Deleted
Past Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 28, 2022 17:59:52 GMT -5
We can add those sedevacantists who hold the beliefs of "totalists" to the list of those who hold this heresy.
|
|
|
Post by samuelsede on Oct 28, 2022 18:48:34 GMT -5
The following is taken from Canon law; a text and commentary, Bouscaren, T. Lincoln, 1953. Linked here:
|
|
|
Post by Clotilde on Oct 28, 2022 18:55:04 GMT -5
@resolution, how would Totalism be defined, exactly? And who is defining it?
Sincere question. I just want to update my sede-slang.
Also, who is the Abbé guy? What is his function?
I’ve been ignoring Sanborn and the Gerties so long that I don’t even know who is who.
|
|
Deleted
Past Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 28, 2022 19:31:55 GMT -5
Clotilde , Abbe Duetre is an RCI (Sanborn) affiliated thesis holder. I believe he functions as a professor at MHT Seminary. If you wish to know what a totalist is it is best to ask those who invented the term - the thesis holders. His definition continues beyond those two tweets. threadreaderapp.com/thread/1585982600690241541.html <--full thread here. It would be interesting if others agree on this definition.
|
|
|
Post by Pacelli on Oct 29, 2022 16:29:05 GMT -5
O'Reilly, T. (1907). "Apostolicity" The Catholic Encyclopedia. New York: Robert Appleton Company, emphasis added.
|
|
|
Post by Pacelli on Oct 29, 2022 16:36:50 GMT -5
It's a good discussion on this new term being used, "Totalism," and I will begin a new thread dedicated to analyzing and discussing it.
|
|
Deleted
Past Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 30, 2022 15:29:24 GMT -5
Unfortunately we can add Mr Stephen Speray to the list of Catholics who seems to have fallen into this error: stevensperay.wordpress.com/2022/08/02/supplied-jurisdiction-for-sedevacantist-clergy-the-problem-with-the-home-alone-position-part-ii/"In ordinary times, bishops and priests had ordinary and delegated jurisdiction, which is the power to rule and the authority to administer. In these extraordinary times, the power and authority has taken on a new form due to the circumstances. Therefore, the Church must supply the jurisdiction to stay alive and carry on its mission of saving souls. Exactly how supplied jurisdiction is granted to sedevacantist clergy is the question. Supplied jurisdiction is when ordinary or delegated jurisdiction is absent and the Church confers it extraordinarily, when it was not bestowed regularly for the purpose of a grave cause and common good of souls. Since no pope exists, no bishops with ordinary or delegated jurisdiction exist (insofar as we can tell), the Church must carry on lest the gates of hell effectively prevails."
|
|
|
Post by EricH on Nov 29, 2022 16:10:42 GMT -5
Here is another quote from St. Robert Bellarmine: De Clericis. Lib. I. Cap. V. archive.org/details/bub_gb_SfJq79_HdscC/page/121/mode/2up p. 122 Chapter VII. The right to elect the Supreme Pontiff, and the other pastors and ministers of the Church, does not belong to the people by the divine law. But if at any time the people had any power in this matter, they had it entirely by the connivance or the concession of the Pontiffs.… Perhaps you object, that in the earthly State the people are called sheep, the rulers pastors, and nevertheless the election of the ruler pertains to the people. I reply, that the concept is one thing for the earthly, another for the heavenly, that is, the Christian State. For in the earthly State all men are born naturally free, and thus the political power is possessed immediately by the people itself, as long as they have not vested it in some ruler. But the Christian State never had such a liberty, given that with it was born its own King and Pastor, for Christ at the same moment established the Church, and made Peter its head. Besides, the people in an earthly State can only choose a ruler when they have none: but the Church never lacks a ruler, for Christ always lives, and also there are always some Bishops in the Church, who are able to elect and to create new Pastors.CAPUT VII. Jus eligendi summum Pontificem, caeterosque Ecclesiae Pastores, & Ministros non convenit populo jure divino. Sed si quid aliquando in hoc re populus potuit, id totum habuit ex conniventia, vel concessione Pontificum. … Objicies fortasse, quod in terrena Republica populi dicantur oves, reges pastores, et tamen regis electio ad populum spectet. Respondeo, aliam esse rationem terrenae, aliam coelestis, idest, Christianae Reipublicae. Nam in terrena Repub. nascuntur omnes homines naturaliter liberi, et proinde potestatem politicam immediate ipse populus habet, donec eam in regem aliquem non transtulerit. At Christiana Respublica numquam habuit ejusmodi libertatem, siquidem cum ipsa natus est Rex et Pastor ipsius, Christus enim simul Ecclesiam instituit, et Petrum ei praefecit. Deinde populus in terrena Republica tunc solum potest regem eligere, cum rege caret: at Ecclesia numquam rege caret, semper enim Christus vivit, semper etiam sunt in Ecclesia Episcopi aliqui, qui Pastores novos eligere et creare possunt.
|
|
|
Post by Pacelli on Nov 29, 2022 16:53:06 GMT -5
Here is another quote from St. Robert Bellarmine: De Clericis. Lib. I. Cap. V. archive.org/details/bub_gb_SfJq79_HdscC/page/121/mode/2up p. 122 Chapter VII. The right to elect the Supreme Pontiff, and the other pastors and ministers of the Church, does not belong to the people by the divine law. But if at any time the people had any power in this matter, they had it entirely by the connivance or the concession of the Pontiffs.… Perhaps you object, that in the earthly State the people are called sheep, the rulers pastors, and nevertheless the election of the ruler pertains to the people. I reply, that the concept is one thing for the earthly, another for the heavenly, that is, the Christian State. For in the earthly State all men are born naturally free, and thus the political power is possessed immediately by the people itself, as long as they have not vested it in some ruler. But the Christian State never had such a liberty, given that with it was born its own King and Pastor, for Christ at the same moment established the Church, and made Peter its head. Besides, the people in an earthly State can only choose a ruler when they have none: but the Church never lacks a ruler, for Christ always lives, and also there are always some Bishops in the Church, who are able to elect and to create new Pastors.CAPUT VII. Jus eligendi summum Pontificem, caeterosque Ecclesiae Pastores, & Ministros non convenit populo jure divino. Sed si quid aliquando in hoc re populus potuit, id totum habuit ex conniventia, vel concessione Pontificum. … Objicies fortasse, quod in terrena Republica populi dicantur oves, reges pastores, et tamen regis electio ad populum spectet. Respondeo, aliam esse rationem terrenae, aliam coelestis, idest, Christianae Reipublicae. Nam in terrena Repub. nascuntur omnes homines naturaliter liberi, et proinde potestatem politicam immediate ipse populus habet, donec eam in regem aliquem non transtulerit. At Christiana Respublica numquam habuit ejusmodi libertatem, siquidem cum ipsa natus est Rex et Pastor ipsius, Christus enim simul Ecclesiam instituit, et Petrum ei praefecit. Deinde populus in terrena Republica tunc solum potest regem eligere, cum rege caret: at Ecclesia numquam rege caret, semper enim Christus vivit, semper etiam sunt in Ecclesia Episcopi aliqui, qui Pastores novos eligere et creare possunt. Nice find Eric! I am sure that if all of us on here had more time, we could find dozens more of texts affirming this teaching. Every theologian who speaks on this all says the same thing.
|
|
|
Post by EricH on Dec 3, 2022 13:57:50 GMT -5
Rt. Rev. Lawrence Sheil. The Bible Against Protestantism and for Catholicity. 5th ed. Boston: Donahoe, 1859. archive.org/details/thebibleagainstp00sheiuoft/page/n3/mode/2up pp. 239-43 ARTICLE I. No lawful Ministry without a lawful Mission. Every civil government has within itself a source from which all lawful power and authority is derived; and no particular member of any society can lay claim to any part of this power or authority, unless it flows to him from that source. No man, for example, is treated as a public minister, unless he shows his credentials from the prince or state that sends him; nor respected and obeyed as a magistrate, unless he be called to that dignity, and vested with that authority annexed to it by superior powers. Nay, it would be highly ridiculous in any man to intrude himself into the very meanest office even of a private family, without the express or presumed consent of the master or mistress of it. This is the established order of the government of the world, and so manifestly conformable to reason and common sense, that without it all states or kingdoms, or even lesser societies, would be no better than so many Babels of disorder and confusion. Now, the same principle is applicable to the Church as well as secular states, but with this material difference, viz., that, as every secular state formed itself, at first, by common consent, into a civil society, so had it the liberty to choose what form of government and establish what laws it pleased for the public good. But the Church, as such, is a divine society, as having a divine origin. For it was not established by men, but by God himself. Jesus Christ, God and man, was its immediate founder and lawgiver; and he is still its supreme head, governor, and sovereign pastor. It is, therefore, bound to keep those laws, that form of government under him, and that method of conveying it down, which was at first established by him. Nor is there any power upon earth can change the laws or dispense with the conditions, or deviate from the ways and methods, he has marked out to us. Here, then, we need but consult the word of God to inform ourselves upon what footing the conveyance of the ecclesiastical ministry is established by him. Let us first hear Christ himself speak in the following sacred words: “Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that entereth not by the door into the sheepfold, but climbeth up some other way, the same is a thief and robber.” John, c. 10, v. 1. Here all are declared thieves and robbers, that is, usurpers of the sacred ministry, who “enter not by the door.” And lest we should mistake the meaning of this figurative expression, he explains it thus, (v. 7:) “Verily, verily, I say unto you, I am the door of the sheep.” So that whoever enters upon the ministry, and has not his mission from Christ, either immediately, as the apostles had, or mediately, by deriving it from them or their lawful successors, are here marked out in the character of thieves and robbers. Whence it plainly follows that any society of men, let them be as numerous as they please, or boast of their purity as much as they please, can never be a true Church, if it has not a ministry originally derived from Christ by an uninterrupted succession of lawful pastors; because the true Church can never be without true pastors; and without a ministry originally derived from Christ by an uninterrupted succession in the same communion, there can be no true pastors. This, then, is the foundation of the ecclesiastical ministry laid by Christ himself; and St. Paul, his faithful apostle and interpreter, teaches the same doctrine in his Epistle to the Romans, c. 10, v. 15. “How shall they preach except they be sent?” For if they be not sent, they can be nothing else but intruders into the sheepfold, usurpers of the sacred ministry, and, in a word, thieves and robbers. But the example of Christ himself is most certainly of the greatest weight to convince us that no man can legally enter upon the sacred ministry, except he be sent according to the order established by God. For if the Son of God took not upon him the preaching of the gospel but as sent by his eternal Father, what sacrilegious arrogance and presumption must it then be in men to assume to themselves this sacred function without a commission from any lawful authority? Our Savior therefore, to render us sensible of the necessity of a true mission for every minister of the gospel, judged it requisite, upon several occasions, to prove his own mission to the Jews. I shall omit a great many passages for brevity's sake, and only quote a few from St. John, who writes thus: “Now about the midst of the feast Jesus went up into the temple and taught : and the Jews marvelled, saying, How knoweth this man letters, having never learned? Jesus answered them, and said, My doctrine is not mine, but his that sent me. If any man will do his will, he will know of the doctrine whether it be of God, or whether I speak of myself. He that speaketh of himself seeketh his own glory, but he that seeketh his glory that sent me, the same is true, and no unrighteousness is in him.” John, c. 7, v. 14, 15, etc. However, the Jews persisting still to question his authority, he answered them, “I am not come of myself, but he that sent me is true, whom ye know not. But I know him, for I am from him, and he hath sent me.” v. 28, 29. Again, the following words are very remarkable: “He that rejecteth me, and receiveth not my words, hath one that judgeth him. For I have not spoken of myself; but the Father which sent me, he gave me a commandment what I should say and what I should speak.” John, c. 12, v. 48, 49. Here our Savior declares positively that he spoke nothing but what he was commanded to speak by his Father. And this implies no less than that, if he had preached any doctrine either contrary to, or beyond, the commission he had received from his Father, (which indeed the impeccability of his sacred person rendered impossible,) he would have preached without the authority requisite for that function. However, to render us still more sensible of the necessity of an uncontested mission, our Savior would prove his by a great number of illustrious miracles, and more particularly by that which, for its circumstances, appeared more illustrious than the rest. For, though all the miracles of his life were to show from whom he came, as they did by the divine power and goodness which shined in them, yet the raising of Lazarus, and the loud prayer he made to his Father before it, were not only intended, but expressly declared, to be done for the notifying and proving of that mission, from which alone all other true missions were to be derived afterwards to the end of the world. For St. John expressly tells us, that, when he was upon the point of raising Lazarus, “He lifted up his eyes, and said, Father, I thank thee that thou hast heard me. And I know that thou hearest me always. But because of the people which stand by I said it, that they may believe that thou hast sent me.” John, c. 11, v. 41, 42. It is plain our Savior here proves his mission from the miraculous power given him to raise Lazarus, as being a divine and public testimony of it, since it was asked, for that very end, in the people's own hearing; and no sooner asked but granted. Thus did our Savior take care not only to assert but prove his mission, in order to mark out clearly to his Church the sacred source from whence the lawful exercise of the ecclesiastical ministry must indispensably flow. Christ himself had his mission from God, “who gave him all power in heaven and in earth.” Matt. c. 28, v. 19. He communicated it to his apostles. “As my Father sent me, even so I send you.” John, c. 20, v. 21. And again: “Go ye therefore and teach all nations, baptizing them,” etc. Matt. c. 28, v. 19. The apostles, as the Church increased, ordained bishops and priests, according to the power they had received from Christ, and assigned to each of them the particular churches they were to feed and govern. These took care to transmit the same power to their successors, as these did likewise to theirs. And so the sacred ministry of governing and feeding the flock of Christ, by preaching the word and administering the sacraments, has been handed down by an uninterrupted succession from the apostles throughout all ages to the present time, and will be continued in the same manner to the end of the world, according to St. Paul. Ephes. c. 4, v. 11, 12, 13.
|
|
|
Post by EricH on Dec 5, 2022 15:33:57 GMT -5
Rt. Rev. Lawrence Sheil. The Bible Against Protestantism and for Catholicity. 5th ed. Boston: Donahoe, 1859. archive.org/details/thebibleagainstp00sheiuoft/page/196/mode/2uppp. 197-99 12. You have now seen, both in this and in the last section, that the Church of Christ must always have visible pastors, and that these pastors must be lawfully called to that charge; for those who enter in by usurpation, without being sent by lawful commission, are not true pastors, but thieves and robbers; for “he that entereth not by the door into the sheepfold, but climbeth up some other way, the same is a thief and a robber.” John, c. 10, v. 1. Uzziah was struck with the leprosy for presuming to usurp the office of a priest, (2 Chron. c. 26, v. 19); and another example of the same kind may be seen in the first of Chronicles, (c. 13, v. 9, etc.); and hence people are forbidden in the New Testament to assume this office unless they be called. “No man,” saith Paul, “taketh this honor unto himself but he that is called of God, as Aaron was.” Heb. c. 5, v. 4. See sec. 18. The way the Jewish church had to distinguish the lawful pastors from usurpers, was this that none among them were promoted to the priesthood but those who were descended from Levi by Aaron. The law of grace, of which the former was a type, has the same way of distinguishing the true and lawful pastors from usurpers and unlawful ones; for none are considered to be lawful and true pastors in the Church of Christ but those only who are lawfully descended from the holy apostles, by visible ordination and personal succession; and this was what caused the holy fathers to prove the truth of the Church by the lawful succession and vocation of the pastors, up to the very apostles; for they knew that our Savior himself had called twelve apostles, and sent them with commission to preach the gospel and govern the Church. Matt. c. 23, v. 29. They knew also that the same apostles called and ordained other pastors, as is evident in the election of Matthias, (Acts, c. 1, v. 26); and likewise other chief pastors, viz., bishops, received power from the apostles to choose and ordain others, as is manifest by St. Paul s words to Titus, c. 1, v. 5. So that whosoever now desires to know where the true Church of Christ is to be found, or those pastors of which St. Paul makes mention in his epistle to the Ephesians, (c. 4, v. 11, etc.), he ought to find out who those pastors are that have succeeded, one after another, by lawful ordination, until the very apostles; and with them only he will be sure to find the Church of Christ. For these are the only pastors whom St. Paul commands us to obey, in these words: “Obey your prelates, and be subject to them, for they watch as being to render an account for your souls.” Heb. c. 13, v. 17. And Christ himself said thus of them: “He who hears you hears me, and he who contemns you contemns me.” Luke, c. 10, v. 16. “Whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear your words, verily I say unto you, it shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrah, in the day of judgment, than for that city.” Matt. c. 10, v. 14, etc. You see, therefore, by clear Scripture, that we are obliged, under pain of eternal damnation, to hear and obey those pastors who are lawfully sent, and employed to watch over our souls; and we are under no less obligation to beware of false teachers, for Christ speaks thus of them: “Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing but inwardly they are ravening wolves; ye shall know them by their fruits.” Matt. c. 7, v. 15. Take heed that no man deceive you, for many shall come m my name, and deceive many.” Matt. c. 24, v. 4, 5. Seeing, then, you know evidently, by all the texts of Scripture produced in this and the foregoing section, (see sec. 18,) that there must be always lawful and visible pastors in the Church of Christ, and that false teachers were also to appear, teaching perverse doctrine, you ought to choose the secure way of salvation, by adhering to those true and lawful pastors who give evident proofs of their lawful mission and lineal succession in every age to the time of the apostles.
|
|
Deleted
Past Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 5, 2022 22:30:54 GMT -5
So where are the lawful pastors so I can submit to them? I know by Faith they must exist. Surely we should be seeking them out?
|
|
|
Post by Pacelli on Dec 5, 2022 23:36:38 GMT -5
So where are the lawful pastors so I can submit to them? I know by Faith they must exist. Surely we should be seeking them out? Read my post on how to find them. Why seek them when they are most likely useless hirelings? If you do seek them out and find them, you will find them, but if your expecting strong Catholic bishops who are ready to defend the Faith and do what they can to restore the Church, you will most likely be very disappointed.
|
|
Deleted
Past Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 6, 2022 11:07:04 GMT -5
Read my post on how to find them. Why seek them when they are most likely useless hirelings? If you do seek them out and find them, you will find them, but if your expecting strong Catholic bishops who are ready to defend the Faith and do what they can to restore the Church, you will most likely be very disappointed. I am sure I cannot be more disappointed than I already have been.
|
|
|
Post by Pacelli on Dec 6, 2022 12:21:22 GMT -5
Read my post on how to find them. Why seek them when they are most likely useless hirelings? If you do seek them out and find them, you will find them, but if your expecting strong Catholic bishops who are ready to defend the Faith and do what they can to restore the Church, you will most likely be very disappointed. I am sure I cannot be more disappointed than I already have been. I do know some Catholics that made contact with a "retired" Roman rite bishop years ago. He according to them, still had the Faith, so that was good at least. He wasn't doing much else, just living his life, and I don't think he would have entered the fray as far as leading the Church out of this crisis, so it's nice to know he existed, but that's about the only good that came from those Catholics visiting him. He has since that time passed away. I really doubt we will see any change in the status quo from the existing hierarchy, without an intervention from Our Lord, if He chooses to do that by sending a Saint to lead us out of this, or in some other manner of His choosing to bring us out of this mess. It seems to me that things are too far gone for any ordinary shift in events. Think of the time of Moses, the chosen people had no ordinary way out of the mess they were in, and any action by them would have only led to bad consequences and would have made things worse. It was only when God sent Moses, and gave him the means to achieve his mission with miracles that the entire status quo shifted and Pharaoh with the powerful Egyptian state who seemed to hold all the power, prior to Moses beginning his mission, were powerless in the face of God's direct involvement. If we find the remaining apostolic successors, it would make those who are denying their existence in the world have to rethink that denial of this Catholic teaching, but it's really not needed if they still believe the Faith in the first place. Catholics believe the truths of the Faith without evidence, so it would be akin to finding evidence of Eucharistic miracles to prove to Catholics that Our Lord is truly present in the Holy Eucharist. So, for me, I wouldn't try to find these men for the benefit of those stating that they are Catholics who won't just believe what the Church teaches in the first place.
|
|