Suscipe Domine Traditional Catholic Forum

The Church Courtyard => General Catholic Discussion => Topic started by: Saint_Augustine on December 31, 2018, 02:32:50 PM

Title: Martyrdom or suicide?
Post by: Saint_Augustine on December 31, 2018, 02:32:50 PM
I will abandon this line of thinking if someone could please show me where it is wrong-

"The church is undergoing her passion." "The Church is being martyred."

I object. That which we call martyrdom is nothing less than an act of suicide.

Let me explain- Martyrdom is imposed from outside us. For the Church to be martyred some extrinsic human or diabolic element must attack solely the human element within the Church.

But that is not what we see. On the contrary, we see the official authorities in the Church promulgating objectively harmful magisterial teaching. That hasn't happened ever in the history of the Church (or has it?). We see the canonization of a man who destroyed the Church's liturgy.


The magisterial element and the act of canonization are supposedly protected by Papal infallibility, yet this nonsense has occurred.


So, either-

1. The modernists are right

2. The see is vacant

3. Catholicism is false

1. We know modernism is a heresy.

2. It belongs to the infallibility of the CHurch to be able to always identify her head, so sedevacantism is out. (Dogmatic facts).

3. Therefore Catholicism is false, for she has failed, not only in her human element, but the divine promises she supposedly has in relation to infallibility have objectively failed. And if they fail, they were never true.


Therefore- Let us attend to our salvation and become eastern Orthodox.
Title: Re: Martyrdom or suicide?
Post by: Sempronius on December 31, 2018, 02:59:23 PM
I like what Matthew Schmitz wrote when discussing with Rob Dreher regarding the Catholic Church's failures:

"The Church proclaims a higher, more demanding teaching than any other religious assembly. Because Catholic aspirations are higher, Catholic sins are always more shocking. Corruptio optimi pessima – or as DH Lawrence put it, "The greater the love, the greater the trust, and the greater the peril, the greater the disaster.""
Title: Re: Martyrdom or suicide?
Post by: Michael Wilson on December 31, 2018, 05:05:42 PM
The Catholic Church is the one true Church founded by Our Lord Jesus Christ, therefore your conclusion that the Church has failed, is impossible.
The E.O. Is not a Church, but a collection of independent "auctocephalus" bishoprics; which has fallen into schism and heresy since the 11th C. Hardly the place to find salvation.
Title: Re: Martyrdom or suicide?
Post by: Saint_Augustine on December 31, 2018, 05:49:05 PM
Quote from: Michael Wilson on December 31, 2018, 05:05:42 PM
The Catholic Church is the one true Church founded by Our Lord Jesus Christ, therefore your conclusion that the Church has failed, is impossible.
The E.O. Is not a Church, but a collection of independent "auctocephalus" bishoprics; which has fallen into schism and heresy since the 11th C. Hardly the place to find salvation.

Assertions are not arguments.

With the canonization of Paul VI, we have an objective destruction of any pretense to our Lords promise that the gates of Hell will not prevail. Today is elevated the beast who initiated the auto-demolition. He is raised to the dignity of the table...er, altar.

How is this not an indication that the promise does not apply to the Pope?
Title: Re: Martyrdom or suicide?
Post by: Michael Wilson on December 31, 2018, 06:13:10 PM
St. A.
I don't intend to argue about the truths of the faith; they are proposed on a "take it or leave it" basis. I'm sorry that you are considering the second option.
The Pope issue is not entirely clear, I am a sed for that reason. That is the only way that I can square the facts with the teachings. But that doesn't mean that another and better explanation isn't out there. The crisis will eventually pass and then things will clear up.
Meanwhile, I will pray that you reconsider.
Title: Re: Martyrdom or suicide?
Post by: Gardener on December 31, 2018, 06:40:59 PM
We know modernism is a heresy because it was defined as such by a Pope. If the Church is rendered invalid by present circumstances, we have no reason to trust that modernism is a heresy, since it was defined by the vicarious head of a false organization. If you disagree, you espouse modernism since what was right is now wrong. You admit as much in your 3rd conclusion that such an organization would be "never true". As such, such an organization would be unable to define and declare heresies to be avoided.

A mystical martyrdom is not out of the question, and though it appears as being perpetrated by those within, it is done by those who are mystically without.

It is not necessary that the Church *always* have a Pope, for interregnum periods are an historical and inescapable known. That She would be without a Pope for an extended period is indeed abnormal, but the principle doesn't deny it.

Title: Re: Martyrdom or suicide?
Post by: Philip G. on December 31, 2018, 08:13:22 PM
Saint Augustine - I think you need to (re)read the rules of this forum. 

Non-Catholics:
1) Error has no rights. As such, anti-Catholic viewpoints are not permitted to be posted here.
2) Do not attempt to sway traditional Catholics away from the Faith.


Also, don't the eastern orthodox reject St. Augustine?

The stumbling block in this crisis in my opinion regards judging the pope.  Many trads at the very least believe that a general council can judge a pope to be in formal heresy.  But, I do not believe that.  Because, it opens the door to extremes like vacantism where any old layman can judge a pope to be in formal heresy.  And, a formal heretic is no longer a Catholic.  Do the math.  It is not reconcilable with the church's teachings about the papacy.  Here are some truths.  A pope that is not a formal heretic, is still pope.  A pope that is a material heretic, is still pope.  The pope is judged by no man save Christ.  Let this be your foundation, and then make a selection from possible choices in response to this crisis.  When I do so, I find that my options lead me to the Catholic Church and the papacy despite the dangers thereof.  I read a quote from I think it was St. John of the Cross recently.  And, it went something like this, "where you do not find love, pour in love, and you will draw out love."  This crisis calls for such measures, I have personally experienced it.  It is called being faithful to ones state in life.  God does not allow us to be tempted beyond our ability to resist.  Do you believe that?  Believe it.
Title: Re: Martyrdom or suicide?
Post by: james03 on January 01, 2019, 12:49:08 AM
QuoteAssertions are not arguments.

I wish you would stand by your principles.

Quote2. It belongs to the infallibility of the CHurch to be able to always identify her head, so sedevacantism is out. (Dogmatic facts).
Really?  So why did a DOCTOR of the Church discuss a pope losing office due to heresy, and why did a Pope write a bull on the topic of a future Pope falling into heresy?

Title: Re: Martyrdom or suicide?
Post by: awkwardcustomer on January 01, 2019, 03:42:22 AM
Quote from: Saint_Augustine on December 31, 2018, 02:32:50 PM
I will abandon this line of thinking if someone could please show me where it is wrong-

"The church is undergoing her passion." "The Church is being martyred."

I object. That which we call martyrdom is nothing less than an act of suicide.

Let me explain- Martyrdom is imposed from outside us. For the Church to be martyred some extrinsic human or diabolic element must attack solely the human element within the Church.

But that is not what we see. On the contrary, we see the official authorities in the Church promulgating objectively harmful magisterial teaching. That hasn't happened ever in the history of the Church (or has it?). We see the canonization of a man who destroyed the Church's liturgy.


The magisterial element and the act of canonization are supposedly protected by Papal infallibility, yet this nonsense has occurred.


So, either-

1. The modernists are right

2. The see is vacant

3. Catholicism is false

1. We know modernism is a heresy.

2. It belongs to the infallibility of the CHurch to be able to always identify her head, so sedevacantism is out. (Dogmatic facts).

3. Therefore Catholicism is false, for she has failed, not only in her human element, but the divine promises she supposedly has in relation to infallibility have objectively failed. And if they fail, they were never true.


Therefore- Let us attend to our salvation and become eastern Orthodox.

Option 2 is correct.  The See is vacant.

Where you are going wrong is confusing the opinions of self-appointed lay theologians with "dogmatic facts". There are no "Dogmatic facts" which state that the Church always has to be able to identify her head.
Title: Re: Martyrdom or suicide?
Post by: Daniel on January 01, 2019, 05:45:39 AM
Quote from: Saint_Augustine on December 31, 2018, 02:32:50 PM
Let me explain- Martyrdom is imposed from outside us. For the Church to be martyred some extrinsic human or diabolic element must attack solely the human element within the Church.

But that is not what we see. On the contrary, we see the official authorities in the Church promulgating objectively harmful magisterial teaching. That hasn't happened ever in the history of the Church (or has it?). We see the canonization of a man who destroyed the Church's liturgy.
The extrinsic human element is the modernists who entered the Church and have now been attacking it from the inside. They are "in" the Church but are nevertheless "extrinsic", since the Church is holy whereas modernism is evil.


QuoteSo, either-

1. The modernists are right

2. The see is vacant

3. Catholicism is false
That's not an exhaustive list. What about the SSPX's position? Not sure I really buy into it, but they hold that the pope is infallible only when he teaches the stuff that the Church teaches. Not sure I really buy into this position (seems a lot like a tautology in my opinion), but it does solve the problem you've raised: modernism is wrong (condemned as a heresy), sedevacantism is also wrong (comes from an incorrect understanding of papal infallibility), and the Catholicism is not false.
Title: Re: Martyrdom or suicide?
Post by: Michael Wilson on January 01, 2019, 09:52:41 AM
Cardinal Pie of Potiers:
Quote"My brothers, all of you, if you are condemned to see the triumph of evil, never applaud it. Never say to evil: you are good; to decadence: you are progess; to death: you are life. Sanctify yourselves in the times wherein God has placed you; bewail the evils and the disorders which God tolerates; oppose them with the energy of your works and your efforts, your life uncontaminated by error, free from being led astray, in such a way that having lived here below, united with the Spirit of the Lord, you will be admitted to be made but one with Him forever and ever: But he who is joined to the Lord is one in spirit."
Title: Re: Martyrdom or suicide?
Post by: Michael Wilson on January 01, 2019, 10:19:06 AM
Heinrich posted this on another thread, and I think it would be a good idea if the members of this forum also drafted a resolution to stand firm in the fight for the faith as the men from Hood's brigade did
Quote[yt]https://youtu.be/IxAsO75Ywv4[/yt]
Maybe Gardener or somebody with his eloquence can start another thread with the draft and then the members of this forum can sign on to the pledge. I was most touched by the fact that Hood's brigade drafted the resolution in Jan. 1865; in other words near the very end of the Civil War when the South was all but defeated. Unlike the South, the Church will never perish; so we have even more reason to not give up.
Title: Re: Martyrdom or suicide?
Post by: Stubborn on January 02, 2019, 07:41:51 AM
Quote from: Saint_Augustine on December 31, 2018, 02:32:50 PM
I will abandon this line of thinking if someone could please show me where it is wrong-........

Short snip from one of the sermons from Fr. Wathen....

"....Among all the mysteries that we live amongst, is that of the fact that God saves those whom He wills. And yet those who are lost are lost because they will. No one is saved against his will and no one is damned against his will. At the same time almighty God has known from all eternity who would be His, whom He would succeed in saving. And all the jubilation that the Church expresses in its many Masses and in its office is over the fact that those whom God regards as His elect, will be saved.

Furthermore that no matter how much tragedy with which history is strewn, Christ moves towards His glorious triumph. With His resurrection was the announcement that He would have His victory, when He emerged from the tomb, He proved that there was no force, no power greater than He. And He proved that if He was invincible, then that which He would establish is also invincible, namely His Church. It really does not matter therefore that throughout history the Church suffer terrific blows, that it at times – and these times almost have always prevailed – that the Church suffer it's terrible embarrassments, it's setbacks.

Despite all this, despite all appearances and despite whatever losses, Christ is triumphing in the Church and He is proving His power, His invincibility and He is succeeding in doing what He came to the world to achieve and, God the Father is fulfilling the purposes of His creation.

If it were not so, He would never have created anything to begin with. If it could be, that Almighty God could set in motion anything out of which He could not draw whatever He wished, then He would never had done anything like that and He indeed would not be infinite in the first place.

We have it in our power to participate or we have it in our choice to be turned away, it is strictly within our choice and whatever grace is necessary is within our grasp..."




I like to listen to this (Fourth Sunday of Lent, 1988) sermon, particularly those times when the virtue of hope needs a boost in me. It is a very beautiful sermon that helps reinforce, or strengthen the hope for us and for the Church amidst what otherwise often appears to be a hopeless situation.

Keep the faith Saint Augustine.
Title: Re: Martyrdom or suicide?
Post by: Quaremerepulisti on January 02, 2019, 10:37:38 AM
Quote from: Saint_Augustine on December 31, 2018, 02:32:50 PM

So, either-

1. The modernists are right

2. The see is vacant

3. Catholicism is false

1. We know modernism is a heresy.

2. It belongs to the infallibility of the CHurch to be able to always identify her head, so sedevacantism is out. (Dogmatic facts).

3. Therefore Catholicism is false, for she has failed, not only in her human element, but the divine promises she supposedly has in relation to infallibility have objectively failed. And if they fail, they were never true.


1.  That post-Reformation theologians were wrong on some things doesn't mean modernism is right.

2.  The way you stated it is wrong.  Obviously during interregnum periods there is no head for the Church to identify.  It could be better stated as: the identification of the Church's head is not a matter for private judgment, but is also accepted on authority, and the authority has said that Paul VI and his successors were Popes.

3.  It isn't precisely infallibility, but indefectibility, which is at issue here.  Now, as Arvinger never tires of repeating, if indefectibility is true then no empirical facts could possibly be contrary to it (speaking of real empirical facts, and not hypothetically).  So your private judgment that the Magisterium is promulgating "objectively harmful" teaching and that the liturgy was "destroyed" must be wrong.

Title: Re: Martyrdom or suicide?
Post by: Prayerful on January 02, 2019, 11:46:44 AM
Quote from: Saint_Augustine on December 31, 2018, 02:32:50 PM
I will abandon this line of thinking if someone could please show me where it is wrong-

"The church is undergoing her passion." "The Church is being martyred."

I object. That which we call martyrdom is nothing less than an act of suicide.

Let me explain- Martyrdom is imposed from outside us. For the Church to be martyred some extrinsic human or diabolic element must attack solely the human element within the Church.

But that is not what we see. On the contrary, we see the official authorities in the Church promulgating objectively harmful magisterial teaching. That hasn't happened ever in the history of the Church (or has it?). We see the canonization of a man who destroyed the Church's liturgy.


The magisterial element and the act of canonization are supposedly protected by Papal infallibility, yet this nonsense has occurred.


So, either-

1. The modernists are right

2. The see is vacant

3. Catholicism is false

1. We know modernism is a heresy.

2. It belongs to the infallibility of the CHurch to be able to always identify her head, so sedevacantism is out. (Dogmatic facts).

3. Therefore Catholicism is false, for she has failed, not only in her human element, but the divine promises she supposedly has in relation to infallibility have objectively failed. And if they fail, they were never true.


Therefore- Let us attend to our salvation and become eastern Orthodox.

EO churches, be in Romania, Ukraine or Russia are state churches, instruments of state policy, in particular in the last two places, and cannot be considered a solution. The Russian Greek Rite schismatic liturgy was heavily altered in the seventeenth century on the basis of foolhardy antiquarianism and the greed and liturgical notions of Tsar Peter the Great. It was the cause of schism within the schismatics as many retreated to Russia's endless forests and hacked out new communities where the Old Believers could follow the ancient customs. Panicking because of Bergie the Bad is no solution either.
Title: Re: Martyrdom or suicide?
Post by: Philip G. on January 02, 2019, 05:08:09 PM
Prayerful - His name is Francis.
Title: Re: Martyrdom or suicide?
Post by: TheReturnofLive on January 02, 2019, 06:30:01 PM
Quote from: Saint_Augustine on December 31, 2018, 02:32:50 PM
I will abandon this line of thinking if someone could please show me where it is wrong-

"The church is undergoing her passion." "The Church is being martyred."

I object. That which we call martyrdom is nothing less than an act of suicide.

Let me explain- Martyrdom is imposed from outside us. For the Church to be martyred some extrinsic human or diabolic element must attack solely the human element within the Church.

But that is not what we see. On the contrary, we see the official authorities in the Church promulgating objectively harmful magisterial teaching. That hasn't happened ever in the history of the Church (or has it?). We see the canonization of a man who destroyed the Church's liturgy.


The magisterial element and the act of canonization are supposedly protected by Papal infallibility, yet this nonsense has occurred.


So, either-

1. The modernists are right

2. The see is vacant

3. Catholicism is false

1. We know modernism is a heresy.

2. It belongs to the infallibility of the CHurch to be able to always identify her head, so sedevacantism is out. (Dogmatic facts).

3. Therefore Catholicism is false, for she has failed, not only in her human element, but the divine promises she supposedly has in relation to infallibility have objectively failed. And if they fail, they were never true.


Therefore- Let us attend to our salvation and become eastern Orthodox.

For Point 2, if you believe Catholicism is right, you can't rule out a forced abdication of Pope Benedict XVI, who still is alive. The argument that this Pope Francis must be Pope even if Benedict was forced to resign because he's recognized as such is a load of BS in light of history. Pope Vigilius was appointed by The Byzantine Emperor to be Pope, unlawfully deposing the current occupant of the time, and Robert Bellarmine says that he was an Anti-Pope up until the point where the licit Pope died, where he assumed legally the role of the Papacy, with all his actions null and void until he became a licit Pope.

It's a very interesting point, if one considers Robert's point valid, though, because when he was "a licit Pope," Pope Vigilius defended with great vigor Nestorianism (refusing to condemn three heretical letters) which caused Justinian to get angry so he sent soldiers who grabbed him while he was saying Mass, brought him to Constantinople and forced him to recant. He did under pressure, but then went to back to Rome where he recanted his condemnation. Justinian and the Eastern Patriarchs excommunicated Pope Vigilius for this, to which he recanted again condemned the Three Chapters and apologized to Justinian and blaming the devil for deceiving him.

So it becomes a question to what degree Robert is right and to what degree he is wrong, and to what degree an invalid Pope could allow heresy to spread, because Pope Vigilius issued heretical opinions and forbade the question from further discussion by Apostolic Authority, for which he was excommunicated - and to what degree an anti-Pope may allow heresy to flourish in the Roman Church - if Pope Vigilius issued a doctrinal statement with Apostolic Authority in the first place (Pope Honorius syndrome).



Title: Re: Martyrdom or suicide?
Post by: TheReturnofLive on January 02, 2019, 06:34:22 PM
But regardless, Benedict is still alive, and if Pope Francis is an Anti-Pope, and Pope Benedict was forced to resign, even if Pope Francis was recognized by everywone as licit he would still be an Anti-Pope.

However, the burden is on you to provide evidence of conspiracy, especially in light of the fact that multiple times privately Benedict has explicitly denied he was forced to resign.
Title: Re: Martyrdom or suicide?
Post by: TheReturnofLive on January 02, 2019, 07:45:45 PM
The Old Believer schism happened a century before Peter the Great, and it was an attempt by the Patriarch in question to make the Liturgy more "correct" and to reduce perceived pagan influence and Western influence  by following the Greek norms and rubrics  instead of the Russian norms and rubrics (the irony was that the Russian norms and rubrics were actually older).

Also to suggest that the Catholic Church has never been used as an instrument of policy by autocratic governments is at best, completely ignorant, at worst, maliciously deceptive.
Title: Re: Martyrdom or suicide?
Post by: Kreuzritter on January 03, 2019, 04:33:43 AM
QuoteThe magisterial element and the act of canonization are supposedly protected by Papal infallibility, yet this nonsense has occurred.

This line about canonisations isn't dogma, and anyone who claims that it's apostolic tradition is smoking the cow dung.
Title: Re: Martyrdom or suicide?
Post by: Kreuzritter on January 03, 2019, 04:42:22 AM
Quote from: Saint_Augustine on December 31, 2018, 02:32:50 PM
1. We know modernism is a heresy.

2. It belongs to the infallibility of the CHurch to be able to always identify her head, so sedevacantism is out. (Dogmatic facts).

3. Therefore Catholicism is false, for she has failed, not only in her human element, but the divine promises she supposedly has in relation to infallibility have objectively failed. And if they fail, they were never true.

On the basis of your rejection of 1. I can just as well deny your final conclusion: we "know" Orthodoxy is a heresy.

How do you kknow this? And how to you "know"Modernism is a heresy but denial of the filioque, dismissal of the Immaculate Conception, and rejection of the Papal primacy aren't? There appears to be a more than a little bit of question-begging at work here.
Title: Re: Martyrdom or suicide?
Post by: Prayerful on January 03, 2019, 07:13:24 AM
Quote from: TheReturnofLive on January 02, 2019, 07:45:45 PM
The Old Believer schism happened a century before Peter the Great, and it was an attempt by the Patriarch in question to make the Liturgy more "correct" and to reduce perceived pagan influence and Western influence  by following the Greek norms and rubrics  instead of the Russian norms and rubrics (the irony was that the Russian norms and rubrics were actually older).

Also to suggest that the Catholic Church has never been used as an instrument of policy by autocratic governments is at best, completely ignorant, at worst, maliciously deceptive.

It started under an earlier Romanov Tsar, continued under Peter, who was generally milder than predecessors and successors (say Nicholas I) of his House towards Old Believers. However, the complete formal subordination of Church to State, from an Estate to department of state, took a reasonably settled form under Peter with the Procurator of the Holy Synod. This was allied to an annexation of a lot of monastic lands. This close rule was rare in the West outside of kingdoms with Lutheran or other Protestant state heretical Churches, or the Gallican Church of France (which was still more autonomous than an EO schismatic Church). More seriously the education and intellectual standard of EO priests was poor. In fact under Peter, measures were taken to model priestly training along the more successful Tridentine model that could be seen in Poland.
Title: Re: Martyrdom or suicide?
Post by: TheReturnofLive on January 04, 2019, 12:49:41 PM
Quote from: Prayerful on January 03, 2019, 07:13:24 AM
Quote from: TheReturnofLive on January 02, 2019, 07:45:45 PM
The Old Believer schism happened a century before Peter the Great, and it was an attempt by the Patriarch in question to make the Liturgy more "correct" and to reduce perceived pagan influence and Western influence  by following the Greek norms and rubrics  instead of the Russian norms and rubrics (the irony was that the Russian norms and rubrics were actually older).

Also to suggest that the Catholic Church has never been used as an instrument of policy by autocratic governments is at best, completely ignorant, at worst, maliciously deceptive.

It started under an earlier Romanov Tsar, continued under Peter, who was generally milder than predecessors and successors (say Nicholas I) of his House towards Old Believers. However, the complete formal subordination of Church to State, from an Estate to department of state, took a reasonably settled form under Peter with the Procurator of the Holy Synod. This was allied to an annexation of a lot of monastic lands. This close rule was rare in the West outside of kingdoms with Lutheran or other Protestant state heretical Churches, or the Gallican Church of France (which was still more autonomous than an EO schismatic Church). More seriously the education and intellectual standard of EO priests was poor. In fact under Peter, measures were taken to model priestly training along the more successful Tridentine model that could be seen in Poland.

It wasn't the Tsar who initiated the liturgical changes - it was the Patriarch himself - Patriarch Nikon of Moscow.

(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/4d/Portrait_of_Patriarx_Nikon.jpg/800px-Portrait_of_Patriarx_Nikon.jpg)

This guy.

The Tsar was even hesitant at points to the excess where Nikon was going. Patriarch Nikon acually broke into people's homes, took their "heretical" icons (which I think were Western style icons), stabbed the eyes out of the icons, and paraded them around in derision. He then wanted to burn them, but the Tsar intervened and said "that's enough."

He was such a bad Patriarch that although the Russian Orthodox Church kept his reforms in place, they deposed him and forced him to retire in a monastery.



Undoubtedly, Peter the Great Westernized - that's what he's known for. It wasn't just education, it was also art, technology, science, military, everything except the form of government. And I don't deny that the Russian Orthodox Church was synthesized into the literal state itself under Peter the Great, but such synthesis was not really in the mind of the Russian Orthodox Church - as soon as the Empire collapsed, the Russian Orthodox Church appointed a new Patriarch.


And for the Gallician Church of France, are you referring to the Orthodox Church St. John Maximovitch established? That happened after the Russian Empire already collapsed. Or are you referring to the Catholic Church under pre-Revolutionary France?

If the latter is a counter-point to my argument about Cronyism between the Church and State, France isn't what I had in mind. I was thinking more about the Byzantine Empire (during the period of the Byzantine Papacy) and then, subsequently, the Holy Roman Empire.

Believe it or not, the Roman Church was in full coherence with the decisions of Chalcedon, and fully supported the decisions the Byzantine Empire made. In Leo's Tome, he recognizes the authority of the Emperor to smite his enemies with Divine Wrath. The Byzantine Empire tried so hard to get rid of the non-Chalcedonians that the Copts were happy when Islamic occupiers came in. They weren't really hiding or struggling for power anymore, they were just allowed to exist - although in slavery.
Title: Re: Martyrdom or suicide?
Post by: TheReturnofLive on January 04, 2019, 12:51:42 PM
Quote from: Kreuzritter on January 03, 2019, 04:33:43 AM
QuoteThe magisterial element and the act of canonization are supposedly protected by Papal infallibility, yet this nonsense has occurred.

This line about canonisations isn't dogma, and anyone who claims that it's apostolic tradition is smoking the cow dung.

I guess this guy was.

(https://brotherandremarie.files.wordpress.com/2018/10/canonization_benedict_xiv_prospero_lambertini.jpeg?w=529&h=613)
Title: Re: Martyrdom or suicide?
Post by: Non Nobis on January 04, 2019, 09:59:28 PM
Quote from: TheReturnofLive on January 04, 2019, 12:51:42 PM
Quote from: Kreuzritter on January 03, 2019, 04:33:43 AM
QuoteThe magisterial element and the act of canonization are supposedly protected by Papal infallibility, yet this nonsense has occurred.

This line about canonisations isn't dogma, and anyone who claims that it's apostolic tradition is smoking the cow dung.

I guess this guy was.

(https://brotherandremarie.files.wordpress.com/2018/10/canonization_benedict_xiv_prospero_lambertini.jpeg?w=529&h=613)

I used to have at least moral certainty that every canonized person was a true saint. I used to think I could take what Pope Benedict XIV said literally.

Scattered thoughts (not answering any particular post).

Now sedevacantism is not a wild speculation and so much we used to hold about the Church (how she is protected by Christ) is in question.  What a sorry state.  Faith is supported by history of thousands of years, by perennial teaching, by holiness in some, and in the Sacraments.  It is God's spiritual gift.  It is not supported by recent happenings (supposed canonizations) and teaching (Pope Francis). It seems Popes of old must have been downright WRONG about the universality of some things they said, when it was supposed to be for the Church of all time: the current situation is a diabolical perversity, and beyond what they could  possibly predict.

I don't pretend to understand the evil, or even to try to any more, but hold onto the good, the same good that was in the Church since it was founded.  I don't look for human intellectual satisfaction with regard to the modern Church, but hang onto Catholic practices and teaching that inspire me and make more sense than abandoning my faith or joining a different religion.

Sedevacantism: I am just unable to swallow such a monstrous speculation.  Maybe it makes sense, but I'd rather let God take care of the monstrosity and not think I can know what He knows about the worst evils.
Title: Re: Martyrdom or suicide?
Post by: awkwardcustomer on January 05, 2019, 04:04:19 AM
Quote from: Non Nobis on January 04, 2019, 09:59:28 PM
I used to have at least moral certainty that every canonized person was a true saint.

Sedevacantism: I am just unable to swallow such a monstrous speculation.

If you cannot swallow Sedevacantism, then you have no option but to doubt the sainthood of every person that has ever been canonised.

If you think that Sedevacantism is more monstrous than doubting that the saints are saints, then you are more than welcome to your R&R position.
Title: Re: Martyrdom or suicide?
Post by: Stubborn on January 05, 2019, 04:17:41 AM
Quote from: Non Nobis on January 04, 2019, 09:59:28 PM
I used to have at least moral certainty that every canonized person was a true saint.

All things Novus Ordo cannot be trusted - period.



Title: Re: Martyrdom or suicide?
Post by: Michael Wilson on January 05, 2019, 02:39:41 PM
While I agree with the statement of Pope Benedict XIV, I think that this statement was penned when he was still a Cardinal in his work on the Beatification and Canonization of Saints.
Title: Re: Martyrdom or suicide?
Post by: Non Nobis on January 05, 2019, 04:52:34 PM
Quote from: awkwardcustomer on January 05, 2019, 04:04:19 AM
Quote from: Non Nobis on January 04, 2019, 09:59:28 PM
I used to have at least moral certainty that every canonized person was a true saint.

Sedevacantism: I am just unable to swallow such a monstrous speculation.

If you cannot swallow Sedevacantism, then you have no option but to doubt the sainthood of every person that has ever been canonised.

If you think that Sedevacantism is more monstrous than doubting that the saints are saints, then you are more than welcome to your R&R position.

I do not doubt that Saints are saints, but that recent Popes can rightly canonize.  I don't KNOW whether there is some way (sede-something) for a Pope to be corrupted beyond any corruption that past Popes could conceive or accept, or whether  such a corrupt "Pope" would automatically be a non-Pope.  The shepherds and kings seeing Christ in the manger and recognizing Him as God would probably not predict or accept the idea of Him dying on the Cross in the future, and yet it happened.  Maybe some seeing Christ on the Cross would say "that can't be God", condemned as a criminal, but it was. I know the situation is different (Christ did no evil), but the point is that we don't know what God will permit.  No one would have predicted that Judas, a specially selected friend of Christ, would go on to betray Him. Popes are in a sense selected by the Church, and perhaps can go on to betray it too.

I really don't know about Sedevacantism.  It seems monstrous that a (supposed) Pope should falsely canonize a (supposed) saint, or teach (even privately or ambiguously) heresy.  But it also seems monstrous that Christ would appear to abandon the Church to false popes for decades.  What does this mean for simple people who can know the simple teachings of the Church, but can't understand the extensive arguments for sedevacantism (and its varieties) that require an understanding of Papal history, etc.? I leave it to God to understand why He permits either monstrosity.

"As far as I can understand, the whole situation is just impossible", so I admit the poverty of my understanding and leave it to God. No, my intellect is not satisfied, but maybe God is permitting it not to be. Our salvation does not depend on understanding the situation.

I don't sneer at any true-to-the-faith position concerning the Church these days (sedevacantism, R&R, even very conservative Novus Ordo types who fight the worst errors but don't want to say ANYTHING bad about the Pope) because we are all struggling to be saved in a terrible time.

Not trusting recent Popes does not MEAN not trusting all past Popes: we can recognize that there has been a terrible change and things are not the same. God wants us to see that much, because we should know our faith in a simple way that does not correspond to what is taught now.
Title: Re: Martyrdom or suicide?
Post by: bigbadtrad on January 05, 2019, 05:44:57 PM
Quote from: Michael Wilson on January 05, 2019, 02:39:41 PM
While I agree with the statement of Pope Benedict XIV, I think that this statement was penned when he was still a Cardinal in his work on the Beatification and Canonization of Saints.

What Michael said is true and he said canonizations are infallible because of the devil's advocate, which no longer exists.
Title: Re: Martyrdom or suicide?
Post by: Xavier on January 05, 2019, 10:02:23 PM
Haven't you heard Bella Dodd's testimony "of all the world's religions, the Catholic Church is the one most feared by the Communists because it is its most effective opponent. In the 1930's we put 1100 men into the Priesthood, to destroy the Church from within .... right now (the 1950s), they are in the highest positions in the Church. The changes will be so great you will not recognize the Church." (From memory, you can find videos and text on youtube and fisheaters). So the Church is most certainly martyred by Communists, Freemasons and other external enemies, who made infilitration and destruction from within their policy.

The Popes, like Pius XI, said, "Communism is intrinsically wrong, and no one who would save Christian Civilization may collaborate with it in any undertaking whatsoever. Those who permit themselves to be deceived into lending their aid towards the triumph of Communism in their own country, will be the first to fall victims of their error. And the greater the antiquity and grandeur of the Christian civilization in the regions where Communism successfully penetrates, so much more devastating will be the hatred displayed by the godless." This is how the Papacy spoke while it was still (relatively) free from external influence. That is why the Communist terrorists Mother Mary warned the Church about decided that the Church must fall.

Btw, St. Augustine, are you aware that some Orthodox in Moscow regularly co-operated with Communists, including in persecuting Catholics? For this reason, the socalled "ROCOR" (Russian Orthodox Church outside Russia) broke away from the Moscow Patriarch, and others criticized him severely? Not of course for persecuting Catholics, but rather for so openly collaborating with Communism. This at the same time that the Papacy was such a glorious opponent of the Communists. Pope Pius XII instituted an excommunication.

"There was an unintended irony in Metropolitan Hilarion's address, namely his willingness to speak of Orthodox/Catholic co-suffering with nary a mention of the Russian Orthodox Church's centuries-long persecution of Greek Catholics, particularly those living in Russia and Ukraine. In countless speeches, Hilarion and other representatives of the Russian Orthodox Church have decried the "Uniates" (Greek Catholics) living in Ukraine without once apologizing for the Soviet/Russian Orthodox coordinated liquidation of the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church (UGCC) in 1946 ... Although it is praiseworthy that the Russian Orthodox Church wishes to relieve the suffering or persecuted Christians in the Middle East, that should not excuse the fact that it continues to support the degradation of Greek Catholics while refusing unity with the Catholic Church." https://sspx.org/en/news-events/news/russian-orthodoxy-and-message-fatima-29859

Pope Leo's exorcism prayer to St. Michael expressly foretells what these people would do, "These most crafty enemies (Masons, Marxists, Modernists, Satanists) have filled and inebriated with gall and bitterness the Church, the spouse of the Immaculate Lamb, and have laid impious hands on Her most sacred possessions. In the Holy Place itself, where has been set up the See of the most holy Peter and the Chair of Truth for the light of the world, they have raised the throne of their abominable impiety with the iniquitous design that when the Pastor has been struck the sheep may be scattered. Arise then, O invincible Prince, bring help against the attacks of the lost spirits to the people of God, and give them the victory. Amen.'"

So has the Mother of God and the Saints prophesied it, with very specific mention of the 20th century and our times. We read of it in Our Lady's prophesies to Mother Mariana at Quito. In Ven. Fr. Bartholomew Holzhauser's commentary on the Apocalypse. He says the Latin Church will be afflicted by many heresies, trials and tribulations around the turn of the millenium. In Sr. Emmerich as well.

Saintly Sr. Catherine Emmerich, "I saw Lucifer being released from hell around 60 or 50 years before the year 2000." And she describes at length the false Church constructed by Masonry in Rome beside the true Church, to harass the Church of St. Peter's in Rome. She speaks of two Popes and the relation between them. She mentions false ecumenism.

As Lucifer was released from hell because of our sins, so also Satan was given about 100 years to afflict the Church because of our sins. I personally believe that 100 years began in 1917 with the Communist revolution, and ended in 2017 - after which efforts for Church restoration will be renewed. There will be more trials, but God will in the end raise up the Holy Pope He has promised us. Our duty is to be faitful until then.

From the SSPX site: "This is one of many reasons why Fatima remains so central today ... Whatever indirect or practical good the Russian Orthodox Church can carry out by aiding longsuffering Christian communities or resisting certain secular-liberal trends such as the spread of gender ideology and homosexualism pales in comparison to the supernatural good Our Lady can accomplish. May her Immaculate Heart triumph."

Our Lady has Her own wonderful plan, filled at once with hope and a call to Catholic Action, for Peace to Triumph and for the safe return of the separated Churches to Unity with the Catholic Church, and I choose to believe Her: "That is why the Holy Father and all the Bishops must make this Consecration in a public way and must specifically mention Russia. The Russian people must know the source of the gift. This is also why I wait and wait, even though the Holy Father delays. I must have the Holy Father act in the name of the Catholic Church so the Russian people know that the Catholic Church has released this gift. In this way, they will desire and bring about union with the Catholic Church.

I unfold these revelations so all the world, especially the Church, can see what I intend and why I ask what I do." http://locutions-forever.org/locutions/show/2014-08-17/2-the-stirring-in-russian-hearts
Title: Re: Martyrdom or suicide?
Post by: Philip G. on January 05, 2019, 11:08:21 PM
As I see it, there are three solutions for one who believes that canonizations are fallible.  And, I certainly entertain the idea.  But, it is a very serious matter. 

The first it seems would be that similar to the liturgy, where no pope is strictly bound to a previous pope, no pope is strictly bound to a canonization if past papacy is the sole determining factor.  And, a papacy becomes the sole determining factor when the cult of devotion is not there.  Which, is what we see in tradition.  There is no cult of devotion to Paul VI and these other v2 saints.  Likewise, there is no devotion to the Novus Ordo mass, which we pray will be changed when we get a traditional pope again.  Being that canonizations are not a part of the deposit of the faith, it seems it is not strictly a matter of faith, but instead a matter of discipline, which is a matter that can be taken, just not too lightly.   

The second option it seems would be that canonizations are less dependent on the papacy, and more dependent on the church itself in the form of cultus/devotion.  Similar to the St. Pius V 200 years of use requirement for a liturgy to be considered ancient enough, perhaps the church needs to have 200 years of cultus/devotion before such person can be considered a saint.  Traditionally speaking, in the past 1000 years, on average, it probably was about 200 years after a saints death before they were canonized.  So, there is this comparable type of precedent concerning papal discipline, but there is another way I think it should be looked at.  The church is 2000 years old; that is a lot of cultus and it varies substantially.  To compare with the liturgy, a popes ability(V2 popes), and as our current situation reveals, a bishop ability(+Lefebvre) to change the liturgy is not limited by 200 years anymore.  So, take the 200 years as more a figurative estimate, and not entirely literal.  However, I think it can be safely said that it should be at least 200 years, being that the modernists have erred in the opposite direction with their new canonization process.  If we have 2000 years of church history, in my opinion, the last 1000 years should be open to papal alteration regarding canonizations.  This is based on theory that I will not explain.

The third option it seems is that no canonization is infallible.  I have read Butlers original 4 volume lives of the saints, and there are many saints in the first 1000 years of the church that are dubious according to the editors themselves.   Many stories of saints are duplicates, and some even seem like fantasies.  It was a large number that seemed suspect, easily 15 percent.  Take into account, that this is coming from one(me) who loves and prefers to read lives of saints from the first 1000 years of the church.  So, there is really no negative bias to what I say.  The early church and lives of saints is my favorite.  Some of this is probably why 1000 years ago before the pope took the process over, the claim was not infallible as it is today.  It was a permission, not a requirement.  It was a local matter.  There was not the "solemnity of the ceremony", nor the "universal liturgical element" so favored as an argument by those who favor infallibility today. 

The solution that I like is a combination of all three.  I like the idea that a pope(and even a bishop like what we see occurring with +Lefebvre/tradition) can reverse problematic canonizations.  I like the idea that cultus be the determining factor.  And, thirdly, as a result of this, I prefer the idea that canonization be a local matter, traditionally speaking.  I do not like the papal process of the past 1000 years that leap-frogs from local devotion being merely permissible in the process to required universal devotion as an ultimate outcome, all of which is apparently supposed to indicate infallibility; it kind of reminds me of the talmudic proverb, "if you are going to tell a lie, tell a big lie".  I say that not because canonization is not infallible, and therefor a lie.  I say it because if I were processing a claim of sanctity, I would do the exact opposite the older popes did.  I would begin with having local devotion as a requirement and condition, and proceed from there to universal permission as a final outcome.  But, the suzerain papacy has not done that.  I cannot recall all the details, but I liked the canonization process before it landed solely into the hands of the can-do-no-wrong popes.  And, strangely enough, that was about 1000 years ago.
Title: Re: Martyrdom or suicide?
Post by: awkwardcustomer on January 06, 2019, 04:40:03 AM
Quote from: Non Nobis on January 05, 2019, 04:52:34 PM
I really don't know about Sedevacantism.  It seems monstrous that a (supposed) Pope should falsely canonize a (supposed) saint, or teach (even privately or ambiguously) heresy.  But it also seems monstrous that Christ would appear to abandon the Church to false popes for decades.  What does this mean for simple people who can know the simple teachings of the Church, but can't understand the extensive arguments for sedevacantism (and its varieties) that require an understanding of Papal history, etc.? I leave it to God to understand why He permits either monstrosity......

...... Not trusting recent Popes does not MEAN not trusting all past Popes: we can recognize that there has been a terrible change and things are not the same. God wants us to see that much, because we should know our faith in a simple way that does not correspond to what is taught now.

Surely, though, you must admit that referring to a position as "monstrous" suggests that you also view those who hold that position as "monstrous".

And not trusting "recent Popes" in matters of faith and liturgy DOES mean not trusting all past Popes, because true Popes cannot teach error when it comes to faith and liturgy and if "recent Popes" have taught error in faith and liturgy, then all Popes can.

And why does it seem monstrous for Christ to have abandoned His Church to false 'pope's' for decades?  Would the simple folks you refer to have so many problems with this if there wasn't such a cohort of hysterics screaming relentlessly against Sedevacantism and hurling insults at anyone who holds that position?

Besides, St Paul said this would happen. (2Thess 2)

Quote
1] And we beseech you, brethren, by the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, and of our gathering together unto him: [2] That you be not easily moved from your sense, nor be terrified, neither by spirit, nor by word, nor by epistle, as sent from us, as if the day of the Lord were at hand. [3] Let no man deceive you by any means, for unless there come a revolt first, and the man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition, [4] Who opposeth, and is lifted up above all that is called God, or that is worshipped, so that he sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself as if he were God. [5] Remember you not, that when I was yet with you, I told you these things?
[6] And now you know what withholdeth, that he may be revealed in his time. [7] For the mystery of iniquity already worketh; only that he who now holdeth, do hold, until he be taken out of the way. [8] And then that wicked one shall be revealed whom the Lord Jesus shall kill with the spirit of his mouth; and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming, him, [9] Whose coming is according to the working of Satan, in all power, and signs, and lying wonders, [10] And in all seduction of iniquity to them that perish; because they receive not the love of the truth, that they might be saved. Therefore God shall send them the operation of error, to believe lying:

There's really no mystery.  Vatican II is the 'revolt, and the Pope, who is 'he who now holdeth', has been taken out of the way, ergo Sedevacante.

Simple, isn't it.

Vatican II is the 'revolt' warned about by St Paul.  And the Pope is the 'one who holds' (the Keys), who has been taken out of the way, which is why the seat is currently vacant.  I suppose the hard part is realising that if St Paul's warnings have come true, then it's all over because it means the Antichrist is about to appear.

Pehaps that explains the hysteria against the position. 
Title: Re: Martyrdom or suicide?
Post by: awkwardcustomer on January 06, 2019, 05:10:46 AM
The irony is that if Vatican II is the 'revolt', and the current state of Sedevacante is the result of the 'one who holds' having been taken out of the way, then the all the claims that the Church has defected, or that the Saints aren't really Saints, or that Popes can teach error, can be thrown out.

If Vatican II is the revolt warned about by St Paul, then Vatican II does not undermine but instead confirms the claims of Catholicism.

And ditto for the current empty Chair.   
Title: Re: Martyrdom or suicide?
Post by: Sempronius on January 06, 2019, 06:12:44 AM
Quote from: awkwardcustomer on January 06, 2019, 05:10:46 AM
The irony is that if Vatican II is the 'revolt', and the current state of Sedevacante is the result of the 'one who holds' having been taken out of the way, then the all the claims that the Church has defected, or that the Saints aren't really Saints, or that Popes can teach error, can be thrown out.

If Vatican II is the revolt warned about by St Paul, then Vatican II does not undermine but instead confirms the claims of Catholicism.

And ditto for the current empty Chair.

Shouldnt that mean that no true masses will be celebrated? All the sacraments should be gone, except for baptism..

But sede priests are still keeping the faith alive (according to sedes)
Title: Re: Martyrdom or suicide?
Post by: awkwardcustomer on January 06, 2019, 06:24:09 AM
Quote from: Sempronius on January 06, 2019, 06:12:44 AM
Quote from: awkwardcustomer on January 06, 2019, 05:10:46 AM
The irony is that if Vatican II is the 'revolt', and the current state of Sedevacante is the result of the 'one who holds' having been taken out of the way, then the all the claims that the Church has defected, or that the Saints aren't really Saints, or that Popes can teach error, can be thrown out.

If Vatican II is the revolt warned about by St Paul, then Vatican II does not undermine but instead confirms the claims of Catholicism.

And ditto for the current empty Chair.

Shouldnt that mean that no true masses will be celebrated? All the sacraments should be gone, except for baptism..

But sede priests are still keeping the faith alive (according to sedes)

After the Antichrist has come, not before. 

St Paul's gives the signs that precede the coming of the Man of Perdition.  A revolt and the taking out of the way of the one who holds.  Once the Antichrist has been embraced by the world and installed in the 'temple of God', that's when no true masses will be celebrated. 

Meanwhile, if Vatican II is the revolt and our current state of Sedevacante refers to the one who holds having been taken out of the way, then we can start cheering up and dropping all the nonsense about a defecting Church, and Saints who aren't Saints, and Popes teaching error being possible.

And we can also ignore the siren calls of the Eastern Orthodox and the Protestants, who've already had their revolt!

Vatican II and the current state of Sedevacante prove the unique claims of Catholicism and the Papacy if the above argument is true.

See how crucial the Pope is!  He's the one who has to be taken out of the way before the Antichrist comes!
Title: Re: Martyrdom or suicide?
Post by: Sempronius on January 06, 2019, 09:37:41 AM
But there are plenty of SSPX and sede priests that will still celebrate true masses? So how will we get to that state where there is not a single mass to participate in?
Title: Re: Martyrdom or suicide?
Post by: awkwardcustomer on January 06, 2019, 11:11:13 AM
Quote from: Sempronius on January 06, 2019, 09:37:41 AM
But there are plenty of SSPX and sede priests that will still celebrate true masses? So how will we get to that state where there is not a single mass to participate in?

I can't predict exactly how the Antichrist will silence the probably less than a thousand priests worldwide who say the true Mass.

But if the disappearance of the true Mass is a Scripturally prophesied feature of the reign of the Antichrist, then this suggests he will achieve it somehow, most likely by the tried and tested means of simply killing priests who do say the true Mass. This could be achieved easily and quickly, I'm sorry to say.
Title: Re: Martyrdom or suicide?
Post by: Michael Wilson on January 06, 2019, 11:23:31 AM
How about this far fetched plan, which, bear with me, I know is really way out there: How about if the enemies of the Church manage to somehow elect a Cardinal that has such progressive ideas, that he decides to reform all the rites of the Church in the West; the reform is so complete that the new sacramental rites of orders, are either doubtful or invalid, so that only a tiny fraction of priest and bishops are still validly ordained, and therefore, still offer a true Mass. That would be essentially the same as the abolition of the Mass, for most of the Catholic world. Crazy idea, huh! Nah! Never happen.
Title: Re: Martyrdom or suicide?
Post by: awkwardcustomer on January 06, 2019, 11:46:54 AM
Quote from: Michael Wilson on January 06, 2019, 11:23:31 AM
How about this far fetched plan, which, bear with me, I know is really way out there: How about if the enemies of the Church manage to somehow elect a Cardinal that has such progressive ideas, that he decides to reform all the rites of the Church in the West; the reform is so complete that the new sacramental rites of orders, are either doubtful or invalid, so that only a tiny fraction of priest and bishops are still validly ordained, and therefore, still offer a true Mass. That would be essentially the same as the abolition of the Mass, for most of the Catholic world. Crazy idea, huh! Nah! Never happen.

I've wondered about this.  If the NO liturgy, including the reformed rite for the Consecration of Bishops, is invalid due to not being Catholic, then the true Mass has already disappeared from the vast majority of the altars of the Church.

Therefore no-one should be suprised when Bergoglio places beach balls on the altar.  It isn't the Mass and he knows it.  He's daring his audience to realise this. 
Title: Re: Martyrdom or suicide?
Post by: christulsa on January 06, 2019, 06:58:54 PM
The human element has largely abandoned us, be it Novus Ordo, Traddom, or the schismatic-heretical false churches.  We're all like hermits banished to the desert.  We are alone with God, and even He has allowed visual signs of His existence in our world to become so rare that to really believe in Him until we die would be heroically virtuous (ie what makes a saint).  Solution?  Keep going to work, bear the darkness, keep believing, pray. Soon we will all be dead anyway.

Conclusion: no, going Eastern Orthodox isn't a safe haven during this dark age in Christian history.
Title: Re: Martyrdom or suicide?
Post by: Vetus Ordo on January 11, 2019, 08:40:26 AM
Quote from: Michael Wilson on December 31, 2018, 05:05:42 PM
The Catholic Church is the one true Church founded by Our Lord Jesus Christ, therefore your conclusion that the Church has failed, is impossible.

The Church of Rome cannot defect. It is de fide.

So either she has or she hasn't.

Traditional Catholicism hinges upon this paradox. Rome cannot lose the faith and yet she has.
Title: Re: Martyrdom or suicide?
Post by: Stubborn on January 11, 2019, 09:20:11 AM
Quote from: Vetus Ordo on January 11, 2019, 08:40:26 AM
Quote from: Michael Wilson on December 31, 2018, 05:05:42 PM
The Catholic Church is the one true Church founded by Our Lord Jesus Christ, therefore your conclusion that the Church has failed, is impossible.

The Church of Rome cannot defect. It is de fide.

So either she has or she hasn't.

Traditional Catholicism hinges upon this paradox. Rome cannot lose the faith and yet she has.

Yes, it is de fide that the Church cannot defect, but why is that? It is because the Church is Christ, as such, Christ cannot defect from Himself. The Church is Christ, His Mystical Body and Catholics are members of His Body, which is what we mean when we say that Catholics are members of the Church. We are not Christ, nor are we His Mystical Body, we are members of His Mystical Body.

Some members whither away or cut themselves right off, this happens without regard to the members' standing, importance or rank. It is the members who are always perfectly capable of defecting, indeed, no matter who we are, the real challenge is to remain a member, because due to our inclination toward evil, it is always much easier to defect than remain a member.

So when we say "Rome has lost the faith", we are actually talking about members of the Church who have defected from the Church, not a slab of land in Italy - and certainly not the Church itself, for that is impossible.
Title: Re: Martyrdom or suicide?
Post by: Vetus Ordo on January 11, 2019, 10:34:33 AM
Quote from: Stubborn on January 11, 2019, 09:20:11 AM
Quote from: Vetus Ordo on January 11, 2019, 08:40:26 AM
Quote from: Michael Wilson on December 31, 2018, 05:05:42 PM
The Catholic Church is the one true Church founded by Our Lord Jesus Christ, therefore your conclusion that the Church has failed, is impossible.

The Church of Rome cannot defect. It is de fide.

So either she has or she hasn't.

Traditional Catholicism hinges upon this paradox. Rome cannot lose the faith and yet she has.

Yes, it is de fide that the Church cannot defect, but why is that? It is because the Church is Christ, as such, Christ cannot defect from Himself. The Church is Christ, His Mystical Body and Catholics are members of His Body, which is what we mean when we say that Catholics are members of the Church. We are not Christ, nor are we His Mystical Body, we are members of His Mystical Body.

Some members whither away or cut themselves right off, this happens without regard to the members' standing, importance or rank. It is the members who are always perfectly capable of defecting, indeed, no matter who we are, the real challenge is to remain a member, because due to our inclination toward evil, it is always much easier to defect than remain a member.

So when we say "Rome has lost the faith", we are actually talking about members of the Church who have defected from the Church, not a slab of land in Italy - and certainly not the Church itself, for that is impossible.

It is de fide that the Church of Rome cannot defect.

That is to say, the diocese of Rome with the Pope at its head. Every other member of the Church can defect (dioceses of Greece, Egypt, Spain, Germany, England, the United States, etc.) except its head, the diocese of Rome. Why? Because if the head defects, the body dies.

The question then is this: has the Roman Church defected by presiding over and approving Vatican II, all its documents, liturgical reforms and all its ecumenical teachings for the past 50 years?

Certainly, it seems she has defected the faith as presented and taught up until 1962. So the point may very well be this: was the counter-reformed and anti-liberal faith of the past 4 centuries in need of reform? Or was it integrally genuine? If it needed no reform, then there were no real divine guarantees that it would be preserved as it was thought it had to be preserved. If it needed reform, then traditionalism as it stands is false and the whole point is moot.

Unless the solution is sedevacantism. But that's another can of worms that, similarly to the "recognize and resist" stance, cannot sustain the test of time. If we have another few decades of what we've been having for the past 50 years and there will be no more real sedevacantism or R&R to speak of.
Title: Re: Martyrdom or suicide?
Post by: Stubborn on January 11, 2019, 11:14:39 AM
Quote from: Vetus Ordo on January 11, 2019, 10:34:33 AM

It is de fide that the Church of Rome cannot defect.

That is to say, the diocese of Rome with the Pope at its head. Every other member of the Church can defect (dioceses of Greece, Egypt, Spain, Germany, England, the United States, etc.) except its head, the diocese of Rome. Why? Because if the head defects, the body dies.......

The Church, which is Christ, remains Christ throughout the world both in time and in eternity, even in Rome. That is the reason it's de fide that the Church in Rome or anywhere else you want to name, cannot defect. Indeed, even suggesting such a thing is to suggest that Christ can defect from Himself, which is absurd. The pope is not the head of the Church, Christ is. The pope is only the Church's visible head on earth, and is perfectly able to cut himself off if that's what he wants to do, just the same as any other member who wants to cut themselves off, and no matter who or how many choose to cut themselves off, the Church, the Mystical Body of Christ will live on, and will never die.

For our part, we must remain members of the Church, which is Christ, even if it's visible head chooses to cut himself off. Christ is the one who really is in charge and it is to Him, the Church, which we must remain firmly attached.


Title: Re: Martyrdom or suicide?
Post by: Vetus Ordo on January 11, 2019, 11:31:35 AM
Quote from: Stubborn on January 11, 2019, 11:14:39 AM
Quote from: Vetus Ordo on January 11, 2019, 10:34:33 AM

It is de fide that the Church of Rome cannot defect.

That is to say, the diocese of Rome with the Pope at its head. Every other member of the Church can defect (dioceses of Greece, Egypt, Spain, Germany, England, the United States, etc.) except its head, the diocese of Rome. Why? Because if the head defects, the body dies.......

The Church, which is Christ, remains Christ throughout the world both in time and in eternity, even in Rome. That is the reason it's de fide that the Church in Rome or anywhere else you want to name, cannot defect. Indeed, even suggesting such a thing is to suggest that Christ can defect from Himself, which is absurd. The pope is not the head of the Church, Christ is. The pope is only the Church's visible head on earth, and is perfectly able to cut himself off if that's what he wants to do, just the same as any other member who wants to cut themselves off, and no matter who or how many choose to cut themselves off, the Church, the Mystical Body of Christ will live on, and will never die.

For our part, we must remain members of the Church, which is Christ, even if it's visible head chooses to cut himself off. Christ is the one who really is in charge and it is to Him, the Church, which we must remain firmly attached.

It's not anywhere else I want to name: it's the Roman church and the Roman church alone that cannot defect.

The visible head of the Universal Church, i.e. Rome, cannot defect otherwise the Church would become headless and wouldn't have a focal point of institutional and doctrinal unity. The pope cannot cut himself off from the Church without ceasing to be pope. You can't have a succession of heretical popes and pretend Rome hasn't defected. The promise associated with the fact that Rome cannot defect is the promise that the visible head of the Church will always be there until the end of time and cannot fall into heresy, at least without being deposed, otherwise the gates of Hell would have prevailed. That is the traditional understanding.
Title: Re: Martyrdom or suicide?
Post by: Stubborn on January 11, 2019, 12:51:51 PM
Quote from: Vetus Ordo on January 11, 2019, 11:31:35 AM
Quote from: Stubborn on January 11, 2019, 11:14:39 AM
Quote from: Vetus Ordo on January 11, 2019, 10:34:33 AM

It is de fide that the Church of Rome cannot defect.

That is to say, the diocese of Rome with the Pope at its head. Every other member of the Church can defect (dioceses of Greece, Egypt, Spain, Germany, England, the United States, etc.) except its head, the diocese of Rome. Why? Because if the head defects, the body dies.......

The Church, which is Christ, remains Christ throughout the world both in time and in eternity, even in Rome. That is the reason it's de fide that the Church in Rome or anywhere else you want to name, cannot defect. Indeed, even suggesting such a thing is to suggest that Christ can defect from Himself, which is absurd. The pope is not the head of the Church, Christ is. The pope is only the Church's visible head on earth, and is perfectly able to cut himself off if that's what he wants to do, just the same as any other member who wants to cut themselves off, and no matter who or how many choose to cut themselves off, the Church, the Mystical Body of Christ will live on, and will never die.

For our part, we must remain members of the Church, which is Christ, even if it's visible head chooses to cut himself off. Christ is the one who really is in charge and it is to Him, the Church, which we must remain firmly attached.

It's not anywhere else I want to name: it's the Roman church and the Roman church alone that cannot defect.

The visible head of the Universal Church, i.e. Rome, cannot defect otherwise the Church would become headless and wouldn't have a focal point of institutional and doctrinal unity. The pope cannot cut himself off from the Church without ceasing to be pope. You can't have a succession of heretical popes and pretend Rome hasn't defected. The promise associated with the fact that Rome cannot defect is the promise that the visible head of the Church will always be there until the end of time and cannot fall into heresy, at least without being deposed, otherwise the gates of Hell would have prevailed. That is the traditional understanding.

The defection of a pope does not mean that the Church's head is cut off resulting in it's death or defection, because the pope is only the visible head. No matter what else happens, we know that the Church on earth will live on until the end of time - that, coming directly from Our Lord,  *is* de fide. This fact is foundational to our faith and is never called into question.

Our Lady of La Salette said that Rome will lose the faith, so where are you getting this dogma that says the exact opposite? Please post your source.

And yes, all the conciliar popes have preached heresy, which only demonstrates that 1) popes are not the Church, 2) popes can preach heresy, 3) in spite of that, the Church is still here, 4) in spite of that, the Church has not been defeated.

It appears you are equating all four -  the Church, Rome, Christ and the pope, but this is altogether wrong.

The pope is a man, same as you and me. Because he is a man like you and me, he can defect, just like you and me. And like you and me, there is not a single sin which the pope cannot commit. As to whether or not he has indeed cut himself off, which is also something he is capable of doing (just like you and me) that is not our concern because we can do nothing about it.

Do I think he has cut himself off? - I'd have to say that in my opinion, yes he has, that's as much time to waste on that problem as there is. 


Title: Re: Martyrdom or suicide?
Post by: awkwardcustomer on January 11, 2019, 02:18:14 PM
Quote from: Vetus Ordo on January 11, 2019, 11:31:35 AM
You can't have a succession of heretical popes and pretend Rome hasn't defected.

But you can have a succession of heretics pretending to be popes.

Quote
The promise associated with the fact that Rome cannot defect is the promise that the visible head of the Church will always be there until the end of time ....

This is the end of time, or the beginning of the end.

Vatican II is the revolt prophesied by St Paul and the pope is 'one who holds', who has to be 'taken out of the way' before the Antichrist comes.

Thus the Church hasn't defected and Her claims are proved.

(2Thess:2)
Title: Re: Martyrdom or suicide?
Post by: Kreuzritter on January 11, 2019, 03:06:32 PM
Quote from: christulsa on January 06, 2019, 06:58:54 PM
Conclusion: no, going Eastern Orthodox isn't a safe haven during this dark age in Christian history.

For those who think everything's rosily traddy in Eastern Orhtodoxy:

Met. Kallistos Ware Comes Out for Homosexual "Marriage"
https://www.orthodoxytoday.org/blog/2018/06/kallistos-ware-comes-out-for-homosexual-marriage/ (https://www.orthodoxytoday.org/blog/2018/06/kallistos-ware-comes-out-for-homosexual-marriage/)
Title: Re: Martyrdom or suicide?
Post by: Vetus Ordo on January 11, 2019, 03:08:59 PM
Quote from: Stubborn on January 11, 2019, 12:51:51 PMThe defection of a pope does not mean that the Church's head is cut off resulting in it's death or defection, because the pope is only the visible head. No matter what else happens, we know that the Church on earth will live on until the end of time - that, coming directly from Our Lord,  *is* de fide. This fact is foundational to our faith and is never called into question.

The Church on earth will live on until the end of time with the Pope as her head.

There can be no Church without the Pope. But if the Pope is a heretic, he cannot be the head of a body he does not belong to.

Quote from: Stubborn on January 11, 2019, 12:51:51 PM
Our Lady of La Salette said that Rome will lose the faith, so where are you getting this dogma that says the exact opposite? Please post your source.

Our Lady of La Salette is not a source of dogma.

Let us turn to Suárez, instead. In his famous Defense of the Catholic and Apostolic Faith against the Errors of Anglicanism, chap. 5, we read:

QuoteWhen the meaning of the words, then, is made plain and understood in this fashion, we say that the faith of the Roman Church is the Catholic Faith, and the Roman Church has not defected and could not defect therefrom, because of the Chair of Peter present in it. This assertion we propose as certain and necessary in the Catholic Faith, and we collect it from the divine Scripture as follows: the faith of Peter was Catholic and could not defect; but the faith of the Roman Church is the faith of Peter; therefore the faith of the Roman Church is the Catholic Faith, from which that See can never defect. The argumentation is legitimate, but the individual propositions assumed in it need to be proved. The first part, then, is known of itself, namely that the faith of Peter was Catholic; for, if it is understood of the person of Peter, it is not brought into doubt even by heretics; for the faith of Peter was what has been preached to the whole world from the beginning; and it most of all is apostolic and primitive. But if it be understood of the See of Peter, even the Protestants themselves confess that for many years the same Catholic Faith endured in the same See of Peter, and Jerome and Augustine sufficiently testify to the fact up to their own times, the former in his epistle to Damasus about the name 'hypostasis', and the latter in his book Contra Epistolam Fundamenti, ch.4, where, among the four things that were most justly keeping him in the bosom of the Catholic Church, he numbers this one: "From the See itself of Peter the apostle, to whom the Lord after his resurrection commended the feeding of his sheep, the succession of priests up to the present bishop." Where he openly supposes that the Catholic Church was then the one which was conjoined with the See of Peter and which contained the sheep commended to Peter, and hence that the Catholic Faith had persisted in that See up to his time, which will be confirmed in the point following by many testimonies and reasons.

5. It remains, therefore, for us to prove the second part assumed in the proposition, namely that this faith could not defect in Peter, not only as to his person but also as to his see, and consequently not only for some definite time but simply as long as the Church of Christ will last. Now the proof is chiefly from the words of Christ, Luke 22.31-32: "Simon, Simon, behold, Satan hath desired to have you, that he may sift you as wheat: But I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not: and when thou art converted, strengthen they brethren." For rightly did Tertullian
say, bk. De Fuga in Persecut., ch.22, that Christ had there asked that the devil not be permitted so much that Peter's faith should be in peril. Which prayer was efficacious and obtained what
was asked for, as is sufficiently proved by the excellence of Christ himself, for he was heard for his reverence in those things which he requested absolutely, as is made plain in the present case
by the words: "I have prayed for thee;" and it is made more plain, or rather the granting of the prayer and its infallible effect is supposed in those last words: "And when thou art converted,
strengthen thy brethren."
And therefore does Pope Leo IX well ask: "Will there be anyone of such great madness as to dare to think that his prayer, in whom to will is to be able, is in any respect vain?" So there is in this part almost no controversy or difficulty. But there could be difficulty in another point, namely whether that prayer was made only for the person of Peter, and therefore whether its effect ended with him or rather was made for the See of Peter in his person and will thus last as long as the See lasts; therefore what remains is for us to prove that it must be understood in the second way.

We prove it in the first place from the authority of many Supreme Pontiffs, who, recognizing this prerogative of their dignity and of their See, proved it from these words of Christ, and though they seem to speak in their own cause yet they are most worthy of trust, both because they are very old and taught this as by continuous tradition, and also because many of them are saints and martyrs who sealed the true and Catholic Faith with their blood, and finally because the most ancient Fathers bestowed the same honor on the Roman See and Faith. So, the above testimony is used to confirm this truth by Pope Lucius in his epistle to the bishops of Gaul and Spain, near the end, where he says that his See holds unerring the norm of the apostolic faith as it received it from its own authors, the princes of the apostles of Christ, according to the divine promise of our Savior, and he refers to the words cited. Like things are contained in Pope Marcus' epistle to Athanasius, which is in vol.1 of the Epistles, although it is not referred to in the volumes of the Councils, and in Felix I's epistle 3 to Benignus, and in Pope Agatho's epistle to the emperor Constantine, which was read in act.4 of the Sixth Synod, and was approved in act.8, and in Nicholas I's epistle to the emperor Michael, after the middle, and in Leo IX's epistle to Michael, ch.7, and in Innocent III, ch. 'Maiores', De Baptismo. But more fully than by the others is this point made plain by Pope Leo, in serm.2, In Natali Petri et Pauli, ch.3, where, after having set down the words of the Gospel, he subjoins: "The danger was common to all the apostles from their trial by fear, and they had equal need of the help of divine protection, since the devil desired to attack them all, to destroy them all; and yet a special care is taken up by Christ for Peter, and he prays in particular for Peter's faith, as if the state of the others would be surer if the mind of the Prince were not conquered. In Peter, therefore, the courage of all is fortified, and the help of divine grace is so ordered that the firmness, which is bestowed through Christ on Peter, is through Peter conferred on the apostles. For after his resurrection too the Lord, after the keys of the kingdom, said three times with mystical insinuation to the blessed apostle Peter to each of his three professions of eternal love: 'Feed my sheep;' which duty even now the pious pastor without doubt does, and performs the mandate of the Lord, confirming us with exhortations and not ceasing to pray for us, that we not be overcome by any temptation." Which words are repeated by the same Pontiff in sermon 3 De Assumptione Sua, and he adds: "Justly do we rejoice in the merits and dignity of our leader, giving thanks to the eternal Redeemer King, our Lord Jesus Christ, who gave so much power to him whom he made prince of the whole Church, that if anything even in our times is rightly done through us, it is to be assigned to his work, to his governance, to whom it was said: 'And when thou art converted, strengthen thy brethren.'"

6. From these words are other reasons collected by which this sense is confirmed. One is taken from a change in Christ's words; for first he spoke to all the apostles, predicting that almost all were to be tempted; but afterwards he says especially to Peter: "I have prayed for thee;" therefore he also obtained something special for him. But personal perseverance was not unique to Peter, for Christ prayed for the others too, saying, John 17.11: "Holy Father, keep through thine own name those whom thou hast given me." And although at the time, when he prayed for Peter, he had not yet offered that universal prayer, nevertheless there would have been no peculiar favor for Peter unless he had requested some more special privilege for him. But Christ, in that singular way of calling Peter so that he would pay heed, "Simon, Simon," (for such is what the Greek has), and of praying for him, wished without doubt to signify a greater prerogative. Nay, if the thing is attentively considered, in each place Christ the Lord prayed for Peter and for all the apostles and for the Universal Church present and future, but yet in a diverse way; for in the writing of John he first expressly prayed for all the apostles, of whom Peter was one and special, and in them was the Church virtually contained, for whose sake was that prayer especially made which a little later Christ completed when he said, v.20-21: "Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word: That they all may be one," namely with the unity of the Faith and of the Catholic Church. In the writing of Luke, however, Christ directly and expressly prayed for Peter alone, but indirectly and by a certain consequence he prayed also for the other apostles, as he indicated in the subjoined words: "And when thou art converted, strengthen thy brethren.""So that the firmness which is bestowed through Christ on Peter is through Peter conferred on the apostles," as we related a little above from Pope Leo. And hence that prayer is extended to the whole Church, which is also comprehended under the name of brothers, as Theophylact indicated on that place, saying: "The sense is plain: Because I have you as Prince of the disciples, when, having denied me, you have wept and come to repentance, confirm the rest. For this befits you, who after me are the rock and foundation of the Church." Hence Pope Agatho above said: "The Lord promised that Peter's faith would not fail, and he admonished him to confirm his brothers, which that the Apostolic Pontiffs, predecessors to my littleness, always confidently did, is acknowledged by all." And Leo IX above indicated the same sense when he said: "From the See of the Prince of the apostles, that is from the Roman Church, as well through Peter himself as through his successors, the inventions of all the heretics have been rebuked, convicted, conquered, and the hearts of the brothers in the faith of Peter, which hitherto has not failed nor will it ever fail, are strengthened."

7. Hence, from these last words the sense of the first promise is made more open, and another very fine reason for the aforesaid interpretation is given. For thus is Peter here commanded to confirm his brothers as he is ordered in John 21 to feed Christ's sheep; for they who are here called brothers and there sheep are the same; but there they are called sheep on account of the mildness and obedience of subjects, but here they are called brothers so as to show that the duty of an ecclesiastical pastor is not to dominate but to confirm as brothers those who are weaker, "of a ready mind...being ensamples to the flock," as the same Peter said, 1 Peter 5.2-3. Just as, therefore, "feed my sheep," was said, not to Simon for his person alone but to Peter for the office which was conferred on him, that it might endure in his successors, so when it is said to him, "strengthen thy brethren," a certain chief part of that office is signified in advance, which is to strengthen and as it were sustain the brothers and the Church in the true faith; for although this is done principally by divine virtue, yet this virtue uses man as instrument, so that it might govern men in the way that is fitted to men. And although others, pastors and doctors of the Church, cooperate therein by teaching and preaching, nevertheless to supply it by legitimate and ordinary power, and by an authority that is certain, discriminating the false from the true, condemning heresies, and defining Catholic doctrine, is proper to him to whom it was said: "Strengthen thy brethren." Hence, just as this office is necessary in the Church for the preservation of the true faith, so those words were said to Peter by reason of a pastoral office that was going to flow perpetually into the Church and to endure there always; therefore too the first promise, "that thy faith fail not," was made, not merely to the person, but to the office and See of Peter. For that is why Christ specially prayed for him and gained that privilege for him, because the office of strengthening the brethren required that help on the part of God; therefore, as the office was going to be perpetual in the See of Peter, so also the privilege. And all this is signified by Leo I in those words: "He prays in particular for Peter's faith, as if the state of the others would be surer if the mind of the Prince is not conquered," and in the other authors whom we referred to above. And more openly Theophylact, after he has said: "because I have you as Prince of the disciples...confirm the rest," adds: "But one may understand that it was said not only about the apostles, that they were confirmed by Peter, but about all who will be the faithful up to the end of the age." Which although he seems afterwards to expound it by way of example, because in the person of Peter it preceded his weeping for his offense and remains perpetually in the memories of men, yet Christ did not speak of example but of confirmation by the word of faith, and therefore the better understanding is that this is done perpetually through the see of Peter. And this truth and interpretation of the promise can be made more fully firm by comparison of this place with the others on which the primacy of Peter is founded. Which is also signified by Leo I in the cited words when he compares these words, "Strengthen thy brethren," with those, "Feed my sheep;" which comparison we have already clarified. Hence although this promise be not so clear, we would collect sufficiently from the sole office of feeding the sheep of Christ in the doctrine of the faith that this privilege in the See of Peter is necessary. Because if in that See the faith could waver, the faith could be in danger in the whole Church of Christ, both because the Church is bound to obey Peter and his successors when they teach from his chair (as is collected from the words of Christ mentioned, because the first and most necessary food of the faithful is the true doctrine of faith), and also because otherwise there would not be a sure reason for discriminating true doctrine from false in the Church, and thus the faithful could not be confirmed, let alone confirmed unshaken in the Catholic Faith. Which reason we will urge more in what follows. And this truth is similarly confirmed by the other promise of Christ: "Upon this rock I will build my Church," for that rock is Peter and his successors, as we will show below. But he is called rock because of his firmness in holding up the building, and therefore, as the building of the Church is going to be perpetual, so the rock is too, that it might be suited for holding up the building. Therefore, just as the Church could not be perpetual unless its faith could not fail, so neither would the rock be suited, nor have the firmness, for holding up the building if it could fail in the faith. And therefore rightly did Origen say, tract.1, on Matthew: "Neither against the rock, on which Christ builds his Church, nor against the Church itself, will the gates of hell prevail." And Cyril in Thesaurus (as cited in the Catena of St. Thomas on Matthew 16) said: "According to this promise of the Lord, the Apostolic Church of Peter (that is the Roman Church) remains immaculate from all seduction and heretical trickery, over all leaders, and bishops, and over all primates of the churches and of the peoples, in its Pontiffs, in the fullness of faith and authority of Peter. And although other churches may be put to shame by the error of certain people, it reigns alone unshaken, etc." Which words, though they are not now found in Cyril's Thesaurus, are very trustworthy on the basis of the authority of St. Thomas.

Quote from: Stubborn on January 11, 2019, 12:51:51 PM
And yes, all the conciliar popes have preached heresy, which only demonstrates that 1) popes are not the Church, 2) popes can preach heresy, 3) in spite of that, the Church is still here, 4) in spite of that, the Church has not been defeated.

I'm not sure you appreciate the gravity of the situation. According to traditional understanding, there can be no Church without the pope. If the pope should preach heresy, he would be ipso facto deposed, as per Bellarmine. To have five consecutive heretical popes unchallenged preaching heresy, along with the whole episcopal body of the Church, is unthinkable. It amounts to defection. Unless, of course, they're not heretics and the tridentine faith could legitimately be reformed.
Title: Re: Martyrdom or suicide?
Post by: Vetus Ordo on January 11, 2019, 03:15:22 PM
Quote from: awkwardcustomer on January 11, 2019, 02:18:14 PM
But you can have a succession of heretics pretending to be popes.

Of course.

But alongside that succession of heretics pretending to be popes, we have to have true popes as well. The hierarchical and jurisdictional Church cannot simply disappear out of sight and be taken over by heretics. The Church must be visible and recognizable as such until the end of time.

Quote from: awkwardcustomer on January 11, 2019, 02:18:14 PM
This is the end of time, or the beginning of the end.

Vatican II is the revolt prophesied by St Paul and the pope is 'one who holds', who has to be 'taken out of the way' before the Antichrist comes.

Thus the Church hasn't defected and Her claims are proved.

(2Thess:2)

Although I sympathize, I'm afraid this is simply your interpretation of the current events. The apocalypse has been predicted many times in the past but the earth kept spinning around.

Someday it will surely come but "as a thief in the night" (1 Thessalonians 5:2).
Title: Re: Martyrdom or suicide?
Post by: Kreuzritter on January 11, 2019, 03:47:33 PM
Quote from: Vetus Ordo on January 11, 2019, 03:15:22 PM
Quote from: awkwardcustomer on January 11, 2019, 02:18:14 PM
But you can have a succession of heretics pretending to be popes.

Of course.

But alongside that succession of heretics pretending to be popes, we have to have true popes as well. The hierarchical and jurisdictional Church cannot simply disappear out of sight and be taken over by heretics. The Church must be visible and recognizable as such until the end of time.

Quote from: awkwardcustomer on January 11, 2019, 02:18:14 PM
This is the end of time, or the beginning of the end.

Vatican II is the revolt prophesied by St Paul and the pope is 'one who holds', who has to be 'taken out of the way' before the Antichrist comes.

Thus the Church hasn't defected and Her claims are proved.

(2Thess:2)

Although I sympathize, I'm afraid this is simply your interpretation of the current events. The apocalypse has been predicted many times in the past but the earth kept spinning around.

Someday it will surely come but "as a thief in the night" (1 Thessalonians 5:2).

So your point is what? You maintain that

1. We can't have had a succession of heretic popes.
2. We can't have had a long interregnum without popes.
3. The teaching of the post-Vatican II church is not the teaching of the pre-Vatican II church.

Well, if all three of these are true, then either Catholicism is wrong or you're wrong.

Title: Re: Martyrdom or suicide?
Post by: awkwardcustomer on January 11, 2019, 04:05:44 PM
Quote from: Vetus Ordo on January 11, 2019, 03:15:22 PM
Quote from: awkwardcustomer on January 11, 2019, 02:18:14 PM
But you can have a succession of heretics pretending to be popes.

Of course.

But alongside that succession of heretics pretending to be popes, we have to have true popes as well. The hierarchical and jurisdictional Church cannot simply disappear out of sight and be taken over by heretics. The Church must be visible and recognizable as such until the end of time.

Quote from: awkwardcustomer on January 11, 2019, 02:18:14 PM
This is the end of time, or the beginning of the end.

Vatican II is the revolt prophesied by St Paul and the pope is 'one who holds', who has to be 'taken out of the way' before the Antichrist comes.

Thus the Church hasn't defected and Her claims are proved.

(2Thess:2)

Although I sympathize, I'm afraid this is simply your interpretation of the current events. The apocalypse has been predicted many times in the past but the earth kept spinning around.

Someday it will surely come but "as a thief in the night" (1 Thessalonians 5:2).

The apocalypse will come 'as a thief in the night' to those who aren't expecting it, because that's how thieves in the night come, unexpectedly.  But Scripture also provides signs that the apocalypse is near, for those that might hear them.

According to St Paul, before the 'Son of Perdition' comes, there has to be a revolt and the taking out of the way of 'the one who holds'.  You've come out with the very familiar dismissal that many people have predicted the apocalypse before and they've all been wrong.  But this doesn't address the argument.

I've been hoping for some time that someone will provide a reasonable argument as to why Vatican II is not the revolt.  But no-one has.  Perhaps you can.

You must at least agree that if Vatican II is the revolt, and if the Chair of Peter is empty because the one who holds has been taken out of the way, then the problems you cite are solved.

So come on, explain why Vatican II is not the revolt.
Title: Re: Martyrdom or suicide?
Post by: Kreuzritter on January 11, 2019, 04:12:24 PM
Either we can have heretic popes or we can't, and if we can't, either we don't have any popes or those we have aren't heretics. If they aren't heretics, then either the teaching has not been substantially changed or, the faith having changed, the Church has contradicted itself on that very point. But, even if Vatican II might be twisted into an orthodox reading, it's a patent fact that the religion of Francis I is not that of any pope before the council, unless you believe in square circles and 2 added to 2 giving 5.

It's moot to me, because I didn't sign up for the religion of current Roman hierarchy in the first place. I would never have converted to it in the first place, and I would sooner reject the doctrine of the Papacy than subscribe to a religion which I hate. So even if Francis turns out to be a genuine Pope, it doesn't affect the substance and practice of my faith, and since "heresy" has lost all meaning if the faith of revelation is mutable into the faith of Satanic novelty, I don't give two hoots about it.
Title: Re: Martyrdom or suicide?
Post by: Kreuzritter on January 11, 2019, 04:20:14 PM
Quote from: awkwardcustomer on January 11, 2019, 04:05:44 PM
Quote from: Vetus Ordo on January 11, 2019, 03:15:22 PM
Quote from: awkwardcustomer on January 11, 2019, 02:18:14 PM
But you can have a succession of heretics pretending to be popes.

Of course.

But alongside that succession of heretics pretending to be popes, we have to have true popes as well. The hierarchical and jurisdictional Church cannot simply disappear out of sight and be taken over by heretics. The Church must be visible and recognizable as such until the end of time.

Quote from: awkwardcustomer on January 11, 2019, 02:18:14 PM
This is the end of time, or the beginning of the end.

Vatican II is the revolt prophesied by St Paul and the pope is 'one who holds', who has to be 'taken out of the way' before the Antichrist comes.

Thus the Church hasn't defected and Her claims are proved.

(2Thess:2)

Although I sympathize, I'm afraid this is simply your interpretation of the current events. The apocalypse has been predicted many times in the past but the earth kept spinning around.

Someday it will surely come but "as a thief in the night" (1 Thessalonians 5:2).

The apocalypse will come 'as a thief in the night' to those who aren't expecting it, because that's how thieves in the night come, unexpectedly.  But Scripture also provides signs that the apocalypse is near, for those that might hear them.

According to St Paul, before the 'Son of Perdition' comes, there has to be a revolt and the taking out of the way of 'the one who holds'.  You've come out with the very familiar dismissal that many people have predicted the apocalypse before and they've all been wrong.  But this doesn't address the argument.

I've been hoping for some time that someone will provide a reasonable argument as to why Vatican II is not the revolt.  But no-one has.  Perhaps you can.

You must at least agree that if Vatican II is the revolt, and if the Chair of Peter is empty because the one who holds has been taken out of the way, then the problems you cite are solved.

So come on, explain why Vatican II is not the revolt.

Bickering over whether or not Vatican II is reconcilable to tradiiton is moot now. Old hat. Yesterday's news. Because it is undeniable that Francis, the current claimant to the Papacy, along with much of the visible hierarchy, believes, practices and teaches a different religion to the historical one of the Roman church.
Title: Re: Martyrdom or suicide?
Post by: james03 on January 11, 2019, 04:51:04 PM
Quote from:  Pope Paul IV6. In addition, [by this Our Constitution, which is to remain valid in perpetuity We enact,
determine, decree and define:-] that if ever at any time it shall appear that any Bishop,
even if he be acting as an Archbishop, Patriarch or Primate; or any Cardinal of the
aforesaid Roman Church, or, as has already been mentioned, any legate, or even the
Roman Pontiff
, prior to his promotion or his elevation as Cardinal or Roman Pontiff,
has deviated from the Catholic Faith or fallen into some heresy:
(i) the promotion or elevation, even if it shall have been uncontested and by the
unanimous assent of all the Cardinals, shall be null, void and worthless;
(ii) it shall not be possible for it to acquire validity (nor for it to be said that it has thus
acquired validity) through the acceptance of the office, of consecration, of subsequent
authority, nor through possession of administration, nor through the putative
enthronement of a Roman Pontiff, or Veneration, or obedience accorded to such by all,
nor through the lapse of any period of time in the foregoing situation;
(iii) it shall not be held as partially legitimate in any way...
(vi) those thus promoted or elevated shall be deprived automatically, and without need
for any further declaration, of all dignity, position, honour, title, authority, office and
power...
10. No one at all, therefore, may infringe this document of our approbation, reintroduction,
sanction, statute and derogation of wills and decrees, or by rash
presumption contradict it. If anyone, however, should presume to attempt this, let him
know that he is destined to incur the wrath of Almighty God and of the blessed Apostles,
Peter and Paul

Francis has been publicly challenged twice for error and has refused to recant.  He's an heretic.  I believe he has also promulgated heresy in the AAS.  This publication of course is null and void.  We are in the hour of decision.  I expect a major schism soon.  We shall see.
Title: Re: Martyrdom or suicide?
Post by: james03 on January 11, 2019, 04:52:51 PM
QuoteFor those who think everything's rosily traddy in Eastern Orhtodoxy:

I always find it ironic:  Francis has stated that the divorced can remarry.  That is heresy.  We should join the Eastern Orthodox where it is taught you can divorce and remarry.  Come again?
Title: Re: Martyrdom or suicide?
Post by: Vetus Ordo on January 11, 2019, 04:53:26 PM
Quote from: Kreuzritter on January 11, 2019, 03:47:33 PM
Quote from: Vetus Ordo on January 11, 2019, 03:15:22 PM
Quote from: awkwardcustomer on January 11, 2019, 02:18:14 PM
But you can have a succession of heretics pretending to be popes.

Of course.

But alongside that succession of heretics pretending to be popes, we have to have true popes as well. The hierarchical and jurisdictional Church cannot simply disappear out of sight and be taken over by heretics. The Church must be visible and recognizable as such until the end of time.

Quote from: awkwardcustomer on January 11, 2019, 02:18:14 PM
This is the end of time, or the beginning of the end.

Vatican II is the revolt prophesied by St Paul and the pope is 'one who holds', who has to be 'taken out of the way' before the Antichrist comes.

Thus the Church hasn't defected and Her claims are proved.

(2Thess:2)

Although I sympathize, I'm afraid this is simply your interpretation of the current events. The apocalypse has been predicted many times in the past but the earth kept spinning around.

Someday it will surely come but "as a thief in the night" (1 Thessalonians 5:2).

So your point is what? You maintain that

1. We can't have had a succession of heretic popes.
2. We can't have had a long interregnum without popes.
3. The teaching of the post-Vatican II church is not the teaching of the pre-Vatican II church.

Well, if all three of these are true, then either Catholicism is wrong or you're wrong.

My point is that there is an inherent paradox when it comes to Traditional Catholicism.

Can it be solved? I don't know. I would hope so.

Traditional Catholics are the standard-bearers of a faith that, as far as a few substantial points of doctrine and practice, the Church no longer believes in. But the validity of their cause depends upon a Church that no longer exists, except for a few stoic strongholds. There's a romantic appeal to it, to be sure, but also a paradox that defies understanding and silences the heart.
Title: Re: Martyrdom or suicide?
Post by: Vetus Ordo on January 11, 2019, 04:57:31 PM
Quote from: awkwardcustomer on January 11, 2019, 04:05:44 PM
So come on, explain why Vatican II is not the revolt.

Well, for starters, we can't suppose the apocalyptic revolt to be the direct product of the vicar of Christ and the whole episcopal body of the Church. In other words, for Vatican II to be the revolt, the Church herself would have to be the instrumental means of Satan.

Unless Ecumenical Councils and the ordinary magisterium of the Church and Popes are fallible. Or unless Traditional Tridentine Catholicism needed legitimate reform.

The cat is pretty much out of the bag now.
Title: Re: Martyrdom or suicide?
Post by: Kreuzritter on January 11, 2019, 05:51:56 PM
Quote from: Vetus Ordo on January 11, 2019, 04:57:31 PM
Quote from: awkwardcustomer on January 11, 2019, 04:05:44 PM
So come on, explain why Vatican II is not the revolt.

Well, for starters, we can't suppose the apocalyptic revolt to be the direct product of the vicar of Christ and the whole episcopal body of the Church. In other words, for Vatican II to be the revolt, the Church herself would have to be the instrumental means of Satan.

Unless Ecumenical Councils and the ordinary magisterium of the Church and Popes are fallible. Or unless Traditional Tridentine Catholicism needed legitimate reform.

The cat is pretty much out of the bag now.

Maybe, but if Frankie's cult isn't the abomination of desolation, I sure as hell don't want to be around for the real one.
Title: Re: Martyrdom or suicide?
Post by: james03 on January 11, 2019, 05:53:27 PM
QuoteThe cat is pretty much out of the bag now.
Yeah, we agree on that, this is the hour of decision.

If things continue, then I'd throw in with some sort of conservative Orthodox sect, since no matter where I turned, I'd have divorce preached as allowable.  That would be a tough pill to swallow.  Or maybe join up with some obscure Trad sect that keeps with the Faith for 100's of years from now.  Then you have the problem of visibility.

Or you see the schism, or perhaps the SSPX continues, but we get the Great Reset and my last moments on Earth are characterized by a drunken rant in London standing next to Greg yelling, "Die you faggots, the end is nigh" right before the great flash of nuclear light.  Then with 1/3 of the population fried, the Trads band together and elect a new Pope.  I actually think something like this is coming.  When the US explodes due to the debt bomb, and China explodes due to their horrendous financial condition (they make the US look responsible), and of course Europe with its huge debt problem, I expect WWIII to break out.  We'll see.
Title: Re: Martyrdom or suicide?
Post by: awkwardcustomer on January 11, 2019, 06:05:53 PM
Quote from: Vetus Ordo on January 11, 2019, 04:57:31 PM
Quote from: awkwardcustomer on January 11, 2019, 04:05:44 PM
So come on, explain why Vatican II is not the revolt.

Well, for starters, we can't suppose the apocalyptic revolt to be the direct product of the vicar of Christ and the whole episcopal body of the Church. In other words, for Vatican II to be the revolt, the Church herself would have to be the instrumental means of Satan.

But can we suppose the apocalyptic revolt to be the direct result of the vicar of Christ having been taken out of the way?

And if Vatican II is the revolt, then it is those who have revolted who are the instrumental means of Satan.

Meanwhile, the Church remains quite herself.
Title: Re: Martyrdom or suicide?
Post by: Vetus Ordo on January 11, 2019, 06:12:59 PM
Quote from: awkwardcustomer on January 11, 2019, 06:05:53 PM
Quote from: Vetus Ordo on January 11, 2019, 04:57:31 PM
Quote from: awkwardcustomer on January 11, 2019, 04:05:44 PM
So come on, explain why Vatican II is not the revolt.

Well, for starters, we can't suppose the apocalyptic revolt to be the direct product of the vicar of Christ and the whole episcopal body of the Church. In other words, for Vatican II to be the revolt, the Church herself would have to be the instrumental means of Satan.

But can we suppose the apocalyptic revolt to be the direct result of the vicar of Christ having been taken out of the way?

And if Vatican II is the revolt, then it is those who have revolted who are the instrumental means of Satan.

Meanwhile, the Church remains quite herself.

If Vatican II is the revolt, then the institutional jurisdictional Church has disappeared from the face of the earth.

The vicar of Christ can't be taken out of the way. There must be a legitimate reigning pope until the end of times. A visible head of the Church shining in the darkness, identifiable to all who believe. And by pope, I don't mean Pope Michael in his mother's garage. I mean a legitimate bishop of Rome.
Title: Re: Martyrdom or suicide?
Post by: Michael Wilson on January 11, 2019, 06:26:04 PM
There doesn't have to be a Pope reigning every moment in time, there is a interregnum each time a Pope dies; there was once an interregnum of 3 years between elections. Also a theologian of the 19th C. Writing on the history of the Great Western Schism, stated that there was no reason that a future crisis could happen and the Church would be without a visible head for 40 years (I just can't remember who that was at this moment).
Title: Re: Martyrdom or suicide?
Post by: Vetus Ordo on January 11, 2019, 06:50:06 PM
Quote from: Michael Wilson on January 11, 2019, 06:26:04 PM
There doesn't have to be a Pope reigning every moment in time, there is a interregnum each time a Pope dies; there was once an interregnum of 3 years between elections. Also a theologian of the 19th C. Writing on the history of the Great Western Schism, stated that there was no reason that a future crisis could happen and the Church would be without a visible head for 40 years (I just can't remember who that was at this moment).

I understand.

However, the circumstances are not the same. Even if we grant the point that there is a legal loophole in the absence of a defined time limit for an interregnum, we can easily discern that an interregnum cannot be prolonged for a huge amount of time, say decades, without violating the spirit of the law, the constitution of the Church. In other words, the Church is supposed to have a visible head.

But the major problem when equating the present situation with, for instance, the Great Western Schism is that during that Schism you did not have the whole episcopal body and a succession of popes, recognized by the whole Church, teaching heresy. Even if it was difficult to pinpoint which Pope was the valid one during those years, it was not a matter of faith and morals but of fact. There were rival claimants to the papacy, backed by different cardinals and kings, but all of them orthodox, at least on the surface. The head of the Church was there, either in Rome or Avignon, even if the confusion could not be solved right away. It was not a period without any visible head whatsoever, or with a pope hiding in the catacombs. During the Great Western Schism, only one line was valid. The Church did not suffer a 40 year interregnum. There was always a legitimate Pope.

Nowadays, however, there are no other claimants to the papacy except the liberals sitting in the Vatican.

What we've had since the Vatican II is completely unprecedented and cannot be solved by simple analogy with past events in history.
Title: Re: Martyrdom or suicide?
Post by: awkwardcustomer on January 11, 2019, 06:51:47 PM
Quote from: Vetus Ordo on January 11, 2019, 06:12:59 PM
If Vatican II is the revolt, then the institutional jurisdictional Church has disappeared from the face of the earth.

The vicar of Christ can't be taken out of the way. There must be a legitimate reigning pope until the end of times. A visible head of the Church shining in the darkness, identifiable to all who believe. And by pope, I don't mean Pope Michael in his mother's garage. I mean a legitimate bishop of Rome.

What if we're at the end of times?

Why would the Son of Perdition make his appearance at a time when the Church strong and flourishing in the world? Surely a massive attack on the Church from within made possible by taking the Vicar of Christ out of the way would first have to be planned and executed in order for his agents to prepare a way for him.  It makes sense that the Church would have to be reduced to her present state.

Is the end of times a process or an event?
Title: Re: Martyrdom or suicide?
Post by: awkwardcustomer on January 11, 2019, 06:53:49 PM
Quote from: Vetus Ordo on January 11, 2019, 06:50:06 PM
What we've had since the Vatican II is completely unprecedented and cannot be solved by simple analogy with past events in history.

That's right.  And it can only be solved by thinking outside the current box.
Title: Re: Martyrdom or suicide?
Post by: awkwardcustomer on January 11, 2019, 06:55:46 PM
edit
Title: Re: Martyrdom or suicide?
Post by: Vetus Ordo on January 11, 2019, 07:00:05 PM
Quote from: awkwardcustomer on January 11, 2019, 06:51:47 PM
What if we're at the end of times?

What if we aren't?

You can't stake your whole faith on a mere interpretation of present events.

Quote from: awkwardcustomer on January 11, 2019, 06:51:47 PM
Why would the Son of Perdition make his appearance at a time when the Church strong and flourishing in the world? Surely a massive attack on the Church from within made possible by taking the Vicar of Christ out of the way would first have to be planned and executed in order for his agents to prepare a way for him. It makes sense that the Church would have to be reduced to her present state.

It makes no sense for the Church herself to defect, even in the end times. The Church can be attacked, heavily reduced in numbers, infiltrated by masons, etc., but cannot defect as such. Popes and Ecumenical Councils can't teach heresy even if the Antichrist is running the show. The Ordinary Magisterium of the Church can't go bonkers and have every sound Catholic second-guess what they teach. Unless, of course, we ditch all traditional catechisms.

Quote from: awkwardcustomer on January 11, 2019, 06:51:47 PM
Is the end of times a process or an event?

It's a process that culminates in an eschatological event: the Parousia.
Title: Re: Martyrdom or suicide?
Post by: awkwardcustomer on January 11, 2019, 07:37:34 PM
Quote from: Vetus Ordo on January 11, 2019, 07:00:05 PM
It makes no sense for the Church herself to defect, even in the end times. The Church can be attacked, heavily reduced in numbers, infiltrated by masons, etc., but cannot defect as such. Popes and Ecumenical Councils can't teach heresy even if the Antichrist is running the show. The Ordinary Magisterium of the Church can't go bonkers and have every sound Catholic second-guess what they teach. Unless, of course, we ditch all traditional catechisms.

The Church hasn't defected, that's the whole point.  Instead the Church has suffered a revolt instigated by a bunch of public heretics pretending to be popes. 

And the Ordinary Magisterium of the Church hasn't gone bonkers.  The Ordinary Magisterium has also been taken over by a bunch of public heretics.

Once sound Catholics realise this, they will stop trying to second-guess them.
Title: Re: Martyrdom or suicide?
Post by: Vetus Ordo on January 11, 2019, 07:44:08 PM
Quote from: awkwardcustomer on January 11, 2019, 07:37:34 PM
Quote from: Vetus Ordo on January 11, 2019, 07:00:05 PM
It makes no sense for the Church herself to defect, even in the end times. The Church can be attacked, heavily reduced in numbers, infiltrated by masons, etc., but cannot defect as such. Popes and Ecumenical Councils can't teach heresy even if the Antichrist is running the show. The Ordinary Magisterium of the Church can't go bonkers and have every sound Catholic second-guess what they teach. Unless, of course, we ditch all traditional catechisms.

The Church hasn't defected, that's the whole point.  Instead the Church has suffered a revolt instigated by a bunch of public heretics pretending to be popes. 

And the Ordinary Magisterium of the Church hasn't gone bonkers.  The Ordinary Magisterium has also been taken over by a bunch of public heretics.

Once sound Catholics realise this, they will stop trying to second-guess them.

Where is that Church you're speaking of?
Title: Re: Martyrdom or suicide?
Post by: awkwardcustomer on January 11, 2019, 08:03:52 PM
Quote from: Vetus Ordo on January 11, 2019, 07:44:08 PM
Quote from: awkwardcustomer on January 11, 2019, 07:37:34 PM
Quote from: Vetus Ordo on January 11, 2019, 07:00:05 PM
It makes no sense for the Church herself to defect, even in the end times. The Church can be attacked, heavily reduced in numbers, infiltrated by masons, etc., but cannot defect as such. Popes and Ecumenical Councils can't teach heresy even if the Antichrist is running the show. The Ordinary Magisterium of the Church can't go bonkers and have every sound Catholic second-guess what they teach. Unless, of course, we ditch all traditional catechisms.

The Church hasn't defected, that's the whole point.  Instead the Church has suffered a revolt instigated by a bunch of public heretics pretending to be popes. 

And the Ordinary Magisterium of the Church hasn't gone bonkers.  The Ordinary Magisterium has also been taken over by a bunch of public heretics.

Once sound Catholics realise this, they will stop trying to second-guess them.

Where is that Church you're speaking of?

There's a remnant left and the sacraments are still flowing.  Apart from that, I've no idea.  But your question doesn't really take account of the truly unprecedented times we are living in.

Instead, ask yourself this.  Where would you expect the Church to be in the days prior to the appearance of the Man of Sin?  Then look around and tell me that the current situation isn't ideal for him. 
Title: Re: Martyrdom or suicide?
Post by: awkwardcustomer on January 11, 2019, 08:06:59 PM
Quote from: james03 on January 11, 2019, 05:53:27 PM
When the US explodes due to the debt bomb, and China explodes due to their horrendous financial condition (they make the US look responsible), and of course Europe with its huge debt problem, I expect WWIII to break out.  We'll see.

Let's hope James isn't right.  It would be the perfect time.
Title: Re: Martyrdom or suicide?
Post by: james03 on January 11, 2019, 08:10:48 PM
QuoteIt makes no sense for the Church herself to defect, even in the end times. The Church can be attacked, heavily reduced in numbers, infiltrated by masons, etc., but cannot defect as such. Popes and Ecumenical Councils can't teach heresy even if the Antichrist is running the show. The Ordinary Magisterium of the Church can't go bonkers and have every sound Catholic second-guess what they teach. Unless, of course, we ditch all traditional catechisms.

This is a straw man argument.  Fr. Kramer (not the modern one) wrote his book about the Apocalypse circa 1930.  He discusses various interpretations which were ancient, including the Church "fleeing into the wilderness" and hiding out.  That the anti-Christ, or his prophet would be a pope claimant who would rule the institutional organization.

I'm not debating whether Fr. Kramer was correct in his interpretation or not.  I'm pointing out that it is A tradition that the papacy would fall and that the Church would become obscure, sort of like the SSPX.  Kramer wrote this back when if you suggested the upcoming Vee Poo you would have been thought of as insane, and he didn't invent this interpretation, but discusses the various debates among the Fathers and does settle on one interpretation as being the best.  For example, he accurately predicted the rise of Islam due to the mention of the river Euphrates.

If we aren't in the end times, I'd be surprised.  I can't imagine it getting even worse, and the persecution of Catholics (social medium banning, etc...) has only just barely begun.
Title: Re: Martyrdom or suicide?
Post by: james03 on January 11, 2019, 08:12:58 PM
QuoteLet's hope James isn't right.  It would be the perfect time.

Young man, it is generally a bad idea to doubt your elders.
Title: Re: Martyrdom or suicide?
Post by: Vetus Ordo on January 11, 2019, 08:13:26 PM
Quote from: awkwardcustomer on January 11, 2019, 08:03:52 PM
Quote from: Vetus Ordo on January 11, 2019, 07:44:08 PM
Quote from: awkwardcustomer on January 11, 2019, 07:37:34 PM
Quote from: Vetus Ordo on January 11, 2019, 07:00:05 PM
It makes no sense for the Church herself to defect, even in the end times. The Church can be attacked, heavily reduced in numbers, infiltrated by masons, etc., but cannot defect as such. Popes and Ecumenical Councils can't teach heresy even if the Antichrist is running the show. The Ordinary Magisterium of the Church can't go bonkers and have every sound Catholic second-guess what they teach. Unless, of course, we ditch all traditional catechisms.

The Church hasn't defected, that's the whole point.  Instead the Church has suffered a revolt instigated by a bunch of public heretics pretending to be popes. 

And the Ordinary Magisterium of the Church hasn't gone bonkers.  The Ordinary Magisterium has also been taken over by a bunch of public heretics.

Once sound Catholics realise this, they will stop trying to second-guess them.

Where is that Church you're speaking of?

There's a remnant left and the sacraments are still flowing. Apart from that, I've no idea.  But your question doesn't really take account of the truly unprecedented times we are living in.

Instead, ask yourself this.  Where would you expect the Church to be in the days prior to the appearance of the Man of Sin?  Then look around and tell me that the current situation isn't ideal for him.

The remnant Church has to possess a visible hierarchy headed by the Pope. Where is it? The SSPX with Francis as its head?

The Church in the days prior to the appearance of the Man of Sin will be heavily diminished in numbers but cannot be without a Pope. And by Pope I don't mean a liberal hippie like Bergoglio.
Title: Re: Martyrdom or suicide?
Post by: Vetus Ordo on January 11, 2019, 08:16:18 PM
Quote from: james03 on January 11, 2019, 08:10:48 PM
QuoteIt makes no sense for the Church herself to defect, even in the end times. The Church can be attacked, heavily reduced in numbers, infiltrated by masons, etc., but cannot defect as such. Popes and Ecumenical Councils can't teach heresy even if the Antichrist is running the show. The Ordinary Magisterium of the Church can't go bonkers and have every sound Catholic second-guess what they teach. Unless, of course, we ditch all traditional catechisms.

This is a straw man argument.  Fr. Kramer (not the modern one) wrote his book about the Apocalypse circa 1930.  He discusses various interpretations which were ancient, including the Church "fleeing into the wilderness" and hiding out.  That the anti-Christ, or his prophet would be a pope claimant who would rule the institutional organization.

Is it "straw man" to point out that the Church must possess a visible head until the end of times?

She can flee into the wilderness all she wants, hide in the catacombs, etc., but not without a Pope. Where is he?
Title: Re: Martyrdom or suicide?
Post by: james03 on January 11, 2019, 08:21:09 PM
QuoteIs it "straw man" to point out that the Church must possess a visible head until the end of times?

No, it is a personal opinion.  To suggest that believing the papacy will fall puts you in opposition to Church Tradition as your premise is however a straw man.  That the Chair would become the seat of anti-Christ has been discussed in the Church for a very long time.  It's even in Pope Leo's vision.  Yes, the opinion varies with some, maybe even most, denying it.  However no one has been denounced as an heretic for saying the papacy falls during the end times.
Title: Re: Martyrdom or suicide?
Post by: Vetus Ordo on January 11, 2019, 08:48:39 PM
Quote from: james03 on January 11, 2019, 08:21:09 PM
QuoteIs it "straw man" to point out that the Church must possess a visible head until the end of times?

No, it is a personal opinion.  To suggest that believing the papacy will fall puts you in opposition to Church Tradition as your premise is however a straw man.  That the Chair would become the seat of anti-Christ has been discussed in the Church for a very long time.  It's even in Pope Leo's vision.  Yes, the opinion varies with some, maybe even most, denying it.  However no one has been denounced as an heretic for saying the papacy falls during the end times.

The anti-Christ might sit in the papal chair but the papacy itself cannot fall.

There cannot be a time where the Church does not have a pope: St. Peter will have successors until the very end of time. This is part of the very nature of the Church which is unchangeable.

In Ludwig Ott's Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, Book Four, "The Doctrine of God the Sanctifier," Part 2: "The Church," Chap. 2: "The Constitution of the Church," Point 6: "The Primacy of Jurisdiction of the Pope," we read:

QuoteAccording to Christ's ordinance, Peter is to have successors in his Primacy over the whole Church and for all time. (De fide.)

The Vatican Council defined: Si quis dixerit, non esse ex ipsius Christi Domini institutione seu iure divino, ut beatus Petrus in primatu super universam Ecclesiam habeat perpetuos successores, A.S. If anyone denies that in virtue of the decree of Our Lord Christ Himself (i.e., by divine institution), Blessed Peter has perpetual successors in his Primacy over the Universal Church, let him be anathema. D 1825.

That the Primacy is to be perpetuated in the successors of Peter is, indeed, not expressly stated in the words of the promise and conferring of the Primacy by Our Lord, but it flows as an inference from the nature and purpose of the Primacy itself: As the function of the Primacy is to preserve the unity and solidarity of the Church; and as the Church, according to the will of her Divine Founder, is to continue substantially unchanged until the end of time for the perpetuation of the work of salvation, the Primacy also must be perpetuated. But Peter, like every other human being, was subject to death (John 21, 19), consequently his office must be transmitted to others. The structure of the Church cannot continue without the foundation which supports it (Mt. 16, 18): Christ's flock cannot exist without shepherds (John 21, 15-17).

Early on the Fathers expressed the thought that Peter lives on and works on in his successors. The Papal Legate Philippus, at the Council of Ephesus (43 I), declared: "This (Peter) lives and passes judgment up to the present day, and for ever, in his successors" (D 112, 1824). In a letter to Eutyches, St. Peter Chrysologus says of the Roman Pontiff: "The blessed Peter who on his Bishop's Chair lives on and leads the council, offers the true Faith to those that seek it" (With Leo, Ep. 25, 2). St. Leo the Great declared the Primacy to be a perpetual institution: "As that which Peter believed in Christ lives for ever, so also that which Christ instituted in Peter lives for ever" (Senno 3, 2).
Title: Re: Martyrdom or suicide?
Post by: christulsa on January 11, 2019, 09:53:39 PM
The Church has been without a pope since 2013.  That doesn't violate VI's teaching on perpetual successors.  :shrug:
Title: Re: Martyrdom or suicide?
Post by: Sempronius on January 11, 2019, 11:08:42 PM
I'm tempted by the thought of a faithful remnant left when anti-christ comes, but it says in the bible that even the elect will fall.. so there will be no one to trust
Title: Re: Martyrdom or suicide?
Post by: james03 on January 11, 2019, 11:25:29 PM
QuoteThere cannot be a time where the Church does not have a pope: St. Peter will have successors until the very end of time. This is part of the very nature of the Church which is unchangeable.

Premise 1:  The Church can have a false claimant Pope.
Support:  Paul IV discusses the topic in a Papal Bull.
Support:  Theologians, Suarez, Bellarmine, and Catalan in particular debate how this is resolved.  Bellarmine talks about the Tradition of this as if this is not novel.

Question:  You have this situation arise.  What happens during the period when this is getting sorted out?

My point:  We have that situation.  Bergoglio is not the Pope.  It is possible Benedict is still the Pope, or we don't currently have one.  If the former, that will get declared, and a new Pope will be elected after Pope Benedict dies.  If the latter, then we are in the end times.  I don't know for sure, but suspect that these are the end times.  The state of morality today would shock Sodom. 
Title: Re: Martyrdom or suicide?
Post by: Gardener on January 11, 2019, 11:31:33 PM
Quote from: Sempronius on January 11, 2019, 11:08:42 PM
I'm tempted by the thought of a faithful remnant left when anti-christ comes, but it says in the bible that even the elect will fall.. so there will be no one to trust

No. Christ is using hyperbole to show a hypothetical in potential, and specifically says, "[24] For there shall arise false Christs and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders, insomuch as to deceive (if possible) even the elect." - Matthew 24

"if possible" is the key phrase. It's not possible, because otherwise they would not be elect.

Catena Aurea has the following commentary from the Fathers:
QuoteGreg., Mor. xv, 61: When then Antichrist shall have wrought wonderful prodigies before the eyes of the carnal, he shall draw men after him, all such as delight in present goods, surrendering themselves irrevocably to his sway, "Insomuch that if it were possible the very elect should be led astray."

Origen: That, "If it were possible," is spoken hyperbolically; not that the elect can be led astray, but He wishes to shew that the discourse of heretics is often so persuasive, as to have force to prevail even with those who act [marg. note: al. audiunt] wisely.

Greg., Mor., xxxiii, 36: Or, because the heart of the elect is assailed with fearful thoughts, yet their faithfulness is not shaken, the Lord comprehends both under the same sentence, for to waver in thought is to err. He adds, "If it were possible," because it is not possible that the elect should be taken in error. [p. 819]

Raban.: He says not this because it is possible for the divine election to be defeated, but because they, who to men's judgment seemed elect, shall be led into error.

Greg., Hom. in Ev., xxxv, i: And as darts, when foreseen, are less likely to hit, He adds, "Lo, I have told you." Our Lord announces the woes which are to precede the destruction of the world, that when they come they may alarm the less from having been foreknown.
https://dhspriory.org/thomas/english/CAMatthew.htm#24
Title: Re: Martyrdom or suicide?
Post by: james03 on January 11, 2019, 11:35:41 PM
Let's review the particular authoritative teachings extracted from Ott:
QuoteIf anyone denies that in virtue of the decree of Our Lord Christ Himself (i.e., by divine institution), Blessed Peter has perpetual successors in his Primacy over the Universal Church, let him be anathema. D 1825.

St. Leo the Great declared the Primacy to be a perpetual institution: "As that which Peter believed in Christ lives for ever, so also that which Christ instituted in Peter lives for ever"

We'll ignore the case of Benedict still being the Pope, because then this doesn't matter.  So Benedict truly resigned without coercion (arguendo) and Bergoglio is a false claimant as he is an heretic.

Bergoglio is finally thrown out, and a new Pope Linus II is elected.  Was Church teaching violated?  Who is the successor of Pope Benedict?  Pope Linus II.

If you claim that due to a period of no Pope the Church ceased to exist, then you have a problem.  The Church ceased to exist after the death of St. Peter.  Or other periods where it took awhile to name a successor, like after the death of Pope Clement IV. 
Title: Re: Martyrdom or suicide?
Post by: christulsa on January 12, 2019, 12:55:00 AM
The end may be near, tbh. I myself don't think much about being in the end times so it's a lot for me to say that.  Time to live heroically if we aren't already, and get ready for the chastisement.

If perpetual papal successors are guaranteed, and if the Francis revolution most certainly will continue for decades ahead under future false pontificates, and if orthodox prelates most certainly will continue to refuse to establish a valid pope now, then either the end is near or the dogma will be proven an error (which of course it isn't).

Francis' invalid cardinals will elect an invalid Francis II...and so on. 

The kind of evil now prevalent in our society is so diabolical and beyond reason, I think the Fathers and Doctors of the Church would be overwhelmed how to even define its nature and dimensions. 
Title: Re: Martyrdom or suicide?
Post by: Sempronius on January 12, 2019, 01:41:14 AM
Re: Benedicts resignation. Its not enough to take his word for it that he wasnt forced to resign. Many times people dont know the motives that makes them act in a particular way. Why couldnt anybody say to him that he doesnt bloody need to travel all over the world to play congas with africans and pray with natives in Indonesia?
Title: Re: Martyrdom or suicide?
Post by: Stubborn on January 12, 2019, 04:28:35 AM
Quote from: Vetus Ordo on January 11, 2019, 03:08:59 PM
Quote from: Stubborn on January 11, 2019, 12:51:51 PMThe defection of a pope does not mean that the Church's head is cut off resulting in it's death or defection, because the pope is only the visible head. No matter what else happens, we know that the Church on earth will live on until the end of time - that, coming directly from Our Lord,  *is* de fide. This fact is foundational to our faith and is never called into question.

The Church on earth will live on until the end of time with the Pope as her head.

There can be no Church without the Pope. But if the Pope is a heretic, he cannot be the head of a body he does not belong to.

Reality proves this idea to be false because; 1) the Church exists and will until the end of time (unchangeable foundational truth) and 2) by all accounts, this pope and the previous 5 popes have all been heretics - and the expectation for the foreseeable future is more heretical popes. 



Quote from: Vetus Ordo on January 11, 2019, 03:08:59 PM
Quote from: Stubborn on January 11, 2019, 12:51:51 PM
Our Lady of La Salette said that Rome will lose the faith, so where are you getting this dogma that says the exact opposite? Please post your source.

Our Lady of La Salette is not a source of dogma.

Let us turn to Suárez, instead. In his famous Defense of the Catholic and Apostolic Faith against the Errors of Anglicanism, chap. 5, we read:

With or without the revelation from Our Lady, reality itself proves; 1) Rome has indeed lost the faith and 2) per the promise of Our Lord, the Church lives on regardless.

The simple answer is, reality proves the [alleged] revelation from Our Lady of La Salette to be true, and that same reality proves Suarez's speculations to be wrong.

It would be interesting to see, if Suarez lived in these days, what he would say. We can be pretty certain that his speculations would say something altogether different.


Quote from: Vetus Ordo on January 11, 2019, 03:08:59 PM
Quote from: Stubborn on January 11, 2019, 12:51:51 PM
And yes, all the conciliar popes have preached heresy, which only demonstrates that 1) popes are not the Church, 2) popes can preach heresy, 3) in spite of that, the Church is still here, 4) in spite of that, the Church has not been defeated.

I'm not sure you appreciate the gravity of the situation. According to traditional understanding, there can be no Church without the pope. If the pope should preach heresy, he would be ipso facto deposed, as per Bellarmine. To have five consecutive heretical popes unchallenged preaching heresy, along with the whole episcopal body of the Church, is unthinkable. It amounts to defection. Unless, of course, they're not heretics and the tridentine faith could legitimately be reformed.

People either have faith or they don't. They either have faith in, and believe Our Lord when He said that the Church will last until the end of time, or they have no faith and disbelieve Our Lord.

Whenever you read, or whenever anyone says "if "X" happens it would destroy the Church" or "the Church would defect if "X" were to happen," don't believe them because it is through faith that we know that the Church most certainly will remain until the end of time no matter what.

That is the faith's unchangeable, immovable and unalterable foundation, it is the base from which all arguments to the contrary fail before they even get started. We believe the Church will last till the end of time because Christ said it will. No matter what anyone of whatever dignity says, and no matter what else may happen in an attempt to shake that faith, we remain steadfast in our faith in the promise of Our Lord, because He said it. That is what faith is, we believe it because God said it, no matter what He said, in this case, He said the Church will last until the end of time.

If the pope is not the pope then so be it, it does not really matter one way or the other to me, and shouldn't really matter to other Catholics because our salvation is not dependent upon the status of the pope. We know the conciliar popes have been wrong in pretty much everything they said and did as regards the faith, we know we must not do those wrong things, they have not bound us to anything - quite the opposite. If the pope should ever bind or command us to do something not sinful, then, on account of his authority over us, we are bound to obey him, but we are never bound to obey him when by doing so would offend God.

So why all the drama about the popes' status? Because there can be no Church without the pope? Not true I say. God said the Church will last till the end of the world.

For the sake of argument however, *if* the Church cannot exist without the pope (having only provided a theological speculation, this is something which you have not proven to be true yet), then it can only mean the pope is still the pope -  because the Church exists.

Because the Church exists, the thing that it cannot prove, is that the pope is not the pope.
 
Title: Re: Martyrdom or suicide?
Post by: Kreuzritter on January 12, 2019, 05:02:06 AM
Quote from: Vetus Ordo on January 11, 2019, 08:16:18 PM
Quote from: james03 on January 11, 2019, 08:10:48 PM
QuoteIt makes no sense for the Church herself to defect, even in the end times. The Church can be attacked, heavily reduced in numbers, infiltrated by masons, etc., but cannot defect as such. Popes and Ecumenical Councils can't teach heresy even if the Antichrist is running the show. The Ordinary Magisterium of the Church can't go bonkers and have every sound Catholic second-guess what they teach. Unless, of course, we ditch all traditional catechisms.

This is a straw man argument.  Fr. Kramer (not the modern one) wrote his book about the Apocalypse circa 1930.  He discusses various interpretations which were ancient, including the Church "fleeing into the wilderness" and hiding out.  That the anti-Christ, or his prophet would be a pope claimant who would rule the institutional organization.

Is it "straw man" to point out that the Church must possess a visible head until the end of times?

She can flee into the wilderness all she wants, hide in the catacombs, etc., but not without a Pope. Where is he?

You and others repeat this over and over, and it contradicts reality. You insist popes must exist "in perpetuity", but it's an historical fact that this "perpetuity" is not a continuity in which the Church never exists without a pope: it is indisputable that the Church can and every so often does exist without any pope, and therefore it is indisputable that the existence of the Church is not ontologically dependent upon the existence of a pope. In a world in which logic ruled, this would mark the end of any discussion over whether Sedevacantism is a possibility, and weasly questions by those who cannot accept logic, about how long a Sedevacantist expects an interregnum can reasonably last, or how they expect we can get a new pope, demonstrate nothing at all except that the Church, rightly since it is not a matter of revelation, has made no pronouncement on this.

Yes, the lengthy absence of a pope presents several epistemological problems, but some of these same ones existed in the Great Schism and others exist anyway with Jorge Bergoglio sitting in the chair of Peter even if he is truly Pope, so it's apparent that God doesn't disallow such a state of affairs.

Title: Re: Martyrdom or suicide?
Post by: Kreuzritter on January 12, 2019, 05:18:48 AM
Quote from: Vetus Ordo on January 11, 2019, 08:48:39 PM
There cannot be a time where the Church does not have a pope: St. Peter will have successors until the very end of time.

These are two different claims. The first contradicts reality and is unequivocally false. The second, unless by it you mean a pope must exist at the very moment of the final consummation of the world, doesn't help your next point.

QuoteThe anti-Christ might sit in the papal chair but the papacy itself cannot fall.

If the papacy's existence is continuous, then the papacy regularly exists without any pope. Else it falls every time a pope dies. Only those stuck in the rut of Aristotelianism and its moderate nominalism appear to have a problem with the concept.

QuoteAccording to Christ's ordinance, Peter is to have successors in his Primacy over the whole Church and for all time. (De fide.)

It's not apparent that Sedevacantism contradicts this. Peter has had successors, and as for "all time", taken literally and strictly it's just false.

Quote
Early on the Fathers expressed the thought that Peter lives on and works on in his successors. The Papal Legate Philippus, at the Council of Ephesus (43 I), declared: "This (Peter) lives and passes judgment up to the present day, and for ever, in his successors" (D 112, 1824). In a letter to Eutyches, St. Peter Chrysologus says of the Roman Pontiff: "The blessed Peter who on his Bishop's Chair lives on and leads the council, offers the true Faith to those that seek it" (With Leo, Ep. 25, 2). St. Leo the Great declared the Primacy to be a perpetual institution: "As that which Peter believed in Christ lives for ever, so also that which Christ instituted in Peter lives for ever" (Senno 3, 2).
[/quote]

Yeah ... doesn't establish the claim.
Title: Re: Martyrdom or suicide?
Post by: Kreuzritter on January 12, 2019, 05:25:12 AM
Quote from: Vetus Ordo on January 11, 2019, 06:50:06 PM
However, the circumstances are not the same. Even if we grant the point that there is a legal loophole in the absence of a defined time limit for an interregnum, we can easily discern that an interregnum cannot be prolonged for a huge amount of time, say decades, without violating the spirit of the law, the constitution of the Church. In other words, the Church is supposed to have a visible head.

This is Roman jurisprudence speaking, not the revelations of a Hebrew God and the spirit of Hebrew faith.

I think we're all basically on the same page here regarding what actually matters, namely our fundamental beliefs and the practice of the faith. It's where we insist on ananylising and trying to fit everything into a consistent dogmatic system, that characteristic of Western Christians of the second millenium, that we get ourselves into irresolvable arguments.
Title: Re: Martyrdom or suicide?
Post by: Gardener on January 12, 2019, 06:20:40 AM
Quote from: james03 on January 11, 2019, 11:25:29 PM
QuoteThere cannot be a time where the Church does not have a pope: St. Peter will have successors until the very end of time. This is part of the very nature of the Church which is unchangeable.

Premise 1:  The Church can have a false claimant Pope.
Support:  Paul IV discusses the topic in a Papal Bull.
Support:  Theologians, Suarez, Bellarmine, and Catalan in particular debate how this is resolved.  Bellarmine talks about the Tradition of this as if this is not novel.

Question:  You have this situation arise.  What happens during the period when this is getting sorted out?

My point:  We have that situation.  Bergoglio is not the Pope.  It is possible Benedict is still the Pope, or we don't currently have one.  If the former, that will get declared, and a new Pope will be elected after Pope Benedict dies.  If the latter, then we are in the end times.  I don't know for sure, but suspect that these are the end times.  The state of morality today would shock Sodom.

Bishop Gracida has posted an article claiming that resignation of the ministry of the papacy is not the same as the office, and therefore the resignation of Benedict is invalid and he remains Pope:
https://abyssum.org/2019/01/10/pope-benedict-is-the-pope/

Francis either is or isn't the Pope. If he's not, it can't be because Benedict isn't and was invalidly elected due to heresy, but rather because Benedict remains as such. Otherwise, one has to make the argument from heresy as the causal factor for failure to be elected validly, which, let's be honest, nullifies Benedict, JPII, maybe JP1, Paul VI, and perhaps even J23.
Title: Re: Martyrdom or suicide?
Post by: Xavier on January 12, 2019, 09:26:50 AM
Shall we try to distinguish these two points: (1) During sede vacante, all Cardinals and Bishops already appointed retain the authority they have already received from the Pope (hence no problem occurs with an interregnum lasting weeks or months - all existing Cardinals and all Ordinaries are not going to die in that time) (2) During sede vacante, no new Cardinals can be incardinated, nor new Bishops appointed to office, as both these depend on a living Pope - therefore, in a long interregnum, first all Cardinals appointed by the last Pope will die, then all Bishops appointed to office by the last Pope will die, and then all Roman Clergy will die. All of which will not ever happen and is precluded by the dogma of Perpetual Successors. Just imagine a good Catholic lad asking his father, "Dad, what does a Successor to St. Peter look like?" "Don't worry, son, we haven't had one for generations and don't expect any for generations to come either ... but Peter still has Perpetual Successors"! The Church will lose Apostolicity, visibility, jurisdiction and much more in an interregnum spanning generations; about 70 to 80 years is the average lifespan per Scripture.

And that's why all Catholics intuitively know Richard Ibranyi is wrong when he is claiming his 1000 odd year sede vacante. Some Eastern Orthodox here, tongue in cheek, have said, "we're sedevacantists since 1054" and the same applies to them. Catholics have a priori certainty, by virtue of the divine promises to St. Peter and the perpetuity of the Supreme Pontificate, that they are mistaken on all those claims. So we should at least agree an interregnum over 100 odd years is impossible.

What we need is a new Holy Pope or a re-converted one. Let our prayers and petitions, our actions and efforts, over the next 10 odd years, be directed toward storming Heaven for one. Let's try to avoid defeatism, despair and despondency. It's not necessarily true the next Pope is going to be worse, or that the current Pope will not be converted. Even Sodom would have been pardoned for 10 souls making reparation. Nineveh actually was pardoned because of penance. At least the chastisement could be minimized, and that is what we should be working toward with great urgency as the days go by. Not waiting or hoping for world wars or more bad Popes or the like to break out.

Eta: There being mystery in the current situation that will be clarified later is ok and even to be expected. What we have to avoid imho is letting "oh, look its all over. Nothing can be done now" becoming a self-fulfilling prophesy for decades.
Title: Re: Martyrdom or suicide?
Post by: Vetus Ordo on January 12, 2019, 10:03:17 AM
Quote from: Sempronius on January 11, 2019, 11:08:42 PM
I'm tempted by the thought of a faithful remnant left when anti-christ comes, but it says in the bible that even the elect will fall.. so there will be no one to trust

The elect, by definition, cannot fall and be lost.

No-one can snatch them out of God's hand (John 10:28-30). No-one, not even the Anti-Christ.

As Gardener has already and kindly pointed out, Christ is simply using hyperbole. The end times will be so dire that even the elect, if possible, would be deceived. If possible, but in fact it isn't.
Title: Re: Martyrdom or suicide?
Post by: Vetus Ordo on January 12, 2019, 10:15:27 AM
Quote from: Stubborn on January 12, 2019, 04:28:35 AMReality proves this idea to be false because; 1) the Church exists and will until the end of time (unchangeable foundational truth) and 2) by all accounts, this pope and the previous 5 popes have all been heretics - and the expectation for the foreseeable future is more heretical popes.

The Church may very well exist today but it does no longer exist with the same theological foundations. If we have 5 heretical popes in a row, a heretical Ecumenical Council, a heretical liturgy, a heretical catechism, a heretical code of canon law and a heretical ordinary Magisterium, including the dozens of papal encyclicals since 1962, then the Church as it was thought of before, has for all purposes ceased to exist and morphed into something else.

Quote from: Stubborn on January 11, 2019, 12:51:51 PM
With or without the revelation from Our Lady, reality itself proves; 1) Rome has indeed lost the faith and 2) per the promise of Our Lord, the Church lives on regardless.

The simple answer is, reality proves the [alleged] revelation from Our Lady of La Salette to be true, and that same reality proves Suarez's speculations to be wrong.

It would be interesting to see, if Suarez lived in these days, what he would say. We can be pretty certain that his speculations would say something altogether different.

Suárez operated under the traditional theological premises that vindicated the indefectibility of the Church, La Salette's musings notwithstanding. If Rome has indeed lost the faith, then Traditional Catholicism is a moot point as we know it. There's no other way around.

Quote from: Stubborn on January 11, 2019, 12:51:51 PM
For the sake of argument however, *if* the Church cannot exist without the pope (having only provided a theological speculation, this is something which you have not proven to be true yet), then it can only mean the pope is still the pope -  because the Church exists.

I have not provided "theological speculation," I have provided theological proofs from Suárez and Ott. The pope is not an option but a fundamental constituent of the immutable nature of the Church: "The structure of the Church cannot continue without the foundation which supports it (Mt. 16, 18)" (Ott, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma).
Title: Re: Martyrdom or suicide?
Post by: Vetus Ordo on January 12, 2019, 10:26:25 AM
Quote from: Kreuzritter on January 12, 2019, 05:02:06 AM
Quote from: Vetus Ordo on January 11, 2019, 08:16:18 PM
Quote from: james03 on January 11, 2019, 08:10:48 PM
QuoteIt makes no sense for the Church herself to defect, even in the end times. The Church can be attacked, heavily reduced in numbers, infiltrated by masons, etc., but cannot defect as such. Popes and Ecumenical Councils can't teach heresy even if the Antichrist is running the show. The Ordinary Magisterium of the Church can't go bonkers and have every sound Catholic second-guess what they teach. Unless, of course, we ditch all traditional catechisms.

This is a straw man argument.  Fr. Kramer (not the modern one) wrote his book about the Apocalypse circa 1930.  He discusses various interpretations which were ancient, including the Church "fleeing into the wilderness" and hiding out.  That the anti-Christ, or his prophet would be a pope claimant who would rule the institutional organization.

Is it "straw man" to point out that the Church must possess a visible head until the end of times?

She can flee into the wilderness all she wants, hide in the catacombs, etc., but not without a Pope. Where is he?

You and others repeat this over and over, and it contradicts reality. You insist popes must exist "in perpetuity", but it's an historical fact that this "perpetuity" is not a continuity in which the Church never exists without a pope: it is indisputable that the Church can and every so often does exist without any pope, and therefore it is indisputable that the existence of the Church is not ontologically dependent upon the existence of a pope. In a world in which logic ruled, this would mark the end of any discussion over whether Sedevacantism is a possibility, and weasly questions by those who cannot accept logic, about how long a Sedevacantist expects an interregnum can reasonably last, or how they expect we can get a new pope, demonstrate nothing at all except that the Church, rightly since it is not a matter of revelation, has made no pronouncement on this.

Yes, the lengthy absence of a pope presents several epistemological problems, but some of these same ones existed in the Great Schism and others exist anyway with Jorge Bergoglio sitting in the chair of Peter even if he is truly Pope, so it's apparent that God doesn't disallow such a state of affairs.

I do agree that God allows this state of affairs. That much is certain. He's rocking our boat and challenging our assumptions. However, I'm afraid the appeal to an interregnum does nothing to explain the present situation. The longest interregnum in Church history lasted about 3 years, if I'm not mistaken, and it was an embarrassment.

Interregna of 40 or 50 years are unthinkable because they would signal that God would not provide the necessary means for the Church to continue to have a functional visible head. The papacy survives the death of any given pope but cannot survive decades of empty chairs and dead cardinals without rendering the office itself moot.

Let's assume, for the sake of the argument, that the world does end in 2109, a hundred years from now. The last recognizable Catholic Pope would have been Pius XII or John XXIII. In what sense could we then affirm that St. Peter would have had perpetual successors until the end of time, if no such successor existed for 144 or 151 years?
Title: Re: Martyrdom or suicide?
Post by: Vetus Ordo on January 12, 2019, 10:29:40 AM
Quote from: christulsa on January 11, 2019, 09:53:39 PM
The Church has been without a pope since 2013.  That doesn't violate VI's teaching on perpetual successors.  :shrug:

When has Ratzinger become an orthodox pope in the eyes of Traditional Catholics?

I wasn't aware of this development.
Title: Re: Martyrdom or suicide?
Post by: Vetus Ordo on January 12, 2019, 10:32:25 AM
Quote from: Xavier on January 12, 2019, 09:26:50 AM
What we need is a new Holy Pope or a re-converted one.

The new Holy Pope cannot simply sweep under the rug the last 50 years as if nothing happened. Things don't work that way.

The Church, whether we like it or not, has already fundamentally changed. God alone knows what will come out of this mess.
Title: Re: Martyrdom or suicide?
Post by: Stubborn on January 12, 2019, 11:08:41 AM
Quote from: Vetus Ordo on January 12, 2019, 10:15:27 AM
Quote from: Stubborn on January 12, 2019, 04:28:35 AMReality proves this idea to be false because; 1) the Church exists and will until the end of time (unchangeable foundational truth) and 2) by all accounts, this pope and the previous 5 popes have all been heretics - and the expectation for the foreseeable future is more heretical popes.

The Church may very well exist today but it does no longer exist with the same theological foundations. If we have 5 heretical popes in a row, a heretical Ecumenical Council, a heretical liturgy, a heretical catechism, a heretical code of canon law and a heretical ordinary Magisterium, including the dozens of papal encyclicals since 1962, then the Church as it was thought of before, has for all purposes ceased to exist and morphed into something else.

The theological foundations of the Church have not changed, they never will. You are confusing the Church Christ founded, with the Conciliar church, which is the church that V2 founded, which had it's own Pentecost in 1965. The "New Pentecost" as JXXIII and JP2 called it bore the Conciliar church, *that* church is not the Catholic Church. That church is the church that has all the heresies and is most assuredly not the Church Christ founded, this should actually be self evident.


Quote from: Vetus Ordo on January 12, 2019, 10:15:27 AM
Quote from: Stubborn on January 11, 2019, 12:51:51 PM
With or without the revelation from Our Lady, reality itself proves; 1) Rome has indeed lost the faith and 2) per the promise of Our Lord, the Church lives on regardless.

The simple answer is, reality proves the [alleged] revelation from Our Lady of La Salette to be true, and that same reality proves Suarez's speculations to be wrong.

It would be interesting to see, if Suarez lived in these days, what he would say. We can be pretty certain that his speculations would say something altogether different.

Suárez operated under the traditional theological premises that vindicated the indefectibility of the Church, La Salette's musings notwithstanding. If Rome has indeed lost the faith, then Traditional Catholicism is a moot point as we know it. There's no other way around.


Quote from: Stubborn on January 11, 2019, 12:51:51 PM
For the sake of argument however, *if* the Church cannot exist without the pope (having only provided a theological speculation, this is something which you have not proven to be true yet), then it can only mean the pope is still the pope -  because the Church exists.

I have not provided "theological speculation," I have provided theological proofs from Suárez and Ott. The pope is not an option but a fundamental constituent of the immutable nature of the Church: "The structure of the Church cannot continue without the foundation which supports it (Mt. 16, 18)" (Ott, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma).

All I can say about this is to repeat what I just said, the theologians are wrong, one does not even need the prediction from Our Lady to verify that Rome has lost the faith - yet, the Church remains present on earth as it must for our salvation. Were it otherwise, no one would be able to attain salvation, which would defeat our purpose for being, defeat God's purpose for creating us and defeat God's purpose for creation and God and the Church He established would be defeated - which is impossible.
Forget what the theologians say and just accept the reality you see.

What do we see? We see heretical popes, heresy taught from the Vatican, heresies preached from the pulpits all over the world, a heretical liturgy and on and on - those are the works of the church of the New Pentecost, the Conciliar church, not the work of the Catholic Church - once you clear up that confusion in your head, it should hopefully start to make some sense.
Title: Re: Martyrdom or suicide?
Post by: james03 on January 12, 2019, 11:14:19 AM
QuoteFrancis either is or isn't the Pope. If he's not, it can't be because Benedict isn't and was invalidly elected due to heresy, but rather because Benedict remains as such. Otherwise, one has to make the argument from heresy as the causal factor for failure to be elected validly, which, let's be honest, nullifies Benedict, JPII, maybe JP1, Paul VI, and perhaps even J23.

I've been on record for opposing the classic sede position due to the fact that formal heresy means publicly manifest, and I agree that public manifestation is accomplished by 2 warnings from at least a bishop (in public).  You could argue that it is a cardinal.  I also agree that you don't call a council and put the Pope on trial.  The mechanism is 2 public condemnations and the refusal of the Catholic to recant.  At that point he is not Catholic.

So I observe this happening with Bergoglio.  2 warnings from a cardinal and his crew in public.  A third warning from a group of theologians and a retired bishop.  Bergoglio refused to recant.  If I have integrity, I have to hold to my previous position and consider Bergoglio to be a formal heretic.

We did not see this with previous Popes.  Most if not all were material heretics.  JPII wrote that ever person, each and everyone, is predestined to union with the Father.  That's material heresy.  However none were warned, so it was not formal.

On your other points, I highly suspect that Benedict is still the Pope.  I am focused on what he said to Bishop Fellay and also what went down when Bishop Fellay flew to Rome.  Pope Benedict "resigned" shortly thereafter.  That we have a criminal cabal running the Vatican can not be disputed, from homosexual coke orgies, pedophilia rings, and heroin money laundering.  If I were to bet I'd put my money on over half of them being fags.  So I think there is a strong possibility that Benedict was coerced, perhaps some old pictures were shown to him.
Title: Re: Martyrdom or suicide?
Post by: Xavier on January 12, 2019, 12:04:19 PM
Quote from: Vetus OrdoThe elect, by definition, cannot fall and be lost. No-one can snatch them out of God's hand (John 10:28-30). No-one, not even the Anti-Christ.

And so much more can the elected Church of God, the One True Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church never fall and be lost. So to discuss a Catholic response to the crisis in more detail, we must first have the firm and unswerving conviction that Protestantism, Orthodoxy, and all the many other sects of centuries gone by are false. As for elected souls - not to go into much detail - but certainly, those whom God has efficaciously predestined for salvation will be saved. And God gives sufficient grace to all in such a way that, if they correspond to His grace and do what is in their power, His sufficient grace flowers into efficacious grace, and He effectually saves them. Even during these times, for which God has given us much grace through the warnings and prophesies of His Saints and mystics, beside other means.

We see the prophesies of Sr. Emmerich, Ven. Fr. Bartholomew, Our Lady of Quito, where the 20th century is named, fulfilled to the letter. The means out of this crisis is (1) Catholics learning to be consecrated souls dedicated to making reparation (2) the promised Holy Pope.

QuoteWhen has Ratzinger become an orthodox pope in the eyes of Traditional Catholics?

Catholics could and should have prayed for, worked with and publicly supported Pope Benedict XVI much more than we did. Then maybe Summorum Pontificum and Universae Ecclesiae would have wider application and thousands more parishes would have had TLM's. Instead, we took a defeatist approach. Trads deemed him merely conservative, conservatives considered him too traditional, liberals considered him rigid.

The Holy Father said "One of the basic characteristics of a shepherd must be to love the people entrusted to him, even as he loves Christ whom he serves. "Feed my sheep", says Christ to Peter, and now, at this moment, he says it to me as well. Feeding means loving, and loving also means being ready to suffer. Loving means giving the sheep what is truly good, the nourishment of God's truth, of God's word, the nourishment of his presence, which he gives us in the Blessed Sacrament. My dear friends – at this moment I can only say: pray for me, that I may learn to love the Lord more and more. Pray for me, that I may learn to love his flock more and more – in other words, you, the holy Church, each one of you and all of you together. Pray for me, that I may not flee for fear of the wolves. Let us pray for one another, that the Lord will carry us and that we will learn to carry one another."

http://w2.vatican.va/content/benedict-xvi/en/homilies/2005/documents/hf_ben-xvi_hom_20050424_inizio-pontificato.html We did not sufficiently do that duty the Pope entrusted to us, the faithful of the Church, to pray much for the Supreme Pastor, and in the end, he fled for fear of the wolves. At least SP took off, and 10 years later, has produced some good.

QuoteThe new Holy Pope cannot simply sweep under the rug the last 50 years as if nothing happened.

"Pray insistently without tiring and weep with bitter tears in the secrecy of your heart, imploring our Celestial Father that, for love of the Eucharistic Heart of my Most Holy Son and His Precious Blood shed with such generosity, and by the profound bitterness and sufferings of His cruel Passion and Death, He might take pity on His ministers and quickly bring to an end those ominous times, sending to this Church the Prelate that will restore the spirit of Her priests. My Most Holy Son and I will love this most favored son with a love of predilection, and We shall gift him with a rare capacity, a humility of heart, a docility to divine inspiration, the strength to defend the rights of the Church, and a tender and compassionate heart, so that, like another Christ, he will assist the great and the small, without despising the more unfortunate souls who ask him for light and counsel in their doubts and hardships. With divine suavity, he will guide souls consecrated to the service of God in the cloisters, making light the yoke of the Lord, Who said, 'My yoke is sweet, and My burden light'. Into his hand the scales of the sanctuary will be placed so that everything is weighed with due measure and God will be glorified."

For this not to happen, the Devil and his followers will incite "every type of vice", thus provoking "all sorts of chastisements: plagues, famines, internal fighting and external disputes with other nations, and apostasy, the cause of loss of so many souls so dear to Jesus Christ and to Me..."

"This, then, will mark the arrival of my hour, when I, in a marvelous way, will dethrone the proud and cursed Satan, trampling him under My feet and fettering him into the infernal abyss. Thus the Church and country will be finally free of his cruel tyranny."

https://www.michaeljournal.org/articles/roman-catholic-church/item/our-lady-of-good-success
Title: Re: Martyrdom or suicide?
Post by: Vetus Ordo on January 12, 2019, 12:17:14 PM
Quote from: Stubborn on January 12, 2019, 11:08:41 AMThe theological foundations of the Church have not changed, they never will. You are confusing the Church Christ founded, with the Conciliar church, which is the church that V2 founded, which had it's own Pentecost in 1965. The "New Pentecost" as JXXIII and JP2 called it bore the Conciliar church, *that* church is not the Catholic Church. That church is the church that has all the heresies and is most assuredly not the Church Christ founded, this should actually be self evident.

So the Conciliar Church, that is recognized as the Catholic church worldwide, was founded in 1965 at the closing of the Council.

Where is the Catholic Church since 1965? Can you pinpoint to me her episcopal hierarchy with jurisdiction and her pope? Or if the pope is not alive, the college of cardinals that will elect him?

Quote from: Stubborn on January 12, 2019, 11:08:41 AM
All I can say about this is to repeat what I just said, the theologians are wrong, one does not even need the prediction from Our Lady to verify that Rome has lost the faith - yet, the Church remains present on earth as it must for our salvation. Were it otherwise, no one would be able to attain salvation, which would defeat our purpose for being, defeat God's purpose for creating us and defeat God's purpose for creation and God and the Church He established would be defeated - which is impossible. Forget what the theologians say and just accept the reality you see.

Sure, I can forget what the theologians say but in that case we're not speaking of Traditional Catholicism anymore. The point remains: if Rome has indeed lost the faith, Traditional Catholicism has been empirically proven to be false.

Quote from: Stubborn on January 12, 2019, 11:08:41 AM
What do we see? We see heretical popes, heresy taught from the Vatican, heresies preached from the pulpits all over the world, a heretical liturgy and on and on - those are the works of the church of the New Pentecost, the Conciliar church, not the work of the Catholic Church - once you clear up that confusion in your head, it should hopefully start to make some sense.

I'm not confused.

I know perfectly well that these things are not compatible with pre-Vatican II teaching. What I'm exploring are the consequences of the reality that we face.
Title: Re: Martyrdom or suicide?
Post by: Vetus Ordo on January 12, 2019, 12:24:49 PM
Quote from: Xavier on January 12, 2019, 12:04:19 PM
And so much more can the elected Church of God, the One True Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church never fall and be lost.

I agree.

But apparently she will be preserved until the end of times on quite different terms than those we traditionally expected.

Quote from: Xavier on January 12, 2019, 12:04:19 PM
Catholics could and should have prayed for, worked with and publicly supported Pope Benedict XVI much more than we did.

That does not change the fact that Ratzinger subscribed to and believed the new theology canonized by Vatican II all his life. He was the man who authored Dominus Iesus, still as head of the CDF, among other novelties. He was the same man that said to Abp. Lefebvre's face that the days of Quanta Cura were gone and those teachings were no longer applicable. He was the same man that gave his blessing to the travesties of Assisi I and II. The fact that Ratzinger has apparently become a valid pope in the eyes of so many Traditional Catholics speaks volumes about the development of Traditional Catholicism itself.
Title: Re: Martyrdom or suicide?
Post by: TheReturnofLive on January 12, 2019, 12:33:59 PM
Quote from: Vetus Ordo on January 12, 2019, 10:29:40 AM
Quote from: christulsa on January 11, 2019, 09:53:39 PM
The Church has been without a pope since 2013.  That doesn't violate VI's teaching on perpetual successors.  :shrug:

When has Ratzinger become an orthodox pope in the eyes of Traditional Catholics?

I wasn't aware of this development.

With the exception of how he viewed Ecumenism - that is, being more indifferent at points making JP2 seem conservative at points - going so far as to say that Jews have not lost their salvation and that there are countless Pagan Saints - Benedict at least promoted traditional liturgy by generously allowing the 1962 missal and rescinding the excommunications of the SSPX, has made some broad-stroke statements with Fatima, and was at least conservative as it pertains to 7 of the 10 commandments (ignoring the first two or three).

Francis, on the other hand, in addition to having the problems of Pope Benedict, has actively waged war against the Natural Law and has gone out of his way to try to discredit the Traditional Catholic movement.

It's like being stabbed with a knife in the eye, but then being stabbed in the other eye with a different knife later. You are given the impression that having only one knife in the eye isn't so bad anymore.
Title: Re: Martyrdom or suicide?
Post by: TheReturnofLive on January 12, 2019, 12:36:28 PM
Quote from: Vetus Ordo on January 12, 2019, 12:24:49 PM
Quote from: Xavier on January 12, 2019, 12:04:19 PM
And so much more can the elected Church of God, the One True Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church never fall and be lost.

I agree.

But apparently she will be preserved until the end of times on quite different terms than those we traditionally expected.


Which makes you a Protestant based on Traditional Catholic standards, because you have lost any source of quote on quote "epistemological certainty."
Title: Re: Martyrdom or suicide?
Post by: Kreuzritter on January 12, 2019, 01:40:13 PM
Quote from: Xavier on January 12, 2019, 09:26:50 AM
Shall we try to distinguish these two points: (1) During sede vacante, all Cardinals and Bishops already appointed retain the authority they have already received from the Pope (hence no problem occurs with an interregnum lasting weeks or months - all existing Cardinals and all Ordinaries are not going to die in that time) (2) During sede vacante, no new Cardinals can be incardinated, nor new Bishops appointed to office, as both these depend on a living Pope - therefore, in a long interregnum, first all Cardinals appointed by the last Pope will die, then all Bishops appointed to office by the last Pope will die, and then all Roman Clergy will die.

No. I cannot accept this argument. Appointment by the Pope himself  of all bishops is a matter of human positive law, nothing more, and this is certainly not how it was generally done or could have been done in the patristic Church. That's just a fact of history, and it demolishes any claim that the existence of a pope is needed, absolutely, for the creation of new bishops with jurisdiction.

The same can be said about the existence of cardinals and their role in electing a bishop of Rome.

QuoteAll of which will not ever happen and is precluded by the dogma of Perpetual Successors.

It isn't. You're making inferences dependent on other premises to pass from the dogma to the preclusion.

QuoteJust imagine a good Catholic lad asking his father, "Dad, what does a Successor to St. Peter look like?" "Don't worry, son, we haven't had one for generations and don't expect any for generations to come either ... but Peter still has Perpetual Successors"!

That's not an argument.

QuoteThe Church will lose Apostolicity, visibility, jurisdiction and much more in an interregnum spanning generations; about 70 to 80 years is the average lifespan per Scripture.

That doesn't follow logically, and the worst likelihood is a "loss of visibility" in a mere epistemological sense in which the Church already found itself during the Great Western Schism. Visibility clearly cannot mean that people are perpetually guaranteed to be able to identify the hierarchy of bishops in formal union with the Pope.


QuoteAnd that's why all Catholics intuitively know Richard Ibranyi is wrong when he is claiming his 1000 odd year sede vacante. Some Eastern Orthodox here, tongue in cheek, have said, "we're sedevacantists since 1054" and the same applies to them. Catholics have a priori certainty, by virtue of the divine promises to St. Peter and the perpetuity of the Supreme Pontificate, that they are mistaken on all those claims. So we should at least agree an interregnum over 100 odd years is impossible.

No, would I know this by doctrinal continuity and the witness of the work of the Catholic Church, and she alone, in fulfilling Christ's Great Commission. Even if Ibranyi weren't a lone weirdo from America with weak arguments.
Title: Re: Martyrdom or suicide?
Post by: Kreuzritter on January 12, 2019, 01:53:26 PM
These arguments dissolve into irrelvance from this one simple fact:

Francis, if truly Pope, no more serves to fulfil those functions for which the existence of a pope is necessary than does no pope at all.

For how on God's green Earth have the suppposed popes and hierarchy of the Novus Ordo served to keep the Church of Jesus Christ unified, visible and identifiable by the faithful as one, holy, universal and apostolic? How does Francis embody the Church and symbolise the Faith?


Title: Re: Martyrdom or suicide?
Post by: christulsa on January 12, 2019, 01:56:17 PM
Either Bergoglio is now a manifest formal heretic, or he was invalidly elected. Either way he is not the pope.  He may actually be the Anti-Christ, tbh.  Someone needs to check under his hair to see if there's a 666. 

Heading now to the pub to join a friend for a Guinness...
Title: Re: Martyrdom or suicide?
Post by: Stubborn on January 12, 2019, 03:39:53 PM
Quote from: Vetus Ordo on January 12, 2019, 12:17:14 PM
Quote from: Stubborn on January 12, 2019, 11:08:41 AMThe theological foundations of the Church have not changed, they never will. You are confusing the Church Christ founded, with the Conciliar church, which is the church that V2 founded, which had it's own Pentecost in 1965. The "New Pentecost" as JXXIII and JP2 called it bore the Conciliar church, *that* church is not the Catholic Church. That church is the church that has all the heresies and is most assuredly not the Church Christ founded, this should actually be self evident.

So the Conciliar Church, that is recognized as the Catholic church worldwide, was founded in 1965 at the closing of the Council.

Where is the Catholic Church since 1965? Can you pinpoint to me her episcopal hierarchy with jurisdiction and her pope? Or if the pope is not alive, the college of cardinals that will elect him?

Afraid so, you can read a bit about the conciliar church replacing the Catholic Church in this weeks edition of +Williamson's Eleison Comments. Meanwhile, the Catholic Church has not gone anywhere, her episcopal hierarchy with jurisdiction and her pope are the same as well. Just believe reality and you'll have most of your answers, and forget all the conspiracy theories that leave you with more questions and no answers.


Quote from: Vetus Ordo on January 12, 2019, 12:17:14 PM
Quote from: Stubborn on January 12, 2019, 11:08:41 AM
All I can say about this is to repeat what I just said, the theologians are wrong, one does not even need the prediction from Our Lady to verify that Rome has lost the faith - yet, the Church remains present on earth as it must for our salvation. Were it otherwise, no one would be able to attain salvation, which would defeat our purpose for being, defeat God's purpose for creating us and defeat God's purpose for creation and God and the Church He established would be defeated - which is impossible. Forget what the theologians say and just accept the reality you see.

Sure, I can forget what the theologians say but in that case we're not speaking of Traditional Catholicism anymore. The point remains: if Rome has indeed lost the faith, Traditional Catholicism has been empirically proven to be false.

Not so. I say to forget what the theologians say about this particular issue, not everything they ever said. The point being that they are wrong on this issue - and obviously so. We have the benefit of reality which proves them to be wrong on this.



Quote from: Vetus Ordo on January 12, 2019, 12:17:14 PM
Quote from: Stubborn on January 12, 2019, 11:08:41 AM
What do we see? We see heretical popes, heresy taught from the Vatican, heresies preached from the pulpits all over the world, a heretical liturgy and on and on - those are the works of the church of the New Pentecost, the Conciliar church, not the work of the Catholic Church - once you clear up that confusion in your head, it should hopefully start to make some sense.

I'm not confused.

I know perfectly well that these things are not compatible with pre-Vatican II teaching. What I'm exploring are the consequences of the reality that we face.

The consequences of the reality, is the continued separation of the sheep from the goats, that's what it's all about, that's what it's always been about for us. For Hell, it's always been about destroying the only means of salvation on this earth by whatever means necessary. As Fr. Wathen puts it:

"And no matter what anyone does, whether from within or without, he will not succeed in destroying the Church. The enemies of Christ's Church do not believe this, which explains why they will never cease to try."

 
Title: Re: Martyrdom or suicide?
Post by: Vetus Ordo on January 12, 2019, 05:52:47 PM
Quote from: Stubborn on January 12, 2019, 03:39:53 PM
Meanwhile, the Catholic Church has not gone anywhere, her episcopal hierarchy with jurisdiction and her pope are the same as well. Just believe reality and you'll have most of your answers, and forget all the conspiracy theories that leave you with more questions and no answers.

Where is the Catholic Church? Is it the organization headed by Bergoglio?

If so, traditional Catholicism (except for Ecclesia Dei groups) has been proven false. If not, where? A few bishops with no jurisdiction, sedevacantists or otherwise, don't correspond to the fundamental and unchangeable nature of the Church.

Quote from: Stubborn on January 12, 2019, 03:39:53 PM
Not so. I say to forget what the theologians say about this particular issue, not everything they ever said. The point being that they are wrong on this issue - and obviously so. We have the benefit of reality which proves them to be wrong on this.

Again, I'm afraid you don't seem to fully appreciate the consequences of what you're proposing. If the teaching about the unchangeable nature of the Church is wrong, traditional Catholicism is ipso facto wrong. What sort of Tradition are you maintaining if the rock upon which Christ built His Church is an optional feature?
Title: Re: Martyrdom or suicide?
Post by: christulsa on January 12, 2019, 05:55:30 PM
I love Fr. Wathen.  If clarity of language is a form of charity, then he was an extraordinarily charitable man.  :cheeseheadbeer:
Title: Re: Martyrdom or suicide?
Post by: Kreuzritter on January 13, 2019, 05:59:37 AM
Quote from: Vetus Ordo on January 12, 2019, 05:52:47 PM
Again, I'm afraid you don't seem to fully appreciate the consequences of what you're proposing. If the teaching about the unchangeable nature of the Church is wrong, traditional Catholicism is ipso facto wrong. What sort of Tradition are you maintaining if the rock upon which Christ built His Church is an optional feature?

It's not an optional feature. The Papacy continues to exist and remains the rock upon which the Church was in fact built. It just wouldn't be embodied in any living person at this point in time, and the result of that is not the ontological disappearance of the Church but the Church having to suffer the very uncertainties we suffer and being unable to do anything about it.
Title: Re: Martyrdom or suicide?
Post by: Kreuzritter on January 13, 2019, 06:03:20 AM
Quote from: Vetus Ordo on January 12, 2019, 05:52:47 PM
Quote from: Stubborn on January 12, 2019, 03:39:53 PM
Meanwhile, the Catholic Church has not gone anywhere, her episcopal hierarchy with jurisdiction and her pope are the same as well. Just believe reality and you'll have most of your answers, and forget all the conspiracy theories that leave you with more questions and no answers.

Where is the Catholic Church? Is it the organization headed by Bergoglio?

If so, traditional Catholicism (except for Ecclesia Dei groups) has been proven false. If not, where? A few bishops with no jurisdiction, sedevacantists or otherwise, don't correspond to the fundamental and unchangeable nature of the Church.

That's a question that can't be answered without a pope. But epistemology is not ontology. Our being unable to identify precisely the body of the Church does not mean that the Church does not exist or is not visible.
Title: Re: Martyrdom or suicide?
Post by: Vetus Ordo on January 13, 2019, 11:47:33 AM
Quote from: Kreuzritter on January 13, 2019, 05:59:37 AMIt's not an optional feature. The Papacy continues to exist and remains the rock upon which the Church was in fact built. It just wouldn't be embodied in any living person at this point in time, and the result of that is not the ontological disappearance of the Church but the Church having to suffer the very uncertainties we suffer and being unable to do anything about it.

The papacy can only continue to exist in the absence of a living pope if there remains a body of cardinals able to elect a new one. If all cardinals die and there is no pope, then poof! It's all gone. There is no alternative in Church law. Assuming the Catholic Church isn't the organization headed by the past 5 or 6 popes, there must remain somewhere a body of living cardinals made by the last living pope able to elect a new pontiff. Or, if there aren't any living cardinals around anymore, you have to pray and resort to direct divine intervention to fix things. But even with divine intervention stepping in and creating a new pope out of nowhere, you'd still have a logical problem, namely that there was a time where the Church became effectively headless, a time where her divine and unchangeable constitution given by Christ collapsed, where St. Peter didn't really have perpetual successors until the end, thus violating the promise that the gates of hell would never prevail against her and the teaching of Vatican I.

In order for the current situation to somehow work, for instance, we'd have to have a similar situation to the Great Western Schism where, indeed, the Church was confused about the true identity of her head among two rival claimants, eventually three in the end. However, during this whole process, there was truly only one true pope. There was never an interregnum properly speaking, the Church wasn't without a true visible head during 40 years. Nowadays, there is only one visible claimant to the papacy, though: Jorge Bergoglio. If he isn't the pope, there is no other candidate that we know of. The Church isn't confused between two candidates, there is only one. An invisible candidate hiding somewhere and elected by God knows who, is not a pope. Presumable "shadow-popes" or popes in pectore would be useless because the Church is the "light of the world" whose light must "shine before men" (Matthew 5:14 et seq.) and her head, the rock on which the whole foundation depends, cannot be in hiding for 50 or more years, unable to be identified as such by the faithful, unable to exercise his ministry, with no discernible cardinals and bishops under his authority, while the whole body of Christians is being ravaged by heretics, the chief of which is universally acclaimed as pope. Of course, no such popes in hiding actually exist so it's a moot point.

The other hypothesis, and probably the most likely to be true as per Occam's razor, is that the organization headed by Bergoglio and the past 5 popes is still the Catholic Church but what we thought and believed about her, and what she herself taught about her, was challenged on many levels since Vatican II, a change for which there isn't still an adequate answer.

Quote from: Kreuzritter on January 13, 2019, 06:03:20 AM
That's a question that can't be answered without a pope. But epistemology is not ontology. Our being unable to identify precisely the body of the Church does not mean that the Church does not exist or is not visible.

If we weren't able to epistemologically discern and identify the Church, her divine mission would be hindered and become pointless. She would be somewhere but we couldn't know it for certain. Where to hear Mass? Where to baptize our kids? Where to receive salutary doctrine? Where to bury our dead? We wouldn't know. Somewhere, sure, but we couldn't know for certain. Yes, epistemology is not ontology but a church that exists but cannot be identified as such by anyone is not the true Church. Her divine mission requires visibility. The Church needs to be visible and identifiable. If the Church is not the organization headed by Bergoglio, then she must be elsewhere. There must be bishops and a pope. A hierarchical structure with jurisdiction and apostolic succession. If they are out there hiding in caves, they're useless as far as the divine mission of the Church is concerned. If they're not, then the answer must be sought elsewhere.
Title: Re: Martyrdom or suicide?
Post by: Gardener on January 13, 2019, 11:48:55 AM
I've been looking for a thread to post this, and this seems good as any:

Modern Ecumenism:

[gifv]https://i.imgur.com/VWTvA4B.mp4[/gifv]
Title: Re: Martyrdom or suicide?
Post by: TheReturnofLive on January 13, 2019, 12:35:19 PM
Quote from: Gardener on January 13, 2019, 11:48:55 AM
I've been looking for a thread to post this, and this seems good as any:

Modern Ecumenism:


What was the "Ancient" Ecumenism that distinguishes it from the "Modern" Ecumenism?

Anything Francis has done has already been done worse by Pope John Paul II, and has been done at the same level as Pope Paul VI, Pope John XXIII - both of whom are role models you ought to look up to - as well as Pope Benedict XVI.

Putting a prayer in the Wailing Wall is nothing compared to kissing the Quran. The idea of Ecumenism which is promoted now is exactly the same kind that the "Saintly" Pope Paul VI promoted.

In fact, Francis has been way less indifferent than Pope John Paul II - he's about the same level as Pope Benedict XVI was.


If anything, it's you who aren't following the Saints of the Church and being obedient to your own hierarchy. By claiming that Ecumenism is a snake that is being fed water, you are just waging war against the pure and blameless John Paul II, whose suffering now is worse than the physical torments he had to suffer on Earth - the poor little lamb!
Title: Re: Martyrdom or suicide?
Post by: TheReturnofLive on January 13, 2019, 01:12:56 PM
I'm sorry for the harshness of such a post, but Christ said let your yes yes no no - anymore comes from the evil one, and you have to at some point address the Truth of Reality.
Title: Re: Martyrdom or suicide?
Post by: Kreuzritter on January 13, 2019, 02:26:42 PM
Quote from: Vetus Ordo on January 13, 2019, 11:47:33 AM
The papacy can only continue to exist in the absence of a living pope if there remains a body of cardinals able to elect a new one. If all cardinals die and there is no pope, then poof! It's all gone.

No. The Papacy, created by Jesus Christ, exists, objectively, as a reality. I'm sorry that anti-realists, which includes the inheritors of St. Thomas's Aristotelianism who have moulded the language of post-Tridentine Roman doctrine, have excluded themselves from being able to grasp this.

Furthermore, there were no cardinals for the first millennium of the Church's existence. You really have turned the Roman system of the modern age into a false image of the essential Church if you're claiming the Church's and Papacy's existence are ontologically dependent upon that group of spiritual and literal harlots, and in a similar vein I can sympathise with the rage of someone like Maximillian against what he calls "Ultramontanism".

QuoteThere is no alternative in Church law.

It is merely accidental positive law, and if that law, in its human shortsightedness, fails to account for the situation in which the college of cardinals disappears during an interregnum, then I fail to see in what way the Church and the faithful would be bound to it if that were to occur, because it wouldn't be worth the paper it was written on. As far as I'm concerned, as long as successors to the Apostles exist, faithful to tradition and the Papacy, we have succession and the possibility of electing a Roman patriarch whom I would acknowledge as such.

QuoteBut even with divine intervention stepping in and creating a new pope out of nowhere, you'd still have a logical problem, namely that there was a time where the Church became effectively headless, a time where her divine and unchangeable constitution given by Christ collapsed, where St. Peter didn't really have perpetual successors until the end, thus violating the promise that the gates of hell would never prevail against her and the teaching of Vatican I.

No, you just contradicted yourself. If she in fact has perpetual successors until the end, then there can't have been a time at which she didn't. That's absurd. The Pope doesn't receive his office from men, but through the Papacy, from Jesus Christ. And the Church's divine and unchangeable constitution given by Christ has never included the existence of cardinals and their having to choose the Pope.


QuoteThe other hypothesis, and probably the most likely to be true as per Occam's razor, is that the organization headed by Bergoglio and the past 5 popes is still the Catholic Church but what we thought and believed about her, and what she herself taught about her, was challenged on many levels since Vatican II, a change for which there isn't still an adequate answer.

Yeah, I'm sorry, but I don't accept inferences from "Occam's razor" as valid in claiming to determine likelihood. There is no logical reason for that or statistical evidence to support it.

I will stick with Galatians 1:8. And if the Roman Catholic Church genuinely teaches the religion of Vatican II and the Novus Ordo, as understood by Jorge Bergoglio, then the Roman Catholic Church is not the church of Jesus Christ, and, having contradicted her own self, is even on the merely rational level a joke and an irrelevance to me. It's as simple as that. If she is mutable in her doctrine, so as to contradict her infallibility, then I really don't care, much less about being a "heretic" in rejecting her teaching.

QuoteIf we weren't able to epistemologically discern and identify the Church, her divine mission would be hindered and become pointless.

Non sequitur. This epistemological problem was the situation during the Great Western Schism and the actual reason I brought it up. It didn't render the divine mission of the Church pointless. She still existed, and she still carried out her mission, whether or not a pope could be identified, just as she continues to do today, whether or not a pope exists.

Quote
She would be somewhere but we couldn't know it for certain. Where to hear Mass? Where to baptize our kids? Where to receive salutary doctrine? Where to bury our dead? We wouldn't know. Somewhere, sure, but we couldn't know for certain.

That problem actually exists today whether or not the Vatican II claimants are real popes, because they provide no certainty to the faithful as to liturgy and doctrine. What we do about these is what we do anyway: by faith, trust in God's grace and the sensus fidelium.

QuoteYes, epistemology is not ontology but a church that exists but cannot be identified as such by anyone is not the true Church.

Non sequitur.

QuoteHer divine mission requires visibility. The Church needs to be visible and identifiable.

I haven't claimed she is not visible. And don't just throw in identifiability as though it were the same thing.

QuoteIf the Church is not the organization headed by Bergoglio, then she must be elsewhere.

The more correct thing to say would be that Bergoglio does not head the Church. There is a distinct difference.

QuoteThere must be bishops and a pope.

There must be bishops but it does not follow that there must be a pope. Repeating this ad nauseam does not make it so.

QuoteA hierarchical structure with jurisdiction and apostolic succession.

Doesn't require the existence of a pope to exist.

QuoteIf they are out there hiding in caves, they're useless as far as the divine mission of the Church is concerned. If they're not, then the answer must be sought elsewhere.

Firstly, it wouldn't make them useless, as the history of secret and persecuted Christians shows, and secondly, this is a straw man. I haven't claimed or implied that they are hiding in caves or are not visible, only that, with Bergoglio where he is, they are as a group not certainly identifiable.


Title: Re: Martyrdom or suicide?
Post by: Quaremerepulisti on January 13, 2019, 04:35:30 PM
Well, you can't proclaim that the Pope has supreme jurisdiction and then implicitly deny this when things get uncomfortable.

Supreme jurisdiction includes with it the power to determine how the next Pope will be selected.  It could be via direct selection, or via selection of electors.  But however the Pope determines it, that is the only way the next Pope can be selected.  If any other way were even possible, the Pope's jurisdiction would not be supreme.

Moreover, the Church would lack legal continuity from one Pope to the next if Popes would be selected via extra-legal means.
Title: Re: Martyrdom or suicide?
Post by: Michael Wilson on January 13, 2019, 06:07:56 PM
But theologians have pondered what if the College of Cardinals would all be wiped out at once (which in past times was easier as they all lived in Europe), by a plague or war; would the Church then not be able to elect a new Pope? They have responded that the election of a new Pontiff would then devolve unto the residential bishops.
Title: Re: Martyrdom or suicide?
Post by: Vetus Ordo on January 13, 2019, 07:35:17 PM
Quote from: Kreuzritter on January 13, 2019, 02:26:42 PMFurthermore, there were no cardinals for the first millennium of the Church's existence. You really have turned the Roman system of the modern age into a false image of the essential Church if you're claiming the Church's and Papacy's existence are ontologically dependent upon that group of spiritual and literal harlots, and in a similar vein I can sympathise with the rage of someone like Maximillian against what he calls "Ultramontanism".

I haven't made the Papacy's existence to be ontologically dependent upon the College of Cardinals. The Popes did. Not ontologically, per se, but legally as supreme lawgivers.

I'm simply describing the situation as it stands.

Quote from: Kreuzritter on January 13, 2019, 02:26:42 PMNo, you just contradicted yourself. If she in fact has perpetual successors until the end, then there can't have been a time at which she didn't. That's absurd. The Pope doesn't receive his office from men, but through the Papacy, from Jesus Christ. And the Church's divine and unchangeable constitution given by Christ has never included the existence of cardinals and their having to choose the Pope.

Absurd?

I suggested that if we haven't had any valid pope since, say, Pius XII and then 10 years from now, God would directly crown another pope, there would still be a gap of 71 years where the Church was effectively without one and without any legal means to elect a new one. If St. Peter is to have successors in his primacy of the whole Church and for all time, as the dogma affirms, the Church can't be left in a permanent state of interregnum where her legals means to elect a new pope are extinguished. As per current Church law, there is no solution. Another solution to this problem, as you already hinted at, would be for a new pope to be elected by other means, say by a a few living faithful bishops. But this might be a denial of the supreme jurisdiction of the pope, which is another dogma. And another problem.

Quote from: Kreuzritter on January 13, 2019, 02:26:42 PMI will stick with Galatians 1:8. And if the Roman Catholic Church genuinely teaches the religion of Vatican II and the Novus Ordo, as understood by Jorge Bergoglio, then the Roman Catholic Church is not the church of Jesus Christ, and, having contradicted her own self, is even on the merely rational level a joke and an irrelevance to me. It's as simple as that. If she is mutable in her doctrine, so as to contradict her infallibility, then I really don't care, much less about being a "heretic" in rejecting her teaching.

I genuinely sympathize.

Quote from: Kreuzritter on January 13, 2019, 02:26:42 PM
I haven't claimed she is not visible. And don't just throw in identifiability as though it were the same thing.

They're intimately related, though. The Church's visibility also entails that she is easily identifiable from everything else.

As Ott puts it, "The Fathers teach that the Church of Christ is easily recognised and distinguished as such from heretical communions. St. Irenaeus holds against the Gnostics that the adherents of the Church throughout the whole world confess the same faith, observe the same commandments and preserve the same form of Church constitution. He compares the Church, which preaches the same truth everywhere, to a seven-branched candlestick, which, visible to all, bears the light of Christ (Adv. haer. V 20, I). St. Augustine compares the Church to a city on a mountain (Mt. S, 14) : "The Church stands clear and visible before all men; for she is the city on the mountain which cannot be hidden" (Contra Cresconium, II, 36, 45)." (Funtamentals of Catholic Dogma).

Quote from: Kreuzritter on January 13, 2019, 02:26:42 PM
The more correct thing to say would be that Bergoglio does not head the Church. There is a distinct difference.

I understand.

In your opinion, who are the bishops and cardinals, if any, that comprise the hierarchical structure of the Catholic Church today?

Quote from: Kreuzritter on January 13, 2019, 02:26:42 PM
There must be bishops but it does not follow that there must be a pope. Repeating this ad nauseam does not make it so.

A living pope is not necessary, yes. An interregnum could exist. But there must be the legal means to elect one in the surviving hierarchy because there can be no Church without the papacy, as I've quoted from Ott a few pages back, "the structure of the Church cannot continue without the foundation which supports it." However, since you've already stated that in your opinion the absence of a valid college of cardinals is not a true impediment, I understand your position and won't press it further.

Quote from: Kreuzritter on January 13, 2019, 02:26:42 PMFirstly, it wouldn't make them useless, as the history of secret and persecuted Christians shows, and secondly, this is a straw man. I haven't claimed or implied that they are hiding in caves or are not visible, only that, with Bergoglio where he is, they are as a group not certainly identifiable.

It would be a straw man if I suggested that such was your claim. I didn't. I was providing a rhetorical example that a true hierarchy living in caves, so to speak, unknown to the real world and to faithful Catholics, would be useless.
Title: Re: Martyrdom or suicide?
Post by: TheReturnofLive on January 13, 2019, 09:20:30 PM
Quote from: Vetus Ordo on January 13, 2019, 07:35:17 PM
As Ott puts it, "The Fathers teach that the Church of Christ is easily recognised and distinguished as such from heretical communions. St. Irenaeus holds against the Gnostics that the adherents of the Church throughout the whole world confess the same faith, observe the same commandments and preserve the same form of Church constitution. He compares the Church, which preaches the same truth everywhere, to a seven-branched candlestick, which, visible to all, bears the light of Christ (Adv. haer. V 20, I). St. Augustine compares the Church to a city on a mountain (Mt. S, 14) : "The Church stands clear and visible before all men; for she is the city on the mountain which cannot be hidden" (Contra Cresconium, II, 36, 45)." (Funtamentals of Catholic Dogma).

Rome doesn't fit this Catholicity today though. An FSSP Church, a Liberal Novus Ordo Church, a Byzantine Catholic Church, and a Charismatic Catholic Church all teach different things. An FSSP Church will teach things like No Salvation Outside the Church, the necessity of strict liturgical praxis, will encourage Sacramentals, be repugnant towards religious freedom, will not offer communion to Orthodoxy, and talk about a State of Grace versus a State of Separation, etc. The Liberal Novus Ordo Church will talk about charity in terms of liturgical praxis, about the glories of different religions, talk about how evil the Church in the past was, and will offer communion to the Orthodox. The Byzantine Catholic Church will commemorate Saint Gregory Palamas as a Saint and reject Thomistic theology in the past, even Purgatory as it's taught in the past, some even going so far as to say they are Eastern Orthodox in communion with Rome and venerating Mark of Ephesus and Photius, and will promote Katharsis, Theoria, Theosis, etc., and the Charismatic Church will talk about how Sanctification isn't complete until they are given a gift to speak nonsense.

Rome fails the test of speaking the Same Truth, and holding the Same Faith to everyone everywhere. Therefore, according to your standards Vetus Ordo, Rome is not the Catholic Church.
Title: Re: Martyrdom or suicide?
Post by: Vetus Ordo on January 13, 2019, 11:08:03 PM
Quote from: TheReturnofLive on January 13, 2019, 09:20:30 PM
Rome fails the test of speaking the Same Truth, and holding the Same Faith to everyone everywhere. Therefore, according to your standards Vetus Ordo, Rome is not the Catholic Church.

Three quick remarks:

1. It is not according to my standards. It is according to teaching of Scripture and the Fathers.

2. Your examples only show that there is doctrinal disarray in the Roman Catholic Church. Many people teach and believe different things. This, however, doesn't prove what you want it to prove. In fact, if we were to take the test of perfect doctrinal concord among all living members of a religious organization, no church on earth would pass the test. Yes, not even the Eastern Orthodox. What matters is the official teaching of the Church and, for all its shortcomings and novelties, Rome only has one catechism and one code of canon law to be followed and obeyed.

3. Rather, the heart of the matter is the doctrinal continuity (or discontinuity) between the pre-Vatican II and the post-Vatican II Church in her official documents, confessions of faith, liturgy, etc., not on the faithfulness or different religious musings of her members.
Title: Re: Martyrdom or suicide?
Post by: TheReturnofLive on January 14, 2019, 01:00:53 AM
Quote from: Vetus Ordo on January 13, 2019, 11:08:03 PM
2. Your examples only show that there is doctrinal disarray in the Roman Catholic Church. Many people teach and believe different things. This, however, doesn't prove what you want it to prove. In fact, if we were to take the test of perfect doctrinal concord among all living members of a religious organization, no church on earth would pass the test. Yes, not even the Eastern Orthodox. What matters is the official teaching of the Church and, for all its shortcomings and novelties, Rome only has one catechism and one code of canon law to be followed and obeyed.

You can't argue an illicit disunity is anywhere equivalent to a licit disunity.

The Popes have solemnly allowed a very clear doctrinal, even moral disunity to exist in their Church. As Popes are the final source of epistemological knowledge on Faith and Morality, the disunity is licit by the decrees of the Popes. The Popes haven't been just silent and complacent with this disunity - they have explicitly allowed this disunity and have established the disunity themselves.

The FSSP was established by Pope John Paul II, and, according to Pope Francis on the FSSP's official website, the FSSP's existence allows a fostering of a proper implementation of the 2nd Vatican Council, by being a standard to which the non FSSP can look up to.
http://www.fssp.org/en/blessing-of-pope-francis-on-the-occasion-of-the-25th-anniversary-of-the-fssp/

The Charismatic Movement was established with explicit approval by Pope Paul VI, and has been endorsed explicitly by Pope John Paul II and Pope Francis. In fact, Pope Francis, having partaken in several Charismatic Masses, has said that the Charismatic Movement is in complete continuity with how King David worshiped God, during one of their Charismatic Jubilee's.
https://zenit.org/articles/pope-francis-comments-and-address-at-charismatic-renewal-convention/

Under the explicit approval of Pope Paul VI, the Byzantine Catholic Churches allowed the veneration of Orthodox-only Saints. Saint Gregory Palamas and others were explicitly added to the liturgical calendar by Pope Paul VI.
http://www.ewtn.com/v/experts/showmessage.asp?number=320354&Pg=&Pgnu=&recnu=


You have no authority to reject these decisions by the Pope, as he is the non-judgeable final authority. As such, he fails the definition put forward by the Fathers.


There may be an Orthodox Bishop who campaigns for LGBT rights and recognitions, but such a disunity is illicit and is disciplined by the Synod of Bishops. If the Synod of Bishops permit LGBT rights, they will be excommunicated by the other Orthodox Churches.

For instance, Father Lazar Puhalo has explicitly encouraged transgender rights in the Church in the OCA, and the OCA has forbidden him from speaking publicly about LGBT because of it, warning to defrock him if he does so.

https://orthodoxwiki.org/Lazar_(Puhalo)_of_Ottawa



Plus, let's not forget that the "One Code of Canon Law" and "One Catechism" undoubtedly contradicts previous Catechisms and previous Codes of Canon Law. The New Code of Canon Law permits Eastern and Oriental Orthodox to Communion without reconciliation, and permits Catholics to participate in non-Catholic worship - two things the Old Canon Law forbade due to it being heretical. The New Catechism explicitly does the same thing in comparison to Old Catechisms, except moreso - the Catechism of Pius X calls Muslims Infidels, while the New Catechism says Muslims together with the Catholics adore one merciful God.
Title: Re: Martyrdom or suicide?
Post by: Stubborn on January 14, 2019, 06:54:20 AM
Quote from: Vetus Ordo on January 12, 2019, 05:52:47 PM
Quote from: Stubborn on January 12, 2019, 03:39:53 PM
Meanwhile, the Catholic Church has not gone anywhere, her episcopal hierarchy with jurisdiction and her pope are the same as well. Just believe reality and you'll have most of your answers, and forget all the conspiracy theories that leave you with more questions and no answers.

Where is the Catholic Church? Is it the organization headed by Bergoglio?

If so, traditional Catholicism (except for Ecclesia Dei groups) has been proven false. If not, where? A few bishops with no jurisdiction, sedevacantists or otherwise, don't correspond to the fundamental and unchangeable nature of the Church.

As I said, the Catholic Church has not gone anywhere, being the sole and exclusive instrument of salvation for men on earth, it will never go anywhere until the end of the world. For me personally, I was at the Catholic Church last Sunday for Mass, same as always. I've never even been to Rome myself. Over the last 50 years or so it has moved from place to place quite a few times, but it has not ceased to exist.

It almost seems as if you don't believe God and 2000 years worth of tradition and the constant teaching from His Church that says the Church will last until the end of the world - but you do believe some theologians' opinions that are contrary to what the Church teaches and are easily and indisputably proven wrong by reality, as well as Church teachings.   


Quote from: Vetus Ordo on January 12, 2019, 05:52:47 PM
Quote from: Stubborn on January 12, 2019, 03:39:53 PM
Not so. I say to forget what the theologians say about this particular issue, not everything they ever said. The point being that they are wrong on this issue - and obviously so. We have the benefit of reality which proves them to be wrong on this.

Again, I'm afraid you don't seem to fully appreciate the consequences of what you're proposing. If the teaching about the unchangeable nature of the Church is wrong, traditional Catholicism is ipso facto wrong. What sort of Tradition are you maintaining if the rock upon which Christ built His Church is an optional feature?

The unchangeable nature of the Church and traditional Catholicism is not wrong. Indeed, no faithful traditional Catholic would ever even suggest such a thing. What is wrong, as reality proves, is the opinions of theologians who claim that the indefectible Church defects when the pope does, and it is also wrong to say that that this opinion is a teaching of the Church.

Not sure who bears the greater guilt, the theologians, or those who believe that their opinions are actually a teaching of the Church.

   
Title: Re: Martyrdom or suicide?
Post by: awkwardcustomer on January 14, 2019, 07:32:03 AM
Quote from: Vetus Ordo on January 13, 2019, 11:08:03 PM
3. Rather, the heart of the matter is the doctrinal continuity (or discontinuity) between the pre-Vatican II and the post-Vatican II Church in her official documents, confessions of faith, liturgy, etc., not on the faithfulness or different religious musings of her members.

Yes, okay, and .....

There have been various responses to your often repeated point.  And yet you keep making your point, which suggests that none of the responses is sufficient for you.

What is your answer to the current situation?  That the Church has defected?

Is that the answer you're really looking for?
Title: Re: Martyrdom or suicide?
Post by: Kreuzritter on January 14, 2019, 11:31:01 AM
Quote from: Quaremerepulisti on January 13, 2019, 04:35:30 PM
Well, you can't proclaim that the Pope has supreme jurisdiction and then implicitly deny this when things get uncomfortable.

Supreme jurisdiction includes with it the power to determine how the next Pope will be selected.  It could be via direct selection, or via selection of electors.  But however the Pope determines it, that is the only way the next Pope can be selected.  If any other way were even possible, the Pope's jurisdiction would not be supreme.

Moreover, the Church would lack legal continuity from one Pope to the next if Popes would be selected via extra-legal means.

This is not revelation. It's an argument from philsophy shaped by the language of Roman jurisprudence. The Church is the Mystical Body of Christ, not an institution dependent upon human notions of legality.
Title: Re: Martyrdom or suicide?
Post by: awkwardcustomer on January 14, 2019, 12:11:57 PM
^^^ 

The Church is the Mystical Body of Christ.  The Church cannot defect.

Any explanation for the current situation has to take account of these facts. 
Title: Re: Martyrdom or suicide?
Post by: Kreuzritter on January 14, 2019, 12:33:53 PM
Quote from: Vetus Ordo on January 13, 2019, 07:35:17 PM
Quote from: Kreuzritter on January 13, 2019, 02:26:42 PMFurthermore, there were no cardinals for the first millennium of the Church's existence. You really have turned the Roman system of the modern age into a false image of the essential Church if you're claiming the Church's and Papacy's existence are ontologically dependent upon that group of spiritual and literal harlots, and in a similar vein I can sympathise with the rage of someone like Maximillian against what he calls "Ultramontanism".

I haven't made the Papacy's existence to be ontologically dependent upon the College of Cardinals. The Popes did. Not ontologically, per se, but legally as supreme lawgivers.

No, they didn't. And again, as you have to if you subscribe to Aristotelian metaphysics, you're conflating the actual existence of the Papacy with the actual existence of a pope. I refuse to do this.

Quote
Quote from: Kreuzritter on January 13, 2019, 02:26:42 PMNo, you just contradicted yourself. If she in fact has perpetual successors until the end, then there can't have been a time at which she didn't. That's absurd. The Pope doesn't receive his office from men, but through the Papacy, from Jesus Christ. And the Church's divine and unchangeable constitution given by Christ has never included the existence of cardinals and their having to choose the Pope.

Absurd?

Yes. If the Church does turn out to have papal successors until the end of time, then there cannot be any time at which the dogma of perpetuity of successors until the end of time was falsified.

Quote
I suggested that if we haven't had any valid pope since, say, Pius XII and then 10 years from now, God would directly crown another pope, there would still be a gap of 71 years where the Church was effectively without one and without any legal means to elect a new one.

And you drew an inference from that which I cannot accept because it involves a self-contradiction.

QuoteIf St. Peter is to have successors in his primacy of the whole Church and for all time, as the dogma affirms, the Church can't be left in a permanent state of interregnum where her legals means to elect a new pope are extinguished.

She wouldn't ever be left in a permanent state of interregnum if there, in fact, comes to be a future pope.

QuoteAs per current Church law, there is no solution. Another solution to this problem, as you already hinted at, would be for a new pope to be elected by other means, say by a a few living faithful bishops. But this might be a denial of the supreme jurisdiction of the pope, which is another dogma. And another problem.

I don't believe non-existent popes have jurisdiction. And immoral laws cannot have validity. I'd call leaving the faithful without possibility of having a pope because you handed over the process of electing one to the elite cardinals, for ultimately politicla reasons, without provisions for the total disappearance of the same, as immoral. The Pope may have the keys, but the Church belongs to Jesus Christ and exists for the sake of the faithful.

Quote from: Kreuzritter on January 13, 2019, 02:26:42 PM
I haven't claimed she is not visible. And don't just throw in identifiability as though it were the same thing.

They're intimately related, though. The Church's visibility also entails that she is easily identifiable from everything else.[/quote]

She would be identifiable through her actions, just not in her final terrestrial authority and to the degree of certainty required for things like defining dogma and securing a certain kind of unity as only a pope can. I can't see how the Churchwould have been built without popes; but in their absence, I do still see the Church around me, even if it is like a sunray in the distance shining through a dark cloud.

Quote
As Ott puts it, "The Fathers teach that the Church of Christ is easily recognised and distinguished as such from heretical communions. St. Irenaeus holds against the Gnostics that the adherents of the Church throughout the whole world confess the same faith, observe the same commandments and preserve the same form of Church constitution. He compares the Church, which preaches the same truth everywhere, to a seven-branched candlestick, which, visible to all, bears the light of Christ (Adv. haer. V 20, I). St. Augustine compares the Church to a city on a mountain (Mt. S, 14) : "The Church stands clear and visible before all men; for she is the city on the mountain which cannot be hidden" (Contra Cresconium, II, 36, 45)." (Funtamentals of Catholic Dogma).

Ok, but taken too far and this is question begging. Heretical sects could presumably also show such unity within themselves. What they do not do is bear the light of Christ. Thats same light I see in some "Catholics" and "Catholic" groups, but not in others and not from the liberal hierarchy.

Quote
Quote from: Kreuzritter on January 13, 2019, 02:26:42 PM
The more correct thing to say would be that Bergoglio does not head the Church. There is a distinct difference.

I understand.

In your opinion, who are the bishops and cardinals, if any, that comprise the hierarchical structure of the Catholic Church today?

I can't say in the particular case precisely because of the doubts over the existence of a pope. But in the same vein as there being saints on both sides of the Great Schisms, he who is validly ordained, with at least enough belief in the true Faith and implicit loyalty to the Papacy to be practising the same religion as the Apostles, he would comprise that structure. I have faith they exist and hope they will be revealed, as a group, at some time.

QuoteIt would be a straw man if I suggested that such was your claim. I didn't. I was providing a rhetorical example that a true hierarchy living in caves, so to speak, unknown to the real world and to faithful Catholics, would be useless.

But they aren't useless. Wherever they are teaching the Faith, administering the Sacraments, and accomplishing the works of spiritual and corporal mercy, they are not working in vain, and they wouldn't exist in vain because the future of the Church on Earth depends upon them.
Title: Re: Martyrdom or suicide?
Post by: Kreuzritter on January 14, 2019, 12:50:03 PM
I'll make a point from the Catholic Encyclopedia.

Quote(1) As the supreme teacher of the Church, whose it is to prescribe what is to be believed by all the faithful, and to take measures for the preservation and the propagation of the faith, the following are the rights which pertain to the pope:

    it is his to set forth creeds, and to determine when and by whom an explicit profession of faith shall be made (cf. Council of Trent, Sess. 24, cc. 1 and 12);
    it is his to prescribe and to command books for the religious instruction of the faithful; thus, for example, Clement XIII has recommended the Roman Catechism to all the bishops.
    The pope alone can establish a university, possessing the status and privileges of a canonically erected Catholic university;
    to him also belongs the direction of Catholic missions throughout the world; this charge is fulfilled through the Congregation of the Propaganda.
    It is his to prohibit the reading of such books as are injurious to faith or morals, and to determine the conditions on which certain classes of books may be issued by Catholics;
    his is the condemnation of given propositions as being either heretical or deserving of some minor degree of censure, and lastly
    he has the right to interpret authentically the natural law. Thus, it is his to say what is lawful or unlawful in regard to social and family life, in regard to the practice of usury, etc.

(2) With the pope's office of supreme teacher are closely connected his rights in regard to the worship of God: for it is the law of prayer that fixes the law of belief. In this sphere very much has been reserved to the sole regulation of the Holy See. Thus

    the pope alone can prescribe the liturgical services employed in the Church. If a doubt should occur in regard to the ceremonial of the liturgy, a bishop may not settle the point on his own authority, but must have recourse to Rome. The Holy See likewise prescribes rules in regard to the devotions used by the faithful, and in this way checks the growth of what is novel and unauthorized.
    At the present day the institution and abrogation of festivals which was till a comparatively recent time free to all bishops as regards their own dioceses, is reserved to Rome.
    The solemn canonization of a saint is proper to the pope. Indeed it is commonly held that this is an exercise of the papal infallibility. Beatification and every permission for the public veneration of any of the servants of God is likewise reserved to his decision.
    He alone gives to anyone the privilege of a private chapel where Mass may be said.
    He dispenses the treasury of the Church, and the grant of plenary indulgences is reserved to him. While he has no authority in regard to the substantial rites of the sacraments, and is bound to preserve them as they were given to the Church by Christ and His Apostles, certain powers in their regard belong to him;
    he can give to simple priests the power to confirm, and to bless the oil of the sick and the oil of catechumens, and
    he can establish diriment and impedient impediments to matrimony.

(3) The legislative power of the pope carries with it the following rights:

    he can legislate for the whole Church, with or without the assistance of a general council;
    if he legislates with the aid of a council it is his to convoke it, to preside, to direct its deliberations, to confirm its acts.
    He has full authority to interpret, alter, and abrogate both his own laws and those established by his predecessors. He has the same plenitude of power as they enjoyed, and stands in the same relation to their laws as to those which he himself has decreed;
    he can dispense individuals from the obligation of all purely ecclesiastical laws, and can grant privileges and exemptions in their regard.
    In this connection may be mentioned his power to dispense from vows where the greater glory of God renders it desirable. Considerable powers of dispensation are granted to bishops, and, in a restricted measure, also to priests; but there are some vows reserved altogether to the Holy See.

(4) In virtue of his supreme judicial authority

    causae majores are reserved to him. By this term are signified cases dealing with matters of great moment, or those in which personages of eminent dignity are concerned.
    His appellate jurisdiction has been discussed in the previous section. It should, however, be noted
    that the pope has full right, should he see fit, to deal even with causae minores in the first instance, and not merely by reason of an appeal (Trent, Sess. XXIV; cap. 20). In what concerns punishment,
    he can inflict censures either by judicial sentence or by general laws which operate without need of such sentence.
    He further reserves certain cases to his own tribunal. All cases of heresy come before the Congregation of the Inquisition. A similar reservation covers the cases in which a bishop or a reigning prince is the accused party.

(5) As the supreme governor of the Church the pope has authority over all appointments to its public offices. Thus

    it is his to nominate to bishoprics, or, where the nomination has been conceded to others, to give confirmation. Further, he alone can translate bishops from one see to another, can accept their resignation, and can, where grave cause exists, sentence to deprivation.
    He can establish dioceses, and can annul a previously existing arrangement in favour of a new one. Similarly, he alone can erect cathedral and collegiate chapters.
    He can approve new religious orders, and can, if he sees fit, exempt them from the authority of local ordinaries.
    Since his office of supreme ruler imposes on him the duty of enforcing the canons, it is requisite that he should be kept informed as to the state of the various dioceses. He may obtain this information by legates or by summoning the bishops to Rome. At the present day this jus relationum is exercised through the triennial visit ad limina required of all bishops. This system was introduced by Sixtus V in 1585 (Constitution, "Rom. Pontifex"), and confirmed by Benedict XIV in 1740 (Constitution, "Quod Sancta") .
    It is to be further observed that the pope's office of chief ruler of the Church carries with it jure divino the right to free intercourse with the pastors and the faithful. The placitum regium, by which this intercourse was limited and impeded, was therefore an infringement of a sacred right, and as such was solemnly condemned by the Vatican Council (Constitution, "Pastor Aeternus", cap. iii). To the pope likewise belongs the supreme administration of the goods of the Church.
    He alone can, where there is just cause, alienate any considerable quantity of such property. Thus, e.g., Julius III, at the time of the restoration of religion in England under Queen Mary validated the title of those laymen who had acquired Church lands during the spoliations of the previous reigns.
    The pope has further the right to impose taxes on the clergy and the faithful for ecclesiastical purposes (cf. Trent, Sess. XXI, cap. iv de Ref.).

If you actually believe all of this is Apostolic tradition revealed by God, and not the result of post-Medieval theological speculation engaged in a kind of neo-Pharisaism, its conclusions drawn from implicit vital, political and philosophical, biases I don't know what to say.

The Church exists forever. The Novus Ordo religion is not that of Jesus and the Apostles. Francis is a heretic almost certainly no pope. Facts, not speculations.
Title: Re: Martyrdom or suicide?
Post by: Vetus Ordo on January 14, 2019, 02:10:42 PM
Quote from: awkwardcustomer on January 14, 2019, 07:32:03 AM
What is your answer to the current situation?  That the Church has defected?

As it stands, there are no answers to be found within the traditional paradigm. That's basically the point.

It's a self-defeating position in the end, whether it be sedevacantism or "recognize and resist," stoically fighting to preserve a church that no longer exists. Nor can she come back.

The only defection that seems to have occurred is the defection of the premises that were traditionally taught and believed about the Church and the Papacy. We were completely gobsmacked by God, beaten up, humbled and punched in the face to wake up, very much like He did time and again with the ancient Jews.
Title: Re: Martyrdom or suicide?
Post by: Vetus Ordo on January 14, 2019, 02:15:34 PM
Quote from: Kreuzritter on January 14, 2019, 12:50:03 PM
If you actually believe all of this is Apostolic tradition revealed by God, and not the result of post-Medieval theological speculation engaged in a kind of neo-Pharisaism, its conclusions drawn from implicit vital, political and philosophical, biases I don't know what to say.

What I believe is immaterial.

What is relevant is that Church taught it. If she taught those things about the Pope and they aren't really true, then what leg is traditional Catholicism left to stand on? None.

It must definitely morph into something more akin to Western Orthodoxy.
Title: Re: Martyrdom or suicide?
Post by: Kreuzritter on January 14, 2019, 02:35:46 PM
Quote from: Vetus Ordo on January 14, 2019, 02:15:34 PM
What is relevant is that Church taught it. If she taught those things about the Pope and they aren't really true, then what leg is traditional Catholicism left to stand on? None.

She hasn't taught most of them. Not in a council and presented as part of the deposit of faith anyway, and not in general to the laity in catechising them, and so, as far as I'm concerned, never to the universal Church as binding on their faith, regardless of any post-Tridentine or moreso post-Vatican I theologian's opinion to the contrary. The contrary would be absurd, because any claim of their apostolic origin would be absurd. They are the relatively recent human concoction of theologians and, even worse, clerical politicians, and that's just a fact.

The pope has the God-given power to found universities? Yeah, that was clearly taught by the Apostles.  ::)
Title: Re: Martyrdom or suicide?
Post by: Kreuzritter on January 14, 2019, 02:38:52 PM
.

Title: Re: Martyrdom or suicide?
Post by: Kreuzritter on January 14, 2019, 02:46:09 PM
Quote from: Vetus Ordo on January 14, 2019, 02:10:42 PM
The only defection that seems to have occurred is the defection of the premises that were traditionally taught and believed about the Church and the Papacy. We were completely gobsmacked by God, beaten up, humbled and punched in the face to wake up, very much like He did time and again with the ancient Jews.

What was "traditionally taught" would have to go back to the Apostles. I don't see how this Papolatrous Ultramontanism does, nor even that it follows necessarily from the dogmas of Vatican I.

On the other hand, your point, if meant as a defence of the religion of the Novus Ordo, would be ridiculous. If the Church could have been wrong about the things contradicted by Vatican II and its implementation, then she could just as well have been wrong about all of the papal powers and notions of indefectibility of the bishops upon which your arguments are logically dependent. Although maybe that is your point? Could you just come out and say it in plain English, like Maximillian does?


Title: Re: Martyrdom or suicide?
Post by: Vetus Ordo on January 14, 2019, 03:00:40 PM
Quote from: Kreuzritter on January 14, 2019, 02:35:46 PM
Quote from: Vetus Ordo on January 14, 2019, 02:15:34 PM
What is relevant is that Church taught it. If she taught those things about the Pope and they aren't really true, then what leg is traditional Catholicism left to stand on? None.

She hasn't taught most of them. Not in a council and presented as part of the deposit of faith anyway, and not in general to the laity in catechising them, and so, as far as I'm concerned, never to the universal Church as binding on their faith, regardless of any post-Tridentine or moreso post-Vatican I theologian's opinion to the contrary. The contrary would be absurd, because any claim of their apostolic origin would be absurd. They are the relatively recent human concoction of theologians and, even worse, clerical politicians, and that's just a fact.

The pope has the God-given power to found universities? Yeah, that was clearly taught by the Apostles.  ::)

I'm not arguing they are true in themselves. What matters is that Church taught them as true. These teachings about the Pope were presented as true, or at least as sure, even if some had not been defined with a solemn judgment or proposed as definitive by the ordinary and universal magisterium. Nevertheless, they were an authentic expression of the ordinary magisterium of the Roman pontiff, or of the college of bishops, and therefore required religious submission of will and intellect.
Title: Re: Martyrdom or suicide?
Post by: Vetus Ordo on January 14, 2019, 03:02:31 PM
Quote from: Kreuzritter on January 14, 2019, 02:46:09 PM
Quote from: Vetus Ordo on January 14, 2019, 02:10:42 PM
The only defection that seems to have occurred is the defection of the premises that were traditionally taught and believed about the Church and the Papacy. We were completely gobsmacked by God, beaten up, humbled and punched in the face to wake up, very much like He did time and again with the ancient Jews.

What was "traditionally taught" would have to go back to the Apostles. I don't see how this Papolatrous Ultramontanism does, nor even that it follows necessarily from the dogmas of Vatican I.

On the other hand, your point, if meant as a defence of the religion of the Novus Ordo, would be ridiculous. If the Church could have been wrong about the things contradicted by Vatican II and its implementation, then she could just as well have been wrong about all of the papal powers and notions of indefectibility of the bishops upon which your arguments are logically dependent. Although maybe that is your point? Could you just come out and say it in plain English, like Maximillian does?

That is my point.

If I were to make a bet, I'd say that the future of the Catholic Church will most like be something along the lines of a "Western Orthodoxy."
Title: Re: Martyrdom or suicide?
Post by: awkwardcustomer on January 15, 2019, 06:34:19 AM
Quote from: Vetus Ordo on January 14, 2019, 03:02:31 PM
If I were to make a bet, I'd say that the future of the Catholic Church will most like be something along the lines of a "Western Orthodoxy."

Is that what you're hoping for?


Title: Re: Martyrdom or suicide?
Post by: Vetus Ordo on January 15, 2019, 02:14:54 PM
Quote from: awkwardcustomer on January 15, 2019, 06:34:19 AM
Quote from: Vetus Ordo on January 14, 2019, 03:02:31 PM
If I were to make a bet, I'd say that the future of the Catholic Church will most like be something along the lines of a "Western Orthodoxy."

Is that what you're hoping for?

If that's what we get in the future, it will be insurmountably better than what we have today.

The ideal, however, is for God to step in directly and annihilate the modern Church, miraculously resurrecting the old Church in the process.
Title: Re: Martyrdom or suicide?
Post by: TheReturnofLive on January 15, 2019, 07:26:05 PM
For what it's worth, even though it is kind of in poor taste - I kind of get a kick out of your profile picture, Vetus Ordo.

I shouldn't, and may God forgive me if I'm sinning, but hey - if Saint Lawrence, and subsequently the Roman Catholic Church, can have a sense of humor towards Martyrdom, I hope I'm not sinning too much.
Title: Re: Martyrdom or suicide?
Post by: Vetus Ordo on January 17, 2019, 09:39:30 PM
Quote from: TheReturnofLive on January 15, 2019, 07:26:05 PM
For what it's worth, even though it is kind of in poor taste - I kind of get a kick out of your profile picture, Vetus Ordo.

I shouldn't, and may God forgive me if I'm sinning, but hey - if Saint Lawrence, and subsequently the Roman Catholic Church, can have a sense of humor towards Martyrdom, I hope I'm not sinning too much.

Your penance is Jack Nicholson?