Do both Sedes & Neoconservatives believe that every act of Governing & Ambiguous Teaching of Vatican II Popes & other Popes such as Pope John XXII are Infallible contrary to Vatican I?
- LifeSiteNews, "Confusion explodes as Pope Francis throws magisterial
weight behind communion for adulterers," December 4, 2017:
The AAS guidelines explicitly allows "sexually active adulterous couples
facing 'complex circumstances' to 'access the sacraments of
Reconciliation and the Eucharist.'"
- On February 2018, in Rorate Caeli, Catholic theologian Dr. John Lamont:
"The AAS statement... establishes that Pope Francis in Amoris Laetitia
has affirmed propositions that are heretical in the strict sense."
- On December 2, 2017, Bishop Rene Gracida:
"Francis' heterodoxy is now official. He has published his letter to the
Argentina bishops in Acta Apostlica Series making those letters
magisterial documents." - The Catholic Monitor
Here is what Vatican I expert Fr. Chad Ripperger, PhD, in his book
"Magisterial Authority" says to Lewis and others who it appears are
"proximate to heresy":
"[T]reat[ing] ALL papal statements as if
they are infallible... is proximate to heresy because it rejects the
precise formulation of the conditions of infallibility as laid out in by
Vatican I... by essentially saying that the pope is infallible
regardless of conditions."
"... Worse still, those who were to
follow a pope who was in error in a non-infallible teaching which is
taught contrary to something that is infallible is not, therefore,
excused."
(Magisterial Authority, Pages 5-14) - The Catholic Monitor
There
is a difference between "material" heresy and "formal" heresy. A Pope
can be a "material" heretic -- i.e. he can actually hold personal
heretical views (as did John XXII) since a Pope is only infallible when
making Ex Cathedra statements to the Universal Church on matters of
faith and morals.
HOWEVER, a Pope cannot be considered a formal
heretic until/unless a duly formed juridical body within the Church
examines his alleged "heresies" and requests a retraction or repudiation
of any of his positions which are actually found to be contrary to
Church doctrine, and only -- if then -- such a Pope refuses to repudiate
and/or correct his personally held beliefs.
If such a Pope were to recant his errors and repent of them in such a circumstance, he is not a formal heretic. - Gloria.tv [https://gloria.tv/post/ccfWZin62bJ13DBwFas3Gwojt/replies]
[The Catholic Monitor wonders if Sedevacantists and Neoconservatives are united and of one mind on one belief:]
Do both Sedes and Neoconservatives both believe that every act of
governing and ambiguous teaching of Vatican II popes and other popes
such as Pope John XXII are infallible contrary to Vatican I?
Is it possible that Sedes and Neoconservatives may be infallibly definitely united and of one mind on this
subject?
https://www.thecatholicmonitor.com/2022/06/semi-modernists-francistrads-like.html
- This problem is exacerbated by our current historical conditions. As
the theological community began to unravel before, during and after
Vatican II, those who considered themselves orthodox were those who were
obedient and intellectually submissive to the Magisterium, since those
who dissented were not orthodox. Therefore the standard of orthodoxy was
shifted from Scripture, intrinsic tradition (of which the Magisterium
is a part) and extrinsic tradition (which includes magisterial acts of
the past, such as Pius IX’s Syllabus of Errors), to a psychological
state in which only the current Magisterium is followed.
Neoconservatives
have fallen into this way of thinking. The only standard by which they
judge - orthodoxy is whether or not one follows the current Magisterium.
As a general rule, traditionalists tend to be orthodox in the sense
that they are obedient to the current Magisterium, even though they
disagree about matters of discipline and have some reservations about
certain aspects of current magisterial teachings that seem to contradict
the previous Magisterium (e.g., the role of the ecumenical movement).
Traditionalists tend to take not just the current Magisterium as their
norm but also Scripture, intrinsic tradition, extrinsic tradition and
the current Magisterium as the principles of judgment of correct
Catholic thinking. This is what distinguishes traditionalists and
neoconservatives
Inevitably, this magisterialism has led to a
form of positivism. Since there are no principles of judgment other than
the current Magisterium, whatever the current Magisterium says is
always what is “orthodox.” In other words, psychologically the
neoconservatives have been left in a position in which the extrinsic and
intrinsic tradition are no longer included in the norms of judging
whether something is orthodox or not. As a result, whatever comes out of
the Vatican, regardless of its authoritative weight, is to be held,
even if it contradicts what was taught with comparable authority in the
past. Since non-infallible ordinary acts of the Magisterium can be
erroneous, this leaves one in a precarious situation if one takes as
true only what the current Magisterium says. While we are required to
give religious assent even to the non-infallible teachings of the
Church, what are we to do when a magisterial document contradicts other
current or previous teachings and one does not have any more
authoritative weight than the other? It is too simplistic merely to say
that we are to follow the current teaching. What would happen if in a
period of crisis, like our own, a non-infallible ordinary magisterial
teaching contradicted what was in fact the truth? If one part of the
Magisterium contradicts another, both being at the same level, which is
to believed?
Unfortunately, what has happened is that many
neoconservatives have acted as if non-infallible ordinary magisterial
teachings (such as, for instance, the role of inculturation in the
liturgy as stated in the Catechism of the Catholic Church) are, in fact,
infallible when the current Magisterium promulgates them. This is a
positivist mentality. Many of the things that neoconservatives do are
the result of implicitly adopting principles that they have not fully or
explicitly considered. Many of them would deny this characterization
because they do not intellectually hold to what, in fact, are their
operative principles. - Fr. Chad Ripperger, F.S.S.P.
[http://www.latinmassmagazine.com/articles/articles_2001_sp_ripperger.html] - The Catholic Monitor comment section [https://www.thecatholicmonitor.com/2022/06/a-catholic-monitor-discussion-on.html]
The Catholic Monitor would like to recommend Fr. Paul Kramer's book "On the true and the false pope: The case against Bergoglio" to Sedevacantists on the difference between Francis and Pope Benedict XVI:
Next, as all Catholic Monitor (CM) readers know the CM comment section has been having a lively ongoing discussion with Sedevacantists and Francis advocates who are possibly Traditionalists as well as conservatives (Neoconservatives) for the last few weeks. Below are discussions where some of the above quotes were taken from:
"For this reason, and well aware of the seriousness of this act, with full freedom I declare that I renounce the ministry of Bishop of Rome, Successor of Saint Peter, entrusted to me by the Cardinals on 19 April 2005, in such a way, that as from 28 February 2013, at 20:00 hours, the See of Rome, the See of Saint Peter, will be vacant and a Conclave to elect the new Supreme Pontiff will have to be convoked by those whose competence it is.
Dear Brothers, I thank you most sincerely for all the love and work with which you have supported me in my ministry and I ask pardon for all my defects. And now, let us entrust the Holy Church to the care of Our Supreme Pastor, Our Lord Jesus Christ, and implore his holy Mother Mary, so that she may assist the Cardinal Fathers with her maternal solicitude, in electing a new Supreme Pontiff. With regard to myself, I wish to also devotedly serve the Holy Church of God in the future through a life dedicated to prayer.
Notice, Pope Benedict the date and time his resignation would come into effect and declared that the See of Peter would be vacant at that time and that a Conclave would be convened to elect a new Supreme Pontiff. It is as simple and simple can be."
-Munus gone after he gave up the See of Peter. Left the chair Vacant. Beneplenism, Benevacantism ultimately leads to sedevacantism in a different flavor.
Here is what Vatican I expert Fr. Chad Ripperger, PhD, in his book "Magisterial Authority" says to Lewis and others who it appears are "proximate to heresy":
"[T]reat[ing] ALL papal statements as if they are infallible... is proximate to heresy because it rejects the precise formulation of the conditions of infallibility as laid out in by Vatican I... by essentially saying that the pope is infallible regardless of conditions."
"... Worse still, those who were to follow a pope who was in error in a non-infallible teaching which is taught contrary to something that is infallible is not, therefore, excused."
(Magisterial Authority, Pages 5-14)
As I said to your apparent friend Steve O'Reilly:
"Why are you [who apparently don't think there have been antipopes in Church history] so obsessed with Francis being infallibly definitely the pope to the point you are a afraid of cardinals and bishops correcting your definitively infallibly non-heretical Francis on "communion for adulterers" which apparently may be the opposite of your position maybe if Aqua is reading you right and now you are apparently defending his "communion for adulterers" new cardinals? Would you love Pope Mcelroy as much as you love Francis? Would you be against correcting a future Pope Mcelroy? Would you be against correcting a future Pope James Martin? Would you love Pope James Martin as much as you love Francis?"
Is it possible that Sedes and Neoconservatives may be infallibly definitely united and of one mind on this
subject?
https://www.thecatholicmonitor.com/2022/06/semi-modernists-francistrads-like.html
- This problem is exacerbated by our current historical conditions. As the theological community began to unravel before, during and after Vatican II, those who considered themselves orthodox were those who were obedient and intellectually submissive to the Magisterium, since those who dissented were not orthodox. Therefore the standard of orthodoxy was shifted from Scripture, intrinsic tradition (of which the Magisterium is a part) and extrinsic tradition (which includes magisterial acts of the past, such as Pius IX’s Syllabus of Errors), to a psychological state in which only the current Magisterium is followed.
Neoconservatives have fallen into this way of thinking. The only standard by which they judge - orthodoxy is whether or not one follows the current Magisterium. As a general rule, traditionalists tend to be orthodox in the sense that they are obedient to the current Magisterium, even though they disagree about matters of discipline and have some reservations about certain aspects of current magisterial teachings that seem to contradict the previous Magisterium (e.g., the role of the ecumenical movement). Traditionalists tend to take not just the current Magisterium as their norm but also Scripture, intrinsic tradition, extrinsic tradition and the current Magisterium as the principles of judgment of correct Catholic thinking. This is what distinguishes traditionalists and neoconservatives
Inevitably, this magisterialism has led to a form of positivism. Since there are no principles of judgment other than the current Magisterium, whatever the current Magisterium says is always what is “orthodox.” In other words, psychologically the neoconservatives have been left in a position in which the extrinsic and intrinsic tradition are no longer included in the norms of judging whether something is orthodox or not. As a result, whatever comes out of the Vatican, regardless of its authoritative weight, is to be held, even if it contradicts what was taught with comparable authority in the past. Since non-infallible ordinary acts of the Magisterium can be erroneous, this leaves one in a precarious situation if one takes as true only what the current Magisterium says. While we are required to give religious assent even to the non-infallible teachings of the Church, what are we to do when a magisterial document contradicts other current or previous teachings and one does not have any more authoritative weight than the other? It is too simplistic merely to say that we are to follow the current teaching. What would happen if in a period of crisis, like our own, a non-infallible ordinary magisterial teaching contradicted what was in fact the truth? If one part of the Magisterium contradicts another, both being at the same level, which is to believed?
Unfortunately, what has happened is that many neoconservatives have acted as if non-infallible ordinary magisterial teachings (such as, for instance, the role of inculturation in the liturgy as stated in the Catechism of the Catholic Church) are, in fact, infallible when the current Magisterium promulgates them. This is a positivist mentality. Many of the things that neoconservatives do are the result of implicitly adopting principles that they have not fully or explicitly considered. Many of them would deny this characterization because they do not intellectually hold to what, in fact, are their operative principles. - Fr. Chad Ripperger, F.S.S.P. [http://www.latinmassmagazine.com/articles/articles_2001_sp_ripperger.html]
Below is a Catholic Monitor comment section discussion on Sedevacantism:
Jeremiah Alphonsus on Youtube said...The “Recognize and Resist” crowd—which includes Burke, the SSPX, Kwasniewski, 1P5, The Remnant, Catholic Family News, Lifesite, The Fatima Center…—is busily redefining the papacy. They absolutely refuse to acknowledge that, as a pertinacious and manifest heretic, Francis cannot possibly be an actual pope since actual popes must be actually Catholic.
Further, they refuse to see that it takes no legal authority whatsoever to recognize this factual reality, any more than one must be a coroner to recognize a dead body. The coroner merely has the authority to later officially pronounce the body dead. But the body was already factually dead, though not yet legally dead. Further, one need not like the fact that the body is dead; yet it remains dead, regardless of any legal declaration and regardless of one’s feelings.
For more on “R & R” madness, see these posts on the superb Novus Ordo Watch site:
“Rethinking” the Papacy? A New Narrative for the Semi-Trads
No Jekyll-and-Hyde Magisterium: Against the Theological Sophistry of Peter Kwasniewski
Anything but Sedevacantism! Analysis of a curious Phenomenon
Also see the following, and more, on my Jeremiah Alphonsus channel on Youtube:
The Mad Absurdity of the “Recognize & Resist” Position-
Fred Martinez said...
Jeremiah Alphonsus on Youtube said...Anything but Sedevacantism! Analysis of a curious Phenomenon
https://www.thecatholicmonitor.com/2022/06/a-catholic-monitor-comment-section.html
A Catholic Monitor Comment Section discussion on Sedevacantism: "A False Solution to a Real Problem":
Fred Martinez said…
Debbie said... I don't see how all the post conciliar popes are not heretics.
Debbie,
That was me (Fred) who posted the above
I know you and I don't like Ferrara, but nor does Woods who co-authored the book and I still say:
"The Great Facade" is still where I think you should start on your question above and other questions with pages 12n, 39, 57, 58, etc.
Page 59 says sedes and neo-conservatives embrace the "same error.The Magisterium embraces whatever the Pope says." Unlike Francis the other Vatican II popes didn't do:
LifeSiteNews, "Confusion explodes as Pope Francis throws magisterial weight behind communion for adulterers," December 4, 2017:
The AAS guidelines explicitly allows "sexually active adulterous couples facing 'complex circumstances' to 'access the sacraments of Reconciliation and the Eucharist.'"
Also, "the Church MUST either deprive him, or, as some say, declare him deprived, of his Apostolic See." or we become Protestant-like:
"[T]he Pope... WHEN he is EXPLICITLY a heretic, he falls ipso facto from his dignity and out of the Church, and the Church MUST either deprive him, or, as some say, declare him deprived, of his Apostolic See."
(The Catholic Controversy, by St. Francis de Sales, Pages 305-306)
- On February 2018, in Rorate Caeli, Catholic theologian Dr. John Lamont:
"The AAS statement... establishes that Pope Francis in Amoris Laetitia has affirmed propositions that are heretical in the strict sense."
- On December 2, 2017, Bishop Rene Gracida:
"Francis' heterodoxy is now official. He has published his letter to the Argentina bishops in Acta Apostlica Series making those letters magisterial documents."
I, too, have a good friend who is a Sede, but I won't join him,for the above reasons , others and the infallible Vatican I:
Are you prepared to deny Vatican I?
Vatican I clearly teaches that popes will reign perpetually:
"[T]he true doctrine concerning the establishment, the perpetuity, and the nature of the apostolic primacy. In this primacy, all the efficacy and all the strength of the Church are placed. (Vatican I, Pastor Aeternus, chapter 1)" (UnamSanctumCatholicm.com, "False Principles of Sedevantism (Part 1)).
I hope that is helpful.
7:53 PM
Fred Martinez said…
There are no more cardinals alive who were made so by Pope Pius XII which means no more popes will reign perpetually.-
Anonymous said...
You don't need Cardinals to elect a Pope in an extreme situation...Bishops, archbishops could..
-
Fred Martinez said...
The renowned Catholic historian Carroll explicitly wrote:
"Papal election procedures are governed by the prescription of the last Pope who provided for them (that is, any Pope can change them, but they remain in effect until they are changed by a duly elected Pope)."
"During the first thousand years of the history of the Papacy the electors were the clergy of Rome (priests and deacons); during the second thousand years we have had the College of Cardinals."
"But each Pope, having unlimited sovereign power as head of the Church, can prescribe any method for the election of his successor(s) that he chooses. These methods must then be followed in the next election after the death of the Pope who prescribed it, and thereafter until they are changed. A Papal claimant not following these methods is also an Antipope."
[http://www.ewtn.com/library/homelibr/antipope.txt]-
Anonymous said...
Nothing is true belief if it is not an infallible definition.
Encyclicals, apostolic exhortations, synod documents council documents, apostolic constitutions - nothing - nothing at all is necessarily true becuase they are not infallible defined.
Bergoglio has never spoked to make a single ex cathedra defintion - so you can disagree with anything.-
Fred Martinez said...
"The Great Facade" is still where I think you should start on your question above and other questions with pages 12n, 39, 57, 58, etc.
Page 59 says sedes and neo-conservatives embrace the "same error.The Magisterium embraces whatever the Pope says." Unlike Francis the other Vatican II popes didn't do:
LifeSiteNews, "Confusion explodes as Pope Francis throws magisterial weight behind communion for adulterers," December 4, 2017:
The AAS guidelines explicitly allows "sexually active adulterous couples facing 'complex circumstances' to 'access the sacraments of Reconciliation and the Eucharist.'"
Also, "the Church MUST either deprive him, or, as some say, declare him deprived, of his Apostolic See." or we become Protestant-like:
"[T]he Pope... WHEN he is EXPLICITLY a heretic, he falls ipso facto from his dignity and out of the Church, and the Church MUST either deprive him, or, as some say, declare him deprived, of his Apostolic See."
(The Catholic Controversy, by St. Francis de Sales, Pages 305-306)-
Fred Martinez said...
https://motheofgod.com/threads/can-a-pope-be-a-heretic-and-can-a-good-catholic-say-so.9461/page-3#post-139764
"Hopefully this will finally lay to rest the false notions that 1) a pope cannot be a heretic, 2) a layperson commits sin in calling a pope a heretic, 3) popes are always owed obedience and cannot ever be criticized, and 4) anyone critical of a pope is guilty of "attack," "hatred," etc., or is liable to damnation":
More official Church teaching:
It shall be lawful for each and all of the cardinals,...as well as for all the clergy and the Roman people,... to withdraw without penalty and at any time from obedience and loyalty to the person so elected even if he has been enthroned (while they themselves, notwithstanding this, remain fully committed to the faith of the Roman church and to obedience towards a future Roman pontiff entering office in accordance with the canons) and to avoid him as a magician, a heathen, a publican and a heresiarch."
Pope Julius II, Council of Lateran V. 1513
"Now when [the Pope] is explicitly a heretic, he falls ipso facto from his dignity and out of the Church, and the Church must either deprive him, or, as some say, declare him deprived, of his Apostolic See."
St. Francis de Sales, "The Catholic Controversy"
"...a pope who is a manifest heretic by that fact ceases to be pope and head, just as he by that fact ceases to be a Christian and a member of the body of the Church; wherefore he can be judged and punished by the Church. This is the judgment of all the early fathers, who teach that manifest heretics immediately lose all jurisdiction."
St. Robert Bellarmine, "On the Roman Pontiff"
"If God permitted a pope to be notoriously heretical and contumacious, he would then cease to be pope, and the Apostolic Chair would be vacant."
St. Alphonsus de Liguori, "The Truths of the Faith"
"An heretical pope necessarily ceases to be head of the Church, for by his heresy he is no longer a member thereof: in the event of his still claiming the Roman see a general council, improperly so-called because without the pope, could remove him. But this is not deposition, since by his own act he is no longer pope."
A Catholic Dictionary, 1951. Deposition
"The councils of Constance and Basle, and Gallican theologians, hold that a council may depose a pope...(2) /ob fidem/ (on account of his faith or rather want of faith, i.e. heresy). In point of fact however, heresy is the only legitimate ground. For a heretical pope has ceased to be a member of the Church, and cannot, therefore, be its head."
Catholic Encyclopedia, 1913. [Vol. IV p.435] Councils
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... "Cum ex Apostolatus Officio" Apostolic Constitution of Pope Paul IV, 1559
Hopefully this will finally lay to rest the false notions that 1) a pope cannot be a heretic, 2) a layperson commits sin in calling a pope a heretic, 3) popes are always owed obedience and cannot ever be criticized, and 4) anyone critical of a pope is guilty of "attack," "hatred," etc., or is liable to damnation.-
Fred Martinez said...
https://gloria.tv/post/ccfWZin62bJ13DBwFas3Gwojt/replies
There is a difference between "material" heresy and "formal" heresy. A Pope can be a "material" heretic -- i.e. he can actually hold personal heretical views (as did John XXII) since a Pope is only infallible when making Ex Cathedra statements to the Universal Church on matters of faith and morals.
HOWEVER, a Pope cannot be considered a formal heretic until/unless a duly formed juridical body within the Church examines his alleged "heresies" and requests a retraction or repudiation of any of his positions which are actually found to be contrary to Church doctrine, and only -- if then -- such a Pope refuses to repudiate and/or correct his personally held beliefs.
If such a Pope were to recant his errors and repent of them in such a circumstance, he is not a formal heretic.-
Fred Martinez said...
https://www.thecatholicmonitor.com/2020/12/if-francis-is-heretic-what-should.html
Dr. John R. T. Lamont, philosopher and theologian, explains the procedures of how Francis's papacy could cease if he is declared a heretical pope by the Church:
"Some... argue that the dubia and other criticisms of Amoris Laetitia that have been made already suffice as warnings to Pope Francis, and hence that he can now be judged to be guilty of the canonical crime of heresy..."
But for juridical purposes – especially for the very serious purpose of judging a Pope to be a heretic – they do not suffice. The evidence needed for a juridical judgment of such gravity has to take a form that is entirely clear and beyond dispute. A formal warning from a number of members of the College of Cardinals that is then disregarded by the Pope would constitute such evidence."
"The possibility of a Pope being canonically guilty of heresy has long been admitted in the Church. It is acknowledged in the Decretals of Gratian There is no dispute among Catholic theologians on this point – even among theologians like Bellarmine who do not think that a Pope is in fact capable of being a heretic..."
"It is to be hoped that the correction of Pope Francis does not have to proceed this far, and that he will either reject the heresies he has announced or resign his office..."
"Removing him from office against his will would require the election of a new Pope, and would probably leave the Church with Francis as an anti-Pope contesting the authority of the new Pope. If Francis refuses to renounce either his heresy or his office, however, this situation will just have to be faced."Pray an Our Father now for reparation for the sins committed because of Francis's Amoris Laetitia.
When we put all those points together we see that sedevacantism theology on the pope is correct in principle on most points. It’s weakness would be lack of apostolic succession.
I am no sedevacantist but I have read traditional Catholic dogmatic and moral theology.