It is currently Mon Jun 17, 2019 2:01 am




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 23 posts ] 
 Why must the Church depose a heretical pope? 
Author Message

Joined: Fri Oct 28, 2011 3:40 am
Posts: 438
Location: Tucson, Arizona
New post Why must the Church depose a heretical pope?
St. Francis de Sales doesn't just say, in his The Catholic Controversy p. 306:
Quote:
Now when he [a pope] is explicitly a heretic, he falls ipso facto from his dignity and out of the Church…
but he continues, saying:
Quote:
…and the Church must either deprive him, or, as some say, declare him deprived, of his Apostolic See, and must say as S. Peter did: Let another take his bishopric.
Why must the Church do this? This seems to imply he retains his bishopric—that he's materially pope but formally not, as sedeprivationism holds.

_________________
«The Essence & Topicality of Thomism»: http://ar.gy/5AaP
by Fr. Réginald Garrigou-Lagrange, O.P.
e-Book: bit.ly/1iDkMAw

Modernism: modernism. us.to
blog: sententiaedeo.blogspot. com
Aristotelian Thomism: scholastic. us.to


Wed Oct 22, 2014 8:04 pm
Profile E-mail
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post Re: Why must the Church depose a heretical pope?
Alan Aversa wrote:
St. Francis de Sales doesn't just say, in his The Catholic Controversy p. 306:
Quote:
Now when he [a pope] is explicitly a heretic, he falls ipso facto from his dignity and out of the Church…
but he continues, saying:
Quote:
…and the Church must either deprive him, or, as some say, declare him deprived, of his Apostolic See, and must say as S. Peter did: Let another take his bishopric.
Why must the Church do this? This seems to imply he retains his bishopric—that he's materially pope but formally not, as sedeprivationism holds.


The expression is either a relative necessity or an absolute one. If the former (as I think), it is merely pointing out that a non-pope claiming the papacy and potentially fooling most of the Church, causing a schism, etc, would be intolerable and he must physically be removed etc., and further, that in order to avoid subsequent schisms and doubts, some kind of legal action ought to make manifest to all that the See is vacant to clear the way for a new election.

If the latter (an absolute necessity), then St. Francis is saying that the man is no longer pope but he must removed from the papacy or he remains pope? Absurdity!

Sedeprivationism is a post-Vatican II novelty.

_________________
In Christ our King.


Wed Oct 22, 2014 11:33 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Thu Oct 27, 2011 5:14 pm
Posts: 210
New post Re: Why must the Church depose a heretical pope?
John Lane wrote:
Alan Aversa wrote:
St. Francis de Sales doesn't just say, in his The Catholic Controversy p. 306:
Quote:
Now when he [a pope] is explicitly a heretic, he falls ipso facto from his dignity and out of the Church…
but he continues, saying:
Quote:
…and the Church must either deprive him, or, as some say, declare him deprived, of his Apostolic See, and must say as S. Peter did: Let another take his bishopric.
Why must the Church do this? This seems to imply he retains his bishopric—that he's materially pope but formally not, as sedeprivationism holds.


The expression is either a relative necessity or an absolute one. If the former (as I think), it is merely pointing out that a non-pope claiming the papacy and potentially fooling most of the Church, causing a schism, etc, would be intolerable and he must physically be removed etc., and further, that in order to avoid subsequent schisms and doubts, some kind of legal action ought to make manifest to all that the See is vacant to clear the way for a new election.

If the latter (an absolute necessity), then St. Francis is saying that the man is no longer pope but he must removed from the papacy or he remains pope? Absurdity!

Sedeprivationism is a post-Vatican II novelty.


It is not a heretical novelty, so if anything it is unharmful speculation. Have you written or know someone who has gone a bit deeper into sedeprivationism? Would love to read it, thanks.

_________________
Laudare, Benedicere et predicare...
Bitcoin donations: 15aKZ5oPzRWVubqgSceK6DifzwtzJ6MRpv


Wed Oct 22, 2014 11:37 pm
Profile E-mail
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post Re: Why must the Church depose a heretical pope?
Jorge Armendariz wrote:


It is not a heretical novelty, so if anything it is unharmful speculation. Have you written or know someone who has gone a bit deeper into sedeprivationism? Would love to read it, thanks.


No, it's a pretty poverty-stricken intellectual stream. The literature hardly exists!

It's not harmless speculation, it's a very clear way of rejecting the doctrine of Bellarmine, which is the doctrine of "all of the Fathers" - the constant tradition of Holy Church.

_________________
In Christ our King.


Thu Oct 23, 2014 12:21 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Thu Oct 27, 2011 5:14 pm
Posts: 210
New post Re: Why must the Church depose a heretical pope?
John Lane wrote:
Jorge Armendariz wrote:


It is not a heretical novelty, so if anything it is unharmful speculation. Have you written or know someone who has gone a bit deeper into sedeprivationism? Would love to read it, thanks.


No, it's a pretty poverty-stricken intellectual stream. The literature hardly exists!

It's not harmless speculation, it's a very clear way of rejecting the doctrine of Bellarmine, which is the doctrine of "all of the Fathers" - the constant tradition of Holy Church.


Sedeprivationism is a semi-sedevacantism with a few modifications. They are truly practical sedevacantists in every single sense of the term. Many like to think of the SSPX as being practical sedevacantists, I would say that this is largely untrue.

Most of the SSPX faithful, go to the Novus Ordo for confessions. How is that practical sedevacantism? This included yours truly, the difference maybe between me and my other sedeplenist brothers. Is that I only confessed to those who actually possessed the Catholic faith (most of them go to any Novus Ordo priest, despite them good or bad), and I only knew of one in my own hometown. They keep the one hour fast, follow the new code in all matters of discipline and only exclude 1% of the text. This was one of the initial difficulties I experienced, with some that I spoke who were in the Novus Ordo and trying to come to tradition. They would rightly remark, how everyone they see in the chapel they see them all the time in different parishes of the Conciliar Church. Everywhere, no exceptions. I am not trying to bash on them, just pointing out the obvious problems with sedeplenism... If you believe that these men are truly priest, then only the most principled ones would make sure that they are not just valid, but if they have the gift of faith also. Just look at the resistance, it largely reflects the community of those that do not recourse to the Novus ordo for sacraments... They are tiny compared to the total number of faithful, and even those in the resistance are not in principle against getting confession with Novus Ordo clergy, they would be just like me and make sure that its a non modernist/non compromising "priest." Only very few among the resistance believe that one should not out of principle, EVER recourse to men, who have at best doubtful sacraments. They consider it for the most part, simply an opinion... Nothing more, similar to how you like blueberries or banana's. To them a theological opinion, is of no consequences to those who reject/approve a different stance. It is more of an academic exercise, then a spiritual guide to serious moral questions, such as where do you go for sacraments?

With rare exception, they all believe in the validity of the new rites, and the new mass. This is not practical sedevacantism... Not even close...

Now sedeprivationists, are truly sedevacantist in all practical aspects. Now the day they abandon sedeprivationism, then its another story. Similar to the case of the Society of St. Vincent Ferrer, whereby because of their non-Bellarmine/Church stance. They succumbed to the Novus Ordo pull, because they lacked a bit of common sense as is the common opinion of the Father's when it comes to heresy.

No sedeprivationist that remains a sedeprivationist, will ever suffer the possibility of being infected by the Conciliar Church. People are free to change opinions, and they often do change them, but this would be dishonest to say that the SSVF is sedeprivationist... Just as there are many who have left SV'ism and joined the indult, because of a bad independent priest or whatever their motives were. The problem with the SSVF was that they abandoned everything that was sedeprivationist, they pretty much found a legal way in which to make the text of Vatican II perfectly licit, similar to the efforts of the neo-SSPX (we accept 95% of the Council). Once again divorcing the text and the authorities who promulgate it, and are the lawful teachers as to what constitutes the licit interpretation of these texts (Vatican II, new code, CCC, join declarations, Roman Rota and so forth). Their problem is the particular method of exegesis that they use (not singling them out), that everyone else uses in the traditionalist world with the exception of the true school of sedevacantism.

They don't use the mind of the Church, they simply proof-text until they can reconcile two opposing propositions. Thus you see in the Catholic fora, how many use St. Bellarmine to refute what he believed to the true Catholic position! They actually dare to make Bellarmine contradict himself, as if he was somehow on their side with this particular point. Completely taking him out of context, you see the same thing being done with the SSPX & St. Thomas opinion on the lawfulness of resisting a Roman pontiff etc... It is truly epic the way they do this!

I note this, because so many completely fail to see just how basic their error is. It reminds me of your debate John with Mr. Sungenis. He kept quoting Cum Ex, as if you somehow implied that it was dogmatic in nature... Yet, he simply kept missing the boat! It was manifestly clear, when you go over the debate that you quoted it simply to give evidence as to the mind of the Church on the matter. I.e. your method of study is to see where the mind of the Church truly is, with respect to any topic. This is totally alien, to so many in the traditional world. You see this especially with the dogmatic feeneyites either from the sedeplenist/sedevacantist flavor... You see this with the conclavist/siri thesis/indult apologists, they all use proof-texting as their main way of reconciling whatever it is they are trying to prove.

I think the difficulty of the sedeprivationist thesis, is that it is truly above the heads of even educated Catholics. In a way, we can be able to tell that it can't be true, because of how complex the theory is, it really tries to solve the problem of the indefectibility of the Church. Takes as its fundamental premise the visibility of the Church argument, and then tries to garble theology to solve what it sees as a problem. Rather, I think like many conclavists who use the "perpetual" successors argument, they completely misunderstood the text/theological implications.

I haven't honestly, read the actual thesis myself. Rather I have in large part relied on secondary sources to understand sedeprivationism, so it is entirely possible that I am misunderstanding them.

A book that pretty much goes over that topic more exclusively, is "Sedevacantism: A false solution to a real problem." It goes over sedeprivationism more, then it does other forms of sedevacantism.

At some point if I find someone to help explain and quicken my understanding of sedeprivationism. Not that I am interested in it, as I am a firm believer in the true Catholic posiiton of the fathers/bellarmine/de sales/cyprian/ligouri/antoninus etc... My main interest, is just to understand it better, because it can be a position that many sedeplenist can adapt in more modern times, in order to keep the gift of faith. It is a much better position, considering that the other possibilities pretty much lead to several heresies. Sedeplenism is no longer a safe position... That simple, the modernist have now forced us to make a choice. My hope/prayer is that Catholics stand up for the true Catholic position. If they don't keep the true position, then maybe an alternative that is not so damaging to their faith.

Sedeplenism is the poverty stricken intellectual stream, not sedeprivationism... The sedeplenist is now forced, unless he is a hermit who knows nothing of what is going on. Even hermits can get informed through few friends they come in contact of the situation of the Church.

There are very hermits in the world, that are completely totally isolated from the world. Following the school of St. Paul the simple... Other then that, I can't see the intellectual possibility of someone being completely ignorant for the past 50 years of what is going on in the Conciliar Church... The only cases where I have heard that such a thing happened, is in the case of those who apostatized and then later returned.

At some point someone would have heard either through radio, books, television, word of mouth, news, magazines, online, advertisements of the acts/deeds/words of the heretics who are currently in power. Now they are commanded by their apostolic authority to give false worship to demons... I haven't really seen anyone answer the new dilemmas that the Conciliar Church has imposed upon the faith of the sedeplenist's. I would have agreed before with your position, as it what was truly possible for someone to err in good faith about the other Vatican II canonizations. However, to canonize enemies of the faith is a pretty clear cut case... No one that has the gift of faith, can recognize that they are to be emulated and prayed to as Catholic saints. It leads them inevitably to conclude that Vatican II was right, and Catholic papal magisterium of old wrong. The new mass is licit and valid if it was made by Catholic saints! This is the new reality, we truly face dark times, those who possess the gift of faith are becoming less and less. It is becoming harder to recognize other true Catholic's, while I am of the opinion to presume nothing of those that I meet. Until they explicitly deny papal/church teaching, it is nevertheless difficult to imagine how many of these individuals can keep the gift of faith... Remember it is not just heresy, but many mortal sins against faith that the sedeplenist defends... Sometimes we can get carried away, and forget that there are other things that can damn you as well. Its not just heresy... Heresy of course is the worst one, and demands that Catholics stay away from such individuals, but what about those who as Pope Benedict XIV says, agree with Protestants with respect to canonizations and other important doctrinal questions.

_________________
Laudare, Benedicere et predicare...
Bitcoin donations: 15aKZ5oPzRWVubqgSceK6DifzwtzJ6MRpv


Thu Oct 23, 2014 2:19 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Tue Nov 28, 2006 3:57 am
Posts: 391
Location: Indiana, USA
New post Re: Why must the Church depose a heretical pope?
Jorge Armendariz wrote:
I haven't honestly, read the actual thesis myself.


Is there even a "thesis" out there? I've always been confused about what people mean when they say they are "sedeprivationists" as opposed to "sedevacantist". Based on everything they tell me, I never really understand the difference. What you write above is the most detailed explanation I've ever read, but it still seems to be a difference without distinction and I'm not really sure it actually explains what the self-professed sedeprivationists mean when they try to explain it.

Of course, the only place I've ever seen anyone really try to define the term before has been on CathInfo, so I'm not really too surprised that they've not provided very good explanations.

_________________
Daniel Peck, Indiana, United States


Thu Oct 23, 2014 11:54 am
Profile

Joined: Thu Oct 27, 2011 5:14 pm
Posts: 210
New post Re: Why must the Church depose a heretical pope?
TKGS wrote:
Jorge Armendariz wrote:
I haven't honestly, read the actual thesis myself.


Is there even a "thesis" out there? I've always been confused about what people mean when they say they are "sedeprivationists" as opposed to "sedevacantist". Based on everything they tell me, I never really understand the difference. What you write above is the most detailed explanation I've ever read, but it still seems to be a difference without distinction and I'm not really sure it actually explains what the self-professed sedeprivationists mean when they try to explain it.

Of course, the only place I've ever seen anyone really try to define the term before has been on CathInfo, so I'm not really too surprised that they've not provided very good explanations.


It was a paper published, but I have never really bothered to look for it myself. I will see what I can do to find it, sometimes its best to go straight to the source. The problem is I think the original is in french and I am not sure it has been translated. So that even if I do find it, I really can't read it, unless of course I pay someone to translate it :) . I am sure that those who follow the thesis, have been able to have it translated into either english or spanish.

If anyone already has it in any of those languages, please PM or post the source publicly for everyone to see. It would be greatly appreciated by yours truly :-) .

_________________
Laudare, Benedicere et predicare...
Bitcoin donations: 15aKZ5oPzRWVubqgSceK6DifzwtzJ6MRpv


Fri Oct 24, 2014 4:18 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Fri Oct 28, 2011 3:40 am
Posts: 438
Location: Tucson, Arizona
New post Re: Why must the Church depose a heretical pope?
TKGS wrote:
Jorge Armendariz wrote:
I haven't honestly, read the actual thesis myself.


Is there even a "thesis" out there? I've always been confused about what people mean when they say they are "sedeprivationists" as opposed to "sedevacantist". Based on everything they tell me, I never really understand the difference. What you write above is the most detailed explanation I've ever read, but it still seems to be a difference without distinction and I'm not really sure it actually explains what the self-professed sedeprivationists mean when they try to explain it.

Of course, the only place I've ever seen anyone really try to define the term before has been on CathInfo, so I'm not really too surprised that they've not provided very good explanations.
Read Bp. Sanborn's paper on it: "The Material Papacy."

_________________
«The Essence & Topicality of Thomism»: http://ar.gy/5AaP
by Fr. Réginald Garrigou-Lagrange, O.P.
e-Book: bit.ly/1iDkMAw

Modernism: modernism. us.to
blog: sententiaedeo.blogspot. com
Aristotelian Thomism: scholastic. us.to


Fri Oct 24, 2014 5:07 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Fri Oct 28, 2011 3:40 am
Posts: 438
Location: Tucson, Arizona
New post Re: Why must the Church depose a heretical pope?
TKGS wrote:
I've always been confused about what people mean when they say they are "sedeprivationists" as opposed to "sedevacantist".
There's "sedeimpeditism," too.

_________________
«The Essence & Topicality of Thomism»: http://ar.gy/5AaP
by Fr. Réginald Garrigou-Lagrange, O.P.
e-Book: bit.ly/1iDkMAw

Modernism: modernism. us.to
blog: sententiaedeo.blogspot. com
Aristotelian Thomism: scholastic. us.to


Last edited by Alan Aversa on Fri Oct 24, 2014 6:38 am, edited 1 time in total.

Fri Oct 24, 2014 5:10 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Fri Oct 28, 2011 3:40 am
Posts: 438
Location: Tucson, Arizona
New post Re: Why must the Church depose a heretical pope?
Jorge Armendariz wrote:
It was a paper published, but I have never really bothered to look for it myself. I will see what I can do to find it, sometimes its best to go straight to the source. The problem is I think the original is in french and I am not sure it has been translated. So that even if I do find it, I really can't read it, unless of course I pay someone to translate it :) .
Here it is:
R. Guérard Des Lauriers, “Le Siège Apostolique est-il Vacant?”, Cahiers de Cassiciacum, n. 1, pp. 5-111, Association St. Herménégilde, Nizza 1979

Also, look at this I found; it's a thesis on the thesis: ☺
http://books.google.com/books?id=4jnIGm ... &q&f=false

_________________
«The Essence & Topicality of Thomism»: http://ar.gy/5AaP
by Fr. Réginald Garrigou-Lagrange, O.P.
e-Book: bit.ly/1iDkMAw

Modernism: modernism. us.to
blog: sententiaedeo.blogspot. com
Aristotelian Thomism: scholastic. us.to


Fri Oct 24, 2014 5:13 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Tue Nov 28, 2006 3:57 am
Posts: 391
Location: Indiana, USA
New post Re: Why must the Church depose a heretical pope?
Alan Aversa wrote:
Jorge Armendariz wrote:
It was a paper published, but I have never really bothered to look for it myself. I will see what I can do to find it, sometimes its best to go straight to the source. The problem is I think the original is in french and I am not sure it has been translated. So that even if I do find it, I really can't read it, unless of course I pay someone to translate it :) .
Here it is:
R. Guérard Des Lauriers, “Le Siège Apostolique est-il Vacant?”, Cahiers de Cassiciacum, n. 1, pp. 5-111, Association St. Herménégilde, Nizza 1979

Also, look at this I found; it's a thesis on the thesis: ☺
http://books.google.com/books?id=4jnIGm ... &q&f=false


Well, I can't read it as I'm an American and therefore I am mono-lingual. But, frankly, I doubt that I would read it unless someone I highly trusted recommended it to me as a credible thesis. Many of the people I highly trust in such matters are here on this forum or are otherwise firmly sedevacantist and have studied these other theories; I doubt any will recommend it.

I will, however, read the other links provided.

_________________
Daniel Peck, Indiana, United States


Fri Oct 24, 2014 11:29 am
Profile

Joined: Mon Apr 28, 2014 5:48 pm
Posts: 52
New post Re: Why must the Church depose a heretical pope?
Alan Aversa wrote:
TKGS wrote:
Jorge Armendariz wrote:
I haven't honestly, read the actual thesis myself.


Is there even a "thesis" out there? I've always been confused about what people mean when they say they are "sedeprivationists" as opposed to "sedevacantist". Based on everything they tell me, I never really understand the difference. What you write above is the most detailed explanation I've ever read, but it still seems to be a difference without distinction and I'm not really sure it actually explains what the self-professed sedeprivationists mean when they try to explain it.

Of course, the only place I've ever seen anyone really try to define the term before has been on CathInfo, so I'm not really too surprised that they've not provided very good explanations.
Read Bp. Sanborn's paper on it: "The Material Papacy."


There's also this by him.


Fri Oct 24, 2014 5:21 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Fri Oct 28, 2011 3:40 am
Posts: 438
Location: Tucson, Arizona
New post Re: Why must the Church depose a heretical pope?
John Lane wrote:
It's not harmless speculation, it's a very clear way of rejecting the doctrine of Bellarmine, which is the doctrine of "all of the Fathers" - the constant tradition of Holy Church.
The thesis on the Cassiciacum thesis I linked to above addresses it's relation to St. Bellarmine's doctrine. Here's a quick Google translation of the relevant excerpts.

Abp. Lefebvre certainly considered it sedevacantism, didn't he?

_________________
«The Essence & Topicality of Thomism»: http://ar.gy/5AaP
by Fr. Réginald Garrigou-Lagrange, O.P.
e-Book: bit.ly/1iDkMAw

Modernism: modernism. us.to
blog: sententiaedeo.blogspot. com
Aristotelian Thomism: scholastic. us.to


Sat Oct 25, 2014 1:41 am
Profile E-mail
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post Re: Why must the Church depose a heretical pope?
Alan Aversa wrote:
John Lane wrote:
It's not harmless speculation, it's a very clear way of rejecting the doctrine of Bellarmine, which is the doctrine of "all of the Fathers" - the constant tradition of Holy Church.
The thesis on the Cassiciacum thesis I linked to above addresses it's relation to St. Bellarmine's doctrine. Here's a quick Google translation of the relevant excerpts.


That's actually a very good refutation. I've never seen it before, and it's all correct, I think. Not only correct, it's well-formed philosophy too.

Alan Aversa wrote:
Abp. Lefebvre certainly considered it sedevacantism, didn't he?


Well, yes, but what's in a name? The issue between Lefebvre and de Lauriers was actually the "una cum." Lefebvre didn't mind people holding that Paul VI was not pope - he himself repeatedly encouraged such thoughts, publicly speculating on the question himself. What Guerard did however was teach the seminarians that when ordained they must omit Paul VI's name from the Canon of the Mass. This blatantly false doctrine, if not actually contrary to the law (which is certainly the better view of the matter), is at least not provable to be the law. In which case it is imposing a non-existent precept, a very serious matter indeed. The practical result was conflict, confusion, and nascent schism. De Lauriers was sent away from the seminary.

The evil that men do lives after them!

_________________
In Christ our King.


Sat Oct 25, 2014 3:29 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Thu Oct 27, 2011 5:14 pm
Posts: 210
New post Re: Why must the Church depose a heretical pope?
I hardly fail to see how "evil" it is for Msgr. Des Lauriers recommend the Catholic thing to do. Which is to educate the faithful about not celebrating in union with Montini the mass. Ultimately, you are left with the only alternative which is for ALL of them to be taught exclusively to include him in the canon of the mass. Yet, that is somehow a good thing... How is that being fair or impartial, or even agnostic about this position. If +Lefebvre would have been consistent with that position, he would have simply allowed him to teach that position. However, the truth is that they were pushing their sedeplenism as dogma too, they tend to accuse us of that all the time, but I think they fail to realize how in their condemnation of +Des Lauriers they are guilty of the very crime they accused him of, sowing discord, schism etc...

You really do seem to be infected with liberalism John, maybe not to a very serious degree, but I see a trend and it truly is not pretty. You seem to defend the indefensible (instead of just remaining silent on the matter at hand, you go so far as to condemn the right position), just because something is not heretical does not mean it does not send the person who commits the offense to hell. There are so many things you constantly de-weaponize true Catholic positions of which you actually indeed do hold, but neutralize the true Catholic position in different ways, certainly not explicitly. Whether you do this, in your charity to defend the minimal Catholicity of the SSPX (whoever else) or to make others realize that the said individuals which you defend are still Catholic etc... Whatever your motives or intentions, the end result is that you end up neutralizing in the mind of the Catholic, or sow doubt as to what a Catholic should do in the practical sphere, as opposed to the theoretical (of which you agree with). Yes it makes perfect sense for a sedeplenist to hold that you should mention the name of the current claimant to the canon, but to have a sedevacantist make that claim, is a bit disconcerting.

Quote:
John Lane: This blatantly false doctrine, if not actually contrary to the law (which is certainly the better view of the matter), is at least not provable to be the law. In which case it is imposing a non-existent precept, a very serious matter indeed. The practical result was conflict, confusion, and nascent schism. All of this things have been caused by the sedeplenist positions, of their own accord. Just look at the indult, it is directly something that +Lefebvre had conceived of as is evident from his own writings. The whole experiment of the seminary, was to be an experimental indult and see how that goes. The indult = +Lefebvre's creation and it is truly evil, because it has stifled the true catholic position. De Lauriers was sent away from the seminary.

The evil that men do lives after them!


Now I know you have read this book, but nevertheless sometimes its good to have a friendly reminder. Now the first three in the list IS currently impossible to get, which you somehow seem to forget. So to claim, that Msgr. Lauriers was evil because he was recommending something that was not, yet, made binding by the Church is simply ludicrous. This statement you made, really surprised me...

You keep saying the Church needs to rule on the matter in order for anything to be done (this is precisely the errors of the liberals, their root argument that allowed them to go unimpeded for such a long time), but excepting Divine intervention such a thing will never occur. So what ends up happening, is a real paralysis where the faithful are in a state of everlasting limbo on important matters. Since anyone could just simply lay claim thinking that nothing is and ever will be binding on their conscience, anyone or anything that is argued it fruitless to these individuals that live under that ridiculous principle. It is beyond ridiculous, and it really leads to the most absurd positions, plus this error is multiplied during our time when the Church is being eclipsed by the anti-church, the false bride (a whore harlot because of her ecumenism). In the first place, MOST sedeplenists along with the SSPX believe that pretty much the only thing that is binding is the ex cathedra stuff that the Pope says, and now you add this maxim. Its pretty much every man is his own pope now...

[url]Liberalism is a sin, by Father Felix http://www.catholictradition.org/Classi ... ism-32.htm[/url] :
Quote:
That we may accuse any person or writing of Liberalism, is it necessary to have recourse to a special judgment of the Church upon this particular person or this particular writing? By no means. If this Liberal paradox were true, it would furnish Liberals with a very efficacious weapon with which to practically annul all the Church's condemnations of Liberalism. The Church alone possesses supreme doctrinal magistery in fact and in right, juris et facti; her sovereign authority is personified in the Pope. To him alone belongs the right of pronouncing the final, decisive and solemn sentence. But this does not exclude other judgments, less authoritative but very weighty, which cannot be despised and even ought to bind the Christian conscience. Of this kind are:
1. Judgments of the Bishops in their respective dioceses.
2. Judgments of pastors in their parishes.
3. Judgments of directors of consciences.
4. Judgments of theologians consulted by the lay faithful.

These judgments are of course not infallible, but they are entitled to great consideration and ought to be binding in proportion to the authority of those who give them, in the gradation we have mentioned. But it is not against judgments of this character that Liberals hurl the peremptory challenge we wish particularly to consider. There is another factor in this matter entitled to respect and that is:

5. The judgment of simple human reason duly enlightened.

...They cannot of course define it ex cathedra, but they can lawfully hold it as perverse and declare it such, warn others against it, raise the cry of alarm and strike the first blow against it. Is this not what Msgr. Des Lauriers was doing when teaching the seminarians to not include in the name of the canon, Montini? The fact he was teaching this, did not mean that all of them were going to do it, but being informed about the theology behind that decision would have helped do the right thing, and omit that heretic from the canon. The faithful layman can do all this, and has done it at all times with the applause of the Church. Nor in so doing does he make himself the pastor of the flock, nor even its humblest attendant; he simply serves it as a watchdog who gives the alarm.


Anyone who teaches the right position, and encourages it. Is not committing schism, or sinning or being imprudent or whatever other adjective you can come up with. By its very nature, truth repels false positions and if that means it condemns the opposite thesis, then so be it. By his teaching the position, he is not implying that if you do not do this, you are anathema... Nope, all he was doing was teaching and since he is a Catholic priest who has a duty to teach truth. That is all he did, and for that he was expelled. He could not, even if he wanted to force seminarians to do something that they would do when they are ordained. The problem is that the SSPX wants Sedevacantists to only teach their false positions, and now they have come up with very weird positions on the topic. They make seminarians swear before the Blessed sacrament, that they are not sedevacantist or make people who are getting confirmed by them, hold to their position. So what do you say about that stuff John? They are being dogmatic about these things, and denying sacraments as a result of it. At the end of the day, we can't all play nice and hug each other. Even if they are still Catholic, we have to be just as affirmative in the condemnation of the errors and not focus so much on any particular individual, but the root errors they hold.

_________________
Laudare, Benedicere et predicare...
Bitcoin donations: 15aKZ5oPzRWVubqgSceK6DifzwtzJ6MRpv


Sat Oct 25, 2014 6:54 pm
Profile E-mail
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post Re: Why must the Church depose a heretical pope?
Look Jorge, your first point begs the question at issue. That it is evil to assist at an "una cum" mass is what is disputed. Yet you proceed as though it were proved! (Weren't you off looking up canon law books to find that law that Fr. Cekada has been hoping to find for the last fifteen or more years...?).

Then you write this: "So to claim, that Msgr. Lauriers was evil because he was recommending something that was not, yet, made binding by the Church is simply ludicrous. This statement you made, really surprised me... "

It suprised me, too, since I didn't write it!

The rest of your effort I don't have time for. You should learn to write less, lest you remain like the man who wrote, "I write you a long letter since I don't have the time to write you a short one." In sum, you'd be more concise if you took any of this seriously.

_________________
In Christ our King.


Sun Oct 26, 2014 3:36 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Thu Oct 27, 2011 5:14 pm
Posts: 210
New post Re: Why must the Church depose a heretical pope?
Quote:
De Lauriers was sent away from the seminary.

The evil that men do lives after them!


So you did not write this John? You wrote Des Lauriers and then immediately after, mention the evil that men do lives after them. Who else were you talking about?

There were only three people you were talking about John in that paragraph. Montini, +Lefebvre and +Des Lauriers. So were you talking about Montini? You were also previously mentioning how +Lefebvre did good by kicking him out since he was spreading "schism" and whatever other adjective you want to use.

Maybe you might want to clarify precisely what your position is regarding what +Lefebvre should have done. You already said this before, but I am interested in hearing it again.

Should +De Lauriers have taught against una cum to his students? Yes or no, or maybe. Justify your answer please. You seem to be dodging every question John. What would someone who understands the issue do when he is teaching a bunch of future seminarians that are going to be priest?

That is not mainly what I am disputing about, the "evilness" of the una cum. I asked you whether or not, someone who, understandably, as it currently stands could in fact in good conscience resort to his Catholic right not to attend the mass of a sedeplenist priest. Since there is no official Church declaration on this matter, it is not binding on every conscience this is why it cannot be objectively evil, for there can be an ignorance from the faithful that prevents them from it being a graver deed then it is. There are many issues attending una cum, its not simply the man whose name is not mentioned in the canon or the heretical Bishop mentioned. If that was the only issue, then it could certainly change things from my perspective. Word for word, there are several anathema's attached to the SSPX position on the topic of marriage tribunals, liturgy (they teach that the Novus Ordo is an incentive to impiety, despite +Fellay saying it was legitimately promulgated), and the list goes on for quite a while. I have posted on some other forums some dogmatic decrees from Denzinger. I might make a new post somewhere else in the forum dealing with these matters.

The reason why I write long, is because then you claim that I am not being "clear" enough. So I attempt to address every single possible scenario so that you or anyone can clearly see that I am being clear by giving examples of what I mean. By showing where you are wrong etc... Then later on you will accuse me of being too short. I am sorry precisely because these matters are important, little soundbites will not solve the problem. You have said it, Fr. Cekada & Co. in 15 years have not been able to make a satisfactory case to your liking, and you expect for me to do it with a few sentences?! It could be done, but in order to demonstrate to everyone precisely where your reasoning has been infected with liberalism. I need to post a lot of text, and I am sorry if this somehow impedes you. Then I would advice you to simply read it whenever you have some time. Please, don't be rude when I quote long texts of theologians, then tell me that me that it is too much? You should be happy that I am attempting to answer you, instead of ignoring. It is sad that you somehow retort, by accusing me of overwhelming you. It shows that you do not appreciate the limited time I have, to respond to you. This is the first time I see you actually being rude, and it matters little to me since I don't take stuff personally. I mention it so that others can see how blinded you are when it comes to this particular topic.

_________________
Laudare, Benedicere et predicare...
Bitcoin donations: 15aKZ5oPzRWVubqgSceK6DifzwtzJ6MRpv


Tue Oct 28, 2014 1:29 am
Profile E-mail
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post Re: Why must the Church depose a heretical pope?
Jorge Armendariz wrote:
Quote:
De Lauriers was sent away from the seminary.

The evil that men do lives after them!


So you did not write this John? You wrote Des Lauriers and then immediately after, mention the evil that men do lives after them.


You wrote, "So to claim, that Msgr. Lauriers was evil..."

I didn't say he was evil, I said that he worked an evil. There's a world of difference. Evils are worked innocently, very often. I don't doubt his sincerity - indeed, he had a reputation for holiness. But what he did was scare people away from legitimate Sacrifice and sacraments, and that's objectively an evil, no matter how pure his intention.

Jorge Armendariz wrote:
Should +De Lauriers have taught against una cum to his students? Yes or no, or maybe. Justify your answer please. You seem to be dodging every question John. What would someone who understands the issue do when he is teaching a bunch of future seminarians that are going to be priest?


My my, you are a confident young man. How about teaching that this is a legitimately disputed question in the Church, and citing perhaps a dozens examples from Church history to illustrate what that concept means, then expounding on how dangerous such things can be for those not rooted firmly in humility, so that on many occasions in the past freely disputed matters became the causes of actual sins, including schism. I suggest a close study of the schism of Lucifer of Cagliari would be most salutary. He was the hard-line chap who was very, very, concerned lest he be found to be in communion with anybody who might be thought to be in communion with heretics. Pure as the driven snow, right? No, just another proud schismatic. A quick review of the arguments of the Donatists would also be helpful.

Now, following from that doctrinal lesson supported by copious historical examples, I suggest that the seminarian be told that he can hold the opinion that the pope is really actually only materially pope and can only make cardinals and not do anything else, because apparently making cardinals is not a fully papal act requiring the form of the papacy, and therefore holding this opinion one can omit his name from the Canon, but don't make it a cause of schism with other Catholics, as far as in you lies. Something like that. Of course, the wisdom of this modesty would be emphasised by the recognition that this formal/material business seems impossible for nearly all trained theologians/philosophers to grasp, so we wouldn't expect many others to accept it as true. Right?

_________________
In Christ our King.


Tue Oct 28, 2014 9:00 am
Profile E-mail
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post Re: Why must the Church depose a heretical pope?
Jorge Armendariz wrote:
You really do seem to be infected with liberalism John, maybe not to a very serious degree, but I see a trend and it truly is not pretty. You seem to defend the indefensible (instead of just remaining silent on the matter at hand, you go so far as to condemn the right position), just because something is not heretical does not mean it does not send the person who commits the offense to hell. There are so many things you constantly de-weaponize true Catholic positions of which you actually indeed do hold, but neutralize the true Catholic position in different ways, certainly not explicitly. Whether you do this, in your charity to defend the minimal Catholicity of the SSPX (whoever else) or to make others realize that the said individuals which you defend are still Catholic etc... Whatever your motives or intentions, the end result is that you end up neutralizing in the mind of the Catholic, or sow doubt as to what a Catholic should do in the practical sphere, as opposed to the theoretical (of which you agree with). Yes it makes perfect sense for a sedeplenist to hold that you should mention the name of the current claimant to the canon, but to have a sedevacantist make that claim, is a bit disconcerting.


Jorge, all of this is politicised culture-warrior crap, I'm sorry.

On the "una cum" I'm not silent only because a very prominent party campaigned to make trads believe that something virtuous and actually necessary (going to mass!) is sinful. I refuted that, and I continue to refute it wherever it appears before me. My action on this issue has been exclusively defensive. I am answering aggressors. My style is uncompromising, I believe that attack is the best form of defence, so perhaps there is excuse for those who have the false impression that I am out there making the battle, but the impression is still perfectly false and I challenge anybody to show that I have ever brought the subject up myself, or tried to prove that others avoiding "una cum" masses are committing some sin. I don't believe that, and it's not part of anything I've written.

You worry that I "de-weaponize true Catholic positions," which only illustrates how radically different our views of being Catholic really are. Coming to a better understanding of the crisis is primarily about staying secure as a Catholic so as to go to heaven. One does not become more secure by elevating one's opinions into dogmas and then wielding them in some foolish Don Quixote manner as weapons.

I also insist on a scientific approach to truth, in the manner of all true theology. I think, for example, that before getting heated about others disagreeing with us on the pope issue, we ought to prove our position and explain it. I know that might seem a little effeminate to one who can solve all problems in fifteen minutes (no doubt by the inspiration of the Holy Ghost) but to me it's common sense. I think Fr. Cekada's campaigns attacking those who fail to agree with him, using sarcasm and odious suggestions of bad will, when he has never even published a book on the pope question laying out his theory and his proofs, are just absurd. Truly, ridiculous. He wrecks the credibility of sedevacantism so effectively by his behaviour that one would be forgiven for thinking that he doesn't really exist, but has been created by some enemy in order to make the truth ridiculous in the eyes of all sober men. (I know what I have just written will cause intense cognitive dissonance for some, so I say two things: 1. Where's the book? Ask Fr. Cekada. Ask him every day, until he admits that yes, it would be better if we had one. 2. This is immoral: "Over the years the position’s emotional appeal for the laity has meant a fundraising bonanza for SSPX. This old Gallican goose really lays the golden egg." This from a man who lives in luxury. It's not an isolated example. He poisons the well by questioning or directly falsifying others' motives frequently. It's part of his SOP. It's immoral. It's a sin. He's not a paragon of virtue and truth, he's a scandal. He's responsible in some significant part for the wicked behaviour that all decent Catholics abhor when they look at Internet forums like Cathinfo. He sets the standard and others feel that it must be OK to behave like an undisciplined schoolboy, since this apparently serious trad priest does so.)

So Jorge, I think that I am the one who really cares about the "Catholic positions" that you suspect me of regarding as superfluous. I am serious about sedevacantism. I think it's true that Paul VI wasn't pope, and likewise his successors. I think it valuable to recognise that truth. I think it valuable enough to try and actually get others to take it seriously. I don't see that in Fr. Cekada. Quite the contrary. And that's true of most of those who expend their time on forums around the Internet apparently promoting sedevacantism. I've watched them play their game for nearly two decades, and the individuals come and go; they're not serious. Not by half. They're enemies of the truth, and they're enemies of virtue, which is really two ways of saying the same thing.

Jorge Armendariz wrote:
You keep saying the Church needs to rule on the matter in order for anything to be done ...


NO, I DON'T. That is a total misconception. I am merely insisting that what we do is governed by Catholic principles. If the Church has not judged, we can't attack others for failing to agree with us. We might be mistaken, then we have sinned when we (I presume) desired to practice virtue. And we will have acted counter-productively too. Do you think the devil cares if you go to hell for sins against charity instead of sins against faith? Do you think he cares that a sedeplenist keeps believing that Francis is pope, and falls into error as a result, because a sedevacantist was stupid and nasty to him, or because he himself didn't seek the truth with sufficient care? I don't think the devil cares either way. I think he cares only that men lose their grasp of the truth, and their habits of virtue, however those can be achieved, and I think he's as happy to see it happen by sedevacantist scandal as he is by Bergoglio's scandals.

_________________
In Christ our King.


Wed Oct 29, 2014 12:46 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Tue May 21, 2013 4:53 pm
Posts: 100
New post Re: Why must the Church depose a heretical pope?
John,

Quote:
John Lane:
Quote:
NO, I DON'T. That is a total misconception. I am merely insisting that what we do is governed by Catholic principles. If the Church has not judged, we can't attack others for failing to agree with us. We might be mistaken, then we have sinned when we (I presume) desired to practice virtue. And we will have acted counter-productively too. Do you think the devil cares if you go to hell for sins against charity instead of sins against faith? Do you think he cares that a sedeplenist keeps believing that Francis is pope, and falls into error as a result, because a sedevacantist was stupid and nasty to him, or because he himself didn't seek the truth with sufficient care? I don't think the devil cares either way. I think he cares only that men lose their grasp of the truth, and their habits of virtue, however those can be achieved, and I think he's as happy to see it happen by sedevacantist scandal as he is by Bergoglio's scandals.


I agree completely with you. The extreme pride of many sedevacantists, which I myself still struggle with, have caused many to not even examine the hypothesis from the lack of Charity displayed by those who support the thesis. And then to make up new sins, such as attending a mass of a Thuc-line priests or attending an una cum mass only adds to the confusion not only among those who are not sedevacantists but sedevacantists themselves. And once you deviate from Catholic principles and start making up your own, there is no end to who can come up with new conclusions or new sins. It is to remove the gate which safeguards Catholic morality and delights the devil by all the confusion and bad feelings it spreads. We must stick to Catholic principles and being objective.


Wed Oct 29, 2014 9:56 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Thu Oct 27, 2011 5:14 pm
Posts: 210
New post Re: Why must the Church depose a heretical pope?
I completely agree with you here...

Quote:
So Jorge, I think that I am the one who really cares about the "Catholic positions" that you suspect me of regarding as superfluous. I am serious about sedevacantism. I think it's true that Paul VI wasn't pope, and likewise his successors. I think it valuable to recognise that truth. I think it valuable enough to try and actually get others to take it seriously. I don't see that in Fr. Cekada. Quite the contrary. And that's true of most of those who expend their time on forums around the Internet apparently promoting sedevacantism. I've watched them play their game for nearly two decades, and the individuals come and go; they're not serious. Not by half. They're enemies of the truth, and they're enemies of virtue, which is really two ways of saying the same thing.


Fair enough, I misunderstood you.

Quote:
You wrote, "So to claim, that Msgr. Lauriers was evil..."

I didn't say he was evil, I said that he worked an evil. There's a world of difference. Evils are worked innocently, very often. I don't doubt his sincerity - indeed, he had a reputation for holiness. But what he did was scare people away from legitimate Sacrifice and sacraments, and that's objectively an evil, no matter how pure his intention.


John I am extremely familiar with the Donatist and anti-Pope Novatian. This is why I take the positions I do, according to Catholic principles and avoid schism. Schism is the greatest sin against charity, and it is the most deplorable thing one can do. I have written extensively about this on CathInfo, and that is precisely what is wrong with the traditional movement, I don't care which side sedeplenist or sedevacantist. Near universally in the sedeplenist world is a Donatist and Novatian spirit, pseudo-sedevacantists are not free from this, such as home aloners, radical schismatics, Dimond brothers + their spiritual progeny.

What is wrong with the traditional apologist out there is two things:
1) Donatism/Novatianism
2) Proof-texting

The source of ALL their errors stems from precisely these two principles they operate under. So with Most Holy Family Monastery, they call priest that were decorated by the Holy See with honor's, distinctions and so forth as heretics. They would have you believe that all the folks at the Holy Office were heretics indeed, and call them apostates... If it were not that St. Thomas were canonized, they would also send him to hell. I mean the error is so basic, and their spirit is so un-Catholic that it boggles the mind. I am not familiar with Lucifer of Cagliari do you have any books or text you can share with me? Maybe point me to a book that does go over his schism etc...

Quote:
I suggest a close study of the schism of Lucifer of Cagliari would be most salutary. He was the hard-line chap who was very, very, concerned lest he be found to be in communion with anybody who might be thought to be in communion with heretics. Pure as the driven snow, right? No, just another proud schismatic. A quick review of the arguments of the Donatists would also be helpful.


No it is clear that inside of the SSPX seminary walls, the true position is not even allowed to be taught. So at some point its just a matter we agree to disagree, your kicked out. This is indeed what happened with Msgr. Des Lauriers, and I take it at face value given what I have read. That is really the truth of the matter, so many priest have been expelled or forced to leave precisely because they are not allowed to teach the true position. Even if they mention the whole, "this is just a strong opinion" backed by such and such. SSPX is all about having doctrinal Econenism, and the thought that you could disagree with Econenism is treated as heresy.

The SSPX seminary in the US has several professors that teach explicitly, once a Catholic always a Catholic. It makes perfect sense, since that is the easiest way one can defend that under no circumstance can the current claimants lose their Pontificate. I know because a friend of mine who held the SSPX position, who was just recently at the seminary told me the names of the Professors. Whenever I have some time I am going to call them up and ask them if they could go on record (in audio), of what they believe. If I don't have visual/audio proof no one would believe me, and I hope to get that sometime soon whenever I have some time. He didn't believe me, and now thanks be to God, he is a sedevacantist. The SSPX seminary in the US, don't know about other places, but I haven't heard much better things worldwide either, is not even +Lefebvrian anymore for that matter (hence the split with the resistance). For if they were, things would be a bit better. The SSPX is becoming the new SSPV when it comes to these matters, they are denying communion for no good reason to even other sedeplenists...

_________________
Laudare, Benedicere et predicare...
Bitcoin donations: 15aKZ5oPzRWVubqgSceK6DifzwtzJ6MRpv


Thu Oct 30, 2014 6:14 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Fri Sep 23, 2011 4:19 pm
Posts: 48
New post Re: Why must the Church depose a heretical pope?
Jorge Armendariz wrote:
The SSPX seminary in the US has several professors that teach explicitly, once a Catholic always a Catholic. It makes perfect sense, since that is the easiest way one can defend that under no circumstance can the current claimants lose their Pontificate. I know because a friend of mine who held the SSPX position, who was just recently at the seminary told me the names of the Professors. Whenever I have some time I am going to call them up and ask them if they could go on record (in audio), of what they believe. If I don't have visual/audio proof no one would believe me, and I hope to get that sometime soon whenever I have some time. He didn't believe me, and now thanks be to God, he is a sedevacantist. The SSPX seminary in the US, don't know about other places, but I haven't heard much better things worldwide either, is not even +Lefebvrian anymore for that matter (hence the split with the resistance). For if they were, things would be a bit better. The SSPX is becoming the new SSPV when it comes to these matters, they are denying communion for no good reason to even other sedeplenists...


Well, strictly speaking there is merit to the axiom semel catholicus semper catholicus, but of course, in this case it needs a little further specification, I guess...


Thu Oct 30, 2014 6:38 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Thu Oct 27, 2011 5:14 pm
Posts: 210
New post Re: Why must the Church depose a heretical pope?
To clarify the maxim, once a Catholic always a Catholic.

They believe, that is those who hold to this position. That Nancy Pelosi is still a Catholic, so long as she identifies herself as Catholic. Joe Biden is still a Catholic, simply because he says he is a Catholic. So if Lammenais would have still kept calling himself a Catholic, he would still legally speaking be a Catholic to all. Now there are two different point of views, within this framework that I have heard. The only exception to this rule would be if you were to be explicitly named by the Holy See as a heretic, or explicitly joined a non-Catholic sect. By explicitly join, I mean renounce to the name of Catholic. In their eyes, even if you would attend every single Sunday a Protestant sect, and be 100% fully integrated into their whole structure for years. So long as someone self-identified themselves as Catholics they would still be Catholics. They could be heretics on 500 word for word condemnations of the Holy See, and still be a Catholic. That means you can legally be buried, receive last rites etc... All the rights and responsibilities Catholic have legally speaking, without any change on their part they would be entitled to them. The secondary point of view, is that even if you are explicitly condemned by name, you are still a Catholic (they just see this as an ecclesiastical censure that doesn't sever you from the Body of Christ). That means if Joe Biden, wanted to go to your local trad chapel he would be eligible to receive communion...

The true Catholic position is obvious to everyone here, that heresy by its very nature severs you from the Mystical Body of Christ. This error is so rampant now within the SSPX priest, because it is the last resort other then the true Catholic position of sedevacantism. This is their last line of defense, and this is why it is so grievous. It also leads to so many absurdities from a legal perspective...

Edit: Forgot to add that the pre-cursor Deformers, such a Wycliffe, Hus and other similar heretics held these ideas. This is why it is a word for word, condemnation from official sources to hold this position.

_________________
Laudare, Benedicere et predicare...
Bitcoin donations: 15aKZ5oPzRWVubqgSceK6DifzwtzJ6MRpv


Thu Oct 30, 2014 7:45 pm
Profile E-mail
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 23 posts ] 


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 18 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group.
Designed by Vjacheslav Trushkin for Free Forums/DivisionCore.