It is currently Sat Jun 23, 2018 7:54 pm




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 396 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next
 Siri's "election"/acceptance of popes/Paul VI 
Author Message
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post 
Robert Bastaja wrote:
Does not the universal Church "accept" JPII's canonisations as well?


No, in fact his record-setting "canonisation" effort resulted in a general sense of unease, to say the least, about the value of those acts. In some cases there were open refusals to accept them, notably in the case of Josemaria Escriva.

_________________
In Christ our King.


Thu Nov 22, 2007 2:50 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Tue May 23, 2006 9:03 pm
Posts: 515
New post 
John Lane wrote:
No, in fact his record-setting "canonisation" effort resulted in a general sense of unease, to say the least, about the value of those acts. In some cases there were open refusals to accept them, notably in the case of Josemaria Escriva.


John,

It appears that the first "cannonization" of JPII was Crispin of Viterbo. Did anyone oppose that "cannonization"? I don't know but it seems unlikely that anyone did oppose it...much like Paul VI's first "canonization" of the African Maryters.

Catholic Encyclopedia wrote:
Friar Minor Capuchin; b. at Viterbo in 1668; d. at Rome, 19 May, 1750. When he was five years old, his pious mother took him to a sanctuary of the Blessed Virgin, a short distance from Viterbo, where she consecrated him to the Mother of God and placed him under her special protection. The child grew beyond his years in virtue and science of the saints; so that the townsfold of Viterbo were wont to call him il Santarello, the little saint. As Crispin one day saw the Capuchin novices walking in procession, God inspired him with the desire to embrace the religious life. He was shortly afterwards received into the Franciscan Order as a simple lay brother. Having been employed for some time as cook in the convent at Viterbo, he was sent to Tolfa, a town not far distant from Civita Becchia, to fulfil the same office. Thence he was sent to Rome and finally to Albano. Here Crispin was visited by the men of the world, by bishops and cardinals, and even by the pope himself, who always took delight in conversing with the humble lay brother. It was Crispin's constant endeavour to imitate the virtues of his patron, St. Felix of Cantalice, whom he had chosen as his model of perfection at the beginning of his religious life. Like St. Felix, he used to call himself the ass or beat of burden of the Capuchins, and, having on one occasion been asked by a stranger why he went bare-headed, Crispin answered jocosely, that "an ass does not wear a hat." Enfeebled by old age and by his numerous austerities, he was sent to Rome by his superiors, there to end his holy life. His body, which even at the present time is still in a remarkable state of preservation, rests under one of the side altars in the church of the Capuchin Fathers in Rome. Blessed Crispin was solemnly beatified by Pope Pius VII in 1806. His feast is celebrated only by the Capuchins.


This just doesn't make sense to me...but I could be missing something, of course. :)

Robert


Mon Nov 26, 2007 12:25 am
Profile
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post 
Robert Bastaja wrote:
It appears that the first "cannonization" of JPII was Crispin of Viterbo. Did anyone oppose that "cannonization"? I don't know but it seems unlikely that anyone did oppose it...much like Paul VI's first "canonization" of the African Maryters.


Yes, Wojtyla's canonisations were treated by sedevacantists as non-events. Our problem in relation to Paul VI is that in 1964 there were no sedevacantists, so that every Catholic accepted this infallible act as an infallible act.

_________________
In Christ our King.


Mon Nov 26, 2007 9:15 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Fri May 19, 2006 1:54 am
Posts: 147
New post 
John Lane wrote:
Robert Bastaja wrote:
It appears that the first "cannonization" of JPII was Crispin of Viterbo. Did anyone oppose that "cannonization"? I don't know but it seems unlikely that anyone did oppose it...much like Paul VI's first "canonization" of the African Maryters.


Yes, Wojtyla's canonisations were treated by sedevacantists as non-events. Our problem in relation to Paul VI is that in 1964 there were no sedevacantists, so that every Catholic accepted this infallible act as an infallible act.


I follow and accept your argument thusfar here, but did have a question. Was there not any opposition from members of the SSPX to this first canonization of his? If not, then doesn't this mean that there are valid Catholics who accepted this canonization? thanks


Mon Nov 26, 2007 6:33 pm
Profile
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post 
Colin Fry wrote:
I follow and accept your argument thusfar here, but did have a question. Was there not any opposition from members of the SSPX to this first canonization of his? If not, then doesn't this mean that there are valid Catholics who accepted this canonization?

Yes, of course, but those include not only Catholics who are served by the clergy of the SSPX, but also some number of those still mired within the Novus Ordo milieu. The point is not whether any Catholics may be mistaken about any given truth, or even whether most may be mistaken about one thing at any given time, but whether the whole Church can treat a non-pope as pope.

_________________
In Christ our King.


Mon Nov 26, 2007 9:54 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Tue May 23, 2006 9:03 pm
Posts: 515
New post 
John Lane wrote:
Robert Bastaja wrote:
It appears that the first "cannonization" of JPII was Crispin of Viterbo. Did anyone oppose that "cannonization"? I don't know but it seems unlikely that anyone did oppose it...much like Paul VI's first "canonization" of the African Maryters.


Yes, Wojtyla's canonisations were treated by sedevacantists as non-events. Our problem in relation to Paul VI is that in 1964 there were no sedevacantists, so that every Catholic accepted this infallible act as an infallible act.


I don't see the fact that there were no sedevacantists in 1964 as a problem...there were none in 1968 or 1969 either. The Church accepted all of Paul VI's canonizations...didn't they? So he was Pope when he gave us the Novus Ordo Missae...and the New Rite of Ordination.

I can't see how time does not also play a role in this...and by that I mean that the determination that a pope is actually not the pope would not occur in an instant. The "canonization" of a long ago beatified person would be the perfect thing for a false pope to do...Paul VI did many things like this. If the entire Church accepted his 1968 profession of faith...then why would they have not accepted the canonization of the African Maryters? Are we saying that the Holy Ghost would prevent the latter from happening...but not the former? If Paul VI was a true pope, of course.

The precise point where Paul VI lost the pontificate (the point when he was no longer a Catholic) is critical then, isn't it? Everything prior to that is from a true Pope...everything after that is not. So where is the event that made this important transition? If you can't identify it...then it isn't there. And it can't be a secret event...right?


Wed Nov 28, 2007 1:08 am
Profile
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post 
Robert Bastaja wrote:
So where is the event that made this important transition? If you can't identify it...then it isn't there. And it can't be a secret event...right?

No, I don’t think that is right. It's a mystery, I think clearly intended by God as a test of Faith and Charity.

Nor is the mystery solved by saying that Montini was a public heretic prior to his election, because he wasn't. At least, not in any sense which would have been accepted by a canonist, and that is why, prior to his election, nobody said that he was a public heretic.

I agree that at some point later, particularly after the promulgation of the Novus Ordo and his refusal of demands that it be abandoned, he was manifestly lacking the Catholic Faith. By then men were openly expressing doubts or stating clearly that he was not a Catholic. I agree that such a judgement involves, of necessity, some period of time to be formed by a prudent man. This may be relatively brief, or longer, depending upon the circumstances. One circumstance which served to cause men not to form the judgement rapidly was the apparent acceptance of Paul VI as pope by the whole Church, and all of the associated facts.

All that we can say is what is dictated by theology, which in my view at this stage is: Paul VI was not pope at the point at which he promulgated Vatican II, and he was pope at the point where he canonised the African Martyrs. I add that I don't think that in light of the general state of war in the Church at the time of his election, which continued and worsened afterwards, one could claim that Paul VI was universally peacefully accepted, so that the fact that the Church accepted the canonisations mentioned is the only clear proof that he was pope at any point.

There are very many variables at play in these considerations, and the above are only a few of them. Prudent and even very holy men formed different views and in most cases changed those judgements as events proceeded. We do not need to discover all of the answers.

(Nor, a fortiori do we need to bring the crisis to an end. That is not office of any layman or priest. We merely need to hold fast and remain as safe as possible, which means maintaining our sacramental life and avoiding rash judgements and actions. I think you and I agree on this.)

_________________
In Christ our King.


Thu Nov 29, 2007 12:21 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Wed Oct 25, 2006 11:18 pm
Posts: 20
New post 
Mr. Lane,

This is one of the most interesting threads on any forum I've seen. Thank you to everybody who has contributed.


John Lane wrote:
Bellarmine considered the notion that a pope cannot fall into heresy to be strictly an opinion and did not consider it "certain." However, the arguments adduced for that opinion have always seemed, and still seem, very compelling. In any case, it seems infinitely better to maintain even the mere “opinions” of the Doctors until and unless they are proved to be untenable.


Can you give us a reference for Bellarmine's statement that this doctrine is uncertain?

Thank you again.

In the Two Hearts,
Dom.


Mon Dec 10, 2007 11:00 pm
Profile

Joined: Mon Aug 20, 2007 4:56 am
Posts: 46
Location: In Partibus Infidelium...
New post Post Facto
Very interesting thread gentlemen, very intriguing, however, I do have my objections, some of which were voiced by Ken earlier, but not in the full.

Quote:
Because the theologians say that the adherence of the whole Church to any given claimant is in itself a proof that all of the necessary requisites for validity are present. The reason for this is the indefectibility of the Church, which cannot adhere to a false visible head.
It would in some ways be more convenient if this doctrine did not exist, but it does. Smile
By the way, I think that this doctrine is chiefly what Archbishop Lefebvre had in view when he commented in the late '70s that the See of Rome could not be vacant because of the necessary visibility of the Church. In any case, it is certainly a powerful argument for sedeplenism, which is perhaps why most sedevacantists never mention it


IF the people, even if misguided and fooled, just as Vincent Ferrer with the Avignon anti-pope, accept someone as pope, then he is pope?
So, if the whole of the east accepted Nestorius' episcopate as being occupied then I suppose it is occupied then? If the whole of a congregation thinks that an invalid Eucharist is valid, then that makes it valid? Sounds a bit fishy to me.

I want to add that what people think is one thing, what really is is another. A lot of people can be fooled, in fact, If I told everyone a lie about me, and everyone believed it, and no one alive knew the truth, would that consent of the people make it true? No, it would not. To me this seems like the Office of the Pope is conferred by consent of the faithful, a notion condemned in Vatican I, if I remember correctly.

Objection 2:

The whole Church did not accept the true pope during the Great Schism: neither the anti-pope nor the true pope had the full assent of the whole Church, ergo, this proposition has somewhat of an historical inconsistency in practice.

Objection 3:
According to what I've read, a heretic cannot be pope, because of the fact that he is a heretic, he is outside the Church, and thus, cannot be inside of that which he is outside of, let alone be the head of it, basic reasoning dictates that, let alone official acts of the Church.

Objection 4:

Just as in the case of nestorius and the case of the hypothetical mass mentioned above, Nestorius' offical acts while he was a heretic were considered invalid by the Church post facto, so that his excommunications were null, because he was outside the Church and thus had no authority to do it.

The Mass: Just because a consecration takes place, it does not mean that the priest is valid, thus, the priest. This has enormous application to your claim, which is nevertheless very well thought out and worthy, in that just because someone does some official act does not grant his validity, just as a consecration does not necessarily grant validity, the external rite itself does not grant this, other factors determine this, not simply the exercise thereof. Just because Nestorius officially did some things, it did not validate him as the Patriarch of Constantinople.
The rite of consecration of a Mass does not validate someone as a priest either, nor canonizations a pope.
Even if a whole congregation of parishioners considers a mass valid, it does not make it so, per se, other factors determine this, such as the valid ordination of the priest, ect.
As you say: a pope is a pope:
1. if he does some official act that is "universally" accepted,
2. If he is "universally" accepted as such

Quote:
Because we would then have to explain the universal adherence of the Church to a public heretic as pope, something which all the theologians assert to be impossible, and which contains within itself a denial of the indefectibility of the Church.


Again, people can be honestly decieved, but because people may fallibly think one thing, and even if he were pope he would have lost it, does not make it so; I submit that because of Montini and Roncalli's manifest formal heresy that they could not have been valid reigning Pontiffs of the Catholic Church.

Quote:
Roncalli was accepted by the whole Church as pope and without any significant qualms that I am aware of. During his reign his behaviour did cause people distress and concern, but these things occurred well after he was elected and as far as I know there was no doubt about his claim at any point.


Objection:
Roncalli, though accepted as such, could not, because of his manifest heresy and masonry, remained Pope if he had even been validly elected, which, btw, I submit he was not, a topic for another post. I agree with Ken on this.

Quote:
As early as 1926, the already apostate Angelo Roncalli (John XXIII) wrote to one Orthodox Schismatic: "Catholics and Orthodox are not enemies, but brothers. We have the same faith; we share the same sacraments, and especially the Eucharist. ...Let us abandon the old disputes and, each in his own domain, let us work to make our brothers good, by giving them good example. Later on, though traveling along different paths, we shall achieve union among the churches to form together the true and unique Church of our Lord Jesus Christ."


Thus, the man was a heretic before his "election".

Quote:
John XXIII, Pacem in terris #14, April 11, 1963: “Also among man’s rights is that of being able to worship God in accordance with the right dictates of his own conscience, and to profess his religion both in private and in public.”


Quote:
Syllabus of Errors, # 15: “Every man is free to embrace and profess that religion which he, led by the light of reason, thinks to be the true religion.” (Condemned by Pope Pius IX, Dec. 8, 1964)


The man was a public heretic post "election".

Quote:
I understand that these things are somewhat difficult but you'll have to trust the canonists and theologians who explain them. I can tell you, for what it's worth, that once you have spent time pondering these things they become clear. You can "see" the realities and the various distinctions. They take on a clarity which makes the explanations of the authorities actually "explain" them for you. But I am not sure that everybody has the kind of mind which can grapple successfully with these kinds of abstractions. In any case, the humility to sit at the feet of the authorities is crucial.



Quote:
Pope Pius XI (+1928):“… those also turn aside from the right path, who think that the deposit of truth is only to be found with such laborious trouble, and with such lengthy study and discussion, that a man’s life would hardly suffice to find and take possession of it; as if the most merciful God had spoken through the prophets and His only-begotten Son merely in order that a few, and those advanced in years, should learn what He has revealed through them, and not that He might inculcate a doctrine of faith and morals, by which man should be guided throughout the whole of His life.” (Mortalium Animos #8)


There is a difference in following someone, though he be a heretic, for a time, and then subscribing to heresies. The Church, as a whole, cannot fall into heresy, but no one said that fallible people cannot be fallible in accepting what all voices and appearances shout. From appearance, even now, everyone said b16 is pope, he looks like one, and reigns from rome, as any true pope would, and most of the world accepts him as such, let's say everyone did, would be be a valid pope? No, for the sole reason that he is not the shepherd of the flock of which he has no participation in the unity thereof by virtue of the heterodoxy and purposeful abandonment thereof.

Furthermore, I also agree with Ken in that there is no way that anyone can know for sure whether "everyone" accepted his anti-pontificate as a true pontificate or not, since we don't know the dispositions of others. Just because there were not organized movements does not mean that there was universal acceptance, what we have in this case is a logical fallacy from our learned friend John.


Quote:
the proponents of any positive claim are required to prove it.


I'm glad to see this as I've been through a lot of rigmaroles over it elsewhere, so bravo on that. Now, to part two of this reply: can you at least theoretically "prove" that Roncalli was the pope of the Roman Catholic Church excluding public heresy and other such impediments?

P.S. If I missed anything that may have already been covered I apologize.

G. I.

_________________
Error, cui non resistur, approbatur; et Veritas, cum minime defensatur.


Tue Dec 11, 2007 7:01 am
Profile
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post 
Dominic07 wrote:
Can you give us a reference for Bellarmine's statement that this doctrine is uncertain?


Dear Dom,

Thank you. Just a quibble before answering your question: to say that a doctrine is not certain is not to say that it is uncertain. "Certain" is a theological note with a technical meaning. All that Bellarmine says is that the doctrine lacks this note.

Bellarmine writes, "(...) there are five opinions about this matter. The first is that of Albert Pighi (Hierarch. Eccles., lib. 4, cap. 8), for whom the Pope cannot be a heretic and therefore cannot be deposed in any case. This opinion is probable and can be defended easily, as we shall show later in its due place. Since, however, it is not certain, and since the common opinion is to the contrary, it is useful to examine what solution should be given to that question, in the hypothesis that the Pope could be a heretic."

That is the text from Da Silveira, quoting Bellarmine. I don't think that there is anybody who has seriously studied the pope issue in our era who is ignorant of Da Silveira, and I don't think that anybody who has done so could be unaware of Bellarmine's true position. That is, the opinion that a true pope cannot fall into heresy is "probable and easily defended." However, it falls short of the note, "certain."

My understanding is that in the three hundred years after Bellarmine's death his enormous influence resulted in a reversal of the popularity of the two positions, so that the more common opinion became Bellarmine's (i.e. Pighi's, as expressed above) and the idea that a true pope could disappear into heresy became less commonly held. Here is how modern theologian Jesuit Father Joaquin Salaverri summarises the status questionis:

“As a private person, can the Pope fall into heresy? The theologians dispute about this question. To us 'it seems more pious and more probable' to admit that God will take care, by his Providence, 'that never will a Pope be a heretic'. For this opinion, sustained by Saint Robert Bellarmine and Suarez, was also praised in the First Vatican Council by Bishop Zinelli, Relator of the Faith in the following terms: 'Confident in supernatural Providence, we judge it to be quite probable that that will never happen. But God does not fail in the things that are necessary; therefore, if He permits so great an evil, the means to remedy such a situation will not be lacking' (conc. Vatic., Mansi 52, 1109)." This text is also from Da Silveira.

Now, we are still at liberty to choose the (now) minority opinion that true popes cannot fall into heresy, and indeed I have always maintained this position until recently. I still prefer it on intrinsic grounds, which I will happily present if asked and when I have more time, but the problem we now face is that of fact - Paul VI seems to have been a true pope who disappeared into heresy. This demands an explanation.

I trust that this assists.

_________________
In Christ our King.


Tue Dec 11, 2007 7:55 am
Profile E-mail
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post Re: Post Facto
Grand Inquisitor wrote:
IF the people, even if misguided and fooled, just as Vincent Ferrer with the Avignon anti-pope, accept someone as pope, then he is pope?

No, that's ridiculous. Try it this way 'round: if you think somebody isn't pope, and the rest of the Church thinks he is, you're wrong.


Grand Inquisitor wrote:
P.S. If I missed anything that may have already been covered I apologize.

Actually, I think you missed the entire theological point at issue, which relates to the visible unity of the Church. More fundamental reading is required in order to provide a basis for a proper understanding of the points here, I think.

_________________
In Christ our King.


Tue Dec 11, 2007 7:59 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Mon Aug 20, 2007 4:56 am
Posts: 46
Location: In Partibus Infidelium...
New post Re: Post Facto
John Lane wrote:
Grand Inquisitor wrote:
IF the people, even if misguided and fooled, just as Vincent Ferrer with the Avignon anti-pope, accept someone as pope, then he is pope?


Quote:
No, that's ridiculous. Try it this way 'round: if you think somebody isn't pope, and the rest of the Church thinks he is, you're wrong.


Of course it is, it's known as reductio absurdum, I think, used as a rhetorical question, attempting to make a contrast with it and of course your theory.


Grand Inquisitor wrote:
P.S. If I missed anything that may have already been covered I apologize.


Quote:
Actually, I think you missed the entire theological point at issue


I was addressing the acceptance of a pope.

Quote:
, which relates to the visible unity of the Church.


I'll move to that in just a bit.

Quote:
More fundamental reading is required in order to provide a basis for a proper understanding of the points here, I think.


I concur.

_________________
Error, cui non resistur, approbatur; et Veritas, cum minime defensatur.


Wed Dec 12, 2007 3:13 am
Profile
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post Re: Post Facto
Grand Inquisitor wrote:
Of course it is, it's known as reductio absurdum, I think, used as a rhetorical question, attempting to make a contrast with it and of course your theory.


It isn't my theory.



Grand Inquisitor wrote:
John Lane wrote:
More fundamental reading is required in order to provide a basis for a proper understanding of the points here, I think.


I concur.

Please name the theology manual or manuals you have read, and let's see where we are.

_________________
In Christ our King.


Wed Dec 12, 2007 6:01 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Mon Aug 20, 2007 4:56 am
Posts: 46
Location: In Partibus Infidelium...
New post De Facto
[quote= "John Lane"]More fundamental reading is required in order to provide a basis for a proper understanding of the points here, I think.[/quote]

Ambiguous, This is referenced to Mr Lane or the Inquisitor?

Reply:

Your theory, Mr. Lane, as I understand it, at least a particular part of which I find of higher interest, being my inquiry: In your opinion, objectively speaking, were John XXIII and Paul VIII valid Roman Pontiffs of the Catholic Church?

I suppose so. What I understand of your theory is that you are claiming this:
Quote:
if all Catholics accept a man as pope then he is, period.


My objection is, what is meant by "all Catholics", and then again, how can this even be measured thus to be able to even utilize this as a means or standard by which to judge the legitimacy of ecclesiastical office, and then again, what if there are many Catholics who contest a Pontiff's pontifficality? What this would seem to be, to me at least would be that because there are many Catholics who do not assent to the pontificality of a Roman Pontiff, then he is not Pope, which is actually contrary to historical fact of the 15th century, when there were numerous claimants to the Papal Office, none of them enjoyed universal consent of the Roman Catholic Populace of the time, yet theologians, historians and the Church hold that the popes who were of the line of Urban were the true popes at the time, even though it was the anti-popes who had majority assent. The Second part of my response involved the objection that it is possible for many people, in fact all people, to be mistaken about objective truths, as history has shown. What I inferred and stated before was

Quote:
the people, even if misguided and fooled, just as Vincent Ferrer with the Avignon anti-pope, accept someone as pope, then he is pope?


However, this was mistaken for something it was not, allow an explanation:

I intended that: If the people, even if misguided, accept someone as the pope, then that makes him the pope?

I believe that I have inferred this properly because of something you already said:

Quote:
if all Catholics accept a man as pope then he is, period.


Again, my objection mainly concerned this:

Quote:
it is enough that he was accepted afterwards by the whole Church as Pope, since by such acceptance he would have become the true Pontiff. But if during a certain time he had not been truly and universally accepted by the Church, during that time the Pontifical See would have been vacant, as it is vacant on the death of a Pontiff."


So that if the whole Church did not universally accept someone as Pope, then he would not be pope, which is inconsistent, I believe, though I could be wrong and so I'm asking your opinion about it, because the true pope elected after Urban VI was not universally accepted by the Church during that time, yet the Church holds that he was indeed the true pope of the Church, even though he did not enjoy universal assent.

Amazingly, this was what was not responded to, when clearly this was what I was attempting to illustrate. To further illustrate that this was indeed my true objection to your theory, I used examples:

If the whole of Constantinople had held that Nestorius, a public heretic, was their true patriarch and bishop, then, by your theory, he would indeed have been, even though according to historical and conciliar fact declare otherwise?

In order to aid in my illustration I used another example:

If the whole of a congregation believes that a host which is "consecrated", then, according to your theory, it would be valid. To explain a little further, I added the fact that a eucharist is a valid Eucharist if the proper elements were present, however, my point being, if one or more are not present and the people believe that it is valid, then, according to your theory, again, it would be valid, even if it lacks one of its essential elements. In order to have a valid sacrament four things need be present: Form, matter, minister, intent. Suppose the proper form were observed during the consecration of a host, the proper matter was present, but the minister was not properly ordained, according to Catholic understandings, it would be an invalid Eucharist because of the invalidity of the priest offering the Mass. Now, again, suppose the minister were valid, the proper matter and form are present, but the priest has not the intent proper to the consecration of a host, then, according to Catholic doctrine, there would not be a valid Eucharist, however, in both instances, by your theory, it would be valid because the congregation believes it so. I contest this on the grounds that certain elements must be present for validity, not simply recognition. I trust I've made that point clear.


My contention is that, like the hypothetical mass mentioned above, people can be mistaken about anything, particularly, in this instance, in these sorts of matters. My point is that, what people believe has no affect on objective truths, and the validity of ecclesiastical sacraments and offices is one of those. This appears, to me at least, that a man is pontiff, by your theory, again, by the consent of the faithful, and not by divine appointment, a view which was actually condemned during the First Vatican Council, which not only does not make sense, but is simply not tenable with Catholic teaching. This is my contention with your theory.

Now, my further contention is in reference to the claim that manifest heretics were popes of the Catholic Church by consent, which I contest on the grounds that a manifest heretic cannot be pope as you well know. I illustrated this with my supporting example of the heretic Nestorius, who was a manifest heretic, since he was such, he fell from his office the moment he publicly manifested his heresy, not because some contested his office, which I believe applies to Roncalli and Montini. Again, this aside from the unity of the Church, which perhaps will be dealt with shortly, what I am strictly referring to is the validity of a Roman Pontiff.

_________________
Error, cui non resistur, approbatur; et Veritas, cum minime defensatur.


Wed Dec 12, 2007 6:49 pm
Profile
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post Re: De Facto
Grand Inquisitor wrote:
John Lane wrote:
More fundamental reading is required in order to provide a basis for a proper understanding of the points here, I think.


Ambiguous, This is referenced to Mr Lane or the Inquisitor?


This was a reference to you. You are clearly unaware of the theology involved in this question. Instead of sitting at the feet of the theologians who expound the teaching of the Church, you wish to develop your own theories. This is completely unacceptable.


Grand Inquisitor wrote:
What I understand of your theory is that you are claiming this:
Quote:
if all Catholics accept a man as pope then he is, period.


Perhaps you have not actually read any manuals of theology. Perhaps you have entered this thread without having read it, either. To do either would be to waste everybody’s time and endanger the truth; to do both would be inconceivably rash. Have you indeed done both?

Here is Cardinal Billot, as already posted here some weeks ago:
http://www.strobertbellarmine.net/forum ... =6102#6102


Grand Inquisitor wrote:
My objection is, what is meant by "all Catholics", and then again, how can this even be measured thus to be able to even utilize this as a means or standard by which to judge the legitimacy of ecclesiastical office,


This has all been dealt with here already, but even if it had not, it is nothing more than an argument against Cardinal Billot and the common doctrine of the theologians. In other words, the best response is, go read some more.


Grand Inquisitor wrote:
and then again, what if there are many Catholics who contest a Pontiff's pontifficality? What this would seem to be, to me at least would be that because there are many Catholics who do not assent to the pontificality of a Roman Pontiff, then he is not Pope, which is actually contrary to historical fact of the 15th century, when there were numerous claimants to the Papal Office, none of them enjoyed universal consent of the Roman Catholic Populace of the time, yet theologians, historians and the Church hold that the popes who were of the line of Urban were the true popes at the time, even though it was the anti-popes who had majority assent.


Frankly, this is all incredibly shallow and each point has already been addressed at some length. Please stop treating the other posters here with such contempt.



Grand Inquisitor wrote:
The Second part of my response involved the objection that it is possible for many people, in fact all people, to be mistaken about objective truths, as history has shown.


I see. So, you’re just making up your own theology.


Grand Inquisitor wrote:
If the whole of Constantinople had held that Nestorius, a public heretic, was their true patriarch and bishop, then, by your theory, he would indeed have been, even though according to historical and conciliar fact declare otherwise?


The whole Church is the whole Church, not a particular church such as that of Constantinople. This only demonstrates once more that you have not tried to find out what the Church teaches through her theologians, but instead you have made yourself into the theologian.

Grand Inquisitor wrote:
If the whole of a congregation believes that a host which is "consecrated", then, according to your theory, it would be valid.


And again, we are not talking about the validity of sacraments – we are talking about the possession of the office of the papacy, which is a question intimately connected with the social body of the Church, her essential unity, her visibility, and her indefectibility. You evidently know nothing about these matters, and you can’t be taught them until you agree to sit at the feet of the only men who can teach you – the authorised theologians.

The fact that you carefully ignored my question regarding which theology books you have read is taken as a complete admission that you have read none. That would explain your total ignorance of the relevant principles here.

_________________
In Christ our King.


Wed Dec 12, 2007 11:29 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Mon Aug 20, 2007 4:56 am
Posts: 46
Location: In Partibus Infidelium...
New post Re: De Facto
Mr. Lane, you gave absolutely no reply to anything I positioned, at all. Your entire post was evidently based on your downplaying of my intellect, and little more. You spent your post to tell me I'm an ignorant bigot and did not respond to a single point in my post on that basis. Yet, you still found the time to present your theory in explanation and satisfaction to some who had little or no understanding of your theory earlier in this same thread, yet the same courtesy is not extended to me. If I'm wrong, please just say so, and demonstrate how, if you think I'm ignorant, enlighten me, but don't downplay me publicly with little or no substantial rationale.Your post is simply stating "you have no theological training, you have no business to criticize in any way anything presented here for theological deliberation". Like a priest I once knew who would not accept any kind of opinion regarding his views by anyone without a formal theological formation, which is ridiculous, especially with regard to his position. I did not respond to your off-topic question because it was just that - off-topic - focusing on old books instead of focusing on a simple question of mine, the subject of my post, which was the immediate concern, not my theological knowledge.It seems that you've missed what I was attempting to convey, or maybe you did and simply dismissed it.
Personally, I don't approve this condescending spirit with which you regard with contempt all criticisms of your theories, but still, you intend to play the same card on me, when I did nothing of the sort, but ask a question of you, which you dismissed on the grounds that I am not a reincarnated Aquinas. I don't mind being wrong, and if you believe that what I've said is wrong, then courteously and charitably show me my error, yet you've not done this but dismissed me with no substantial incentive.

I began by asking you, how can a heretic be the pope, to which you responded with the red-herring "what kind of theological formation have you?", an off-topic question, which I've seen no one else here be demanded to reply to even when criticizing your theory, which has nothing to do with my question, which in all fairness you should answer, and then ask your own in due logical order. I asked a second time my question/objection that a heretic, even if recognized by the faithful, cannot be the pope, an objection which you altogether dismissed without answering. This may not be the heart of your theory, but your theory indeed embraces this concept, one which is what I was posting with regard to.

My reply to your question is:

what in the world does my theological knowledge, an off-topic red-herring, in my opinion, have to do with a heretic being pope, an issue which someone of your caliber should be able to respond to no matter what the level of education the of the inquirer is, which indeed you should, but refuse to do. My point being, my education is not the subject here, but the pontificate, or lack thereof, of John XIII and Paul VI, which you are completely ignoring in favour of your red herring/ad hominum of speculative theology manuals. I'm asking you about the practical application of your respective theory, which I would be interested in seeing a response to. I would like an educated opinion regarding my inquiry which I believe that you can, with ease, satisfy. That you could indeed explain your own respective theory with regards to a simple question as the one which I've positioned. It's a part of your own substantiation for your own theory, not of me proving some brain-child of mine, in the spirit of your own statement earlier in this thread:

Quote:
the proponents of any positive claim are required to prove it.


Which I am asking you to do, regardless of how ignorant or intelligent I may be, your theory should still serve true. Since you apparently have read many theological manuals and thus have much learning in this regard, this is nothing for you - your respective theory should be more than capable of explaining or working out its own kinks, especially with a mind such as yours behind it. I know I'm no theological genius, nor have I ever claimed to be such or acted thus, but that I would like to know more about what you are positioning here, which seems to me that someone who I regard as an heretical anti-pope was indeed the pope and the head of the Church, something which I think is incompatible with the basic principles of faith and infidelity, though I could be wrong, in which case I ask that I be shown where and how, for the sake of the visibility and indefectibility of the Church, something which I think you could easily resolve.

Thank you for your time and consideration,

G.I.

_________________
Error, cui non resistur, approbatur; et Veritas, cum minime defensatur.


Thu Dec 13, 2007 5:49 pm
Profile

Joined: Mon Aug 20, 2007 4:56 am
Posts: 46
Location: In Partibus Infidelium...
New post Re: Post Facto
John Lane wrote:
More fundamental reading is required in order to provide a basis for a proper understanding of the points here, I think.


Okay, now, this is an ambiguous statement.

This could be taken in at least two ways:

1. You are going to have recourse to some theological reading in order to further develope your theory or work out some kinks or something like that.
2. I should read some theology books.

I ignored this for two reasons:

1. It has nothing to do with what I asked.
2. and I took it in the first sense.

If you had meant this in the first sense, then my not responding to this statement was indeed proper, if the latter, then it seems to me that you have no intent on responding to anything I said, and thus use a euphemism for "get lost" by saying "go read some books", in which case it seems to me that you don't regard my question as being worthy of a reply from yourself based on the notion you might be superior to the inquirer thereof in a sense concerning theological learning. I preferred to take it in the first because I did not think you to be of the latter mentality; which apparently I'm being dismissed for not taking it so and believing that indeed this is the mentality which you employ. I think I'm being unreasonable in the latter regard, and that it would be absurd to assume such in which case I asked you to clarify what you meant, wherein you responded by telling me that I'm inferior to you and that my question did not deserve a reply. I don't believe it proper, so I ask that you consider a reply to my initial question.

Thanks your time and consideration once again,

G. I.

_________________
Error, cui non resistur, approbatur; et Veritas, cum minime defensatur.


Thu Dec 13, 2007 6:06 pm
Profile

Joined: Tue May 23, 2006 9:03 pm
Posts: 515
New post 
grand inquisitor wrote:
My contention is that, like the hypothetical mass mentioned above, people can be mistaken about anything, particularly, in this instance, in these sorts of matters. My point is that, what people believe has no affect on objective truths, and the validity of ecclesiastical sacraments and offices is one of those. This appears, to me at least, that a man is pontiff, by your theory, again, by the consent of the faithful, and not by divine appointment, a view which was actually condemned during the First Vatican Council, which not only does not make sense, but is simply not tenable with Catholic teaching. This is my contention with your theory.


And the above illustrates why you need to read both the theology manuals and the previous posts. This is no one's "theory" ...only your "misunderstanding". :D


Thu Dec 13, 2007 8:51 pm
Profile
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post Re: De Facto
Grand Inquisitor wrote:
Mr. Lane, you gave absolutely no reply to anything I positioned, at all. Your entire post was evidently based on your downplaying of my intellect, and little more.


GI,

The notion that John XXIII and Paul VI were true popes at some point is in some sense a theory. The notion that Cardinal Billot presents is the common doctrine of the schools. The former you can debate. The latter you ought to accept and attempt to understand.

Now, you didn't argue, primarily at least, against my own views. You argued against the doctrine presented by Cardinal Billot. Further, you presented arguments that had already been presented by others and answered.

At no point have I suggested that you are lacking in intellectual capacity. I have stated, very clearly I think, that you have not taken any pains to understand the doctrine of the Catholic Church in relation to these matters, and therefore you have entered a thread with objections to her doctrine without (I hope!) realising it. In addition, you have very discourteously and wastefully entered the thread without reading it, so that others are expected to act as a bureau service for you whilst you show no signs of receiving with courtesy the service you demand so imperiously.

Now, just so it is clear, in case it is unclear to anybody: I don't care very much what you think about John XXIII or Paul VI. But I care a great deal about the doctrines of the Catholic Church.

_________________
In Christ our King.


Thu Dec 13, 2007 9:54 pm
Profile E-mail
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post Re: De Facto
Grand Inquisitor wrote:
... which seems to me that someone who I regard as an heretical anti-pope was indeed the pope and the head of the Church, ...


The easiest and quickest way for you to obtain a better grasp of what is at issue is to go read a manual of theology de ecclesia (e.g. Van Noort's "Christ's Church") and then read this thread.

Nobody is arguing that an heretical anti-pope can be pope. Quite the contrary.

What is being argued here, firstly, is that given the doctrine presented by Cardinal Billot, which is that the universal pacific acceptance of a man as pope by the whole Church demonstrates in itself that he actually is pope, then it seems that John XXIII was pope. Secondly, that given the doctrine that the Church must know whom her visible head really is in order to accept his infallible acts as infallible, it follows that if the whole Church does accept any purportedly infallible act as actually infallible, then she is implicitly necessarily recognising the possessor of that infallibility as pope. This seems to me to mean that Paul VI was pope when he canonised the African martyrs.

Now, since a public heretic cannot be pope, anybody who was pope was not a public heretic when he was pope. And since general councils are incapable of error, Paul VI was not pope when he purported to promulgate Vatican II, which contained very grave errors.

There are numerous fixed points, as well as numerous variables, in these matters. It is very dangerous to treat fixed points as variables (e.g. the teaching of the Church, or the established facts), and it is almost as dangerous to treat the many variables (e.g. numerous purported facts, and numerous potential or actual judgements) as fixed beyond debate. The former error is that of the liberals, by and large, for whom there is nothing fixed except their own tyranny; the latter is the main trouble with traditional Catholics, from time to time - but charity covereth a multitude of sins, so we muddle through.

_________________
In Christ our King.


Thu Dec 13, 2007 10:16 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Mon Aug 20, 2007 4:56 am
Posts: 46
Location: In Partibus Infidelium...
New post Re: De Facto
John Lane wrote:
Grand Inquisitor wrote:
Mr. Lane, you gave absolutely no reply to anything I positioned, at all. Your entire post was evidently based on your downplaying of my intellect, and little more.


GI,

The notion that John XXIII and Paul VI were true popes at some point is in some sense a theory. The notion that Cardinal Billot presents is the common doctrine of the schools. The former you can debate. The latter you ought to accept and attempt to understand.


I think I'll reread this thread then.

John Lane wrote:
Now, you didn't argue, primarily at least, against my own views. You argued against the doctrine presented by Cardinal Billot. Further, you presented arguments that had already been presented by others and answered.

At no point have I suggested that you are lacking in intellectual capacity. I have stated, very clearly I think, that you have not taken any pains to understand the doctrine of the Catholic Church in relation to these matters, and therefore you have entered a thread with objections to her doctrine without (I hope!) realising it. In addition, you have very discourteously and wastefully entered the thread without reading it, so that others are expected to act as a bureau service for you whilst you show no signs of receiving with courtesy the service you demand so imperiously.

Now, just so it is clear, in case it is unclear to anybody: I don't care very much what you think about John XXIII or Paul VI. But I care a great deal about the doctrines of the Catholic Church.


Thanks you for your reply, and my apologies, sir. Now, I'll dissect it.

I do realize that some of what I've positioned here has been raised already in this thread, particularly by Ken pages subsequent to page 3. Why did I resurrect it, then? Perhaps because I had a question concerning both of them in regard to the manner in which it has been positioned which had actually left a few points open. Also, in regard to intellect, my haste is indeed caused a big waste in time and consideration in everyone's day today, my apologies to everyone in that I read your post with haste and thought I saw something in it which is clearly not there, mea culpa. With regards to the teaching of the Church: with concern to what I have indeed read, one who is externally in individuo, in public obstinate disagreement with one or more doctrines presented by the authoritative magisterium, in effect rejects the magesterium as a whole by refusing to assent to its authority in matters concerning doctrine, has no communion with the magisterium by virtue of this fact, i.e. tacit excommunication. Now, it logically follows that such a one, while under such a sentence, could have no place or jurisdiction in such matters, the sources for that are available if there is doubt on this point. Now, by this standard I believe that it follows that because of this particular fact a person who meets this cannot, even by the recognition of of would-be subjects, have that which he tacitly rejects and disapproves. This is the bone of my contention, which I used the examples of a public heretic and an invalid minister involving accepting subjects. The theory which you present, at least to my subjective opinion, seems to put aside such a principle, in defining that such a one would indeed have that which I contend he cannot have, soley by the recognition of would-be subjects, correct me if I am wrong.

John Lane wrote:
The easiest and quickest way for you to obtain a better grasp of what is at issue is to go read a manual of theology de ecclesia (e.g. Van Noort's "Christ's Church") and then read this thread.


Thanks for the suggestion, is it online, or is it currently available in print, and at what cost?

Quote:
Nobody is arguing that an heretical anti-pope can be pope. Quite the contrary.

What is being argued here, firstly, is that given the doctrine presented by Cardinal Billot, which is that the universal pacific acceptance of a man as pope by the whole Church demonstrates in itself that he actually is pope, then it seems that John XXIII was pope.


That seems to be a contradiction to me:

Roncalli was indeed an heretical anti-pope, the theory which you present seems to, by principle, place him outside of the principle outlined above and thus make him "pope". To me that looks pretty much like you're saying that a heretical anti-pope can be pope. So, where's the contrary?

Quote:
Secondly, that given the doctrine that the Church must know whom her visible head really is in order to accept his infallible acts as infallible, it follows that if the whole Church does accept any purportedly infallible act as actually infallible, then she is implicitly necessarily recognising the possessor of that infallibility as pope. This seems to me to mean that Paul VI was pope when he canonised the African martyrs.


This statement here is of prime interest to me.
First: The Church must know her head "I know mine and mine know me".
Second: If the faithful accept something as infallible, then it is.
Third: the Second makes one de facto "the pope".

This is exactly what I've read in this thread and what I thought it said.

Quote:
Now, since a public heretic cannot be pope, anybody who was pope was not a public heretic when he was pope. And since general councils are incapable of error, Paul VI was not pope when he purported to promulgate Vatican II, which contained very grave errors.


This also has a very interesting bit in it. However, Montini had publicly manifested heresy before his election, thus, he was a public heretic. However, because he was widely accepted upon his accession to the throne that in effect makes him pope, disregarding his heresy, by the presented theory. Apparently, he, Montini, was a public or "manifest" heretic both before and after his election. According to the above principle, he could not be the pope, but according to the theory which you present, which is of interest to me, for the reason of what happened with Popes Felix and Liberias, he would indeed have been the pope in recognitio regardless of his external and public heresy. My objection to the theory is that his external heresy was an impediment to any positive effects of an election to a juridical office in the Catholic Church, especially the Roman Pontiff, my question is, does the Cardinal say anything about this, or if not, what is your opinion about it?

_________________
Error, cui non resistur, approbatur; et Veritas, cum minime defensatur.


Thu Dec 13, 2007 11:17 pm
Profile
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post Re: De Facto
Grand Inquisitor wrote:
Roncalli was indeed an heretical anti-pope, the theory which you present seems to, by principle, place him outside of the principle outlined above and thus make him "pope". To me that looks pretty much like you're saying that a heretical anti-pope can be pope. So, where's the contrary?


With respect, this appears to be a very great confusion of terms, or you are merely begging the question. Whether or not Roncalli was a heretic, a public heretic, and therefore not pope, is precisely what is at issue.



Grand Inquisitor wrote:
Third: the Second makes one de facto "the pope".


No, it demonstrates that the claimant is really the pope. It doesn't make him pope - it is merely perfectly sufficient evidence of the fact that he is so.


Grand Inquisitor wrote:
However, Montini had publicly manifested heresy before his election ...


I see. Perhaps you could tell us what it was, when it was manifested, and in what manner, and who noticed.


Grand Inquisitor wrote:
However, because he was widely accepted upon his accession to the throne that in effect makes him pope,

But it doesn't. It would merely show that he was pope. Actually, if you'd read this thread, as you seem to be claiming that you have now done, you'd note that I don't accept that Paul VI was universally pacifically accepted anyway, so that in relation to him, this argument is moot.

_________________
In Christ our King.


Sat Dec 15, 2007 5:58 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Mon Aug 20, 2007 4:56 am
Posts: 46
Location: In Partibus Infidelium...
New post Response to a reply
John Lane wrote:
Grand Inquisitor wrote:
Roncalli was indeed an heretical anti-pope, the theory which you present seems to, by principle, place him outside of the principle outlined above and thus make him "pope". To me that looks pretty much like you're saying that a heretical anti-pope can be pope. So, where's the contrary?


With respect, this appears to be a very great confusion of terms, or you are merely begging the question. Whether or not Roncalli was a heretic, a public heretic, and therefore not pope, is precisely what is at issue.


I see. I hold that Roncalli was a heretic, laid out in a previous post of mine

Quote:
Objection:
Roncalli, though accepted as such, could not, because of his manifest heresy and masonry, remained Pope if he had even been validly elected, which, btw, I submit he was not, a topic for another post. I agree with Ken on this.

As early as 1926, the already apostate Angelo Roncalli (John XXIII) wrote to one Orthodox Schismatic: "Catholics and Orthodox are not enemies, but brothers. We have the same faith; we share the same sacraments, and especially the Eucharist. ...Let us abandon the old disputes and, each in his own domain, let us work to make our brothers good, by giving them good example. Later on, though traveling along different paths, we shall achieve union among the churches to form together the true and unique Church of our Lord Jesus Christ."

Thus, the man was a heretic before his "election".

Quote:
John XXIII, Pacem in terris #14, April 11, 1963: “Also among man’s rights is that of being able to worship God in accordance with the right dictates of his own conscience, and to profess his religion both in private and in public.”

Syllabus of Errors, # 15: “Every man is free to embrace and profess that religion which he, led by the light of reason, thinks to be the true religion.” (Condemned by Pope Pius IX, Dec. 8, 1964)


The man was a public heretic post "election".


Grand Inquisitor wrote:
Third: the Second makes one de facto "the pope".


Quote:
No, it demonstrates that the claimant is really the pope. It doesn't make him pope - it is merely perfectly sufficient evidence of the fact that he is so.


I did not think that this was an issue, my statement. My explanation is not unlike your own of this point, which is that his recognition made him pope, now comes the distinction which you have now endeavoured to make, in everyone's mind. From all exteriors, you maintain, he was pope, based on the principle of his acknowledgement as the pope. In effect, your observation is the making of a distinction which I failed to make in writing my response.

Quote:
Grand Inquisitor wrote:
However, because he was widely accepted upon his accession to the throne that in effect makes him pope,


But it doesn't. It would merely show that he was pope. Actually, if you'd read this thread, as you seem to be claiming that you have now done, you'd note that I don't accept that Paul VI was universally pacifically accepted anyway, so that in relation to him, this argument is moot.


Ok, then we'll leave Montini as a "moot" point then.

_________________
Error, cui non resistur, approbatur; et Veritas, cum minime defensatur.


Mon Dec 17, 2007 9:30 pm
Profile
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post Re: Response to a reply
Grand Inquisitor wrote:
I hold that Roncalli was a heretic, laid out in a previous post of mine


Actually, you didn't attempt to show that Roncalli was a heretic. Nor did you attempt to show that he made his heresy public. What you did, if I recall, was make some vague generic observations to the effect that one who does not have the habitual submission to the magisterium lacks the Catholic Faith. Which is, in so far as it goes, true. But you did not, I repeat, attempt to prove that Roncalli lacked this habitual submission prior to his election; nor did you show how this lack of habitual submission was manifested publicly; nor could you do so, I'll wager, because if these things had been true, somebody would have noticed.

Grand Inquisitor wrote:
As early as 1926, the already apostate Angelo Roncalli (John XXIII) wrote to one Orthodox Schismatic: "Catholics and Orthodox are not enemies, but brothers. We have the same faith; we share the same sacraments, and especially the Eucharist. ...Let us abandon the old disputes and, each in his own domain, let us work to make our brothers good, by giving them good example. Later on, though traveling along different paths, we shall achieve union among the churches to form together the true and unique Church of our Lord Jesus Christ."

Thus, the man was a heretic before his "election".


OK, so now we have a doctrinal outrage which is evidence of heterodoxy. Source please?

Grand Inquisitor wrote:
Quote:
John XXIII, Pacem in terris #14, April 11, 1963: “Also among man’s rights is that of being able to worship God in accordance with the right dictates of his own conscience, and to profess his religion both in private and in public.”

Syllabus of Errors, # 15: “Every man is free to embrace and profess that religion which he, led by the light of reason, thinks to be the true religion.” (Condemned by Pope Pius IX, Dec. 8, 1964)


The man was a public heretic post "election".


Never condemned as heretical. Erroneous, yes, but not directly contrary to some article of Faith. Yes, this frustrates me too. That is not a reason to disgaree, however.

Grand Inquisitor wrote:
I did not think that this was an issue, my statement. My explanation is not unlike your own of this point, which is that his recognition made him pope, now comes the distinction which you have now endeavoured to make, in everyone's mind. From all exteriors, you maintain, he was pope, based on the principle of his acknowledgement as the pope. In effect, your observation is the making of a distinction which I failed to make in writing my response.


I'm sorry, but you don't appear capable of addressing this point, and it is clear to me that the reason for this is that you have no understanding of the foundation of it, which is that the Church is a visible unity of Faith and Charity. Your complete obfuscation of the essential point, as though it were some kind of subjectivism on the part of Cardinal Billot, is kind of fascinating in a macabre way. It is as though you read him as an inferior who needs to be taught something, rather than as the greatest theologian of the past one hundred years.

For the record (you're clearly not going to grasp this), the recognition of the man by the whole Church is in itself a sure proof that he really was pope. Objectively, externally, in reality, before God. The recognition is an externally veifiable fact. The papacy was a certain fact known by this other fact. One is sufficient evidence of the other. This is not debatable; it is Catholic teaching. What is debateable, and Ken did debate it, is whether or not Roncalli was really peacefully accepted by the whole Church. That is a question of fact, not of doctrine. We can disagree on the facts, insofar as they are reasonably disputable, but the theology is not for you to develop; it is for you to accept.

You speak casually of others' lack of habitual submission; you appear in need of some yourself. Why don't you tell us where you got your ideas, since you don't seem to be able to credit any theology books for them?

_________________
In Christ our King.


Mon Dec 17, 2007 10:08 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Sat May 20, 2006 2:18 am
Posts: 56
New post 
Wouldn't Montini's call for a Secular United Nations one world government "new world order" in Pacim in Terris classify as a heretical break from the Church's mind on the Social Order.

I think Benedict XV's 1909 motu proprio Bonum Sane can give us an idea of the mind of the church on this issue.
Quote:
The advent of a Universal Republic, which is longed for by all the worst elements of disorder, and confidently expected by them, is an idea which is now ripe for execution. From this republic, based on the principles of absolute equality of men and community of possessions, would be banished all national distinctions, nor in it would the authority of the father over his children, or of the public power over the citizens, or of God over human society, be any longer acknowledged. If these ideas are put into practice, there will inevitably follow a reign of unheard-of terror

http://tinyurl.com/3b7p9m


From Pacem in Terris
Quote:
7. These laws clearly indicate how a man must behave toward his fellows in society, and how the mutual relationships between the members of a State and its officials are to be conducted. They show too what principles must govern the relations between States; and finally, what should be the relations between individuals or States on the one hand, and the world-wide community of nations on the other. Men's common interests make it imperative that at long last a world-wide community of nations be established.


143. An act of the highest importance performed by the United Nations Organization was the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, approved in the General Assembly of December 10, 1948. In the preamble of that Declaration, the recognition and respect of those rights and respective liberties is proclaimed as a goal to be achieved by all peoples and all countries.

144. We are fully aware that some objections and reservations were raised regarding certain points in the Declaration, and rightly so. There is no doubt, however, that the document represents an important step on the path towards the juridical-political organization of all the peoples of the world. For in it, in most solemn form, the dignity of a human person is acknowledged to all human beings; and as a consequence there is proclaimed, as a fundamental right, the right of every man freely to investigate the truth and to follow the norms of moral good and justice, and also the right to a life worthy of man's dignity, while other rights connected with those mentioned are likewise proclaimed.

http://www.ewtn.com/library/encyc/i23pacem.htm


He's praising the "path towards the juridical-political organization of all the peoples of the world," by a secular and quite arguably masonic organization. And also telling us that "Men's common interests make it imperative that at long last a world-wide community of nations be established." Montini's words are certainly interpreted as a call for "new world order of international solidarity" buy the current establishment as demonstrated in the article bellow.
http://www.zenit.org/article-7344?l=english

My question is wouldn't this open support of what amounts to worldwide Marxism be considered enough to make Montini a public enemy of the Church?

What about his public support of the United Nation's Temple of Understanding founded "to achieve peaceful coexistence among individuals, communities, and societies through interfaith education?"
http://www.templeofunderstanding.org

This site, though comically alarmist, gives some very disturbing information about this group. Notably the Temple of Understanding's affiliation with the theophostic/satanic Lucis Trust organization. If Montini was pope then we are to believe a pope can publicly praise an interfaith group which aligns itself with satanic organizations.


Mon Dec 17, 2007 11:12 pm
Profile E-mail
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post 
brogan wrote:
Wouldn't Montini's call ...

Pacem in terris, which is an incredibly bad document, simply packed to the gunwales with error, was published by Roncalli, not Montini.

As for Montini's errors, heresies, and other horrors, I agree. The question is how to explain it all.


brogan wrote:
If Montini was pope then we are to believe a pope can publicly praise an interfaith group which aligns itself with satanic organizations.

I understand, and the problem is real. The whole series of men and events is a profound mystery which all serious Catholics are presently pondering and attempting to comprehend. The thing to do, it seems to me, is to be as crystal clear as possible about what is certain (i.e. from the teaching of the Church and in the order of contingent fact) and to be equally clear about what is not certain - including distinguishing between what is objectively certain in itself but not (yet) the subject of a public judgement, and what is not objectively certain.

_________________
In Christ our King.


Tue Dec 18, 2007 12:41 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Mon Aug 20, 2007 4:56 am
Posts: 46
Location: In Partibus Infidelium...
New post Re: Response to a reaction
John Lane wrote:
Grand Inquisitor wrote:
I hold that Roncalli was a heretic, laid out in a previous post of mine


Actually, you didn't attempt to show that Roncalli was a heretic. Nor did you attempt to show that he made his heresy public. What you did, if I recall, was make some vague generic observations to the effect that one who does not have the habitual submission to the magisterium lacks the Catholic Faith. Which is, in so far as it goes, true. But you did not, I repeat, attempt to prove that Roncalli lacked this habitual submission prior to his election; nor did you show how this lack of habitual submission was manifested publicly; nor could you do so, I'll wager, because if these things had been true, somebody would have noticed.


Quote:
On 19 March 1925 he was ordained Bishop and left for Bulgaria. He was granted the title Apostolic Delegate and remained in Bulgaria until 1935 ...establishing relationships of respect and esteem with the other "Christian" communities.


Quote:
In 1935 he was named Apostolic Delegate in Turkey and Greece. ...his respectful approach and dialogue with the worlds of Orthodoxy and Islam became a feature of his tenure.


Grand Inquisitor wrote:
As early as 1926, the already apostate Angelo Roncalli (John XXIII) wrote to one Orthodox Schismatic: "Catholics and Orthodox are not enemies, but brothers. We have the same faith; we share the same sacraments, and especially the Eucharist. ...Let us abandon the old disputes and, each in his own domain, let us work to make our brothers good, by giving them good example. Later on, though traveling along different paths, we shall achieve union among the churches to form together the true and unique Church of our Lord Jesus Christ."

Thus, the man was a heretic before his "election".


Quote:
OK, so now we have a doctrinal outrage which is evidence of heterodoxy. Source please?


Luigi Accattoli, When A Pope Asks Forgiveness, pp. 18-19.

Quote:
Grand Inquisitor wrote:
Quote:
John XXIII, Pacem in terris #14, April 11, 1963: “Also among man’s rights is that of being able to worship God in accordance with the right dictates of his own conscience, and to profess his religion both in private and in public.”

Syllabus of Errors, # 15: “Every man is free to embrace and profess that religion which he, led by the light of reason, thinks to be the true religion.” (Condemned by Pope Pius IX, Dec. 8, 1964)


The man was a public heretic post "election".


Never condemned as heretical. Erroneous, yes, but not directly contrary to some article of Faith. Yes, this frustrates me too. That is not a reason to disgaree, however.

Grand Inquisitor wrote:
I did not think that this was an issue, my statement. My explanation is not unlike your own of this point, which is that his recognition made him pope, now comes the distinction which you have now endeavoured to make, in everyone's mind. From all exteriors, you maintain, he was pope, based on the principle of his acknowledgement as the pope. In effect, your observation is the making of a distinction which I failed to make in writing my response.


I'm sorry, but you don't appear capable of addressing this point, and it is clear to me that the reason for this is that you have no understanding of the foundation of it, which is that the Church is a visible unity of Faith and Charity. Your complete obfuscation of the essential point, as though it were some kind of subjectivism on the part of Cardinal Billot, is kind of fascinating in a macabre way. It is as though you read him as an inferior who needs to be taught something, rather than as the greatest theologian of the past one hundred years.


I agreed with you concerning the essential focus here and that I was merely addressing one aspect of it which has to do with accepting Roncalli as the pope of the Catholic Church; my capability of addressing it has nothing to do with whether or not I find a particular part of this point worth addressing, when it seems to me to have an effect on me, which the pontificate, or lack thereof, of Roncalli has to do. Quite simply, I don't accept Roncalli as a pope, at all. Now, if the thesis which you present is correct, then it would mean that this man could have actually been the pope, and thus, I would have to accept what he did as pope as Catholic and legitimate, which I currently do not do. Thus, I have a vested interest here in making sure that I'm not actually rejecting something legitimate. So, indeed, this is the pin-point that I am addressing, a sub-point of the presented thesis, but my primary concern here. I am addressing this independantly of your referenced theologian, respectively, not that the theologian is not as illustrious as he is, but that I have an objection with an implication of his theologization.

Quote:
For the record (you're clearly not going to grasp this), the recognition of the man by the whole Church is in itself a sure proof that he really was pope. Objectively, externally, in reality, before God. The recognition is an externally veifiable fact. The papacy was a certain fact known by this other fact. One is sufficient evidence of the other. This is not debatable; it is Catholic teaching. What is debateable, and Ken did debate it, is whether or not Roncalli was really peacefully accepted by the whole Church. That is a question of fact, not of doctrine. We can disagree on the facts, insofar as they are reasonably disputable, but the theology is not for you to develop; it is for you to accept.


I see your point and I realize this, as it's painted all over the thread, I know what ken debated, however, I am positioning something which I would like to have resolved. Still, my objection remains completely unsatisfied concerning recognition, already positioned, and ignored, and his public heresy which is still in the works. I agree, this is not a point of doctrine, nor is it positioned as such, but merely a question of "fact" as you maintain.

Quote:
You speak casually of others' lack of habitual submission; you appear in need of some yourself. Why don't you tell us where you got your ideas, since you don't seem to be able to credit any theology books for them?


I am not questioning a theology, but I am questioning whether or not a certain man met a criteria.

_________________
Error, cui non resistur, approbatur; et Veritas, cum minime defensatur.


Tue Dec 18, 2007 7:09 pm
Profile

Joined: Mon Aug 20, 2007 4:56 am
Posts: 46
Location: In Partibus Infidelium...
New post 
Quote:
... historical fact of the 15th century, when there were numerous claimants to the Papal Office, none of them enjoyed universal consent of the Roman Catholic Populace of the time, yet theologians, historians and the Church hold that the popes who were of the line of Urban were the true popes at the time, even though it was the anti-popes who had majority assent.


Quote:
the recognition of the man by the whole Church is in itself a sure proof that he really was pope. Objectively, externally, in reality, before God. The recognition is an externally veifiable fact. The papacy was a certain fact known by this other fact. One is sufficient evidence of the other.


Now, I'm not debating this, but I would like to know how these two cooperate.

_________________
Error, cui non resistur, approbatur; et Veritas, cum minime defensatur.


Tue Dec 18, 2007 7:20 pm
Profile

Joined: Tue Sep 20, 2011 12:31 am
Posts: 696
Location: Moscow, Idaho, U.S.A.
New post Re: Unity of trads and restoring the hierarchy
TKGS wrote:
Sadly, I think that many traditional Catholics will reject even a mass conversion on the part of the apostate church and I pray that I will not be among them.


Well, Kind Sir, I suspect that your misunderstanding of the hierarchy of the Church, and of what is actually happening makes you think this.

However, I also agree with you in this: I suspect that when a True Pope DOES appear, probably in a manner that most traditional Catholics have never thought of, most will reject him because he won't fit their idea of how such a thing could possibly take place.

IMHO, the True Hierarchy has been preserved, probably in a manner (but I repeat myself), and in places that no traditional Catholic could even envision.

This is but one of the many reasons I have never believed that there could possibly be a 53-year (and counting) interregnum. For another reason, such an interregnum has never, ever, even been approached in the entire history of the Church.

The absolutely longest previous interregnum was a little over 3 years. And I say this being completely congnizant of the fact that there is nothing in Catholic theology that says there couldn't be a longer one. It is just that there never has been.

And, yes, before you ask, I am one of the few that firmly believes that Roncalli was the first in this long line of the anti-popes.

I also believe that the present hierarchy of the Concilliar Church is the Precursor of Anti-Christ mentioned by St. John in the Apocalypse.

Therefore, there can never be a mass "conversion" from that apostate crew to the True Church. There will be, and have been, marked conversions of individuals from that cursed organization, but there never will be from the entire organization.

Lastly, let me clear up a point: those opposed to my/our position on the matter of Roncalli keep bringing up the point about "...peacefully accepted by the whole Church...". However, from my reading, one of the points they appear to conveniently ignore is that one of the prerequisites for that characteristic to be true is that "...the election was valid...".

Those who believe as I do concerning Roncalli firmly believe that his election was totally fraudulent.

Lastly, please do not call me and those like me sedevacantists: we are not such, at least not in the same sense as John and many others here are. Although we do believe, with them, that these last usurpers of the Holy See are anti-popes, we are, if you want to use the term, rather, sedeimpeditists. However, we would much rather simply be called "Roman Catholics".

You may find our website: http://www.eclipseofthechurch.com/ of interest to read something of our viewpoint on these matters.

_________________
Kenneth G. Gordon


Wed Oct 12, 2011 4:19 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Tue Nov 28, 2006 3:57 am
Posts: 391
Location: Indiana, USA
New post Re: Unity of trads and restoring the hierarchy
Ken Gordon wrote:
TKGS wrote:
Sadly, I think that many traditional Catholics will reject even a mass conversion on the part of the apostate church and I pray that I will not be among them.


Well, Kind Sir, I suspect that your misunderstanding of the hierarchy of the Church, and of what is actually happening makes you think this.


Actually, I think that what makes me think this is the absolute fact that I know I am not fully knowledgeable in all these matters and the vast majority of traditional Catholics with whom I come into contact are even less knowledgeable than I and have no interest in becoming more knowledgeable.

Quote:
However, I also agree with you in this: I suspect that when a True Pope DOES appear, probably in a manner that most traditional Catholics have never thought of, most will reject him because he won't fit their idea of how such a thing could possibly take place.

IMHO, the True Hierarchy has been preserved, probably in a manner (but I repeat myself), and in places that no traditional Catholic could even envision.

This is but one of the many reasons I have never believed that there could possibly be a 53-year (and counting) interregnum. For another reason, such an interregnum has never, ever, even been approached in the entire history of the Church.

The absolutely longest previous interregnum was a little over 3 years. And I say this being completely congnizant of the fact that there is nothing in Catholic theology that says there couldn't be a longer one. It is just that there never has been.

And, yes, before you ask, I am one of the few that firmly believes that Roncalli was the first in this long line of the anti-popes.

I also believe that the present hierarchy of the Concilliar Church is the Precursor of Anti-Christ mentioned by St. John in the Apocalypse.

Therefore, there can never be a mass "conversion" from that apostate crew to the True Church. There will be, and have been, marked conversions of individuals from that cursed organization, but there never will be from the entire organization.


First, I wasn't going to ask about Roncalli. At this time in my Catholic education (I was not graced with any form of Catholic education growing up as my parents, both converts, simply accepted whatever the local priest said as "the will of the Church" and chalked up the problems on their own misunderstanding and my CCD classes were rife with heresy and apostasy which I have all but forgotten) I am not prepared to delve into the issue. I have read about disagreements among traditional Catholics on this point and will only engage when I am intellectually ready which may not be in my lifetime.

I do wonder, however, if you truly reject the very possibility that God could change the hearts enmasse of the vast majority of Conciliarists? I agree with you that it is unlikely, but only humanly. You are the one who, after all, noted that "when a True Pope DOES appear, probably in a manner that most traditional Catholics have never thought of, most will reject him because he won't fit their idea of how such a thing could possibly take place."

Quote:
Lastly, let me clear up a point: those opposed to my/our position on the matter of Roncalli keep bringing up the point about "...peacefully accepted by the whole Church...". However, from my reading, one of the points they appear to conveniently ignore is that one of the prerequisites for that characteristic to be true is that "...the election was valid...".

Those who believe as I do concerning Roncalli firmly believe that his election was totally fraudulent.

Lastly, please do not call me and those like me sedevacantists: we are not such, at least not in the same sense as John and many others here are. Although we do believe, with them, that these last usurpers of the Holy See are anti-popes, we are, if you want to use the term, rather, sedeimpeditists. However, we would much rather simply be called "Roman Catholics".


I only use the word, "sedevacantist", because it is a convenient label.

Quote:
You may find our website: http://www.eclipseofthechurch.com/ of interest to read something of our viewpoint on these matters.


I will save the website and look into in the future. Thank you.


Wed Oct 12, 2011 5:15 pm
Profile
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post Re: Unity of trads and restoring the hierarchy
Ken Gordon wrote:
Lastly, let me clear up a point: those opposed to my/our position on the matter of Roncalli keep bringing up the point about "...peacefully accepted by the whole Church...". However, from my reading, one of the points they appear to conveniently ignore is that one of the prerequisites for that characteristic to be true is that "...the election was valid...".


Ken, please quote the text you have read which supports this. Specifically, "one of the points they conveniently ignore."

The logic of the theologians is actually the exact opposite of your view. The thesis is, the peaceful acceptance of a pope by the entire Church is a sure sign that all of the requisites of a valid election were met. The certain doctrine which underlies this thesis is that the whole Church cannot peacefully adhere to a false pope. As you should see, this logic is inverted by your claim. But let's see what you're relying on please.

_________________
In Christ our King.


Thu Oct 13, 2011 12:21 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Tue Sep 20, 2011 12:31 am
Posts: 696
Location: Moscow, Idaho, U.S.A.
New post Re: Unity of trads and restoring the hierarchy
John Lane wrote:
Ken Gordon wrote:
Lastly, let me clear up a point: those opposed to my/our position on the matter of Roncalli keep bringing up the point about "...peacefully accepted by the whole Church...". However, from my reading, one of the points they appear to conveniently ignore is that one of the prerequisites for that characteristic to be true is that "...the election was valid...".


Ken, please quote the text you have read which supports this. Specifically, "one of the points they conveniently ignore."


Sure, John. I will have to go back into the forum archives to dig out the original discussion on this topic. I was replying at that time to a quotation you provided from some well-known and well-respected Cardinal, whose name I have since forgotten, which stated something to the effect, "....the peaceful acceptance by the entire Church of the election of a man proves its legitimacy..." or something very close to that. At the time you published the quote, I, of course, believed every word, as I had, up to that time, believed every word you have ever written. However, I finally dug out the exact document you quoted from, only to find that this same Cardinal wrote several paragraphs before the one you quoted, that this "...peaceful acceptance..." would only be valid if the election could not be proven to have been suspect...or something to that effect. I was quite surprised that you had not mentioned that.

John Lane wrote:
The logic of the theologians is actually the exact opposite of your view.


John: I insist: that is not MY view: it was stated by the same authority from which you had quoted the "...peaceful acceptance..." thesis.

John Lane wrote:
The thesis is, the peaceful acceptance of a pope by the entire Church is a sure sign that all of the requisites of a valid election were met. The certain doctrine which underlies this thesis is that the whole Church cannot peacefully adhere to a false pope.


First of all, no one you have quoted has defined what exactly is "...the whole Church...", or what portion of "...the whole Church..." MUST be included in the requisite number to assure a valid election. And this is but one of the unanswered (to me) questions that arise from that fthesis post immediately above.

John Lane wrote:
As you should see, this logic is inverted by your claim. But let's see what you're relying on please.


As I said above, it was not MY claim, nor MY view, and I repeat, I am quoting from the exact same source you were quoting from then.

Of course, it is absolutely possible I misunderstood, but, in my opinion, this was too plain to be misunderstood. As I said, I was quite surprised you had not mentioned it.

Furthermore, what I read then made much more sense than the quite bare thesis which you quote immediately above. Knowing what I know of nefarious activities by our enemies, I can understand how our enemies could fake a conclave to give every external appearance of being legitimate to the vast, VAST majority of "...the whole Church...", yet produce a false pope.

I'll have to dig around in the archives...

In the meantime, let me leave you with an important but very difficult exercise: devise a way for the enemies of the Church to engineer the election of a pope who would NOT then be subject to the "charisms" of the Holy Ghost. I mean those "charisms" promised to Peter and his successors which prevent them from teaching anything contrary to Catholic doctrine. I believe one word for at least one of those "charisms" is "Papal infallibility".

Believe me, it can be done, and I believe it HAS been done.

_________________
Kenneth G. Gordon


Thu Oct 13, 2011 1:04 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Sat May 20, 2006 11:46 pm
Posts: 728
Location: Western Washington, USA
New post Re: Unity of trads and restoring the hierarchy
Pax Christi !

Quote:
The thesis is, the peaceful acceptance of a pope by the entire Church is a sure sign that all of the requisites of a valid election were met



Does that have to be a ultimate sign that we have a valid pope? I ask, because, as we all have seen, there is divisions within the traditional movement. Will all traditional Catholics accept a true pope when one is provided by God?

1. Some reject a true Popes Holy Week Rite
2. Some insist the Thuc line Bishops are not valid
3. Some reject the SSPX
4. Some are una cum
5. Some are home a loners


However, the Holy Ghost can have a profound effect on all of us ( authentic New Pentecost) if given a New Pope.
In Xto,
Vincent


Thu Oct 13, 2011 2:02 am
Profile
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post Re: Unity of trads and restoring the hierarchy
Dear Ken,

Yes, it's Billot you're looking for, if memory serves. Use Google advanced search and limit it to this site. That's the most effective means I've found for searching the forums.

Ken, I ahve moved this discussion to this original thread where we already covered much of this ground.

_________________
In Christ our King.


Thu Oct 13, 2011 3:24 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Sat May 20, 2006 11:46 pm
Posts: 728
Location: Western Washington, USA
New post Re: Siri's "election"/acceptance of popes/Paul VI
Pax Christi !

John Lane posted :)

Quote:
Ken, I ahve moved this discussion to this original thread where we already covered much of this ground


Many thanks for posting a typo... I no longer feel so all alone as a typo king :) :)

In Xto,
Vincent


Thu Oct 13, 2011 7:07 am
Profile
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post Re: Siri's "election"/acceptance of popes/Paul VI
Vince, now you've stopped me from fixing it! :)

Ken, here is Fr. Journet on certitude in elections. Journet's book I do not recommend, for several reasons, but this section is simply reporting what others say, and it is classical.

Quote:
(5) Validity and certitude of election. The election, remarks John of St. Thomas, may be invalid when carried out by persons not qualified, or when, although effected by persons qualified, it suffers from defect of form or falls on an incapable subject, as for example one of unsound mind or unbaptized.

But the peaceful acceptance of the universal Church given to an elect as to a head to whom it submits is an act in which the Church engages herself and her fate. It is therefore an act in itself infallible and is immediately recognizable as such. (Consequently, and mediately, it will appear that all conditions prerequisite to the validity of the election have been fulfilled. )

Acceptance by the Church operates either negatively, when the election is not at once contested; or positively, when the election is first accepted by those present and then gradually by the rest (cf. John of St. Thomas, II-II, qq. 1-7; disp. 2, a. 2, nos. 1, 15, 28, 34, 40; pp. 228 et seq. ).

The Church has the right to elect the Pope, and therefore the right to certain knowledge as to who is elected. As long as any doubt remains and the tacit consent of the universal Church has not yet remedied the possible flaws in the election, there is no Pope, papa dubius, papa nullus. As a matter of fact, remarks John of St. Thomas, in so far as a peaceful and certain election is not apparent, the election is regarded as still going on. And since the Church has full control, not over a Pope certainly elected, but over the election itself, she can take all measures needed to bring it to a conclusion. The Church can therefore judge a Pope to be doubtful. Thus, says John of St. Thomas, the Council of Constance judged three Popes to be doubtful, of whom two were deposed, and the third renounced the pontificate (loc. cit., a. 3, nos. 10-11; vol. VII, p. 254).

To guard against all uncertainties that might affect the election the constitution Vacante Sede Apostolica counsels the elect not to refuse an office which the Lord will help him to fill (no. 86); and it stipulates that as soon as the election is canonically effected the Cardinal Dean shall ask, in the name of the whole College, the consent of the elect (no. 87). "This consent being given—if necessary, after a delay fixed by the prudence of the cardinals and by a majority of voices—the elect is at once the true Pope and possesses in act, and can exercise, the full and absolute jurisdiction over all the world" (no. 88).

_________________
In Christ our King.


Thu Oct 13, 2011 8:17 am
Profile E-mail
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post Re: Siri's "election"/acceptance of popes/Paul VI
Here's Billot, Ken.


Quote:
Sed quidquid demum de possibilitate vel impossibilitate praetatae hypothesis adhuc sentias, id saltem veluti penitus inconcussum et extra omnem dubitationem positum firmiter tenendum est: adhaesionem universalis Ecclesiae fore semper ex se sola infallibile signum legitimitatis personae Pontificis, adeoque et exsistentiae omnium conditionum quae ad legitimitatem ipsam sunt requisitae. Neque huius rei a longe repetenda ratio. Immediate enim sumitur ex infallibili Christi promissione atque providentia : Portae inferi non praevalebunt adversus eam, et iterum: Ecce ego vobiscum sum omnibus diebus. Idem namque foret. Ecclesiam adhaerere pontifici falso, ac si adhaereret falsae fidei regulae, cum Papa sit regula vivens quam Ecclesia in credendo sequi debet et semper de facto sequitur, uti ex dicendis in posterum luculentius adhuc apparebit. Equidem permittere potest Deus ut aliquando vacatio sedis diutius protrahatur. Permittere quoque potest ut de legitimitate unius vel alterius electi exoriatur dubium. Permittere autem non potest ut Ecclesia tota eum admittat pontificem qui verus et legitimus non sit. Ex quo igitur receptus est, et Ecclesiae coniunctus ut corpori caput, non est amplius movenda quaestio de possibili vitio electionis vel defectu cuiuscumque conditionis ad legitimitatem necessariae, quia praedicta Ecclesiae adhaesio omne vitium electionis radicitus sanat, et exsistentiam omnium requisitarum conditionum infallibiliter ostendit. (De Eccelsia Christi, third ed., 1909, vol. 1, pp. 620-621.)


And here's a translation of the last part of it, from "Equidem permittere potest Deus..."

Quote:
God may allow that a vacancy of the Apostolic See last for a while. He may also permit that some doubt be risen about the legitimacy of such or such election. However, God will never allow the whole Church to recognize as Pontiff someone who is not really and lawfully [pope]. Thus, as long as a pope is accepted by the Church, and united with her like the head is united to the body, one can no longer raise any possibility of a defect in the necessary conditions for a legitimate election, for the universal acceptance of the Church heals in the root any vitiated election, and infallibly proves the existence of the requisite conditions.


The first part says that the Church is infallible in identifying the pope because if she were to adhere to a false pope she would be adhering to a false rule of faith (i.e. the teaching of the pope is the proximate rule of faith for all), which is impossible.

If somebody wants to have a go at translating the missing bits, please do.

_________________
In Christ our King.


Thu Oct 13, 2011 8:41 am
Profile E-mail
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post Re: Siri's "election"/acceptance of popes/Paul VI
OK, Ken, I found a translation of the whole passage. This is from Da Silveira. He translates more of Billot than I have given above, concerning the related case of Savonarola vs Alexander VI.

Quote:
Finally, whatever you still think about the possibility or impossibility of the aforementioned hypothesis [of a Pope heretic], at least one point must be considered absolutely incontrovertible and placed firmly above any doubt whatever: the adhesion of the universal Church will be always, in itself, an infallible sign of the legitimacy of a determined Pontiff, and therefore also of the existence of all the conditions required for legitimacy itself. It is not necessary to look far for the proof of this, but we find it immediately in the promise and infallible providence of Christ: “The gates of hell shall not prevail against it”, and “Behold I shall be with you all days”. For the adhesion of the Church to a false Pontiff would be the same as its adhesion to a false rule of faith, seeing that the Pope is the living rule of faith which the Church must follow and which in fact she always follows, as will become even more clear by what we shall say later. God can permit that at times a vacancy in the Apostolic See be prolonged for a long time. He can also permit that doubt arise about the legitimacy of this or that election. He cannot however permit that the whole Church accept as Pontiff him who is not so truly and legitimately. Therefore, from the moment in which the Pope is accepted by the Church and united to her as the head to the body, it is no longer permitted to raise doubts about a possible vice of election or a possible lack of any condition whatsoever necessary for legitimacy. For the aforementioned adhesion of the Church heals in the root all fault in the election and proves infallibly the existence of all the required conditions. Let this be said in passing against those who, trying to justify certain attempts at schism made in the time of Alexander VI, allege that its promoter broadcast that he had most certain proofs, which he would reveal to a General Council, of the heresy of Alexander. Putting aside here other reasons with which one could easily be able to refute such an opinion, it is enough to remember this: it is certain that when Savonarola was writing his letters to the Princes, all of Christendom adhered to Alexander VI and obeyed him as the true Pontiff. For this very reason, Alexander VI was not a false Pope, but a legitimate one. Therefore he was not a heretic at least in that sense in which the fact of being a heretic takes away one’s membership in the Church and in consequence deprives one, by the very nature of things, of the pontifical power and of any other ordinary jurisdiction.”

On this same “sanatio in radice” by virtue of the acceptance of the Pope by the whole Church, Saint Alphonse de Liguori writes, in less heated but perhaps even more incisive terms:

“It is of no importance that in past centuries some Pontiff was illegitimately elected or took possession of the Pontificate by fraud; it is enough that he was accepted afterwards by the whole Church as Pope, since by such acceptance he would have become the true Pontiff. But if during a certain time he had not been truly and universally accepted by the Church, during that time the Pontifical See would have been vacant, as it is vacant on the death of a Pontiff”.

_________________
In Christ our King.


Fri Oct 14, 2011 11:31 am
Profile E-mail
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post Re: Siri's "election"/acceptance of popes/Paul VI
A few thoughts about these texts and this discussion in general.

1. Note that Billot says that the reason that a manifest heretic cannot be pope is because of the fact that a manifest heretic is not a member of the Church. That's the issue, not the evil of heresy or any other factor. In this he follows Bellarmine, who says that this is the unanimous doctrine of the Fathers.
2. Note that the comment of Journet to the effect that in the case of a pope who is doubtful but is afterwards accepted universally, that the election is effectively ongoing during the period of doubt, is exactly right. St. Alphonsus and Billot both confirm it by their words quoted here.
3. John Daly made the point to me privately some years ago, after this thread had progressed to some length, that he was not convinced about the case for Paul VI being pope for some period based on the canonisation of the African Martyrs (I had put this argument above), because he remained unconvinced that the Church did actually treat Paul VI as its proximate rule of faith. He has a point. On reflection, I wonder whether the same thing might be said of John XXIII, which would undermine the factual basis for applying the principle enunciated by Billot and St. Alphonsus above.
4. Billot's comment on Savonarola is obviously quite accurate, however what would have happened if the eighteen cardinals (including future Pope Julius II) who wanted to depose Alexander had called an imperfect general council and allowed whatever evidence Savonarola had to be aired publicly? This is of course a purely theoretical question, since the evidence has perished and there are plenty of reasons for believing that the various things said about that pope were fabrications of his enemies. It is however illustrative of the difference between that age and the 1960s, when Paul VI, who was publicly dismantling the defences of the Church and teaching error and destroying the public worship of the Mystical Body, erecting an entire new counterfeit religion, faced no such challenge to his legitimacy by any bishop at all, let alone a cardinal!

_________________
In Christ our King.


Fri Oct 14, 2011 11:49 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Tue Sep 20, 2011 12:31 am
Posts: 696
Location: Moscow, Idaho, U.S.A.
New post Re: Siri's "election"/acceptance of popes/Paul VI
John Lane wrote:
Vince, now you've stopped me from fixing it! :)

Ken, here is Fr. Journet on certitude in elections.


Yes. I have this, and more of it. I am NOT a fan of Journet!

John Lane wrote:
Journet's book I do not recommend, for several reasons, but this section is simply reporting what others say, and it is classical.

Quote:
(5) Validity and certitude of election. The election, remarks John of St. Thomas, may be invalid when carried out by persons not qualified, or when, although effected by persons qualified, it suffers from defect of form or falls on an incapable subject, as for example one of unsound mind or unbaptized.

But the peaceful acceptance of the universal Church given to an elect as to a head to whom it submits is an act in which the Church engages herself and her fate. It is therefore an act in itself infallible and is immediately recognizable as such. (Consequently, and mediately, it will appear that all conditions prerequisite to the validity of the election have been fulfilled. )


This statement is one I find....."interesting", since it seems to be saying that the previous statement has conditions attached to it.

John Lane wrote:
Acceptance by the Church operates either negatively, when the election is not at once contested; or positively, when the election is first accepted by those present and then gradually by the rest (cf. John of St. Thomas, II-II, qq. 1-7; disp. 2, a. 2, nos. 1, 15, 28, 34, 40; pp. 228 et seq. ).

The Church has the right to elect the Pope, and therefore the right to certain knowledge as to who is elected. As long as any doubt remains and the tacit consent of the universal Church has not yet remedied the possible flaws in the election, there is no Pope, papa dubius, papa nullus. As a matter of fact, remarks John of St. Thomas, in so far as a peaceful and certain election is not apparent, the election is regarded as still going on. And since the Church has full control, not over a Pope certainly elected, but over the election itself, she can take all measures needed to bring it to a conclusion. The Church can therefore judge a Pope to be doubtful. Thus, says John of St. Thomas, the Council of Constance judged three Popes to be doubtful, of whom two were deposed, and the third renounced the pontificate (loc. cit., a. 3, nos. 10-11; vol. VII, p. 254).

To guard against all uncertainties that might affect the election the constitution Vacante Sede Apostolica counsels the elect not to refuse an office which the Lord will help him to fill (no. 86); and it stipulates that as soon as the election is canonically effected the Cardinal Dean shall ask, in the name of the whole College, the consent of the elect (no. 87). "This consent being given—if necessary, after a delay fixed by the prudence of the cardinals and by a majority of voices—the elect is at once the true Pope and possesses in act, and can exercise, the full and absolute jurisdiction over all the world" (no. 88).


Yes. As I have said, I have this. I also have a somewhat similar statement from St. Alphonsus. Plus that document from Billot which I found on this (your) website. All of which seem to me to indicate preconditions, or other qualifying matters.

I have only been able to return to this forum today, and have been caught up in another matter. I will get back here as soon as I can.

I would like to propose some syllogisms, first brought to my attention by our good Cristian Jacobo in a private e-mail, and will also mention some ideas that effect this ".....peaceful acceptance...." issue, sent to me by a young man in Belgium with whom I have been in correspondence.

_________________
Kenneth G. Gordon


Wed Oct 19, 2011 12:24 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Tue Sep 20, 2011 12:31 am
Posts: 696
Location: Moscow, Idaho, U.S.A.
New post Re: Siri's "election"/acceptance of popes/Paul VI
I see that in your last post, you mention the same quotation from St. Alphonsus to which I refer...among others which I have also read.

At this point, I suspect that amongst my biggest problems with this "....peaceful acceptance..." issue are, among others, that there are several very critical points that have not been adequately addressed: 1) what, exactly, is meant by "....the whole Church...."? How many real, faithful Catholics are required to constitute "...the whole Church..."? The Church is "...a net let down into the sea containing all manner of fish, good and bad..." If the bad fish don't accept a man as pope, yet we know, by Christ's own words, that they are included in the Church, does that eliminate the very possibility of the "...peaceful acceptance by the whole Church..."?

Conversely, if the bad fish happen to be the majority of members of the Church at any one moment, and THEY all accept a man as Pope, and the very few good fish do not, does that still fulfill the requirements?

Secondly, and this is both extremely important, and, as far as I can remember, has never been adequately answered here, what, exactly, is the Church's definition of "visible"? I submit that, taking the words of the Nicean Creed as possibly an infallible example, "....all things visible and invisible....", thus obviously referring respectively to material things vs spiritual things...only, and since we believe in the existence of both, we believe that God created both, then "Visible" in the sense taught here means simply, "not a spirit", or as I have said here more than once, "not a ghost".

It does NOT mean "seen-by-all-Catholics-all-over-the-world-all-the-time-on-world-wide-television-and-streaming-video-via-the-internet".

Thirdly, over how long a time-frame must we wait to be assured that this "...peaceful acceptance..." has actually taken place? 40 years as in the GWS? More? Fewer?

Fourthly, as Ricossa mentions when covering this very issue, the words, "...if the election was valid..." keep coming up. Billot mentions this too. We insist that the election of at least Roncalli was most definitely NOT valid. In point of fact, we also insist that neither were the elections of Montini, Luciani, and Woytila (sp?), and this fact is proven to our satisfaction by a) the very fact that Montini and Woytila were obvious heretics, and b) we believe, along with St. Robert Bellarmine that c) "...no true pope has ever been proven to be an heretic." and d) "Therefore this is a sign [from heaven] that this cannot happen."

I might add that Suarez is on the same side of this issue with St. Robert.

This says to us that if these men can be proven to be heretics, and in fact we accept their heresies as a "notorious fact" in most of their cases, Roncalli, possibly, being excepted, then they were never true popes to begin with.

Ricossa quoting Journet: "...since there are cases in which the election is invalid, in which there remains doubt, in which it is, therefore, unresolved." and "...if the election is done validly..."

I'll have more as I have time.

Right now, let me reiterate: although I do firmly believe in the bare thesis as posted above, I also firmly believe that in the case of John XXIII, at the very least, it has been severely misapplied. We simply do not know enough of what actually happened to apply this thesis, or proof, or whatever you care to call it, to his election, nor to Montini's.

At the very least, it is MUCH too early to apply it.

Lastly, I reject out of hand the very idea that a true pope can fall into heresy. I will not even argue the point. It is simply impossible. "I have prayed for thee (Peter) that thy faith fail not...confirm thy brethren..."

St. Robert, apparently, and Suarez, feel the same.

_________________
Kenneth G. Gordon


Wed Oct 19, 2011 1:12 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Tue Sep 20, 2011 12:31 am
Posts: 696
Location: Moscow, Idaho, U.S.A.
New post Re: Comments from a non-Sedevacantist
John Lane wrote:
Ken Gordon wrote:
Ratzo is not a valid Bishop. Therefore he is not the Bishop of Rome. Therefore he is not the Pope.


Ken, I used this argument against Robert Sungenis, however I'm not sure it is valid. A layman can be Bishop of Rome (or anywhere else).


That is not my understanding: anyone who fulfills the basic requirements (male, baptised, Catholic, sound mind) can be ELECTED to those offices. However, according to Canon Law and the requirements of the office, he must then be consecrated a Bishop within a very short time, beyond which the election itself becomes null. In the 1983 Code (Bleh! :roll: ) it is 3 months. Although I have not yet found the reference in the 1917 Code, I believe it was 30 days.

John Lane wrote:
The point is he needs to seek ordination within a reasonable time.


I would not use the term "seek": he must flatly BE consecrated in the time allowed.

John Lane wrote:
What I am unsure about is if he believes he has done this,


"Believes". heck! We can "believe" all manner of things that are simply not true. All our erroneous "beliefs" do for us is remove fault and its attendant penalties.

John Lane wrote:
but in reality he hasn't, what effect does that have on his possession of jurisdiction? Does he lose it automatically, or does he retain it (because he has complied with the law, even though his effort has been frustrated)?


To me that argument is specious. We have to look at the facts. It is pretty clear to me: he loses his office, without question. I think in certain instances in our discussions, some of us tend to get a bit too pedantic. :D

John Lane wrote:
I don't know the answer to this. It's a pretty obscure question, not covered by anybody I have come across.


Well, John Daly, and a lawyer who belongs to the SSPX with whom we have come in contact, and Fr. Cekada, among others, have completely convinced me that Montini's rite of "ordination" of a Bishop is PATENTLY invalid. Beginning from that point, Ratzo is NOT a Bishop, period.

As an aside, Montini's rite of ordination to the priesthood is also flawed, but since only one word in that rite has been changed from that which Pius XII declared (infallibly) to be necessary, it will take someone with more understanding and authority (!) than we to declare it invalid.

Nonetheless, the very fact that none of those men "ordained" with Montini's invalid rite are really bishops means that every man they "ordained" remains a layman.

_________________
Kenneth G. Gordon


Wed Oct 19, 2011 4:16 pm
Profile E-mail
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post Re: Comments from a non-Sedevacantist
Ken Gordon wrote:
To me that argument is specious. We have to look at the facts. It is pretty clear to me: he loses his office, without question. I think in certain instances in our discussions, some of us tend to get a bit too pedantic. :D


Pedantic is good, in these matters. Since it's all nice and clear, you won't have any trouble quoting the relevant authorities so we can all see it clearly also. :)

_________________
In Christ our King.


Wed Oct 19, 2011 4:29 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Tue Sep 20, 2011 12:31 am
Posts: 696
Location: Moscow, Idaho, U.S.A.
New post Re: Comments from a non-Sedevacantist
John Lane wrote:
Ken Gordon wrote:
To me that argument is specious. We have to look at the facts. It is pretty clear to me: he loses his office, without question. I think in certain instances in our discussions, some of us tend to get a bit too pedantic. :D


Pedantic is good, in these matters.


To a point: as I remember it, the Church looks somewhat askance at anything, even the "good", when taken to an extreme. Balance, is the key.

John Lane wrote:
Since it's all nice and clear, you won't have any trouble quoting the relevant authorities so we can all see it clearly also. :)


As I have time to dig them out. Unfortunately, since I retired, I have been so busy I cannot now figure out how I ever had enough time to go to work 8 hours/day. And when I was working, I didn't have enough time then either. :(

_________________
Kenneth G. Gordon


Fri Oct 21, 2011 9:12 pm
Profile E-mail
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post Re: Comments from a non-Sedevacantist
Ken Gordon wrote:
To a point: as I remember it, the Church looks somewhat askance at anything, even the "good", when taken to an extreme. Balance, is the key.


In this case the "balance" is a see-saw and you're trying to move towards the middle and make me do more than my share of work, Ken. :)

Balance is not demanding a text to support the statement that Our Lord Jesus Christ is God and man. And balance is also asking for texts when somebody contradicts what you have read in the authorities and you don't want to spend your life doing their work for them. :)

I understand how busy you are, I really do!

I'll give you a hint - unconsecrated bishops were permitted to vote in councils, if memory serves.

_________________
In Christ our King.


Fri Oct 21, 2011 11:43 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Tue Sep 20, 2011 12:31 am
Posts: 696
Location: Moscow, Idaho, U.S.A.
New post Re: Comments from a non-Sedevacantist
John Lane wrote:
Ken Gordon wrote:
To a point: as I remember it, the Church looks somewhat askance at anything, even the "good", when taken to an extreme. Balance, is the key.


In this case the "balance" is a see-saw and you're trying to move towards the middle and make me do more than my share of work, Ken. :)


Actually, no, I am not. However, it is obvious to me that you have a far, far better library than I do. Perhaps you got some of it from your father-in-law. And you have been able to study those resources far more than I have, and can, study them. Although I don't really understand why, it seems that here, within my family, we go from one crisis to another with scarcely a breathing space. In addition, there is the problem of my health.

John Lane wrote:
Balance is not demanding a text to support the statement that Our Lord Jesus Christ is God and man. And balance is also asking for texts when somebody contradicts what you have read in the authorities and you don't want to spend your life doing their work for them. :)


You misunderstand: I am not, and would not, contradict the authorities you quote: I am contradicting your interpretation of those authorities, and I will continue to do so. You are no more infallible in these matters than I am, and although it is obvious that you often firmly believe that your interpretation is the ONLY possible one, I disagree, more or less completely.

In the case of the "...peaceful acceptance..." issue, to me your conclusion, your interpretation of that, is simply not totally logical. It simply cannot be the total and complete answer to the problems we have been discussing. It is unreasonable to take it to the extreme that you have....and I doubt that you see it that way at all.

John Lane wrote:
I understand how busy you are, I really do!

I'll give you a hint - unconsecrated bishops were permitted to vote in councils, if memory serves.


True, but it is also true that their votes don't "count"...if recent memory serves...

I was just reading something about this in Canon Law, as a matter of fact...

Oh....you DO accept that as a legitimate and authoritative source? :lol:

_________________
Kenneth G. Gordon


Sun Oct 23, 2011 5:11 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Tue Sep 20, 2011 12:31 am
Posts: 696
Location: Moscow, Idaho, U.S.A.
New post Re: Comments from a non-Sedevacantist
By the way, no one has yet risen to my challenge to suggest a scenario in which the man who appears on the balcony after a conclave, is accepted by everyone who sees him there as the true pope, yet he does NOT have the charism of infallibility, the protection of the Holy Ghost, and therefore cannot possibly BE the pope.

The scenario I am thinking of was told to me many years ago.

It is so diabolically clever that it could only have come directly from Satan.

Anyone care to try?

_________________
Kenneth G. Gordon


Mon Oct 24, 2011 3:02 pm
Profile E-mail
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post Re: Comments from a non-Sedevacantist
Ken Gordon wrote:
You misunderstand: I am not, and would not, contradict the authorities you quote: I am contradicting your interpretation of those authorities, and I will continue to do so. You are no more infallible in these matters than I am, and although it is obvious that you often firmly believe that your interpretation is the ONLY possible one, I disagree, more or less completely.


Dear Ken,

We're at cross purposes here. I don't think I'm infallible and I don't usually ask for authorities when I know that the point is true (sometimes I do for the benefit of others). I ask for them when I think the point is wrong. Not because I think I have to be right, but because it's the only way to get to the truth. One of us will be correct, or at worst we will read the authorities differently and have to agree to disagree. But without the texts, we have no chance. And this is not like any other forum, it's got some degree of seriousness, where sacred truths are respected, not bounced around like tennis balls for fun.

Quote:
In the case of the "...peaceful acceptance..." issue, to me your conclusion, your interpretation of that, is simply not totally logical. It simply cannot be the total and complete answer to the problems we have been discussing. It is unreasonable to take it to the extreme that you have....and I doubt that you see it that way at all.

Actually, I've been waiting for you to back up the allegation you made on that score that I had selectively quoted a text. I even went and found as much of the relevant text as I could and posted it for you. But you've forgotten apparently.

Quote:
True, but it is also true that their votes don't "count"...if recent memory serves...

I was just reading something about this in Canon Law, as a matter of fact...

Oh....you DO accept that as a legitimate and authoritative source? :lol:

No, I don't regard your vague memory of what you think you read as an authoritative source. I don't regard my vague memories as a source either. But in this case you made a point and you can prove it. Please.

_________________
In Christ our King.


Mon Oct 24, 2011 11:26 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Tue Sep 20, 2011 12:31 am
Posts: 696
Location: Moscow, Idaho, U.S.A.
New post Re: Comments from a non-Sedevacantist
John Lane wrote:
We're at cross purposes here. I don't think I'm infallible and I don't usually ask for authorities when I know that the point is true


An interesting choice of words, surely.

John Lane wrote:
(sometimes I do for the benefit of others). I ask for them when I think the point is wrong. Not because I think I have to be right, but because it's the only way to get to the truth. One of us will be correct, or at worst we will read the authorities differently and have to agree to disagree. But without the texts, we have no chance. And this is not like any other forum, it's got some degree of seriousness, where sacred truths are respected, not bounced around like tennis balls for fun.


Fun? I do not consider this "fun", John...

John Lane wrote:
Actually, I've been waiting for you to back up the allegation you made on that score that I had selectively quoted a text. I even went and found as much of the relevant text as I could and posted it for you. But you've forgotten apparently.


Try to be a little less "testy", if you please. I have not forgotten. Hardly, in fact. I have not had time yet to re-read, find, and post here to what I was referring, but I fully intend to do so. Tell you what, I will completely ignore the forum until such time as I can do this. Will that suffice?

John Lane wrote:
Quote:
True, but it is also true that their votes don't "count"...if recent memory serves...

I was just reading something about this in Canon Law, as a matter of fact...

Oh....you DO accept that as a legitimate and authoritative source? :lol:

No, I don't regard your vague memory of what you think you read as an authoritative source.


Really, John! I was referring to Canon Law, NOT to my own ancient, but not totally worthless, memory banks. Obviously, as you said above, we are arguing at cross purposes. To make my previous statement as plain as a pike-staff, I will repeat the question: "You DO regard Canon Law as an authoritative source?

John Lane wrote:
don't regard my vague memories as a source either. But in this case you made a point and you can prove it. Please.


OK. Glad to oblige. Oh...one more thing....not all memory is vague by definition...

_________________
Kenneth G. Gordon


Tue Oct 25, 2011 1:10 am
Profile E-mail
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post Re: Comments from a non-Sedevacantist
Ken Gordon wrote:
Try to be a little less "testy", if you please. I have not forgotten. Hardly, in fact. I have not had time yet to re-read, find, and post here to what I was referring, but I fully intend to do so. Tell you what, I will completely ignore the forum until such time as I can do this. Will that suffice?

That would be excellent, Ken. I don't understand how you would even consider it difficult.

Canon Law is an authoritative source, but you haven't given us a canon to consult, let alone the text.

Ken, I want order here. Order in these matters means stating a point and backing it up, at least when it is challenged.

_________________
In Christ our King.


Tue Oct 25, 2011 1:28 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Tue Sep 20, 2011 12:31 am
Posts: 696
Location: Moscow, Idaho, U.S.A.
New post Re: Comments from a non-Sedevacantist
John Lane wrote:
Ken Gordon wrote:
Try to be a little less "testy", if you please. I have not forgotten. Hardly, in fact. I have not had time yet to re-read, find, and post here to what I was referring, but I fully intend to do so. Tell you what, I will completely ignore the forum until such time as I can do this. Will that suffice?

That would be excellent, Ken. I don't understand how you would even consider it difficult.

Canon Law is an authoritative source, but you haven't given us a canon to consult, let alone the text.

Ken, I want order here. Order in these matters means stating a point and backing it up, at least when it is challenged.


Once in a while, I get the very distinct impression that when I say something, usually something which I know to be true, unless I can quote some other authority, it is a given that I have made it all up.

_________________
Kenneth G. Gordon


Tue Oct 25, 2011 3:38 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Tue Sep 20, 2011 12:31 am
Posts: 696
Location: Moscow, Idaho, U.S.A.
New post Re: Comments from a non-Sedevacantist
Concerning my statement from long ago concerning the underground Church in Eastern Europe.

An excerpt from: "SECRET PRIESTS", by Joseph Dunn, which itself is from, "No Vipers in the Vatican".(The Columba Press, 1996), pp235-251.

Be aware that this man, Dunn, is not a Catholic and writes as though he isn't. I don't know what he is, but he is not to be totally trusted. Nonetheless, most of what he reports here can be verified by further searching, even on the devil internet.

"The beginnings of an underground church
The story began in 1948 with the communist take-over of Czechoslovakia. Soon after the putsch all the bishops and many of the priests were put into prison, and all religious houses and convents closed and their property confiscated by the state. Before being expelled from Czechoslovakia in 1949, the papal nuncio, Archbishop Gennaro Verolino, went around the country carrying permission from Pius XII for each bishop to choose and secretly consecrate a successor, so that if and when he was arrested or eliminated, there would be someone left to continue his work. This procedure wasn’t novel - it had been followed during the persecution in Mexico in the 1920s.
Two Jesuits in their late twenties, Jan Korec and Pavel Hnilica, were ordained bishops in 1951 according to this mandate. Korec became a bishop less than a year after his priestly ordination. Hnilica soon left Czechoslovakia, and spent the rest of his life promoting devotion to Our Lady of Fatima in Rome. (His story, by the way, reminds one of what became a problem in Ireland during the penal days. Some bishops ordained for Irish dioceses preferred the comforts of France, Spain, or Italy to the perilous life of a bishop in Ireland, and there are many letters in the Roman archives written to try to persuade or pressurise bishops to give up the soft option.) Bishop Jan Korec chose to remain throughout the difficult times and, after the collapse of communism, was appointed Bishop of Nitra in Slovakia in 1990, and one year later Cardinal.
Korec received instructions from Rome to follow the practice of having one active and one hidden bishop. In 1956 he secretly consecrated a fellow Jesuit, Dominic Kalata. Later on, secret ordinations to the episcopacy began to increase. Kalata consecrated Peter Dubovsky in 1961. Dubovsky consecrated Jan Blaha in 1967 in Augsburg, and Blaha consecrated Felix Maria Davidek, who is the pivotal figure in the present story. Blaha remained celibate, and his ordination to the episcopacy was declared valid by the Vatican. So there would seem no question of the validity of Davidek’s ordination.
Vaclav Vasko is a former director of the Catholic publishing house Zvon, in Prague. He gave us his personal impressions of Felix Davidek whom he knew well in prison:
I spent about four years in the prison at Mírov with Felix Davidek. He was one of the people who organised university studies in the prison. In fact one of the reasons he was put in prison was because he tried to organise a Catholic university in Moravia. When students were not allowed to complete their baccalaureate studies for religous or political reasons, Davidek developed and directed a sort of underground school, offering courses at university level with the help of professors thrown out of universities. I considered him a man of genius, a graduate of three or four faculties. He was an excellent musician and also a poet. He was in very poor health. He was an extremely ill-disciplined prisoner and forever in trouble. He was a deeply spiritual man - I had several conversations with him during our walks, and he meditated with me on the Way of the Cross and it was one of the most beautiful meditations I have ever known.
In 1960, when preparations for a general amnesty got under way, we were individually called to interrogations. Each of us had to write down a sort of curriculum vitae and our attitude to the regime. Felix Davidek typically, wrote down: ‘My name is Felix Davidek. I was born on such and such a day, was ordained priest on such and such a day. The communist state security arrested me on such and such a day. These facts, that I am a priest, that I was arrested and held in prison by the communist regime, have given me sufficient insight into present day reality. I therefore expect nothing of you and am ready to die any time. Signed, Felix Davidek.’ So of course he was not amnestied and stayed on in prison - God knows how long.
Later I met him once more in Brno. I ran into him and asked him whether it was true that he had been consecrated bishop. ‘Yes it is.’ ‘And is it true that you ordain women?’ ‘Nonsense, that’s slander, not true!’ Felix was rather undisciplined. I think he was a neurotic and I wonder whether that genius of his may not have contained an element of mental disorder. For instance, he totally disregarded canon law - he did not give a damn. He himself was totally convinced that what he was doing was absolutely correct of course none of us could have foreseen that communism would collapse - and he wished the church to be preserved and able to function even in the worst situations of persecution.
The underground church came to be under such men as Felix Davidek who were tortured and persecuted for their faith, and who believed that under communism, the church might have to face even worse in the future.
The officially tolerated, or’overground’ church
Having put the bishops and the active priests under lock and key, and closed most of the seminaries, the communists decided to pay salaries to co-operative clergy, provided they were prepared to toe the party line in public, and keep their ministry to the sacristy. They were forbidden, however, to engage in social work or teach the young about religion. Now many of these priests were genuinely convinced that co-operation with the government was right and necessary in order to provide Mass and the sacraments for believers. Some others probably found the life easy and comfortable apart from their sacramental duties there was little work to do, while the state paid them a salary. Others could see no viable alternative to going on the run, or to prison. But Bishop Davidek for one, deeply distrusted any priest who took the shilling from a communist government.
The Vatican seeks accommodation with the state
Rome doesn’t like underground churches because by definition they cannot be supervised properly, or controlled. So when it became quite clear after the Russian invasion of Czechoslovakia in 1968 that communism wasn’t going to go away soon, the Vatican changed its policy and sought an accommodation with the government in Prague. Cardinal Casaroli was the brains and active agent in this ‘Ostpolitik,’ which led up to the public ordination of three bishops in Nitra in March 1973, and a fourth at Olomuc in Moravia the following day. The government also permitted the re-opening of two seminaries. Archbishop, later Cardinal Tomasek was the recognised leader of this overground church. Continuing discussions between the Vatican and the government meant that Vatican officials had oportunities to travel back and forth to Czechoslovakia, and keep in contact with Tomasek.
The two underground churches
After 1968 one really has to talk of two underground churches. As well as the group which formed around Bishop Davidek, there was another entirely celibate and perhaps less obsessively secretive underground church. This consisted of older priests who returned from prison and were never given licence to minister, as well as younger men who were ordained in East Germany or Poland but had no permission from the state to carry out their priestly duties, and still other priests who for one reason or another had fallen foul of the government, or who did not wish to work in a state sponsored church. Like all underground priests, these men worked at secular occupations and ministered secretly in houses, apartments and holiday camps, but, unlike the Davidek group, they always tried to keep in touch with the Vatican through Archbishop Tomasek.
Mission in the underground church
Fr Vaclav Maly, a celibate priest, described his work as a secret priest:
I was very involved in the work of the so-called underground church. I lectured, I organised biblical lessons, I instructed people in their religion. I prepared couples for weddings, I said holy Masses. All the things that were impossible to do in churches I did in somebody’s apartment. At the same time I had a manual job, and it helped me to live the normal life of an ordinary citizen. I had to get up in the morning to take the tram to work. Living like this helped me to understand better the thinking and behaviour of ordinary citizens. And it forced me to express my faith in a very civil way.
Fr Miloslav Fiala, now spokesman for the Czech Bishops’ Conference, remembers the difficult times with some nostalgia:
It was a very interesting and adventurous life. One had to be very cautious and on one’s guard against the police and the authorities while, on the other hand, meeting people whom one could instruct in the faith and who accepted it gratefully. This I considered a great school of life and we remember those times fondly. We had fun even at work. We were, of course, constantly followed. Police interrogations were, especially at certain periods, fairly frequent. I underwent about fifteen of varying degrees of intensity, but thank God I have never been subjected to physical violence except when I was in prison in Prague in 1949...
Bishop Davidek’s underground church
The other part of the underground church of which Bishop Davidek was the leader, generally distrusted the clergy of the officially tolerated church, who, they feared, had made a pact with the devil for which the church as a whole must ultimately suffer. Davidek seems to have believed that some day the Kremlin would move in and carry off all the clergy to Siberia, as had happened in Russia in the 1920s. The Soviet invasion in 1968 confirmed these premonitions Davidek felt that security had been too lax in the early days of the underground church, with the result that the state knew too much about what was going on. So after 1968, Davidek set about ordaining bishops and priests in total secrecy, not even retaining documentary evidence of ordination. It is thought that he ordained about 600 priests and maybe a dozen, or even perhaps as many as twenty, bishops. Some of the latter were married men.
In retrospect, one can see some logic in Davidek’s distrust of a church which could merit communist acquiescence. The Stasi files show that he was right in thinking that the seminary was infiltrated by the secret police. And records show that some official priests collaborated with the government to the extent of denouncing fellow clergy.
A married clergy
Davidek ordained perhaps 200 or more married men to the priesthood. This was done legally through a loophole he made, or perhaps we should say found, in canon law. Slovakia had a Greek Uniate church, that is a Greek-rite church united with Rome. The Greeks of course permit married men to be ordained, so Davidek ordained men under the Uniate Greek rite as bi-ritual, that is able to say Mass in either the Greek or the Roman rite. There was an ancient tradition in parts of Slovakia for priests to say Mass if necessary in another rite so that Uniates and Romans could help each other. But as there were no Uniates in Davidek’s diocese the priests were in practice working only in the Roman rite. Whatever the theological and canonical niceties, ordaining married men made a lot of common sense. The secret police expected priests to be celibate, so married men were much less likely to arouse attention However, ordaining married men as bishops was a different matter. This would appear to be against both the Greek and the Roman tradition, both of whom require all bishops to be celibate.
Women priests
Two of the married men ordained bishops by Davidek were Jan Krett and Fridolin Zahradnik. Zahradnik said publicly at a press conference that Krett, then deceased, had ordained at least two women. We were told off the record that Davidek himself had ordained women, and that one of these was Ludmila Javorová, who is also said to have been Davidek’s wife! She denied both of these statements at the time we made the programme. What she did not deny, but rather found a source of pride, is that she was for many years Davidek’s Vicar General, and played a big part herself in recruiting priests for the underground church. Having a young woman as Vicar General was perhaps a typical Davidek move to throw the secret police off the scent. Establishing the facts about the alleged ordination of women was complicated by the fact that the enemies of this underground church, which includes strange bedfellows, would like to use the issue of women’s ordination to discredit it. Some of the underground priests believe that the secret police, for instance, encouraged talk about the ordination of women to damage the underground church in the eyes of Rome. Others believe that elements in Rome itself also use this allegation to weaken the credibility of the underground church. However, the issue came into clearer focus in November 1995 when the Tablet reported that Ms Javorová changed her story. Bishop Davidek, she now said, had held a Synod in 1970 which discussed the issue of women’s ordination, decided in favour, and shortly after he ordained the first women, including Ms Javorová herself. She also claimed to know the names and addresses of other women who were ordained.
A summary of Davidek’s policies
Davidek died in a Brno hospital in August 1988 aged 67. When he first set up his underground church, there were no bishops in circulation that he felt he could trust, and contact with the Vatican was at least difficult. The church faced a very determined regime whose clear intention was to wipe out religion in a generation or two. His plan for survival had much merit in the early days of the persecution. But then things changed and he did not take the changes into account. After 1968, for instance, communications with Rome became much easier, yet Davidek continued to run his affairs as if contact with Rome was still impossible.
The problems that remained after the Velvet Revolution in 1989
There are many aspects of Bishop Davidek’s underground church which the authorities in Rome found difficult to accept.
Distaste in Rome for married clergy
Rome doesn’t like married priests in a Catholic community. They tend to weaken the case against a married clergy, and Rome is very anxious for a number of different reasons to hold the line firmly on celibacy. Converted Protestant ministers are a special case and merit exceptional treatment, and don’t therefore pose a threat. Neither Rome nor Constantinople tolerate married bishops.
Secret ordinations
Bishop Davidek was undoubtedly what is sometimes called ‘a loose canon’. Even at a time when he could have opened channels with Rome, he neglected to do so, and went on ordaining priests and even bishops in the 1970s without reference to Roman authorities. Some too have questioned his balance or even his sanity - and therefore by implication the validity of his ordinations. His defenders however get very angry when any doubts are raised in this area.
Absence of paperwork
Officialdom likes paperwork to establish happenings and facts. Davidek ordained bishops and priests without drawing up papers to enshrine his actions because he deeply distrusted the communist state, and knew that papers could all too easily fall into the hands of the Stasi, and lead to harassment and imprisonment. The absence of records means that there are more priests and possibly bishops in the community who have not yet come forward, but have decided to wait and see what Rome is going to do - if anything - before declaring their hand. If Rome does not offer them what they consider an honourable and satisfactory future within the structure, they may well intend to remain in their jobs and keep hidden the fact that they were ever ordained. One professional married man with a good job and a comfortable income, whom we met, admitted to being a priest in the former underground church. Off the record others told us he was in fact a bishop, although I have never seen this mentioned in print.
Working outside the parish struture
Priests in the underground church were not integrated into a structure like a parish. They were worker priests, doing a normal job, and in the course of that job - as also in their leisure time - they pursued a pastoral ministry. In practice this made them very similar to the worker priests in France - who were condemned by Rome in 1954. This suppression was reaffirmed in 1959, but revoked by Paul VI in 1965, moved perhaps by the spirit of the Vatican Council. But the more conservative elements in the Vatican Curia, and, I believe, within the Czech hierarchy, are unsympathetic, to say the least, to the concept of worker priests. Some of these former underground priests would like to continue their ministry today outside any formal parish structure - partly because that is the way they are used to working, and partly because they genuinely believe that much re-evangelisation is necessary in their post-communist society, and re-evangelisation is less likely to happen within the normal parish.
Conditional re-ordination
When it comes to ordination, church authorities rightly want to exclude any doubts about validity. So once any doubt is introduced, Rome tends to look for conditional re-ordination, the condition being that ordination is only now intended if it wasn’t valid the first time. Men, however, who feel they know as a fact they were correctly ordained, and who for many years have practised as priest or bishop, get very resentful when the validity of their ministry is anyway challenged.
Poor information in Rome
When the church is persecuted in a country, some clergy stay with their flocks and some leave. Some of those who left Czechoslovakia ended up in Rome, in the Holy Office for instance, which has been taking the decisions, or not taking the decisions, about the position of those who stayed. People like Bishop Chytil feel very strongly that ‘shepherds who left the flock when the wolf came’ - to use his own words - should not be making decisions about those who remained.
The biological solution
The unsatisfactory limbo situation in which many of the former underground priests find themselves appears to continue. According to the Tablet of 5 August 1995, Josef Rabas, a Czech, and former professor of Pastoral Theology in Wurzburg, Germany, suggested publicly that the best solution for the problem of the clandestine clergy was to let them die out. One of the clandestine bishops, Jan Blaha, who now works as a secondary school teacher in Brno and as a priest at weekends, spoke out publicly for the first time, saying that although he knew Rabas’s views were shared by many, such a ‘biological solution’ was both unacceptable and defamatory, reminiscent of former communist thinking and terminology, and took no account of what the clergy in the underground church had suffered. The Tablet incidentally notes that, for whatever reason, Jan Blaha is the one and only clandestine bishop who has never been asked to sign a declaration renouncing his rights as a bishop - for instance the right to ordain, or use the title and insignia of a bishop.
The views of the underground clergy we interviewed
Dr Karel Chytil, the celebrant of the Mass we filmed, fled from Czechoslovakia to Italy when the Nazis came, and there he studied philosophy and theology. Later he made his way to England where he served for two years in the RAF. After the war he returned to study in Prague. Then came the communist coup which, with his history, ended any chance of a professional career in Czechoslovakia. He told us that he did all the most menial jobs imaginable under communism, but the one job which was forbidden to him was intellectual work. Chytil was consecrated as a bishop by Bishop Davidek in 1977. He began to weep when he spoke to us after Mass about his family.
I have a wife and two sons - but here again, an important point. True to the apostolic tradition, when I was consecrated I subsequently made the promise of celibacy (weeping). You understand. I came to an understanding with my wife that we should discontinue our married life. We would continue to live together, but not in marriage. And that is a great problem for the official church. When I tell them they smile a little, they cannot understand it, and yet it was quite common in apostolic times. Many bishops were married - take Gregory of Nazianzus. The bishop had a wife, had children. In Erfurt there is the tomb of a bishop, Saint Joachim. Next to him rests a holy woman, his wife, and next to them is buried their holy daughter. That was normal in the church and they simply won’t understand it.
Bishop Chytil finds it hard to accept that there should be a shortage of priests to undertake the ministry, and at the same time there are several hundred priests from the underground church wishing to re-assume their ministry and for one reason or another, find it impossible.
It is utterly incomprehensible to me - and here again I speak as a pastor - if I were faced with the dilemma of there being many believers with no priests to minister to them, and also of having at my disposal a group of priests, I would call them, even if they do not fulfil all the official requirements of the contemporary church - I would send them, even press them into service ...
He also argues that celibacy is a charism needing a special calling, different from priesthood. Whether or not one agrees with him, one senses that he is being unwise in propounding such arguments. This is what Rome fears most of all - that allowing married clergy to operate as if it were normal would be the thin end of the wedge which would weaken the hold on celibacy.
Frequently, celibacy is considered a precondition for priesthood. This is in contradiction to the gospels. The apostles once asked Jesus whether it was admissible to repudiate a wife, and he said ‘No’. On this subject he also says that if a man takes another wife, a divorced woman, or even if he looks at a woman with lust, he is guilty of adultery. And the apostles tell him, if such is the relationship between man and woman it is better not to get married. And Jesus replies, ‘Not everybody understands this. Only those to whom it has been given’. So Christ is saying that a special calling is needed even for celibacy which is understood only by those to whom it has been given. And that’s why I believe that there is a great misunderstanding between the church at present and Christ, in so far as the church requires celibacy as an absolute precondition of priesthood. That contradicts Christ. I must have a calling for celibacy, and if it has not been given me, then these are things I do not understand ...
Sometimes it is suggested to us that the church could adopt the so called Anglican solution. Like those married Anglican priests who have joined the Catholic church and receive a dispensation which allows them to serve as Catholic priests. This is not a good solution. We are not asking for a dispensation. We wish the church to accept the validity of the two ways to God - the way of marriage and the celibate way. They are two ways to God, both willed by God, both requiring a special divine calling.
Bishop Chytil was consecrated by Bishop Davidek. He gets angry when he thinks of all the attempts to malign Davidek. He himself took pains to investigate Davidek’s credentials.
I am the only one who has known Bishop Davídek such as he really was before God. I was an intimate friend of his at a time when all the others had scorned him. Suddenly in 1982 we received a circular letter from the official church casting doubt on Bishop Davidek, saying that he was a dubious priest illegitimately passing himself off as bishop. I was appointed by our community to find out whether he was competent to ordain priests. I visited him in 1982 and established that he was a properly consecrated bishop with the apostolic succession. And I recommended to my superior to contact Archbishop Meisner of Berlin who already, even in those days of communism, paid regular visits to the Vatican as a close friend of the present Pope. I suggested that he should make enquiries in Rome. We have nothing - all that I have is God’s calling but no piece of paper. To keep a documentary proof of my being a priest or a bishop was very dangerous. For me it would have meant prison, and prison for the whole family because in my case they would not only have jailed me, they would have jailed my wife and destroyed my children. So everything was done on the basis of trust. But to get back to Bishop Davidek: Archbishop Meisner happened to be going to Rome and he came back with the information that Bishop Davidek was listed as a bishop in the Vatican yearbook. There could not have been a more conclusive proof - from the Vatican itself! There were other proofs, but at the time this one was decisive for us. It was not all the same to us whether we were ordained by an illegitimate bishop, we wanted to know. I used to say, ‘I don’t care about the permission for my ordination, but I do care about its validity’. Because here, practically nothing was permitted. But I wanted to be a valid priest before God. And we were told that he figures as bishop in the papal yearbook. And by the way, this is typical of the Vatican diplomacy. They would print in the Vatican yearbook a piece of information that for us was a matter of life and death and yet everybody knew that the first people to read it would be the secret police!
Fr Vaclav Ventura
One of the priests at the Mass, Fr Vaclav Ventura, was of the opinion that the problems of the underground church began when the Vatican and the Czech communist government began talking in the early 70s:
Suddenly problems started when the Vatican, represented by Archbishop Casaroli began co-operating with our communist government. And we have to ask why? Much information must be contained in the archives of the Communist Party’s Central Committee. The then boss of their Department for Religious Affairs, a man by the name of Cinódr, laid down a precondition for the negotiations with the Vatican which was mainly about the appointment of bishops. This precondition was the banning and suppression of the underground church. And of course, it was difficult for the state security and for the communists to define what that underground church was. So they concentrated on the group around Bishop Davidek. And from that moment in the negotiations between the communists and the Vatican, the problems for the underground church began.
Of course they then invented the worst slander about the person of Bishop Davidek and his activities, typical state security slander - that he is a fraud, that he is mentally unbalanced, that he is an agent of state security - none of which was true.
Fr Jiri Kvapil, forbidden to work as a priest
The poignant situation of the undergound priests who now find themselves out of a job is perhaps best illustrated by one of the married priests, Fr Jiri Kvapil:
I worked a lot with children and young people, teenagers, and with a community of married people. The bishop has now forbidden me to undertake these activities without giving me any reason - and the new generations of young children are not being given all the spiritual attention they require. And as for the community of married people, I am not allowed to help them either. I would not mind if the bishops here would allow me to soldier on as I did before - not very much in the open. Nobody needs to know. One meets in daily life so many people who are unhappy, needy, looking for something - which offers priests a special opportunity to serve.
Fr Stejkozová, unemployed, married with seven children
Fr Stejkozová was a married man when he was encouraged to become a priest by the present Cardinal Archbishop of Prague, Miloslav Vlk, then parish priest in Rozmitál. He seems to believe finance is a critical problem.
In the meantime, while I was preparing myself for priesthood, five children were born to me and my wife, and Bishop Davidek ordained me according to the Eastern Rite. I was active as a secret priest for ten years. In 1989 I reported to Archbishop Vlk with a petition to be integrated into the work of the church, according to whatever was possible. But the Archdiocese of Prague has no conception, no scheme for using ordained and married men and I would sum it up in one word - the reasons are financial. ‘We are unable to secure the livelihood of a family, of a priest who has children, so as to enable him to carry on as a priest.’ That is the root of the problem.
Mrs Stejkozová was present at the Mass with three of their children. She helped to bring home to us the fact that when a man accepted ordination under communism, the whole family risked their future in the same way as he did.
I had to agree to my husband’s ordination and I was aware all along what it meant. The whole family was involved in that service, risking even physical liquidation. He had a job, and had many pupils, people he taught, formed spiritually and all that, which meant involving the whole family - we have seven children altogether.
Now, after long years, I myself have taken up a job and the situation in the family has been reversed in a way - my husband is at home, unemployed, and I go out to work. But I am grateful to the Lord - even now I view my work as service. I am a social worker in a prison for violent juvenile delinquents, age fifteen to eighteen. But it pains me to see that there are people who need spiritual guidance and that others are being shamefully prevented from giving them that guidance.
Dr Jan Konzal, married priest, engineer, vehemently opposes conditional re-ordination
Dr Jan Konzal is a telecommunications engineer with a degree in cybernetics. He has a good job, with international travel involved. He talked about his time as a secret priest.
We defined our task as private pastoral care for people who for one reason or another cannot publicly go to church. Either because they were afraid for their jobs, or because the public church is not their cup of tea. There’s no point in arguing with them whether this is right or wrong, they simply won’t enter a church. They thirsted for the gospel, they longed to live among Christians, so we tried to mediate the possibility for them to get there unofficially, somehow.
I think that our form of pastoral care is still needed in the church, as one of many. Not as the only one, but one of many. And I think that it would be a pity to throw away the experience we have gained, often at a considerable cost to ourselves, and by trial and error. That is our main argument why we should be taken seriously. I think that the church, for its own good, should be able to reach people who are unconventional, and whose numbers are ever growing. For instance in my place of work, among the several hundred of my colleagues only perhaps two find it acceptable to go to church. And yet these are first rate people.
As a married man, Konzal was ordained according to the Eastern Rite, but expected to be transfered to the Roman Rite.
The transfer to the Roman Rite was done merely verbally and with the promise that the then bishop, Jan Hirko, would arrange for us to be given the appropriate documents should circumstances ever permit it. After 1989, we asked him to do this. He received the lists of names and took them to Rome. He subsequently told us he wanted to prepare the documents for this transfer, but it was forbidden him in Rome, so he returned home and has had no more dealings with us.
Dr Konzal spoke of the conditions put to him for resumption of his priesthood.
Formally the conditions are two - to undergo a theological examination, which presents no problem for us, speaking in all modesty. And they have no doubts in this respect, which is why they entrusted us with running various theological courses. The second condition, which presents an insurmountable obstacle to me and my friends, is re-ordination. Because we have not been released from the bond of the diocese. It is unfair. And so I cannot accept this condition. Can not!
Some others did accept this condition - how many it is difficult to say. Our Ordinarius, who is celibate and recognised as bishop although not allowed to function as such, has a list of about 160 priests secretly ordained. Of these about one third seek service in the public church. A good third would like to be active in the non-public pastoral care, incognito, till the moment when the person concerned feels the need to receive a sacrament - this may take six months, a year or may never happen. Such people need friends rather than a service. And the final third have taken up a wait-and-see position and I do not know what they think.
According to Dr Konzal, the Vatican offered two options:
The Vatican offered two alternatives to the Czech Bishops’ Conference. One was a Secular Institute - this we would have preferred because we believe that this form of pastoral care should not become extinct, and we need fresh blood. But the Conference accepted the second alternative which requires priests to become integrated in the parish structure, the structure of the public church. At the same time I have heard many a bishop say, ‘But we want you precisely as you are!’ So that is the big dilemma of the Bishops’ Conference - some of the bishops are adamant in insisting on the classical form of pastoral care and will not permit any exceptions.
Fr Jaroslav Duka, OP
Fr Jaroslav Duka is Provincial of the Dominican order, and became friendly with President Havel when they were both in Pilsen prison together. He is highly respected, and influential in affairs of both church and state, and anxious to help resolve the problems of the former undergound bishops and priests, but even he did not seem to be able to make much progress.
We must not forget that we have not always been sufficiently strict with those who, as collaborators with the communist regime, had discredited the church. And now those other people who had really suffered for the church sometimes tend to be viewed as if they had done her harm. That is not a good solution. I have personally discussed it more than once with Archbishop Vlk and once with Cardinal Ratzinger - they have promised that a solution acceptable to both sides will be found. But it is a fact that the question has been complicated not only by the excessive caution of the Vatican negotiators but also by the excessive zeal or lack of caution of some members of the Bishop Davidek group.
The present situation
And so the talk goes on and on. But even now, in the spring of 1996, my information is that little has changed. It is the kind of problem that a Pope with humanity and flexibility like Paul VI would sort out in no time - just like he sorted out the French Worker Priests. But the present powers-that-be in Rome are not of that ilk. However if blame is to be attached for this sad situation, some of it must rest with the local hierarchy and it’s leadership. As Dr Konzal mentioned, Cardinal Ratzinger did propose the option of forming a Secular Institute to the Bishops’ Conference. Such an institute would have a certain independence which would permit it to incorporate different kinds of ministry and would have been acceptable to many of the former underground priests. Unfortunately the Bishops’ Conference - especially, it is said, the Slovak bishops - showed no enthusiasm for this solution. For them it is integration in the parish structure of the public church or nothing. So, if I had to guess what will happen, I would say on the evidence so far, very little, and that many of the bishops and priests of the former underground church - and particularly the married men - will be let die off in a terrestrial limbo, their offer of service spurned and rejected. But nothing would make me happier than to be proved wrong!"

_________________
Kenneth G. Gordon


Tue Oct 25, 2011 3:40 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Tue Sep 20, 2011 12:31 am
Posts: 696
Location: Moscow, Idaho, U.S.A.
New post Re: Comments from a non-Sedevacantist
Concerning one of my statements from long ago concerning Pius XII consecrating Bishops in petto and sending them behind the Iron Curtain.

From an article in the Italian magazine, "Si, si, No, no" (date and issue uncertain at the moment until I find it), authored by Mr. Arai Danielle, translated from the Italian by myself with help from my wife and son.

"The Montini-Stalin Accord

The Rome-Moscow Accord

In 1962, at Metz, in France, Monsignor Nikodim, who was in charge of the foreign affairs of the Russian Church, met with Cardinal Tisserant, in order to negotiate for the attendance of orthodox observers at Vatican Council II. Also present was the Bishop of Metz, Monsignor Schmitt.
The substance of the final accord was made known by both the Communist and Catholic press. "France Nouvelle", the weekly paper of the French Communist party, wrote, in its issue dated 16 22 January 1963 on page 15: "the Catholic Church [...] has been engaged in dialogue with the Russian Orthodox Church, in order that the Council will make no direct attacks against the Communist regime".
"La Lorrain" of 9 February 1963 published the account of a press conference given by the previously mentioned Bishop of Metz, Monsignor Schmitt; the account is reprinted from "La Croix" of 15 February 1963 on page 5:
"It was in Metz that Cardinal Tisserant met Monsignor Nikodim [...] and the concordat of state accomplished there was the message which Monsignor Willebrands carried to Moscow [...] Monsignor Nikodim has accepted [...] the agreement of guarantees concerning that which affects the political attitude of the Council". What did Monsignor Nikodim understand by "political attitude" of the Council? The meaning is clear from a declaration he made in 1961 in New Delhi to the Ecumenical Council of Churches:
"The Vatican is often aggressive in its political plans toward the USSR. We who are Christian, believing, Orthodox Russians, are also loyal citizens of our country and ardently love our father-land. Therefore anything which is directed against our country, is not going to enhance our mutual relations".
The formal prohibition against condemning Bolshevik Communism hidden behind the facade of patriotic loyalty, is an artifice identified with the Russian nation, victim of that regime.
On the other hand, it was no secret in the Vatican diplomatic service that the Patriarchate of Moscow had for some time been miserably enslaved to the Communist regime and that Monsignor Nikodim, who would die during an audience with John Paul I, was known by the western secret services as a KGB man operating inside the Russian Orthodox hierarchy. That notwithstanding, and even with such a person as spokesman, on the basis of complete insincerity, the desired Rome Moscow accord was concluded in Metz, guaranteeing expressly to the Russian Patriarchate and, therefore, to the government of Moscow that in the Council "occasions for debates concerning Communism wouldn't be allowed". (E.E. Hales: Pope John and His Revolution).

The Testimony of Monsignor Lefebvre

This commitment came to the Council supported by Vatican authority, and was to be strictly respected during all discussions by the Council, even though it was contrary to the wishes of the average loyal Churchman: this was reported in the book "The Rhine Flows into the Tiber" and was testified to by, among others, Monsignor Lefebvre:
"Today the faithful everywhere tell us: they have changed our religion, it is not the Catholic religion any more. And they have been scandalized by seeing Bishops with Marxist tendencies. But this doesn't surprise me: during the Council, Communism was not condemned by even one sentence. It is something absolutely unprecedented in the history of the Church. A pastoral council was gotten together self-styled "pastoral", that is in order to take care of the souls and salvation of the faithful, as well as the salvation of the world. Well, concerning the greatest evil, the most ignoble, the most destructive towards society, towards human beings, towards liberty, that is Communism, it was said: we won't condemn it during the Council.
Personally I know something of this particular matter. It was I, together with Monsignor Sigaud, who collected 450 signatures of Bishops who supported a condemnation of Communism. I was the one who brought them to the Secretariat of the Council. They put them in a drawer! And they want you to believe that in the Council there were no demands for a condemnation of Communism. And I was the one who personally carried that document and I have maintained the list of the Bishops who asked for this condemnation. It is really incredible. I was a witness. I arose in order to protest. It was denied that 450 signatures had been presented. Then it was said that they had arrived too late and that it was not known where they were. In reality it was decided that Communism would not be condemned, in order that the delegates from Moscow would come." (From the press conference of his Excellency Monsignor Lefebvre of the 9th of December 1983 at the airport in Paris for the presentation of An Open Letter to the Pope.)

Confirmation by Monsignor Roche

More recently, the French magazine "Itinéraires" has written concerning the gravity of and the responsibility for the Rome Moscow accord in issues no.70, February 1963, no.72, April 1963, no.84, June 1964. See also the English Catholic magazine "Approaches", supplement to no.79.
Most recently, the same magazine, "Itinéraires", no.280, February 1984, under the title "L'accord Rome Moscou", summarized the history of these shameful negotiations. In that issue, the editor of "Itinéraires", Jean Madiran, wrote concerning Cardinal Tisserant:
"[...] I have always had the impression that he is 'un foùrbe'" In defense of Cardinal Tisserant, Monsignor Roche, who was his intimate collaborator for 25 years, has intervened with a letter published in number 285 of "Itinéraires", under the title "L'accord Rome Moscou Confermation de Monsignor Roche". In our report, we translate this letter for you who are concerned with our subject:
"[...] not without reason, you comment concerning the [Rome-Moscow] accord which dates, you say, from 1962. Your comments, however, demonstrate your ignorance of a preceding accord which was put in place during the last war, in 1942 to be exact, and of which the protagonists were Monsignor Montini and Stalin himself. This accord of 1942 seems to me to be of considerable importance.
But I wish, for now, to follow your lead entirely in your comments on the accord of 1962.
Everyone knows [?] that this accord had been negotiated between the Kremlin and the Vatican at the highest level.
Monsignor Nikodim and Cardinal Tisserant were only the spokesmen, the one for the head of the Kremlin, the other for the High Pontiff then gloriously reigning.
The reasons why Monsignor Nikodim desired to meet with Cardinal Tisserant as the suitable spokesman were obvious and known by everyone. In the first place, Cardinal Tisserant spoke Russian. In addition he was, from 1936 through 1959, secretary of the Sacred Congregation for the Eastern Church. Finally, the two had been acquainted with one another [...] But I can assure you, Mr. Editor, that the decision to invite the Russian Orthodox observers to Vatican Council II was made personally by S.S. John XXIII, with the open encouragement of Cardinal Montini, who was the adviser of the Patriarch of Venice at the time when he was Archbishop of Milan.
Moreover: it was Cardinal Montini who secretly managed the policies of the Secretariat of State during the first session of the Council, in the clandestine position that the Pope had procured for him in the famous Castle San Giovanni, hidden within Vatican City. Cardinal Tisserant had received formal orders, that in order to negotiate the accord, and in order to supervise [read: to impose] its implementation during the Council he should demand its enforcement. Therefore every time that a Bishop wanted to bring up the question of Communism, the Cardinal, at the desk of the advisor to the chairman, intervened in order to remember [read: in order to impose on the Bishops, ignorant of all the hidden reasons] to deliver to the Pope [more exactly, to his dismal eminence, Monsignor Montini], deliberate silence."
Cardinal Tisserant continues Monsignor Roche "was a soldier. He was obedient to his commanders, to his superiors, even when his orders didn't coincide at all with his personal viewpoints". In the case of the Rome Moscow accord, "the Cardinal received firm, irrevocable, directives from the Pope himself and the late Cardinal was always a man of faith. He believed in authority, and obeyed it even when he was convinced an action was a diplomatic or political error".

Montini, predecessor of Paul VI.

There would be many things to tell concerning the "obedience", the "faith" and the "loyalty" of Cardinal Tisserant. For now, we refer our readers to Leo XIII and the biblical researches of the distinguished professor, Monsignor Francis Spadafora, the edition "Arti Graphiche", Rovigo, and to pp. 173 188 wherein he documents with which devices the above mentioned Cardinal reduced the Pontifical Biblical Commission to silence, behind the back and against the orders of Pius XII, by means of the "new" exegesis, not more Catholic, but rationalist, and the principal source of the modern doctrinal pollution in the Church. (See also Pierre Grelot S. J., "La constitution sur Rèvèlation, I La perparation d'un schèma conciliaire", in "Etudes", ed. 1966, pp. 93-113).
Here, above all, it should interest us to note, as Monsignor Roche confirms, the responsibilities of Monsignor Montini, promoting an accord with Moscow from as far in the past as 1942.
We recognize that, although we must ignore his judgments, Monsignor Roche is shown to be a good connoisseur of actual occurrences. He has also demonstrated this in his work "Pie XII devant L'Histoire", (ed. "du Jour"). He knows that Monsignor Montini, as Deputy to the Secretary of State of Pius XII, leaned to the left, in harmony with tendencies nourished in his youth (See Fappani Molinari: "Montini giovane (The Young Montini)", ed. Marietti), but unknown to and in neat antithesis with the intentions and the directives of Pius XII, the Pope whom he should have represented, but who, obviously, he considered to be deprived of his own illuminated vision of politics and of history. Along this line of reasoning, Montini made permanent contacts, unknown to Pius XII, with the Soviets during the last war, as Monsignor Roche remembers; contacts of which Pius XII was informed by the Protestant archbishop of Upsala, who, due to his position, had received this information, complete with proof, directly from the Swedish secret service, which was the most up-to-date on the maneuvers of the Communist countries of Eastern Europe (See "Corriere de Rome", June 1975 n. 145). Additionally in October of 1954, Pius XII came to knowledge of a secret report of the archbishop of Riga, who was jailed by the Soviets, which affirmed that "there had been contacts made in his name [of Pius XII] with the persecutors on the part of a high personality in the Vatican Secretariat of State". Because of the treachery of Montini, writes Monsignor Roche, "the bitterness [of Pius XII] was so great that his health suffered, and he became resigned to the necessity to govern the course of Vatican foreign affairs alone" (op cit.).
According to "La Controreforme Catholique", n.97, p.15, "the inquisition did uncover a traitor in the circles of Monsignor Montini, the Jesuit Tondi, who, in the course of a dramatic confrontation with Cardinal N., was recognized as having given to the Soviets the names of the priests dispatched underground into the USSR and who [as a consequence of the espionage] had all been caught and killed. And it was known that Tondi, married [at first civilly and then afterwards] religiously [to a Communist activist, after various circumstances and the death of his wife] would find "work" again in Rome in 1965, with the aid of (by then) Pope Paul VI. Finally, the Pope [Pius XII] discovered that his deputy [Montini] had hidden all the dispatches relative to the schism of the Chinese Bishops from him".
Removed from the Secretariat of State, appointed Archbishop of Milan, but significantly, never created a Cardinal as long as Pius XII lived (although that See always pertained to a Cardinal), Montini, and his "circles", at the death of Pope Pacelli, managed cleverly and effectively from inside the Conclave to elect a Pope "of transition". Ready and most proper for the purpose, Monsignor Roncalli appeared, advanced in age, "illuminated" by the then Archbishop of Milan, who, not being a Cardinal, could not be the Pope, but who would have an equal opportunity to determine the course of the new pontificate.
The novelty of the name chosen, John XXIII, came as a surprise to many, but his secret logic was noted well by the "attaché to the works": his pontificate "prepared the way" for Montini and, simultaneously, first announced a "novelty", a break with tradition and particularly with the last pontificates, from Pius IX to Pius XII. We should have known that Montini, after he had become Paul VI, would impose on the whole Church the reversal of the way which had always been cherished, which had, up to that moment, always been treacherously persecuted.

Political Error?

For Monsignor Roche, Cardinal Tisserant has obeyed because "he believed in authority and he obeyed it even when he was convinced an action was a diplomatic or political error".
But can the Rome Moscow accord be characterized simply as a diplomatic or political error? Certainly not. It suffices to meditate over the terms of the accord, respecting that which Rome had obtained the insignificant presence of some orthodox observers, guarded by the KGB and on that which Rome had conceded: the silence of the Church concerning "that iniquitous doctrine of the aforementioned Communism, contrary in the greatest degree to the same natural law, which, once permitted to exist, would lead to the radical subversion of laws, of business, of the property of everyone, and of the same human society", (Pius IX: Qui Pluribus 1846; Syllabus IV); concerning that which "crushes and destroys, which rots the marrow of human society, and leads it to ruin", (Leo XIII Quod Apostolici Muneris 1878); concerning that "danger", that threat of throwing headlong "all the people completely ... into a worse barbarity than that in which the greatest part of the world lay at the appearance of the Savior"; concerning that "satanic scourge" in which "there is no place for the idea of God, there doesn't exist any difference between spirit and matter, between soul and body; and which doesn't concern itself with the survival of the soul after death", and which "strips man of his liberty, of the spiritual roots of his moral behavior, removes every dignity of the human person and every moral shame against the assaults of blind stimuli". (Pius XI Divini Redemptoris 1937); concerning that "... iniquity which aims to tear the faith from those to which it promises material comfort". (Pius XII "Menti nostrae", 1950.)
And herein we stop for brevity. But it is sufficient to understand that Rome didn't have the right to promise absolute silence; that the game was not worth it, and it doesn't explain its position; that the position taken and maintained by the Holy See was a renunciation of the mission of the Church, a betrayal of God, of the same Church and of humanity; that this black page in the history of the Church will remain, as so justly writes Jean Madiran, "the shame of the Holy See in the 20th century".


Obedience to Error

It is obvious that in such circumstances, an appeal to obedience doesn't work. Monsignor Roche writes: Cardinal Tisserant (who, as Prefect of the Pontifical Biblical Commission, had disobeyed Pius XII) obeyed John XXIII.
But, if Cardinal Tisserant obeyed John XXIII, the latter in his turn was guided by Montini, who as is even attested to by Monsignor Roche as far back as 1942 disobeyed Pius XII and his predecessors. For the least which we could say concerning the pretended "obedience" of the ecclesiastics who negotiated the accord with Moscow who then actually included Cardinal Willebrands is that it is an obedience which has its roots in the long, stubborn disobedience of the then Monsignor Montini, disobedience not only to the Pope then "gloriously reigning", but also to the constant teaching of the Magisterium of the Church on social questions and on Communism. And so it is enough.

By Their Fruits You Shall Know Them

In 1937 Pius XI would write: "Before such a threat the Catholic Church could not be and was not silent. This Apostolic See especially was not silent which knows it to be its special mission to defend truth and justice and all those eternal goods which Communism repudiates and fights [..]
Even those who are ultra-hostile to the Church, who from Moscow direct this struggle against Christian civilization, with their unceasing attacks in words and in deeds give evidence that the Papacy, even in our days, has continued faithfully to protect the sanctuary of the Christian religion, and most frequently and in more convincing ways than any other public authority in the world has called attention to the Communist danger". (Divini Redemptoris.) And Pius XI quotes his predecessors beginning with Pius IX who "even before 1846 [...] pronounced a solemn condemnation" against Communism.
The successors of Pius XI, Benedict XV and Pius XII have also affirmed the prescriptions of their predecessor. Today, however, it has been totally turned up-side down: at the Council, the Church, which could not be silent and was not silent until then, was made to be silent; those same ultra-hostiles give evidence that Rome has stopped both protecting the sanctuary of the Christian religion and attracting attention to the Communist danger. Thus, for example, Togliatti in his memorial wrote: "In the organized Catholic world and in the Catholic masses there has been an obvious drift to the left from the time of Pope John". (Il Tempo, 13 June 1984.) In fact, the "conciliar" Church, built on the disobedience of Montini to the preceding Magisterium of the Church, pretends to ... reconcile the incompatible even in the social field, marrying Christianity with Communism. It, for such purposes, appears to believe and has decided to believe that, in order to Christianize Communism, it suffices to eliminate materialism and atheism, almost as though those are the only motives of Communism, and not also its social doctrine, which is totally opposed to the rudiments of right reason and of Revelation, and which has been condemned as "intrinsically perverse".
And here "up-to-date" priests and religious repudiate the age-old doctrine of the Church in order to preach, in place of the Gospel of Christ, "a new presumptive Gospel which Bolshevik Communists and atheists announce to humanity as an almost beneficial and redeeming message". (Pius XI: Divini Redemptoris; in place of the Redemption of Christ, the "false redemption" of Marx ([ib]); in place of supernatural Christian hope, the "false promises" of an "Heaven which is of this earth" ([ib]); in place of justice and Christian brotherhood, a "pseudo ideal of justice, equality, and brotherhood" ([ib]), which in reality is inequitable egalitarism and suffocating collectivism.
They sustain the desire to surpass the seductive practices of Marxism against the masses, as though they might defeat the error by approriating some of it, rather than by opposing it with the truth. They in reality are reduced to spokesmen, to trend-setters, to "useful idiots" of Communism.
They finally come to join those hostile to the Church by imputing to it responsibility for the injustices, real or imagined, of governments and individuals, as though these injustices have been brought forth by the social doctrines of the Church and not by contempt of them.
Others, more persistent in error, pass beyond words: they become guerrilla priests and religious in Latin America or ministers of Marxist governments, as in Nicaragua.

Conclusion

On 31 October 1942, Pius XII, in obedience to the request of the Virgin of Fatima (but without the requested participation of the Bishops), consecrated the world to the Immaculate Heart of Mary, with the radio message Benedicite Deum Caeli, in which he said:
"Queen of Peace, pray for us and give the world at war the peace for which the people sigh: peace in truth, in justice, and in the charity of Christ. Give peace to arms and peace to souls, in order that in the tranquility of order the Kingdom of God might increase".
But in that same year 1942, by means of the Montinian initiative with Stalin, "dialogue" of the Catholic Hierarchy with the Soviet hierarchy, which represents that regime which tramples upon truth, justice, and the charity of Christ, was already delineated. It was faith in mediation by men with the lords of the earth which undermined faith in the mediation by Mary with the One Lord of Heaven and earth. It was the first fruit of the compromise, contrary to Divine Providence, which 20 years later would bring an ecumenical Council to be silent concerning the oppressive Communist threat and to swindle Fatima ([cfr]sì sì no no, a. VIII, n.Il Concilio Vaticano II raggirò Fatima).(Vatican Council II swindled Fatima.)

Daniele"

More...much more...to follow.

_________________
Kenneth G. Gordon


Tue Oct 25, 2011 3:43 am
Profile E-mail
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post Re: Comments from a non-Sedevacantist
Ken Gordon wrote:
Once in a while, I get the very distinct impression that when I say something, usually something which I know to be true, unless I can quote some other authority, it is a given that I have made it all up.


No, the intention in those cases isn't to suggest that you made it up, but to assert that you are mistaken. Forcing somebody to quote a source achieves several things - first, it assists them to correct (or confirm) their view, which is an act of charity, and second, it prevents errors from being taken in as truth by others. Third, it establishes a principle of behaviour here which is universally required, and would be universally applied if we lived in a rational and ordered era. (And you would know from other forums how much people love to spout their pet theories and hate being forced to prove them. That kind of individual doesn't respect others, he is just looking for a publishing platform for his personal prophetical apostolate.)

This may not be apparent, but I practice great restraint in this matter. I would like to impose the rule ruthlessly, it would save me a lot of effort and time correcting people's mistakes, but experience tells me it intimidates and offends people. So the only practical way is to train you all by stages. :)

_________________
In Christ our King.


Tue Oct 25, 2011 4:03 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Tue Sep 20, 2011 12:31 am
Posts: 696
Location: Moscow, Idaho, U.S.A.
New post Re: Comments from a non-Sedevacantist
From the Italian magazine "Renovatio" VII, 1972, pp:155-156, translated from the Italian by myself with assistance from my wife and son.

Cardinal Siri on "The Election of the Roman Pontiff"

"THE ELECTION OF THE ROMAN PONTIFF

Many people, too many, in fact, when addressing the subject of the future election of the Roman Sovereign Pontiff, i.e. the laws governing the conclave, have spoken chiefly nonsense. It is evident that they have, in a manner that is absolutely improper, tried to force the acceptance of new and questionable criteria in the papal election. This question is of extreme importance and is, therefore, worthy of our careful review.

Whoever wishes to tackle the problem of conclave reform must understand that jurisdiction in this matter belongs to the supreme authority in the Church alone, and that therefore the interlocutors, whenever they propose reforms, must take note of this principle, and of its theological basis. The First Vatican Council thus declares in the canon following the second chapter of the bull Pastor Acternus: «Si quis ergo dixerit non esse ex ipsius Christi Domini institutione seu jure divino ut beatus Petrus in primatu super universam. Ecclesiam habeat perpetuos successores, aut romanum pontificem non esse beati Petri in eodem primatu successorem, anathema sit.». (If, then, anyone shall say that it is not by the institution of Christ the Lord, or by divine right, that Blessed Peter has a perpetual line of successors in the primacy over the universal Church; or that the Roman Pontiff is not the successor of Blessed Peter in this primacy; let him be anathema.) (D.S. 3058). This means that to the Bishop of Rome belongs the succession of Peter. If the succession falls to the Bishop of Rome, and not to another, there is an absolute connection between the Roman bishopric and the succession of Peter. From this, one must deduce logically and necessarily that the Pope is such because he is the Bishop of Rome. This causal tie between the Roman bishopric and the succession of Peter becomes clearer if one reads the whole chapter of the cited constitution (D. S. 3057); it becomes very clear if you attend to all of Tradition and especially to primitive Tradition, which shows with immediacy and certainty the dispositions taken by the Prince of the Apostles. In fact Clement (first century) intervenes strongly in the affairs of the Church of Corinth with a long and solemn letter, in the name of the Roman Church, while the Apostle John was still alive and much nearer geographically. It is evident that he believes he has jurisdiction, by virtue of his Episcopal seat, over the distant Church of Corinth, in which he could intervene solely as universal pastor, despite the fact that Corinth was well outside the sphere of Roman cultural primacy. In the same manner, have the two great witnesses of the very first ages of the Church, Ignatius of Antioch and Ireneas, expressed themselves in their most famous texts. If this premise is not understood theologically, one could defend the disassociation of the primacy in the Church from the seat of the Bishop of Rome, or refuse to accept the foundation of that seat as the legal claim of the succession of Peter. (« Renovatio », VII (1972), fasc. 2, pp. 155-156.)

Put in clear theological terms, it is not in vain for us to consider the consistency which Christ has bequeathed to His Church. There is a primate, there are bishops who are successors of the apostles, who are such by divine right within the framework of the catholicity of the college, and by the will of the primate. Individual local churches constitute cells of the Church which are lead by successors of the apostles. All the faithful are part of the Church, but the foundation for this unity and catholicity is that the particular churches are under Peter. The error which comes from many recent - and not always orthodox - diatribes which we have seen on the subject of « Lex fundamentalis », lies in equating the Divine Constitution of the Church with that of a political state. The former is absolutely unique and inimitable, like other things pertaining to the heart of the Church. This appears clear, then, because Christ entrusted the primacy to Peter and specified that it be passed on to Peter’s successors as bishops of a designated cell of the Church, the diocese of Rome. This being the case, no idea of a democratic or federalistic constitution could arise when it is set theologically and legally against the question of the election of the Sovereign Roman Pontiff. It is the Roman Church which must elect its bishop. Nor is it possible to neglect the practical aspect of this question, an aspect, which by its very nature, belongs to this discussion.

The law of the conclave, with its inception in 1059 by Nicholas II, ended, by restricting the right of election to the Cardinals alone, an ordeal, sometimes humiliating, of a thousand years. It is understood that the Cardinals, as such, belong to the Roman Church and to her alone, in the capacity of her suburbicarian bishops, of her priests, or of her deacons. In the necessary and inevitable reforms of Nicholas II, this theological rationale was perfectly observed.

The law of the conclave rests on two principle points: the exclusive right of the sacred college, and seclusion. The latter did not come at once: it resulted from responding to obvious situations and to grave necessity. These two principle points support one another in the vicissitudes of an election. It is obvious that an election entrusted to an electoral body too large, would be, humanly speaking, more difficult and more impressionable and therefore there would be little guarantee of reasonableness and of correspondence with the supreme interests of the Church. Only with a body of men, carefully selected, is it possible that in an election, as in human affairs, the criterion of the true good will prevail. The seclusion of the conclave is even more necessary today; with modern means, with modern techniques, without complete seclusion, it would not be possible to gain an election against the pressures from outside powers. Today some superpowers (and even some lesser powers) have too great an interest in owning, through either compliance or weakness, their share of the greatest moral authority in the world. And they would do everything in their power to accomplish this. The pressures to overturn the substance of the law of the conclave would be driven by the desire to obtain this very result. «Renovatio», VII (1972), fasc. 2, pp. 155-156.
THE ELECTION OF THE ROMAN PONTIFF

Many people, too many, in fact, when addressing the subject of the future election of the Roman Sovereign Pontiff, i.e. the laws governing the conclave, have spoken chiefly nonsense. It is evident that they have, in a manner that is absolutely improper, tried to force the acceptance of new and questionable criteria in the papal election. This question is of extreme importance and is, therefore, worthy of our careful review.

Whoever wishes to tackle the problem of conclave reform must understand that jurisdiction in this matter belongs to the supreme authority in the Church alone, and that therefore the interlocutors, whenever they propose reforms, must take note of this principle, and of its theological basis. The First Vatican Council thus declares in the canon following the second chapter of the bull Pastor Acternus: «Si quis ergo dixerit non esse ex ipsius Christi Domini institutione seu jure divino ut beatus Petrus in primatu super universam. Ecclesiam habeat perpetuos successores, aut romanum pontificem non esse beati Petri in eodem primatu successorem, anathema sit.». (If, then, anyone shall say that it is not by the institution of Christ the Lord, or by divine right, that Blessed Peter has a perpetual line of successors in the primacy over the universal Church; or that the Roman Pontiff is not the successor of Blessed Peter in this primacy; let him be anathema.) (D.S. 3058). This means that to the Bishop of Rome belongs the succession of Peter. If the succession falls to the Bishop of Rome, and not to another, there is an absolute connection between the Roman bishopric and the succession of Peter. From this, one must deduce logically and necessarily that the Pope is such because he is the Bishop of Rome. This causal tie between the Roman bishopric and the succession of Peter becomes clearer if one reads the whole chapter of the cited constitution (D. S. 3057); it becomes very clear if you attend to all of Tradition and especially to primitive Tradition, which shows with immediacy and certainty the dispositions taken by the Prince of the Apostles. In fact Clement (first century) intervenes strongly in the affairs of the Church of Corinth with a long and solemn letter, in the name of the Roman Church, while the Apostle John was still alive and much nearer geographically. It is evident that he believes he has jurisdiction, by virtue of his Episcopal seat, over the distant Church of Corinth, in which he could intervene solely as universal pastor, despite the fact that Corinth was well outside the sphere of Roman cultural primacy. In the same manner, have the two great witnesses of the very first ages of the Church, Ignatius of Antioch and Ireneas, expressed themselves in their most famous texts. If this premise is not understood theologically, one could defend the disassociation of the primacy in the Church from the seat of the Bishop of Rome, or refuse to accept the foundation of that seat as the legal claim of the succession of Peter. (« Renovatio », VII (1972), fasc. 2, pp. 155-156.)

Put in clear theological terms, it is not in vain for us to consider the consistency which Christ has bequeathed to His Church. There is a primate, there are bishops who are successors of the apostles, who are such by divine right within the framework of the catholicity of the college, and by the will of the primate. Individual local churches constitute cells of the Church which are lead by successors of the apostles. All the faithful are part of the Church, but the foundation for this unity and catholicity is that the particular churches are under Peter. The error which comes from many recent - and not always orthodox - diatribes which we have seen on the subject of « Lex fundamentalis », lies in equating the Divine Constitution of the Church with that of a political state. The former is absolutely unique and inimitable, like other things pertaining to the heart of the Church. This appears clear, then, because Christ entrusted the primacy to Peter and specified that it be passed on to Peter’s successors as bishops of a designated cell of the Church, the diocese of Rome. This being the case, no idea of a democratic or federalistic constitution could arise when it is set theologically and legally against the question of the election of the Sovereign Roman Pontiff. It is the Roman Church which must elect its bishop. Nor is it possible to neglect the practical aspect of this question, an aspect, which by its very nature, belongs to this discussion.

The law of the conclave, with its inception in 1059 by Nicholas II, ended, by restricting the right of election to the Cardinals alone, an ordeal, sometimes humiliating, of a thousand years. It is understood that the Cardinals, as such, belong to the Roman Church and to her alone, in the capacity of her suburbicarian bishops, of her priests, or of her deacons. In the necessary and inevitable reforms of Nicholas II, this theological rationale was perfectly observed.

The law of the conclave rests on two principle points: the exclusive right of the sacred college, and seclusion. The latter did not come at once: it resulted from responding to obvious situations and to grave necessity. These two principle points support one another in the vicissitudes of an election. It is obvious that an election entrusted to an electoral body too large, would be, humanly speaking, more difficult and more impressionable and therefore there would be little guarantee of reasonableness and of correspondence with the supreme interests of the Church. Only with a body of men, carefully selected, is it possible that in an election, as in human affairs, the criterion of the true good will prevail. The seclusion of the conclave is even more necessary today; with modern means, with modern techniques, without complete seclusion, it would not be possible to gain an election against the pressures from outside powers. Today some superpowers (and even some lesser powers) have too great an interest in owning, through either compliance or weakness, their share of the greatest moral authority in the world. And they would do everything in their power to accomplish this. The pressures to overturn the substance of the law of the conclave would be driven by the desire to obtain this very result. «Renovatio», VII (1972), fasc. 2, pp. 155-156."

_________________
Kenneth G. Gordon


Tue Oct 25, 2011 4:18 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Tue Sep 20, 2011 12:31 am
Posts: 696
Location: Moscow, Idaho, U.S.A.
New post Re: Comments from a non-Sedevacantist
John: some time ago you asked for the source of my statement that Pope Pius XII wanted Siri to be his successor. Here is a very short excerpt from a very recent article in the Italian magazine, "La Stampa". The author is Giacomo Galeazzi. I will only post here the short reference to what I mentioned earlier. This was mostly translated by our son. In the near future, I will post a much longer article which gives greater detail on and support for my above statement.

22/6/2008 (8:46) The memoirs of Cardinal Siri published
“Pius XII wanted me to be Pope”

The confessions of the conservative Siri in four conclaves near the election.

Giacomo Galeazzi
Vatican City
{Quoting Siri} “Pius XII had decided that I should be his successor and prepared me via the same system adopted by Pius XI in his own times: entrusting me with foreign missions. He also asked me to come to Rome to help him with work”

And from the same article, other quotations from Siri.

"Wojtyla was always a “girandolone” (wanderer). In Krakow he left dressed as a mountaineer, with a sleeping bag and walked around the Tatra Mountains for two weeks”. And again: “The theologians that I respect the most are Thomas [Aquinas] and Augustine. [But I respect] almost no living ones”

“I am the most maligned member of the Sacred College, can get no human respect, and I hope for the dawn of better days. The idea of going to meet the world sweetening and softening that which is bitter and hard is a capitulation, not being shrewd”. Thus, “Maritain is a philosopher, yes, but cannot be a guide for the Church."

This article then goes on to quote from the Italian Roman correspondent, Benny Lai, who has written several books and article on Siri. His most extensive book on Siri is entitled "Il Papa non Eletto".

I will quote from relevant sections of his publications as necessary to prove that what I say on these historical matters was not something I got out of thin air.

_________________
Kenneth G. Gordon


Tue Oct 25, 2011 4:33 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Tue Sep 20, 2011 12:31 am
Posts: 696
Location: Moscow, Idaho, U.S.A.
New post Re: James Larrabee on the sede vacante thesis
John Lane wrote:
Canon 188 clearly states, "Ob tacitam renuntiationem ab ipso iure admissam quaelibet officia vacant ipso facto et sine ulla declaratione, si clerus ... (4) a fide catholica publice defecerit." This canon is based in part on the constitution of Pope Paul IV, Cum ex Apostolatus, which clearly teaches that no office can be held by a manifest heretic, and that if a man is a manifest heretic before being elected Pope (as well as any other office), the election is void, even if (as he explicitly states) the whole Church should recognize him as Pope.


John:

Does this above contradict the "....peaceful acceptance..." dogma?

_________________
Kenneth G. Gordon


Tue Oct 25, 2011 6:26 am
Profile E-mail
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post Re: James Larrabee on the sede vacante thesis
Ken Gordon wrote:
John Lane wrote:
Canon 188 clearly states, "Ob tacitam renuntiationem ab ipso iure admissam quaelibet officia vacant ipso facto et sine ulla declaratione, si clerus ... (4) a fide catholica publice defecerit." This canon is based in part on the constitution of Pope Paul IV, Cum ex Apostolatus, which clearly teaches that no office can be held by a manifest heretic, and that if a man is a manifest heretic before being elected Pope (as well as any other office), the election is void, even if (as he explicitly states) the whole Church should recognize him as Pope.


John:

Does this above contradict the "....peaceful acceptance..." dogma?


No, Ken, I regard it as a per impossibile statement, like St. Paul's comment that "If I, or an angel from heaven..." which obviously is impossible. As St Thomas, I think it was, points out, an angel from elsewhere might be able to deceive, but not one from heaven. I recently saw this same parallel made by a theologian, probably Billot, but I doubt anybody needs proof for something so obvious.

I trust that term "dogma" is not meant sarcastically. The truth that peaceful acceptance is proof of a given pontiff's claim is taught by every theologian I have seen. If you have a conflicting authority you should post it.

_________________
In Christ our King.


Tue Oct 25, 2011 7:13 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Tue Sep 20, 2011 12:31 am
Posts: 696
Location: Moscow, Idaho, U.S.A.
New post Re: James Larrabee on the sede vacante thesis
John Lane wrote:
Ken Gordon wrote:
John Lane wrote:
Canon 188 clearly states, "Ob tacitam renuntiationem ab ipso iure admissam quaelibet officia vacant ipso facto et sine ulla declaratione, si clerus ... (4) a fide catholica publice defecerit." This canon is based in part on the constitution of Pope Paul IV, Cum ex Apostolatus, which clearly teaches that no office can be held by a manifest heretic, and that if a man is a manifest heretic before being elected Pope (as well as any other office), the election is void, even if (as he explicitly states) the whole Church should recognize him as Pope.


John:

Does this above contradict the "....peaceful acceptance..." dogma?


No, Ken, I regard it as a per impossibile statement,


Coming from Pope Paul IV? Part of which was included in Canon Law (188)? I don't understand how this can be possible.

John Lane wrote:
like St. Paul's comment that "If I, or an angel from heaven..." which obviously is impossible. As St Thomas, I think it was, points out, an angel from elsewhere might be able to deceive, but not one from heaven. I recently saw this same parallel made by a theologian, probably Billot, but I doubt anybody needs proof for something so obvious.

I trust that term "dogma" is not meant sarcastically.


I used the word "dogma" above simply because 1) I really don't know WHAT to call it, and 2) because it seems to me that you are, essentially, using it as such. Therefore, call it what you like.

John Lane wrote:
The truth that peaceful acceptance is proof of a given pontiff's claim is taught by every theologian I have seen. If you have a conflicting authority you should post it.


Again, you misunderstand: I will try, once more to make it very clear to you exactly what my stance and understanding of this....statement "...taught by every theologian I have seen..." truly is.

First of all, I most certainly do believe that bare....statement....you quote above for at least two reasons: 1) the authorities who state it are, for the most part (for instance, I do not have much faith in any "modern" theologian, except Billot) authoritative, and possibly saintly, and they are highly respected, not least by me, and 2) that ...statement... just plain makes sense, is logical, and is reasonable, especially given the support that God gives to the Church. I.e., infallibility where necessary.

Then in support of it, there is the statement by St. Alphonsus to the effect that it matters not how defective the election process might be, if the whole Church accepts a man as the pontiff, then it is proof that God has "repaired" the problems inherent in that election process. I cannot now quote his exact words, but I did read them within the last week or two. Furthermore, you know which statement of St. Alphonsus to which I am referring, and from this you should be able to conclude that, at least in this instance, my memory is not "vague".

Furthermore, and again, what St. Alphonsus says makes complete sense, is reasonable and logical, and I most certainly would never presume to argue with one whom I regard as one of my favorite saints. How would I dare? Why would I dare?

Therefore, believing as I do about this ....statement...., I cannot and will not attempt to find any theologian who disagrees with it. How could I? In my opinion, it would be impossible.

BUT, what I am arguing with you about is the APPLICATION of this ....statement.... Why is that so hard for you to understand? I have repeated it more than once. Yet you insist on accusing me of arguing against the truth of the ...statement... above. I am not, cannot, and will not.

There is something, which I have not yet put my finger on, in the application of this...statement... to the present crisis, by you, to the extent to which you apply it, which violates my sense of propriety, and leaves me very disquieted. As I have said more than once, I suspect you are applying it to, at least Roncalli's election, but also to lesser extent to Montini's, much too soon, at the very least. But I am not certain yet.

This is one reason I have asked not only you, but also everyone else reading these exchanges, to describe a way for Satan to engineer an election within a real and legitimate conclave which would produce a man who would appear to "the whole Church" to be the real pontiff, but who would NOT be under the protection of the Holy Ghost against error as a real pope would be.

And I have, so far, including this time, asked this three times. So far, it has been completely ignored.

Such a man as I describe would be "peacefully accepted by the whole church" because other than the very few members of the Church who would have been in the conclave, none of us outside would see anything wrong.

In addition, the doings in any conclave are protected by an almost inviolable secrecy, much like the secrecy of the confessional. Therefore, learning what actually took place in such a conclave would be almost impossible.

Now, I am convinced that I know how such a thing could be accomplished, and I am also morally certain that it DID take place. I have examined this scenario over and over again over the past 15 years and more, and cannot find a hole in it.

If you (plural) cannot or will not attempt to devise such a scenario, then I will publish it here, and you may then attack it at will.

Believe me (or not as the case may be), it is so diabolically clever that it could ONLY have come directly from Satan.

Remember one more thing: Pope Pius IX, in an allocution published in the Acta, says flatly, "...the leaders, at least, of the secret societies receive their orders directly from Satan in bodily form...", and I can provide you with exact sources, in Latin and translated into English, if you really feel you need such.

So, to sum up: if this scenario I am speaking of did take place, then it calls into question the APPLICATION of the ...statement... which we have been arguing over, to cross purposes, for the past two weeks.

Have I made myself clear to you now?

_________________
Kenneth G. Gordon


Tue Oct 25, 2011 5:06 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Mon Sep 19, 2011 4:02 pm
Posts: 65
Location: Spokane
New post Re: James Larrabee on the sede vacante thesis
There is something that I do not understand about this "peacful acceptance by the whole Church".

Does this mean the average person in the pew? Many Catholics today do not even know the fundamentals of the faith, so how would they know what is or isn't heresy? Their peaceful acceptance of any occupant of the Chair of Peter doesn't mean a thing. Many of them couldn't care less. At best, they are cultural Catholics and nothing more.

How about the cardinals, bishops and priests who firmly hold heretical ideas?

I edited this to include "religious" in my last sentence as well.


Tue Oct 25, 2011 6:31 pm
Profile
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 396 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 28 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group.
Designed by Vjacheslav Trushkin for Free Forums/DivisionCore.