Benevacantism, Etc.
#31
(03-11-2019, 02:54 PM)MagisterMusicae Wrote:
Quote:(snip) This conviction is born of a profoundly-erroneous ecclesiology, founded on a sacramental and not juridical conception of the Papacy. (snip) 

(snip) More and more the Benevacantist crowd that I read looks like Sedevacantism. They start from an observable problem (a Pope that seems to promote heresy), and then decide on a solution that they hold as obvious and certain (he must not be Pope). Only after this do they start proposing theories to fit the conclusion, and hopefully finding evidence, or at least re-reading or re-writing things to make it all work out neatly, ignoring the consequences. (snip) 
 
Fascinating. And truly bizarre -- not the idea, in se, that Francis might be an anti-Pope, but this reasoning for it. Seems to be a variant of papolatry in the end, rooted in an inflated view of infallibility. It's neoconservatism with a different face: neocons will say that Catholic teaching has changed because a Pope says it has even though infallibility isn't exercised; some sedes and some "Benevacantists" see the papacy as coming with a promise from Christ Himself that a Pope can't say anything erroneous. They both attribute to the papacy a power that isn't there in the first place.

Anyway, again, for those reading this thread: presumably, you know the Faith. Just guard it and keep close to Christ. Defend against Francis's errors and don't let this madness keep you away from Christ's Church and the sacraments. The gates of Hell will NOT prevail -- which doesn't at all mean that we can't have hideously bad Popes and suffering along the way. In fact, we've been told that we will follow Christ in His Passion; the suffering is guaranteed.
T h e   D u d e t t e   A b i d e s
[-] The following 2 users Like VoxClamantis's post:
  • HailGilbert, ritaguadalupe93
Reply
#32
(03-11-2019, 10:30 PM)VoxClamantis Wrote: Seems to be a variant of papolatry in the end, rooted in an inflated view of infallibility. It's neoconservatism with a different face: neocons will say that Catholic teaching has changed because a Pope says it has even though infallibility isn't exercised; some sedes and some "Benevacantists" see the papacy as coming with a promise from Christ Himself that a Pope can't say anything erroneous. They both attribute to the papacy a power that isn't there in the first place.

Ages ago when drifting in his little dinghy loosely lashed to the lifeboat from the Barque of Peter that is the SSPX, and before he set off for Tortuga, Bishop Williamson (that makes me want to do some photoshop work!) used to say that the argument for papolatry and sedevacantism was essentially the same, only a different conclusion was drawn from each :

M : The Pope is infallible in everything that he teaches
m : but the present Pope seems to have changed from what previous Popes have taught

SV Conclusion : Therefore the present Pope cannot be the Pope
Neo-Cath Conclusion : Therefore what the present Pope says must be held as infallible since it only seems to be wrong.

I think, Vox, you're spot on here. There is papolatry in both the SV and Neo-Catholic camps, but what happens in the Neo-Catholic camp is now you are getting another split along the same lines you saw in the 1970s among SVs, now just applied to Francis and Benedict as SV did to Pius XII and either John XXIII or Paul VI.

The problem for both is the the Major premise is flawed.
[-] The following 3 users Like MagisterMusicae's post:
  • For Petes Sake, HailGilbert, jovan66102
Reply
#33
(03-11-2019, 10:02 PM)In His Love Wrote: If I’m quoting the theologian right, public acceptance of the Pope heals any defect in the root of the election and reinforces that man as the Vicar of Christ.

It's not a sanatio in radice as if an invalid election could be fixed by some popular acclaim. Rather, it is closer to the second. 

Peaceful and public acceptance by the Church at large is a proof that there was a valid election to begin with, whereas the opposite (a complete rejection by the Church as a whole) would be proof that a man is not Pope. 

This latter corollary is what ended the Great Western Schism. The last claimant lost the support of those princes that were supporting him and had only a few stray followers. It is also what proves that the garage Popes are not Popes, aside from the absolute tomfoolery of their "elections" and lives.
[-] The following 2 users Like MagisterMusicae's post:
  • HailGilbert, In His Love
Reply
#34
Thank you for the clarification, MM. :)
[-] The following 1 user Likes In His Love's post:
  • jovan66102
Reply
#35
If Benevacantism is true, then either Pope Benedict XVI is a prisoner while an imposter takes his place or he has purposely failed to exercise his office as pope and allowed an imposter to take his place. Either of these two outcomes seem ridiculous to me since Benedict has done nothing to indicate that either of these two possibilities exist and if they are to exist how does a pope allow it to happen? Certainly one's life is a small price to pay for the truth and a pope who is being kept prisoner would probably rather die vs the faithful be led astray by an imposter unless for some reason they are in on the deception.
Blood of Christ, relief of the burdened, save us.

“It is my design to die in the brew house; let ale be placed in my mouth when I am expiring, that when the choirs of angels come, they may say, “Be God propitious to this drinker.” – St. Columbanus, A.D. 612
[-] The following 1 user Likes GangGreen's post:
  • jovan66102
Reply
#36
(03-12-2019, 09:17 PM)GangGreen Wrote: If Benevacantism is true, then either Pope Benedict XVI is a prisoner while an imposter takes his place or he has purposely failed to exercise his office as pope and allowed an imposter to take his place. Either of these two outcomes seem ridiculous to me since Benedict has done nothing to indicate that either of these two possibilities exist and if they are to exist how does a pope allow it to happen? Certainly one's life is a small price to pay for the truth and a pope who is being kept prisoner would probably rather die vs the faithful be led astray by an imposter unless for some reason they are in on the deception.

If you take the numerical difference of all of the letters between munus and ministerum, after translating into Hebrew Characters, you find that they add up to 490, which is the number of years in the "70 weeks of years" in Daniel.

Take this number, divide by 10 (the number of plagues in Exodus), and subtract 8 (the number of days in an Octave), and you get 41. Fourty-one is the sum of 5+8+12+16, which if converted to letters spells "HELP".

Clearly, Benedict was trying to tells us that he was not truly resigning when he said he was resigning using understanding the gravity of the decision and with his full free will.
[-] The following 2 users Like MagisterMusicae's post:
  • In His Love, jovan66102
Reply
#37
You’re all wrong. Cardinal Siri was elected Pope instead of St. John XXIII, and his true successor is in hiding.  ;)
Reply
#38
A thought from my old blogging buddy Steve Skojec at One Peter Five,

Quote:If we can’t trust the Church to tell us who the pope is when papal elections are so closely related to dogma (namely, that the man elected pope is the successor of St. Peter with all the power and authority appurtenant to that office), then we can’t trust the Church on anything. If Benedict is still the pope even though none of the apostolic successors believes that, including Benedict, then the Church is capable of being deceived and subsequently deceiving the faithful on a dogmatic fact. It necessarily entails that she has defected.
Jovan-Marya of the Immaculate Conception Weismiller, T.O.Carm.

Vive le Christ-roi! Vive le roi, Louis XX!
Deum timete, regem honorificate.
Kansan by birth! Albertan by choice! Jayhawk by the Grace of God!
“Qui me amat, amet et canem meum. (Who loves me will love my dog.)” 
St Bernard of Clairvaux

My Blog 'Musings of an Old Curmudgeon'
FishEaters Group on MeWe
[-] The following 2 users Like jovan66102's post:
  • In His Love, MagisterMusicae
Reply
#39
(03-13-2019, 02:41 PM)jovan66102 Wrote: A thought from my old blogging buddy Steve Skojec at One Peter Five,


Quote:If we can’t trust the Church to tell us who the pope is when papal elections are so closely related to dogma (namely, that the man elected pope is the successor of St. Peter with all the power and authority appurtenant to that office), then we can’t trust the Church on anything. If Benedict is still the pope even though none of the apostolic successors believes that, including Benedict, then the Church is capable of being deceived and subsequently deceiving the faithful on a dogmatic fact. It necessarily entails that she has defected.

This is precisely the argument that theologians will use to say that the peaceful acceptance of a man as Pope is a guarantee that he is Pope.

The alternative would means we could question any Pope, even those who have pronounced dogmas and makes the dogmas themselves doubtful. If Pius XII was not Pope then the Assumption is not a Dogma. If Pius IX was not Pope then Vatican I was not a valid council. How do we know that these men were Pope. They were accepted as such by the whole Catholic world.

The only situation where there could be doubt would be in the situation of the Great Western Schism or Antipopes who seem to enjoy significant support. There was real question of who was Pope, precisely because the whole Catholic world did not accept the election of each, thus the Church had to settle after the fact which was really Pope and when the Council of Constance was called all of the putative Popes convoked the council and accepted each others Cardinals and bishops, ensuring the council was properly called and all members enjoyed the privilege of being there. The first thing the Council did was to obtain the resignation of the Popes and elect another, solving the issue. The only hold-out eventually lost all support, meaning it was certain he was not Pope (nor his lineage).

Concretely speaking, when Benedict claims he resigned and does not claim to be Pope, and the rest of the Catholic world accepts Francis (with a few hold outs here and there), then there is peaceful acceptance of one man, and thus a guarantee he is Pope. There is not equation to the situation of the Western Schism simply because Benedict does not claim to be Pope.

Could this be a novel situation in the Church. It could be, but those who think so would need to show far more certain evidence of this and not just wild speculation and legalistic dissection of terms when the clear sense of the context disallows contrary readings.
[-] The following 2 users Like MagisterMusicae's post:
  • In His Love, jovan66102
Reply
#40
And I have yet another question for those, who in defiance of logic and theology, still maintain that Benedict is Pope. Where do you attend Holy Mass? Are there Priests out there celebrating Mass una cum Benedict, or, do you follow the Dimond Brothers' example, and attend 'schismatic' Masses celebrated una cum Francis? Obviously, if Benedict is still Pope, any Mass celebrated una cum Francis is in schism from the 'true' Pope.
Jovan-Marya of the Immaculate Conception Weismiller, T.O.Carm.

Vive le Christ-roi! Vive le roi, Louis XX!
Deum timete, regem honorificate.
Kansan by birth! Albertan by choice! Jayhawk by the Grace of God!
“Qui me amat, amet et canem meum. (Who loves me will love my dog.)” 
St Bernard of Clairvaux

My Blog 'Musings of an Old Curmudgeon'
FishEaters Group on MeWe
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)