Line? The Sede position may not be a dead post, but they have never been answer fundamental questions. I am in the Catholic Church because I found the unbroken Apostolic Line with all its consistent teaching, (in sum, not in details and individual sinful human variations) clear and convincing. I will defend that as the core of my Catholic Faith, as if my soul depends on it.
Aqua said…
Anonymous @10:05:

I checked out your link. John Salza lost me at the first paragraph. I am familiar with diatribes like his. I was held in the Protestant faith by diatribes against Catholics and Catholic belief that look very similar to Salza's diatribe against SSPX. I ultimately opened myself to the Catholic positions and investigated their (our) claims because I found the irrational arguments and emotion telling against the soundness of the position of the one trying to insist on them. A confident person takes all questions. A confident person takes another's argument as it is, rather than as he wishes it to be to make it easier to tear down (the straw man fallacy).

Salza in par 1: "The SSPX’s position is based on the view that the documents don’t merely contain ambiguous statements that allow for an interpretation that is contrary to Tradition, but instead are full of teachings that positively teach error, and or even heresy, and therefore cannot be reconciled with Tradition, no matter how hard we might try. Consequently, the SSPX advocates that the documents of Vatican II should be rejected in toto (as a whole), rather than understood using a hermeneutic (or method of interpretation) in light of the Church’s prior teaching."

That is so obviously false.

Here is what they actually teach, which is grass fed Catholicism:

- quote -

"The latter group [liberals/Modernists/against the SSPX—Ed.] simply holds that certain doctrines of the Catholic Church are not true. They reject Catholic teaching, full stop.

"The SSPX, on the other hand, does not claim that the teaching of the Catholic Church is false. Instead, it claims that some of the assertions of Vatican II contradict other magisterial teachings that have greater authority, and hence that accepting the doctrines of the Catholic Church requires accepting these more authoritative teachings and rejecting the small proportion of errors in Vatican II. It asserts that the actual teaching of the Catholic Church is to be found in the earlier and more authoritative statements."

- end quote -

extracted from - "Is recognizing the SSPX questioning Vatican II?" SSPX USA District, Sept 2013

https://sspx.org/en/news-events/news/recognizing-sspx-questioning-vatican-ii-2380

If you read the Arbp LeFebvre's Letter To Confused Catholics, he can't be any more explicit - he accepts *all* of Vatican II, even the questionable and marginal parts, but firmly rejects those parts that are quantifiably heretical ... as *ALL* Catholics must, if they wish to remain Catholic.

So when Salza starts off his lengthy letter with that opening salvo - he has no further credibility with me. He is not honest. Game over.
Anonymous said…
@aqua

Mario Derksen goes to mass every sunday at sede chapel...
Debbie said…
Aqua 10:43 & 10:45, first and foremost I would like to say I have always looked forward to your comments here and elsewhere. They're always respectful and helpful.

I would also like to say that possibly what you said a few days ago in your now deleted comment: "Schism is Indifferentism - placing other Gods, other religions equivalent to Almighty Triune God." was a quite part "spoken" out loud and that you should look into what made you say that.

As to your other questions, I will try my best to answer them as I understand them and to the best of my ability. I am going to try later today to get to a place with internet and use my computer instead of my stupid phone....it takes me forever otherwise, being the low tech boomer I am...lol.

Lastly, I would gently like to point out that you never addressed my feeble attempts to convey why I believe the sede position is "more right". As far as I can remember, you never address the arguments and are hung up (rightfully so) on exactly when the Seat became vacant. For now, as I don't know exactly what the sede position is, but I know that there is strong evidence that John XXIII was a public heretic before being elected pope, therefore he is the first of 4 (5 for those counting Bergoglio) who all were public heretics before being elected. In short, I would assume the Seat became vacant at the moment a public heretic was elected. But that's just my guess.

To T, I will also respond when I can use my computer.

To Fred, once again thank you for allowing the back and forth. For many months now I've wanted to be convinced the sede position was wrong for fear of my salvation and you all have been helpful and kind


Debbie said…
Anonymous 12:15, thank you too, I'd not read or heard that the NOW guy stopped going to Mass....but even if he did, that isn't an unprecedented thing in the Church's 2000 year history
Anonymous said…
Mario and no sedevacantist that I've ever met misses mass unless they're very sick...

https://romalocutaest.com/2022/06/20/gansweins-tears/ - latest from Mr.O'Reilly today.
Anonymous said…
@Debbie are you accepting sedevacantism?
Ignatius said…
@Debbie

Go to the Eastern Rites if you have any around...it's nice there. No Vatican II to talk about, not many mentions of Francis...they are more like being at an independent chapel but in full communion...unlike the SSPX and the Sedevacantists. They're in schism!
Aqua said…
Debbie,
You misunderstand why I deleted my comment. It was for the reason I stated at the time, not for the one you infer here. I was tired of commenting on that thread (at that time, late at night). I exchanged my long post for a short one. I was "worded" out, as I said then. I stand by what I said in the deleted comment, though I can't remember specifics. You are welcome to bring it back and aI am more than happy to discuss anything I said there.

If you recall also, I previously stated (elsewhere in response to a similar question from you) my position on this topic of "heresy" as a reason to disqualify a Pope - that it requires the element of "pertinacious".

Pertinacious def: "holding firmly to an opinion or a course of action."

I simply don't see that with any Concilliar Pope. I loook to the example of Arbp LeFebvre, who knew these Popes way, way, way better than you or me. He was a saintly man, a careful man, a wise man, and he dedicated himself to obedience to the Popes you mention are removed by your own judgement. He accepted them all and declared careful obedience to what they produced *TO THE EXTENT POSSIBLE*. That which was not possible, they disobeyed and clearly explained to lawful authority the basis for their disobedience, *with footnotes*.

I repeat my extract from above, SSPX says this about themselves:

- quote -

""The SSPX, on the other hand, does not claim that the teaching of the Catholic Church is false. Instead, it claims that some of the assertions of Vatican II contradict other magisterial teachings that have greater authority, and hence that accepting the doctrines of the Catholic Church requires accepting these more authoritative teachings and rejecting the small proportion of errors in Vatican II. It asserts that the actual teaching of the Catholic Church is to be found in the earlier and more authoritative statements."

- end quote -

I have heard Sedes wax on about the heresy that proves separation from the Faith. I've seen the photographs. I've heard the allegations. I disagree that what I've seen is pertinacious embrace of heresy,such that a Pope must be removed, especially with Benedict - except for his resignation for which I withhold judgement, waiting for further explanation..

It is not until Bergoglio that I recognize what I consider pertinacious heresy. With him it is integral to his nature. But *Bergoglio is not Pope* ... so it doesn't really matter, does it? He antipopes just the way I would expect an antipope to antipope.

I am making no declaration about anything mysterious and hidden. Pope Benedict XVI is Pope until he abdicates and fully leaves the building to his prior state. He did not do so, and that makes Pope Benedict reigning Pope until he dies, or makes another, valid this time, resignation.

In reference to the Sedes, I am much more persuaded by Arbp LeFebvre's careful and singularly obedient example. To the extent he can, obedience. To the extent he cannnot, Dogma.

In reference to your position, my "hang up" should be your wake up. It (your evidence) must be clear, specific, convincing, pertinacious, visible and focused on a specific point in time when a line was crossed between Catholic and heretic. If you can't, and I've never met a Sede who could ... we each answer to our own well formed conscience ... then I don't see how the position is sustainable or viable before God.
Ignatius said…
https://gloria.tv/post/3C4kp2nTHmPEB7HXsqXBnAnkK
Anonymous said…
@Debbie of course Aqua is trying to get you to go to the SSPX, but he has to understand that it's your choice ultimately. Sede or SSPX. I suspect you'll go Sede...Mario Derksen is the go to guy for that as far as podcasts/blogs go. Make no mistake about it, Aqua has good intentions..and I call him a Catholic even if he is foolishly believing that the Munus had not been given up by Benedict. (He gave up after he gave up the See of Peter and a conclave had been held).

Aqua is not a true SSPXer, even if he praises Lefebvre, he doesn't share their official position of accepting Francis as Pope. He's not a real SSPXer in the eyes of their most loyal subjects. Lefebvre I'm guessing if he'd be alive today...he'd tell Aqua that Francis is still Pope regardless of the conspiracy theories and misunderstanding that he and others have about the Munus. Munus is not required in the canon...
Debbie said…
The heaviest decision of my life, but yes. To date, it is the most coherent answer to all the confusion. I have been firmly BiP for about 5 years because it became more than obvious Bergoglio was not Catholic, let alone Pope.

For me it began when I was commenting on the unite the clans stuff Mike Matt was saying and I spouted off how R&R is insipid and protestantism (I spoke the quite part out loud ☺️)....then it hit me, SSPX is the originator of R&R. I loved Ab. Lefebvre (STILL do) and all he did to preserve the
priesthood and tradition, but R&R, imo is not Catholic. Not at all saying anything against the good archbishop...he was in this mess from its infancy and was torn between the two positions. He said many things in favor of R&R but also many things in favor of sedevacantism. He was understandably confused....no shame whatsoever in that. To this day, according to Fr. Cekada there are sedes in the SSPX, but are ordered to remain silent about it. That's not right and it's not fair for the good priests nor for the faithful. Why be silenced for a position their own founder wrestled with?

The real catalyst for my digging into all this was when I started learning about things like Assisi, Benedict's writings and his push for ecumenism to the point of telling a Lutheran woman to not convert. These things are not Catholic....so how could they be valid popes? And how am I, a previous protestant myself supposed to help my protestant friends to believe authority is essential and they need to convert when our authorities are saying most especially with their actions that it's not so? This has bothered me for years.

Bottom line for me is that any affiliation with the VII Church is a no go. Heretics cannot be true popes. It undermines the Petrine Promise.... sedevacantism at least preserves that.

Sorry to not answer Aqua and T, but I never made it to somewhere with internet. Tired.

Sacred Heart of Jesus, have mercy on me a sinner.

Immaculate Heart of Mary, pray for us.

Debbie said…
My above comment was to anonymous 5:55....took me too long and others posted before I finished....lol.
Debbie said…
Aqua: Arbp LeFebvre proclaimed obedience to every point of doctrine in Vatican II and its subsequent Constitutions that were not overtly heretical.


Overtly heretical, bad.
Lit bit heretical, ok.

That's not the Church,

And besides, who, exactly decides what is or isn't overtly heretical?
Debbie said…
Ignatius, thanks, but I'll pass....if they're in union with VII Church I just can't. I'm not 105% sede yet, so if I was going to go to any non-sede Church, SSPX would be at the top of the list. As I've stated repeatedly, I love Ab. Lefebvre and still believe he will be a Saint one day....might be now and we just don't know it.
Debbie said…
Also Aqua, it's undeniable fact the Ab. Lefebvre said things in favor of the sede position too. That cannot be ignored as if it never happened.

"Rome has lost the faith, they're in darkness.'

Someone who loses the faith is no longer Catholic....or so I thought.

Anyway NOW under "False Popes" has miles and miles of compelling arguments for why all the popes were heretics before and after their elections. Heretics cannot be pope.

As far as your deleted comment, the only one I remember is the one I've copied and pasted 3 times now: "Schism is Indifferentism - placing other Gods, other religions equivalent to Almighty Triune God." How do your square what most especially JPII and Benedict have done in this regard and still insist they're valid popes? I truly do not understand.

Aqua said…
Debbie said: "Overtly heretical, bad. Lit bit heretical, ok. That's not the Church".



Aqua says: Well,, that's your interpretation of what Arbp LeFebvre said. I don't think he'd agree with how you put it. Neither do I. That is putting an uncharitable spin on what the Archbishop said, I said, and what the Society now says.

I'll stick with Arbp LeFebvre. I find him convincing. I find his Priests utterly orthodox where it matters to me and my family. We have the Sacraments. They (every one I've ever met) transmit the Faith intact and whole. Sacramental confession has been a matter of spiritual life and death, in some cases, for both wife and myself. The Holy Sacrifice of the Mass is made present to my family of misfits and all the others seeking God in the Catholic Church. The path out of this crisis is through a return to Sacred Tradition through the Apostolic Line. SSPX (one Society among others) guards Depositum Fidei and delivers it to the starving Faithful. I am not interested, even a little bit, in the Sede arguments. From what I've seen, they lead to pure division, discord, isolation and separation. God gave us holy Priests to carry us through this crisis. I thank God for them.
Anonymous said…
"Aqua says: Well,, that's your interpretation of what Arbp LeFebvre said. I don't think he'd agree with how you put it. Neither do I. That is putting an uncharitable spin on what the Archbishop said, I said, and what the Society now says.

I'll stick with Arbp LeFebvre. I find him convincing. I find his Priests utterly orthodox where it matters to me and my family. We have the Sacraments. They (every one I've ever met) transmit the Faith intact and whole. Sacramental confession has been a matter of spiritual life and death, in some cases, for both wife and myself. The Holy Sacrifice of the Mass is made present to my family of misfits and all the others seeking God in the Catholic Church. The path out of this crisis is through a return to Sacred Tradition through the Apostolic Line. SSPX (one Society among others) guards Depositum Fidei and delivers it to the starving Faithful. I am not interested, even a little bit, in the Sede arguments. From what I've seen, they lead to pure division, discord, isolation and separation. God gave us holy Priests to carry us through this crisis. I thank God for them."

-According to your position, the so-called true Pope Benedict XVI never granted the SSPX any faculties that you claim that their priests have. So no you can't have the sacraments because Francis is an Anti-Pope according to your position...
Anonymous said…
@Aqua

Also...The SSPX publicly claims that Lumen Gentium teaches Heresy...
Aqua said…
Debbie, one final thought.

I just had three of my special needs kids go through First Communion. They spent an entire Saturday with Nuns, who prepped them for the following day, and then sat and walked with them the first time they met Jesus in the Sacraments.

Souls are at risk, when we talk about things like Sede Vacante the 60 year headless Church and the heretical inadequacy of every Society that has ever formed in response to the crisis. All of them "cast out" except for ... in my state of Texas ... one small Parish with a 90 year old Priest.

What you are saying is that the Catholic Church, for all intents and purposes doesn't exist. If I was to follow your advice, I wouldn't have a Parish, a Priest, Sacraments, nothing for my kids.

As I said, the Sede position doesn't interest me even a little. I've looked into it. I have personal acquaintance with it. I am not ignorant of their claims. I find them ... unappealing.
Debbie said…
Last post tonight.

For years I've thought and believed the most dangerous politicians are the Republicans (most all of them). They're wolves in sheep's clothing tickling our itching ears. I had high hopes for Trump though, until warp speed vaccines. With Democrats you at least know you're dealing with a wolf

I see Benedict like that. Not saying he was an intentional wolf in sheep's clothing....but he was far more dangerous than a Bergoglio because his heresies were not in your face like the current squatter. All outward appearances are that he is a kind and thoughtful man. A father....but with bad, heretical ideas. Far more dangerous to be fed the poison unknowingly than in your face openly.

Heretics/schismatics who put other gods, other religions equivalent to the Almighty Triune God cannot be Catholic, let alone Pope.
Anonymous said…
@Debbie
Fred or Aqua removed my post for some priests that are sede that you could talk to, if that's really the path you're going to take. I'll just simply say most of them are in Ohio. And I don't doubt that these men believe that they're trying to be holy and stay Catholic etc. I just could not let the Archbishop Thuc story go...and the fact that Paul VI and the others had not been declared deprived by the church...none of their conclaves challenged by any Cardinals etc.
Anonymous said…
@Aqua

"I see Benedict like that. Not saying he was an intentional wolf in sheep's clothing....but he was far more dangerous than a Bergoglio because his heresies were not in your face like the current squatter. All outward appearances are that he is a kind and thoughtful man. A father....but with bad, heretical ideas. Far more dangerous to be fed the poison unknowingly than in your face openly."

-I can agree, Benedict had been a lot better at concealing his promotion of modernist ideas and mixed in traditional elements. Pope Pius X talks about this in Pascendi..
Aqua said…
Debbie,
What heresies?!
Aqua said…
Anonymous 8:13: Withdraw that link to me. I didn't say it. I profoundly disagree with it. That was Debbie.
Debbie said…
Aqua: From what I've seen, they lead to pure division, discord, isolation and separation.

This is true in every faction of the Church today, and one very compelling explanation is that it's the consequences of the sede thesis: currently no valid pope. The standard of unity. And the disunity has been there since VII....the most affected being trads, supposedly with valid popes.
Aqua said…
Debbie said: "... and one very compelling explanation is that it's the consequences of the sede thesis: currently no valid pope. The standard of unity. And the disunity has been there since VII....the most affected being trads, supposedly with valid popes."

You haven't said it, but I gather that since you take out every Pope since Pius XII dies, this is the cause of catastrophic Sede Vacante for you - Vatican II was bad.

Yes Vatican II was bad, especially in its subsequent Constitutions (Lumen Gentium).

Arbp LeFebvre's response was to remain loyal to validly elected episcopal authority and try to make connections between their work and Sacred Tradition; that which is heretical (not all of it, some of it) he rejected, including the entirety of the NewMass.

Your response is to declare the entire Council heretical snd all Popes responsible for it, or accepting of it, heretics and deprived.

Again, I find his response more reasonable to my conscience.
Debbie said…
Well they are responsible for not correcting the errors. Like making the TLM more readily available, without strings attached, "girl" altar boys, Communion in the hand for starters.

Like marriage annulments, we have to look at who these men were before being elected and they all were public modernists and heretics. And never publicly recanted their errors.

What has also drawn me to this position are the explanations the sede bishops, priests and lay faithful have put forth. Once I actually started reading their articles and listening to their podcasts I was struck by the clarity and the easiness of understanding they displayed. No getting all twisted up like a pretzel to make something that looked off to look....Catholic. Lefebvre even said there would be the destruction of faith, morals and institutions from what the council was purposing. How can a valid, Catholic council do that?
T said…
675 Before Christ's second coming the Church must pass through a final trial that will shake the faith of many believers. The persecution that accompanies her pilgrimage on earth will unveil the "mystery of iniquity" in the form of a religious deception offering men an apparent solution to their problems at the price of apostasy from the truth. The supreme religious deception is that of the Antichrist, a pseudo-messianism by which man glorifies himself in place of God and of his Messiah come in the flesh.

https://romancatholicman.com/wp/things-accelerate-toward-the-end-prophecy-of-archbishop-fulton-sheen/?doing_wp_cron=1655805226.5945351123809814453125

When I became sede I thought that was the only option. I never struggled with Benedict or any of his predessors being pope. But Bergoglio is a different case.

I am convinced that the Masons decided to destroy the Church from the inside rather than the outside because it stands in the way of their New Workd Order. Since sedevacantism contradicts the faith, I believe the Catholic Church was the true Church before Vatican II, and Bergoglio is clearly contradicting Jesus, I am looking at Benedict as pope. It is the only option that doesn’t contradict Catholicism. As for his heresies, I never struggled with it. There is something different about than the alleged antipopes before him and I think that is pertinacity, what sedevacantists dismiss as subtlety.

There has to be a way of rejecting him without rejecting the faith,since his pertinacity is clear,
Anonymous said…
@Aqua My apologies...I meant to put @Debbie for that response.
Anonymous said…
@Aqua the same could be argued that you need to remain loyal to the validly elected Pope too..you'll say sure I am...to Benedict, but Francis had no challenges to his conclave.

"Arbp LeFebvre's response was to remain loyal to validly elected episcopal authority and try to make connections between their work and Sacred Tradition; that which is heretical (not all of it, some of it) he rejected, including the entirety of the NewMass."

Aqua said…
Anonymous@4:36: I am loyal to all 266 validly elected Popes. All of them have an equal say. I worship Jesus Christ at the beating heart of His Body, Holy Mother Church. I do not worship any Pope. I do not follow any Pope to whatever destinations he chooses, if they do not lead me to Jesus Christ and Our Lady who always leads me to Him. If one Pope (out of 266) decides to lead the Church into the brambles and thorns ... I will not go there with him.

My loyalty is to the Papacy, and the authority of the Throne, endowed as it is with Divine authority through the Office which is directly connected to God in heaven. My loyalty is to every Pope who has ever resided within this Divine Office. They are all in unity, because they are all in Christ who is without variation and innovation because He is perfect.

I am loyal to Benedict XVI because he is the current validly elected Pope. He never left the Office, he manifestly retains the Office visually and verbally and ontologically. I am loyal to him, but loyal only as the Vicar of Christ, whom I always see through the Pope, through ALL the Popes who have ever resigned, and through Our Lady.
Aqua said…
T: It is always good to read your posts. I agree with this one completely.

I have thought, lately, of the scene in Lord of the Rings, in which Pippin the Hobbit steals a glance into the Palantir. Hobbits were not meant to be ignorant, per se. Neither was the Palantir, meant for Powers and Dominions, meant to be used by a mere hobbit. Even Gandalf the Grey used the Palantir of knowledge with fear and all due cautions.

There are some things just not meant for Faithful, such as me. I'm not going to answer the big questions based on knowledge that was never meant for me. The faith of a child will save me and my family. Simple, persistent, obedient, childlike faith in timeless Truths. I will remain within that lane, and I will persist in it - even in times such as these when the peace and order "of the Shire" is just a dim memory and unseen mortal evil is all around. But even the little hobbit was granted the light of the Silmaril - light from Eärendil's star - to guide him when all other light fails. God gives us what we need. Head down. Stay in my lane. Never leave the Path.
Aqua said…
@Aqua7:01 - Last line ... typo error.

It's actually funny.

... through all the Popes who have ever *reigned*

*Not* "resigned". No, definitely not that.
Anonymous said…
@Aqua Benedict's health is poor, you'll be a sede soon. I'll keep you in my prayers.
Aqua said…
We're all Sedes soon, anonymous.

The Church continues on, as it always has ... the true Mystical Body of Christ, that is; that which transcends time and remains constant, pure, perfect.

Good for you, for us all, to remember that the Church is not the Pope. We don't worship the Pope. The Pope is actually a servant of Christ, no less or more than us all - with a Divinely ordained role to play. The Pope's sole duty is as a standard of unity to keep us within the bounds of Sacred Tradition and to prevent heretical error, departures from Dogma. We all serve Jesus Christ, together. The Pope serves Jesus Christ.

The drama over the Pope seems a bit over the top, once you stop and think about it. Keep your eyes where they belong, and the Pope, whoever he happens to be, is merely in service to the primary function of us all, whatever our proper state in life - remain within the boundries of the Constant Magisterium and remain faithful to our baptismal vows, remain in a state of grace, help others to follow us to heaven, until death. Our Lady and Our Lord are always before us. We pick up our crosses and follow them to our own Calvaries.

And so ... thank you for your prayers. We should all do more of that, one for another - Popes down to the "lowest" Laity; pray without ceasing.

I think it would be good to step back from the drama. It is not a matter of Faith to name a specific Pope. We have to be obedient to the Constant Magisterium of the Church, of which the *Papacy* - across time* - is primary guardian. Individual deviations in specific moments of time should not trouble our faith, unduly.
Aqua said…
@Aqua: "We are all Sedes soon" in terms of the Seat will, of course, become vacant. And the Church will respond when that happens, as She always does. When Benedict XVI dies (or validly abdicates) you are correct ... the Seat will then be vacant. And then we will just have to see what happens to the holy Roman See - an Office made by Christ for the clear, visible occupancy of one man.

Anonymous said…
@Aqua according to Estefania Acosta...no conclave after Benedict passes is going to be valid at all.
Aqua said…
Anonymous: Not sure who Estefania Acosta is. Possibly the author from Argentina. I don't actually see how it can be valid, in accord to and directed by standard Canon Law. It appears to me an Imperfect Council will have to be called to resolve the mess. Absent that, legitimacy fades.

The whole thing is a mess going in and it will be a mess going out. I trust in Divine Providence. God will prevail over the plots of evil men and the demons who influence them. God will give His Church and Her members ever needful thing, at the time it is most needed. I live in the moment with respect to the current Pope. In regards the next Pope I trust in God to show me the truth; toward what I am required to assent and submit.

Popular posts from this blog

Taylor Marshall finally admitted that "Francis teaches HERESY," now, the question is will he do a Skojec & a Schneider Cop Out

    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) Taylor Marshall finally admitted that "Pope Francis teaches HERESY: Pope Pius XII condemned the heresy of Francis": Pope Francis on Feb 2 2022, taught, "that in Christ no one can ever truly separate us from those we love because the bond is an existential bond, a strong bond that is in our very nature...who have denied the faith, who are apostates." Pope Pius XII taught the exact opposite when he wrote of those: "who have not been so unfortunate as to separate themselves from the unity of the Body, or b

The Nuremberg Trial-like Excuse which Cardinal Burke has so Staggeringly, so Stereotypically Proffered on the Promised “Formal Correction”

Does Cardinal Burke think Francis is an antipope? On at least five occasions, Cardinal Burke has rejected the magisterial nature of official papal teaching (in one case, pre-emptively dismissing a hypothetical official teaching of the Magisterium): Cardinal Burke has rejected the official teaching of Pope Francis in the new Apostolic Constitution Episcopalis Communio concerning the possibility that a pope can raise the final synodal document to the level of ordinary magisterium, if the pope chooses. (We covered the Episcopalis Communio here .) The whole apostolic constitution on the Synod is problematic. … This idea that either the Pope on his own or the Synod together with the Pope can create some new Magisterium [i.e. a new teaching of the ordinary Magisterium], is simply false. The Synod is a consultative body, to help the Pope to see how best to present the Church’s teaching in time. It’s not able to create ordinary Magisterium. As a canon lawyer, Cardinal Burk

"The same Globalists who installed Biden... installed the Zelensky regime... [&] those who did not volunteer for this are Literal Human Shields for the Zelensky/Soros government... [if] Trump had survived the election coup in 2020 we would have no Ukraine war"

Above: Ukrainian President Zelensky (2nd from left) and three other men perform a homoerotic skit on Ukrainian television.    What is the Real Agenda of the corrupt Joe & Hunter Biden's Russiagate backing of the Trudeau-like Obama corrupt Ukraine Operatives in their Warmongering Posturing? "If President Trump had survived the election coup in 2020 we would have no Ukraine war (because he respects Russia’s legitimate security interests and wants to disband NATO)." - Scott Lively Constitutional lawyer Scott Lively thinks that the "same globalists who installed Biden... installed the Zelensky regime in Ukraine... [and] those who did not volunteer for this are literal human shields for the Zelensky/Soros government": The use of human shields in warfare of any kind is a horrifying satanic tactic, and, ironically, it is most effective against people who are truly humane. The tactic uses our humanity against us, because we don’t want the innocent t