|
Post by Pacelli on Oct 29, 2022 16:45:49 GMT -5
In the thread, "A New Heresy - The Denial of the Apostolic Succession," linked HERE member Resolution brought up a new term being used, "Totalism," to which member Clotilde questioned about its definition. This thread will be dedicated to analyzing this new term and discussing it. I will warn members, all new terms not defined and used by the Catholic Church pose serious risks. The term may be ambiguous and many of them are. Any term used since the beginning of this crisis, is not a Catholic term, so be careful. It's use may very easily lead to incorrect conclusions. With that said, now that this new term is being publicly used, it's open to discussion among Catholics as to how it's defined and all other issues and conclusions that are derived from it. Resolution cited Abbe Duterte as one who defined the term, but that doesn't answer whether the term originated with him or another, or whether others who use the term define it identically to him.
|
|
|
Post by Pacelli on Oct 29, 2022 17:09:18 GMT -5
Abbe Duterte wrote
and further wrote
and further wrote:
|
|
|
Post by Pacelli on Oct 29, 2022 17:47:41 GMT -5
So, let's break down Abbe Duterte's definition to make it more clear:
1. Abbe Duterte wrote
Interestingly, according to him, "Totalists" hold the position of sedevacantism based on the Catholic teaching of indefectibility, which is only one road to the conclusion of sedevacantism by the way. He is at a minimum implying here that totalists do not base this on the fact of public heresy of the antipopes and their loss of membership in the Church due to this.
2. Abbe Duterte wrote:
I'm happy he sees that conclusions that are formed after the conclusion of sedevacantism are not the same thing. From my experience, many seem to conflate these issues.
Its worth saying that his teacher, Bishop Sanborn, makes many conclusions that also go beyond sedevacantism as well.
3. Abbe Duterte wrote:
I actually do not know of single sedevacantist that holds that the V2 popes or bishops are "deposed." So according to this definition, I haven't ever met one, ever. Every sedevacantist I know and there are many, believe that the so called "popes" either never assumed their office, or lost their office by operation of the law, not deposition. I would like to know if he can actually name a totalsist, as I would like to know who is holding the idea of deposition of the V2 popes, as this is new to me.
To his next point, the totalists, according to him believe the "Novus Ordo" is a non Catholic sect. It's vague, but I think many agree with it, depending on the definition of "Novus Ordo," including myself. I would also like to know what he is saying as far as totalists, on who they believe are members of this new sect.
He doesn't define what a "Vatican II bishop" is, so that in and of itself is vague. How do totalists define the term? He doesn't say.
To his last point, he seems to imply that he doesn't think the SSPX are members of the new sect, so I hope that's what he thinks, but it's not completely clear.
4. Abbe Duterte wrote:
Here he now gets to what he sees as the problem with the totalists. He correctly brings up an error with some sedevacantists who believe that Apostolicity is continued through the sedevacantist bishops. On that, I agree with him, and I am happy he is standing against this error against the Faith.
5. Abbe Duterte wrote:
He doesn't define this new term, "conclavism," but he appears to mean that the totalists believe a pope can be elected through the sedevacantist bishops.
6. Abbe Duterte wrote:
As I said before, I have yet to meet any sedevacantist that holds that the V2 Popes and bishops are deposed, so I am not sure who this new group of sedevacantists are. Every sedevacantist I know or have ever dealt with does not believe that the loss of office of the V2 Popes has been through deposition, and in regards to the bishops, the same.
To conclude: according to his definition, I've never met a "totalist," even though I've been a sedevacantist for decades, and have known and communicated with countless sedevacantists. I am now wondering who this new group is, where they are located, etc.
|
|
|
Post by Clotilde on Oct 29, 2022 19:28:52 GMT -5
I think if anyone could point to when this was first used, we can see how it developed as slang, because that’s what it is, slang. It is not a theological term.
I cannot believe we even have to discuss troublesome slang, but here we are.
|
|
|
Post by Voxxkowalski on Oct 30, 2022 22:39:44 GMT -5
the longer the sheep are scattered the farther apart they become.
|
|
Deleted
Past Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 2, 2022 0:13:47 GMT -5
In this interview Kevin Davis interviews Fr Villi Lehtoranta on 'totalism.' 4:50 "Totalism is simply sedevacantism. The chair of Peter is completely vacant as are the Dioceses of the whole world." His position is discussed further in this article. He recognises the need for Apostolic Succession: Fr Lehtoranta has unfortunately failed to recognise that it is only the Roman Rite of Episcopal Consecration that was altered therefore Apostolicity is still preserved in other rites provided the Bishop be Catholic. He then goes on to claim that the Sedevacantist Bishops have "delegated" jurisdiction and that there are no Bishops with ordinary jurisdiction.
|
|
|
Post by Pacelli on Nov 2, 2022 8:44:07 GMT -5
It's interesting that he doesn't mention deposition which according to Abbe Duterte is part of what totalists hold. I'm getting the picture of what I initially suspected, that this term totalism is vague and it's definition is still evolving, so I think it should be avoided, as it's going to cloud the issues.
To your other points, I agree, is he so ignorant on the Church as to not be aware of the eastern rites? It's amazing to me.
Beyond the eastern rites, there are still some very old Roman rite bishops consecrated before the Paul VI changes. Even though these bishops are not ruling a diocese in practice, it doesn't mean that they are not still the lawful office-holder. When these bishops resigned, who did they resign to, Paul VI, John Paul II? Resignations must be accepted by the one who has the office for accept them, and in this case the Pope. If the common good was not served by the acceptance of these resignations, as the Faith would have been harmed, the act of acceptance would not have attracted jurisdiction supplied by the Church.
There remains two potential sources of bishops that are certain in the Church today, the eastern rite bishops that have not lost their offices due to heresy, and the old Roman rite bishops that are still in their offices while incorrectly believing they are retired.
|
|
|
Post by Pacelli on Nov 2, 2022 14:35:13 GMT -5
To his other statement, that there are no longer any bishops with jurisdiction, this follows along with the statement of Fr. Cekada who said the same thing in 2012.
This is further evidence that the Sanborn and Dolan groups are most likely thoroughly infected with this defection from the Faith. It's interesting that his interviewer doesn't seem to have any problem with it either. Catholics must use great caution with these groups. There was nothing but silence from the St. Gertrude's group and the Sanborn group, both priests and laypeople, after Fr. Cekada publicly and unrepentantly denied a teaching of the Church and was corrected on the matter publicly, so there was no misunderstanding that he was not professing the Faith of the Church.
Let's see if this statement brings about any reaction from their followers. From past observations of these groups, I won't hold my breath.
|
|
Deleted
Past Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 7, 2022 3:39:09 GMT -5
Pacelli , how would you respond to Fr Lehtoranta when he claims that Sede Bishops have delegated jurisdiction and that this suffices to be ordinary jurisdiction. Are there any quotes we can use to show that delegated jurisdiction can never be equivalent to ordinary jurisdiction?
|
|
Deleted
Past Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 8, 2022 16:22:30 GMT -5
To his other statement, that there are no longer any bishops with jurisdiction, this follows along with the statement of Fr. Cekada who said the same thing in 2012. This is further evidence that the Sanborn and Dolan groups are most likely thoroughly infected with this defection from the Faith. It's interesting that his interviewer doesn't seem to have any problem with it either. Catholics must use great caution with these groups. There was nothing but silence from the St. Gertrude's group and the Sanborn group, both priests and laypeople, after Fr. Cekada publicly and unrepentantly denied a teaching of the Church and was corrected on the matter publicly, so there was no misunderstanding that he was not professing the Faith of the Church. Let's see if this statement brings about any reaction from their followers. From past observations of these groups, I won't hold my breath. Would most people have even been aware that this event happened?
|
|
|
Post by Clotilde on Nov 9, 2022 10:34:14 GMT -5
To his other statement, that there are no longer any bishops with jurisdiction, this follows along with the statement of Fr. Cekada who said the same thing in 2012. This is further evidence that the Sanborn and Dolan groups are most likely thoroughly infected with this defection from the Faith. It's interesting that his interviewer doesn't seem to have any problem with it either. Catholics must use great caution with these groups. There was nothing but silence from the St. Gertrude's group and the Sanborn group, both priests and laypeople, after Fr. Cekada publicly and unrepentantly denied a teaching of the Church and was corrected on the matter publicly, so there was no misunderstanding that he was not professing the Faith of the Church. Let's see if this statement brings about any reaction from their followers. From past observations of these groups, I won't hold my breath. Would most people have even been aware that this event happened? I read this myself at the time. I think that most just brushed it aside and didn’t take much interest. However, those who did take note were pretty shocked. There are two problems here. First, a large group of sedevacantists assume that whatever Fr. Cekada says is true and Catholic teaching any time he wrote or spoke. Second, I do not think sedevacantists, in general, understand what the 2012 statement actually meant nor its implications.
|
|
Deleted
Past Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 17, 2022 17:37:17 GMT -5
Would most people have even been aware that this event happened? I read this myself at the time. I think that most just brushed it aside and didn’t take much interest. However, those who did take note were pretty shocked. There are two problems here. First, a large group of sedevacantists assume that whatever Fr. Cekada says is true and Catholic teaching any time he wrote or spoke. Second, I do not think sedevacantists, in general, understand what the 2012 statement actually meant nor its implications. I have come to the conclusion that Fr Cekada was good, but appears to have turned in the mid-late 2000's. He adopted principles he had already condemned and placed under the name Autsequism when promoting the no Una Cum position and the Pre-1955 Holy Week and appeared to rely on his own personal theories to explain where jurisdiction was in the Church rather than relying on Church teaching. I think Pacelli wrote somewhere that during a Papal Interregnum Church laws cannot be altered. Is this the case Pacelli ?
|
|
|
Post by Clotilde on Nov 18, 2022 0:01:04 GMT -5
I read this myself at the time. I think that most just brushed it aside and didn’t take much interest. However, those who did take note were pretty shocked. There are two problems here. First, a large group of sedevacantists assume that whatever Fr. Cekada says is true and Catholic teaching any time he wrote or spoke. Second, I do not think sedevacantists, in general, understand what the 2012 statement actually meant nor its implications. I have come to the conclusion that Fr Cekada was good, but appears to have turned in the mid-late 2000's. He adopted principles he had already condemned and placed under the name Autsequism when promoting the no Una Cum position and the Pre-1955 Holy Week and appeared to rely on his own personal theories to explain where jurisdiction was in the Church rather than relying on Church teaching. I think Pacelli wrote somewhere that during a Papal Interregnum Church laws cannot be altered. Is this the case Pacelli ? He was good. I think he changed a lot from when I first met him and I did have the no Una Cum conversation with him in the time frame that you mentioned. He was somewhat leaning that way but he was not as aggressive about it as he became in the end. His personality and faults were a hurdle to honest examination to his works and positions. His way of belittling his opponents helped him to hide the weakness of his own arguments. Unfortunately, he went and died and now they are codified on stone tablets by his devotees. But let’s face it, we’ve all inherited bad ideas from this crisis.
|
|
Deleted
Past Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 18, 2022 2:30:37 GMT -5
I have come to the conclusion that Fr Cekada was good, but appears to have turned in the mid-late 2000's. He adopted principles he had already condemned and placed under the name Autsequism when promoting the no Una Cum position and the Pre-1955 Holy Week and appeared to rely on his own personal theories to explain where jurisdiction was in the Church rather than relying on Church teaching. I think Pacelli wrote somewhere that during a Papal Interregnum Church laws cannot be altered. Is this the case Pacelli ? He was good. I think he changed a lot from when I first met him and I did have the no Una Cum conversation with him in the time frame that you mentioned. He was somewhat leaning that way but he was not as aggressive about it as he became in the end. His personality and faults were a hurdle to honest examination to his works and positions. His way of belittling his opponents helped him to hide the weakness of his own arguments. Unfortunately, he went and died and now they are codified on stone tablets by his devotees. But let’s face it, we’ve all inherited bad ideas from this crisis. Most of us have, yes. I was very glad to have learnt of the writings of John Lane and John Daly. They may be called soft by hard liners, but they very charitable towards other Catholics during this crisis, which runs very deep. They introduced me to the Catholic way of viewing things during these times, as opposed to the sectarian viewpoint that I had adopted. They are also very firm when it comes to sticking to Church teaching, which is what we all need when the principle of Unity in the Church is absent.
|
|
|
Post by Pacelli on Nov 18, 2022 10:09:58 GMT -5
I read this myself at the time. I think that most just brushed it aside and didn’t take much interest. However, those who did take note were pretty shocked. There are two problems here. First, a large group of sedevacantists assume that whatever Fr. Cekada says is true and Catholic teaching any time he wrote or spoke. Second, I do not think sedevacantists, in general, understand what the 2012 statement actually meant nor its implications. I have come to the conclusion that Fr Cekada was good, but appears to have turned in the mid-late 2000's. He adopted principles he had already condemned and placed under the name Autsequism when promoting the no Una Cum position and the Pre-1955 Holy Week and appeared to rely on his own personal theories to explain where jurisdiction was in the Church rather than relying on Church teaching. I think Pacelli wrote somewhere that during a Papal Interregnum Church laws cannot be altered. Is this the case Pacelli ? Generally speaking yes, but with the caveat that if an antipope approved a law for the Church that served the common good, and the condition of common error was met, the law would take effect. There is no end to what the Church will supply when the conditions are met, and this presupposes the common good. Obviously, the Church would not supply for anything evil or that led to impiety. I fully realize the danger in all of this, as it puts individual Catholics in the awful position of trying to sort out what is being supplied by the Church and what is not. If an antipope approved the creation of a new diocese, for example, among the eastern rites, who are still providing valid sacraments to Catholics, it seems to me that the Church would supply as this would better facilitate the mission of the Church to feed the sheep. The common good is served, and there can be no doubt about the common error, especially among the eastern Catholics, as to the status of the antipope. We are truly living in a bizarre situation, and one that pushes the theology to the boundaries, but let me say this clearly, we may not and we must not depart from the approved theology into the realms of our own ideas that contradict the approved theology in order to form a construct on this crisis. For any that do this, they run the serious risk of entering into heretical thinking, or at a minimum, formulate and believe doctrinal error short of heresy, but still destructive.
|
|