The premise is that it is *permissible* to hold that the Seat is vacant. It is not *mandatory* as a condition of the Catholic Faith to hold that the Seat is vacant.
What says Cajetan and Bellarmine? I am required now to declare Bergoglio antipope?
Are you seriously proposing that if I don’t accept the premise of Sedevacante I am no longer Catholic; or, that it is just a matter of time before I’m schismatic?
If that is your contention, prove it. That’s kind of serious.
Aqua,my assertion is in the title of this post. Namely, any serious Catholic who holds that Bergoglio is certainly pope, will at some point come to the crossroads of the Petrine Promises contra an apostate on the chair. No mere occult (hidden) heretic, this man freely promulgates heresy in his “authentic magisterium.” If a true Pope can do that, our Lord was a liar, and so not Divine, and the founder of a false church.
Mark, you said “If a true Pope can do that, our Lord was a liar, and so not Divine, and the founder of a false church.”
You are assuming much, precedent to that assertion. Your assumptions are what I referred to as dangerous. Where has any authority so declared? Only a scattered flock says so.
I’m sticking with my Priests.
I will never abandon Christ.
I will never abandon His Apostles.
I was born Protestant.
I will die Roman Catholic.
No mere man will cause me to abandon my Lord Jesus within the Church He gave me under the lines of authority He established through the Sacraments which are our spiritual lifeblood.
The Creeds. I claim the Creeds and will die for them: One, Holy, Catholic, Apostolic Church.
I’m a trad. All the trads I have spoken with who still believe Bergoglio is pope have no answer for the Petrine promise question, and answer it with, “It’s not really that important to know who is the real pope as long as I continue raising my family in the Catholic faith, and have faith and hope that it’ll all work out in the end. Besides, 17th century Japanese farmers didn’t even know the name of the pope, so it’s not that important to our faith as individuals.”
GT,
What do you do with that private certainty? I assume you are a Sede, attending one of their chapels or presiding over Sunday holy hours at home. Because all TLM Orders accept Francis as Pope. You say it is important to you, but not as much to others you know. How then do you practically set yourself apart with that private knowledge?
He’s not the pope. We’ve had antipopes before.
You’re not a sedevavantist if you believe he’s not the pope, because your rationale is that he was elected illicitly, which he was.
Sedes today exist outside the Church. In other words, if you believe Bergoglio is the pope you are the schismatic.
1) You say Jorge isn’t the pope. Sedes say the exact same thing.
2) You say “if you believe Bergoglio is the pope you are the schismatic”…yet in the same sentence say sedes, WHO DON’T BELIEVE JORGE IS POPE, are outside the Church.
You cannot say that Jorge is not the pope, and then explain that through an invalid election, or heresy, or both, and that his teachings CLEARLY don’t come from the Catholic Church, or that there is a “Bergoglian anti-church” in co-existence with the Catholic Church, and claim to be Catholic while sedevacantists aren’t Catholic because you are using sedevacantists’ arguements and research to support your own conclusion.
It was men like Bp. Geurard Delauriers, Fr. Anthony Cekada, Bp. Sanborn, Fr. William Jenkins, Bp. Clarence Kelly, et al. that brought us Vidal’s commentary on the 1917 CIC, which clearly tells us that questioning the legitimacy of the so-called pope does not separate one from the Church. It was men like these that poured through commentaries of Bellarmine and de Sales and Liguori to see what the “mind of the Church” has been in regards to heretics and popes who fall into heresy. I mean, Ann Barnhardt has admitted that Novus Ordo Watch does amazing legwork in citing legitimate Magisterial texts from popes, Councils, canonists, theologians, doctors of the Church, etc., so we use all of that as consistent proof that Jorge isn’t Catholic, let alone pope…but somehow THEY aren’t part of the Church?
You can reject their thesis all you want, but you can’t use their arguments and then say “they are outside the Church”, while saying you aren’t. You are saying the exact same thing as they are…you just don’t like their conclusion.
By feelings, 1958 sedes think we’ve had nothing but antipopes since Buddy Holly was alive. There is no case to be made that is true except for the fact they don’t like Vatican 2.
I don’t like Vatican 2, but since it is not a dogmatic council and we, the laity, cardinals, bishops LET it be treated as one, it can be corrected by brave people from within the Church.
When you create your own group that says everything that comes out of the Church is a heresy it is subversive to the Institution as Jesus founded.
Like the Jesuits, Sedes are their own entity. No one thinks the Jesuits are a good group anymore, and Sedes are likewise.
In fact, I would be that if everything went back to the way it was in 1957, and I mean everything, Sedes as a group would still exist. This is what happens when you create clubs, sects, organizations. They take their own form, become their own monster.
Being a sedevacantist is a lifestyle, it’s a multi-generational temper tantrum, it’s the irrational declaration that there have been no valid popes for 67 years. And it’s a status symbol, sort of the “Orthodox of the Orthodox”.
The best way to steer the Church back to health is from within, not from outside. You may disagree about this, but sedes are PROUD that they’re outside the Church as it stands.
I’m saying Benedict was our last pope. By Canon law, that is true.
St. Robert Bellarmine, Pope St. Agatho, and the fathers of the first Vatican council would disagree, stating that the pope in his preaching capacity has never erred and cannot err on faith and morals, and doesnt have to have a dogmatic/doctrinal declaration ala, “let him be anathema”. He can err in private audiences, conversation, or letters, but not when preaching to the whole Church as in councils, encyclicals, world youth day, angelus speeches, etc.
GT,
Your conclusions about Papal infallibility are extreme and incorrect.
I think there are two extreme errors in the Catholic Church today, both of them Papo-centric (as opposed to Christo-centric):
1: The Pope can rule any way he pleases and change Sacred Tradition however he wants, because he is a Demi-god.
2: The Pope can never make any mistakes or transmit error, he will remain a perfect guardian of Sacred Tradition because he is a Demi-god. By definition, if he does make a mistake, he is not Pope.
I don’t see any record in Church history of Catholics removing Popes from their sacred Chair because of private interpretations. Disagree, yes. Private authority, no.
And I don’t see any record in Church history of a pope promulgating mortal sin (adultery, concubinage) into the Magisterium and claiming said mortal sin is directly willed by God.
Mark,
So then … what?
You have privately judged the teaching as manifestly heretical.
You have declared Francis is not the Pope.
SSPX (etc) affirms him as Pope at Holy Mass, teaching etc.
What, then, do you do with that private affirmation of Sede, at variance with every TLM Society, save the Sede? SSPX, according to my formerly SSPX family member, now Sede, is no better than a Protestant worship service. The Catholic Church subsists *only* in that which is still valid – the Sede chapels.
You say you are not a 1958 Sede, but according to your logic you should be, because the current teaching of Francis is of a part, (more, but not different), with the entire Ecumenical Vatican II Nu-Church. You could apply that logic of private judgement, as Sedes do, to every Pope, Bishop, Ordination formula since the heretical deviations began – thus rendering the entire Catholic Church dead along with all those who render the dead thing spiritual affirmation.
I *get* how the thing is bad.
I *don’t* get how you practically deal with your conclusion, except to take it to its honest end – to leave.
Aqua,
Recognizing blatant open heresy is a “private judgment”? No, it is a most objective observation. Christ and His Holy Church teach that adultery and concubinage are mortal sins. There are zero exceptions to this. Bergoglio teaches in a Magisterial document that these sins in certain situations are objectively good, and the sins are directly willed by God. When questioned in a letter from a certain bishops conference, Bergoglio responded that this is the proper interpretation, there can be no other. Then he made both the letter and the response part of the Magisterium too. I have judged nothing… Bergoglio did it all himself, thus proving he is no Pope at all.
Mark,
And … my question still stands. What then?
Your judgement is inherently private because it is not spoken in union with any part of the structural Church.
St Catherine of Siena went to Rome and encouraged the Pope, like St Peter to St Paul, to reconsider his sinful ways, repent, and make a different choice for the sake of his soul and that of the Church. She remained in Rome, suffering in body and spirit until she died, with the Stigmata, prematurely from suffering. She worked for unity within. She acknowledged canonically legal structures. She worked to reform and heal. She came to the Pope as a universally acknowledged holy woman of a Third Order Dominican. What he did was very wrong. She persuaded him to his face.
She *did not* declare him deposed and de-throned. Big, big difference.
My question, what then do you do, once you have de-throned the Pope? I assume you are no longer SSPX. That is what happened to my special someone.
Aqua,
What then?
One does what one needs to do to keep the faith, to keep open the paths of grace. To stay fed and confessed. We are in a situation of extremes, and I am fairly sure there is an abundance of Ecclesia Supplet to go around. Am I SSPX? Some days I am. Some days I am FSSP. Some days I am Novus Ordo. I’ve been to CMRI Masses. I believe all of it is valid, and one should avail themselves as necessary to stay fed, and workout one’s salvation.
I will never believe that I am going to Hell because the wrong man is commemorated at the Te Igitur. God is not a jerk. I will never believe that Novus Ordo sacraments/Holy Orders are invalid. Yes, Vatican II is a failed council. The error within it will be expunged in the fullness of time. But it was validly convoked, by a valid pontiff. This isn’t the first failed council, nor the first council to teach error.
Do I think I’m St. Catherine of Siena? Of course not. But I have this tiny blog, a couple thousand people a day look at it. The first law of the Church is salvation of souls. If I didn’t use the blog to warn others, I wouldn’t be able to sleep at night.
It sounds to me like you are no different than me, then, in the view of current reality and how you apply it to practical consequences.
A fascinating response; one which I highly respect. Surprising, though. Fascinating. We are in the midst of a hurricane storm, most of us here, just trying to survive the gale. Look to Christ!
Agreed. Factoid— Francis has a statue of Luther in the Vatican. Need I say more???
You wrote re ‘1958 sedes, “There is no case to be made that is true except for the fact they don’t like Vatican 2.”
Not so.
When a conclave takes place, the first information communicated to the world is that a new pope has been elected and has accepted and has chosen his new name. This information is communicated by means of white smoke sent out of a chimney.
This white smoke is the visible communication that a solemn covenant between God and a new pope has been made.
Early in the 1958 conclave, white smoke was sent out the chimney for over 5 minutes. This was a deliberate communication that there was a new pope.
To claim that this was a mere mistake is to hold that for 5 full minutes the cardinals just didn’t know that the smoke was white, that they couldn’t hear the wild cheering of the large crowd immediately outside, that they couldn’t hear the bells ring in jubilation, that they didn’t know how to turn the smoke black.
Responding to the white smoke and the bells, Swiss Guards went to their proper stations to prepare for the new pope. Vatican Radio announced, “There can be absolutely no doubt. A pope has been elected!”
How did “absolutely no doubt” get sent down the memory hole?
The 5 minutes of white smoke meant what they were deliberately intended to mean: that for 5 minutes we did in fact have a new pope.
Imagine if you had been present in the cheering crowd at St Peter’s as the white smoke continued to billow out from the chimney top. What if someone had said, “The white smoke doesn’t mean anything.” The crowd would have said, “Of course the white smoke means something. That’s why they send white smoke out through the chimney top, to tell us that we have a new pope!”
And of course the crowd would have been right. There was no deception in the white smoke.
When this new pope accepted the papal office, he did so before God Himself. God immediately Himself accepted this new pope’s acceptance of the papal office. A solemn covenant, at that new pope’s moment of acceptance, was made between God and the new pope.
Did this new pope after 5 minutes then decide to negate his acceptance, that is to depart from his office? To the essential point, did he validly resign his new office as pope?
He and God had come to a solemn mutual agreement about his being pope. The only way this agreement could be broken would be by a second mutual agreement. And the only way a valid resignation could be accomplished is by the new pope following the rules of God as expressed in the Canon law of His Church.
No one can simply informally turn his back on a solemn agreement with God. One must go through the proper process for nullifying the solemn agreement. That is, one must satisfy the requirements of Canon law for such a situation.
Perhaps an example of this would be a marriage. A couple may be convinced that their marriage is not valid for some reason. But they can’t make this decision and act on it all by themselves. They must go through the proper procedures set forth in Canon law.
It is the same for a pope.
Jesus submitted Himself to the baptism of John to “fulfill all justice”. A pope must follow Canon law to validly resign. Rules must be followed, even by popes. “No servant is greater than his Master.”
It can be said with confidence that there could have been no valid canon law resignation from this new pope. Canon 332 sub 2 states that a papal resignation must be properly manifested. Therefore it cannot be secret or private.
So if a pope is elected in a conclave and he accepts, but 5 minutes later changes his mind and quits, but does not manifest this ‘resignation’ properly and publicly and in full accord with Canon law, his ‘resignation’ is not valid.
As it is virtually impossible that the 5-minute pope died before Roncalli was elected, it is virtually impossible that Roncalli was validly elected. Therefore Roncalli (AKA Pope John XXIII) could not have been a valid pope. And therefore there was no valid pope presiding when Vatican II opened. And therefore Vatican II itself was not a valid council.
Also, it is highly unlikely that Montini (AKA Pope Paul VI) was valid, for the same reason Roncalli was not. [If the 1958 white-smoke pope happened to be Cardinal Siri, as some think likely, then the two John Paul popes also were invalid.]
Acting as though the 5-minute pope never happened is a sad instance of gaslighting on the part of those who should have more respect for their flock.
Vatican II is fundamentally illegitimate because it was not convened by or held under a valid pope.
At this point, any layman in the professional Catholic publishing media (i.e. has published a book with an established publishing company) is most likely a secret freemason or compromised or cowardly.
Again, it seems that the deep state had them all in place to be “activated” when they attempted to usurp the papacy back in 2013.
Most orthodox Catholics, including priests, are badly catechized. Several priests in the Archdiocese of Mobile, for example, have complained that they never studied Saint Thomas Aquinas and Saint Augustine in the seminary. They don’t understand Catholic philosophy, and so even if they appear orthodox, many are actually heretics. Look up the 14th century heresy “nominalism,” (that directly led to Protestantism) and you’ll immediately see what is infecting these “Francis is pope” nominalist heretics. Also, many of them are greatly influenced by the Calvinist heretic with his “seven covenants,” Scott Hahn, and his numerous proteges and followers in his Franciscan University, Inc.
In short: Nominalists deny absolutes and universals and don’t believe they exist at all. Therefore, these Catholics who believe they are orthodox but are actually nominalists will not be able to understand that Vatican I is correct about the papacy when in conflict with their “Pope Francis,” who is in reality the vile Antipope Bergoglio. To these nominalists, there is nothing universal about the papacy that God Himself set up. All they can understand are individual papacies; therefore, all nominalists can do, since they deny the reality of universals, is resort to freemasonic, coercive obedience.
Fr. Ripperger said about 90% of Conciliar clerics are manifest heretics, because they follow some form of Modernism. Nominalism is a precursor of Modernism. They may not know they are heretics, but they are. From personal experience, that seems to be the case…
Joel McNeill, before I take the time to watch that hour long video on 1.5x. Can you please tell me why it’s specifically Freemasonry you’re suggesting? That’s a significant claim. Not just that Michael Warren may be in error. Freemasonry implies willful deception and active participation in evil/occult.
I just started Bp Schneider’s new book, Flee From Heresy. The premise of the book is that “religious error has been part of Church history since the first century; and that God *always* uses that error to bring about some greater good”.
I think it would be much better to think with the mind of the mystical Church in which human sinful error enters Christ’s Body, and Christ’s Body responds in union with the Holy Spirit, struggles with error, defeats error, grows stronger from the conflict. I believe this.
Pax.
Auxiliary Bishop Schneider seems to have many misunderstandings about the Church and the Pope, and about “universal acceptance”. That religious error has always been part of the Church is one of them, and that it is implied that even the pope was guilty of reigious error is another. One has to squint one’s eyes and tilt one’s head to make that work.
St Robert Bellarmine, Doctor of the Church, wrote the Defenses of the Popes Who Were Accused. This is a book that will bring much clarity, that even the mist sinful of popes were staunch defenders of the faith.
GT,
Perhaps instead of dismissing Bp Schneider, perhaps the most faithful, learned and devout of all living Bishops, carefully consider what he has to say as an Apostle, a Shepherd with authority directly from God. As a Catholic we are required to listen respectfully; not necessarily agree, but listen and consider carefully … and be open to amending your own understanding of things, just like you are asking Bishops to do for you.
The Apostles are responsible, by God, to guard and transmit the Sacred Deposit of Faith. The failure among the Apostles to do this faithfully is precisely the crisis we are in. But God gives us the rare Bishop Schneiders of the world as remedy for the suffering and confused.
Bergoglio not really being Pope doesn’t explain everything. There is still the awful question of why Our Lord would allow us to go without a true Pope ever since Pope Benedict died more than a year and a half ago (after almost a decade of not-leading) while a false pope was staffing the institutional Church with his accomplices (for more than fourteen years now – and how, short of divine intervention, can that be corrected in a future conclave?). This makes some Catholics wonder if the Orthodox are right about the papacy.
I think he is probably the false prophet, which scripture seems to describe a great apostasy with people listening to false teachers. We even see the beginnings of what looks like the mark of the beast in the secular world. Just read the New Testament. The papacy is the source of indefectability of the Church. Remove Peter and the what looks like the church can fall apart, even the indefectable see of Rome. If Peter is the rock, and a stranger pretends to be Peter, then it’s descent into apostasy is compatible with Christ’s promise, because the gates of hell is not overcoming the rock that keeps the gates of hell from prevailing.
I cannot gel Vatican I and the Second Council of Constantinople with the pope pertinaciously teaching heresy. Nor do I think we cannot discern that people who teach heresy—people who do it willingly—are heretics. He’s been warned so many times over the years but he ignores it and carries on.
If he isn’t the false prophet Satan is trying to make it appear that way—which is also possible.
Post Title: “Every serious Catholic who insists Bergoglio is pope is going to end up abandoning the faith as logical corollary”
I think the abandonment of the Faith has been ongoing for decades, perhaps preceding “1958”, for a vast array of different practical reasons, all of which are sourced in a collapse of the Roman Catholic Faith.
This is the burning of the field of wheat, Pope Benedict XVI spoke of, after which destruction the Church will lose much of Her riches and structures, it will be a much smaller church, but more devout (or words to that effect). There will be stubble at the end of the chastisement, and the faithful few attached to Christ in the roots.
Everyone focuses on the Apostles, focuses on the Pope. They are symptoms, not causes. They grow from a human crop of Catholics In Name Only. WE are the problem – Christians, each in our own cellular way.
I think it would be much better if we would stop focusing on that which we will never solve – the Improbable Papacy and the Ecumenical “church”. We have every tool necessary to draw close to God and to bring our families with us. It is so much harder to acknowledge personal sins of commission and *omission* (frequently neglected) than it is to launch missiles at Apostles and the Papacy and all their obvious sins. One costs us dearly. The other, typically, is a diversion from that which is immediate and personal.
Mark, you know my opinions about the Papacy from over the years commenting here and they haven’t markedly changed. What has changed is that in the crisis I have determined it is essential to learn to science to authority *rightly ordered*. I accept the logic of Priestly authority that the Pope was legitimately elected and not legitimately convicted of heresy according to authority and law. *Therefor* – the problem is theirs, not mine, and I will soldier forward as a Christian with my family who desperately need our Priests and the Sacraments that connect them to God in heaven.
Edison,
What difference does it make to you what I think about either one?
To clarify:
1. Was Bergoglio validly elected according to those with proper authority?
2. Has a tribunal with authority convened to judge Amoris Laetitia heretical?
You have opinions. Do you have authority?
The Roman Catholic is an hierarchy – *every* member under the authority of another.
The Protestant church(es) are full of opinions, each member their own pope.
Aqua, what authority did laywoman St. Catherine of Siena have to rebuke a usurper antipope and excoriate the Cardinals (with legitimate authority) who “elected” him? Why was she wrong, and how is she now a Doctor of the Church?
“Catherine traveled to Avignon to encourage Pope Gregory XI to return to Rome. In one of her letters she wrote; “No longer resist the will of God, for the starving sheep wait for you to return to the see of St. Peter.” Fortified by Catherine’s appeals, Gregory XI returned to Rome, but he died soon after.
In 1378, the Great Schism began, splitting the allegiance of Christendom between two, then three, popes and putting even saints on opposing sides. Catherine spent the last two years of her life in Rome, in prayer and pleading on behalf of the cause of Urban VI and the unity of the Church. She offered herself as a victim for the Church in its agony. Just as the Spirit gave new life to the infant Church on Pentecost, Catherine sought to bring a spirit of reconciliation to the divisions of her time. Exhausted by her efforts for unity, Catherine died in 1380 at the age of thirty-three. “
– end quote –
She traveled and confronted the Pope to his face.
She spent the end of her life in prayer, pleading the cause *for the sake of unity*.
She offered herself as a victim.
She received the Stigmata as a sign from God.
She sought to bring a spirit of reconciliation and unity.
She died at 33 yo exhausted from these efforts *for unity*.
That is why she was right and declared a Doctor of the Church.
The Sede movement is not that.
Aqua,
“The Sede movement is not that.”
I never said it was, nor do I believe that.
My point, which I’m quite sure you got, is that St. Catherine did not remain silent, despite her lack of legitimate authority. She acted anyway, and not delicately. I asked you why was she wrong, in accordance with your earlier reasoning.
You say elsewhere you are sticking with “my priests.” That seems Cult of Man way of thinking, contra the protection of the Petrine Promises from the very lips of our Savior. Do these priests themselves believe Bergoglio is not pope, but they just don’t have the authority to say so? If true, it seems they are engaged in deception.
I know you’ve taken your decision. Take care of your family and do your best that they have access to the truth.
Mark,
The difference between St Catherine and a Sede is like the difference between night and day; positive and negative poles.
A: The Saint is speaking from a position of submission ordered toward rightfully-ordered unity, her message, was respectfully delivered to rightful authority to his face. It was based on her lifetime of prayer and personal sanctity which was admired throughout Christendom. She was working within to rejoin factions. She went to Rome and went to work … within.
B: The Sede rejects authority and declares the existing order invalid on the basis of their personal judgement and interpretations. The Sede is *NOT* ordered toward unity in that their anathemas have declared *not just Popes but the entire visible Church* invalid, dead … for 60 years dead, dead until whenever. There is no conversation. The debate is over (for the Sede) – there is no Church; unity is only possible in the Sede chapels, as you clearly infer in your startling title to this piece.
See the difference?
It cannot be any more stark.
As to my obedience, rightly ordered, to the Priesthood being “Cult of Man way of thinking” … I cannot believe that you actually believe that. Our Priests are an essential part of the Divine Order, feet, arms, eyes, ears, tongues of the Apostles; In Persona Christi on the Altar; the educated mind of the Church. This is why we call them Father. Obedience to the Priesthood, rightly ordered, is essential to the Catholic Faith.
Aqua, I fail to understand how you think I am promoting 1958 Sedevacantism in any way. I have thoroughly rejected that position, and have never held it.
Mark,
I didn’t refer to you as a 1958 Sede. I don’t actually presume to define what you believe about that. I highly respect you as a blogger, which is why I’ve been commenting on your site for years now. And now, (because I’m burned out on Catholic controversy) I’m down to only two – yours and Mrs. Mary Ann K’s.
However, your title to this post, which you defended as accurate, states that:
“Every serious Catholic who insists Bergoglio is pope is going to end up abandoning the faith as logical corollary”.
Which means by your definition a Catholic must be Sede or they will lose the Faith.
I profoundly disagree with that.
It especially matters to me because a member of my family is caught up in this *trap*. That makes it personal. It is divisive. It is spiritually harmful. It leads to anger and discord. It leads out of the Church in quantifiable and pressing ways. I have seen no evidence that this Sede belief leads to anything else, in all my experience with it.
Pax
So defensive, A-10 Guy! Are you channeling Hillary Clinton now? (What difference does it make…)
Why are you so unwilling to answer two straight-forward questions about your own beliefs….neither of which require any “special authority”?
It goes to whether or not you think a legitimate pope can teach, for all the faithful to hold, a doctrine that is spiritually unsafe to follow….a preposition that is completely at odds with the pre-Vatican II understanding of the papacy.
I have opinions about the questions you asked. They mean nothing in the life of the Church.
My obedience, rightly ordered, to the ordained Priesthood means everything.
Sanctifying my marriage, protecting my family, raising the children God gave me to be citizens of heaven means everything.
Satan lives in disharmony and civil war. I won’t participate in it. Like St Catherine of Siena, Doctor of the Church, I want unity within the Body of Christ, centered on Jesus Christ, led to Him by a holy and validly elected Pope, surrounded by holy Apostles, Priests, laymen.
We don’t have that now.
Now, we suffer.
I will remain obedient to lawful Ordained authority and give God my life until it is spent within my station – which is husband and father to many children who need me and need God.
Edison,
And to clarify further, I think we’d all do well to sanctify our marriage in every thought m, word and deed; to raise our children with the defensive and offensive skills necessary to live chaste, holy lives; to create a home chapel where God reigns in every heart and Charity (not amoris) is the currency of the little family realm.
I have opinions about AL.
I have authority, and *responsibility*, in my home.
Were the Orthodox who obeyed their priests and followed them outside the body of the Church doing the right thing? If they did the wrong thing, when did their priests lose their authority? Or is it the case that you can do the objectively wrong thing but escape the consequences for it since you’re not responsible in the domain, lacking authority? Where does vincible and invincible ignorance factor in all this?
See my response below.
The essence of my response is to live our Faith in submission to authority *rightly ordered*.
Arbp LeFebvre, for instance, submitted to all authority that was ordered rightly. To the extent the authority departed from the Right in some grave way, he disobeyed.
I moved across the country and found a home with direct access to SSPX Priests, knowing there will be little or no conflict with “proper order”. I am at peace with my family in the care of these shepherds. But my eyes are open, always.
The example I use with my kids in Catechism class: I can require them to walk down to the end the street with a saw in their hand, perhaps make them walk down and back multiple times for my own reasons – I am responsible to God for how I use my parental authority. I cannot, however, require them to pause at the end of the street and use the saw to cut down the stop sign. Down and back with the saw – yes. Down and back after cutting down the sign – no.
My Priests have made a consistent, convincing case that Bergoglio was validly elected according to Canon Law and Tradition. I may personally disagree with their conclusions, but they are reasonable conclusions from the data. I accept their conclusions because they are reasonable and supportable. By myself, I would reach a different conclusion, but I am not by myself. I accept their reasons and their authority to make that judgement.
I firmly believe God is well pleased with obedience *provided it is rightly ordered*. I’ve done my homework.
More than eleven years, not more than fourteen. Good thing I retired.
“A philosophical term meaning a system of philosophy or an attitude of mind, which, denying the power of unaided human reason to reach certitude, affirms that the fundamental act of human knowledge consists in an act of faith, and the supreme criterion of certitude is authority.“
T,
The Catholic Church is an hierarchy, the Kingdom of God on earth. In an hierarchy, everyone is responsible to *submit* to the authority of someone else, including, or even especially the Pope. Submission to proper authority is an essential component of our Christian Faith, and to submit with a willing heart, not a rebellious heart. Christ mentions it Himself, in the Gospels. This is not optional. It is the essence of the structure of the Kingdom of God with Charity the spirit that motivates those within.
Fideism is a deviation to the extent that, as in your definition excerpt above, one “denies the power of unaided human reason to reach certitude”. But it is not, therefor, a corollary that unaided human reason is the only way to reach certitude. That is also an error of the extremes. That is the error of the Protestant who denies any authority or any mediator Priesthood to meet Christ and form his conscience, his reason.
Which is why when I mention authority, I phrase it as “submission to authority, *rightly ordered*. It is not everything (Fideist). Nor is it nothing (Protestant).
And so for context, from NewAdvent:
Relevant Protestant errors –
“Priesthood of all believers”:
The universal priesthood of believers implies the right and duty of the Christian laity not only to read the Bible in the vernacular, but also to take part in the government and all the public affairs of the Church. It is opposed to the hierarchical system, which puts the essence and authority of the Church in an exclusive priesthood, and makes ordained priests the necessary mediators between God and the people”.
And
“Private judgment in practice”:
At first sight it seems that private judgment as a rule of faith would at once dissolve all creeds and confessions into individual opinions, thus making impossible any church life based upon a common faith. For quot capita tot sensus: no two men think exactly alike on any subject.
But do you deny that logic can come to solid conclusions, even in matters of theology. Or do you say, logic rightly done, cannot come to theological conclusions? That we can only rely on authority in this domain?
I think that was the thrust of the article. We can indeed know some truths of faith by natural reason. Certain truths are above reason but never contradict it.
I think we can know with mathematical certainty that a Catholic who teaches heresy with pertinacity is a formal heretic, and, according to Piux XII are by nature no longer members of the Church (and not even canon law can contravene natural law), and that someone who is not a member of the Church cannot be it’s head. The only way to avoid this conclusion is to deny there is heresy, deny there is pertinacity, or a flaw in the argument—which I am willing to concede if you can explain it.
T,
St Catherine of Siena is often raised as a model. She was raised here in this context. But I think those who do so have misapplied her lesson to us.
St Catherine of Siena recognized the grave error within the Papacy. She visited the Pope and confronted him to his face. She spent the last years of her life in deep suffering and prayer working within *canonically valid but disputed* structures to rectify grave errors by convincing those who made them *TO REPENT*, to change, to rectify their error. She did not ever presume private judgement upon the Pope or his Apostles. She brought the word of God to sinners, guided by a devotion to unity within the Body of Christ.
We live within the institutional Church (the Body of Christ) as *members*, not as individuals. We must work within legal canonical hierarchical structures, or we are doomed to fail individually and collectively. (John 17:20-23)
Belief that Bergoglio is even still the valid pope requires one to believe that various councils, doctors of the Church, and even Christ himself were wrong, and that the Church itself simply misunderstood the papacy for 2000 years.
GT Bro, you gotta stop reading those pre-Vatcan II encyclicals and councils…way too old school. The Auxiliary Bishop of Kazakhstan is where it’s at, he’s the authoritative voice of the Church now. He’ll let you know if anything “definitely Pope” Francis teaches is binding…..because Catholicism.
My wife and I converted to Eastern Orthodoxy 20 years ago. We moved to a small town in South Carolina 5 years ago and there hasn’t been a Sunday when we haven’t had people show up and announce they just moved here and this is their parish now or they are ready to become an inquirer. We were planning to start a mission parish in a couple years but with the growth we have been having we will go straight to a full parish with hall in about 1 year. The number of prods is astounding but recently we have been getting RC’s also.
Laramie Hirsch said: “Continued belief in Bergoglio’s false legitimacy leads to literal schism.”
This is a false and very dangerous statement.
Sedevacantism does not exclude one from the Catholic Faith.
Declaring that Sedevacantism *IS* the Catholic Faith does.
Aqua, Cardinal Cajetan and St. Robert Bellarmine, Doctor of the Church, disagree with you. Surely you know this.
No, I don’t know this. Not at all.
The premise is that it is *permissible* to hold that the Seat is vacant. It is not *mandatory* as a condition of the Catholic Faith to hold that the Seat is vacant.
What says Cajetan and Bellarmine? I am required now to declare Bergoglio antipope?
Are you seriously proposing that if I don’t accept the premise of Sedevacante I am no longer Catholic; or, that it is just a matter of time before I’m schismatic?
If that is your contention, prove it. That’s kind of serious.
Aqua,my assertion is in the title of this post. Namely, any serious Catholic who holds that Bergoglio is certainly pope, will at some point come to the crossroads of the Petrine Promises contra an apostate on the chair. No mere occult (hidden) heretic, this man freely promulgates heresy in his “authentic magisterium.” If a true Pope can do that, our Lord was a liar, and so not Divine, and the founder of a false church.
Mark, you said “If a true Pope can do that, our Lord was a liar, and so not Divine, and the founder of a false church.”
You are assuming much, precedent to that assertion. Your assumptions are what I referred to as dangerous. Where has any authority so declared? Only a scattered flock says so.
I’m sticking with my Priests.
I will never abandon Christ.
I will never abandon His Apostles.
I was born Protestant.
I will die Roman Catholic.
No mere man will cause me to abandon my Lord Jesus within the Church He gave me under the lines of authority He established through the Sacraments which are our spiritual lifeblood.
The Creeds. I claim the Creeds and will die for them: One, Holy, Catholic, Apostolic Church.
I’m a trad. All the trads I have spoken with who still believe Bergoglio is pope have no answer for the Petrine promise question, and answer it with, “It’s not really that important to know who is the real pope as long as I continue raising my family in the Catholic faith, and have faith and hope that it’ll all work out in the end. Besides, 17th century Japanese farmers didn’t even know the name of the pope, so it’s not that important to our faith as individuals.”
GT,
What do you do with that private certainty? I assume you are a Sede, attending one of their chapels or presiding over Sunday holy hours at home. Because all TLM Orders accept Francis as Pope. You say it is important to you, but not as much to others you know. How then do you practically set yourself apart with that private knowledge?
He’s not the pope. We’ve had antipopes before.
You’re not a sedevavantist if you believe he’s not the pope, because your rationale is that he was elected illicitly, which he was.
Sedes today exist outside the Church. In other words, if you believe Bergoglio is the pope you are the schismatic.
Your logic is inconsistent.
1) You say Jorge isn’t the pope. Sedes say the exact same thing.
2) You say “if you believe Bergoglio is the pope you are the schismatic”…yet in the same sentence say sedes, WHO DON’T BELIEVE JORGE IS POPE, are outside the Church.
You cannot say that Jorge is not the pope, and then explain that through an invalid election, or heresy, or both, and that his teachings CLEARLY don’t come from the Catholic Church, or that there is a “Bergoglian anti-church” in co-existence with the Catholic Church, and claim to be Catholic while sedevacantists aren’t Catholic because you are using sedevacantists’ arguements and research to support your own conclusion.
It was men like Bp. Geurard Delauriers, Fr. Anthony Cekada, Bp. Sanborn, Fr. William Jenkins, Bp. Clarence Kelly, et al. that brought us Vidal’s commentary on the 1917 CIC, which clearly tells us that questioning the legitimacy of the so-called pope does not separate one from the Church. It was men like these that poured through commentaries of Bellarmine and de Sales and Liguori to see what the “mind of the Church” has been in regards to heretics and popes who fall into heresy. I mean, Ann Barnhardt has admitted that Novus Ordo Watch does amazing legwork in citing legitimate Magisterial texts from popes, Councils, canonists, theologians, doctors of the Church, etc., so we use all of that as consistent proof that Jorge isn’t Catholic, let alone pope…but somehow THEY aren’t part of the Church?
You can reject their thesis all you want, but you can’t use their arguments and then say “they are outside the Church”, while saying you aren’t. You are saying the exact same thing as they are…you just don’t like their conclusion.
Aaron, you are correct. 1958 Sedes are not outside the Church. Their clergy are valid, and their sacraments are valid.
I’ll try to get past the censors again. Aaron:
By canon law Bergoglio is an antipope.
By feelings, 1958 sedes think we’ve had nothing but antipopes since Buddy Holly was alive. There is no case to be made that is true except for the fact they don’t like Vatican 2.
I don’t like Vatican 2, but since it is not a dogmatic council and we, the laity, cardinals, bishops LET it be treated as one, it can be corrected by brave people from within the Church.
When you create your own group that says everything that comes out of the Church is a heresy it is subversive to the Institution as Jesus founded.
Like the Jesuits, Sedes are their own entity. No one thinks the Jesuits are a good group anymore, and Sedes are likewise.
In fact, I would be that if everything went back to the way it was in 1957, and I mean everything, Sedes as a group would still exist. This is what happens when you create clubs, sects, organizations. They take their own form, become their own monster.
Being a sedevacantist is a lifestyle, it’s a multi-generational temper tantrum, it’s the irrational declaration that there have been no valid popes for 67 years. And it’s a status symbol, sort of the “Orthodox of the Orthodox”.
The best way to steer the Church back to health is from within, not from outside. You may disagree about this, but sedes are PROUD that they’re outside the Church as it stands.
I’m saying Benedict was our last pope. By Canon law, that is true.
We are not the same. Sorry.
St. Robert Bellarmine, Pope St. Agatho, and the fathers of the first Vatican council would disagree, stating that the pope in his preaching capacity has never erred and cannot err on faith and morals, and doesnt have to have a dogmatic/doctrinal declaration ala, “let him be anathema”. He can err in private audiences, conversation, or letters, but not when preaching to the whole Church as in councils, encyclicals, world youth day, angelus speeches, etc.
GT,
Your conclusions about Papal infallibility are extreme and incorrect.
I think there are two extreme errors in the Catholic Church today, both of them Papo-centric (as opposed to Christo-centric):
1: The Pope can rule any way he pleases and change Sacred Tradition however he wants, because he is a Demi-god.
2: The Pope can never make any mistakes or transmit error, he will remain a perfect guardian of Sacred Tradition because he is a Demi-god. By definition, if he does make a mistake, he is not Pope.
I don’t see any record in Church history of Catholics removing Popes from their sacred Chair because of private interpretations. Disagree, yes. Private authority, no.
And I don’t see any record in Church history of a pope promulgating mortal sin (adultery, concubinage) into the Magisterium and claiming said mortal sin is directly willed by God.
Mark,
So then … what?
You have privately judged the teaching as manifestly heretical.
You have declared Francis is not the Pope.
SSPX (etc) affirms him as Pope at Holy Mass, teaching etc.
What, then, do you do with that private affirmation of Sede, at variance with every TLM Society, save the Sede? SSPX, according to my formerly SSPX family member, now Sede, is no better than a Protestant worship service. The Catholic Church subsists *only* in that which is still valid – the Sede chapels.
You say you are not a 1958 Sede, but according to your logic you should be, because the current teaching of Francis is of a part, (more, but not different), with the entire Ecumenical Vatican II Nu-Church. You could apply that logic of private judgement, as Sedes do, to every Pope, Bishop, Ordination formula since the heretical deviations began – thus rendering the entire Catholic Church dead along with all those who render the dead thing spiritual affirmation.
I *get* how the thing is bad.
I *don’t* get how you practically deal with your conclusion, except to take it to its honest end – to leave.
Aqua,
Recognizing blatant open heresy is a “private judgment”? No, it is a most objective observation. Christ and His Holy Church teach that adultery and concubinage are mortal sins. There are zero exceptions to this. Bergoglio teaches in a Magisterial document that these sins in certain situations are objectively good, and the sins are directly willed by God. When questioned in a letter from a certain bishops conference, Bergoglio responded that this is the proper interpretation, there can be no other. Then he made both the letter and the response part of the Magisterium too. I have judged nothing… Bergoglio did it all himself, thus proving he is no Pope at all.
Mark,
And … my question still stands. What then?
Your judgement is inherently private because it is not spoken in union with any part of the structural Church.
St Catherine of Siena went to Rome and encouraged the Pope, like St Peter to St Paul, to reconsider his sinful ways, repent, and make a different choice for the sake of his soul and that of the Church. She remained in Rome, suffering in body and spirit until she died, with the Stigmata, prematurely from suffering. She worked for unity within. She acknowledged canonically legal structures. She worked to reform and heal. She came to the Pope as a universally acknowledged holy woman of a Third Order Dominican. What he did was very wrong. She persuaded him to his face.
She *did not* declare him deposed and de-throned. Big, big difference.
My question, what then do you do, once you have de-throned the Pope? I assume you are no longer SSPX. That is what happened to my special someone.
Aqua,
What then?
One does what one needs to do to keep the faith, to keep open the paths of grace. To stay fed and confessed. We are in a situation of extremes, and I am fairly sure there is an abundance of Ecclesia Supplet to go around. Am I SSPX? Some days I am. Some days I am FSSP. Some days I am Novus Ordo. I’ve been to CMRI Masses. I believe all of it is valid, and one should avail themselves as necessary to stay fed, and workout one’s salvation.
I will never believe that I am going to Hell because the wrong man is commemorated at the Te Igitur. God is not a jerk. I will never believe that Novus Ordo sacraments/Holy Orders are invalid. Yes, Vatican II is a failed council. The error within it will be expunged in the fullness of time. But it was validly convoked, by a valid pontiff. This isn’t the first failed council, nor the first council to teach error.
Do I think I’m St. Catherine of Siena? Of course not. But I have this tiny blog, a couple thousand people a day look at it. The first law of the Church is salvation of souls. If I didn’t use the blog to warn others, I wouldn’t be able to sleep at night.
It sounds to me like you are no different than me, then, in the view of current reality and how you apply it to practical consequences.
A fascinating response; one which I highly respect. Surprising, though. Fascinating. We are in the midst of a hurricane storm, most of us here, just trying to survive the gale. Look to Christ!
Agreed. Factoid— Francis has a statue of Luther in the Vatican. Need I say more???
You wrote re ‘1958 sedes, “There is no case to be made that is true except for the fact they don’t like Vatican 2.”
Not so.
When a conclave takes place, the first information communicated to the world is that a new pope has been elected and has accepted and has chosen his new name. This information is communicated by means of white smoke sent out of a chimney.
This white smoke is the visible communication that a solemn covenant between God and a new pope has been made.
Early in the 1958 conclave, white smoke was sent out the chimney for over 5 minutes. This was a deliberate communication that there was a new pope.
To claim that this was a mere mistake is to hold that for 5 full minutes the cardinals just didn’t know that the smoke was white, that they couldn’t hear the wild cheering of the large crowd immediately outside, that they couldn’t hear the bells ring in jubilation, that they didn’t know how to turn the smoke black.
Responding to the white smoke and the bells, Swiss Guards went to their proper stations to prepare for the new pope. Vatican Radio announced, “There can be absolutely no doubt. A pope has been elected!”
How did “absolutely no doubt” get sent down the memory hole?
The 5 minutes of white smoke meant what they were deliberately intended to mean: that for 5 minutes we did in fact have a new pope.
Imagine if you had been present in the cheering crowd at St Peter’s as the white smoke continued to billow out from the chimney top. What if someone had said, “The white smoke doesn’t mean anything.” The crowd would have said, “Of course the white smoke means something. That’s why they send white smoke out through the chimney top, to tell us that we have a new pope!”
And of course the crowd would have been right. There was no deception in the white smoke.
When this new pope accepted the papal office, he did so before God Himself. God immediately Himself accepted this new pope’s acceptance of the papal office. A solemn covenant, at that new pope’s moment of acceptance, was made between God and the new pope.
Did this new pope after 5 minutes then decide to negate his acceptance, that is to depart from his office? To the essential point, did he validly resign his new office as pope?
He and God had come to a solemn mutual agreement about his being pope. The only way this agreement could be broken would be by a second mutual agreement. And the only way a valid resignation could be accomplished is by the new pope following the rules of God as expressed in the Canon law of His Church.
No one can simply informally turn his back on a solemn agreement with God. One must go through the proper process for nullifying the solemn agreement. That is, one must satisfy the requirements of Canon law for such a situation.
Perhaps an example of this would be a marriage. A couple may be convinced that their marriage is not valid for some reason. But they can’t make this decision and act on it all by themselves. They must go through the proper procedures set forth in Canon law.
It is the same for a pope.
Jesus submitted Himself to the baptism of John to “fulfill all justice”. A pope must follow Canon law to validly resign. Rules must be followed, even by popes. “No servant is greater than his Master.”
It can be said with confidence that there could have been no valid canon law resignation from this new pope. Canon 332 sub 2 states that a papal resignation must be properly manifested. Therefore it cannot be secret or private.
So if a pope is elected in a conclave and he accepts, but 5 minutes later changes his mind and quits, but does not manifest this ‘resignation’ properly and publicly and in full accord with Canon law, his ‘resignation’ is not valid.
As it is virtually impossible that the 5-minute pope died before Roncalli was elected, it is virtually impossible that Roncalli was validly elected. Therefore Roncalli (AKA Pope John XXIII) could not have been a valid pope. And therefore there was no valid pope presiding when Vatican II opened. And therefore Vatican II itself was not a valid council.
Also, it is highly unlikely that Montini (AKA Pope Paul VI) was valid, for the same reason Roncalli was not. [If the 1958 white-smoke pope happened to be Cardinal Siri, as some think likely, then the two John Paul popes also were invalid.]
Acting as though the 5-minute pope never happened is a sad instance of gaslighting on the part of those who should have more respect for their flock.
Vatican II is fundamentally illegitimate because it was not convened by or held under a valid pope.
I looked him up. Something seems seriously wrong with Michael Warren Davis and pals. 100% freemasonic:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ksh3ORqV3fM
At this point, any layman in the professional Catholic publishing media (i.e. has published a book with an established publishing company) is most likely a secret freemason or compromised or cowardly.
Again, it seems that the deep state had them all in place to be “activated” when they attempted to usurp the papacy back in 2013.
Most orthodox Catholics, including priests, are badly catechized. Several priests in the Archdiocese of Mobile, for example, have complained that they never studied Saint Thomas Aquinas and Saint Augustine in the seminary. They don’t understand Catholic philosophy, and so even if they appear orthodox, many are actually heretics. Look up the 14th century heresy “nominalism,” (that directly led to Protestantism) and you’ll immediately see what is infecting these “Francis is pope” nominalist heretics. Also, many of them are greatly influenced by the Calvinist heretic with his “seven covenants,” Scott Hahn, and his numerous proteges and followers in his Franciscan University, Inc.
In short: Nominalists deny absolutes and universals and don’t believe they exist at all. Therefore, these Catholics who believe they are orthodox but are actually nominalists will not be able to understand that Vatican I is correct about the papacy when in conflict with their “Pope Francis,” who is in reality the vile Antipope Bergoglio. To these nominalists, there is nothing universal about the papacy that God Himself set up. All they can understand are individual papacies; therefore, all nominalists can do, since they deny the reality of universals, is resort to freemasonic, coercive obedience.
Fr. Ripperger said about 90% of Conciliar clerics are manifest heretics, because they follow some form of Modernism. Nominalism is a precursor of Modernism. They may not know they are heretics, but they are. From personal experience, that seems to be the case…
Scott Hahn’s son is a priest in my diocese. He is very different.
Joel McNeill, before I take the time to watch that hour long video on 1.5x. Can you please tell me why it’s specifically Freemasonry you’re suggesting? That’s a significant claim. Not just that Michael Warren may be in error. Freemasonry implies willful deception and active participation in evil/occult.
I just started Bp Schneider’s new book, Flee From Heresy. The premise of the book is that “religious error has been part of Church history since the first century; and that God *always* uses that error to bring about some greater good”.
https://sophiainstitute.com/product/flee-from-heresy/
I think it would be much better to think with the mind of the mystical Church in which human sinful error enters Christ’s Body, and Christ’s Body responds in union with the Holy Spirit, struggles with error, defeats error, grows stronger from the conflict. I believe this.
Pax.
Auxiliary Bishop Schneider seems to have many misunderstandings about the Church and the Pope, and about “universal acceptance”. That religious error has always been part of the Church is one of them, and that it is implied that even the pope was guilty of reigious error is another. One has to squint one’s eyes and tilt one’s head to make that work.
St Robert Bellarmine, Doctor of the Church, wrote the Defenses of the Popes Who Were Accused. This is a book that will bring much clarity, that even the mist sinful of popes were staunch defenders of the faith.
GT,
Perhaps instead of dismissing Bp Schneider, perhaps the most faithful, learned and devout of all living Bishops, carefully consider what he has to say as an Apostle, a Shepherd with authority directly from God. As a Catholic we are required to listen respectfully; not necessarily agree, but listen and consider carefully … and be open to amending your own understanding of things, just like you are asking Bishops to do for you.
The Apostles are responsible, by God, to guard and transmit the Sacred Deposit of Faith. The failure among the Apostles to do this faithfully is precisely the crisis we are in. But God gives us the rare Bishop Schneiders of the world as remedy for the suffering and confused.
Bergoglio not really being Pope doesn’t explain everything. There is still the awful question of why Our Lord would allow us to go without a true Pope ever since Pope Benedict died more than a year and a half ago (after almost a decade of not-leading) while a false pope was staffing the institutional Church with his accomplices (for more than fourteen years now – and how, short of divine intervention, can that be corrected in a future conclave?). This makes some Catholics wonder if the Orthodox are right about the papacy.
I think he is probably the false prophet, which scripture seems to describe a great apostasy with people listening to false teachers. We even see the beginnings of what looks like the mark of the beast in the secular world. Just read the New Testament. The papacy is the source of indefectability of the Church. Remove Peter and the what looks like the church can fall apart, even the indefectable see of Rome. If Peter is the rock, and a stranger pretends to be Peter, then it’s descent into apostasy is compatible with Christ’s promise, because the gates of hell is not overcoming the rock that keeps the gates of hell from prevailing.
I cannot gel Vatican I and the Second Council of Constantinople with the pope pertinaciously teaching heresy. Nor do I think we cannot discern that people who teach heresy—people who do it willingly—are heretics. He’s been warned so many times over the years but he ignores it and carries on.
If he isn’t the false prophet Satan is trying to make it appear that way—which is also possible.
Post Title: “Every serious Catholic who insists Bergoglio is pope is going to end up abandoning the faith as logical corollary”
I think the abandonment of the Faith has been ongoing for decades, perhaps preceding “1958”, for a vast array of different practical reasons, all of which are sourced in a collapse of the Roman Catholic Faith.
This is the burning of the field of wheat, Pope Benedict XVI spoke of, after which destruction the Church will lose much of Her riches and structures, it will be a much smaller church, but more devout (or words to that effect). There will be stubble at the end of the chastisement, and the faithful few attached to Christ in the roots.
Everyone focuses on the Apostles, focuses on the Pope. They are symptoms, not causes. They grow from a human crop of Catholics In Name Only. WE are the problem – Christians, each in our own cellular way.
I think it would be much better if we would stop focusing on that which we will never solve – the Improbable Papacy and the Ecumenical “church”. We have every tool necessary to draw close to God and to bring our families with us. It is so much harder to acknowledge personal sins of commission and *omission* (frequently neglected) than it is to launch missiles at Apostles and the Papacy and all their obvious sins. One costs us dearly. The other, typically, is a diversion from that which is immediate and personal.
Mark, you know my opinions about the Papacy from over the years commenting here and they haven’t markedly changed. What has changed is that in the crisis I have determined it is essential to learn to science to authority *rightly ordered*. I accept the logic of Priestly authority that the Pope was legitimately elected and not legitimately convicted of heresy according to authority and law. *Therefor* – the problem is theirs, not mine, and I will soldier forward as a Christian with my family who desperately need our Priests and the Sacraments that connect them to God in heaven.
Aqua,
To clarify:
1. Do you believe Francis is the legitimate pope?
2. Is Amoris Laetitia heretical?
Edison,
What difference does it make to you what I think about either one?
To clarify:
1. Was Bergoglio validly elected according to those with proper authority?
2. Has a tribunal with authority convened to judge Amoris Laetitia heretical?
You have opinions. Do you have authority?
The Roman Catholic is an hierarchy – *every* member under the authority of another.
The Protestant church(es) are full of opinions, each member their own pope.
Aqua, what authority did laywoman St. Catherine of Siena have to rebuke a usurper antipope and excoriate the Cardinals (with legitimate authority) who “elected” him? Why was she wrong, and how is she now a Doctor of the Church?
Her approach was Catholic:
– quote from public sources –
“Catherine traveled to Avignon to encourage Pope Gregory XI to return to Rome. In one of her letters she wrote; “No longer resist the will of God, for the starving sheep wait for you to return to the see of St. Peter.” Fortified by Catherine’s appeals, Gregory XI returned to Rome, but he died soon after.
In 1378, the Great Schism began, splitting the allegiance of Christendom between two, then three, popes and putting even saints on opposing sides. Catherine spent the last two years of her life in Rome, in prayer and pleading on behalf of the cause of Urban VI and the unity of the Church. She offered herself as a victim for the Church in its agony. Just as the Spirit gave new life to the infant Church on Pentecost, Catherine sought to bring a spirit of reconciliation to the divisions of her time. Exhausted by her efforts for unity, Catherine died in 1380 at the age of thirty-three. “
– end quote –
She traveled and confronted the Pope to his face.
She spent the end of her life in prayer, pleading the cause *for the sake of unity*.
She offered herself as a victim.
She received the Stigmata as a sign from God.
She sought to bring a spirit of reconciliation and unity.
She died at 33 yo exhausted from these efforts *for unity*.
That is why she was right and declared a Doctor of the Church.
The Sede movement is not that.
Aqua,
“The Sede movement is not that.”
I never said it was, nor do I believe that.
My point, which I’m quite sure you got, is that St. Catherine did not remain silent, despite her lack of legitimate authority. She acted anyway, and not delicately. I asked you why was she wrong, in accordance with your earlier reasoning.
You say elsewhere you are sticking with “my priests.” That seems Cult of Man way of thinking, contra the protection of the Petrine Promises from the very lips of our Savior. Do these priests themselves believe Bergoglio is not pope, but they just don’t have the authority to say so? If true, it seems they are engaged in deception.
I know you’ve taken your decision. Take care of your family and do your best that they have access to the truth.
Mark,
The difference between St Catherine and a Sede is like the difference between night and day; positive and negative poles.
A: The Saint is speaking from a position of submission ordered toward rightfully-ordered unity, her message, was respectfully delivered to rightful authority to his face. It was based on her lifetime of prayer and personal sanctity which was admired throughout Christendom. She was working within to rejoin factions. She went to Rome and went to work … within.
B: The Sede rejects authority and declares the existing order invalid on the basis of their personal judgement and interpretations. The Sede is *NOT* ordered toward unity in that their anathemas have declared *not just Popes but the entire visible Church* invalid, dead … for 60 years dead, dead until whenever. There is no conversation. The debate is over (for the Sede) – there is no Church; unity is only possible in the Sede chapels, as you clearly infer in your startling title to this piece.
See the difference?
It cannot be any more stark.
As to my obedience, rightly ordered, to the Priesthood being “Cult of Man way of thinking” … I cannot believe that you actually believe that. Our Priests are an essential part of the Divine Order, feet, arms, eyes, ears, tongues of the Apostles; In Persona Christi on the Altar; the educated mind of the Church. This is why we call them Father. Obedience to the Priesthood, rightly ordered, is essential to the Catholic Faith.
Aqua, I fail to understand how you think I am promoting 1958 Sedevacantism in any way. I have thoroughly rejected that position, and have never held it.
Mark,
I didn’t refer to you as a 1958 Sede. I don’t actually presume to define what you believe about that. I highly respect you as a blogger, which is why I’ve been commenting on your site for years now. And now, (because I’m burned out on Catholic controversy) I’m down to only two – yours and Mrs. Mary Ann K’s.
However, your title to this post, which you defended as accurate, states that:
“Every serious Catholic who insists Bergoglio is pope is going to end up abandoning the faith as logical corollary”.
Which means by your definition a Catholic must be Sede or they will lose the Faith.
I profoundly disagree with that.
It especially matters to me because a member of my family is caught up in this *trap*. That makes it personal. It is divisive. It is spiritually harmful. It leads to anger and discord. It leads out of the Church in quantifiable and pressing ways. I have seen no evidence that this Sede belief leads to anything else, in all my experience with it.
Pax
So defensive, A-10 Guy! Are you channeling Hillary Clinton now? (What difference does it make…)
Why are you so unwilling to answer two straight-forward questions about your own beliefs….neither of which require any “special authority”?
It goes to whether or not you think a legitimate pope can teach, for all the faithful to hold, a doctrine that is spiritually unsafe to follow….a preposition that is completely at odds with the pre-Vatican II understanding of the papacy.
I answered your questions, Edison.
I have opinions about the questions you asked. They mean nothing in the life of the Church.
My obedience, rightly ordered, to the ordained Priesthood means everything.
Sanctifying my marriage, protecting my family, raising the children God gave me to be citizens of heaven means everything.
Satan lives in disharmony and civil war. I won’t participate in it. Like St Catherine of Siena, Doctor of the Church, I want unity within the Body of Christ, centered on Jesus Christ, led to Him by a holy and validly elected Pope, surrounded by holy Apostles, Priests, laymen.
We don’t have that now.
Now, we suffer.
I will remain obedient to lawful Ordained authority and give God my life until it is spent within my station – which is husband and father to many children who need me and need God.
Edison,
And to clarify further, I think we’d all do well to sanctify our marriage in every thought m, word and deed; to raise our children with the defensive and offensive skills necessary to live chaste, holy lives; to create a home chapel where God reigns in every heart and Charity (not amoris) is the currency of the little family realm.
I have opinions about AL.
I have authority, and *responsibility*, in my home.
Were the Orthodox who obeyed their priests and followed them outside the body of the Church doing the right thing? If they did the wrong thing, when did their priests lose their authority? Or is it the case that you can do the objectively wrong thing but escape the consequences for it since you’re not responsible in the domain, lacking authority? Where does vincible and invincible ignorance factor in all this?
See my response below.
The essence of my response is to live our Faith in submission to authority *rightly ordered*.
Arbp LeFebvre, for instance, submitted to all authority that was ordered rightly. To the extent the authority departed from the Right in some grave way, he disobeyed.
I moved across the country and found a home with direct access to SSPX Priests, knowing there will be little or no conflict with “proper order”. I am at peace with my family in the care of these shepherds. But my eyes are open, always.
The example I use with my kids in Catechism class: I can require them to walk down to the end the street with a saw in their hand, perhaps make them walk down and back multiple times for my own reasons – I am responsible to God for how I use my parental authority. I cannot, however, require them to pause at the end of the street and use the saw to cut down the stop sign. Down and back with the saw – yes. Down and back after cutting down the sign – no.
My Priests have made a consistent, convincing case that Bergoglio was validly elected according to Canon Law and Tradition. I may personally disagree with their conclusions, but they are reasonable conclusions from the data. I accept their conclusions because they are reasonable and supportable. By myself, I would reach a different conclusion, but I am not by myself. I accept their reasons and their authority to make that judgement.
I firmly believe God is well pleased with obedience *provided it is rightly ordered*. I’ve done my homework.
More than eleven years, not more than fourteen. Good thing I retired.
https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06068b.htm
“A philosophical term meaning a system of philosophy or an attitude of mind, which, denying the power of unaided human reason to reach certitude, affirms that the fundamental act of human knowledge consists in an act of faith, and the supreme criterion of certitude is authority.“
T,
The Catholic Church is an hierarchy, the Kingdom of God on earth. In an hierarchy, everyone is responsible to *submit* to the authority of someone else, including, or even especially the Pope. Submission to proper authority is an essential component of our Christian Faith, and to submit with a willing heart, not a rebellious heart. Christ mentions it Himself, in the Gospels. This is not optional. It is the essence of the structure of the Kingdom of God with Charity the spirit that motivates those within.
Fideism is a deviation to the extent that, as in your definition excerpt above, one “denies the power of unaided human reason to reach certitude”. But it is not, therefor, a corollary that unaided human reason is the only way to reach certitude. That is also an error of the extremes. That is the error of the Protestant who denies any authority or any mediator Priesthood to meet Christ and form his conscience, his reason.
Which is why when I mention authority, I phrase it as “submission to authority, *rightly ordered*. It is not everything (Fideist). Nor is it nothing (Protestant).
And so for context, from NewAdvent:
Relevant Protestant errors –
“Priesthood of all believers”:
The universal priesthood of believers implies the right and duty of the Christian laity not only to read the Bible in the vernacular, but also to take part in the government and all the public affairs of the Church. It is opposed to the hierarchical system, which puts the essence and authority of the Church in an exclusive priesthood, and makes ordained priests the necessary mediators between God and the people”.
And
“Private judgment in practice”:
At first sight it seems that private judgment as a rule of faith would at once dissolve all creeds and confessions into individual opinions, thus making impossible any church life based upon a common faith. For quot capita tot sensus: no two men think exactly alike on any subject.
https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12495a.htm#:~:text=It%20has%20reference%20to%20the,by%20a%20living%20faith%2C%20in
But do you deny that logic can come to solid conclusions, even in matters of theology. Or do you say, logic rightly done, cannot come to theological conclusions? That we can only rely on authority in this domain?
I think that was the thrust of the article. We can indeed know some truths of faith by natural reason. Certain truths are above reason but never contradict it.
I think we can know with mathematical certainty that a Catholic who teaches heresy with pertinacity is a formal heretic, and, according to Piux XII are by nature no longer members of the Church (and not even canon law can contravene natural law), and that someone who is not a member of the Church cannot be it’s head. The only way to avoid this conclusion is to deny there is heresy, deny there is pertinacity, or a flaw in the argument—which I am willing to concede if you can explain it.
T,
St Catherine of Siena is often raised as a model. She was raised here in this context. But I think those who do so have misapplied her lesson to us.
St Catherine of Siena recognized the grave error within the Papacy. She visited the Pope and confronted him to his face. She spent the last years of her life in deep suffering and prayer working within *canonically valid but disputed* structures to rectify grave errors by convincing those who made them *TO REPENT*, to change, to rectify their error. She did not ever presume private judgement upon the Pope or his Apostles. She brought the word of God to sinners, guided by a devotion to unity within the Body of Christ.
We live within the institutional Church (the Body of Christ) as *members*, not as individuals. We must work within legal canonical hierarchical structures, or we are doomed to fail individually and collectively. (John 17:20-23)
Belief that Bergoglio is even still the valid pope requires one to believe that various councils, doctors of the Church, and even Christ himself were wrong, and that the Church itself simply misunderstood the papacy for 2000 years.
GT,
That is your personal interpretation.
And since he is still the Pope, that sounds like it leads to a crisis of faith. Which turns the title and topic of this post on its head.
But the Church continues on, and faithful Catholics everywhere are doing the heavy lifting of remaining faithful during severe time of trial.
GT Bro, you gotta stop reading those pre-Vatcan II encyclicals and councils…way too old school. The Auxiliary Bishop of Kazakhstan is where it’s at, he’s the authoritative voice of the Church now. He’ll let you know if anything “definitely Pope” Francis teaches is binding…..because Catholicism.
This is one of the funniest things I’ve read:
https://www.wmreview.org/p/susanvacantism
We should pray for Michael Warren Davis and all those who have left the Church.
A most charitable discussion of SVism vs R&R with Louie Verrechio on Vendée Radio. Per usual Louie is very clear and charitable…aka Catholic.
https://youtu.be/CuxYkZcQYzc?si=UPtNAjJ3APhJFXsa
Well worth watching….and I’m not a ’58 sede. Mr. Verrecchio is always a class act and he brings his “A-game” as usual.
My wife and I converted to Eastern Orthodoxy 20 years ago. We moved to a small town in South Carolina 5 years ago and there hasn’t been a Sunday when we haven’t had people show up and announce they just moved here and this is their parish now or they are ready to become an inquirer. We were planning to start a mission parish in a couple years but with the growth we have been having we will go straight to a full parish with hall in about 1 year. The number of prods is astounding but recently we have been getting RC’s also.