Siri: I'm no schismatic, so I asked an honest question

[davidc2]

Hence the so-called “Siri thesis” and the belief that he chose the name Gregory. Are there any sources for that one that you are aware of?

None of the Cardinals in the conclave (the only ones allowed in during the voting) thought he was Pope - including Cardinal Siri himself. Anyone with a contrary view is just nuts.

 

[davidc2]

I never said he had that title. I’ll have to go back and look at my source. I had thought he was “a secretary” as in someone who delivers messages and runs errands.

I know, that’s why I noted that the only secretary allowed anywhere near the voting is the Secretary of the College of Cardinals - and even then only after the voting is complete - to hear the acceptance or rejection.

There simply were no secretaries running around the room during the voting.

 

[GerardP]

There simply were no secretaries running around the room during the voting.

I get that and that is not what I was describing. There isn’t even supposed to be talking during the ballots in the conclave. I’m asking if there are any subordinates in any capacity in contact with Cardinals during the conclaves (of the late 50’s through the 70’s)

Do you know what provisions were made for elderly or infirm Cardinals with medical or particular physical needs?

 

[foolishmortal]

I have no clue, sorry. My post was in response to another I made that was closed quickly. Maybe the moderater thought I was starting a flame war or that it was going too sour. If he did recognize the Pope John 23rd and his successors as valid, I think any sedevacantist should note that.

 

[foolishmortal]

Nevermind…I thought you were responding to my first post. Speaking of divisions in the Church, were the “3” pope"s" during Sts. Catherine of Sienna and Vincent Ferrer’s time? If there ever were an anti-pope, I would have expected him to start with Roncalli (what was his title then), due to the trouble Vatican 2 started (and I think it was inspired by the “spirit of Vatican 2” itself as nothing good came of it as its fruits), but I think the Biblical (or was it post Biblical prophetic) anti-Pope would be ruling with the anti-Christ and probably couldn’t have successors. I accidentally came upon a sedevacantist site while trying to find Cardinal Siri’s story and it was noted that one of the 2 anti-popes during that one time (was it the Middle Ages or the Renaissance then?) was named “John 23rd”. Is that true? Were there 22 popes before that time that used the name “John”?

 

[foolishmortal]

I think Catholics who go schismatic should learn from, I believe, St. Thomas and another one who didn’t like what this one pope was going to make dogma and tried to get him to change his mind, but were obedient to it once proclaimed dogma. It’s not that every pope is right, but that popes can do things you might find crazy, but it doesn’t mean that he is incredible and it’s time to start electing your own bishops. I think he could have just recommended priests of like-mind to keep doing the Latin Mass somewhere, I am not favoring disobedience, but it would have beat schism and the people would still get all the sacraments unless, of course, that would have been a technical schism (I don’t know canon law). Of course, if that were so, every do-it-yourself-Mass would be a schism and they were far more scandalous.
In any case, my FSSP priest is not schismatic or sedevacantist and he is no fool either. When the NO priest needed a Mass time slot they held, they moved to another time (it’s kind of like in Rossellini’s Flowers of St. Francis–great movie, though Brother Juniper really doesn’t apologize for cutting off the pig’s hoof in that version, but tries to get the farmer to praise God for his brother’s well-being–where the guy with his donkey kick them out of their own dwelling and St. Francis smiles and walks away with them). One member of the community even said that the CCC is valid. The Institute of Christ the King Sovereign Priest is another good traditional Catholic priestly (with a handful of 3rd order brothers) community that does Masses for lay people and has a caring for people apostolate in Africa. With the universal indult and enough sympathetic bishops, the schismatic ones should have no sense of need for the SSPX, SBC or Fr. Gruner’s Fatima Crusader. I just hope the last Pope and this one did it because they felt it to be prudent and not appeasement, as you’ll never please everyone and you’ll probably anger a new group.

 

[cam100]

I accidentally came upon a sedevacantist site while trying to find Cardinal Siri’s story and it was noted that one of the 2 anti-popes during that one time (was it the Middle Ages or the Renaissance then?) was named “John 23rd”. Is that true? Were there 22 popes before that time that used the name “John”?

Yes, there was an antipope who took the name John XXIII in 1410. Since he was an antipope, his name was not among the list of true popes, so the next pope to take the name of John would also be John XXIII. It might seem odd that a pope would have the same name as an antipope who preceded him, but this is actually seen as erasing the name of the antipope. Another pope who had the same name as an antipope who preceded him was Innocent III.

 

[bear06]

What do you think of St. Vincent Ferrer’s support of an anti-Pope during the Great Schism? Generations of Catholics came and went during that time period and no one was sure who the real Pope was.

Obedience to a Pope is very important, but it is contingent on the Pope’s behavior and what is commanded. Absolute Obedience only is given to God Himself.

You can’t say nobody was sure because some saints were sure and got it right. Besides, we’re not playing “is my pope the real pope or yours?” Nobody here (I don’t think we have any Pope MIchael fans here) is fighting over two Popes. We have one or we have the group that believes they have none. For the life of me, I’m not sure why that group isn’t picking another one.

Nobody around here can do anything but decide for themselves whether or not they Pope’s behavior or what has been commanded it proper since there is no one in the Holy See has done this. Good luck with that. I certainly hope you’re right in your choice to disobey.

 

[GerardP]

You can’t say nobody was sure because some saints were sure and got it right.

You’ve missed the point. I’m saying that a saint could be mistaken like St. Vincent Ferrer on an issue like this and it didn’t diminish his life of heroic virtue.

Besides, we’re not playing “is my pope the real pope or yours?” Nobody here (I don’t think we have any Pope MIchael fans here) is fighting over two Popes. We have one or we have the group that believes they have none. For the life of me, I’m not sure why that group isn’t picking another one.

There are multiple variants in the sedevacantist camp. “Garage Popes” as Bishop Williamson has called them. And there are those that think there may be a Pope but he is hidden.

Nobody around here can do anything but decide for themselves whether or not they Pope’s behavior or what has been commanded it proper since there is no one in the Holy See has done this.

I can’t make heads nor tails of that sentence. Care to elaborate?

Good luck with that. I certainly hope you’re right in your choice to disobey.

What disobedience are you talking about?

 

[bear06]

I can’t make heads nor tails of that sentence. Care to elaborate?

I’m running out the door but basically any call made on whether a pope’s behavior and directives are in error is a personal call and you better hope you’re right.

What disobedience are you talking about?

Whatever one you say is contingent on a popes behavior and what is commanded.

 

[KathleenElsie]

Bottom line is that Cathoolics are not given the option of waiting it out 'til they find a Pope more “likeable.” Obedience to the Pope and acceptance of the Pope are very high on the lists of “givens” in the Church. There is no option that allows “I’ll simply ignore this Pope.”

Well said.

 

[GerardP]

'm running out the door but basically any call made on whether a pope’s behavior and directives are in error is a personal call and you better hope you’re right.

Wouldn’t that also be true of any command you follow? If a Pope asks you to do something sinful and you do it, aren’t you culpable to some degree?

Whatever one you say is contingent on a popes behavior and what is commanded.

What commands can a Pope give that are sinful and must be obeyed?

If you say none, does that not mean that obedience is contingent?

 

[foolishmortal]

Thanks cam! That was interesting. Still, not the best Pope name for someone who would freak out ultraconservative Catholics so much, they’d leave once the found out about the big project he started. I was wondering if the secretary of state (or whatever he’s called) of his was behind his name and the invitation list of advisors that included Protestants. Doesn’t the sec. of state advise the Pope a lot when the latter is in his early years as Pope, anyway?
I'm not sure St. Francis was ready to be a leader of a new community as, before he left, he allowed people to join too easily to be members and they made a mess of his order. I think Pope John 23rd was too sanguine in how he did Vatican 2 and didn't know what he was getting the Church into or who was pulling the real strings behind the curtain. Even he felt something was not quite right. What DID he have to say about the aftermath of Vatican 2 and where radicals took it?

 

[bear06]

Wouldn’t that also be true of any command you follow? If a Pope asks you to do something sinful and you do it, aren’t you culpable to some degree?

When has the pope ever asked me (or you) to do something sinful? This always comes up in the conversation. Let us run to the extreme. Let’s deal with the situation at hand. If the Pope gives a ruling on a discipline, are you free to reject it outside of him telling you to sin? If the pope told me to something I knew in fact (not thought maybe) was a sin, I wouldn’t not do it.

What commands can a Pope give that are sinful and must be obeyed?

 

[GerardP]

When has the pope ever asked me (or you) to do something sinful?

 

[bear06]

Gerard, you’re either evading the question or you are arguing about nothing. What is the purpose then of constantly bringing up the whole “we don’t have to obey the pope if he’s telling you to sin” scenario?

That’s not running to the extreme. It’s following the rule to its logical conclusion.

Since you can’t give me example, I guess we’re dealing with the mythological example that really has nothing to do with anything.

No. Let’s deal with the principal.

How about we deal with the issues at hand rather than the “if the pope told you to kill someone, would you?” argument?

It would depend on the ruling. Pope Stephen’s pronouncements on the validity of Pope Formosus’ actions as Pope including his ordinations was objectively wrong and eventually overturned. At the same trial, a deacon was ordered to provide answers for the corpse of Pope Formosus. Was it morally licit for the deacon to disobey that order?

Again, you compare apples to oranges. We’re talking about a very goofy pope who decided to bring a dead person to trial and on the other hand we are speaking of the past few popes who have made rulings on the disciplines of the Roman Catholic Church.

Is that a typo?

None. I reject policies an appeals from the Popes that damage the faith and the practice of it. (eg. no Luminous Mysteries, I continue with Friday abstinence all year, fast from Midnight before Sunday Mass, I go to the TLM instead of the Novus Ordo. I don’t support heterodox priests and bishops. etc. etc.)

I never said there was a litany of sinful acts that the Pope is commanding. I’m asking for a clarification on the limits of obedience to papal authority.

 

[bear06]

Is that a typo?

Yes. I said I was in a hurry. Take out the n’t or the not.

None. I reject policies an appeals from the Popes that damage the faith and the practice of it. (eg. no Luminous Mysteries, I continue with Friday abstinence all year, fast from Midnight before Sunday Mass, I go to the TLM instead of the Novus Ordo. I don’t support heterodox priests and bishops. etc. etc.)

Sigh! I had a long piece typed out in an edit but I didn’t hit he button before the 20 minute deadline. In short, no meat on Friday and Novus Ordo Mass are disciplines. The pope is in charge of disciplines and if you buy some of the pre-VII teachings, pope no issue disciplines harmful to the Faith or that can lead a soul to impiety. You are free to choose no meat and no substitution or the EF. I’m not too sure you can condemn either practice. As far as the Luminous Mysteries go…Do you really feel that these can damage the Faith?! Seems a little extreme.

I never said there was a litany of sinful acts that the Pope is commanding. I’m asking for a clarification on the limits of obedience to papal authority.

Here’s part of one of dmy favorite articles packe with some great quotes:

continued…

 

[bear06]

From Francis de Sales"Obedience lovingly undertakes to do ail that is commanded it with simplicity and without ever considering whether the command is good or bad, provided that the person who orders has authority to order, and that the command serves to unite our mind to God." (Spiritual Conferences, XI, p 179)

He adds that if a superior orders what is evidently against the law of God, it is one’s duty not to submit. Aside from this last case, however, the truly obedient person does not go astray even when the superior is wrong and commands what is less good than what we ourselves would choose. Then God, to whom the submission is given and who sees the heart, rewards this obedience by assuring success. Again, St. Francis de Sales, commenting upon the “the obedient man shall speak of victory,” says:

“The truly obedient man will come out the conqueror in all the difficulties into which he may be led by obedience, and with honor from all the roads he has traversed, however dangerous.” (Ibid, p. 199).

In other words, a superior may err in commanding but we make no mistake in obeying, a conclusion which emerges just as clearly from the following statement of Pope Leo XIII:

“The only reason which men can have for not obeying is when anything is demanded of them which is openly repugnant to the natural or Divine law, for it is equally unlawful to command to do anything in which the law of nature or the will of God is violated.” (Diuturnum Illud [1881], Denz. 1857).

All the detailed treatments on the virtue of obedience and its application to laws and commands of lawful authority, for example those of Suarez and of St. Robert Bellarmine, are to the same effect.

For completeness it should be added that even if one is in doubt as to whether obedience to the command is or is not sinful, one is obliged to obey, because the presumption is in favor of the superior. This also applies when compliance with a command appears to be probably sinful. Only when definite sin is involved is one entitled, and obliged, to disobey. The clear teaching of the Church on this point is summed up by St. Ignatius Loyola:

“When, in my opinion and judgment, the Superior bids me to do something which is against my conscience or sinful, and the Superior thinks the contrary, I ought to believe him unless he is manifestly wrong.” (Monumenta Ignatian, series 1a, XII, 660).

The only position for a loyal Catholic to adopt, when faced with the true Catholic position on primacy and obedience set out above, is to accept John Paul II and the bishops in communion with him as our lawful pastors and obey them in all that is not sinful. Obedience and loyalty to Peter is the authentic Catholic attitude. This does not mean that one has to go along with abuses. One can quite properly oppose, for example, the use, in contravention of the necessary conditions for such use, of extraordinary ministers of the Eucharist, since this would be a breach of Rome’s instructions, which are those of a higher authority. Similarly, one may petition, say, for a wider application by the bishops of those provisions of the pope’s Apostolic Letter. Ecclesia Dei, concerning the use of the Tridentine Mass, in accordance with the pope’s wishes. But, if a command is given by the supreme authority, then one must obey, except in the narrow circumstances discussed earlier. This is the only way to maintain tradition since it is the only attitude in line with tradition.

What cannot be justified, in the light of what has been stated above, is the position of the Society of St. Pius X, which insists in public that John Paul II is pope, but then decides for itself when to obey him, using its own reading and personal ideas to justify what it claims that tradition demands. However eminent the authorities relied on, such a process is essentially one of private judgment and, not surprisingly, leads to a corresponding variety of answers. The similarity to movements such as Protestantism and Jansenism is striking. To such people it is the individual who decides. not the Church. As a result, one is left to decide issues which one has neither authority nor competence to decide. What gives an individual the authority to decide that a rite of Mass is doubtful or invalid or the right to decide whether an excommunication is valid? As to competence the vast majority of such people are not canonists, theologians, or liturgists. Even those who are, notoriously disagree. There are dozens of positions: Lefebvre, de Nantes, Des Lauriers, Ngo Dinh Thuc, etc. It is not enough to say “I will read and study.” Seeking to find the path to God by mere knowledge, without receiving the grace that comes from living in sacramental union with the Church can all too easily lead one out of the Church as in the case of Jansenism and Eastern Orthodoxy. It is for the living Church to show us the truth, not for us to tell the Church where the truth lies. Because we have no competence and no authority to judge these matters, we cannot be sure to arrive at the truth by studying them.

sspx.agenda.tripod.com/id18.html

 

[foolishmortal]

I think the last Pope should have spent his years taking care of renegade clergy instead of thinking up new rosary mysteries and traveling all around the world as only the youth of practicing Catholic parents probably loved him anyway, thus leaving children of impious Catholic households blowing in the wind. He was there for nearly 30 years and we still have do-it-yourself Masses and the only thing he seemed to apologize for was allowing the sexual abuse to go on under his nose. He went after Call to Action, Irish women trying to be priests (and the bishop who wanted to do it, and the SSPX, but left the run-of-the-mill liturgical abusers, that inspires such behavior, to go on. Why didn’t he laicize Cardinal Mahoney or put him in some backwater diocese before he made that abomination of a cathedral? Maybe the Grunerites are right and the enemy was within and had his hands tied in some way.

Still, the Luminous Mysteries are fine as such, in my opinion.

 

[foolishmortal]

Wow! I read that article…very eye opening! Well, I stand corrected when I said Lefebvre should have requested like-minded bishops and priests of his to do the Latin Mass in defiance instead of ordaining bishops. I guess both were very demonic. Still, I cannot see how a priest messing with the Mass’s liturgy is a slight slight against obedience. Did not Pope Paul 6 establish the N.O. with particular liturgies (for different rites and countries with local customs–or giving the option to bishops) and particular options within (like different Eucharistic prayers)? I think many priests have stepped outside that form and I would say that is in opposition to some style set by the Pope and/or bishop.

I think there was intellectual pride, but also reasonable fear in these potentially latter times–as there is predicted an anti-pope to come–that clouded minds to objective teaching. That, of course, is something that might excuse sedevacantists, but not any who accept the pope as a valid Pope, esp. not one who should know better.

I thought that Michael Davies’s “I am With You Always” was written against separatism by those who might have taken his anti-Vatican 2 and N.O. writings too a schismatic end. That’s how I read it and, ironically, that book may be how I chose not to accept the SSPX as an ok order. Funny, huh?

I’m glad the response of Padre Pio and Lucy of Fatima fame (probably bad wording, but she is famous because of Fatima) was in there. Why the Society does not take note of that, I could not imagine, as every Catholic recognizes him as having had special connections with heaven (I don’t remember if Mary ever came back to Lucy after Vatican 2 and the N.O. to tell her what to think about it all).

Thank you for posting that!