Benevacantism, Etc.
#51
(03-14-2019, 07:30 PM)MagisterMusicae Wrote: 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.

Regarding what constitutes universal acceptance, it seems there is some grey area, at least. 

And if one entertains the possibility that the Novus Ordo is a counter Church in of itself, universal acceptance by its proponents would not have the same import.

Vatican II could arguably have been universally accepted by the whole Catholic world, except for a few resisters here and there.  It seems a dismissal could be made of SSPX type traditionalists on the whole by the same reasoning. 

How can we justify rejecting a Council ratified by a purported pope and nearly all of the world's bishops, but obligate ourselves to unquestionably accepting any heretic who comes out on St. Peters Balcony ? 

Seems like an arbitrary line in the sand.

One could not be blamed to think that in the light of this era being most likely the End of Times, as forecasted by the saints and Fatima, etc., we could expect mass deception in an unprecedented manner, that God would allow a strong delusion to be accepted for the due punishment of our sins.

"Therefore God shall send them the operation of error, to believe lying: That all may be judged who have not believed the truth, but have consented to iniquity." (2 Thessalonians)

Such a deception would likely necessitate some accompanying meddling with the See of Peter, in a way that would not be obvious to the Catholic populace at large.

"The Rock has always withstood the test of time. But one will be entered into the House of God. Woe to man when he places him upon the See of Peter for then, the Great Day of the Lord is at hand." - Pope St. Pius X

Though this is often attributed to Cardinal Siri, as the "Hidden Pope", by Siri Thesis proponents, and not necessarily Benedict, it certainly is remarkable in its potential application to the current Anti-Church existing now, however much Catholics disagree about to what extent and degree it is currently occupying of the juridical structures that were in place before the Council.  

"I see the Holy Father in great distress. He lives in another palace and receives only a few in his presence. If the wicked party know their own great strength, they would even now have made an attack. I fear the Holy Father will suffer many tribulations before his death, for I see the black counterfeit church gaining ground, I see its fatal influence on the public. The distress of the Holy Father and of the Church is really so great that one ought to pray to God day and night. I have been told to pray much for the Church and the Pope...The people must pray earnestly for the extirpation (Rooting out, destruction) of the dark church." -Prophetic Vision of Anne Catherine Emmerich (1774-1824 A.D.) Augustinian Nun, Stigmatist from the book, The Life of Anne Catherine Emmerich, by Very Rev. Carl E. Schmoger, C.SS.R, Vol. ii, pages (Ibid, pages 292-293)

What exactly is all of this going to look like when it happens? Or is it impossible that it has already happened?
It might not fit our expectations of a cut and dry blatant scenario, but one ladled with confusion and subterfuge to deceive, if possible, even the Elect if the time is not shortened.

"The apostasy of the city of Rome from the vicar of Christ and its destruction by Antichrist may be thoughts so new to many Catholics, that I think it well to recite the text of theologians of greatest repute. First Malvenda, who writes expressly on the subject, states as the opinion of Ribera, Gaspar Melus, Biegas, Suarrez, Bellarmine and Bosius that Rome shall apostatise from the faith, drive away the Vicar of Christ and return to its ancient paganism. ...Then the Church shall be scattered, driven into the wilderness, and shall be for a time, as it was in the beginning, invisible hidden in catacombs, in dens, in mountains, in lurking places; for a time it shall be swept, as it were from the face of the earth. Such is the universal testimony of the Fathers of the early Church." -Henry Edward Cardinal Manning, The Present Crisis of the Holy See, 1861, London: Burns and Lambert, pp. 88-90

A line of questionable papal claimants pushing Modernism that was already condemned long ago on an unsuspecting lay populace would be quite fitting to precipitate such a desperate scenario.

And a hostage pope pressured to lie and go along with the program due to threats against innocents, as was the case with the threat of killing priests behind the Iron Curtain during the Cold War, is surely conceivable.  
Reply
#52
Deleted
Reply
#53
(03-15-2019, 02:19 PM)Spes_nostra Wrote: How can we justify rejecting a Council ratified by a purported pope and nearly all of the world's bishops, but obligate ourselves to unquestionably accepting any heretic who comes out on St. Peters Balcony? 

It is not the Council itself that is rejected by those "SSPX-type traditionalists" (I myself fall into this category) you mentioned. Vatican II was a valid Council called for by a valid Pope, whose decrees were legitimately promulgated; however, this does not mean we must accept every non-binding, merely pastoral statement made in a Council document. And finding heresies in papal or conciliar doocuments is not necessarily an indication of an invalid papacy: https://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2016/0...ument.html.

If not rejection of the whole Council, parts of it.

Yes I am familiar with this argument. 

According to Paul VI, however, the Council was not to be left up to the Faithful to sift out what they thought was optional.

“And the fact is all the more serious in that the opposition of which we are speaking is not only encouraged by some priests, but is led by a prelate, Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, who nevertheless still has our respect. 

    “It is so painful to take note of this: but how can we not see in such an attitude – whatever may be these people’s intentions – the placing of themselves outside obedience and communion with the Successor of Peter and therefore outside the Church?  For this, unfortunately, is the logical consequence, when, that is, it is held as preferable to disobey with the pretext of preserving one’s faith intact, and of working in one’s way for the preservation of the Catholic Church, while at the same time refusing to give her effective obedience.  And this is said openly.  It is even affirmed that the Second Vatican Council is not binding: that the faith would also be in danger because of the reforms and post-conciliar directives, that one has the duty to disobey in order to preserve certain traditions.  What traditions?  It is for this group, not the Pope, not the College of Bishops, not the Ecumenical Council, to decide which among the innumerable traditions must be considered as the norm of faith!  As you see, Venerable Brothers, such an attitude sets itself up as a judge of that divine will which placed Peter and his lawful successors at the head of the Church to confirm the brethren in the faith, and to feed the universal flock, and which established him as the guarantor and custodian of the deposit of faith… 

   “The adoption of the new Ordo Missae is certainly not left to the free choice of priests or faithful.  The instruction of 14 June 1971 has provided, with the authorization of the Ordinary, for the celebration of the Mass in the old form only by aged and infirm priests, who offer the divine Sacrifice sine populo.  The new Ordo was promulgated to take the place of the old, after mature deliberation, following upon the requests of the Second Vatican Council.  In no different way did our holy predecessor Pius V make obligatory the Missal reformed under his authority, following the Council of Trent… 

     “We have called the attention of Archbishop Lefebvre to the seriousness of his behavior, the irregularity of his principal present initiatives, the inconsistency and often falsity of the doctrinal positions on which he bases this behavior and these initiatives, and the damage that accrues to the entire Church because of them.” (Paul VI Address ,L’Osservatore Romano, June 3, 1976, p. 2.)

The SSPX has a certain interpretation of events since Vatican II that they deem the correct one.

The FSSP, to them are compromisers.  The Sedes are too extreme.  The SSPX sits just right , and endears themselves to the mainstream Church by emphatically asserting Francis' legitimacy against the assertion of crazy trads.  Even though Archbishop Lefebvre entertained the idea that some of these papal claimants could turn out to be Nopes.
Reply
#54
(03-15-2019, 02:07 PM)BC Wrote: Regarding what constitutes universal acceptance, it seems there is some grey area, at least. 

Agreed that there's not a hard and fast line, but clearly the "universal acceptance" of a bunch of Romans while the rest of Christendom had no qualms about supporting the true Pope is at best a fourth term, or at worst a red herring in Ann's argument.

Universal acceptance means not numerically universal, but morally so, thus defies exact definition, but clearly a negative definition is possible, and today that the whole world and even traddies, save a few thousand sedevacantists and a handful of Benevacantists, recognize one man as Pope, and it's not Josef Ratzinger. There is moral unanimity. That a small few reject Francis as Pope does not affect this.

(03-15-2019, 02:07 PM)BC Wrote: And if one entertains the possibility that the Novus Ordo is a counter Church in of itself, universal acceptance by its proponents would not have the same import.

Now we're off onto side topics.

That the visible Church be eclipsed by a false church which otherwise looks like the Catholic Church is impossible if we wish to save indefectibility. The definitions by Vatican I and various encyclicals have clearly defined the Church as a visible society with an authority. In order for everything which appears Catholic since 1965 or 1962 or 1959 to be a false Church would mean we would have to deny that the Church was indefectible, or was a Society or both. We would have to take up a Protestant idea of the Church.

And the closest we have come to this is the Arian Crisis, and even at its worst the society which is the Church remained visible and with a visible head. Even Pope Liberius never openly accepted heresy even if he did sign an ambiguous Creed (Sirmium I or III, not the heretical Sirmium II)

So, no one cannot logically, theologically or reasonably entertain that the "Novus Ordo is a counter Church in of itself"

(03-15-2019, 02:07 PM)BC Wrote: Vatican II could arguably have been universally accepted by the whole Catholic world, except for a few resisters here and there.

Theologians talk of universal acceptance in the assurance of the legitimacy of a Pope, not of Councils. Apples and oranges. Whether you intend it or not, this is fallacious reasoning very similar to Ann's line of argument. Either it is a four term fallacy or a red herring. A non-sequitur however it is applied.

(03-15-2019, 02:07 PM)BC Wrote: It seems a dismissal could be made of SSPX type traditionalists on the whole by the same reasoning.

If your premise were true, but it isn't. Councils are not Popes. The rest of the post and argument falls with this part or simply need not mean that the apparent Pope is not the Pope.
[-] The following 2 users Like MagisterMusicae's post:
  • Fionnchu, jovan66102
Reply
#55
(03-15-2019, 04:23 PM)MagisterMusicae Wrote: That the visible Church be eclipsed by a false church which otherwise looks like the Catholic Church is impossible if we wish to save indefectibility. The definitions by Vatican I and various encyclicals have clearly defined the Church as a visible society with an authority. In order for everything which appears Catholic since 1965 or 1962 or 1959 to be a false Church would mean we would have to deny that the Church was indefectible, or was a Society or both. We would have to take up a Protestant idea of the Church.

And the closest we have come to this is the Arian Crisis, and even at its worst the society which is the Church remained visible and with a visible head. Even Pope Liberius never openly accepted heresy even if he did sign an ambiguous Creed (Sirmium I or III, not the heretical Sirmium II)

So, no one cannot logically, theologically or reasonably entertain that the "Novus Ordo is a counter Church in of itself"
  
 I think it is arguable that the Crisis today dwarfs the Arian crisis in its scope.

"And, there seems to be no reason why a false Church might not become universal, even more universal than the true one, at least for a time." (p.155) Rev. E. Sylvester Berry, D.D., The Church of Christ, An Apologetic and Dogmatic Treatise. Herder, St. Louis and London, 1927 & 1941.

"It thus appears impossible to approach the basic problem, which the agreement of the Conciliar Church, as H. E. Mgr. Benelli himself calls it in his last letter, and the Catholic Church. Let there be no mistake. It is not a question of a difference between Mgr. Lefebvre and Pope Paul VI. It is a question of the radical incompatibility between the Catholic Church and the Conciliar Church, the Mass of Paul VI being the symbol and the program of the Conciliar Church." (Archbishop Lefebvre: Note of July 12, 1976, to the Agence France-Presse.) 

[T]his Council represents, both in the opinion of the Roman authorities as in our own, a new church which they call themselves the "Conciliar Church". We believe that we can affirm, taking into consideration the internal and external critique on Vatican II, that is, in analysing the texts and in studying its circumstances and its consequences, that the Council, turning its back on Tradition and breaking with the Church of the past, is a schismatic council. The tree is known by its fruits. Since the Council, all the larger newspapers throughout the world, American and European, recognise that it is destroying the Catholic Church to such a degree that even the unbelievers and the secular governments are worried. ... Accepting this new principle [of indifferentism], all the doctrine of the Church must change, as well as its cult, its priesthood, its institutions, because everything in the Church until the Council had demonstrated that she alone possessed the Way, the Truth and the Life in Our Lord Jesus Christ, Whom she kept in person in the Holy Eucharist, and Who is present thanks to the continuation of His sacrifice. Thus a total overturning of Tradition and of the teaching of the Church has occurred since the Council and through the Council. All those who cooperate in the application of this overturning accept and adhere to this new "Conciliar Church", as His Excellency Mgr. Benelli called it in the letter that he sent me in the name of the Holy Father last June 25, and they enter into the schism. ( Interview with Archbishop Lefebvre in Écône, on August 2, 1976 and published in the French magazine Le Figaro, August 4, 1976.)

[T]he Conciliar Church, having now reached everywhere, is spreading errors contrary to the Catholic Faith and, as a result of these errors, it has corrupted the sources of grace, which are the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass and the Sacraments. This false Church is in an ever-deeper state of rupture with the Catholic Church. Resulting from these principles and facts is the absolute need to continue the Catholic episcopacy in order to continue the Catholic Church. ... This is how the succession of bishops came about in the early centuries of the Church, in union with Rome, as we are too in union with Catholic Rome and not Modernist Rome. (Archbishop Lefebvre, Letter to Bishop de Castro Mayer December 4, 1990.)

     --It is clear that the Church is facing a grave crisis.  Under the name of “the new Church,” “the post-conciliar Church,” a different Church from that of Jesus Christ is now trying to establish itself; an anthropocentric society threatened with immanentist apostasy which is allowing itself to be swept along in a movement of general abdication under the pretext of renewal, ecumenicism [sic], or adaptation."  (Henri Cardinal de Lubac, S.J., speaking at the Institute on Renewal in the Church, University of Toronto, August, 1967.)

“THE CATHOLIC CHURCH AND THE ANTI-CHURCH CURRENTLY CO-EXIST IN THE SAME SACRAMENTAL, LITURGICAL AND JURIDICAL SPACE”-   quote from Fr. Linus Clovis from a speech he gave to the Rome Life Forum on 18 May, 

“Around 1960 the famous Roman exorcist Gabriele Amorth (+2016) met Padre Pio of Pietrelcina (+1968) and talked with him about the third secret of Fatima. Amorth speaks about this in an interview from 2011, published only recently as a book entitled ‘The Best Kept Secret of Fatima’.

Padre Pio told Father Amorth: ‘Satan has been introduced into the bosom of the Church and he will within a very short time come to rule a false Church.’ Amorth says that Padre Pio was ‘really tormented’ by one issue that is ‘the great apostasy within the Church’.”


I dont think one has to resort to a Protestant conception of the Church.  It is likely a mystery is at work here in regards to the indefectibility.  Certainly a 5th column has erected itself within its structures. 

Even if we "save" the validity of all the post conciliar popes, there is still a problem in regards to the Church's indefectibility if we go with the SSPX position that:

"The Novus Ordo Missae, even when said with piety and respect for the liturgical rules ...is impregnated with the spirit of Protestantism. It bears within it a poison harmful to the faith."  (Archbishop Lefebvre: An Open Letter to Confused Catholics, p. 29)

If the following is true, that the Catholic Church cannot issue harmful laws or disciplines, and the she is spotless and without wrinkle, how could she impose a poisonous liturgy?
  • "Certainly the loving Mother [the Church] is spotless in the Sacraments, by which she gives birth to and nourishes her children; in the faith which she has always preserved inviolate; in her sacred laws imposed on all; in the evangelical counsels which she recommends; in those heavenly gifts and extraordinary graces through which, with inexhaustible fecundity, she generates hosts of martyrs, virgins and confessors.” (Pope Pius XII, Encyclical Mystici Corporis, par. 66)

  • "...as if the Church which is ruled by the Spirit of God could have established discipline which is not only useless and burdensome for Christian liberty to endure, but which is even dangerous and harmful and leading to superstition and materialism" (Pope Pius VI, Bull Auctorem Fidei, n. 78; Denz. 1578)

  • "[T]he discipline sanctioned by the Church must never be rejected or be branded as contrary to certain principles of natural law. It must never be called crippled, or imperfect or subject to civil authority. In this discipline the administration of sacred rites, standards of morality, and the reckoning of the rights of the Church and her ministers are embraced." (Pope Gregory XVI, Encyclical Mirari Vos, par. 9)

  • "The Church's infallibility extends to the general discipline of the Church... By the term 'general discipline of the Church' are meant those ecclesiastical laws passed for the universal Church for the direction of Christian worship and Christian living... The imposing of commands belongs not directly to the teaching office but to the ruling office; disciplinary laws are only indirectly an object of infallibility, i.e., only by reason of the doctrinal decision implicit in them. When the Church's rulers sanction a law, they implicitly make a twofold judgment: 1. 'This law squares with the Church's doctrine of faith and morals'; that is, it imposes nothing that is at odds with sound belief and good morals. This amounts to a doctrinal decree. 2. 'This law, considering all the circumstances, is most opportune.' This is a decree of practical judgment." (Mgr. Gerard van Noort, Dogmatic Theology, vol. 2,Christ's Church, 1957)

  • "The Church is infallible in her general discipline. By the term general discipline is understood the laws and practices which belong to the external ordering of the whole Church. Such things would be those which concern either external worship, such as liturgy and rubrics, or the administration of the sacraments.... If she [the Church] were able to prescribe or command or tolerate in her discipline something against faith and morals, or something which tended to the detriment of the Church or to the harm of the faithful, she would turn away from her divine mission, which would be impossible." (Jean Herrmann, Institutiones Theologiae Dogmaticae, Vol. 1, 1908, p. 258)

  • CANON VII.--If any one saith, that the ceremonies, vestments, and outward signs, which the Catholic Church makes use of in the celebration of masses, are incentives to impiety, rather than offices of piety; let him be anathema. (Session Twenty-Two, Chapter IX, Canon VII, Council of Trent, September 17, 1562, CT022.)
Either way, every position has its weaknesses and has to concede there is some mystery regarding how the Church has preserved its indefectibility through all of this, which, of course, we have to believe it has.
Reply
#56
  • "CANON VII.--If any one saith, that the ceremonies, vestments, and outward signs, which the Catholic Church makes use of in the celebration of masses, are incentives to impiety, rather than offices of piety; let him be anathema. (Session Twenty-Two, Chapter IX, Canon VII, Council of Trent, September 17, 1562, CT022.)"

This is where I get confused. What constitutes a fair and understandable critique of the New Mass when compared to the Traditional Latin Mass, and what falls under the anathematized criticism?
Reply
#57
(03-18-2019, 09:58 AM)In His Love Wrote:
  • "CANON VII.--If any one saith, that the ceremonies, vestments, and outward signs, which the Catholic Church makes use of in the celebration of masses, are incentives to impiety, rather than offices of piety; let him be anathema. (Session Twenty-Two, Chapter IX, Canon VII, Council of Trent, September 17, 1562, CT022.)"

This is where I get confused. What constitutes a fair and understandable critique of the New Mass when compared to the Traditional Latin Mass, and what falls under the anathematized criticism?

Trent was addressing Protestant criticisms of these things, with the then-current Catholic uses in mind. And there's a difference between a properly-celebrated NO Mass (even if it's less-explicitly sacrificial than the TLM) and the abuses that occur at many parishes.
Reply
#58
BC,

I'm happy to address those points.

They are not germane to a discussion about Pope Emeritus Benedict and those who would say he is still Pope.

Start a new thread if you want to discuss those issues.
Reply
#59
(03-18-2019, 03:27 PM)MagisterMusicae Wrote: BC,

I'm happy to address those points.

They are not germane to a discussion about Pope Emeritus Benedict and those who would say he is still Pope.

Start a new thread if you want to discuss those issues.

Very well.

I'm sure we'll get back to it at some future point, as these things tend to devolve.
Reply
#60
From One Peter Five

Dogmatic Fact: The One Doctrine that Proves Francis Is 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)