- Status
T
TNT
Guest
St. Catherine of Siena:
“Even if that vicar were a devil incarnate, I must not defy him.” (St. Catherine, Letter to Bernabo Visconti)
When UNQUALIFIED, this is of course a call to Zombieism.
Which cannot negate the other commands.
This is the kind of Zombieism that allowed the pedophiles to continue unabated because the children & their parents were told to obey aka be silent towards the secular authority.
“Even if that vicar were a devil incarnate, I must not defy him.” (St. Catherine, Letter to Bernabo Visconti)
“Divine obedience never prevents us from obedience to the Holy Father: nay, the more perfect the one, the more perfect is the other. And we ought always to be subject to his commands and obedient unto death. However indiscreet obedience to him might seem, and however it should deprive us of mental peace and consolation, we ought to obey; and I consider that to do the opposite is a great imperfection, and deceit of the devil.” (St. Catherine, Letter to Brother Antonio of Nizza).
When UNQUALIFIED, this is of course a call to Zombieism.
The facts are:
Matthew 12
12 How much better is a man than a sheep?
Matthew 10
37 He that loveth father or mother [or bishop or pope or anyone] more than me, is not worthy of me; and he that loveth son or daughter more than me, is not worthy of me.
Acts Of Apostles 5
29 But Peter and the apostles answering, said: We ought to obey God, rather than men.
(Ex-Cathedra).
Romans 2
8 But to them that are contentious, and who obey not the truth, but give credit to iniquity, wrath and indignation.
Hebrews 13
17 Obey your prelates, and be subject to them. For they watch as being to render an account of your souls; that they may do this with joy, and not with grief. For this is not expedient for you.
Which cannot negate the other commands.This is the kind of Zombieism that allowed the pedophiles to continue unabated because the children & their parents were told to obey aka be silent towards the secular authority.
M
MTD
Guest
Yes, and if you look at my post #227, you’ll see that I mentioned form and matter as well as apostolic succession; you’ll also see that I mentioned that before you said what exactly made you suspect the validity of those ordinations.
Perhaps, but not necessarily.
That’s fine with me.
Hmmm.
No, thank you.
Maria
B
bear06
Guest
http://deephousepage.com/smilies/bangdesk.gif"]http://deephousepage.com/smilies/bangdesk.gif
What I really see in #227 is you answering a question I asked Gorman and now I’ll probably never know exactly what he was alluding to!
Again, I’d ask him which bishops are valid in his mind. It seems that all sedevacantists disagree on this anyway which I believe would go back to a point I think you made on the 4 marks of the true Church and how it’s hard to apply them anyone in charge of the sedevacantists.
G
gorman64
Guest
Dear Bear06:
I agree with Maria here.
Him says the above.
It matters little what is valid in my mind…it only matters what is valid. If these Bishops were consecrated in the old rite by a valid bishop…they are Bishops. Unless I have some positive reason to doubt this I do not doubt it.Why do you doubt it? Remember that we are speaking of validity…I know you think they are illicit…which is understandable based on your positions.
Yours,
Gorman
B
bear06
Guest
Even I agree with Maria here. That said, can you prove the ordinations were valid? If so, why? And, BTW, this whole conversation is way beside the point of the Visible Church and the sedevacantists having a little problem in this area.
Please, can I please have some names of said bishops?
Uh, because the One, Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church does not recognize at the very least some of them and says that they see them in the same canonical status as before the “ordinations”. Again, my guess is that there was a little problem with form, matter and intent in this regard or they would see them in the same light as the SSPX. They would recognize the ordinations but seem them as illicit.
First of all, it would be helpful, again, to know which bishops you actually see as valid that are still living.
Secondly, for about the 10th time, how do you sedevacantists deal with the aspect of the Visible Church? Do you just not deal with it at all? Really, this is a traditional teaching of the Church pre and post Vatican II so I’d think there must be an argument for it somewhere in the sedevacantist beliefs.
I
itsjustdave1988
Guest
Which is precisely why I qualfied by describind LAWFUL authority.
Surely you agree with St. Thomas Aquinas, who describes three kinds of obedience:
- Sufficient - obeys in all lawful commands of one’s superior that are within the scope of their authority.
- Perfect - obeys in all lawful commands of one’s superior, even if they are not within the scope of their authority.
- Indiscreet - obeys in unlawful matters.
Nobody, not even St. Catherine, is suggesting that indiscreet obedience is OK. On the contrary, St. Catherine is saying that if one obeys the Holy Father, such obedience can never be indiscreet.
With regard to the crime of solicitation and the scandalous homosexual crimes of some clergy, such crimes were done contrary to the commands of the Roman Pontiff.
T
TNT
Guest
itsjustdave1988;…
…
I know of no such real or imaginary doctrine of Faith.
In fact, the 1,200 year old Papal Oath would indicate otherwise.
…
Where is the idea that a pontiff can never teach pertinacious heresy.
I know of no such real or imaginary doctrine of Faith.
In fact, the 1,200 year old Papal Oath would indicate otherwise.
Of course history says otherwise. Remember the pope that made up his own bible and commanded all must use it even though it was chock full of errors?
I wasn’t talking about the Crime. I was talking about the methods of preventing it from being revealed to the secular authority, as these were objectively secular crimes.
G
gorman64
Guest
I’m not sure what “teaching pertinacious heresy” means, but you are arguing against the opinion of a Doctor of the Universal Church, St. Robert Bellarmine.
Yours,
Gorman
G
gorman64
Guest
Dave:
How does one “teach pertinacious heresy”?
I think what you are saying is that a Pope cannot teach error in faith and morals…he cannot fall into formal heresy. If he could actually teach error in faith and morals, the Church would not be indefectible. This is Bellarmine’s opinion. We agree here.
But you’re not really addressing the issue at hand…you are just saying that you have a true pope…it’s a dogmatic fact…and since he cannot error in these areas…obedience to him cannot be indiscreet. If you think he has erred or is presiding over decades of error …then you’re just mistaken and should just submit your intellect to his judgment. It’s a new Pentecost…accept it.
If it wasn’t for everything around me I would agree with you. I fully understand you…I just don’t agree with you. Your blind spot is that you can’t fathom the alternative. Your view allows you to ignore anything that is truly problematic and just say it really can’t be a problem…it must be accidental or something.
Yours,
Gorman
P.S.
M
MTD
Guest
Gorman,
This argument is assuredly between you and Dave, and I have a bad history of getting involved in others’ debates, but I thought I’d take the chance of injecting a comment.
This argument is assuredly between you and Dave, and I have a bad history of getting involved in others’ debates, but I thought I’d take the chance of injecting a comment.
G
gorman64
Guest
Maria:
Yes, I agree. The distinction is in his authority as pope and his temporal judgments and personal behavior. A pope may be a rascal in the latter…and neither I, nor St. Pius X, was thinking otherwise.
Yours,
Gorman
B
BobP123
Guest
From the Baltimore Catechism:
Q. 1259. What are we commanded by the fourth Commandment?
A. We are commanded by the fourth Commandment to honor, love and obey our parents in all that is not sin.
Q. 1260. Why should we refuse to obey parents or superiors who command us to sin?
A. We should refuse to obey parents or superiors who command us to sin because they are not then acting with God’s authority, but contrary to it and in violation of His laws.
Q. 1261. Are we bound to honor and obey others than our parents?
A. We are also bound to honor and obey our bishops, pastors, magistrates, teachers, and other lawful superiors.
Q. 1259. What are we commanded by the fourth Commandment?
A. We are commanded by the fourth Commandment to honor, love and obey our parents in all that is not sin.
Q. 1260. Why should we refuse to obey parents or superiors who command us to sin?
A. We should refuse to obey parents or superiors who command us to sin because they are not then acting with God’s authority, but contrary to it and in violation of His laws.
Q. 1261. Are we bound to honor and obey others than our parents?
A. We are also bound to honor and obey our bishops, pastors, magistrates, teachers, and other lawful superiors.
M
MTD
Guest
I’m not sure what exactly your argument is, but I’d like to point out a few things.
- The issue here with sedevacantism is whether those bishops really have authority over us. Once they truly have authority, yes, we obey them in all things but sin. But the thing with sedevacantists is that they don’t believe those bishops have any jurisdiction at all because they believe those bishops are heretics (and thus outside the Church), so for them obedience isn’t really in the picture.
- The unique thing about the pope is that he can never approve a discipline contrary to Divine Law. This is in virtue of negative and indirect infallibility. So basically, a true pope can never command us to do something that would be sinful.
I
itsjustdave1988
Guest
Gorman64,
gorman64:
I think we both have seen that the traditional view is incompatible with the Lefebvrist claim that one may legitimately disobey the canon law and withold assent from the certain teachings of the duly elected pope. Lefebvrism is therefore internally inconsistent and to be rejected.
However, it seems you are judging the pope to have been NOT duly elected, based upon your opinion of his Acta Apostolicae Sedis SINCE his election. I don’t agree this is a safe or traditionally Catholic methodology for determining the dogmatic fact of who is the duly elected pope.
The methodology used to determine whether an individual is the duly elected Roman Pontiff has never been based upon the subjective view of his teachings after being elected. Instead, the certainty of the historic fact is the rational element of “dogmatic fact” that we ought to be discerning. Was it historically certain fact that Pius XII was the duly elected and universally accepted as Roman Pontiff? The methodology used should be unbiased and rational evaluation of the historical evidence, just as any credible historian would do in discerning a matter to be historic fact.
By using this rational, unbiased approach, is it a certain historic fact that the popes after Pius XII were duly elected and universally accepted as the Roman Pontiff? If we lived 1500 years ago, this question would not be so easy to answer. We would have to write to the Church of Rome and ask, “Who is you bishop?” We might get a letter back that indicated a clear answer, or we may receivesome ambiguity, stating that "some submit to “Bishop-X” and “others submit to Bishop-Y.” However, in today’s world, it is somewhat easier to communicate with the Church of Rome to discern if there is any historical ambiguity as to who they accept throughout the diocese as the Bishop.
Who is it? If in doubt, travel to Rome and see for yourself who it is they universally accept as the Bishop of Rome. See for yourself if the Roman clergy and laity have any doubt as to who their bishop is. Such is the methods historians would use in verifying historical claims. They review any written evidence, interview first-hand witnesses if they are still alive, etc. If one did this without an a priori view that Benedict XVI couldn’t possibly be the valid pope, then you would surely agree that he was duly elected. All the electors submit to him as Roman Pontiff. All the clergy and laity of Rome submit to him as the Bishop of their diocese. All the heads of states accept him as the Pope of Rome. All secular historians unanimously agree Benedict XVI was indeed elected and universally accepted as the Bishop of Rome.
Historic fact is established by evidence, by reason, and by testimony. Thus, it is untenable to conclude that it is not DOGMATIC FACT that Benedict XVI is the duly elected and universally accepted Roman Pontiff, which by citing pre-Vatican II theological manual, is THEOLOGICALLY CERTAIN, is binding and demands Catholic assent.
continued…
Correct. TNT seems at odds with what St. Robert Bellarmine taught as “most common and probable” as was quoted at the official Relatio before the vote on papal infallibility at the First Vatican Council. I hold to the traditional opinon of St. Robert.
I think we both have seen that the traditional view is incompatible with the Lefebvrist claim that one may legitimately disobey the canon law and withold assent from the certain teachings of the duly elected pope. Lefebvrism is therefore internally inconsistent and to be rejected.
However, it seems you are judging the pope to have been NOT duly elected, based upon your opinion of his Acta Apostolicae Sedis SINCE his election. I don’t agree this is a safe or traditionally Catholic methodology for determining the dogmatic fact of who is the duly elected pope.
The methodology used to determine whether an individual is the duly elected Roman Pontiff has never been based upon the subjective view of his teachings after being elected. Instead, the certainty of the historic fact is the rational element of “dogmatic fact” that we ought to be discerning. Was it historically certain fact that Pius XII was the duly elected and universally accepted as Roman Pontiff? The methodology used should be unbiased and rational evaluation of the historical evidence, just as any credible historian would do in discerning a matter to be historic fact.
By using this rational, unbiased approach, is it a certain historic fact that the popes after Pius XII were duly elected and universally accepted as the Roman Pontiff? If we lived 1500 years ago, this question would not be so easy to answer. We would have to write to the Church of Rome and ask, “Who is you bishop?” We might get a letter back that indicated a clear answer, or we may receivesome ambiguity, stating that "some submit to “Bishop-X” and “others submit to Bishop-Y.” However, in today’s world, it is somewhat easier to communicate with the Church of Rome to discern if there is any historical ambiguity as to who they accept throughout the diocese as the Bishop.
Who is it? If in doubt, travel to Rome and see for yourself who it is they universally accept as the Bishop of Rome. See for yourself if the Roman clergy and laity have any doubt as to who their bishop is. Such is the methods historians would use in verifying historical claims. They review any written evidence, interview first-hand witnesses if they are still alive, etc. If one did this without an a priori view that Benedict XVI couldn’t possibly be the valid pope, then you would surely agree that he was duly elected. All the electors submit to him as Roman Pontiff. All the clergy and laity of Rome submit to him as the Bishop of their diocese. All the heads of states accept him as the Pope of Rome. All secular historians unanimously agree Benedict XVI was indeed elected and universally accepted as the Bishop of Rome.
Historic fact is established by evidence, by reason, and by testimony. Thus, it is untenable to conclude that it is not DOGMATIC FACT that Benedict XVI is the duly elected and universally accepted Roman Pontiff, which by citing pre-Vatican II theological manual, is THEOLOGICALLY CERTAIN, is binding and demands Catholic assent.
continued…
I
itsjustdave1988
Guest
continued…
As I stated before, based on the gelatin of personal opinion, I can use the same method to determine Pius X was not duly elected. After all, he taugtht contrary to the [Feeneyist] view of dogma regarding “no salvation outside the Church,” so therefore he too must not have been duly elected. You see…agreement with ME is the proximate norm for determing who the duly elected pope is. Such a methodology can be used to affirm that no pope since St. Peter has been “duly elected” and we are simply in a really looooong interregnum since the first century.
I don’t find the sedevacantist claim to be based upon evidence, but more upon feelings. I prefer instead to apply traditional Catholic theology to the problem. When I do, I am compelled to reject both Lefebvrism and sedevacantism.
“Everything around you” has no bearing on whether Pius XII or any other claimants to the Chair of Peter was “duly elected.” decades earlier. I think your methodology in rationally evaluating the dogmatic fact is flawed. You are starting from your unproved sedevacantist premise, and then move backwards in time to ask how it might be theologically possible to withhold your obedience to ther person sitting in the Chair of Peter. Ah hah! There is a way!! Conclude a priori that those claimants to the papacy must not have really been duly elected, and therefore we have been in a really loooong interregnum for all of my life.
As I stated before, based on the gelatin of personal opinion, I can use the same method to determine Pius X was not duly elected. After all, he taugtht contrary to the [Feeneyist] view of dogma regarding “no salvation outside the Church,” so therefore he too must not have been duly elected. You see…agreement with ME is the proximate norm for determing who the duly elected pope is. Such a methodology can be used to affirm that no pope since St. Peter has been “duly elected” and we are simply in a really looooong interregnum since the first century.
I don’t find the sedevacantist claim to be based upon evidence, but more upon feelings. I prefer instead to apply traditional Catholic theology to the problem. When I do, I am compelled to reject both Lefebvrism and sedevacantism.
Not at all. Instead, like St. Catherine, the salvaiton of my soul depends upon obedience to the Vicar of Christ, while at the same time I am obliged to give fraternal correction to that which is problematic. This is authentic traditionalism, instead of the irrationality of Lefebvrism and sedevacantism.
I
itsjustdave1988
Guest
I agree with Gorman64 stated in the post above ( #251 ).
Pius X is speaking about “dissent” with that which the Vicar of Christ has taught formally and authoritatively as binding, as opposed to mere “disagreement” with that which is held by him as doubtful or unofficially as Vicar of Christ, and therefore free opinion among the clergy.
While Gorman64’s translation is pretty accurate, I don’t think the word “disagreement” is as good as the word “dissent,” although I’m no linguist. And dissent has more of a theological connotation to it.
Pius X’s allocution was written in Italian. The relevant paragraph states:
I think dissentire dal Papa connotes dissent with that which he holds, as Vicar of Christ, as binding, not disagreement over doubftul matters or free opinion.
The translation I have on my blog states:
My understanding is that of Ven. John Henry Cardinal Newman, which he states is in agreement to St. Robert Bellarmine:
G
gorman64
Guest
Dave:
How many areas of mere disagreement do you think there are?
I think you are attributing some meaning of Pius X’s words that are just not there. Does this teaching need to be directed to the Universal Church…or if it is not may it be “disagreed with” as in what is “held by him as doubtful or unofficially as Vicar of Christ, and therefore free opinion among the clergy”?
What does the Pope hold as doubtful? And would he tell us the subject was doubtful when he was speaking of it? Explain, if you would, your further and (IMHO) more far-reaching distinctions.
Yours,
Gorman
B
BobP123
Guest
Dave, you seem to have this obsession with “duly elected.” I claim the Pope needs not a majority of votes cast (or is it 2/3rds now?) unless the previous Pope has etched in stone the process to be used in electing his successor. The important thing to note is that the Pope is the regonized leader of the Catholic Church to all other religions as well as to Catholics. How this is to be carried out has never been specified by Christ and He is, after all, the Real Head of the Catholic Church. So we must go with the wishes of the previous Pope.
- Status