Benevacantism, Etc.
#41
(03-13-2019, 03:29 PM)jovan66102 Wrote: 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.

While I agree their position just seems like wishful thinking, if I understand it right, I don't think it is a matter of real schism.  For example, the "Great Western Schism" itself wasn't a schism, properly so called.  Communion was never broken, everyone agreed as to the identity of the Church and of the true Roman Church, no one actually separated from anyone else--the dispute was just over who ruled that one Church they all agreed on.  This seems similar. A "benevacantist" usually considers their diocesan bishop their true bishop, for example, and the Church as still the Church.

Other forms of sedevacantism are clearly real schism because they involve the very identity of the Church (in those cases, Pope Francis is not only an antipope, but the society he putatively rules is considered not the Catholic Church--there's a real separation).
[Image: catherinesiena-1.jpg]
Reply
#42
(03-13-2019, 04:31 PM)SaintSebastian Wrote: A "benevacantist" usually considers their diocesan bishop their true bishop, for example, and the Church as still the Church.

Does he? What if that bishop were appointed by Francis? What about the Cardinals? A third (33%) of the living Cardinals were appointed by Francis, and nearly half (47%) of those eligible as electors are from Francis.

I think most "Benevacantists" would hold that the local bishop if appointed by Francis was their bishop and that the cardinals are all cardinals, but if he did that would be inconsistent. He would reject Francis as Pope, but accept his authority to appoint a bishop or cardinal.

Were he to be consistent and rejected these bishops (as legitimately ruling over that diocese, not as validly-consecrated bishops) and cardinals, then there would be a large number of vacant sees, and the College of Cardinals would have at present only 65 electors (less than half). In such a scenario were a conclave held and all of the Francis cardinals ineligible to vote (but unaware of this), the vote would need to be 101-21 or better to guarantee that at least two-thirds of the electors appointed by Benedict and John Paul II voted, but with an election the vote tally is secret and not announced and would only require 82 votes, there would always be doubt about whether Francis' successor was validly elected.

That's the situation that eventually follows from Benevacantist logic. Like sedevacantism, it seems an easy solution, but once the practical reality are considered the mess and doubt it creates means that there is no way to ever have certainty who is Pope absent some special divine revelation, which de facto means the Church has defected.
[-] The following 1 user Likes MagisterMusicae's post:
  • jovan66102
Reply
#43
(03-13-2019, 06:10 PM)MagisterMusicae Wrote:
(03-13-2019, 04:31 PM)SaintSebastian Wrote: A "benevacantist" usually considers their diocesan bishop their true bishop, for example, and the Church as still the Church.

Does he? What if that bishop were appointed by Francis? What about the Cardinals? A third (33%) of the living Cardinals were appointed by Francis, and nearly half (47%) of those eligible as electors are from Francis.

The next conclave ought to be interesting, based on those percentages.
Reply
#44
(03-13-2019, 03:29 PM)jovan66102 Wrote: 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.

You might find the following excerpt interesting from an article by well known say-day-vacationist, John Lane. Here he is treating the issue of sedes assisting at a traditional mass naming JP II in the Canon,but could be applied to Benevacantists and masses with Nope(?) Francis:

The Example of the Saints
 
In addition to what has already been said in favour of charity and liberty in this matter, there is the example of the saints.

We possess one very good parallel for our own situation in the history of the Church.  The Bollandists give the story of St. Hypathius, who did what every sedevacantist priest does in our days – he cut off communion with a manifestly heretical prelate (his patriarch, Nestorius) immediately his heresy was manifested, without waiting for his condemnation by the Church.  This, of course, is interesting in itself.  But another factor adds even greater interest for those of us who are attempting to identify the correct Catholic response to such a crisis.

Bishop Eulalius, St. Hypathius’s ordinary, also rejected Nestorius’s heresy, but he took the view that until Holy Church condemned and deposed the Patriarch, they must continue to recognise him by putting his name in the Diptychs.  Hypathius’s response to Eulalius was magnificent. "...I cannot insert his name in the Canon of the Mass because a heresiarch is not worthy of the title of pastor in the Church; do what you will with me, I am ready to suffer anything, and nothing will make me change my behaviour."[52]

One could argue that Bishop Eulalius was weak and pusillanimous, and gave grave scandal by provisionally remaining in communion with Nestorius.  But there has never been any suggestion that Eulalius himself incurred heresy or schism, even “materially,” or that the faithful should have shunned their bishop's Masses, in which the Canon contained the name of Nestorius, as they shunned the Masses of Nestorius himself. That is surely why St. Hypathius did not sever himself from Bishop Eulalius, even though he differed with Eulalius over the canonical status of the heretic Nestorius, and over the question of whether Nestorius should be named in the Canon.

So much for the attitude we ought to have towards priests who differ with us over the status of John Paul II.  Another historical example shows us that saints were prepared to assist at Masses in which an excommunicate, and in fact a schismatic, was named in the Canon.  During the English Schism, Henry VIII had blasphemously and heretically declared himself head of the Church in England.  Prior to the direct judgement of the Church, the situation was somewhat parallel with that now existing.

Sts. Thomas More and John Fisher refused to sign the Oath of Supremacy, preferring death to this act of apostasy, this denial of faith; for, in their clear-sighted view, the Oath was nothing less.  And yet, as Fr. Thomas Stapleton records, almost all of the London clergy subscribed to the Oath "without the slightest delay or difficulty."

Some might imagine that these saints would have considered the clergy who swore to the Oath, heretics, schismatics, or apostates.  But they took a very different view indeed.  Both refused repeatedly to accuse of sin those who decided to take the Oath.  St. Thomas More, indeed, seemed hardly able to mention his refusal to submit to Henry as Head of the Church without also stating his unwillingness to hold any other to the same standard as himself.  For example, in a letter to his daughter, Margaret, in which he describes the first occasion on which he was commanded to swear, four times within a few paragraphs he adds the qualification, "not blaming any other man that had sworn," in those or in similar words.  (How strikingly different was his attitude to that of many present-day sedevacantists and others, towards those who differ with them.)

St. Thomas More continued to regard the clergy as fellow Catholics, and in fact on the very day he was summoned to take the Oath, he received the sacraments from a priest who had himself sworn to it.  St. John Fisher's attitude appears to have been identical.  It is worth noting that in the Sarum rite, then in general use in England, the King is named in the Canon, so that St. Thomas More not only received the Holy Eucharist from a priest who had sworn the Oath, but assisted at Mass in which Henry was actually named in the Te igitur.

Another example is offered by the conduct of St. Vincent Ferrer, who adhered to Benedict XIII during the Great Western Schism.  St. Vincent preached all over Europe, even on occasion within territories which were in obedience to Benedict's rival, Gregory XII.   And yet despite his constant preaching of the duties of each state of life, to the common man, the clergy, and to the nobility and princes, there is no suggestion that he declared against assisting at Masses offered by those whose obedience differed from his own.  His fellow Dominican, St. Antoninus, has effectively laid down the principle that it was properly a case of respecting the consciences of those in each "obedience."

Finally, there is the sterling example of St. Cyprian and the other African bishops during the "re-baptism" controversy.  St. Cyprian held that it was a matter of apostolic tradition that heretics and schismatics are incapable of validly baptising, so that any man returning to the unity of the Church who had been baptised by such must be re-baptised.  This doctrine was confirmed at a council of eighty bishops, and yet there were some in Africa who remained unconvinced.  St. Cyprian wrote concerning them, "It remains that we severally declare our opinion on this subject, judging no one, nor depriving any one of the right of communion if he differ from us.  For no one of us sets himself up as a bishop of bishops, or, by tyrannical terror, forces his colleagues to a necessity of obeying, inasmuch as every bishop, in the free use of his liberty and power, has the right of forming his own judgment, and can no more be judged by another than he can himself judge another."[53]

Thus St. Cyprian regarded as his fellow Catholics men who were admitting to the Sacred Mysteries others who the Saint believed had not been validly baptised.  A more grave issue is difficult to conceive, involving as it does the matter of sacrilege against Our Lord's Body and Blood, and yet even this was not a sufficient reason for St. Cyprian to sacrifice the bond of communion, for he held that he had no right to judge their consciences, and they appeared sincere in their belief.  Of course, St. Cyprian was wrong about the doctrine concerned, but this only illustrates more abundantly the wisdom of his charitable attitude.

 http://sedevacantist.com/una_cum.html
Reply
#45
Reply
#46
(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.

Ann responds:

Q:  If we can’t trust the Church to tell us who the Pope is, doesn’t that mean the Church has defected?

A: Well, apparently not, because Antipope Anacletus II was backed by a majority of Cardinals and the entirety of Rome with the exception of the Corsi family and illegitimately ruled EIGHT YEARS until his death.

Here’s the short version.  You can read the long versions at NewAdvent.org and Wikipedia.

Pope Honorious II dies, and in rules established by a predecessor (Nicholas II) and Honorious II, the election of Honorious II’s successor is left to a special commission of eight Cardinals.  They validly and canonically, albeit hurriedly and insistently, elect Pope Innocent II Papareschi the next day.

Later that same day, other Cardinals, backed by all the Roman noble families declare Pope Innocent II’s election invalid, except it WAS valid, as we will see, and instead elect their very corrupt boy, Cardinal Pietro Pierleone and name him Anacletus II.

Both men are crowned Pope/Antipope on the same day – the Antipope Anacletus II in St. Peter’s Basilica, and the true Pope Innocent II in Santa Maria Nuova (now called Santa Francesca Romana).

Antipope Anacletus II Pierleone, having the backing of most of the Cardinals, all of the Roman noble families except one (the Corsi), and all of the Roman populace, drives the true Pope Innocent II out of Rome and he flees to France where he resides for three years, whereupon he is escorted back to Rome by King Lothair of Germany, albeit with an insufficient calvary force of only 2000, and upon Lothair’s departure, Pope Innocent II has to flee Rome again to nearby Pisa, where he remains for four more years.

During these eight years, Antipope Anacletus II enjoys essentially unanimous support in Rome as he plunders the Church’s wealth and spends it lavishly to maintain support and popularity.

When Antipope Anacletus II dies after EIGHT YEARS uncontested and peacefully accepted by the Cardinals and Rome in January of ARSH 1138, an invalid conclave is called (because the True Pope Innocent II is still very much alive), and Antipope Victor IV Conti is “elected”.

This mess was resolved not by arms, but by A SAINT.  Enter Saint Bernard of Clairvaux, who had discerned that despite the essentially unanimous and peaceful recognition of Anacletus II as Pope by the College of Cardinals and the populace of Rome, that this was wrong, and Pope Innocent II was the true Pope, and had been all along.  St. Bernard went to Rome and by only the force of his eloquence in preaching to the people of Rome convinced the Church and the people of Rome of Innocent II’s legitimacy, so that upon Anacletus II’s death and the faux-election of Antipope Victor IV, Victor IV soon PRESENTED HIMSELF AS A PENITENT to St. Bernard, who immediately escorted him to Pope Innocent II, to whom Antipope Victor IV Conti repented and submitted, thus proving that Anacletus II had been an Antipope all along.  Because if Pope Innocent II was the Pope, then that HAD to mean that Anacletus never was. Because LOGIC.

So, the answer is clearly, emphatically YES, the College of Cardinals and Rome HAS ABSOLUTELY, POSITIVELY dropped the ball on who the Pope is, and for EIGHT YEARS, and clearly this did not constitute defection. The Church fully admits that Anacletus II, who reigned peacefully accepted by the College of Cardinals and Church of Rome, was an Antipope, and that Bernard who discerned this, was not only a Saint, but a Doctor of the Church.

https://www.barnhardt.biz
Reply
#47
(03-14-2019, 06:59 PM)BC Wrote:
(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.

Ann responds:

Q:  If we can’t trust the Church to tell us who the Pope is, doesn’t that mean the Church has defected?

A: Well, apparently not, because Antipope Anacletus II was backed by a majority of Cardinals and the entirety of Rome with the exception of the Corsi family and illegitimately ruled EIGHT YEARS until his death.

Here’s the short version.  You can read the long versions at NewAdvent.org and Wikipedia.

Pope Honorious II dies, and in rules established by a predecessor (Nicholas II) and Honorious II, the election of Honorious II’s successor is left to a special commission of eight Cardinals.  They validly and canonically, albeit hurriedly and insistently, elect Pope Innocent II Papareschi the next day.

Later that same day, other Cardinals, backed by all the Roman noble families declare Pope Innocent II’s election invalid, except it WAS valid, as we will see, and instead elect their very corrupt boy, Cardinal Pietro Pierleone and name him Anacletus II.

Both men are crowned Pope/Antipope on the same day – the Antipope Anacletus II in St. Peter’s Basilica, and the true Pope Innocent II in Santa Maria Nuova (now called Santa Francesca Romana).

Antipope Anacletus II Pierleone, having the backing of most of the Cardinals, all of the Roman noble families except one (the Corsi), and all of the Roman populace, drives the true Pope Innocent II out of Rome and he flees to France where he resides for three years, whereupon he is escorted back to Rome by King Lothair of Germany, albeit with an insufficient calvary force of only 2000, and upon Lothair’s departure, Pope Innocent II has to flee Rome again to nearby Pisa, where he remains for four more years.

During these eight years, Antipope Anacletus II enjoys essentially unanimous support in Rome as he plunders the Church’s wealth and spends it lavishly to maintain support and popularity.

When Antipope Anacletus II dies after EIGHT YEARS uncontested and peacefully accepted by the Cardinals and Rome in January of ARSH 1138, an invalid conclave is called (because the True Pope Innocent II is still very much alive), and Antipope Victor IV Conti is “elected”.

This mess was resolved not by arms, but by A SAINT.  Enter Saint Bernard of Clairvaux, who had discerned that despite the essentially unanimous and peaceful recognition of Anacletus II as Pope by the College of Cardinals and the populace of Rome, that this was wrong, and Pope Innocent II was the true Pope, and had been all along.  St. Bernard went to Rome and by only the force of his eloquence in preaching to the people of Rome convinced the Church and the people of Rome of Innocent II’s legitimacy, so that upon Anacletus II’s death and the faux-election of Antipope Victor IV, Victor IV soon PRESENTED HIMSELF AS A PENITENT to St. Bernard, who immediately escorted him to Pope Innocent II, to whom Antipope Victor IV Conti repented and submitted, thus proving that Anacletus II had been an Antipope all along.  Because if Pope Innocent II was the Pope, then that HAD to mean that Anacletus never was. Because LOGIC.

So, the answer is clearly, emphatically YES, the College of Cardinals and Rome HAS ABSOLUTELY, POSITIVELY dropped the ball on who the Pope is, and for EIGHT YEARS, and clearly this did not constitute defection. The Church fully admits that Anacletus II, who reigned peacefully accepted by the College of Cardinals and Church of Rome, was an Antipope, and that Bernard who discerned this, was not only a Saint, but a Doctor of the Church.

https://www.barnhardt.biz

Ann's not a very good theologian or logician.

She's just redefined terms to make her argument work.

By peaceful acceptance we mean not that some group here or there, but the whole Catholic world, minus perhaps a few holdouts, accepts someone as Pope. 

Ann has given an example of someone who was accepted by a "majority of Cardinals and the entirety of Rome, except ..." By definition a majority means more than half, but not all. So there were some who didn't. The Corsi family (not a small group in Rome) also didn't. The French supported the real Pope, and so did the Pisans. In fact, it was Roman politics and the rest of the Catholic world, which did not back the Antipope. I understand Rome is the center of the world, but zoom out and the argument fails massively. Clearly this is not "universal acceptance" of an Antipope.

She's redefined "universal acceptance" to add "of the College of Cardinals". That is not what the theologians hold.

As an aside, it is worth noting at the point in history of which she speaks, the Cardinals are nearly all Romans. It means that "universal acceptance" by them means little, since it is a reflection of Roman sentiment, not a good measure of the rest of Christendom. Ironically, today, with a very international representation, the Cardinals today more adequately reflect the whole world, so their opinion is more likely to represent the "universal acceptance" which is on Francis. Thus her very example if you pull away the fallacy undermines her argument, and does not supports it.

It's classic misdirection. When one's argument is disproven by some experts, redefine their terms so it works for you.
[-] The following 3 users Like MagisterMusicae's post:
  • Fionnchu, In His Love, jovan66102
Reply
#48
(03-13-2019, 03:29 PM)jovan66102 Wrote: And I have yet another question for those, who in defiance of logic and theology, still maintain that Benedict is Pope.


Defiance of logic and theology? So it's sound logic and theology to embrace Francis and all that entails? You gonna kiss his ring in front of his hammer and sickle crucifix? If there was no doubt about his validity I would have no other choice, but there is reasonable doubt around the validity of his election thankfully.

(03-13-2019, 03:29 PM)jovan66102 Wrote: 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.

I don't know who the Dimond Brothers' are, but there is no formal schism yet, so unfortunately I do have to attend a Mass where they say 'Pope Francis' since I have no other choice, just like I have to attend a Novus Ordo Mass with female alter servers and Eucharistic ministers etc as I have no other choice. When the time comes I hope I'll be ready though.

God Bless
Reply
#49
(03-14-2019, 09:25 PM)josh987654321 Wrote:
(03-13-2019, 03:29 PM)jovan66102 Wrote: And I have yet another question for those, who in defiance of logic and theology, still maintain that Benedict is Pope.

Defiance of logic and theology? So it's sound logic and theology to embrace Francis and all that entails? You gonna kiss his ring in front of his hammer and sickle crucifix? If there was no doubt about his validity I would have no other choice, but there is reasonable doubt around the validity of his election thankfully.

A response that's not particularly helpful ...

I am pretty sure Jovan is referring to thing like Ann's comments and argumentation by which she tries to get around what essentially all theologians of the last few hundred years have held about the guarantee of a Pope being Pope when universally accepted by the Catholic world as such.

No one here (I hope) thinks that Francis is a good Pope, or that his obviously near-heretical sentiments are okay. Neither were the promotion of indifferentism and public denials of Jesus Christ by Benedict or John Paul II okay. The Assisi meeting in 1986 was far worse of a rejection of Christ, in my estimation, than anything Francis has said or done.

Problem is, Josh, that you're simply living in the clouds and not looking at reality if you think there is any reasonable doubt about the validity of Francis' election.

Were there even a shred of any real evidence which would put Francis' election in doubt, I would grant you were thinking reasonably and logically and that Jovan is incorrect. I am extremely familiar with the topic and have seen nothing of substance to back up such claims. Zilch. Zero. Only speculation.
[-] The following 2 users Like MagisterMusicae's post:
  • jovan66102, SeeTheLight
Reply
#50
(03-14-2019, 09:51 PM)MagisterMusicae Wrote: Were there even a shred of any real evidence which would put Francis' election in doubt, I would grant you were thinking reasonably and logically and that Jovan is incorrect. I am extremely familiar with the topic and have seen nothing of substance to back up such claims. Zilch. Zero. Only speculation.

Neither of us are in the Vatican and neither of us are witness to everything that takes place there, thus neither of us can be 100% certain. All I know is like I said, there are two men still alive who have been elected Pope, they can't both be Pope and thus it all hinges on this resignation/retirement nonsense, and just before all this we had St Pope John Paul II go to the very end, if anyone had cause to "retire" it was him.

I'll just have to keep my head down and see how this all plays out... somethings gotta give, the Church can't keep going like this, it's reaching breaking point. I believe that when it reaches breaking point, all those with itching ears will embrace Francis and his successor while those who wish to stay true to the faith will remain with Pope Benedict and his successor, something like that is probable IMO anyway.

Note: While I agree St Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict had erred, I certainly don't believe they are anything like Francis and what he is doing.

God Bless You
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)