Sedevacantism and PIUS IX

[mgrfin]

SemperFidelis,

He would have to use the 1917 code anyway, since the election of even JPII was prior to 1983. The 1917 code was in force at that time.

/QUOTE]

What is it you are accusing John Paul II of doing?

 

[pnewton]

SFD;3207094:

SemperFidelis,

He would have to use the 1917 code anyway, since the election of even JPII was prior to 1983. The 1917 code was in force at that time.

What is it you are accusing John Paul II of doing?

He is just stating that in arguing with a sedevacantist, it is useful to use the materials they see as authoritive. It would be like using the KJV Bible to try and to convince a Fundamentalist of something, using the New World Translation to dialogue with a Jehovah Witness, or using a brick with a Calvinists (ex-Protestant joke). These are the useful tools to dialogue with these people.

 

[mgrfin]

He is just stating that in arguing with a sedevacantist, it is useful to use the materials they see as authoritive. It would be like using the KJV Bible to try and to convince a Fundamentalist of something, using the New World Translation to dialogue with a Jehovah Witness, or using a brick with a Calvinists (ex-Protestant joke). These are the useful tools to dialogue with these people.

Apparently, John Paul II did something that was considered so serious so that when he was elected, it invalidated his election.

I have to assume it was a public act. I have to assume that it is something in violation of the 1917 Code, which I tossed eons ago.

You can’t get them to open up and be direct. They choose rather to attack you personally, and me as well, calling us stupid, and dense, and rude and nasty.

They answer their own questions; they refuse the questions of others.

Catholic Forum has been very good to them. They profess not to be in communion with the Roman Catholic Church, and find it easy to attack the good names of Pius IX, St. Pius X, Pius XII, Paul VI, John XXIII, and John Paul !!. They have a special dislike for Benedict XVI. They get an open sounding board for their denial of the Papacy.

We pray for these individuals.

Peace

 

[Four_Marks]

I am over-joyed that you find me unacceptable. I do not want to be praised by you in any way.

I am happy, and this morning I praised God, and thanked him for your hatred towards me, and questioning my “Catholicism”.

You are guilty not just of snobbery - which of course you are - but of disbelief. Your gnosticism may appeal to a few, but you are chasing smoke puffs.

Denigrating such outstanding and saintly men like Paul VI, and John XXIII, and Benedict XVI, Pio Nono, a St. Pius X marks you for who and what you are.

God have mercy on your faithlessness.

Dearest mgrfin,

I think you are suffering under a major delusion. Firstly, you initially called my Catholicism into question. That is what the record shows. Secondly, you are continually throwing out accusations that have no foundation. Thirdly, your crude tactics are seen by all to be the actions born of desperation. Fourthly, I never denigrated Pope St. Pius X. Please show the forum where I did this. You’ve slipped up mgrfin, and you have no credibility left.Fifthly, praise will be given where it is deserved. You’ve made the observation that you don’t want praise. Using my above principle, you have no fear of being praised in any way. You’ve (the almighty mgrfin) have judged that I have no belief. Are you acting like God? You have made an infallible judgement?

In closing, you are continuing to expose yourself for exactly what you are. I’m just going to continue to point out your judging and pontificating. Sounds like a fair deal?

Cheers and all the very best!

 

[Four_Marks]

Four_Marks;3203787:

You are not God, and you are not in a position to judge my motivation, my charity or lack there of.

peace

No, I have every right to point out that you were making taunting, mocking comments. And, any rational person would easily see that that is exactly what you were doing. If you don’t like being exposed for what you are, I’d suggest that you change your behavior.

 

[Four_Marks]

And what Code was Robert Bellarmine quoting from? You don’t know and don’t have a copy.

The whole topic, that a Pope could be a heretic, and that some were, and therefore were invalid popes - the whole subject is laughable. Like we don’t have other things to do with our time.

And as far as changes in the liturgy: so they turned the altars around, and omitted the Confession at the foot of the altar, and they added some more scriptural readings, and they eliminated the “last Gospel” reading from John 1 - we should become apostates for that?

You have very little faith in the Holy Spirit protecting our Church from error.

Credo…in unam, sanctam, catholicam et apostolicam ecclesiam…

They also changed the substance of the sacrament of Holy Eucharist, something that the Church Herself has no right to do. Yes, they changed the form of a sacrament that Jesus Christ determined minutely (in specie); they dared to tamper with the words of Our Lord Himself.

So, please stop your remonstration regarding what you consider indifferent changes and look to the crucial innovations that were made.

All the very best,

Four_Marks

 

[Four_Marks]

Catholicity? You mean extreme, right-wing conservatism?

You have presented your views, and quoted all your sources. Isn’t it time to close the thread?

Hopefully the Forum Adminstrator will agree that this is fruitless, and going nowhere, and the thread should be closed.

peace

No, I disagree. Hopefully, they will allow you to continue so the observers can see that you don’t know what you are talking about. That is not an insult, just a fact. You are very useful in showing others how a Catholic can fall into grave error on many an issue.

Pax,

Four_Marks

 

[mgrfin]

SFD is quoting from the 1917 Code of Canon Law, not the current Code. Since he is arguing from a sedevacantist perspective, the current (1983) Code wouldn’t be valid, because it was promulgated by a non-pope (according to a sedevacantist viewpoint). Also, if he is arguing about a case before 1983, the 1917 Code would still have been in effect.

The 1917 Code was officially abrogated. The 1983 replaced it.

By what authority do you say that the Code of Canon Law, which guides 1 billion Roman Catholics is not valid.

The is the height and depth of foolishness. You base on the decsion of a few people that acts of certain Roman Pontiffs were heretical.

As Roman Catholics we are not accepting of this false thesis. The Roman Pontiffs from Pius IX were validly elected and ruled the Church according to the Will of Christ, and the Mystical Body of Christ.

The 1917 Code of Canon Law is gone. We don’t have copies of it. I destroyed by copy ages ago. I don’t care that someone is arguing from a SV position or not. When you go into an American Court, a lawyer doesn’t say that he is arguing his case from English law.

The 1983 Code is the valid Canon Law, and if you don’t have a copy it is available on line.

peace

 

[mgrfin]

,

It is a peaceful acceptance and adherence that makes this a proof. If it’s not peaceful, it’s not a proof.

All traditional Catholics have resisted these popes…sedevacantist or not. It was and is anything but a peaceful acceptance.

SFD

SFD

The Church is not a democracy. You say particular elections of popes haven’t gotten a ‘peaceful acceptance’.

What foolishness!

There is no such thing in Canon law, or moral theology, or dogmatic theology as ‘peaceful acceptance’. You are making this stuff up, and spouting it as though it has some official note to it.

There is no such thing in Canon Law saying that a pope’s election is valid or not valid depending on this so-called 'peaceful acceptance. You can’t make up the rules as you go along. This is what you are doing.

I think it time to put an end to this foolishness. The Catholics who have accepted these theories are an embarassment to the faithful. They themselves are outside of the Church by reason of the theology they profess.

There are canons which prohibit opposition to Church Authority.
Canon 1373 “A person who publicly incites among subjects animosities or hatred against the Apostolic See…is to be punished by an interdict or other penalties.”

The talk on this thread against the Papacy is deserving of canonical penalities.

peace

 

[I_Believe]

This is absurd.

The biggest threat to HMC is modernism. Not individual heretics. Not whether or not dead Popes were heretics. What does coming to such a conclusion do for HMC ?

To those who have chosen to separate themselves from Rome, I ask this. Do you not see that we have a man who shares many of your concerns, and he has become our Holy Father ? Isn’t there more good news coming out of Rome that not ? The time is ripe for helping defend the Faith from within the Church.

Fr Wathen, Bishop Lefevbre, and others did what they felt they needed to do. They fought modernism despite the consequences regarding their status in the Church. I pray that they are in Heaven. I believe they are.

But it is 2008, and despite the freedom of the modernists and liberals have enjoyed in introducing abuses in the liturgy and watching Piety fade among the laity, Hell hasn’t prevailed.

There are still many valid concerns that Sedevacantists, Independents, the SSPX, and others have. Sure. But hasn’t the most important thing been handed to you on a golden platter ?
Your return to the Church would do much to defend Her from modernism. You can be the stable goups mentioned in the MP. You can have your parish, and in many cases, be given wonderful old churches in metro areas that have been closed due to clustering. How wonderful would it be to once again bring these Holy Places back to life again with the Latin Mass and level of devotion you possess ?

The Church needs your traditional priests. Our Holy Father wants them and their laity. Help restore the Liturgy and Faith from within the Church. Your strength is your devotion and that is your best shot at defending HMC. You won’t be giving in. You’ll be giving yourselves to HMC.

 

[SFD]

SFD

The Church is not a democracy. You say particular elections of popes haven’t gotten a ‘peaceful acceptance’.

What foolishness!

There is no such thing in Canon law, or moral theology, or dogmatic theology as ‘peaceful acceptance’. You are making this stuff up, and spouting it as though it has some official note to it.

There is no such thing in Canon Law saying that a pope’s election is valid or not valid depending on this so-called 'peaceful acceptance. You can’t make up the rules as you go along. This is what you are doing.

I think it time to put an end to this foolishness. The Catholics who have accepted these theories are an embarassment to the faithful. They themselves are outside of the Church by reason of the theology they profess.

There are canons which prohibit opposition to Church Authority.
Canon 1373 “A person who publicly incites among subjects animosities or hatred against the Apostolic See…is to be punished by an interdict or other penalties.”

The talk on this thread against the Papacy is deserving of canonical penalities.

peace

No, you misunderstand. Billot teaches this and it is discussed by many theologians. Peaceful universal acceptance is a proof of the validity of a particular papacy…IT IS NOT A REQUIREMENT.

So there can be no charge that “peaceful universal acceptance” is a requirement. There is no “the acclaimation of the Church” required for a valid papacy. It is merely a certain proof.

SFD

 

[SFD]

I_Believe:

But it is 2008, and despite the freedom of the modernists and liberals have enjoyed in introducing abuses in the liturgy and watching Piety fade among the laity, Hell hasn’t prevailed.

Hell hasn’t prevailed because at least some Catholics in every situation you describe have RESISTED the modernism.

The proximate or common rule of Faith for a Catholic is the preaching of the ecclesiastical magisterium. It is precisely the avoidance of these Bishops’ teachings that the resistance is based on.
Van Noort:

Sequel

The rule of faith. It seems timely to add here a few remarks on the rule of faith. This term signifies the standard or norm according to which each individual Christian must determine what is the material object of his faith. Protestants claim that the written Word of God, Holy Scripture, and that alone, is the one rule of faith. Catholics, on the other hand, even though they, too, admit that our faith must be regulated in the final analysis by the Word of God — including tradition as well as Scripture — hold that the proximate and immediate rule of faith — that rule to which each of the faithful and each generation of the faithful must look directly — is the preaching of the Church. And so, according to Catholics, there exists a twofold rule of faith: one remote and one proximate. The remote rule of faith is the Word of God (handed down in writing or orally), which was directly entrusted to the Church’s rulers that from it they might teach and guide the faithful. The proximate rule of faith, from which the faithful, one and all, are bound to accept their faith and in accordance with which they are to regulate it, is the preaching of the ecclesiastical magisterium. (27)

The following assertions concern the proximate rule of faith.

1. The Church’s preaching was established by Christ Himself as the rule of faith. This can be proved from Matthew 28:19—20 and Mark 16:15—16; the command to teach all nations certainly implies a corresponding duty on the part of the nations to believe whatever the apostles and their successors teach, On the other hand, there is no notice anywhere of Christ’s having commanded the apostles to give the people the doctrine of salvation in writing, and never did He command the faithful as a whole to seek their faith in the Bible.(28)
2. The Church’s preaching is a rule of faith which is nicely accommodated to people’s needs. For (a) it is an easy rule, one that can be observed by all alike, even the uneducated and unlettered. What could be easier than to give ear to a magisterium that is always at hand and always preaching? (b) It is a safe rule, for the Church’s teaching office is infallible in safeguarding and presenting Christ’s doctrine. (c) It is a living rule, in accordance with which it is possible in any age to explain the meaning of doctrines and to put an end to controversies.

SFD

 

[stmaria]

I have been following this thread. I thank the moderators for allowing it to continue. I would like the sedevacantists to clear something up for me. Since you believe that the Chair of Peter is vacant:
When did Pope John XXXIII become a false Pope and what did he do that put him outside the Church?
When did Pope Paul VI become a false Pope and what did he do that put him outside the Church?
When did Pope Johm Paul II become a false Pope and what did he do that put him outside the Church?
When did Pope Benedict become a false Pope and what has he done to put him outside the Church?

 

[natsclem]

to the sedevacantists and who alienated themselves from the Pope

I am suspecting the lack of complete trust in the Word of God that these divisions happen.

these popes from john 23 to the present were elected legally, hence, no doubt they are legitimate successors of peter who was entrusted the keys of the kingdom of heaven and was charged by our Lord to take care of His flock.He prayed for his steadfastness.
We should also pray.

Let us examine ourselves…have we really done enough for this popes at least by praying (like Jesus) that he may always be faithful to his vocation as successor of peter, as our father, as our shepherd? Let us stay close to him in this hard times. im sure he will be consoled by our filial affection. if in good conscience you cannot obey a command or two, it is not the reason to abandon him. lets rather intensify our prayers for him storming heaven to grant him wisdom and resoluteness of will to carry out the Divine Will in the fullness of the divine authority vested upon him by Christ.

Why dont you just follow the example of Archbishop Lefebvre who despite being disciplined did not lose his filial affection to Paul VI and JPII, while steadfastly defended orthodoxy.

The battle, brothers, is spiritual. We should engage the enemy in that plane. our common enemy is satan and his falsehood, his pride. I have read your thoughts in this website and in many others. your zeal for the authentic catholicism is admirable. I have been lukewarm for this. but your zeal is inspiring enough to renew my interest and fire within. It is better for us to be united in faith, hope, and love in this trying times. If we are not united we cannot win this battle. it is the strategy of the enemy to divide us.

Under the mantle of our Blessed Mother with St Michael and all the holy angels and St. Francis of Assisi and all the saints, united with the Pope we can win this battle against satan, the ancient accuser.

 

[TMC]

They also changed the substance of the sacrament of Holy Eucharist, something that the Church Herself has no right to do. Yes, they changed the form of a sacrament that Jesus Christ determined minutely (in specie); they dared to tamper with the words of Our Lord Himself.

So, please stop your remonstration regarding what you consider indifferent changes and look to the crucial innovations that were made.

All the very best,

Four_Marks

This is a charge I hear from sedevacantists all the time, but it makes no sense to me at all. The idea is, I suppose, that Christ gave us very specific words that had to be used exactly in the Mass, and that until very recently the Church used those words. But this is patently untrue.

The Mass has never used the precise words that Christ used at the Last Supper, or at least has not since the very first years of the Church. We don’t even know what words Christ used with any precision at all.

Christ spoke Aramaic, not Latin. The Gospels were written in Greek, not Aramais, so at a minimum there are two translation steps between Christ and the Latin form. But even setting that aside, the Gospels do not agree on what words Christ used. How can we say we know what words were correct when Matthew, Mark and Luke cannot agree? They also disagree on whether the bread or wine was consecrated first, and many other details of the Last Supper.

There may be room to disagree on translations and proper liturgies, but no one can claim that they use the exact words of Christ and others do not, because none of us worship in Aramaic, and no one knows exactly what words Christ used. More importantly, where does it say that we must use precisely the same words? Does Christ withold His Grace based not on the Faith of His followers, but because of a scrivener’s error? What religion is that?

 

[Jo_Benedict]

Note:

This thread is closed. Thanks to all who participated in the thread.