The Catholic Monitor Comment Section & Aqua vs. Sedevantist Debbie & her "NovusOrdoWatch Link after Link"
The Catholic Monitor comment section had a interesting thread where the well known commenter Aqua debated the Sedevantist Debbie and her "NovusOrdoWatch link after link" in the post Might Silent "'Rainbow' Cross" Francis be afraid of Jesus making June not just the Sacred Heart Month, but the Pro-Life Month?:
Comments
And now the next logical question; why does Matt, Ferrara, Salza, and
most importantly the SSPX still insist he's pope? They're all rabidly
against the sede position. A deeper dig into the SSPX is what finally
made me agree with the sedevacantists. And please, I can't say this
enough....I love Ab. Lefebvre, but ultimately, he got it wrong. He was
there in it's infancy and understandably confused. R&R is not
Catholic. R&R is the definition of schism. Catholics do not have the
luxury of picking and choosing what they will believe from one they
insist is Pope....that's protestantism.
https://www.thecatholicmonitor.com/2021/04/is-pachamama-conservative-mike-lewis.html
Here is what Vatican I expert Fr. Chad Ripperger, PhD, in his book "Magisterial Authority" says to Lewis and others who it appears are "proximate to heresy":
"[T]reat[ing] ALL papal statements as if they are infallible... is proximate to heresy because it rejects the precise formulation of the conditions of infallibility as laid out in by Vatican I... by essentially saying that the pope is infallible regardless of conditions."
"... Worse still, those who were to follow a pope who was in error in a non-infallible teaching which is taught contrary to something that is infallible is not, therefore, excused."
(Magisterial Authority, Pages 5-14)
Here is what Vatican I expert Fr. Chad Ripperger, PhD, in his book "Magisterial Authority" says to Lewis and others who it appears are "proximate to heresy":
"[T]reat[ing] ALL papal statements as if they are infallible... is proximate to heresy because it rejects the precise formulation of the conditions of infallibility as laid out in by Vatican I... by essentially saying that the pope is infallible regardless of conditions."
"... Worse still, those who were to follow a pope who was in error in a non-infallible teaching which is taught contrary to something that is infallible is not, therefore, excused."
(Magisterial Authority, Pages 5-14)
Debbie,
FWIW, in four parts, Is Sedevacantism Catholic:
https://sspx.org/en/sedevacantism-catholic
https://sspx.org/en/sedevacantism-catholic-2
https://sspx.org/en/sedevacantism-catholic-3
https://sspx.org/en/sedevacantism-catholic-4
Looking at the the case of Athanasius in detail, the point of this series is to show how, rather than declaring "The Seat is Vacant", Athanasius worked inside p, charity for all, and fought it out to the conclusion we now remember as heroic.
Premise: - quote -
"Since tradition would likely be the historical position of the Church, it is imperative that a traditionalist understand history in order to truly be a traditionalist. If we are to apply the traditional teaching of the Church to our times, we must understand history and whether or not sedevacantism is in conformity to the teaching of the Church or rather a departure from the teaching of the Church."
Conclusion: - quote -
"So we see today that in standing against the modernists who are in control of the Church one may be required to look like a schismatic in order to practice the one true Faith. The line is very thin and hard to define. The hard-core sedevacantists are way over the line even though they may not be able to see it. The hard-core sedevacantists reject the Church in the same manner that Lucifer (bishop) did during the time of Athanasius. They reject the pope and everyone but themselves. They reject the papacy by claiming it is vacant while misquoting infallibility and ignoring the visibility of the Church, and they lean on the teachings of Gallicanism to obtain bishoprics whose roots come from Old Catholic bishops and their seminaries. Indeed, may we all pray for the pope."
I recommend the whole thing. We don't have to figure all this out ourselves. We have to find authorized teachers, Traditional Priests primarily, and let them explicate from Sacred Tradition. I am not going to try and create my own framework. Just tell me, *show me*, what Sacred Tradition teaches, how it is connected, and I will die for those Truths. I thank God for SSPX. I've heard the complaints against them. They don't persuade me,mwhichever way they come from. They teach Tradition. Water in the desert.
FWIW, in four parts, Is Sedevacantism Catholic:
https://sspx.org/en/sedevacantism-catholic
https://sspx.org/en/sedevacantism-catholic-2
https://sspx.org/en/sedevacantism-catholic-3
https://sspx.org/en/sedevacantism-catholic-4
Looking at the the case of Athanasius in detail, the point of this series is to show how, rather than declaring "The Seat is Vacant", Athanasius worked inside p, charity for all, and fought it out to the conclusion we now remember as heroic.
Premise: - quote -
"Since tradition would likely be the historical position of the Church, it is imperative that a traditionalist understand history in order to truly be a traditionalist. If we are to apply the traditional teaching of the Church to our times, we must understand history and whether or not sedevacantism is in conformity to the teaching of the Church or rather a departure from the teaching of the Church."
Conclusion: - quote -
"So we see today that in standing against the modernists who are in control of the Church one may be required to look like a schismatic in order to practice the one true Faith. The line is very thin and hard to define. The hard-core sedevacantists are way over the line even though they may not be able to see it. The hard-core sedevacantists reject the Church in the same manner that Lucifer (bishop) did during the time of Athanasius. They reject the pope and everyone but themselves. They reject the papacy by claiming it is vacant while misquoting infallibility and ignoring the visibility of the Church, and they lean on the teachings of Gallicanism to obtain bishoprics whose roots come from Old Catholic bishops and their seminaries. Indeed, may we all pray for the pope."
I recommend the whole thing. We don't have to figure all this out ourselves. We have to find authorized teachers, Traditional Priests primarily, and let them explicate from Sacred Tradition. I am not going to try and create my own framework. Just tell me, *show me*, what Sacred Tradition teaches, how it is connected, and I will die for those Truths. I thank God for SSPX. I've heard the complaints against them. They don't persuade me,mwhichever way they come from. They teach Tradition. Water in the desert.
Do both Sedes and Neoconservatives both believe that every act of
governing and ambiguous teaching of Vatican II popes and other popes
such as Pope John XXII are infallible contrary to Vatican I?
Is it possible that Sedes and Neoconservatives may be infallibly definitely united and of one mind on this
subject?
https://www.thecatholicmonitor.com/2022/06/semi-modernists-francistrads-like.html
- This problem is exacerbated by our current historical conditions. As the theological community began to unravel before, during and after Vatican II, those who considered themselves orthodox were those who were obedient and intellectually submissive to the Magisterium, since those who dissented were not orthodox. Therefore the standard of orthodoxy was shifted from Scripture, intrinsic tradition (of which the Magisterium is a part) and extrinsic tradition (which includes magisterial acts of the past, such as Pius IX’s Syllabus of Errors), to a psychological state in which only the current Magisterium is followed.
Neoconservatives have fallen into this way of thinking. The only standard by which they judge - orthodoxy is whether or not one follows the current Magisterium. As a general rule, traditionalists tend to be orthodox in the sense that they are obedient to the current Magisterium, even though they disagree about matters of discipline and have some reservations about certain aspects of current magisterial teachings that seem to contradict the previous Magisterium (e.g., the role of the ecumenical movement). Traditionalists tend to take not just the current Magisterium as their norm but also Scripture, intrinsic tradition, extrinsic tradition and the current Magisterium as the principles of judgment of correct Catholic thinking. This is what distinguishes traditionalists and neoconservatives
Inevitably, this magisterialism has led to a form of positivism. Since there are no principles of judgment other than the current Magisterium, whatever the current Magisterium says is always what is “orthodox.” In other words, psychologically the neoconservatives have been left in a position in which the extrinsic and intrinsic tradition are no longer included in the norms of judging whether something is orthodox or not. As a result, whatever comes out of the Vatican, regardless of its authoritative weight, is to be held, even if it contradicts what was taught with comparable authority in the past. Since non-infallible ordinary acts of the Magisterium can be erroneous, this leaves one in a precarious situation if one takes as true only what the current Magisterium says. While we are required to give religious assent even to the non-infallible teachings of the Church, what are we to do when a magisterial document contradicts other current or previous teachings and one does not have any more authoritative weight than the other? It is too simplistic merely to say that we are to follow the current teaching. What would happen if in a period of crisis, like our own, a non-infallible ordinary magisterial teaching contradicted what was in fact the truth? If one part of the Magisterium contradicts another, both being at the same level, which is to believed?
Unfortunately, what has happened is that many neoconservatives have acted as if non-infallible ordinary magisterial teachings (such as, for instance, the role of inculturation in the liturgy as stated in the Catechism of the Catholic Church) are, in fact, infallible when the current Magisterium promulgates them. This is a positivist mentality. Many of the things that neoconservatives do are the result of implicitly adopting principles that they have not fully or explicitly considered. Many of them would deny this characterization because they do not intellectually hold to what, in fact, are their operative principles. - Fr. Chad Ripperger, F.S.S.P. [http://www.latinmassmagazine.com/articles/articles_2001_sp_ripperger.html]
Is it possible that Sedes and Neoconservatives may be infallibly definitely united and of one mind on this
subject?
https://www.thecatholicmonitor.com/2022/06/semi-modernists-francistrads-like.html
- This problem is exacerbated by our current historical conditions. As the theological community began to unravel before, during and after Vatican II, those who considered themselves orthodox were those who were obedient and intellectually submissive to the Magisterium, since those who dissented were not orthodox. Therefore the standard of orthodoxy was shifted from Scripture, intrinsic tradition (of which the Magisterium is a part) and extrinsic tradition (which includes magisterial acts of the past, such as Pius IX’s Syllabus of Errors), to a psychological state in which only the current Magisterium is followed.
Neoconservatives have fallen into this way of thinking. The only standard by which they judge - orthodoxy is whether or not one follows the current Magisterium. As a general rule, traditionalists tend to be orthodox in the sense that they are obedient to the current Magisterium, even though they disagree about matters of discipline and have some reservations about certain aspects of current magisterial teachings that seem to contradict the previous Magisterium (e.g., the role of the ecumenical movement). Traditionalists tend to take not just the current Magisterium as their norm but also Scripture, intrinsic tradition, extrinsic tradition and the current Magisterium as the principles of judgment of correct Catholic thinking. This is what distinguishes traditionalists and neoconservatives
Inevitably, this magisterialism has led to a form of positivism. Since there are no principles of judgment other than the current Magisterium, whatever the current Magisterium says is always what is “orthodox.” In other words, psychologically the neoconservatives have been left in a position in which the extrinsic and intrinsic tradition are no longer included in the norms of judging whether something is orthodox or not. As a result, whatever comes out of the Vatican, regardless of its authoritative weight, is to be held, even if it contradicts what was taught with comparable authority in the past. Since non-infallible ordinary acts of the Magisterium can be erroneous, this leaves one in a precarious situation if one takes as true only what the current Magisterium says. While we are required to give religious assent even to the non-infallible teachings of the Church, what are we to do when a magisterial document contradicts other current or previous teachings and one does not have any more authoritative weight than the other? It is too simplistic merely to say that we are to follow the current teaching. What would happen if in a period of crisis, like our own, a non-infallible ordinary magisterial teaching contradicted what was in fact the truth? If one part of the Magisterium contradicts another, both being at the same level, which is to believed?
Unfortunately, what has happened is that many neoconservatives have acted as if non-infallible ordinary magisterial teachings (such as, for instance, the role of inculturation in the liturgy as stated in the Catechism of the Catholic Church) are, in fact, infallible when the current Magisterium promulgates them. This is a positivist mentality. Many of the things that neoconservatives do are the result of implicitly adopting principles that they have not fully or explicitly considered. Many of them would deny this characterization because they do not intellectually hold to what, in fact, are their operative principles. - Fr. Chad Ripperger, F.S.S.P. [http://www.latinmassmagazine.com/articles/articles_2001_sp_ripperger.html]
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)).
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)).
There are no more cardinals alive who were made so by Pope Pius XII which means no more popes will reign perpetually.
[sedevacantist] Anonymous said...
You don't need Cardinals to elect a Pope in an extreme situation...Bishops, archbishops could..
10:02 AM
Blogger Fred Martinez said...
The renowned Catholic historian Carroll explicitly wrote:
"Papal election procedures are governed by the prescription of the last Pope who provided for them (that is, any Pope can change them, but they remain in effect until they are changed by a duly elected Pope)."
"During the first thousand years of the history of the Papacy the electors were the clergy of Rome (priests and deacons); during the second thousand years we have had the College of Cardinals."
"But each Pope, having unlimited sovereign power as head of the Church, can prescribe any method for the election of his successor(s) that he chooses. These methods must then be followed in the next election after the death of the Pope who prescribed it, and thereafter until they are changed. A Papal claimant not following these methods is also an Antipope."
[http://www.ewtn.com/library/homelibr/antipope.txt]
You don't need Cardinals to elect a Pope in an extreme situation...Bishops, archbishops could..
10:02 AM
Blogger Fred Martinez said...
The renowned Catholic historian Carroll explicitly wrote:
"Papal election procedures are governed by the prescription of the last Pope who provided for them (that is, any Pope can change them, but they remain in effect until they are changed by a duly elected Pope)."
"During the first thousand years of the history of the Papacy the electors were the clergy of Rome (priests and deacons); during the second thousand years we have had the College of Cardinals."
"But each Pope, having unlimited sovereign power as head of the Church, can prescribe any method for the election of his successor(s) that he chooses. These methods must then be followed in the next election after the death of the Pope who prescribed it, and thereafter until they are changed. A Papal claimant not following these methods is also an Antipope."
[http://www.ewtn.com/library/homelibr/antipope.txt]
"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)
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)
Again, are you prepared to deny the infallible 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)).
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)).
Fred, does Fr. Ripperger back up his assertions with pre-VII popes or
Saints/Doctors of the Church? Honest question, because I don't know. And
let's keep in mind father publicly states Francis is definitely pope,
so if he's wrong about that.....
Aqua, SSPX declare Francis is Pope, so the same principles apply as to Fr. Ripperger. Plus from looking more closely their position on two pretty important matters have changed. They used to hold the same position as the sedes in that the episcopal consecrations are invalid, but they changed their position in 2005, when Benedict was elected....Benedict was consecrated in the new rite. They also fairly recently have changed their position on the newest catechism. Plus as I've stated before , there are sede priests within the Society, they're simply not allowed to say so publicly. This has been a long standing policy of the Society.
Aqua, SSPX declare Francis is Pope, so the same principles apply as to Fr. Ripperger. Plus from looking more closely their position on two pretty important matters have changed. They used to hold the same position as the sedes in that the episcopal consecrations are invalid, but they changed their position in 2005, when Benedict was elected....Benedict was consecrated in the new rite. They also fairly recently have changed their position on the newest catechism. Plus as I've stated before , there are sede priests within the Society, they're simply not allowed to say so publicly. This has been a long standing policy of the Society.
I could post plenty of links, but Fred will not allow it. Plus, I know
you all know where to find it. Ann Barnhardt has on several occasions
mentioned what a wealth of resources they are. The question of papal
infallibility, perpetuity....it's all there. The problem with the
anti-sede argument is they use either post conciliar "experts" or
theologians pre-Trent before dogma was established.
One last thought. It's not the BiP position per se that has lead me to
look into and understand the position I now take, it's the fact the
SSPX, ICK, FSSP, the Frs. Ripperger and Wolfe and (most) all the people I
trusted to help me understand are "shut up stupid Francis is Pope".
THAT was the catalyst for me. How could these holy priests be wrong, and
I a simple, zealot for conversion of my family and friends, be right?
It made no sense to me. How is it the BiP's KNOW Bergoglio is not pope,
but their priests do not?
In the end times it will be good men who lead us astray...not the diabolical monsters like Bergoglio....that's way too easy to identify.
In the end times it will be good men who lead us astray...not the diabolical monsters like Bergoglio....that's way too easy to identify.
Debbie, Please post the any links including the supposed links from Ann
supporting the Sede ideas, but explain them or show how they explain
your point. I've never deleted anything from you or your Sede
collaborators expect advertising. Post the links with the arguments. And
don't forget to quote Vatican I. Also, please, answer the question I
asked you twice.
Pastor Aeternus has nothing to do with the length of interregnums, it
was to establish that the primacy granted to St. Peter would continue in
perpetuity to his valid successors. It was to correct the heresy that
Christ conferred this only on St. Peter.
https://novusordowatch.org/2017/06/the-perpetual-successors-objection/
https://novusordowatch.org/2017/06/the-perpetual-successors-objection/
Debbie,
The difference between me and you:
Me: I believe the Papacy is intact and whole under Pope Benedict XVI, the line of Popes still unbroken.
You. You believe the Papacy ended mysteriously and sureptitiously 60 years ago - it's over.
To me it is depressing to even think of it. I can't imagine going down that path. Your Priest, one of a microscopically tiny number of aging Sede Priests, united with ... who?
Do you actually believe the Roman Catholic Church subsists in your Sede Parish - most don't even have that; most are now rendered Popeless and Churchless. So for them, the RCC subsists in their Sunday home devotions.
Sacred Tradition is everything to me. Remaining in unity with the apostolic line under the valid Pope - everything. So Fred asked the following question, apparently twice ...
- quote from Fred -
Question: "Are you prepared to deny Vatican I? Vatican I clearly teaches that popes will reign perpetually ... There are no more cardinals alive who were made so by Pope Pius XII which means no more popes will reign perpetually.
- end quote -
The difference between me and you:
Me: I believe the Papacy is intact and whole under Pope Benedict XVI, the line of Popes still unbroken.
You. You believe the Papacy ended mysteriously and sureptitiously 60 years ago - it's over.
To me it is depressing to even think of it. I can't imagine going down that path. Your Priest, one of a microscopically tiny number of aging Sede Priests, united with ... who?
Do you actually believe the Roman Catholic Church subsists in your Sede Parish - most don't even have that; most are now rendered Popeless and Churchless. So for them, the RCC subsists in their Sunday home devotions.
Sacred Tradition is everything to me. Remaining in unity with the apostolic line under the valid Pope - everything. So Fred asked the following question, apparently twice ...
- quote from Fred -
Question: "Are you prepared to deny Vatican I? Vatican I clearly teaches that popes will reign perpetually ... There are no more cardinals alive who were made so by Pope Pius XII which means no more popes will reign perpetually.
- end quote -
And yes, I know Fred that you've never deleted anything I've posted, but
a few posts back you said you didn't want unapproved links posted. So I
of course respect your rules, you've always been fair.
As to Ann supporting any sede ideas, I apologize if I was not clear. Ann DOES NOT support sede ideas;she has simply said the sede site Novus Ordo Watch had a lot of good information. By that she meant links to historical documents and such that are all right there at their site. My apologies again to both you and Ann if I was not clear.
As to Ann supporting any sede ideas, I apologize if I was not clear. Ann DOES NOT support sede ideas;she has simply said the sede site Novus Ordo Watch had a lot of good information. By that she meant links to historical documents and such that are all right there at their site. My apologies again to both you and Ann if I was not clear.
Debbie said: "Pastor Aeternus has nothing to do with the length of interregnums ..."
Just because Novus Ordo Watch says it, doesn't make it true.
Perpetuity def: perpetual;· endless or indefinitely
Interregnum def: a period when normal government is suspended.
These two definitions are not compatible, in the way you and NovusOrdoWatch are using them. Quite deceptive, actually: "perpetual with an indefinite, perhaps permanent interregnum". How convenient.
Just because Novus Ordo Watch says it, doesn't make it true.
Perpetuity def: perpetual;· endless or indefinitely
Interregnum def: a period when normal government is suspended.
These two definitions are not compatible, in the way you and NovusOrdoWatch are using them. Quite deceptive, actually: "perpetual with an indefinite, perhaps permanent interregnum". How convenient.
I think Novus Ordo Watch has all the hallmarks of a cult.
Cult def: "a relatively small group of people having religious beliefs or practices regarded by others as strange; a misplaced or excessive admiration for a particular person or thing."
Cult def: "a relatively small group of people having religious beliefs or practices regarded by others as strange; a misplaced or excessive admiration for a particular person or thing."
Aqua, that's why I say read it for yourself. I post these comments on my phone, so long explanations are a bit much....lol.
And I understand your reluctance in not wanting to believe the Church could be so small and the sedes will honestly tell you they don't have ALL the answers, no one does. But at least they don't lie and tell you Francis is Pope. And by lie, I'm not insinuating the SSPX is trying to deceive, but you and I both know they're wrong about this.
And I understand your reluctance in not wanting to believe the Church could be so small and the sedes will honestly tell you they don't have ALL the answers, no one does. But at least they don't lie and tell you Francis is Pope. And by lie, I'm not insinuating the SSPX is trying to deceive, but you and I both know they're wrong about this.
The Church has made a mistake declaring the Seat vacant and filling it
again with Francis. Benedict XVI remains Pope. Their error produced an
antipope.
1- The Seat is not vacant. It is occupied by Benedict.
2 - The heresies of Bergoglio are not relevant, he never received the Divine Holy Office.
3 - The Seat has been filled continuously since 1958 with validly elected Popes.
4 - Any error of any Pope since then has not been demonstrated as directly connected to any particular Pope as “pertinacious”.
5 is No Sedevacantist has ever been able to back up such a substantial claim with evidence starting with John XXIII or any of the next four after.
6 - No Sedevacantist has been able to answer such important questions as Vatican I definitions if perpetuity, other than to contradict it with an “interregnum” which they say respects perpetuity - it does not, esp since this one appears to be permanent by their definitions.
7 - Francis and the Conclave that called them are a mistake. They have happened before, disputes over election mistakes, and have been corrected in time.
8 - Mistakes do not render the end of the Papacy and the Church with it, subsisting only in those with gnostic knowledge of the error - they have happened before.
9 - The Catholic way of resolving disputes, big ones, is to correct from within - as proven by the example of Saint Athanasius in my four part series above.
10 - Gnosis is not the essence of the Gospel or the visible Church left by Christ with guarantees. Sedevacantism is essentially Gnostic, not Catholic, and ultimately barren - it presents a Church already dead except for a new Church of gnostic individual points of light with special knowledge, but without special authority - Gnostic by definition.
1- The Seat is not vacant. It is occupied by Benedict.
2 - The heresies of Bergoglio are not relevant, he never received the Divine Holy Office.
3 - The Seat has been filled continuously since 1958 with validly elected Popes.
4 - Any error of any Pope since then has not been demonstrated as directly connected to any particular Pope as “pertinacious”.
5 is No Sedevacantist has ever been able to back up such a substantial claim with evidence starting with John XXIII or any of the next four after.
6 - No Sedevacantist has been able to answer such important questions as Vatican I definitions if perpetuity, other than to contradict it with an “interregnum” which they say respects perpetuity - it does not, esp since this one appears to be permanent by their definitions.
7 - Francis and the Conclave that called them are a mistake. They have happened before, disputes over election mistakes, and have been corrected in time.
8 - Mistakes do not render the end of the Papacy and the Church with it, subsisting only in those with gnostic knowledge of the error - they have happened before.
9 - The Catholic way of resolving disputes, big ones, is to correct from within - as proven by the example of Saint Athanasius in my four part series above.
10 - Gnosis is not the essence of the Gospel or the visible Church left by Christ with guarantees. Sedevacantism is essentially Gnostic, not Catholic, and ultimately barren - it presents a Church already dead except for a new Church of gnostic individual points of light with special knowledge, but without special authority - Gnostic by definition.
Conclusion: Their mistake simply needs to be corrected, in Catholic
time, in Catholic ways. It does not render the religion invalid.
Athanasius demonstrates the proper way forward in the face of error by
the institutional Church … in this we call it Concilluar.
Arianism was the fourth century's equivalent of the Concilliar Church.
Athanasius' response to that heresy was not to go Sede. That is not
what made him a Saint. He worked from within to correct error over the
span of his life. His focus was on the error itself, not the invalidity
of those holding the error.
Aqua - In reply to your very good question regarding St. Athanasius and
Arianism, I will dig into the sede position on that...so I have no
definitive answer today. But, something that has been in the back of my
mind for years is the Essenes. I've read, but have not been able to
confirm, that it is pious belief that both St. John the Baptist and St.
John the Evangelist were from this sect of the Jews. The Essenes refused
to recognize the High Priests as such because they allowed the Romans
to appoint them each year. OT High Priests like NT popes today were
supposed to keep their positions until death. The Essenes also refused
to offer Sacrifices in the Temple because they deemed it illegitimate.
The Dead Sea Scrolls show they had their own Community Rule and that
they would offer advice and correct the Pharasees in doctrinal issues. I
can't explain why the Essenes have made such an impact on my memory,
but it has and that was long before I'd even consider the sede position.
I was extremely afraid of sedevacantism. I'm no longer afraid of the
position because as I've stated before. IF the VII Church and it's popes
are valid, their teaching on ecumenism and religious liberty would by
default include sedevacantists.
As to the SSPX? Their position is untenable and has no precedence in
Church history. There is no such thing as partial union with Rome.
https://novusordowatch.org/quo-vadis-sspx-2009/
https://novusordowatch.org/quo-vadis-sspx-2009/
Debbie, if you wish to understand the SSPX position on union with Rome,
much better to go to the source, than NOW's interpretation of it.
If you read their explanations, they very carefully connect all their actions, on every issue, to Sacred Tradition. They never just make stuff up. There is precedent for it all, including their explanation for why they accept Bergoglio as Pope Francis. I disagree with their reasons. I don't therefor call them dishonest or liars. Nor do they use such pejoratives against me. They accept my reasoning as within the bounds of the Faith. And I have learned to do the same, in return. Some things are De Fidei, I *must assent*. Other things are not - there is room for disagreement and discussion. That is a Catholic response.
One of the characteristics of one who is fully grounded in Truth, is profound disregard for opposite or differin opinions. It is generally expressed as quiet confidence. I get that vibe from them. They don't play these games, such as we are playing here - trying to understand various possibilities. They already know.
They answer questions. They don't debate them. They're fine.
If you read their explanations, they very carefully connect all their actions, on every issue, to Sacred Tradition. They never just make stuff up. There is precedent for it all, including their explanation for why they accept Bergoglio as Pope Francis. I disagree with their reasons. I don't therefor call them dishonest or liars. Nor do they use such pejoratives against me. They accept my reasoning as within the bounds of the Faith. And I have learned to do the same, in return. Some things are De Fidei, I *must assent*. Other things are not - there is room for disagreement and discussion. That is a Catholic response.
One of the characteristics of one who is fully grounded in Truth, is profound disregard for opposite or differin opinions. It is generally expressed as quiet confidence. I get that vibe from them. They don't play these games, such as we are playing here - trying to understand various possibilities. They already know.
They answer questions. They don't debate them. They're fine.
For example:
"The case of the imaginary schism"
https://sspx.org/en/case-imaginary-schism
- AND, you might find this one interesting, from their Seminary on Pope Francis -
"Unity of Faith with Pope Francis & Canonical Recognition of the SSPX"
https://hcs.fsspx.org/en/news-events/news/unity-faith-pope-francis-canonical-recognition-sspx-30140
"The case of the imaginary schism"
https://sspx.org/en/case-imaginary-schism
- AND, you might find this one interesting, from their Seminary on Pope Francis -
"Unity of Faith with Pope Francis & Canonical Recognition of the SSPX"
https://hcs.fsspx.org/en/news-events/news/unity-faith-pope-francis-canonical-recognition-sspx-30140
Bottom line for me and why i started exploring the sede position: how is
it that I, a lay nothing, can see clearly Bergoglio is an antipope, and
those who I've entrusted my soul to for guidance cannot or will not?
Not only do I have to withdrawal my obedience from who they say is Pope,
but I also have to withdraw my obedience to them who insist he is and
whose job it is to help me save my soul. Doesn't sound Catholic to me.
At. All.
I vehemently disagree with "there is room for disagreement" on the issue
of whether Francis.....FRANCIS...being a true pope. On this point,
Steven O'Reilley might just as well be your spiritual guidance.
So SSPX for Sacraments, I presume, is off the list. It was on the list. Now it's off.
And the world of your religion keeps getting smaller.
And the world of your religion keeps getting smaller.
There's no need for me to drive further than necessary, especially given
the gas prices. As a norm, no, I wouldn't go to SSPX....but I could if
need be. Their apostolic lineage is intact.
Point being: if they're wrong about Bergoglio (and they are - we both agree) what else might they be wrong about?
Point being: if they're wrong about Bergoglio (and they are - we both agree) what else might they be wrong about?
I think that in honesty, you should tell them of your beliefs prior to
receiving Sacraments from them - in detail, hold nothing back.
I have always done this, myself. In six different Parishes, two NO, three different States that I can recall, I have had this conversation in which I fully explained my view on the false abdication and current reigning Pope in a *spirit of submission* to their judgement as guardians of the Holy Sacraments.
An essential part of being Catholic is lawful obedience. When there is a difference, then that needs to be admitted and discussed openly and honestly prior to receiving the Holy Sacraments to ensure the Priest understands you and that there is nothing preventing valid reception.
You have stated your views about SSPX. They might also have views about you. Honesty demands a meeting of minds - Priest to Layity - regardless of consequence.
I have always done this, myself. In six different Parishes, two NO, three different States that I can recall, I have had this conversation in which I fully explained my view on the false abdication and current reigning Pope in a *spirit of submission* to their judgement as guardians of the Holy Sacraments.
An essential part of being Catholic is lawful obedience. When there is a difference, then that needs to be admitted and discussed openly and honestly prior to receiving the Holy Sacraments to ensure the Priest understands you and that there is nothing preventing valid reception.
You have stated your views about SSPX. They might also have views about you. Honesty demands a meeting of minds - Priest to Layity - regardless of consequence.
Debbie said: "... but I also have to withdraw my obedience to them who
insist he is and whose job it is to help me save my soul. Doesn't sound
Catholic to me. At. All."
I am obedient to Pope Benedict. I am obedient to my Priest and the Order from which he comes. I would be obedient, to the extent obedience demanded was lawful, to a NO Priest if I ever attended their Parish. Why? Because I believe the RCC lives on through the Papacy and the unbroken Line of Apostles - through Our Lady and in Our Lord. Only that is the Church. I disagree on the occupant. I fully assent that the Church exists today in the same form as when Christ established it, even though it is beset with great sin among its members.
You, otoh, dont. I think you would disagree with every point of that statement of faith. And I really encourage you to discuss that with your SSPX Priest prior to receiving Sacraments from them - because in my conversations with my Priests ... what I said above is essential to receive the Sacraments in good conscience (I do not presume to judge "state of grace", except in myself, which is why I always have this conversation with my Priest at a new Parish).
I am obedient to Pope Benedict. I am obedient to my Priest and the Order from which he comes. I would be obedient, to the extent obedience demanded was lawful, to a NO Priest if I ever attended their Parish. Why? Because I believe the RCC lives on through the Papacy and the unbroken Line of Apostles - through Our Lady and in Our Lord. Only that is the Church. I disagree on the occupant. I fully assent that the Church exists today in the same form as when Christ established it, even though it is beset with great sin among its members.
You, otoh, dont. I think you would disagree with every point of that statement of faith. And I really encourage you to discuss that with your SSPX Priest prior to receiving Sacraments from them - because in my conversations with my Priests ... what I said above is essential to receive the Sacraments in good conscience (I do not presume to judge "state of grace", except in myself, which is why I always have this conversation with my Priest at a new Parish).
So another new invention from VII Church ....we must profess our
disagreements with those charged to save our souls, instead of
submitting to their advice.
Debbie, to clarify, my obedience to the Priest in NO is the same as that between Arbp LeFebvre and the Pope.
To the extent it was possible in accord with Dogma, and Depositum Fidei he was obedient. To the extent the Pope asked him to accept that which was impossible - dogmas and the Deposit of Faith prevailed. And he did this “to his face”, openly and respectfully in a spirit of obedience to the Pope and all in authority with the Pope … but to Dogma, Deposit of Faith first. Always working toward reconciliation, in truth, in Christ, in openness, truth and submission, but above all in Charity.
To the Priest, to all lawful authority, to the RCC from me Arbp LeFebvre is my model of obedience in the same way as that described above. The principles are identical. Only the scale has changed.
Pax Christi
Aqua
To the extent it was possible in accord with Dogma, and Depositum Fidei he was obedient. To the extent the Pope asked him to accept that which was impossible - dogmas and the Deposit of Faith prevailed. And he did this “to his face”, openly and respectfully in a spirit of obedience to the Pope and all in authority with the Pope … but to Dogma, Deposit of Faith first. Always working toward reconciliation, in truth, in Christ, in openness, truth and submission, but above all in Charity.
To the Priest, to all lawful authority, to the RCC from me Arbp LeFebvre is my model of obedience in the same way as that described above. The principles are identical. Only the scale has changed.
Pax Christi
Aqua
Arbp LeFebvre did not accept the New Mass for reasons that it contained
heresy in its very structure. But he did not thereby declare the Pope
thereby deprived and all those in authority with him. The parallel
with Athanasius and Arianism in the time of Liberius and the Bishops
with him is significant. Their authority and Ordinations remained
valid. I am in total agreement with this model of RC obedient faith -
to Christ first and all that is revealed, once for all, that can never
change or alter. To all lawful authority second, to the extent
authority does not violate that which belongs to God. Render to God
what is God’s.
“8 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.
9 As we said before, so say I now again, if any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.”. (Gal 1: 8,9)
The entire chapter of Galatians centers lawful authority in the unchanging Word and person of Jesus Christ.
Sinful men can and have sinned and disobeyed. We live in a time of sin emergency. And all due caution is required but always in obedience, submission as is appropriate to our state in life to the extent demanded by circumstance *within*, always within RCC - not without.
“8 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.
9 As we said before, so say I now again, if any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.”. (Gal 1: 8,9)
The entire chapter of Galatians centers lawful authority in the unchanging Word and person of Jesus Christ.
Sinful men can and have sinned and disobeyed. We live in a time of sin emergency. And all due caution is required but always in obedience, submission as is appropriate to our state in life to the extent demanded by circumstance *within*, always within RCC - not without.
Aqua, in response to your St. Athanasius claim, know that there are two
editions of Denzinger; one pre-VII and another post and like everything
post VII it is a bastardized edition. I have not read all the various
links within the article, but I did read the John Daly explanation. I
pray you will consider reading it.
God bless and the Virgin protect you and yours,
Debbie
https://novusordowatch.org/2016/11/response-schneider-pope-liberius/
God bless and the Virgin protect you and yours,
Debbie
https://novusordowatch.org/2016/11/response-schneider-pope-liberius/
That's not a response to my Athanasius claim, nor the much more
important central point, which I've now explanned in four seperate
posts.
All you're doing is giving me NovusOrdoWatch links.
It's ok. Partly why I write is to help me understand what I believe myself. I think it through, puzzle it out, listen to opposing views like yours, try to answer key points, and settle on what is true. I don't need you to respond directly. I think it out and write it out.
NovusOrdoWatch link after link ... it seems to me that if this is the source of your understanding of Catholic Faith, that is a dangerous place to be. I give them no more credence than one opinion among many, with definite and clear bias; and zero basis to speak with Apostolic authority.
All you're doing is giving me NovusOrdoWatch links.
It's ok. Partly why I write is to help me understand what I believe myself. I think it through, puzzle it out, listen to opposing views like yours, try to answer key points, and settle on what is true. I don't need you to respond directly. I think it out and write it out.
NovusOrdoWatch link after link ... it seems to me that if this is the source of your understanding of Catholic Faith, that is a dangerous place to be. I give them no more credence than one opinion among many, with definite and clear bias; and zero basis to speak with Apostolic authority.
9:35 AM
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
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]
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.
At the end of 50 years of killing babies and all natural consequential steps that flowed from that perverse logic - we now have a society totally sexually debased and spiritually insane. And here comes our Champion - the mandate of Roe is ended; return to life; continue the fight; sex freak month will be forgotten in due time; The Feast of forerunner of Christ St. John the Baptist, Feast of the Sacred Heart and Life go hand in hand, connected forever. The logic is Divine.
Sex perversity is death - it is not fruitful in any way. That the antipope wears, not just the rainbow symbol of sex perversity, but the rainbow cross - combining anti-church and state - shows how blasphemy rolls off of him like mosquitos from my septic ... it's just the nature of things.
Notice too, antipope Francis does not wear a crucifix. Popes always present our crucified Lord to the world - the merciful heart of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Not this man. His agenda is not in accord with Christ's.