Although, the case will be made in the combox on ‘22 vs ‘58 empty seat as root cause… But for the love of God, can all sane Catholics at least admit Bergoglio is not, and has never been pope?
Estefania for the win
Although, the case will be made in the combox on ‘22 vs ‘58 empty seat as root cause… But for the love of God, can all sane Catholics at least admit Bergoglio is not, and has never been pope?
Amen! Any sane, thinking, paying attention Catholic should be able to see he’s not the pope. My goodness, he’s not even Catholic.
And that goes for the Mass destroying, stinking corpse of P6, Assisi, koran kissing JPII and ‘the Jews wait not in vane for their messiah’ B16….😊
– – – BEST COMMENT – – –
Excellent written Q&A with Patrick Coffin here:
https://www.patrickcoffin.media/benedict-xvi-is-the-true-pope-the-evidence-and-answers-to-objections-part-one/
Patrick Coffin presented her unedited answers to his questions, so this is the best introduction to her position in her own words – short of reading her book.
Whether we want to accept it or not, all of us here are essentially ’58 sedes, at least in practice and outlook.
John of St. Thomas is, perhaps, the first theologian to discuss “universal peaceful acceptance”. WM Review, on Substack, did a translation of his work. The theologian describes “acceptance” of a pope as 1) embracing the claimant as the Supreme Legislator, and thus his interpretation of the law is final (the old adage: Rome has spoken, the case is closed), and 2) embracing the claimant as the Proximate Rule of Faith, which means that we accept doctrinal teachings from the claimants as, at the least, not the wrong and safe to follow.
None of us here have done that since V2. We have rejected SOMETHING that JXXIII through BXVI has done, be it a law or a doctrine. Thus, we cannot say that we truly accepted any of the V2 popes.
Aaron, you’re not wrong. However, valid Councils have taught error before, only to be corrected later. So we can hold that Vatican II was validly convoked, but taught error that we can call out.
As a businessman, I’ve long thought that if the Catholic Church or a business, all the prelates would be sacked for non-performance. Vocations are down, attendance is down, baptisms are down, Souls are leaving the Church….
Councils have been corrected and certainly be further declared void.
But because of weakness, if not outright anti-Catholicism among the prelates, it has not been and will never be done.
well… God works in mysterious ways so maybe “never“ is too pessimistic.
By definition, an Ecumenical Council cannot be declared void. The Church has already defined that a valid Ecumenical Council (called, conducted, promulgated under the authority of the pope, with bishops from the whole Church present) is free from error.
This is what happened at Constance: those sessions conducted outside the authority of the pope (because there was none) were not considered part of the Council proper.
Aaron, you need to repudiate your fabrication of what happened at Constance. Can you produce a non-58sede source for your assertion?
There is only one ecumenical council that has been “corrected”: the Council of Constance. In that case, there was a period of time wherein the Council operated under the authority of the pope. Then the pope resigned. It continued, WITHOUT A POPE, and then elected Martin V. What occurred AFTER Martin’s election was not seen as suspect and not corrected, and neither what occurred before the pope had resigned. Rather, only that which was done in the interregnum was under scrutiny. In fact, those canons weren’t seen as part of the Council (hence, they could be corrected).
When the Church spoke at THE Vatican Council, She knew what she was saying. No Ecumenical Council has taught error. None have taught anything contrary to what had been taught before.
For the record, just because no error was taught doesn’t mean things were taught as precisely as they could have been. For instance, Trent said no one can say these should be entirely in the vernacular. Pius VI interpreted that, in Auctorem Fidei, to mean ANY of the Mass in the vernacular is insulting to the Church. Pius VI cleared something that was not wrong up.
Aaron,
Except that isn’t what happened. After the three “popes” resigned and Martin V was elected, Martin recognized John XXIII had been the legitimate Pope, and Martin ratified the canons previous to his election as valid. Haec Sancta remained in force until the Fifth Lateran,a hundred years later, and even then was not fully repudiated. This is a very widely known incident; I’m hardly spreading gnostic rumors. The error of Conciliarism was the law of the Church for over a hundred years.
“Good faith” must be present for decisions to be valid. It’s now known that VII was infiltrated by non-Catholics and people of bad intentions.
Because God is truth, there is no way that a Council or any Church decision can be valid when those involved wish ill upon our Church.
I accept Benedict’s hermenuetic of continuity. I don’t believe Vatican II erred, but the modernists implemented what it did not strictly call for, while taking creative liberties and pretending to follow the “spirit” of Vatican II, which sounds a lot like Bergoglio’s spirit of discontinuity. If the popes have said or done something scandalous, that is okay, popes are not impeccable; what they can’t be are formal heretics.
Unitatis Redintegratio, a document of V2, specifically says that heretical worship services provide salvific grace. It also says heretical and schismatic sects are part of Christ’s salvific plan. This is in DIRECT opposition to the dogmatic definition of Florence, which states, emphatically, that heretics and schismatics CANNOT, absolutely CANNOT be saved, unless they repent of their errors and enter the Catholic Church. As JPII admitted in Ecclesia Dei (paragraph 5), there is MUCH that is taught in V2 that doesn’t mesh with Tradition.
The only way a council can teach error is if it isn’t convened and conducted under papal authority (according to the definitions of the Church Herself).
My question to you is if that were true, how do nonbelievers choose to convert and how can baptized people who are invincibly ignorant and of good will salvagable given that they are outside the Church there is no salvation? People require grace to accept the faith in the first place and the latter, given that there is no salvation outside the Church, they must be within it somehow even if not corporally.
Grace would still not be provided for from false religions and ceremonies.
Types and inspirations pointing to Christ in other religions or folklore or historic figures may be providentially used to bring people into the Church and recognize the Lord. The image of Our Lady of Guadalupe being an example.
But the same can be ascribed to the natural law on human hearts exercising reason.
The point is, those things do not do the saving. God Himself can reach out and save them on His own by His own wisdom, power and will. But all the same, no-one may presume. It is dangerous to leave people outside of the Church. In fact, even if they could be saved in their ignorance, they must still first and foremost be of such character that they spent their entire lives seeking the Truth as hard as they can. Their burden without the Church and Sacraments is greater and harder. However, the burden within the Church is lighter (but still not an easy) path.
Invincible ignorance does not apply to anyone who doesn’t try hard enough to find the Truth, and just lives their lives “normally.”
I’m not saying every non-Catholic is invincibly ignorant, just that some SSPX claims that many traditional Catholic–even sedes–accept blindly (such as Vatican II teaches error about “subsists in” ) are probably incorrect, as theological documents dated before Vatican II say that certain non-Catholics are in the soul of the Church. It’s basically a non-falsifiable hypothesis. If there is no salvation outside the Church, and invincible ignorant non-Catholics can be saved, then it logically follows that they are inside the Church.
Grace comes from the Church and false religious ceremonies don’t cause it to come, but nobody can start believing in Jesus without the grace of faith, which means that not all grace is restricted to members in the body of the Church, but perhaps the soul of the Church (one and the same Church, not two different Churches). If someone does not have salvific grace he cannot be saved, but Pius XI says that certain non-Catholics can be saved.
Unless what old Church documents say have been tampered with by Satan, it looks like the SSPX has been teaching theological errors in the name of tradition.
Mark, you are, w/ all due respect incorrect on historical fact and thus misapprehend the Council of Constance. First off, John XXIII from that era is regarded as an Anti-Pope.
Please see: https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08434a.htm
‘John XXIII,’ described as Antipope of the Pisan party, thus permitted Roncalli the Un-Saint to take the name John XXXIII. (An Anti-Pope like Francis cannot declare anyone a saint. Furthermore John XXIII (Angelo Roncalli)’s chief claim to fame is to have disobeyed a direct command of the Queen of Heaven: Release the Third Secret by 1960(!).)
The Council was not kingmaker but filled a void in Christendom following the Great Schism. The old Catholic Encyclopedia is by far the best source on this matter, as it is on most subjects, and states as follows in this regard, conceding that the council indeed brought about…:
“the deposition of [Anti-Pope of nearly forty years’ duration] Benedict XIII, who in the meantime had excommunicated solemnly his former royal adherents and with a courage worthy of a better cause maintained that Holy Church, the Ark of Noah, was now on the wave-worn peak of Peñiscola, in the little group of a few thousand souls who yet clung to his shadowy authority, and not at Constance. He was finally deposed in the thirty-seventh session (26 July, 1417) as guilty of perjury, a schismatic, and a heretic; his private life and priestly character, unlike those of John XXIII, were never assailed. The Western Schism was thus at an end, after nearly forty years of disastrous life; one pope (Gregory XII) had voluntarily abdicated; another (John XXIII) had been suspended and then deposed, but had submitted in canonical form; the third claimant (Benedict XIII) was cut off from the body of the Church, “a pope without a Church, a shepherd without a flock” (Hergenröther-Kirsch). It had come about that, whichever of the three claimants of the papacy was the legitimate successor of Peter, there reigned throughout the Church a universal uncertainty and an intolerable confusion, so that saints and scholars and upright souls were to be found in all three obediences. On the principle that a doubtful pope is no pope, the Apostolic See appeared really vacant, and under the circumstances could not possibly be otherwise filled than by the action of a general council.
The canonical irregularities of the council seem less blameworthy when to this practical vacancy of the papal chair we add the universal disgust and weariness at the continuance of the so-called schism, despite all imaginable efforts to restore to the Church its unity of headship, the justified fear of new complications, the imminent peril of Catholic doctrine and discipline amid the temporary wreckage of the traditional authority of the Apostolic See, and the rapid growth of false teachings equally ruinous to Church and State.
Election of Martin V
Under the circumstances the usual form of papal election by the cardinals alone (see CONCLAVE) was impossible, if only for the strongly inimical feeling of the majority of the council, which held them responsible not only for the horrors of the schism, but also for many of the administrative abuses of the Roman Curia (see below), the immediate correction of which seemed to not a few of no less importance, to say the least, than the election of a pope.”
Thus the Council deposed no legitimate reigning Pope. It did elect one, with Cardinal electors supplemented by other men from the Council.
We can all agree nonetheless as you suggest that Bergoglio, or as I call him Frankie Forty (40th Antipope in Church history) is not a true pope, but rather a false pope.