SSPX vs Sedevacantism

[CWBetts]

So is he misperceiving the disobedience of the Society, or the orthodoxy of Cardinal Kasper or both? And who gets to decide whether or not the Pope is misperceiving?
You? Maurin? Msgr Fellay?

Clearly from these three oracles it is clear that the SSPX have set themselves up as judges of the Popes words, deciding for themselves whether or not they shall obey them. Then at least one of these tin pot oracles makes a snide remark about papal infallibility and in so doing clearly demonstrates to us all his schismatic mentality.

you have that right. In the SSPX mindest, it is the SSPX that is protected by infallibility, and not the Holy Father.

 

[giuseppeTO]

The truth is amazing, not I.

Where does Tradition teach that we are to pray to the deceased?
Rather, we are to pray for the deceased.

Did people not pray for Pope John Paul’s intervention before he was officially declared venerable by Rome? Are any miracles attributed to him before the church declared him venerable to be discarded?

 

[maurin]

So is he misperceiving the disobedience of the Society, or the orthodoxy of Cardinal Kasper or both? And who gets to decide whether or not the Pope is misperceiving?
You? Maurin? Msgr Fellay?

Clearly from these three oracles it is clear that the SSPX have set themselves up as judges of the Popes words, deciding for themselves whether or not they shall obey them. Then at least one of these tin pot oracles makes a snide remark about papal infallibility and in so doing clearly demonstrates to us all his schismatic mentality.

If one is to listen to you and Catharina and follow your reasoning to its logical, even though you reasoning is not quite accurate, but if one follows it to its logical end, it is you who are accusing tthe Pope of misperceptions of the Society’s disobedience: the unfolding of events since theMP clearly point to a different conclusion than yours.

And excubitir, I will grant you that I misspoke when I said “reported in the papers” in regard to Cardinal Kasper’s comment. You were correct that it was reported on blogs. However your assessment of calumny is over the top. Until or unless it is reported in a venue which is mutually agreed to be reliable, I RETRACT THAT PORTION OF MY POST, in the spirit of charity, with apologies.

 

[catharina]

Blessed Mother Mary McKillop, excommunicated and now beatified, ora pro nobis.

St. Athanasius, excommunicated and now in the Communion of Saints, ora pro nobis.

St. Joan of Arc, burned at the stake as a heretic by church authorities, ora pro nobis.

St. Ignatius of Loyola, incarcerated by the Inquisition for the faith, ora pro nobis.

PS - For you Steubenville types, “ora pro nobis” is not speaking in tongues, it is Latin for “Pray For Us”.

Catholics are to follow the Church, to follow the teachings of the Church.
Catholics are not to imagine and spread fantasies about what the Church might teach.

To urge “prayers to” M. Lefebvre is to urge an anti-Catholic practice.
Worse yet, you already know that but in this case, perhaps, pride overtakes humilty.

St. Michael the Archangel, pray for us.

 

[pnewton]

you have that right. In the SSPX mindest, it is the SSPX that is protected by infallibility, and not the Holy Father.

The Holy Father is only protected with a charism in a very narrow range of circumstances. To my knowledge, John Paul II only exercised this charism once (ordination of women) and Pope Benedict XVI has not yet made any statement protected by infallibility. Any pope, or other church official, can act wisely or foolishly without infallibility being an issue. In regards to sedevacantism, this also means that one can not (or should not) call the pope a heretic and vacate his seat based on unwise actions.

(Thus bringing us back to the topic of why the SSPX is not sedevacantist)

EDIT - I forgot one important exercise of infallibility: the canonization of saints. That’s a biggie that both men have exercised.

 

[maurin]

you have that right. In the SSPX mindest, it is the SSPX that is protected by infallibility, and not the Holy Father.

That is a misrepresentation of the egregious variety. When one magisterium contradicts that of a previous one in practice if not in theory, one is bound by conscience to reject the deviations. It is not the Society which is infallible, it is the infallible teachings of previous magisteriums to which the Society holds.

 

[excubitor]

Originally Posted by CWBetts
“Great Archbishops” don’t openly defy the Pope and get themselves excommunicated.

Blessed Mother Mary McKillop, excommunicated and now beatified, ora pro nobis.

St. Athanasius, excommunicated and now in the Communion of Saints, ora pro nobis.

St. Joan of Arc, burned at the stake as a heretic by church authorities, ora pro nobis.

St. Ignatius of Loyola, incarcerated by the Inquisition for the faith, ora pro nobis.

None of whom openly defied the Pope.

 

[giuseppeTO]

The Holy Father is only protected with a charism in a very narrow range of circumstances. To my knowledge, John Paul II only exercised this charism once (ordination of women) and Pope Benedict XVI has not yet made any statement protected by infallibility. Any pope, or other church official, can act wisely or foolishly without infallibility being an issue. In regards to sedevacantism, this also means that one can not (or should not) call the pope a heretic and vacate his seat based on unwise actions.

(Thus bringing us back to the topic of why the SSPX is not sedevacantist)

Thanks, Newt - frequently the voice of temperance during an invasion of the snorks.

 

[pnewton]

That is a misrepresentation of the egregious variety. When one magisterium contradicts that of a previous one in practice if not in theory, one is bound by conscience to reject the deviations. It is not the Society which is infallible, it is the infallible teachings of previous magisteriums to which the Society holds.

This is the very area of the current discussions. Has this happened or not? Perhaps they will yield the fruit of clarification of some of the teachings of Vatican II. One thing is certain, there is nothing the SSPX hold that is at least not permitted as a valid view by the Catholic Church.

 

[catharina]

The Holy Father is only protected with a charism in a very narrow range of circumstances. To my knowledge, John Paul II only exercised this charism once (ordination of women) and Pope Benedict XVI has not yet made any statement protected by infallibility. Any pope, or other church official, can act wisely or foolishly without infallibility being an issue. In regards to sedevacantism, this also means that one can not (or should not) call the pope a heretic and vacate his seat based on unwise actions.

(Thus bringing us back to the topic of why the SSPX is not sedevacantist)

EDIT - I forgot one important exercise of infallibility: the canonization of saints. That’s a biggie that both men have exercised.

:clapping::clapping::clapping:

 

[excubitor]

If one is to listen to you and Catharina and follow your reasoning to its logical, even though you reasoning is not quite accurate, but if one follows it to its logical end, it is you who are accusing tthe Pope of misperceptions of the Society’s disobedience: the unfolding of events since theMP clearly point to a different conclusion than yours.

I deny that Pope Benedict’s lifting of the excommunications constitutes an endorsement of the SSPX behaviour. Therefore I am not accusing the Pope of any misperceptions at all. My logic was that you have used the Pope’s authority and prestige in order to justify your society (albeit incorrectly). However you have done this only to suit yourself because when it suits you, you are quite prepared to ignore the Pope’s authority and prestige and accuse him of misperceiving (as for example in the case of Cardinal Kasper).
I was highlighting this double standard.

I completely deny that the Pope has made any misperceptions of any kind.

And excubitir, I will grant you that I misspoke when I said “reported in the papers” in regard to Cardinal Kasper’s comment. You were correct that it was reported on blogs. However your assessment of calumny is over the top. Until or unless it is reported in a venue which is mutually agreed to be reliable, I RETRACT THAT PORTION OF MY POST, in the spirit of charity, with apologies.

Are you saying that you can say anything you like on these forums and it will not be regarded as calumny because this venue is not reliable? What definition of calumny are you using? Calumny is any kind of gossip in any venue which seeks to injure another persons reputation.
Here is the definition: Calumny - a false and malicious statement designed to injure the reputation of someone or something:

Still you have made your apology and that is good enough for me, but I am just defending my use of the word calumny.

 

[catharina]

I deny that Pope Benedict’s lifting of the excommunications constitutes an endorsement of the SSPX behaviour. Therefore I am not accusing the Pope of any misperceptions at all. My logic was that you have used the Pope’s authority and prestige in order to justify your society (albeit incorrectly). However you have done this only to suit yourself because when it suits you, you are quite prepared to ignore the Pope’s authority and prestige and accuse him of misperceiving (as for example in the case of Cardinal Kasper).
I was highlighting this double standard.

I completely deny that the Pope has made any misperceptions of any kind.

Are you saying that you can say anything you like on these forums and it will not be regarded as calumny because this venue is not reliable? What definition of calumny are you using? Calumny is any kind of gossip in any venue which seeks to injure another persons reputation.
Here is the definition: Calumny - a false and malicious statement designed to injure the reputation of someone or something:

Still you have made your apology and that is good enough for me, but I am just defending my use of the word calumny.

Wonderfully charitable of you. Great example of virtue.

 

[excubitor]

Originally Posted by pnewton
The Holy Father is only protected with a charism in a very narrow range of circumstances. To my knowledge, John Paul II only exercised this charism once (ordination of women) and Pope Benedict XVI has not yet made any statement protected by infallibility. Any pope, or other church official, can act wisely or foolishly without infallibility being an issue. In regards to sedevacantism, this also means that one can not (or should not) call the pope a heretic and vacate his seat based on unwise actions.

(Thus bringing us back to the topic of why the SSPX is not sedevacantist)

Thanks, Newt - frequently the voice of temperance during an invasion of the snorks.

Its appalling. The doctrine of papal infallibility was declared dogmatically to uphold, reinforce and affirm that the Pope is indefectable in his rule of the church and was to be obeyed. It was not designed to weaken the power of the Pope but to affirm and strengthen it. Instead it is used by modernists and hyper-traditionalists alike to question the authority of the Pope. Basically unless he preceeds every statement he makes with “I am now speaking ex-cathedra” that therefore the Pope can be ignored and disobeyed because he might be speaking fallibly, and "who better to decide whether or not he is speaking fallibly or not than ME "

To question the infallibility of the Pope is not the voice of temperance, but the voice of sedition and disobedience. I will have no bar of it. I encourage us to be alert to similar dangerous and destructive statements which are repeatedly made by modernists and hyper-traditionalists alike. When we hear this kind of statement it is like the red flag of error which you will find in the near vicinity.

By the way guissepTO, a snork is someone who smokes marijuana. I did not know this and had to look it up.
Perhaps you did not know what it meant and just thought it sounded amusing. Could you please choose your words more carefully in future. I must admit I felt somewhat offended when I found out what the word meant seeing we are opponents in this debate.

 

[CWBetts]

That is a misrepresentation of the egregious variety. When one magisterium contradicts that of a previous one in practice if not in theory, one is bound by conscience to reject the deviations. It is not the Society which is infallible, it is the infallible teachings of previous magisteriums to which the Society holds.

There have been no contradictions.

 

[catharina]

Its appalling. The doctrine of papal infallibility was declared dogmatically to uphold, reinforce and affirm that the Pope is indefectable in his rule of the church and was to be obeyed. It was not designed to weaken the power of the Pope but to affirm and strengthen it. Instead it is used by modernists and hyper-traditionalists alike to question the authority of the Pope. Basically unless he preceeds every statement he makes with “I am now speaking ex-cathedra” that therefore the Pope can be ignored and disobeyed because he might be speaking fallibly, and "who better to decide whether or not he is speaking fallibly or not than ME "

What pnewton has declared here is not the voice of temperance, but the voice of sedition and disobedience. I will have no bar of it. Of all the statements on this thread where so many seditious things have been said in support of the SSPX camp, this is the most dangerous. I hope we all have enough Catholic sensibilities to distance ourselves from this statement by pnewton and to be alert to similar dangerous and destructive statements which are repeatedly made by modernists and hyper-traditionalists alike.

By the way guissepTO, a snork is someone who smokes marijuana. I did not know this and had to look it up.
Perhaps you did not know what it meant and just thought it sounded amusing. Could you please choose your words more carefully in future. I must admit I felt somewhat offended when I found out what the word meant seeing we are opponents in this debate. I sincerely desire to maintain Christian charity amongst.

Then perhaps I misunderstand pnewton’s post and affirmed it too quickly.

Clearly, the declarations of the Holy Father in matters of faith and morals are sacrosanct.
There is no way or circumstance that denies that fact.

Such teaching is to be accepted as infallible teaching.

PS - regarding the “snork” comment, I ignored it as malicious, considering the source.
Now that you have found the meaning (unknown to me 'til now), I too strongly object to it.

Rather than an exchange in charity, that word stoops to level of pointless, false insult.
Such accusations are uncharitable and clearly forbidden by rules of the forum.

Thank you for looking up the meaning and mentioning it here.

 

[pnewton]

Its appalling. The doctrine of papal infallibility was declared dogmatically to uphold, reinforce and affirm that the Pope is indefectable in his rule of the church and was to be obeyed.

Here is the statement from Vatican I.
ewtn.com/library/councils/v1.htm#6

Therefore, faithfully adhering to the tradition received from the beginning of the Christian faith, to the glory of God our savior, for the exaltation of the Catholic religion and for the salvation of the Christian people, with the approval of the Sacred Council, we teach and define as a divinely revealed dogma that when the Roman Pontiff speaks EX CATHEDRA, that is, when, in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole Church, he possesses, by the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter, that infallibility which the divine Redeemer willed his Church to enjoy in defining doctrine concerning faith or morals. Therefore, such definitions of the Roman Pontiff are of themselves, and not by the consent of the Church, irreformable.

In my statement on infallibility I made no statement at all regarding obedience, or disobedience to the Holy Father. It was not the topic of that post. You read way too much into it.

 

[maurin]

I deny that Pope Benedict’s lifting of the excommunications constitutes an endorsement of the SSPX behaviour. Therefore I am not accusing the Pope of any misperceptions at all. My logic was that you have used the Pope’s authority and prestige in order to justify your society (albeit incorrectly). However you have done this only to suit yourself because when it suits you, you are quite prepared to ignore the Pope’s authority and prestige and accuse him of misperceiving (as for example in the case of Cardinal Kasper).
I was highlighting this double standard.

I completely deny that the Pope has made any misperceptions of any kind.

Are you saying that you can say anything you like on these forums and it will not be regarded as calumny because this venue is not reliable? What definition of calumny are you using? Calumny is any kind of gossip in any venue which seeks to injure another persons reputation.
Here is the definition: Calumny - a false and malicious statement designed to injure the reputation of someone or something:

Still you have made your apology and that is good enough for me, but I am just defending my use of the word calumny.

If it were good enough for you you could have said in a few words that which took you multiple paragraphs tosay. I retracted my statement unless or until it is reported in a venue which is mutually agreeable, key word is mutually. Your use of the word calumny remains over the top.

 

[giuseppeTO]

The doctrine of papal infallibility was declared dogmatically to uphold, reinforce and affirm that the Pope is indefectable in his rule of the church and was to be obeyed.

Absolutely and unequivocally false. Read the declaration of the First Vatican Council - you are ignorant of the subject matter and are practicing papalotry, a grave sin, which holds that no matter what the Pope says or does, it must have been inspired by the Holy Ghost

By the way guissepTO, a snork is someone who smokes marijuana. I did not know this and had to look it up.
Perhaps you did not know what it meant and just thought it sounded amusing. Could you please choose your words more carefully in future. I must admit I felt somewhat offended when I found out what the word meant seeing we are opponents in this debate.

I was not speaking of you … I was speaking of the other snorks.

 

[CWBetts]

Absolutely and unequivocally false. Read the declaration of the First Vatican Council - you are ignorant of the subject matter and are practicing papalotry, a grave sin, which holds that no matter what the Pope says or does, it must have been inspired by the Holy Ghost

I was not speaking of you … I was speaking of the other snorks.

It is in now way charitable to stoop to this level of name-calling

 

[pnewton]

In regards to obedience, I believe:

ewtn.com/library/councils/v1.htm#6

Wherefore we teach and declare that, by divine ordinance, the Roman Church possesses a pre-eminence of ordinary power over every other Church, and that this jurisdictional power of the Roman Pontiff is both episcopal and immediate. Both clergy and faithful, of whatever rite and dignity, both singly and collectively, are bound to submit to this power by the duty of hierarchical subordination and true obedience, and this not only in matters concerning faith and morals, but also in those which regard the discipline and government of the Church throughout the world.

So, then, if anyone says that the Roman Pontiff has merely an office of supervision and guidance, and not the full and supreme power of jurisdiction over the whole Church, and this not only in matters of faith and morals, but also in those which concern the discipline and government of the Church dispersed throughout the whole world; or that he has only the principal part, but not the absolute fullness, of this supreme power; or that this power of his is not ordinary and immediate both over all and each of the Churches and over all and each of the pastors and faithful: let him be anathema.