Skip to main content

Dr. Mazza: "Saint Cajetan says, 'If someone for a Reasonable Motive holds the Person of the Pope in Suspicion and Refuses his Presence, even his Jurisdiction, he Does Not commit the Delict of Schism'"

Patrick Coffin interviews Dr. Mazza on the invalidity of Pope Benedict  XVI's Resignation | From Rome

We thank Dr. Ed Mazza and Patrick Coffin for giving the Catholic Monitor permission to transcribe the show and post on our site. Below is a brief taste of the show:

https://www.patrickcoffin.media/is-benedict-xvi-still-the-pope/

www.edmundmazza.com

Dr. Edmund Mazza:

I’ll tell you Patrick, I tried to get my article on this published by a prominent editor in a prominent Catholic journal whose names I will not name. But I got an email back telling me that people who are thinking along these lines are leading people out of the church, and he didn’t use the word “schism,” but that was the implication. And so I just want to clear that up.

And first, I’ll say two things. The first one is that I think people are leaving the church already, and going into schism because they think Francis is Pope. Because they think that he’s a monster Pope, that’s destroying the church and teaching things that are not Catholic. That all religions, that God wills, all religions, for example, as in the Abu Dhabi declaration, which on the face of it is heresy.

I’ll give you an example who I think is the poster boy of this, Sean Hannity, Right? From Fox News, the conservative commentator, He left the Catholic faith. I think it’s probably the catalyst that pushed him over the edge was having a Marxist Pope; thinking that Francesco is running the show here.

So I would differ. I talk sometimes with Ann Barhardt, she says her inbox is flooded with people who thank her for looking into this subject, because it’s keeping them in the church rather than encouraging them to leave the church.

And the second thing that I would want to say is that technically, if you look at the statements of the different saints and scholars on the subject, just because you suspect the Pope might not be the Pope, doesn’t put you into a schism.

Patrick Coffin:

Or Sedevacantism.

Dr. Edmund Mazza:

Or a Sedevacantism, that’s another thing they call you a sedevacantist. But I got two quick quotes here. Here is one from Saint Cardinal Thomas Cajetan, whose feast day we celebrated back on August 7th. He wrote a multi-volume commentary on the Suma Theologica. And this is what Saint Cajetan says, “If someone for a reasonable motive holds the person of the Pope in suspicion and refuses his presence, even his jurisdiction, he does not commit the delict of schism, nor any other whatsoever, provided that he’d be ready to accept the Pope were he not held in suspicion. It goes without saying that one has the right to avoid what is harmful and to ward off dangers. In fact, it may happen that the Pope could govern tyrannically, and that is all the easier as he is the more powerful and does not fear any punishment from anyone on earth.”

And the second quote is from, back before Vatican II, the most respected commentary on Canon aw was an eight volume set by Francis Xavier Wernz and Peter Vidal. And this is what they wrote in volume seven of their commentary on Canon Law. “Finally, they cannot be numbered among the schismatics who refuse to obey the Roman pontiff because they consider his person to be suspect or doubtfully elected on account of rumors in circulation.” I think we have a lot more than rumor to go on here.

Patrick Coffin:

I do too. I’m glad you brought up Sean Hannity, I actually debated Sean Hannity on his own show back in 2001.

Dr. Edmund Mazza:

Really?

Patrick Coffin:

Yeah, very low information guy. He kept bragging about the fact that he had studied Latin and was an altar boy. I mean who cares, Sean? He never saw an Orthodox priest he, wasn’t willing to attack on his own show. So this is very important, what you’re saying. I despise anyone who would grease the skids for someone to leave the Catholic faith.

Our Lord and Savior did not call angels to the priesthood or to the Episcopacy. His raw material is sinner. Church corruption to me is a proof of the divine foundation of the Catholic Church. We’ve had 37 anti-Popes, not the antichrist. It’s a Pope that’s thought to be the Pope, but falsely so.

And a good example is the great and brilliant Dominican Saint Vincent Ferrar, who firmly supported Clement VII, who was an anti-Pope. So even saints can get this wrong, the Holy Spirit is going to work this out. My message is if Christ is having a long power nap in the boat, don’t get out of the boat, and don’t leave Jesus and Peter because of Judas. And don’t put yourself in the category of disciples that he rebukes when he wakes up.

This is a trial for the church. This is a test of your fidelity to Christ himself. A lot of the former pillars of support and so on have been slowly withdrawn. I think this is, all of this is a remote dress rehearsal for the rise of the Antichrist. That’s my view. I’m not saying Pope Francis is the Antichrist. People always want to put a spin on what you try to say clearly. However, weaponized ambiguity is not the certain trumpet blast of the gospel that we have seen from each of the previous 266 Popes. This is utterly without precedent.

Dr. Edmund Mazza:

No. In fact, Pope Benedict, when he was Joseph Ratzinger in the Ratzinger report, right? Available from Ignatius Press in November, 1984. He said, actually that ambiguity is the hallmark of the devil.

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

Debbie said…
Please do keep in mind that St. Cajetan's quote would also apply to sedes.

Also, if the sedes are wrong and the VII Church and it's popes are valid, the false ecumenism and religious liberty they promote would also include sedevacantists. It's a win, win for sedes.
Justina said…
No, it's not a win-win for sedes. There are many distinguishing factors between the Mazza Thesis and sedevacantism--too many to recount in a combox. The other reason for not undertaking the tedious task of enumerating the differences here is that they are obvious to any informed observer. Either you and those of your ilk lack pertinent data or you refuse to take it into consideration.
T said…
Which of the six popes is the false prophet?
Ignatius said…
@Debbie @Justina Join us in the East, problem solved. Francis is rarely mentioned...the East govern themselves for the most part!
Debbie said…
Idk....if BiP becomes reality....it could be B16. He's as much a heretic as Bergoglio. Only a ton more IQ points than Bergoglio. Makes a lot more sense to me, as the false prophet probably isn't going to be so obvious....otherwise the elect could not be fooled.
Fred Martinez said…
Ignatius said…
@Debbie @Justina Join us in the East, problem solved. Francis is rarely mentioned...the East govern themselves for the most part!

Might Francis's Amoris be his way of joining Ignatuis's East?:
https://www.crisismagazine.com/2017/can-orthodox-way-end-debate-divorce-remarriage

On his flight back to Rome from World Youth Day in Brazil (2013), Pope Francis speaking about the season of mercy and the Church as a mother dispensing mercy, praised the pastoral practice of the Orthodox Churches on marriage and divorce, the pastoral care for the divorced and remarried Orthodox faithful and the possibility of giving Communion to couples who have contracted second marriages after divorce. The Holy Father specified: “with reference to the issue of giving Communion to persons in a second union (because those who are divorced can receive Communion, there is no problem, but when they are in a second union, they can’t…), I believe that we need to look at this within the larger context of the entire pastoral care of marriage.” He added: “… the Orthodox have a different practice...

... The theology or the principle of oikonomia followed by the Orthodox Churches allows these Churches to dissolve first marriages and bless a second or a third marriage on a case-by-case basis and under specific conditions. Cardinal Walter Kasper is one of the proponents in support of the Orthodox principle of oikonomia. What is the Orthodox understanding of the indissolubility of marriage?
Ignatius said…
@Martinez I can assure you that the East does not adhere (at least the majority of Eastern Catholics) to the rants/crazy things that Bergoglio/Francis is out there saying. He's rarely even mentioned other than in the mass (to recognize Rome/The Pope is a requirement for them as they had been in schism at one time in their history before rejoining the church for some Eastern rites.)

We stick to tradition, and Benedict is highly spoken of...that's all that needs to be said about the East.
Ignatius said…
@Martinez

"What is the Orthodox understanding of the indissolubility of marriage?"

-We aren't Orthodox, we're Catholics...and marriage is bound for life until death.
Debbie said…
Ignatius, it's not about how much Bergoglio is mentioned or even a beautiful liturgy; we can get that at the SSPX or the indult Masses. It's about being in union with VII Church, it's heresies and heretical "popes". If one believes VII was a valid council, by default you must believe in false ecumenism and religious liberty....that's what NuChurch officially teaches now. For the uneducated and non-intellectuals like me, I liken Assisi to stained glass windows. After my conversion (2015) I learned about Assisi and it always, always bothered me a lot. And never was I given a satisfactory answer to how exactly a pope could do that. Catholics have to confess if they attend non-Catholic "worship" services....so how in the world could a valid pope do what JPII did? Sedevacante is the only option I currently see.
T said…
@Debbie

Perhaps what makes it subtle is rejecting the false prophet without at the same time rejecting the Church.

Has the abomination of desolation taken place yet? If not, when Francis creates a one world mass to unite all Christians would you have second thoughts? If so, when, any why didn't the times end after 3 1/2 years?
Fred Martinez said…
"@Debbie... how in the world could a valid pope do what JPII did? Sedevacante is the only option I currently see." Should Athanasius have become a Sede?

"how in the world could a valid pope do what [Liberius] did?" Was Liberius a manifest "explicit heretic" or not? 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."

During the Arian heresy crisis, Pope Liberius excommunicated Athanasius. You don't get any more retired than being excommunicated. - The Catholic Monitor [https://www.thecatholicmonitor.com/2020/01/might-remnants-matt-finally-be-willing.html]
Fred Martinez said…
There is a difference between "material" heresy and "formal" heresy. A Pope can be a "material" heretic -- i.e. he can actually hold personal heretical views (as did John XXII) since a Pope is only infallible when making Ex Cathedra statements to the Universal Church on matters of faith and morals.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Unfortunately, what has happened is that many neoconservatives have acted as if non-infallible ordinary magisterial teachings (such as, for instance, the role of inculturation in the liturgy as stated in the Catechism of the Catholic Church) are, in fact, infallible when the current Magisterium promulgates them. This is a positivist mentality. Many of the things that neoconservatives do are the result of implicitly adopting principles that they have not fully or explicitly considered. Many of them would deny this characterization because they do not intellectually hold to what, in fact, are their operative principles. - Fr. Chad Ripperger, F.S.S.P. [http://www.latinmassmagazine.com/articles/articles_2001_sp_ripperger.html] - The Catholic Monitor comment section [https://www.thecatholicmonitor.com/2022/06/a-catholic-monitor-discussion-on.html]
Debbie said…
T 10:03 am....I think you're confusing the false prophet with the antiChrist.
Ignatius said…
@Debbie

Until Francis is officially declared Deprived, I doubt that many priests/bishops out there are going to say that he's not Pope.

The East is a refuge from this entire mess, people are keeping tradition, and like during the Great Western schism...you had people saying that Anti-Pope's were the true Pope etc...they didn't get excommunicated simply for trying to be good and faithful Catholics. Our duty is to get the Bishops to act, get them to pressure the Cardinals, Fulton Sheen even said something similar. It's up to us to act, until they formally deprive Francis, most Catholics are going to assume that he's the universally accepted Pope. Benedict is Pope is an entirely different topic.

Benedict needs to speak out and end this disaster...



Debbie said…
Fred, I've addressed this before with Aqua. Pope Liberius excommunicating St. Athanasius is not settled science. Denzinger pre VII is very different than post VII Denzinger.

https://novusordowatch.org/2016/11/response-schneider-pope-liberius/
Ignatius said…
@Debbie

JPII October 1986, is one of the saddest events in the history of the church...but did the church declare him deprived? Did it even submit a dubia to him? There had still been plenty of Traditional priests/bishops left during that time. Perhaps JPII had just been a fool and didn't understand Pius XI's encyclical on false ecumenism.

Most people in the Trad community accept JPII as a true Pope..if he had been an Anti-Pope, then it'll be a long time before he's declared as such.

I don't have to worry about people arguing about Francis at the mass that I attend, because he's barely talked about. The East govern themselves mostly.
Fred Martinez said…
Debbie,

Thanks. I'll do more research on the subject when I have time. But even your sede website admits St. Athanasius and St. Jerome write of the "fall of Liberius" although being the top historian and psychologist that he is he claims a Doctor of the Church can't be trusted and that "Jerome tends to be somewhat carried away by his hatred for heretics and likewise by his naturally vehement character."

Wow. Your sede website top historian knows psychology and what happened in the "fall of Liberius" better than an ancient Doctor of the Church. Does that means that the "Vulgate, (from the Latin editio vulgata, 'common version'), Latin Bible used by the Roman Catholic Church, primarily translated by St. Jerome" might not be trustworthy unless your sede website gives his approval?

https://novusordowatch.org/john-daly-alleged-fall-of-pope-liberius-excommunication-of-saint-athanasius/

The Writings of St. Jerome

Next in importance after these extracts from Athanasius as historical testimony in favour of the fall of Liberius are two extracts from the writings of St. Jerome. Once again let us begin by quoting in full the two passages in question before analysing them.

In St. Jerome’s Chronicon, which was written about the year 380, the following occurs:

In the 282nd Olympiad [19] Liberius was ordained as the 34th bishop of the Roman Church, and when he had been thrust into exile on account of the Faith all the clerics swore that they would receive no other in his place. But when Felix had been substituted in his priestly office by the Arians, very many of them broke their oath, and a year later they were expelled with Felix because Liberius, being overcome by the weariness of exile, had subscribed to heretical perversity and entered Rome as a victor.

And in c. 97 of his Catalogue of Writers, in treating of the early Christian bishop and writer Fortunatianus, St. Jerome writes as follows:

Fortunatianus, an African by nation, and bishop of Aquileia when Constantius was emperor, wrote commentaries on the Gospels in orderly sequence in a brief and rustic style. He is held as detestable on account of the fact that, when Liberius, the bishop of the city of Rome, was travelling into exile for the Faith, he [Fortunatianus] was the first to solicit him, break his will and impel him to subscribe to heresy.

Before beginning to analyse these intriguing excerpts, the following comment by Jungmann (op. cit., p. 77) is worthy of inclusion in full:

We begin by warning that in historical matters the assertions of St. Jerome when they are finding fault with others cannot always be considered as well-founded. This is because throughout his works Jerome tends to be somewhat carried away by his hatred for heretics and likewise by his naturally vehement character, so that he is too quick to judge or falls into some exaggeration. It was therefore possible that at the time that he wrote these works, while resident in the East, he also believed the rumours spread about the fall of Liberius, especially if he had come across evidence of this which had been forged by the Arians. But it is of greater moment that the passages quoted are found in short works which it is known have been subject to interpolation throughout and that the texts in question bear all the hallmarks of such interpolation.

https://novusordowatch.org/john-daly-alleged-fall-of-pope-liberius-excommunication-of-saint-athanasius/
Debbie said…
Ignatius, JPII didn't understand the Church's stance on eceminism? Did he also not understand the simple instructions in any examination of conscience? That we must confess going to other denominations or faith groups to "worship"? Come on. This is Jimmy Aiken level defence of a supposed pope. Not buying it for one second.
Debbie said…
Fred, here is another in depth look at the Liberius accusation. It is long and honestly hard for me to grasp fully, but bottom line, the notion that Pope Liberius was a heretic is not settled. His quote is considered questions let at best. And I will repeat, Denzinger pre VII defers from Denzinger post VII on the entire matter.

https://novusordowatch.org/john-daly-alleged-fall-of-pope-liberius-excommunication-of-saint-athanasius/
Debbie said…
Bottom line for me personally, I see that believing a valid pope can lead Catholics astray destroys the papacy. For me, Assisi is the biggest and clearest example of this. There's no way in heck a valid pope could have done that. Trying to defend JPII in that regard simply destroys the Divine nature of the papacy.....and that's impossible.
Ignatius said…
"Blogger Debbie said...
Bottom line for me personally, I see that believing a valid pope can lead Catholics astray destroys the papacy. For me, Assisi is the biggest and clearest example of this. There's no way in heck a valid pope could have done that. Trying to defend JPII in that regard simply destroys the Divine nature of the papacy.....and that's impossible."

@Debbie his conclave had never been legally challenged, nor did the church deprive him of any authority...do you have authority to declare he had been an Anti-Pope?
Debbie said…
No, I have no ecclesiastical authority to declare anything, but I do have the ability to understand a different gospel:

But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach a gospel to you besides that which we have preached to you, let him be anathema. Gal 1:8.
Ignatius said…
@Debbie Sedevacantism is not a proven position to hold, there's a simple appeal there that they use. Reject that any Pope after Pius XII had been a true Pope, and the problem is basically solved. The restoration that they're hoping for...it'll never happen in our lifetime. Neo-Scholastic theology is pretty much in the dark. I encourage you to go to an Eastern rite church sometime, and you'll see that there's no love for Francis, and that they govern themselves for the most part. It solves the problem of not potentially being in schism from the church, and you get a rite that has the priest facing the altar. They don't promote Vatican II regularly.

Sedevacantism is also just a bunch of conspiracy theories that have not ever been proven. John XIII being a mason, that Siri had been the true Pope etc. It's not based on facts, but Vatican II introduced a lot of modernist ideas into the church and I'll admit that.
T said…
@Debbie

Maybe the antichrist will abominate the mass. But anyone who would claim that the repression of the TLM was the abomination of desolation will have to explain why the end of time did not come yet. If VII was the antichurch, where is the antichrist pretending to be like Jesus?

I think the antichurch is being constructed as we speak as most Catholics put loyalty to the man believed to be pope above loyalty to God, simply because they don't know the faith because they were not taught it. The ones that do are tempted either by Eastern Orthodoxy or sedevacantism.
Mario Derksen said…
Pope Pius IX wrote in his encyclical 'Quartus Supra': "And previously the Arians falsely accused Liberius, also Our predecessor, to the Emperor Constantine, because Liberius refused to condemn St. Athanasius, Bishop of Alexandria, and refused to support their heresy" (n. 16). Source: https://www.papalencyclicals.net/Pius09/p9quartu.htm
Ignatius said…
"And if a house be divided against itself, that house cannot stand." Mark 3:25

"But he seeing their thoughts, said to them: Every kingdom divided against itself, shall be brought to desolation, and house upon house shall fall." Luke 11:17
Debbie said…
Thank you Mr. Derksen....I'm new at this and should maybe stop. But I do totally understand sedevacantism does not have all the answers, there's mystery....but No Contradiction.
Ignatius said…
@Debbie you don't need to stop, you just need to see the truth!
Fred Martinez said…
Fred Martinez said… "Wow. Your sede website top historian knows psychology and what happened in the 'fall of Liberius' better than an ancient Doctor of the Church. Does that means that the 'Vulgate, (from the Latin editio vulgata, 'common version'), Latin Bible used by the Roman Catholic Church, primarily translated by St. Jerome' might not be trustworthy unless your sede website gives his [infallible] approval?"

Again, Fred Martinez said…
Debbie,

Thanks. I'll do more research on the subject when I have time. But even your sede website admits St. Athanasius and St. Jerome write of the "fall of Liberius" although being the top historian and psychologist that he is he claims a Doctor of the Church can't be trusted and that "Jerome tends to be somewhat carried away by his hatred for heretics and likewise by his naturally vehement character."

Wow. Your sede website top historian knows psychology and what happened in the "fall of Liberius" better than an ancient Doctor of the Church. Does that means that the "Vulgate, (from the Latin editio vulgata, 'common version'), Latin Bible used by the Roman Catholic Church, primarily translated by St. Jerome" might not be trustworthy unless your sede website gives his approval?

https://novusordowatch.org/john-daly-alleged-fall-of-pope-liberius-excommunication-of-saint-athanasius/

The Writings of St. Jerome

Next in importance after these extracts from Athanasius as historical testimony in favour of the fall of Liberius are two extracts from the writings of St. Jerome. Once again let us begin by quoting in full the two passages in question before analysing them.

In St. Jerome’s Chronicon, which was written about the year 380, the following occurs:

In the 282nd Olympiad [19] Liberius was ordained as the 34th bishop of the Roman Church, and when he had been thrust into exile on account of the Faith all the clerics swore that they would receive no other in his place. But when Felix had been substituted in his priestly office by the Arians, very many of them broke their oath, and a year later they were expelled with Felix because Liberius, being overcome by the weariness of exile, had subscribed to heretical perversity and entered Rome as a victor.

And in c. 97 of his Catalogue of Writers, in treating of the early Christian bishop and writer Fortunatianus, St. Jerome writes as follows:

Fortunatianus, an African by nation, and bishop of Aquileia when Constantius was emperor, wrote commentaries on the Gospels in orderly sequence in a brief and rustic style. He is held as detestable on account of the fact that, when Liberius, the bishop of the city of Rome, was travelling into exile for the Faith, he [Fortunatianus] was the first to solicit him, break his will and impel him to subscribe to heresy.

Before beginning to analyse these intriguing excerpts, the following comment by Jungmann (op. cit., p. 77) is worthy of inclusion in full:

We begin by warning that in historical matters the assertions of St. Jerome when they are finding fault with others cannot always be considered as well-founded. This is because throughout his works Jerome tends to be somewhat carried away by his hatred for heretics and likewise by his naturally vehement character, so that he is too quick to judge or falls into some exaggeration. It was therefore possible that at the time that he wrote these works, while resident in the East, he also believed the rumours spread about the fall of Liberius, especially if he had come across evidence of this which had been forged by the Arians. But it is of greater moment that the passages quoted are found in short works which it is known have been subject to interpolation throughout and that the texts in question bear all the hallmarks of such interpolation.

https://novusordowatch.org/john-daly-alleged-fall-of-pope-liberius-excommunication-of-saint-athanasius/
Fred Martinez said…
Debbie said... "But I do totally understand sedevacantism...but No Contradiction."

“If he saw two truths that seemed to contradict each other, he would take the two truths and the contradiction along with them. His spiritual sight is stereoscopic, like his physical sight: he sees two different pictures at once and yet sees all the better for that. Thus he has always believed that there was such a thing as fate, but such a thing as free will also. Thus he believed that children were indeed the kingdom of heaven, but nevertheless ought to be obedient to the kingdom of earth. He admired youth because it was young and age because it was not. It is exactly this balance of apparent contradictions that has been the whole buoyancy of the healthy man.”

― GK Chesterton
Fred Martinez said…
Such is the madman of experience; he is commonly a reasoner, frequently a successful reasoner. Doubtless he could be vanquished in mere reason, and the case against him put logically. But it can be put much more precisely in more general and even aesthetic terms. He is in the clean and well-lit prison of one idea: he is sharpened to one painful point. He is without healthy hesitation and healthy complexity. Now, as I explain in the introduction, I have determined in these early chapters to give not so much a diagram of a doctrine as some pictures of a point of view. And I have described at length my vision of the maniac for this reason: that just as I am affected by the maniac, so I am affected by most modern thinkers. That unmistakable mood or note that I hear from Hanwell, I hear also from half the chairs of science and seats of learning to-day; and most of the mad doctors are mad doctors in more senses than one. They all have exactly that combination we have noted: the combination of an expansive and exhaustive reason with a contracted common sense. They are universal only in the sense that they take one thin explanation and carry it very far. But a pattern can stretch for ever and still be a small pattern. They see a chess-board white on black, and if the universe is paved with it, it is still white on black. Like the lunatic, they cannot alter their standpoint; they cannot make a mental effort and suddenly see it black on white.

Take first the more obvious case of materialism. As an explanation of the world, materialism has a sort of insane simplicity. It has just the quality of the madman's argument; we have at once the sense of it covering everything and the sense of it leaving everything out. Contemplate some able and sincere materialist, as, for instance, Mr. McCabe, and you will have exactly this unique sensation. He understands everything, and everything does not seem worth understanding. His cosmos may be complete in every rivet and cog-wheel, but still his cosmos is smaller than our world. Somehow his scheme, like the lucid scheme of the madman, seems unconscious of the alien energies and the large indifference of the earth; it is not thinking of the real things of the earth, of fighting peoples or proud mothers, or first love or fear upon the sea. The earth is so very large, and the cosmos is so very small. The cosmos is about the smallest hole that a man can hide his head in.

It must be understood that I am not now discussing the relation of these creeds to truth; but, for the present, solely their relation to health. Later in the argument I hope to attack the question of objective verity; here I speak only of a phenomenon of psychology. I do not for the present attempt to prove to Haeckel that materialism is untrue, any more than I attempted to prove to the man who thought he was Christ that he was labouring under an error. I merely remark here on the fact that both cases have the same kind of completeness and the same kind of incompleteness. You can explain a man's detention at Hanwell by an indifferent public by saying that it is the crucifixion of a god of whom the world is not worthy. The explanation does explain. Similarly you may explain the order in the universe by saying that all things, even the souls of men, are leaves inevitably unfolding on an utterly unconscious tree -- the blind destiny of matter. The explanation does explain, though not, of course, so completely as the madman's. But the point here is that the normal human mind not only objects to both, but feels to both the same objection. Its approximate statement is that if the man in Hanwell is the real God, he is not much of a god. And, similarly, if the cosmos of the materialist is the real cosmos, it is not much of a cosmos. The thing has shrunk. The deity is less divine than many men; and (according to Haeckel) the whole of life is something much more grey, narrow, and trivial than many separate aspects of it. The parts seem greater than the whole.


― GK Chesterton
Debbie said…
Fred, you have misquoted me:

But I do totally understand sedevacantism DOES NOT HAVE ALL THE ANSWERS, THERE'S MYSTERY....but No Contradiction.

I'm certain this was simply an oversight on your part, but it makes a huge difference in what I said.
Mario Derksen said…
So... Are we going to quote Chesterton now every time someone makes an argument based on sound reasoning?

And what about the Pope Pius IX quote?
Fred Martinez said…
Debbie, I didn't "misquote" you, but I did abbreviated your quote. I'm sorry you didn't like the abbreviation so I'll quote in full and repost the the GK quote and again ask you the question.

Abbreviated quote: Fred Martinez said...

Debbie said... "But I do totally understand sedevacantism...but No Contradiction."

“If he saw two truths that seemed to contradict each other, he would take the two truths and the contradiction along with them. His spiritual sight is stereoscopic, like his physical sight: he sees two different pictures at once and yet sees all the better for that. Thus he has always believed that there was such a thing as fate, but such a thing as free will also. Thus he believed that children were indeed the kingdom of heaven, but nevertheless ought to be obedient to the kingdom of earth. He admired youth because it was young and age because it was not. It is exactly this balance of apparent contradictions that has been the whole buoyancy of the healthy man.”

― GK Chesterton

10:59 AM Delete

Total quote: But I do totally understand sedevacantism DOES NOT HAVE ALL THE ANSWERS, THERE'S MYSTERY....but No Contradiction.

I'm certain this was simply an oversight on your part, but it makes a huge difference in what I said.

Text and question:


10:59 AM

Fred Martinez said...

Fred Martinez said… "Wow. Your sede website top historian knows psychology and what happened in the 'fall of Liberius' better than an ancient Doctor of the Church. Does that means that the 'Vulgate, (from the Latin editio vulgata, 'common version'), Latin Bible used by the Roman Catholic Church, primarily translated by St. Jerome' might not be trustworthy unless your sede website gives his [infallible] approval?"

Again, Fred Martinez said…
Debbie,

Thanks. I'll do more research on the subject when I have time. But even your sede website admits St. Athanasius and St. Jerome write of the "fall of Liberius" although being the top historian and psychologist that he is he claims a Doctor of the Church can't be trusted and that "Jerome tends to be somewhat carried away by his hatred for heretics and likewise by his naturally vehement character."

Wow. Your sede website top historian knows psychology and what happened in the "fall of Liberius" better than an ancient Doctor of the Church. Does that means that the "Vulgate, (from the Latin editio vulgata, 'common version'), Latin Bible used by the Roman Catholic Church, primarily translated by St. Jerome" might not be trustworthy unless your sede website gives his approval?

Fred Martinez said…
https://novusordowatch.org/john-daly-alleged-fall-of-pope-liberius-excommunication-of-saint-athanasius/

The Writings of St. Jerome

Next in importance after these extracts from Athanasius as historical testimony in favour of the fall of Liberius are two extracts from the writings of St. Jerome. Once again let us begin by quoting in full the two passages in question before analysing them.

In St. Jerome’s Chronicon, which was written about the year 380, the following occurs:

In the 282nd Olympiad [19] Liberius was ordained as the 34th bishop of the Roman Church, and when he had been thrust into exile on account of the Faith all the clerics swore that they would receive no other in his place. But when Felix had been substituted in his priestly office by the Arians, very many of them broke their oath, and a year later they were expelled with Felix because Liberius, being overcome by the weariness of exile, had subscribed to heretical perversity and entered Rome as a victor.

And in c. 97 of his Catalogue of Writers, in treating of the early Christian bishop and writer Fortunatianus, St. Jerome writes as follows:

Fortunatianus, an African by nation, and bishop of Aquileia when Constantius was emperor, wrote commentaries on the Gospels in orderly sequence in a brief and rustic style. He is held as detestable on account of the fact that, when Liberius, the bishop of the city of Rome, was travelling into exile for the Faith, he [Fortunatianus] was the first to solicit him, break his will and impel him to subscribe to heresy.

Before beginning to analyse these intriguing excerpts, the following comment by Jungmann (op. cit., p. 77) is worthy of inclusion in full:

We begin by warning that in historical matters the assertions of St. Jerome when they are finding fault with others cannot always be considered as well-founded. This is because throughout his works Jerome tends to be somewhat carried away by his hatred for heretics and likewise by his naturally vehement character, so that he is too quick to judge or falls into some exaggeration. It was therefore possible that at the time that he wrote these works, while resident in the East, he also believed the rumours spread about the fall of Liberius, especially if he had come across evidence of this which had been forged by the Arians. But it is of greater moment that the passages quoted are found in short works which it is known have been subject to interpolation throughout and that the texts in question bear all the hallmarks of such interpolation.

https://novusordowatch.org/john-daly-alleged-fall-of-pope-liberius-excommunication-of-saint-athanasius/
Ignatius said…
Fred,

Graced by Mario Derksen the man himself...
He's arguably the biggest sede of them all.
Ignatius said…
Latin mass in Chicago (ICK) is being banned/closed down by the Cardinal there. Francis's plan is in full motion.
Justina said…
@Ignatius, no thanks! I don't wish to belong to those who claim to "govern themselves." VIVA CRISTO REY
Ignatius said…
@Justina

You'll soon be out of options as it'll be only go to the Novus Ordo Mass, or be in schism according to Francis. I feel for the SSPX people and their priests, it's a difficult situation for them.

Pope Benedict XVI: "The fact that the Society of Saint Pius X does not possess a canonical status in the Church is not, in the end, based on disciplinary but on doctrinal reasons. As long as the Society does not have a canonical status in the Church, its ministers do not exercise legitimate ministries in the Church. There needs to be a distinction, then, between the disciplinary level, which deals with individuals as such, and the doctrinal level, at which ministry and institution are involved. In order to make this clear once again: until the doctrinal questions are clarified, the Society has no canonical status in the Church, and its ministers – even though they have been freed of the ecclesiastical penalty – do not legitimately exercise any ministry in the Church."

-LETTER OF HIS HOLINESS POPE BENEDICT XVI
TO THE BISHOPS OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH
CONCERNING THE REMISSION OF THE EXCOMMUNICATION
OF THE FOUR BISHOPS CONSECRATED BY ARCHBISHOP LEFEBVRE
Fred Martinez said…
@Ignatius

The St. Louis Catholic said the following:

https://stlouiscatholic.wordpress.com/2022/01/22/we-are-approaching-our-lefebvre-moment-but-not-the-one-you-think/

Archbishop Lefebvre judged that he had the right to ordain these priests in the traditional manner. As Pope Benedict confirmed in Summorum Pontificum, he did indeed. But Pope Paul VI declared him and his priests suspended a divinis. Because he judged he was in the right legally and morally, Archbishop Lefebvre continued to ordain traditional priests and always maintained that the suspensions were illegitimate and invalid. It was this action, much more than in 1988, that one can claim that Lefebvre saved the Mass, in a manner of speaking (Our Lord is Sovereign and responsible for all good). He died without knowing whether his position would be vindicated.

You could say that it is 1976 again for traditional societies and institutes previously under the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei. The Vatican has said traditional priestly ordinations are no longer possible. The FSSP, ICRSP and others have lots of vocations and of course have ordinations scheduled this year. And some bishops, like the odious Cardinal Cupich, have forbidden even traditional societies from celebrating the traditional Mass on the first Sunday of every month and on high holy days, beginning February 6. A watershed moment awaits.

One thing you could say for the Vatican’s position in 1976 was that there was an uncontestedly legitimate pope who ordered Lefebvre to refrain from the traditional ordination of priests. The same cannot be said for 2022.

Even if Bergoglio were pope, his orders to block the traditional Mass and sacraments are just as invalid, assuming for a moment they were drafted in accordance with the law. His censures are equally invalid should they be issued for a priest, prelate or layman making use of his right to the Mass and Sacraments. Lastly, Bergoglio’s motives are so more obvious in their hatred for the Mass, the Sacraments, the faithful, and Him of Whom he claims to be vicar.
Fred Martinez said…
Fr. Laguerie of the IBP stated it very well that we must simply persevere in our lawful adherence to the traditional Mass and sacraments. That there must be a continuation of everything the traditional societies have been doing already. Father notes what lots of us sense— he hears of none of his confreres who will cave into the unjust forcing of the novus ordo onto traditional priests. The traditional laity have their back and will not betray faithful priests. There is a large traditional community.

We are in the right.

This is 1976. But really it isn’t. A Lefebvre moment is being forced on us in 2022. it starts in Chicago on February 6. It will occur worldwide by Midsummer. Let us remain faithful to Christ and to His sacraments. Let us respond with at least as much courage as Lefebvre showed in 1976.

This is the reality, whether Bergoglio or Pope Benedict XVI is pope. That question need not divide us nor cause us to waver. The prohibition against the Mass is invalid either way. But I would add this could very well be the perfect time to bring that question to a head for the good of souls. The time has come to acknowledge, and come to the aid of Pope Benedict XVI. That would save the Mass, and so much more.


https://stlouiscatholic.wordpress.com/2022/01/22/we-are-approaching-our-lefebvre-moment-but-not-the-one-you-think/
Fred Martinez said…

https://stlouiscatholic.wordpress.com/2022/07/15/this-lawless-action-must-be-resisted/

The execrable move of the Cardinal Archbishop of Chicago to “shut down” (in the words of Fr. Z) the Institute of Christ the King Sovereign Priest in that Archdiocese merits a vigorous response. I know what I would do. What the Institute will do I can only guess.

Pray for its Superiors and the faithful that Cupich wants to spiritually slaughter. Petty, vindictive move by a petty, vindictive hireling of the worst order.

But Tim, isn’t the Institute a Society of Apostolic Right? Doesn’t its charter allow exclusive recourse to the timeless Mass? How can Cupich do this? Doesn’t the Pope have to approve it? Well, certainly the Pope has to approve it (either legally or politically— Cupich is nothing if not mad for power over others).

Will anyone, ANYONE, do something about the question of our time? Just WHO is the pope? Because I doubt Pope Benedict is behind this.

https://stlouiscatholic.wordpress.com/2022/07/15/this-lawless-action-must-be-resisted/
Ignatius said…
@Fred

I suspect some of the ICK priests will join the SSPX or maybe go to the East if they had no other choice...a lot of them do not like the Novus Ordo Missae.

Lefebvre fought for the faith, he had been brave to go it alone. But it doesn't change the fact that Benedicts words have to be taken seriously also about their canonical status. I really hope that one day they do have an official canonical status and that the entire Vatican II mess is finally fixed.
Fred Martinez said…
@Ignatius

Did St. Athanasius if he was excommunicated have canonical status? Did King David have canonical status when he disobeyed the law?

https://padreperegrino.org/2022/07/revo/

Dr. Kwasniewski compares these vanguard priests to other sidelined people in Church history:

For example, St. Athanasius the Great was officially excommunicated but did not hesitate to carry on with his work nonetheless, and many priests who remained faithful amid the extinction of the Catholic hierarchy in Elizabethan England exercised their ministry in violation of ordinary canonical norms, even over multiple generations. When a building is burning down, one tries to put out the fire and rescue victims with any means at hand, rather than waiting until the fire-brigade arrives—especially if one knows from bitter experience that the fire chief is absent from his post, or sleeping, or intoxicated, or convinced that fires are beneficial, and most of the firemen are bumblers whose methods don’t work, or, worse, are paid by soboteurs to spray gasoline on the fire.—True Obedience in the Church, p. 57.
Fred Martinez said…
Is the Francis crisis a state of emergency comparable to the Arian crisis of St. Athanasius?

Scholar Michael Davies said that "Archbishop [Marcel] Lefebvre has been compared rightly to St.Athanasius":

He is the Athanasius of our times. Like St.Athanasius and like St. Eusebius of Samosata, he went into the dioceses of bishops who were not acting as good shepherds, to give the people the instruction, the sacramental grace, and the pastors that they needed. For one bishop to intrude into the diocese of another is a very serious matter. It can only be justified if there is a state of necessity. A state of emergency, urgency, or necessity occurs in the Church when its continuation, order, or activity are threatened or harmed in an important way, and the emergency cannot be overcome by observing the normal positive laws. The emergency would relate principally to teaching, the liturgy, and ecclesiastical discipline. An interesting reference to such a situation occurs in a study of the Church's divine constitution by Dom Adrien Grea, OSB, in his examination of the extraordinary powers of the episcopate:

"In the fourth century St. Eusebius of Samosata traveled thorough Eastern dioceses devastated by the Arians and ordained orthodox pastors for them, without having particular jurisdiction over them. These are evidently extraordinary actions, as were the Circumstances that gave rise to them." [http://www.catholicapologetics.info/apologetics/defense/sdavies.htm]

Wikipedia explains that Archbishop Lefebvre's "Operation Survival" was "due to necessity":

Lefebvre argued that his actions had been necessary because the traditional form of the Catholic faith and sacraments would become extinct without Traditionalist clergy to pass them on to the next generation. He called the ordinations "opération survie" ("Operation Survival"), citing in his defense canons 1323 and 1324 of the 1917 Code of Canon Law, the first of which says that "a person who acted coerced by grave fear, even if only relatively grave, or due to necessity or grave inconvenience unless the act is intrinsically evil or tends to the harm of souls" is not subject to penalty for violating a law or precept, while the other says "the perpetrator of a violation is not exempt from a penalty, but the penalty established by law or precept must be tempered or a penance employed in its place if the delict was committed ... by a person who thought in culpable error that one of the circumstances mentioned in can. 1323, nn. 4 or 5 was present."[34] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Society_of_Saint_Pius_X]

Scholars Alon Harel and Assaf Sharon show how St. Thomas Aquinas sees the "state of exception" or "Case of Necessity":

In the Summa Theologica Aquinas addresses the case of necessity by focusing on the limits of legislation. Aquinas asserts that: The lawgiver cannot have in view every single case, he shapes the law according to what happens more frequently by directing his attention to the common good. Wherefore, if a case arises wherein the observance of that law would be hurtful to the general welfare, it should not be observed.11Furthermore, Aquinas recognizes that cases falling into this category are not “legislatable” and adds that:

He who in a case of necessity acts besides the letter of the law does not judge of the law but of a particular case in which he sees that the letter of the law is not to be observed.

Last, Aquinas stresses that agents operating under these exceptional circumstances are not accountable to the law as in ordinary cases. In his view: “The mere necessity brings with it a dispensation, since necessity knows no law.” 11 St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, Part II, 1st part, que. 96, art 6. See also II, II, que. 110 art.1. [https://www.law.utoronto.ca/documents/conferences2/Constitutionalism09-Harel.pdf]

Do the teachings of Aquinas on "necessity knows no law” or "case of necessity" apply to the Francis crisis?
Fred Martinez said…
Do the teachings of Aquinas on "necessity knows no law” or "case of necessity" apply to "the entire Vatican II mess" in terms of canonical status as with St. Athanasius?

“David thought the feeding of his body was cause sufficient to break the law of ... (as he said) “it was a case of necessity, the danger was so present"

"The law of God and nature frees us in positive laws from guilt, in case of necessity, as David did lawfully eat showbread"

Do the teachings of Aquinas on "necessity knows no law” or "case of necessity" apply to "the entire Vatican II mess" in terms of canonical status as with King David?


St. Thomas Aquinas: Catena Aurea - Gospel of Matthew
https://www.ccel.org › ccel › aquinas › catena1.ii.xii.html
... by David who was not a Priest, and was a case of necessity; but this second is done every sabbath, and by the Priests, and according to the Law.
Ignatius said…
@Fred

You make reasonable arguments, but the arguments made against you by sedes and other trads are going to be that Lefebvre did as they already have:

-disregarded warnings and requests to retract his declaration to continue his apostolate
-disregarded the juridic effects of lawful suppression
-disregarded warnings not to ordain priests without permission
-ordained priests without permission
-disregarded the Church’s command to repair the damage from his illicit ordinations
-sent priests to minister without incardination
-sent priests to minister who are under censure
-ignored suspension from the exercise of Orders
-preached in dioceses without permission of the local bishops
-publicly promoted hostility to the Pope and the Holy See
threatened the Pope with illicit consecrations of bishops
-disregarded the Pope’s warning that consecrations would be a schismatic act
-disregarded the Pope’s warning that consecrations would result in excommunication latae sententiae reserved to the Holy See
-performed illicit consecrations without pontifical mandate or determination of suitability by the Holy See
-disregarded the canonical censure of excommunication for schism and unauthorized episcopal consecration
-founded a substitute tribunal to perform acts reserved to the local ordinaries or Holy See (e.g., marriage annulments, lifting of excommunications, dispensing of religious vows)
promoted the erection of chapels, seminaries and schools without ecclesiastical permission
Debbie said…
Ignatius....strange that Rome is leaving the SSPX alone and only going after the indult orders.....
Ignatius said…
@Debbie ....they have something special planned for the SSPX I'm sure. They can't really tell the SSPX to stop as they've been operating independently for many years, but they could really make things a lot harder by saying that the SSPX masses are illicit, that Sunday obligation is not fulfilled there, and that any Catholics attending are in schism from the church by going to an SSPX chapel. I simply go to Mass on Sundays in the East, and it's great. Its mass then talking to some of the parishioners about various things and then you go home. No concerns about Francis in their communities, he's barely mentioned. They don't like the modernism he promotes... but he's leaving them alone.

Sedevacantists say that they have the solution, and I think that a lot of them are just trying to be good Catholics, but here's the one thing that you should think a lot about...holy men like Fulton Sheen, Cardinal Siri, Archbishop Thuc, Cardinal Ottaviani, etc. They didn't abandon the so-called Vatican II religion/church, modernism has indeed infected the church. They had been in much better positions to see everything going on vs you and I. They still submitted to Paul VI, JPII, and Benedict XVI as Popes.

Their bishops operate independently, no ordinary jurisdiction just like the SSPX. They're not communion to the church officially. So the dilemma for many Catholics today is that they can't find that middle ground anymore that the indult/FSSP offered. Francis changed it all last year. It's the best solution to not being in schism to be in the East(if you accept authority ultimately). Sedevacantist priests have good intentions at their heart, but they're simply not part of the church at all just like the SSPX's canonical status. and I don't have anything against the SSPX personally. I feel bad for them.

Fr. Miaskewicz contradicts the sedevacantist's claims of having supplied jurisdiction to hear confessions. They simply don't have it. The SSPX priests actually have it if you count Francis' faculties that he provided to them in 2013. If you believe Benedict is still Pope, then he never gave them any permission to hear confessions, witness marriages, baptisms, etc.
Debbie said…
Ignatius, I'm not at all interested in being in union with VII Church or it's hierarchy. That's the whole point. To simply not talk about him (much), or kinda ignore him is not a solution. I'm not interested in any rite which says Bergoglio is the pope. I was BiP for five years, but after looking into what Benedict has actually said and written, it's clear to me that he is actually far more dangerous than Bergoglio. Benedict is a wolf in sheep's clothing, while Bergoglio is a wolf without the clothing.
Fred Martinez said…
Ignatius, You seem to know a lot about Sedevacantism thinking and its main players. How do they attempt to get around the infallible Vatican I?

Are they prepared to deny Vatican I and therefore be in error?

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 ask you because they don't seem to want to answer the above question.
Fred Martinez said…
@Ignatius said:

You make reasonable arguments, but the arguments made against you by sedes and other trads are going to be that Lefebvre did as they already have:

-disregarded warnings and requests to retract his declaration to continue his apostolate
-disregarded the juridic effects of lawful suppression
-disregarded warnings not to ordain priests without permission
-ordained priests without permission
-disregarded the Church’s command to repair the damage from his illicit ordinations
-sent priests to minister without incardination
-sent priests to minister who are under censure
-ignored suspension from the exercise of Orders
-preached in dioceses without permission of the local bishops
-publicly promoted hostility to the Pope and the Holy See
threatened the Pope with illicit consecrations of bishops
-disregarded the Pope’s warning that consecrations would be a schismatic act
-disregarded the Pope’s warning that consecrations would result in excommunication latae sententiae reserved to the Holy See
-performed illicit consecrations without pontifical mandate or determination of suitability by the Holy See
-disregarded the canonical censure of excommunication for schism and unauthorized episcopal consecration
-founded a substitute tribunal to perform acts reserved to the local ordinaries or Holy See (e.g., marriage annulments, lifting of excommunications, dispensing of religious vows)
promoted the erection of chapels, seminaries and schools without ecclesiastical permission

Ignatius, In my opinion, you didn't really answer:

Do the teachings of Aquinas on "necessity knows no law” or "case of necessity" apply to "the entire Vatican II mess" in terms of canonical status as with St. Athanasius [WHO while acknowledging Pope Liberius, but " he went into the dioceses of bishops who were not acting as good shepherds, to give the people the instruction, the sacramental grace, and the pastors that they needed. For one bishop to intrude into the diocese of another is a very serious matter. It can only be justified if there is a state of necessity" without apparently the pope's support ?

“David thought the feeding of his body was cause sufficient to break the law of ... (as he said) “it was a case of necessity, the danger was so present"

"The law of God and nature frees us in positive laws from guilt, in case of necessity, as David did lawfully eat showbread"

Do the teachings of Aquinas on "necessity knows no law” or "case of necessity" apply to "the entire Vatican II mess" in terms of canonical status as with King David?


St. Thomas Aquinas: Catena Aurea - Gospel of Matthew
https://www.ccel.org › ccel › aquinas › catena1.ii.xii.html
... by David who was not a Priest, and was a case of necessity; but this second is done every sabbath, and by the Priests, and according to the Law.
Fred Martinez said…
Ignatius, Again, you seem to know a lot about Sedevacantism thinking and its main players. Can you explain why they feel that they can know what happened in the 'fall of Liberius' better than an ancient Doctor of the Church?

Fred Martinez said...

Fred Martinez said… "Wow. Your sede website top historian knows psychology and what happened in the 'fall of Liberius' better than an ancient Doctor of the Church. Does that means that the 'Vulgate, (from the Latin editio vulgata, 'common version'), Latin Bible used by the Roman Catholic Church, primarily translated by St. Jerome' might not be trustworthy unless your sede website gives his [infallible] approval?"

Again, Fred Martinez said…
Debbie,

Thanks. I'll do more research on the subject when I have time. But even your sede website admits St. Athanasius and St. Jerome write of the "fall of Liberius" although being the top historian and psychologist that he is he claims a Doctor of the Church can't be trusted and that "Jerome tends to be somewhat carried away by his hatred for heretics and likewise by his naturally vehement character."

Wow. Your sede website top historian knows psychology and what happened in the "fall of Liberius" better than an ancient Doctor of the Church. Does that means that the "Vulgate, (from the Latin editio vulgata, 'common version'), Latin Bible used by the Roman Catholic Church, primarily translated by St. Jerome" might not be trustworthy unless your sede website gives his approval?
Fred Martinez said…
Here is the link:

https://novusordowatch.org/john-daly-alleged-fall-of-pope-liberius-excommunication-of-saint-athanasius/

We begin by warning that in historical matters the assertions of St. Jerome when they are finding fault with others cannot always be considered as well-founded. This is because throughout his works Jerome tends to be somewhat carried away by his hatred for heretics and likewise by his naturally vehement character, so that he is too quick to judge or falls into some exaggeration. It was therefore possible that at the time that he wrote these works, while resident in the East, he also believed the rumours spread about the fall of Liberius, especially if he had come across evidence of this which had been forged by the Arians. But it is of greater moment that the passages quoted are found in short works which it is known have been subject to interpolation throughout and that the texts in question bear all the hallmarks of such interpolation.

Popular posts from this blog

"Remember when Trump was up by 600,000 votes in Pennsylvania?": A Hour which will Live in Infamy: 10:01pm November 3, 2020

  Matthew H @MattH_4America Remember when Trump was up by 600,000 votes in Pennsylvania? 1:07 PM · Jul 13, 2022 · Twitter Web App [https://twitter.com/MattH_4America/status/1547311877264400384] 10:01pm November 3, 2020, a hour which will live in infamy, the United States of America presidential electoral integrity was suddenly and deliberately attacked by the forces of the Democrat Machine and some corrupt collaborators within the Republican Party. It will be recorded that "under the pretense of COVID, executive branch officials across a number of key battleground states violated election procedures passed by the legislative branches of those states in a number of ways that opened up the process to fraud on a massive scale, never before seen in the history of this country" which makes it obvious that the attack was deliberately planned many days or even weeks before. During the time before and after the attack the Democrat Machine and its corrupt collaborator

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

Alone Bishop Gracida openly proclaims "Resist!" & Actively Works towards the Removal of Francis

    "You cannot give Holy Communion to the abortionists, to the abortion promoters and providers, to the divorce and remarried. You cannot do it. St. Paul said you do not feed the Eucharist to dogs..."   "Right now they [the laity] are suffering in silence. They need to object. The laity, the sensus fidelium is that common sense among the laity who have accepted the magisterial teaching of the Church which is the foundation of their faith."     "Having accepted that when they hear something that is contradictory to the magisterial teaching of the Church, the sensus fidelium is a impulse that causes them to speak out and say no."     "That is not true. Don't say that. Stop! That is the sensus fidelium in action!"     "Not to sit and suffer in silence. That's crazy. That's weird. That's wrong. Speak up! Resist! " - Bishop Rene Gracida [ https://youtu.be/arF9TlUVfiU ] We are in the greatest crisis in the history