|
Post by Voxxkowalski on Apr 15, 2022 5:35:35 GMT -5
there is a constant muddling of issues...the issue of whether bergoglio is Pope with can a heretical pope be in the una cum without making the Mass a defective Mass. The latter is the issue we are discussing. DOES the una cum francis or any heretic make the Mass itself a sinful act and Defective?
|
|
|
Post by Pacelli on Apr 15, 2022 15:25:34 GMT -5
I too am keen to read your response Pacelli . I hope that you will post it soon. Thank you. I can assure you that I am trying to keep up with everything and using time the God is giving me to answer each and every point. I realize the extreme gravity of this, as many will unnecessarily self-deny themselves the sacraments based on the teachings of the late Fr. Cekada and Bp. Sanborn. I wish you a blessed Good Friday today!
|
|
|
Post by Pacelli on Apr 15, 2022 16:22:27 GMT -5
Eric wrote:
Maybe, maybe not. If he agreees with what you think, he should say so. He should also agree, if he is logical, that a "sin" greater than all abortions ever committed can just be an innocent mistake as well.
|
|
|
Post by Pacelli on Apr 15, 2022 16:31:20 GMT -5
Eric wrote:
I am not sure a mistake was made in 1968, at least as far as naming the undeclared antipope.
With that said, I think your missing my point. The name Paul VI was said universally, Bp. Sanborn argues that masses with the name of the undeclared antipope being prayed for are objectively schismatic. Was the entire Church engaged in schismatic worship in 1968 and many other years during that period? That's where his position leads. It leads to a defection of the Church. Eric wrote: Agreed!
Eric wrote: Agreed!
|
|
|
Post by Pacelli on Apr 15, 2022 17:11:33 GMT -5
Hello Samuel,
My responses below.
Samuel wrote:
They can claim whatever the like. Where does the Catholic Church teach what they are saying?
What you are saying is that what they are claiming is a dogmatic fact. Isn't it only the Catholic Church that can declare a dogmatic fact? Is there some new authority that binds Catholics other than the Church?
Samuel wrote:
What if Catholics don't agree with this question of fact: that a true Catholic hierarchy did truly and legally universally promulgate doctrines, liturgy, and disciplines? That throws a monkey wrench into the assertion, doesn't it? Secondly, what if Catholics are not certain that the Novus Ordo Missae or the doctrines and disciplines in question constitutes a defection from the Faith? Who can bind them on these matters? Bishop Sanborn?
Samuel wrote:
Not necessarily. What if John Doe, a traditionalist believes this, but also says, "maybe I've missed something in my judgment and I want certainty from the Church, not my own judgment? Is the Church now reliant on private judgment or is it public authority commissioned by Jesus Christ? It can't be both.
Samuel wrote:
Again. We may form certitude based on our private judgment, but out neighbor, also a Catholic may disagree on the facts and what is certain, and remain equally as Catholic as us. This situation will remain until the Church settles the matter, and thereby binds us.
Samuel wrote:
He is assuming far more than is warranted. Re-read my previous post to you on the una cum. The matter of who the pope is has not been settled by the Church, so it does not ipso facto make a "declaration of allegiance to a false hierarchy?"
Here's a question that should stir some thought: Bishop Sanborn appears to be implying that the entire Catholic hierarchy is gone, as the names of the prayers in the canon are in his mind a "declaration of allegiance to a false hierarchy." Where is the Catholic hierarchy according to him? Is it gone? Does he believe that all the living successors of the apostles are all dead or have defected? Where is the Church, then according to him? I also don't want to hear that the material succession suffices. That's made up bunk with no support in Catholic theology. Is a groom to be, materially the husband of his future bride? What happens if the wedding is cancelled? What becomes of his being the material husband to his bride? Isn't it more clear to say, "until the groom makes his vows and is married to his bride, he is nothing to his bride, there is no material relation in regards to the marriage." The same with the supposed material hierarchy. They are either the hierarchy or they are not. The possibility that they might become the hierarchy means that they are nothing, unless they actual become the hierarchy.
More later.
|
|
|
Post by EricH on Apr 16, 2022 10:26:53 GMT -5
there is a constant muddling of issues...the issue of whether bergoglio is Pope with can a heretical pope be in the una cum without making the Mass a defective Mass. The latter is the issue we are discussing. DOES the una cum francis or any heretic make the Mass itself a sinful act and Defective? Sorry for broadening the topic. Maybe I'll start a new thread about the SSPX in general. Here's a new idea about the non-una-cum position: LINK.
|
|
|
Post by Pacelli on Apr 16, 2022 16:52:31 GMT -5
Samuel wrote:
Hello Samuel,
My response to your last point.
If the Church settled the matter, then we could easily see the excommunication of Francis, Benedict XVI, etc., but we all know this has yet to happen. They are undeclared heretics and schismatics. That much is a fact, and I doubt even Bp. Sanborn or his followers will disagree on this.
Logically, if you take all things in regards to the theology and the facts in regards to this crisis carefully, you will come to the conclusion, prior to the judgment of the Church that the papal claimants from Paul VI forward were not true popes but antipopes.
But, that is not the same as saying, “the Church has settled the matter.” She most certainly has not. Only the Church can bind the flock of Christ and authoritatively apply the theology of the matter to the facts of the case. No one else can do this. If a Catholic believes the teaching of the Church but simply says “ I believe everything the Church teaches, and I am not making any judgment about the post V2 “popes,” I will wait for the Church to settle this.” Who has the authority right now in the absence of a pope to say, “I am applying the theology to the facts of the matter and you must submit to me. I am binding you to what I have stated you must believe.”
Bp. Sanborn once upon a time understood this very well and signed his name on a statement to that effect. Somewhere on the way he veered off what he once grasped so clearly, and we, sadly, are seeing the results of his new belief. No one can step in for the Pope in his absence, not me, not you, not Bo. Sanborn, or any other Catholic. No one on earth can bind the Church on any matter except the Pope. Until God in his mercy gives us a Pope again, we are stuck with this mess.
|
|
|
Post by samuelsede on Apr 28, 2022 0:20:24 GMT -5
Pacelli could you please provide a citation from theology or canon law to substantiate the notion that jurisdictional authority is required in order to require Catholics to be consistent in their rejection of Vatican II, vis-a-vis concluding the sedevacantist thesis is true? E.g. from the RCI: "I also reject as false the notion of those who allege in support of opinionism, that priests do not have the authority to require the faithful to assent to the formal vacancy of the Roman see and the episcopal sees in the present circumstances. For it requires no ecclesiastical authority to insist that the faithful be consistent in their rejection of Vatican II and its reforms, and that they avoid the implicit heresy of associating the promulgation of Vatican II and its reforms with the authority of Jesus Christ, the Head of the Church, vested in the hierarchy of the Roman Catholic Church. It requires no authority to require that Catholics regard as a false pope him whom they reject as the living rule of faith." romancatholicinstitute.org/hello-world/I think the points you make regarding authority are true, but I'm not sure how best to 'prove' that from Catholic teaching.
|
|
|
Post by Pacelli on May 2, 2022 12:55:53 GMT -5
Pacelli could you please provide a citation from theology or canon law to substantiate the notion that jurisdictional authority is required in order to require Catholics to be consistent in their rejection of Vatican II, vis-a-vis concluding the sedevacantist thesis is true? E.g. from the RCI: "I also reject as false the notion of those who allege in support of opinionism, that priests do not have the authority to require the faithful to assent to the formal vacancy of the Roman see and the episcopal sees in the present circumstances. For it requires no ecclesiastical authority to insist that the faithful be consistent in their rejection of Vatican II and its reforms, and that they avoid the implicit heresy of associating the promulgation of Vatican II and its reforms with the authority of Jesus Christ, the Head of the Church, vested in the hierarchy of the Roman Catholic Church. It requires no authority to require that Catholics regard as a false pope him whom they reject as the living rule of faith." romancatholicinstitute.org/hello-world/I think the points you make regarding authority are true, but I'm not sure how best to 'prove' that from Catholic teaching. Hello Samuel, Before answering you, I would ask you to think about something. Bp. Sanborn is the one making this assertion that you quoted, so the onus is on him to prove it, which he has failed to do. His assertions are just that, assertions, and Catholics must start thinking critically. He is not your bishop sent to you by God to rule over you that you must give assent to, he is an unauthorized man with many ideas, who is eager to impose them on you. I also am not authorized to teach or govern in the Church. I freely admit that. You can ignore me. I cannot bind you. I would love to hear Bp. Sanborn say the same. Anyway, the answer to your question lies in the rule of the Faith, so if you bear with me, I am going to get to some basics, and probably you know much of this already, so I say that so as to not insult your intelligence in any way. Our Lord established a Church, but the Church would be a governed Church led by men who hold a commission to teach and rule in His name and with His authority. This commission would be passed down, and was divided into a Petrine commission for the office of St. Peter who would rule the universal Church and the commission of the bishops who, unlike the original apostles, would rule over a territorial distinct geographical area. No other man on earth could step in and rule over Catholics, govern Catholics or bind them except for those whose authority had been given to them by Our Lord. When the Pope or the bishops pronounce a sentence upon a man, Catholics must give deference to their judgment, even if they are wrong in that judgment. But, what if a man with no commission pronounces a judgment? Are Catholics required to submit to him? Who authorized such a man to do this? The Church is ruled and governed by living men, not dead men or mere principles. The living men who govern the Church are doing so, not on their own authority, but as representatives of Our Lord Himself. Whatever they bind you to, you are bound. Men without this commission, without this authority, can bind you to nothing! They are usurpers and a grave danger to you. Our Lord taught us to submit to His representatives of His Church and to no other. What Bp. Sanborn is doing on his own non-authority is taking the facts of the crisis and applying the theology of the Church to those facts and demanding assent to his judgment on the matter. The problem for him is that he lacks any commission to impose such a judgment whatsoever. He can pretend that things are obvious, therefore binding, but that's just a game of pretending, it's not what the Catholics Church has bound you or anyone else to believe. If you are morally certain of a truth, prior to the judgment of the Church, then it is your own conscience that binds you to this truth, not the authority of the Church, as the Church through its lawfully commissioned leaders has yet to authoritatively settle the matter. I am posting a link to the section on the Rule of Faith, which explains how the Church binds us to its teaching, but also to the judgments of its hierarchy: strobertbellarmine.net/wilhelm_scannell_05.htmlAlso, this is very standard teaching, you can find it in many other sources, I just think this work does a beautiful job explaining it. This is how the Church teaches us, governs us, and binds us to what we must believe. There is no alternative to this. There is no new revelation.
|
|
|
Post by Pacelli on May 2, 2022 13:35:40 GMT -5
I realize this is a complex matter, especially in this time of crisis, so let me give some examples to draw out better what I am saying:
1. John attends SSPX. John believes everything the Church teaches. He does not dispute anything the Church teaches. John, also thinks Francis is Pope and calls him "Pope." John doesn't believe anything Francis teaches, but at the same time, says, I can't explain this, it's above my pay grade, I just want to be Catholic and I submit to what the Catholic Church has always taught and believed until Vatican II." Can one make a judgment that John has lost his Faith? How can a man who believes the Catholic Faith not believe the Catholic Faith at the same time?
2. Jane also believes the Catholic Faith whole and entire. Jane thinks that Vatican II, if interpreted in a Catholic sense, can still be harmonized with the teaching of the Church. I believe Jane is wrong, that it cannot be interpreted as such, but that's besides the point. So long as Jane believes the Catholic Faith, whole and entire, and has not defected, how can she believe and not believe the Faith at the same time?
Who has the authority in our times to bind Jack and Jane to believe that Vatican II cannot be interpreted in a Catholic sense, and that the line of papal claimants since Vatican II are in fact antipopes, and therefore force their conscience to submit to such binding?
|
|
|
Post by Voxxkowalski on May 3, 2022 9:09:40 GMT -5
Now do Joe who knows Frank isnt Pope but goes to Mass anyway.
|
|
Deleted
Past Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 23, 2022 15:42:02 GMT -5
Now do Joe who knows Frank isnt Pope but goes to Mass anyway. Yes, please do.
|
|
|
Post by Voxxkowalski on Nov 24, 2022 23:45:39 GMT -5
Now do Joe who knows Frank isnt Pope but goes to Mass anyway. Yes, please do. Point is this isnt a laity problem
|
|