Author Topic: What I believe  (Read 838 times)

Troubled Teen

  • TTF Novice
  • Posts: 88
  • Thanked: 47 times
  • Gender: Male
  • I'm the guy who sucks (plus I got depression)
What I believe
« on: December 08, 2017, 05:12:13 AM »
  • The conciliar popes have been valid popes, both material and formal. The material element of the papacy is a man claiming to be pope; the formal element of the papacy is the public acceptance of this claim by the clergy of the local church of Rome. Bp. Guérard was wrong that the matter of the papacy could exist without the form; this amounts to a denial of the Thomistic doctrine of hylomorphism.
  • The conciliar popes therefore enjoy the essential powers of the Petrine office: they have the power of making doctrinal definitions and even enjoy the privilege of infallibility; they can validly make laws, render judgments and exercise jurisdiction over bishops and the rest of the Church. Morally neutral juridical acts such as Benedict XVI's creation of the Anglican Ordinariate are therefore valid and may even be taken advantage of by the faithful for their spiritual good.
  • Following the Council, Paul VI adopted an increasingly schismatic line of conduct - especially by approving the abolition, in the Latin church, of the liturgical and sacramental rites founded on apostolic tradition and by letting schismatic bishops who had refused his own encyclical on birth control retain their jurisdiction over the faithful - and became increasingly suspect of deviations in the Faith. This could have been grounds for a formal judgment on the part of the orthodox cardinals and Roman clergy. Aside from John Paul I, his successors have outwardly manifested unprecedented deviations in the Faith (with John Paul II and Francis probably qualifying as pure apostates) and have persevered in Paul VI's materially schismatic line of conduct; John Paul II made his commitment to schism even clearer by praying with Jews and pagans and excommunicating Archbishop Lefebvre.
  • Bishops, priests and laypeople have been justified in separating from these popes and in breaking liturgical communion with them, both because the axiom where the pope is, there is the Church only holds when the pope acts as pope and head of the Church (which hasn't been true since Paul VI refused to deal with the contracepting bishops) and because we have a duty to avoid heretics even before a formal judgment; the rupture of liturgical communion is even preferable since the words "una cum summo Pontifice nostro" etc. imply communion in faith with the pope in question. That separation is the right path has been verified by Providence, which has seen to it that the soundest portions of the Church (at least in Francophone countries; I can't speak for the entire world) have been those which have materially separated from Rome from the 1970s onwards.
  • Infallible safety (which as far as I know is taught only by Franzelin and Billot) and the so-called indefectibility of the Magisterium are irrelevant here. Non-infallible "authentic" teaching must be considered to be reliable because of the pope's presumed objective will to do the good of the Church and because he normally enjoys the assistance of the Holy Ghost in his office as head teacher; however, this objective will to do the good of the Church cannot be presumed of the last few popes given their outwardly manifested heresy and schism and because the duty to learn from the pope does not apply to a pope who outwardly deviates in the Faith.
  • A heretic, schismatic or apostate lacks the authority to canonize saints; Providence has indicated to us that post-conciliar canonizations are not to be heeded by allowing the process of canonization to be changed so as to permit the canonization of men who lacked an unquestioned public reputation for sanctity.
  • Infallibility belong to the Petrine office as such and is independent of the worthiness of the occupant of the office; Humanae Vitae and Ordinatio Sacerdotalis, the only documents of the post-conciliar magisterium which contained infallible statements, were orthodox. While I think that the abomination of desolation in the Holy Place may take the form of a sacrilegious dogmatic definition (for example, defining that the Scriptures do not oblige one to accept Jesus as the Messiah), this will have to be preceded by a formal self-deposition (for example "I hereby renounce Christ and join the Noachide religion"). Bergoglio's permission of communion for the divorced and remarried may be the type and image of a future self-deposition.
  • The Novus Ordo Missae is not heterodox in itself, but it is an evil rite due to the removal of so many elements which had been added to protect the faith of Catholics. The Vatican II documents in themselves are not heretical and were not promulgated infallibly, but promulgating them without purging all errors (most of the orthodox bishops, including Paul VI, were satisfied with the addition of statements which to an extent neutralized the most perverse affirmations) was a grave scandal which endangered the faith. There are other aspects of Vatican II which make it truly the Devil's council. The new rites of ordination and episcopal consecration are valid; in the latter, the words "spiritus principalis" univocally designate the episcopate, even if this was not the case in the spurious documents which were used as the basis for the rite.
  • The Pod People did not land in Rome in 1963; the Council and much of its immediate aftermath were the fruits of a gradual corruption of the priesthood which popes have not been exempt from. Religious Liberty is the outcome of the innumerable political errors of popes since at least the time of the French Revolution; the Liturgical Reform is the outcome of an increasingly centralized approach to liturgy which becomes apparent in the anti-traditional breviary reforms of so many popes since the Council of Trent; the persecution of Archbishop Lefebvre was prefigured by the persecution of sacerdotal heroes such as Fr. Lacouture and Fr. Feeney, which would have been impossible without the cooperation of Rome. The cleanest breaks with the past came in 1965 with the promulgation of the documents of Vatican II (though Vatican II was the work of the pre-Vatican II Church) and in 1978 with the rigged election of John Paul II, a frightfully evil man who presided over an unprecedented period of moral and spiritual rot while basking in the attention of women and the glow of celebrity.
  • We live not in an interregnum, but in an objective worldwide state of necessity. A 50-year interregnum would not legitimize traditionalist actions such as the formation of non-canonical Mass centers. The first duty of priests is to help the faithful who might vanish into heresy without the help of the Sacraments and sound preaching; no authority can dispense them of this duty or command them to do otherwise. The salvation of souls is the supreme law.
  • Practical sedevacantism is necessary; formal sedevacantism is evil; considered in itself, it is inherently schismatic just as protestantism is inherently heretical. Formal sedevacantism turns each individual's layman's notion of "tradition" into a rule of faith (analogous to the attitudes of the most sectarian members of the Eastern Orthodox churches), negating the very possibility of infallible teaching and destroying the unity willed by Christ.
  • The deposition of Francis by a part of the Cardinals or the Roman clergy would probably be lawful and valid; nonetheless, such a measure would most likely be of limited utility since the Ratzingerian cardinals would be expected to elect a Ratzingerian just like themselves.
  • At the root of almost every schism is the submission of pastors to secular power. Many schisms in the East arose through the despotic control exercised by Byzantine emperors over the Church; the 1054 schism was facilitated by the weakness of popes in the face of the so-called Holy Roman Emperors; the extant Greek and Russian schisms came about through the interference of the Turkish and Muscovite princes respectively; the Anglican church was forcibly severed from Catholic unity by an act of parliament. In our time, the secular power behind the de facto modernist schism is international Jewry.

So, essentially, I am a sedeprivationist, with the caveat that I utterly reject the heretical notion of a purely material pope. I believe that this is the only attitude which allows us to remain traditional while retaining an integral faith in the divine promises to Peter and his successors. Criticize away!
"Man knoweth not whether he be worthy of love, or hatred." - Ecclesiastes 9:1

"In the present time the directive is to stick to the essentials of Christianity: to flee the world, believe in Christ, do all the good that one can, strive for detachment from created things, avoid false prophets and remember death." - Fr. Leonardo Castellani
 

Mithrandylan

  • Administrator
  • TTF Apprentice
  • *****
  • Posts: 445
  • Thanked: 276 times
  • Gender: Male
  • Divínum auxílium ✝ máneat semper nobíscum
Re: What I believe
« Reply #1 on: December 08, 2017, 10:15:10 AM »
Interesting to see you take the schism rather than heresy route (as proximate cause/evil of the crisis).  Your view seems to be "classic 1970s SSPX."

Though nowhere have you explained how these popes-- whose acts you call heretical and schismatical-- remain in the Church.  That's the rub, I would say.  "How can he be the head of that which he is not a member, etc.?"

Quote
The new rites of ordination and episcopal consecration are valid; in the latter, the words "spiritus principalis" univocally designate the episcopate, even if this was not the case in the spurious documents which were used as the basis for the rite.

Am I to understand that the reasoning here is that since Paul VI was pope, it follows that "spiritus principalis" simply gains "benefit of the doubt" as univocal, despite what some may say-- that it is inherently ambiguous, failing of itself to effectively communicate both the power of Order and Grace of the Holy Ghost?

Quote
The Pod People did not land in Rome in 1963; the Council and much of its immediate aftermath were the fruits of a gradual corruption of the priesthood which popes have not been exempt from. Religious Liberty is the outcome of the innumerable political errors of popes since at least the time of the French Revolution; the Liturgical Reform is the outcome of an increasingly centralized approach to liturgy which becomes apparent in the anti-traditional breviary reforms of so many popes since the Council of Trent; the persecution of Archbishop Lefebvre was prefigured by the persecution of sacerdotal heroes such as Fr. Lacouture and Fr. Feeney, which would have been impossible without the cooperation of Rome. The cleanest breaks with the past came in 1965 with the promulgation of the documents of Vatican II (though Vatican II was the work of the pre-Vatican II Church) and in 1978 with the rigged election of John Paul II, a frightfully evil man who presided over an unprecedented period of moral and spiritual rot while basking in the attention of women and the glow of celebrity.

Well this is the "historical precedent" argument which basically naturalizes everything.  It's a fair observation (whether right or wrong) in the sense that it presents a believable causality of events and the sentiments they developed.  But it's a theologically empty argument.  One doesn't sympathize with the Fraticelli just because there were abuses, after all, and one would not truly lay blame on the Church for reactive heretics.  I do think that the world changed radically after Trent, because it was then on a religiously anarchaic trajectory; popes had not yet lived, in fifteen hundred years, in a world where religious authority meant nil.  That the Church survived at all is owed to providence, guiding and preserving a truly divine institution.

Quote
essentially, I am a sedeprivationist, with the caveat that I utterly reject the heretical notion of a purely material pope.

That's like saying I'm essentially a sedevacantist, except with the caveat that I utterly reject the heretical notion that Paul VI-onward aren't true popes  :o

Do you really think that sedeprivationism is heretical?  Holymorphism isn't a doctrine.  It's in kind of a weird area, being true, but being relegated to the realm of professional scholasticism.  You can't have your philosophers or scholastics denying it, but if they did, they'd just be removed from their teaching posts, not censured (I don't think).  des Lauriers was a formidable Thomist, don't you think he'd have rejected sedeprivationism if he thought it denied holymorphism?

I wear it for a memorable honor,
For I am Welsh, you know, good countryman.
 
The following users thanked this post: Troubled Teen, Joe Cupertino

TKGS

Re: What I believe
« Reply #2 on: December 08, 2017, 10:30:03 AM »
I truly don't see the difference between your view of the Church (and the pope) and the view of your average run-of-the-mill Baptist.
 
The following users thanked this post: Troubled Teen, Mysterium Fidei, MyrnaM, annamack

Nick

  • In necessariis unitas, in dubiis libertas, in omnibus caritas.
  • TTF Novice
  • Posts: 121
  • Thanked: 83 times
  • Gender: Male
  • Memento Mori
Re: What I believe
« Reply #3 on: December 08, 2017, 12:46:14 PM »
"essentially, I am a sedeprivationist, with the caveat that I utterly reject the heretical notion of a purely material pope.

That's like saying I'm essentially a sedevacantist, except with the caveat that I utterly reject the heretical notion that Paul VI-onward aren't true popes  "

T.T. this is too funny, but only because it's true.
You really should consider hooking up with Fr Chazel at the Bamboo Seminary.
He'd have you " impounded" before your head even stopped spinning over his sheltering of fr Kramer.  :drinking:
"Now when [a pope] 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, and must say as St. Peter did: Let another take his bishopric.".      St. Francis de Sales.
 
The following users thanked this post: Mithrandylan

Troubled Teen

  • TTF Novice
  • Posts: 88
  • Thanked: 47 times
  • Gender: Male
  • I'm the guy who sucks (plus I got depression)
Re: What I believe
« Reply #4 on: December 11, 2017, 01:28:29 AM »
My position is indeed very similar to the early SSPX view; unfortunately Archbishop Lefebvre did not clearly understand the duty of separating from heretics or its application to post-Vatican II popes at the time, which resulted in some very bitter fruits. Had he done so he would never have bothered to seek "reconciliation" with John Paul II and we'd be living in a different world with a lot more pre-1955 liturgy and a lot less trad internecine warfare.

Yet, can Lefebvre be blamed for seeking reconciliation with heretics when Pius VII gave an atheistic regime authority over local churches? Seeking to understand how the Church sunk to its present state of abjection cannot be considered a vain or naturalistic undertaking!

Some further thoughts and answers to questions follow.

On Church membership - It's not necessary, in my view, for the conciliar popes to remain in the Church to remain valid occupants of the See of Peter - all that's needed is unanimous toleration on the part of the Roman clergy as a visible moral body. According to numerous authors (some of whom apply this principle to the question of a heretical pope), jurisdiction can be validly, though seldom licitly, exercised by one who has inwardly left the Church and manifests this outwardly. If Cum ex apostolatus remains in force, the document does not imply that laymen have a right to judge that a man elected pope according to the laws of the Church and accepted as such by the Roman clergy is no more pope than their grandmother or their cat, which would be absurd. It does impose the duty of either clearing up all doubts or electing a new pope on those men who have, by divine right, the power of giving the Church a pope.

On Holy Orders - In the context of the 1968 ordinal, the words spiritus principalis unambiguously designate the Holy Ghost granting the grace of the episcopate. This is clear from the fact that the rite was based on the work of Dom Bottte, who strenuously defended such a view, and from the fact that the 1968 ordinal specifically singles out this part of the rite (after the manner of Pius XII's Sacramentum Ordinis) as the essential form required for validity. If the words spiritus principalis were previously inadequate as a form for episcopal consecration, they acquired a valid determination through their inclusion in a rite by authors who understood these words as having a specific, wholly adequate meaning - which is true whether or not the text of pseudo-Hippolytus was ever used to consecrate bishops and whether or not Paul VI was even a valid pope.

On Vatican II - Many documents of Vatican II teach doctrines which were formally and definitively condemned by previous pontiffs, if not outright material heresy. It could be said that Paul VI put the Church in a state of sin by ordering that these errors be taught, inviting the wrath of God and setting off a chain of events which will no doubt culminate in a catastrophe such as the destruction of Rome by Islamists. However, even the worst document of the lot - Dignitatus Humanae, which sanctions despotic control over the Church by the state while disapproving of the use of state power to defend the true religion, sacrificing Christian society on the altar of a utopian anthropology - falls short of making certain and irrevocable doctrinal definitions.

On sedeprivationism - Of all the theories invented to explain the present status of the papacy, the Cassiciacum thesis is by far the loopiest. Contrary to what is often claimed, The Thesis™ was not meant to "save" the perpetuity of apostolic succession, but to "save" the doctrine of the infallibility of papal elections and get around what Bp. Guérard saw as doctrinal definitions in the documents of Vatican II. In other words, The Thesis™ allows anyone to refuse doctrinal definitions coming from a man who shows all the certain signs of having been validly elected pope and of having retained the office, provided that they make a claim that such a man lacked the objective will do do the good of the Church. It's therefore heretical in principle just as formal sedevacantism is schismatic in principle. Add to that the metaphysical absurdity of a being which is materially x but not formally x, and you have a fine example of how unprecedented crises can lead even brilliant and holy men astray.

The term "sedeprivationism" is sometimes used to describe the view that the conciliar popes have retained some kind of title to the papacy while being deprived of the full extent of papal power; that's the sense in which I meant it when I applied the word to myself.

On mission - I would describe so-called "traditional clergy" as (generally) having an imperfect mission rather than an implicit mission or no mission at all. While the Council of Trent did condemn the notion that unsent clergy are ministers of the Church, such condemnations are to be understood in the precise sense in which they were meant; I know of no evidence that this condemnation concerns situations in which violations of the written law are sanctioned by the very nature of law.

I truly don't see the difference between your view of the Church (and the pope) and the view of your average run-of-the-mill Baptist.

Just your typical Baptist stuff! :pot:

EDIT - Corrected a typo.
« Last Edit: December 11, 2017, 05:48:33 PM by Troubled Teen »
"Man knoweth not whether he be worthy of love, or hatred." - Ecclesiastes 9:1

"In the present time the directive is to stick to the essentials of Christianity: to flee the world, believe in Christ, do all the good that one can, strive for detachment from created things, avoid false prophets and remember death." - Fr. Leonardo Castellani
 

Nick

  • In necessariis unitas, in dubiis libertas, in omnibus caritas.
  • TTF Novice
  • Posts: 121
  • Thanked: 83 times
  • Gender: Male
  • Memento Mori
Re: What I believe
« Reply #5 on: December 11, 2017, 04:53:53 AM »
Where's a "eating popcorn" emoticon when you want one ?

I do find it interesting that you decry the Cassiciacum Thesis as being the "most loopy" whilst applying the sedeprivationist theory to yourself. I'm not too good at picking up the differences between them, I'd actually find it hard to tell them apart.
« Last Edit: December 11, 2017, 05:06:59 AM by Nick »
"Now when [a pope] 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, and must say as St. Peter did: Let another take his bishopric.".      St. Francis de Sales.
 

Mithrandylan

  • Administrator
  • TTF Apprentice
  • *****
  • Posts: 445
  • Thanked: 276 times
  • Gender: Male
  • Divínum auxílium ✝ máneat semper nobíscum
Re: What I believe
« Reply #6 on: December 11, 2017, 10:45:00 AM »
Where's a "eating popcorn" emoticon when you want one ?

I do find it interesting that you decry the Cassiciacum Thesis as being the "most loopy" whilst applying the sedeprivationist theory to yourself. I'm not too good at picking up the differences between them, I'd actually find it hard to tell them apart.

In practice, a sedeprivationist is indistinguishable from a sedevacantist.  The difference is a theoretical one with certain implications of "where do we go from here?" 

Pretty sure TT was being tongue in cheek with his "sedeprivationist without the sedeprivationism" comment.  Because there's nothing about what he believes that is uniquely sedeprivationist.
I wear it for a memorable honor,
For I am Welsh, you know, good countryman.
 
The following users thanked this post: Nick

Mithrandylan

  • Administrator
  • TTF Apprentice
  • *****
  • Posts: 445
  • Thanked: 276 times
  • Gender: Male
  • Divínum auxílium ✝ máneat semper nobíscum
Re: What I believe
« Reply #7 on: December 11, 2017, 11:13:42 AM »
On Church membership - It's not necessary, in my view, for the conciliar popes to remain in the Church to remain valid occupants of the See of Peter - all that's needed is unanimous toleration on the part of the Roman clergy as a visible moral body. According to numerous authors (some of whom apply this principle to the question of a heretical pope), jurisdiction can be validly, though seldom licitly, exercised by one who has inwardly left the Church and manifests this outwardly. If Cum ex apostolatus remains in force, the document does not imply that laymen have a right to judge that a man elected pope according to the laws of the Church and accepted as such by the Roman clergy is no more pope than their grandmother or their cat, which would be absurd. It does impose the duty of either clearing up all doubts or electing a new pope on those men who have, by divine right, the power of giving the Church a pope.

What authors teach that jurisdiction can be "validly but illicitly" exercised by non-members?  If you're talking about Miaskiewicz and the implications of supplied jurisdiction, that's wholly different from them remaining occupants who, as a matter of course, possess the required jurisdiction to do such and such a thing.  I would agree that there's nothing in principle preventing an anti-pope from having the necessary jurisdiction supplied for this or that action, but if we're talking about a supply of jurisdiction it's only because the man wouldn't otherwise have the necessary jurisdiction.

Don't see what CEOA has to do with it.  It's not "on the books" though its iteration of the divine law-- that non-members cannot hold office-- is of course still "on the books" and it would be even if there never was any CEOA.  As Bellarmine says, the fathers are not only unanimously agreed on the incompatability of a heretic and an office, but also unanimously agree not on the grounds of any human law for their arguments, "but on the very nature of heresy."

But I guess more to the point, if they're popes, and if their actions are lawful, and if none of their teachings are actually wrong, then there's no crisis.  And if that's the case, alleluia!  But that's a really hard case to make, and one which people tend to only succeed in making by ignoring reality.

Quote from: TroubledTeen
On Holy Orders - In the context of the 1968 ordinal, the words spiritus principalis unambiguously designate the Holy Ghost granting the grace of the episcopate. This is clear from the fact that the rite was based on the work of Dom Bottte, who strenuously defended such a view, and from the fact that the 1968 ordinal specifically singles out this part of the rite (after the manner of Pius XII's Sacramentum Ordinis) as the essential form required for validity. If the words spiritus principalis were previously inadequate as a form for episcopal consecration, they acquired a valid determination through their inclusion in a rite by authors who understood these words as having a specific, wholly adequate meaning - which is true whether or not the text of pseudo-Hippolytus was ever used to consecrate bishops and whether or not Paul VI was even a valid pope.

Spiritus pricipalis very well may unambiguously designate something, the problem is that it needs to unambiguously designate two distinct things.  The power of order and the grace of the Holy Ghost.  The NREC only speaks of one power given by the "governing spirit," and IMO it fails to distinctively communicate what power that is, but even if we resolve that difficulty, we are left with the fact that there is still only one thing conferred by this expression, when Pope Pius XII requires two.

I also don't share your confidence in the rite as though it would be valid even if Paul VI wasn't pope.  In fact, I think that at the end of the day, the doubts about Paul VI's papacy are of themselves the most powerful arguments about the doubtful nature of the NREC.  If he's pope, then there's no room to argue about the validity of these rites, since a true pope is absolutely protected from issuing impious, and certainly protected from issuing invalid or doubtfully valid sacramental rites. 
 
Quote from: TroubledTeen
On Vatican II - Many documents of Vatican II teach doctrines which were formally and definitively condemned by previous pontiffs, if not outright material heresy. It could be said that Paul VI put the Church in a state of sin by ordering that these errors be taught, inviting the wrath of God and setting off a chain of events which will no doubt culminate in a catastrophe such as the destruction of Rome by Islamists. However, even the worst document of the lot - Dignitatus Humanae, which sanctions despotic control over the Church by the state while disapproving of the use of state power to defend the true religion, sacrificing Christian society on the altar of a utopian anthropology - falls short of making certain and irrevocable doctrinal definitions.

I appreciate the argument-- "Classic" SSPX, that since (and including) Vatican II, no magisterial teaching has occurred, because since then, the popes and his officers have not used the customary language and methods of binding faithful to a particular belief.  But how this is an argument in favor of their legitimacy escapes me.  As I see it, this is just another proof of them not having the power and authority they (barely) claim to have.

On the other hand, one who argues as you are, cannot entirely crouch behind the general deviation from traditional formulations in teaching methods.  What an ecumenical council is does not change, and that ecumenical councils are then incorporated into the ordinary magisterium does not change, either.  The clearest proof of Vatican II's unorthodoxy is the fact that the world's bishops left the council and then taught the so-called "Spirit of Vatican II" to the faithful, and incorporated it into all of their actions. 

Quote from: Troubled Teen
On sedeprivationism - Of all the theories invented to explain the present status of the papacy, the Cassiciacum thesis is by far the loopiest. Contrary to what is often claimed, The Thesis™ was not meant to "save" the perpetuity of apostolic succession, but to "save" the doctrine of the infallibility of papal elections and get around what Bp. Guérard saw as doctrinal definitions in the documents of Vatican II. In other words, The Thesis™ allows anyone to refuse doctrinal definitions coming from a man who shows all the certain signs of having been validly elected pope and of haivng retained the office, provided that they make a claim that such a man lacked the objective will do do the good of the Church. It's therefore heretical in principle just as formal sedevacantism is schismatic in principle. Add to that the metaphysical absurdity of a being which is materially x but not formally x, and you have a fine example of how unprecedented crises can lead even brilliant and holy men astray.

Since I'm not a sedeprivationist and since I agree that it's loopy, I don't have any interest in defending it.  These men are no more material popes than a pile of sawdust is a material table. 

Although from where do you get the impression that the purpose of the thesis is to justify resistance?  The prevailing opinion of people who seem to know about sedeprivationism (but who aren't sedeprivationists) seem to be agreed that its purpose is to maintain apostolicity, and also to give a short route to restoration.  On this second point sedeprivationism enjoys no special privelege since the universal acceptance of a man as pope would be clear enough proof that he is one, and we can figure out how that happened after the fact.  Or not, even (e.g. Felix and Liberius).

Stupid to say sedevacantism is "schismatic in principle," since in principle schism can only exist where there is a true and undoubted authority (not to mention the will to disobey him). 

Quote from: TroubledTeen
The term "sedeprivationism" is sometimes used to describe the view that the conciliar popes have retained some kind of title to the papacy while being deprived of the full extent of papal power; that's the sense in which I meant it when I applied the word to myself.

I fail to see how anything you've said amounts to them lacking any power?

Quote from: TroubledTeen
On mission - I would describe so-called "traditional clergy" as (generally) having an imperfect mission rather than an implicit mission or no mission at all. While the Council of Trent did condemn the notion that unsent clergy are ministers of the Church, such condemnations are to be understood in the precise sense in which they were meant; I know of no evidence that this condemnation concerns situations in which violations of the written law are sanctioned by the very nature of law.

Nor do I, so I would agree with the categorization, as imperfect (ha) as it may be.
I wear it for a memorable honor,
For I am Welsh, you know, good countryman.
 
The following users thanked this post: Nick, Troubled Teen, Joe Cupertino

Troubled Teen

  • TTF Novice
  • Posts: 88
  • Thanked: 47 times
  • Gender: Male
  • I'm the guy who sucks (plus I got depression)
Re: What I believe
« Reply #8 on: December 11, 2017, 03:54:21 PM »
The reason I brought up Cum ex apostolatus was to clarify how I understand the incompatibility by divine right of heresy and occupying offices in the Church. My contention is that John Paul II, Benedict XVI and Francis have been valid but illegitimate popes; the only thing Francis can do in right is to provide for the election of an orthodox successor and then resign. As laymen in North America, we can make a personal judgment of formal heresy and of loss of office in right, but until a part of the Roman clergy certify that such a deposition has taken place - for example by severing liturgical communion with Francis in a public way - we cannot make a formal judgment of loss of office in fact.

I agree that it makes no difference whether or not Cum ex is still on the books, since the moral principles which it enshrined in law remain exactly the same.

The relative paucity of irreformable doctrinal definitions in the papal magisterium from the Council onwards and its overall unreliability (I do not deny that the Vatican II documents taught and are hence part of the papal magisterium, only that they defined doctrine irreformably), the reality that since the mid-1970s the pars sana of the Church has been that which has remained in material separation from Rome (as Archbishop Lefebvre's very edifying declarations on traditionalists and the visibility of the Church remind us) and the many acts of communicatio in sacris with infidels on the part of John Paul II and his successors are all signs - I would even say certain signs - that these men have been formal heretics and have lost any right to the papal office. They do not however indicate a deposition ipso facto, which is not a judgment we are competent to make.

Billot counts as occult heretics even those who manifest their heresy outwardly but who have not become declared heretics by being denounced as such by Church authority or by formally joining a heretical or schismatic sect. Given that Billot was such a faithful follower of Bellarmine, this must have been Bellarmine's idea as well - and Bellarmine considers occult heretics juridical members of the Church. Garrigou-Lagrange, following Billuart (who was the first to put forward the universal acceptance of a pope as a certain sign of legitimacy) proposes that a formally heretical pope would retain his office if he were tolerated by the Church. Suarez points out that a heretic or schismatic is held by all to validly exercise jurisdiction in some cases such as absolving penitents. Herve also hypothesizes that schismatic Eastern Rite bishops enjoy tacit grants of jurisdiction, and so on and so forth.

Archbishop Cushing denied a dogma and could easily be seen as having left the Church, but Pius XII maintained him in his jurisdiction and even excommunicated his leading critic.

The Gallican bishops were so fierce in their theorized opposition to papal authority that they can easily be considered heretics or schismatics; nonetheless, in practice they remained loyal and were maintained in their jurisdiction by the popes.

A few more things...

1) That Bp. Guérard did not come up with his thesis as a way of "saving" the perpetuity of apostolic succession is proven by his private conviction - I was able to confirm this with a priest who had worked at the St. Pius V chapel in Rennes, where many of the faithful had known Bp. Guérard - that John Paul II was not even a material pope and that material apostolic succession would probably cease in the Conciliar Church.

2) That the words spiritus principalis designate both the power of orders and the grace of the Holy Ghost is proven by the fact that this is the sense in which they were meant by the authors of the rite. Furthermore, prior to Sacramentum ordinis the words accipe Spiritum sanctum were widely held to be the essential form of the rite, which were given a valid determination by the rest of the rite. Add to that Leo XIII's affirmation that some of the prayers in the Anglican ordinal might have sufficed as a valid form in a Catholic rite approved by the Church, and one can exclude reasonable fear that the 1968 rite fails to communicate the power of orders. That it was approved by a pope who gave all the certain signs of having been validly elected and of having validly retained his jurisdiction allows one to exclude even unreasonable fear.

Note that this does not apply to translations imposed by the schismatic episcopal conferences, which may well be invalid; nor does it exclude the reasonable or unreasonable fear that the rite was improperly performed (given the heteropraxis of the Conciliar Church, which exceeds even the heteropraxis of protestant sects at times where conditional baptism of converts from protestantism was a universal norm).

3) I agree that the overwhelming majority of formal sedevacantists have no schismatic intent - most are just trying to make sense of a world in which Rome seems to have totally lost the Faith, and even apply some Catholic principles in a sounder way than the SSPX or those who have remained in the Conciliar Church - but this has led them to an embrace of schismatic principles which often turns them sectarian in practice. It almost seems to take heroic effort for a sedevacantist not to succumb to the temptation of partaking in a sectarian spirit.

I fail to see how anything you've said amounts to them lacking any power?

How else would you describe the view that John Paul II and his successors have been valid popes with the essential powers of the papal office but have lacked any legitimate authority over the faithful?

EDIT - Somewhere I said "unreasonable fear" when I meant to say "reasonable fear".
« Last Edit: December 11, 2017, 05:37:48 PM by Troubled Teen »
"Man knoweth not whether he be worthy of love, or hatred." - Ecclesiastes 9:1

"In the present time the directive is to stick to the essentials of Christianity: to flee the world, believe in Christ, do all the good that one can, strive for detachment from created things, avoid false prophets and remember death." - Fr. Leonardo Castellani
 
The following users thanked this post: Nick

TKGS

Re: What I believe
« Reply #9 on: December 11, 2017, 04:22:30 PM »
Just your typical Baptist stuff! :pot:

Now you sound Anglican.

I think Thomas More's comment (as dramatized in A Man for All Seasons) is applicable to you:

Quote
Two years ago you were a passionate churchman.  Now you're a passionate Lutheran. We must just pray that when your head's finished turning... your face is to the front again.

Though I'm not sure about what you were two years ago.
 
The following users thanked this post: annamack