The conciliar/Novus Ordo/Synodal church hasn't had any valid nor faithful bishops, cardinals or more importantly, popes, so who among them could end the heresies, blasphemes, sacrileges and mockery of Christ which they all do?
We can prove the public heresy of the Conciliar claimants to the Papacy, but we cannot prove that every single bishop in the world (NO and Eastern Catholic) is a public heretic and thus not a Catholic bishop. Even regarding Orders: those in the NO are doubtfully ordained and consecrated but the Eastern Catholic Churches maintain the traditional rites, so they have certainly valid bishops and priests.
There are many heretical bishops in the NO, but there are also those who do not publicly profess heresy and stay silent against the Modernists out of fear that they will be deposed and persecuted (as were Abp. Viganò and Bp. Strickland, two rare examples of NO bishops who had the courage to speak out, and were dealt with severely by the usurpers as a message to the others). As Bp. Michael Mary said, they are not all wicked. It is an error to believe that.
Cowardice in opposing the enemy is reprehensible but does not lead to loss of office.
Our Lady of Good Success foresaw this, which is why She said: "In this supreme moment of need of the Church, those who should speak will fall silent."
Mr. Lane gave several examples where the Catholic episcopate did not act, out of cowardice, human respect and similar reasons. Another example is the scattering of the Apostles after Our Lord was captured, condemned and crucified.
I agree. People toss the Eastern rites out too easily due to them being close to the synodal church. Although, sometimes I am skeptical of Vigano. I have seen many people (friends of mine also) try to say he was a false convert. They said things like “Why should we trust him when he aided these monsters for years?”
Although I understand their sentiment.
It’s led me to become very disillusioned with anything trad related. I approach most trads with heavy skepticism such as SGG to RCI to CMRI.
Since the Novus Ordo church is a counterfeit, anyone who is a member of that church is a heretic so it doesn't matter if they publicly profess heresy as just belonging to that church places them outside of the true Catholic Church. It doesn't matter if one is afraid to speak out if they don't agree with the heretical teachings of this church as they are still members of it.
I said nothing about the Eastern Catholic Churches but all of them, in my understanding, are in communion with the heretical popes which makes them outside of the true Catholic Church as well.
It is a simplistic argument, which is both unproven and false. As such, "the NO Church" doesn't exist as a separate body with such a name. It identifies officially as the Catholic Church and its leaders occupy Catholic institutions and dioceses (this is precisely why it is so pernicious). Many among the laity, as well as some of the bishops, have done nothing to separate from the Catholic Church. They live and die as Catholics without having consciously departed from the rule of the Magisterium (which is what makes a heretic). It is not analogous to someone who is a member or official of the Lutheran or Anglican sect and who is well aware that he is not a member of the Catholic Church.
If a Catholic is in communion with a false pope during a time of great confusion, thinking that he was a true pope based on weighty reasons, this does not take that Catholic out of the Church. The Western Schism is the perfect example, with canonized saints from both obediences.
Those faithful Catholics who profess communion with Prevost do so because they believe him to be Pope, and not because he is a heretic, nor are they in communion with his heresies. If you believe that they are all out of the Church, then you must conclude that only sedevacantists are inside the Church.
Those are grave errors (and objective sins) against both justice and charity - to consider someone non-Catholic even though he does not consciously withdraw from the rule of the Magisterium, nor does he separate from communion with other Catholics. It is such sectarian sedevacantism which keeps many people away from recognizing the fact of the vacancy.
The Western Schism is a terrible analogy. That was schism, but this is heresy. Schism attacks the unity, heresy attacks the faith. How many lay faithful saints followed Arian bishops? I thought St Hermengild chose to die rather than commune with the heretics whom he thought of as non-Christian. But it seems you think this is more of a kitchen-dish towel slapping match and less if a fight. You want to create some kind of "movement" and sway the Mass of Novus Ordo lover fence-sitters to the side of truth and you don't want to "scare them off"? Good luck convincing the masses that Prevost is a heretic for preaching Vatican II, but they aren't for going along with it all too!
The analogy stands because in both cases it is Catholics adhering to false popes, believing them to be true popes because of weighty reasons (physical possession of the See, apparent election by the pseudo-cardinals, common error about their status, and often just plain ignorance). I am not talking about those who adhere to their heresies, but about those who profess no heresies, yet recognize them as popes, and that is not limited to trad sedeplenists like the SSPX or the Resistance. I was once one of them, a long time ago.
To excommunicate everyone who believes Prevost is Pope is the same thing as those Catholics who during the Western Schism excommunicated each other and called each other schismatic for supporting an antipope.
It is shortsightedness, partisanship, misplaced zeal. It is the spirit of schism, and we should always flee from such a spirit, and instead try to foster the spirit of unity and fraternal charity with anyone who calls himself Catholic and who does not profess any heresy, no matter his opinions on the Crisis. I admit that I have also at times failed to do that, but I try. I have no ideas for a missionary "movement" to convert those in the NO or anything like that. My only agenda is the Triumph of the Immaculate Heart, the Restoration of the Church and maintaining the bonds of unity among Catholics.
It is also worth mentioning Peregrinus that many of the trad bishops and priests profess certain errors and heresies themselves such as redefining apostolic succession, claiming jurisdiction they don’t have, even going so far as to say that apostolic succession has ended or been interrupted. That is only the start of it.
Fr. Cekada professed such heresies on apostolic succession on the now defunct Ignis Ardens forum. Which John Lane called him out on that and Fr. Cekada to my knowledge continued to double down.
I am not sure if you wanted to mention that, but I felt it was worth a mention. As the grass isn’t greener on the other side with Trad Bishops and priests.
St. Augustine, "It does not follow that Jesus could not do all that by Himself, for who else does all these things in His Church? But if He wishes us to consult his ministers and THUS to be made SURE of the DOCTRINE and FAITH we profess it is to unite all the members of his Church into one in the same society or fold with the ONE and SAME DOCTRINE and THUS to preserve the UNITY and soundness of color - that is, of FAITH, the ONE SURE Mark of the church."
It is quite impossible to sort out those who formally adhere to heretics from the material heretics. That is why Van Noort says it, "is the more common opinion that material heretics do NOT belong to the Church." The reason they give is that one would never know what to believe if/when being taught by a material heretic and their is no true unity of doctrine in such a body. Their formal motive of faith may be correct in name, "the Catholic Church", but they lack the correct understanding of the faith concerning basic eccesiology which makes them materially heretical NOT by association with heretical prelates but literally because 99.999% of this who adhere to the post-conciliar structure disbelieve the Dogma, "outside the Church no salvation.", - religious indifferentists, or they have some of the many other heresies.
I make no pretension as to my status in the Church, but one should not be called prideful, or "unchwaritable" "not nith", etc. simply for following the more common opinion and the logic that follows. A high percentage of trads come out of the post-conciliar structure, but the reason the leave is presicely because THEY think they are doing something NOT Catholic (practice novelty) and need to stop, while also embracingtge Traditions of the faith, which will make them authentically Catholic.
Strawmen, ad hominems, sophisms, and bad logic begone!
Elaine, my apologies. My original reply to you came off rather aggressive in my questioning about what you believed on certain trad issues. I have since deleted it. I would attribute it to tumultuous life changes I am going through right now… this has caused me to be a bit “temperamental” in my moods.
We will just agree to disagree for now. May God Bless you and his Mother keep you.
If Vatican II did not contain heresy, what real leg does one have to stand on? Savanarola certainly knew it mattered immensely to be morally certain of a papal claiments heresy before "speaking out and acting".
Do not all the current heirachry accept and support, no..., down right love Vatican II? How many of this generation of the episcopate have actually ever been to a real Roman Catholic Mass?, Or how many of them know Latin? How many even remember Vatican II from their youth, or were even born yet!?
Do not all these bishops subscribe to religious liberty? Is not the "ultra-conservative" Archbishop Sample the USCCB head of their religious liberty commission? Did not Stickland defend it publicly as well?
You are delusion if you think a supposed bishop of the Catholic Church gets a "free-pass" on aligning himself with a Judeo/Masonic hybrid liberal Catholicism simply because, "everyone else went along with it." And he was "scarred".
Newsflash: 100% of post-Vatican II clerics that belong to the post-conciliar church are Modernists to one degree or another because Vatican II was a Modernist council and they all ACCEPT IT. And due to their presumed training the law assumes guilt for heretical crimes when sufficient evidence is presented, as clergy cannot claim ignorance as an excuse - such as a layman could. They lose that deference when they exulted themselves to the position of "teachers" in the Church.
Do not look to either the East or the West they are all given to the heresy of Modernism and the other errors that accompanied Vatican II.
Vigano still to this day stands ALONE. Where are those other "good" bishops? Hiding! Then they are only hirelings and no bishops at all. Where are these other "good" bishops? To busy trying to be holy to speak up against a mountain of heresy! Then they just prove they are as guilty as the perpetrators, "To not oppose error is to consent to it." No, they are all false, if any turn good it is just a regular conversion. Vigano converted, he realized something. He didn't revert, he realized he was never truly Catholic to begin with, because a Catholic must embrace Tradition.
They (the other putative bishops) are ALL, silent, false, wolves in sheep's clothing, where the more "conservative" or "traditional" they come off they do greater damage than they do otherwise by giving greater credence to the lie that is Modernist Rome and their fake church.
Although I am not a theologian, to the best of my knowledge Vatican II does contain not merely error, but heresy as well.
A recognition of Vatican II as an ecumenical council, or even quoting some of its conservative statements and trying to accept it in the light of Tradition and to reconcile its errors with previous teaching doesn't make a person a heretic (in grave error yes, but not a heretic). To be a heretic one must be aware that he is departing from the rule of the Church's Magisterium and following another opinion.
We know that during the Arian Crisis most sees in the East were vacant because those bishops defected into heresy, but in the West it was different (today, it's the other way around). The Western bishops weren't brave, though. Almost all of them were silent for fear of being exiled by the Emperor, many compromised with the Arians but without openly professing heresy, and what happened when the Crisis was ended? All of those who compromised with the Arians, but didn't openly profess heresy, were permitted to stay in their Sees. The Church had compassion for their weakness. There was, however, a bishop who opposed this, and he manifested the same spirit as you do in your comment - they are all false, they are all guilty. His name was Lucifer of Cagliari and he started a schism, turning against his friend St. Athanasius, Pope Liberius and all the other bishops who supported that act of compassion.
You talk about presumed training and guilt, but I know what they teach in the NO seminaries - Modernist brainwashing presented as Catholic truth, with little information about Catholic doctrine. It was much different in the past, when they were actually taught Catholic doctrine so they would know what they are rejecting. You mention the East, but have you actually ever talked to an Eastern Catholic priest about the Faith, listened to their sermons, been to their liturgy etc.? I have, and there is a huge difference between them and the NO.
Do The Eastern bishops accept Religious Liberty as taught by Vatican II or not!? Do they accept their new code of law promulgated by John Paul II or not? You are implying they are being true to the faith, but just simply ignorant, or cowardly? You write nice, but underneath it all, it's just tea and hugs with you I guess...
You calling me schismatic is like a donkey talking to another donkey's behind, "You remind me of this one jackass I knew, etc..."
St. Athansius refused to hold communion with heretics...
Versus
You: I am not a theologian but, yes Vatican 2 is heresy.
Athanasius: "I compassionate those who felt trapped and held communion with the heretics, I understand their fears, I pray for them, etc."
You: "We should do the same now."
Versus
Me: Yes, fine good do that! But STOP PRETENDING they are not accepting the heresies they are aligned with!
It's like you think Athansius thought that most people who followed Arian bishops were NOT heretics!?
Were St. Servatus says the opposite, and says they should not even be called Christians who follow heretical bishops.
And if Vatican 2 is heretical ...
You see?
So please save me the lecture and false piety.
Happy feast, let us pray that none of us will lose our heads during this time, unless like John the Baptist we are granted to do so in defense of the truth.
I didn't call you schismatic. I said the spirit of your comment was like that of Bp. Lucifer of Cagliari, who started a sect because of his excessive zeal, bringing him into conflict with that same St. Athanasius, who was his friend.
He refused to accept that those bishops who compromised with Arianism but didn't explicitly profess heresy remained members of the Church and true bishops of their dioceses, just as you are refusing to accept that those bishops who compromise with Modernism but do not explicitly profess heresy are still both members and bishops of the Church.
Just because someone generically says they accept the teachings of Vatican II, believing that those teachings come from the Magisterium and trying to reconcile them with Tradition, this doesn't make him a heretic.
It is the easy way to simply label every single NO and Eastern Catholic bishop a heretic, but it is not the truth. It is against justice and charity to accuse them of consciously withdrawing from the rule of the Magisterium without explicit proof for each. The Church doesn't behave like that, as the example above illustrates. They are not all wicked, as Bp. Michael Mary said.
And even though your way is the easy way, it actually creates many more crippling problems than if one simply maintains a spirit of charity and not judges those he has no evidence against. Why more crippling problems?
Because then you are left with a Catholic Church which has no ordinaries, which means no Teaching Church, no Successors of the Apostles, no "shepherds and teachers until the end of time" (Vatican I), no Apostolicity (mission, i.e. jurisdiction is necessary for formal apostolic succession, valid Orders are not enough), which means the Divine constitution of the Church has changed and at this moment she no longer possesses the note "Apostolic", meaning that she has defected and is not the Church of Christ. To save that, some affirm the error that trad bishops are Successors of the Apostles, that they possess ordinary jurisdiction, even though they have been given no see, they were not canonically appointed or elected, no Church Authority has given them any authority or jurisdiction over any part of the Church or over any souls. They are merely sacramental bishops, like the ancient bishops of the Irish Church (St. Boniface is the most well known example).
Thank you for your detailed reply to my other comment, although it may be more useful to continue here. I have heard elsewhere that Eastern Catholic bishops may have ordinary jurisdiction since they are valid bishops appointed to their sees by someone presumed by common error to be the pope. Does this sound correct? If so, would that mean that Catholics would be obligated to seek out an Eastern Catholic parish if possible (even in places like the US where they have eparchies rather than normal dioceses), relying on the supplied jurisdiction of sedevacantist bishops only when necessary?
So, their subscribing to what you coin "heresy" in Vatican 2 basically amounts to a hill o' beans as far as working things out at the level of principles, because you can equally be said to believe in a "defected" Church, by subscribing Apostolicity to these men who have lost the Apostolic faith (no heresy). What good do the Holy Orders if the Orthodox serve then without the faith? Accepting Vatican 2 is to accept what it teaches, and you agree it teaches hersey, so around and round we go.
Simple point stated yet again:
Catholics should NOT be labeled with a "schismatic spirit" for holding that a body of people who publicly profess to be "Catholic" while simultaneously embracing heretical novelty, are public material heretics as defined by the manulists. You have to impugn the more common opinion of the theologians then. Which if YOU want to, do so at your own peril, but don't act like it is a lack of charity to take that opinion.
Your niwthness isn't the charity you presuppose it to be.
What do you think our understanding of the Eastern Churches and Bishops should be? I understand they have valid orders and may be subjectively doing what they believe is correct, and yet it seems difficult to say that attending an Eastern Rite Liturgy would be perfectly fine under normal circumstances given their being in communion with someone who is objectively a false pope. Would we have to investigate each bishop individually to determine the degree to which he adheres to the errors of Vatican 2? Thank you for your help.
I *would* say that attending their liturgy is perfectly fine, if the priest is Catholic, i.e., if he doesn't explicitly profess heresy, just as I consider that attending the SSPX or Resistance Masses is perfectly fine, and they also are in communion (or at least they say they are) with someone who is objectively a false pope, just as I would say that going to the Mass said by St. Vincent Ferrer was more than fine, even though he prayed for a probable antipope in the Canon. It is just the confusion of the Crisis.
I don't think you are obliged to investigate their bishops at all, unless you intend to attend a specific bishop's liturgy. I would advise caution against errors, however, because it is probable that their clergy will profess a higher amount of errors than trad clergy. But that is a problem (almost) everywhere, because if you are looking for a society which does not profess any errors, you are going to have a hard time finding it, whether it be sedeplenist or sedevacantist, Latin or Eastern Catholic. Jeremy gave a few examples of sede errors above. Errors are everywhere today because there is no principle of unity, there is no Roman Pontiff, for whom Vatican I says:
"This gift of truth and never-failing faith was therefore divinely conferred on Peter and his successors in this see so that they might discharge their exalted office for the salvation of all, and ***so that the whole flock of Christ might be kept away by them from the poisonous food of error*** and be nourished with the sustenance of heavenly doctrine. ***Thus the tendency to schism is removed and the whole church is preserved in unity***, and, resting on its foundation, can stand firm against the gates of hell."
It is a pious opinion and we permitted to believe so, but how do you then explain the universal and peaceful acceptance of John XXIII, and of Paul VI before his heresies were manifest?
This creates a major problem regarding Paul VI, since his words and actions, and confirmation of Vatican II, are impossible for a Roman Pontiff or the Church to do.
You're welcome to it! Personally, I dont have an opinion on the question of whether the First Position is true or not, but it do agree with Bellarmine, as expressed by da Silveira below. I.E., on the hypothesis that they First is false, the Fifth is true and certain.
Of course, the principles behind the Fifth, which he says are most certain, also preclude one who is an open heretic being validly elected.
Bellarmine was of the first opinion, that a Pope cannot fall into heresy? I think you either need to re-read Bellarmine, or my message above.
He says of the first opinion:
"This opinion is probable and can easily be defended, as we shall later demonstrate in its proper place. However, since it is not certain, and the common opinion is to the contrary, it will be worthwhile to consider what should be answered if the pope could be a heretic."
Then further along he says:
"Therefore, the true opinion is the fifth, according to which the Pope who is manifestly a heretic ceases by himself to be Pope and head, in the same way as he ceases to be a Christian and a member of the body of the Church; and for this reason he can be judged and punished by the Church."
Emphasis: "the true opinion."
And what did he say it was based on?
"For, in the first place, it is proven with arguments from authority and from reason that the manifest heretic is “ipso facto” deposed. The argument from authority is based on St. Paul (Titus, c. 3), who orders that the heretic be avoided after two warnings, that is, after showing himself to be manifestly obstinate—which means before any excommunication or judicial sentence. And this is what St. Jerome writes, adding that the other sinners are excluded from the Church by sentence of excommunication, but the heretics exile themselves and separate themselves by their own act from the body of Christ. Now, a Pope who remains Pope cannot be avoided, for how could we be required to avoid our own head? How can we separate ourselves from a member united to us?
"This principle is most certain. The non-Christian cannot in any way be Pope, as Cajetan himself admits (ib. c. 26). The reason for this is that he cannot be head of what he is not a member; now he who is not a Christian is not a member of the Church, and a manifest heretic is not a Christian, as is clearly taught by St. Cyprian (lib. 4, epist. 2), St. Athanasius (Scr. 2 cont. Arian.), St. Augustine (lib. de great. Christ. cap. 20), St. Jerome (contra Lucifer.) and others; therefore the manifest heretic cannot be Pope."
Emphasis: "most certain."
And on what authorities?
"Finally, the Holy Fathers teach unanimously not only that heretics are outside of the Church, but also that they are “ipso facto” deprived of all ecclesiastical jurisdiction and dignity. [...]
"This is the opinion of all the ancient Fathers, who teach that manifest heretics immediately lose all jurisdiction"
Emphasis: "the Holy Fathers teach unanimously [...] This is the opinion of all the ancient Fathers."
As I said: Bellarmine adhered to the First Opinion in a conditional way, and to the Fifth in a "conditional [alternative-successive]" way, as da Silveira puts it. In other words, on the hypothesis that the First is false, the Fifth is true.
What he held as most certain of the Fifth Opinion is that manifest heretics lose office ipso facto. He did not hold it as most certain that the pope be the one in manifest heresy. The Fifth Opinion is given in relation to the pope ONLY if the First Opinion was hypothetically false.
I find this whole episode, let me say, peculiar for lack of a better term. No valid pope has ever been guilty of heresy per Vatican I. True enough if Alexander VI's heresy was never public. But such a declaration glosses over the potential of putting to death the one who accuses and plans to appropriately make public the confirmation of the charge of heresy to have eventuated the affirmation of Vatican I. Wonder if any historical analysis or search for evidence of Savonarola's charge was ever conducted or perhaps even suppressed to allow such an affirmation to be achieved. Just perhaps if Savonarola had been successful we might be in a better position today to correct the fiasco of papal malfeasance of Vatican II and beyond with that historical example.
Nope. *IF* Alexander VI was a heretic, he was not a public heretic. Secret heretics remain part of the Church, otherwise the visibility of the Church would be destroyed - we would never be able to know who was a member of the Church. If Pope Alexander's alleged heresies were made public and his pertinacity made evident, then the Church would conclude that he lost the pontificate, which is what I believe happened with Paul VI.
Well, I am inclined to agree. But Fr Hurtaud has an excellent article on the subject, which makes a case for the alternative (without adopting it himself).
I think that was my point and I understand your IF. But if someone who would make that public and undeniable gets put away so to speak by the one or his supporters who would be so named, then true enough the heresy is not public but only for a nefarious reason. And given Alexander VI's posthumous condemnation as an example by a subsequent pope, it seems not inconceivable that a heretic can be recognized posthumously as well but I do not know that for certain. So if the evidence was there and incontrovertible and then or later found, perhaps that could have been actionable.
I disagree with you on Paul VI. Not that he may not have been or, to many, was a heretic but that his public heresy is not recognized as such by but a handful or two of marginalized prelates and much less than 1% of all Catholics, however correct they may be. Not what one would expect if his public heresy was so evident and undeniable (which is part of the issue in trying to get over the additional burden of his acting via a "valid" ecumenical council that very few or no Catholics thought invalid at the time). But given no pope ever was a public heretic for 2000 years prior, it makes the bar for the average lay Catholic that much higher to accept, because most who now believe he was a heretic are indeed lay, average Catholics.
If there was evidence about Alexander VI, Savonarola never revealed it, or it was destroyed. We will only know at the end of time.
Regarding Paul VI, according to canonists, "much less than 1% of all Catholics" is more than sufficient to make something canonically public (I think they say it is enough if five persons in a community know about it). However, I believe that the percentage is actually much higher because many of those who call themselves Catholic today actually publicly and pertinaciously depart from the Church's infallible teaching.
That he was a public heretic and no Pope at least from 1965 is certain because otherwise we would be forced to affirm that the grave errors and heresies of an ecumenical council come from the Apostolic See and from the Church, which is not possible. However, if he was a public heretic and no Pope, then the council is not ecumenical, which means it could err, and it also explains all of his other heretical acts, as well as the promulgation of a harmful and deficient rite in 1969.
I find this article interesting as Mr. Lane published a reprint of a book through his TradiBooks label exonerating Alexander VI of the claims against him, both moral and theological. That author even praised him as a fine, just governor and better pope than his immediate successor.
The conciliar/Novus Ordo/Synodal church hasn't had any valid nor faithful bishops, cardinals or more importantly, popes, so who among them could end the heresies, blasphemes, sacrileges and mockery of Christ which they all do?
We can prove the public heresy of the Conciliar claimants to the Papacy, but we cannot prove that every single bishop in the world (NO and Eastern Catholic) is a public heretic and thus not a Catholic bishop. Even regarding Orders: those in the NO are doubtfully ordained and consecrated but the Eastern Catholic Churches maintain the traditional rites, so they have certainly valid bishops and priests.
There are many heretical bishops in the NO, but there are also those who do not publicly profess heresy and stay silent against the Modernists out of fear that they will be deposed and persecuted (as were Abp. Viganò and Bp. Strickland, two rare examples of NO bishops who had the courage to speak out, and were dealt with severely by the usurpers as a message to the others). As Bp. Michael Mary said, they are not all wicked. It is an error to believe that.
Cowardice in opposing the enemy is reprehensible but does not lead to loss of office.
Our Lady of Good Success foresaw this, which is why She said: "In this supreme moment of need of the Church, those who should speak will fall silent."
Mr. Lane gave several examples where the Catholic episcopate did not act, out of cowardice, human respect and similar reasons. Another example is the scattering of the Apostles after Our Lord was captured, condemned and crucified.
I agree. People toss the Eastern rites out too easily due to them being close to the synodal church. Although, sometimes I am skeptical of Vigano. I have seen many people (friends of mine also) try to say he was a false convert. They said things like “Why should we trust him when he aided these monsters for years?”
Although I understand their sentiment.
It’s led me to become very disillusioned with anything trad related. I approach most trads with heavy skepticism such as SGG to RCI to CMRI.
It would be better to be disillusioned with the destruction of the true Catholic faith the counterfeit Novus Ordo church has done and continues to do.
Since the Novus Ordo church is a counterfeit, anyone who is a member of that church is a heretic so it doesn't matter if they publicly profess heresy as just belonging to that church places them outside of the true Catholic Church. It doesn't matter if one is afraid to speak out if they don't agree with the heretical teachings of this church as they are still members of it.
I said nothing about the Eastern Catholic Churches but all of them, in my understanding, are in communion with the heretical popes which makes them outside of the true Catholic Church as well.
It is a simplistic argument, which is both unproven and false. As such, "the NO Church" doesn't exist as a separate body with such a name. It identifies officially as the Catholic Church and its leaders occupy Catholic institutions and dioceses (this is precisely why it is so pernicious). Many among the laity, as well as some of the bishops, have done nothing to separate from the Catholic Church. They live and die as Catholics without having consciously departed from the rule of the Magisterium (which is what makes a heretic). It is not analogous to someone who is a member or official of the Lutheran or Anglican sect and who is well aware that he is not a member of the Catholic Church.
If a Catholic is in communion with a false pope during a time of great confusion, thinking that he was a true pope based on weighty reasons, this does not take that Catholic out of the Church. The Western Schism is the perfect example, with canonized saints from both obediences.
Those faithful Catholics who profess communion with Prevost do so because they believe him to be Pope, and not because he is a heretic, nor are they in communion with his heresies. If you believe that they are all out of the Church, then you must conclude that only sedevacantists are inside the Church.
Those are grave errors (and objective sins) against both justice and charity - to consider someone non-Catholic even though he does not consciously withdraw from the rule of the Magisterium, nor does he separate from communion with other Catholics. It is such sectarian sedevacantism which keeps many people away from recognizing the fact of the vacancy.
The Western Schism is a terrible analogy. That was schism, but this is heresy. Schism attacks the unity, heresy attacks the faith. How many lay faithful saints followed Arian bishops? I thought St Hermengild chose to die rather than commune with the heretics whom he thought of as non-Christian. But it seems you think this is more of a kitchen-dish towel slapping match and less if a fight. You want to create some kind of "movement" and sway the Mass of Novus Ordo lover fence-sitters to the side of truth and you don't want to "scare them off"? Good luck convincing the masses that Prevost is a heretic for preaching Vatican II, but they aren't for going along with it all too!
The analogy stands because in both cases it is Catholics adhering to false popes, believing them to be true popes because of weighty reasons (physical possession of the See, apparent election by the pseudo-cardinals, common error about their status, and often just plain ignorance). I am not talking about those who adhere to their heresies, but about those who profess no heresies, yet recognize them as popes, and that is not limited to trad sedeplenists like the SSPX or the Resistance. I was once one of them, a long time ago.
To excommunicate everyone who believes Prevost is Pope is the same thing as those Catholics who during the Western Schism excommunicated each other and called each other schismatic for supporting an antipope.
It is shortsightedness, partisanship, misplaced zeal. It is the spirit of schism, and we should always flee from such a spirit, and instead try to foster the spirit of unity and fraternal charity with anyone who calls himself Catholic and who does not profess any heresy, no matter his opinions on the Crisis. I admit that I have also at times failed to do that, but I try. I have no ideas for a missionary "movement" to convert those in the NO or anything like that. My only agenda is the Triumph of the Immaculate Heart, the Restoration of the Church and maintaining the bonds of unity among Catholics.
It is also worth mentioning Peregrinus that many of the trad bishops and priests profess certain errors and heresies themselves such as redefining apostolic succession, claiming jurisdiction they don’t have, even going so far as to say that apostolic succession has ended or been interrupted. That is only the start of it.
Fr. Cekada professed such heresies on apostolic succession on the now defunct Ignis Ardens forum. Which John Lane called him out on that and Fr. Cekada to my knowledge continued to double down.
I am not sure if you wanted to mention that, but I felt it was worth a mention. As the grass isn’t greener on the other side with Trad Bishops and priests.
St. Augustine, "It does not follow that Jesus could not do all that by Himself, for who else does all these things in His Church? But if He wishes us to consult his ministers and THUS to be made SURE of the DOCTRINE and FAITH we profess it is to unite all the members of his Church into one in the same society or fold with the ONE and SAME DOCTRINE and THUS to preserve the UNITY and soundness of color - that is, of FAITH, the ONE SURE Mark of the church."
It is quite impossible to sort out those who formally adhere to heretics from the material heretics. That is why Van Noort says it, "is the more common opinion that material heretics do NOT belong to the Church." The reason they give is that one would never know what to believe if/when being taught by a material heretic and their is no true unity of doctrine in such a body. Their formal motive of faith may be correct in name, "the Catholic Church", but they lack the correct understanding of the faith concerning basic eccesiology which makes them materially heretical NOT by association with heretical prelates but literally because 99.999% of this who adhere to the post-conciliar structure disbelieve the Dogma, "outside the Church no salvation.", - religious indifferentists, or they have some of the many other heresies.
I make no pretension as to my status in the Church, but one should not be called prideful, or "unchwaritable" "not nith", etc. simply for following the more common opinion and the logic that follows. A high percentage of trads come out of the post-conciliar structure, but the reason the leave is presicely because THEY think they are doing something NOT Catholic (practice novelty) and need to stop, while also embracingtge Traditions of the faith, which will make them authentically Catholic.
Strawmen, ad hominems, sophisms, and bad logic begone!
Elaine, my apologies. My original reply to you came off rather aggressive in my questioning about what you believed on certain trad issues. I have since deleted it. I would attribute it to tumultuous life changes I am going through right now… this has caused me to be a bit “temperamental” in my moods.
We will just agree to disagree for now. May God Bless you and his Mother keep you.
Not to worry Jeremy. We are all experiencing confusion or disbelief of some kind but I do appreciate your explanation.
May God bless you as well.
Does Vatican II contain heresy?
If Vatican II did not contain heresy, what real leg does one have to stand on? Savanarola certainly knew it mattered immensely to be morally certain of a papal claiments heresy before "speaking out and acting".
Do not all the current heirachry accept and support, no..., down right love Vatican II? How many of this generation of the episcopate have actually ever been to a real Roman Catholic Mass?, Or how many of them know Latin? How many even remember Vatican II from their youth, or were even born yet!?
Do not all these bishops subscribe to religious liberty? Is not the "ultra-conservative" Archbishop Sample the USCCB head of their religious liberty commission? Did not Stickland defend it publicly as well?
You are delusion if you think a supposed bishop of the Catholic Church gets a "free-pass" on aligning himself with a Judeo/Masonic hybrid liberal Catholicism simply because, "everyone else went along with it." And he was "scarred".
Newsflash: 100% of post-Vatican II clerics that belong to the post-conciliar church are Modernists to one degree or another because Vatican II was a Modernist council and they all ACCEPT IT. And due to their presumed training the law assumes guilt for heretical crimes when sufficient evidence is presented, as clergy cannot claim ignorance as an excuse - such as a layman could. They lose that deference when they exulted themselves to the position of "teachers" in the Church.
Do not look to either the East or the West they are all given to the heresy of Modernism and the other errors that accompanied Vatican II.
Vigano still to this day stands ALONE. Where are those other "good" bishops? Hiding! Then they are only hirelings and no bishops at all. Where are these other "good" bishops? To busy trying to be holy to speak up against a mountain of heresy! Then they just prove they are as guilty as the perpetrators, "To not oppose error is to consent to it." No, they are all false, if any turn good it is just a regular conversion. Vigano converted, he realized something. He didn't revert, he realized he was never truly Catholic to begin with, because a Catholic must embrace Tradition.
They (the other putative bishops) are ALL, silent, false, wolves in sheep's clothing, where the more "conservative" or "traditional" they come off they do greater damage than they do otherwise by giving greater credence to the lie that is Modernist Rome and their fake church.
Although I am not a theologian, to the best of my knowledge Vatican II does contain not merely error, but heresy as well.
A recognition of Vatican II as an ecumenical council, or even quoting some of its conservative statements and trying to accept it in the light of Tradition and to reconcile its errors with previous teaching doesn't make a person a heretic (in grave error yes, but not a heretic). To be a heretic one must be aware that he is departing from the rule of the Church's Magisterium and following another opinion.
We know that during the Arian Crisis most sees in the East were vacant because those bishops defected into heresy, but in the West it was different (today, it's the other way around). The Western bishops weren't brave, though. Almost all of them were silent for fear of being exiled by the Emperor, many compromised with the Arians but without openly professing heresy, and what happened when the Crisis was ended? All of those who compromised with the Arians, but didn't openly profess heresy, were permitted to stay in their Sees. The Church had compassion for their weakness. There was, however, a bishop who opposed this, and he manifested the same spirit as you do in your comment - they are all false, they are all guilty. His name was Lucifer of Cagliari and he started a schism, turning against his friend St. Athanasius, Pope Liberius and all the other bishops who supported that act of compassion.
You talk about presumed training and guilt, but I know what they teach in the NO seminaries - Modernist brainwashing presented as Catholic truth, with little information about Catholic doctrine. It was much different in the past, when they were actually taught Catholic doctrine so they would know what they are rejecting. You mention the East, but have you actually ever talked to an Eastern Catholic priest about the Faith, listened to their sermons, been to their liturgy etc.? I have, and there is a huge difference between them and the NO.
Do The Eastern bishops accept Religious Liberty as taught by Vatican II or not!? Do they accept their new code of law promulgated by John Paul II or not? You are implying they are being true to the faith, but just simply ignorant, or cowardly? You write nice, but underneath it all, it's just tea and hugs with you I guess...
You calling me schismatic is like a donkey talking to another donkey's behind, "You remind me of this one jackass I knew, etc..."
St. Athansius refused to hold communion with heretics...
Versus
You: I am not a theologian but, yes Vatican 2 is heresy.
Athanasius: "I compassionate those who felt trapped and held communion with the heretics, I understand their fears, I pray for them, etc."
You: "We should do the same now."
Versus
Me: Yes, fine good do that! But STOP PRETENDING they are not accepting the heresies they are aligned with!
It's like you think Athansius thought that most people who followed Arian bishops were NOT heretics!?
Were St. Servatus says the opposite, and says they should not even be called Christians who follow heretical bishops.
And if Vatican 2 is heretical ...
You see?
So please save me the lecture and false piety.
Happy feast, let us pray that none of us will lose our heads during this time, unless like John the Baptist we are granted to do so in defense of the truth.
I didn't call you schismatic. I said the spirit of your comment was like that of Bp. Lucifer of Cagliari, who started a sect because of his excessive zeal, bringing him into conflict with that same St. Athanasius, who was his friend.
He refused to accept that those bishops who compromised with Arianism but didn't explicitly profess heresy remained members of the Church and true bishops of their dioceses, just as you are refusing to accept that those bishops who compromise with Modernism but do not explicitly profess heresy are still both members and bishops of the Church.
Just because someone generically says they accept the teachings of Vatican II, believing that those teachings come from the Magisterium and trying to reconcile them with Tradition, this doesn't make him a heretic.
It is the easy way to simply label every single NO and Eastern Catholic bishop a heretic, but it is not the truth. It is against justice and charity to accuse them of consciously withdrawing from the rule of the Magisterium without explicit proof for each. The Church doesn't behave like that, as the example above illustrates. They are not all wicked, as Bp. Michael Mary said.
And even though your way is the easy way, it actually creates many more crippling problems than if one simply maintains a spirit of charity and not judges those he has no evidence against. Why more crippling problems?
Because then you are left with a Catholic Church which has no ordinaries, which means no Teaching Church, no Successors of the Apostles, no "shepherds and teachers until the end of time" (Vatican I), no Apostolicity (mission, i.e. jurisdiction is necessary for formal apostolic succession, valid Orders are not enough), which means the Divine constitution of the Church has changed and at this moment she no longer possesses the note "Apostolic", meaning that she has defected and is not the Church of Christ. To save that, some affirm the error that trad bishops are Successors of the Apostles, that they possess ordinary jurisdiction, even though they have been given no see, they were not canonically appointed or elected, no Church Authority has given them any authority or jurisdiction over any part of the Church or over any souls. They are merely sacramental bishops, like the ancient bishops of the Irish Church (St. Boniface is the most well known example).
Thank you for your detailed reply to my other comment, although it may be more useful to continue here. I have heard elsewhere that Eastern Catholic bishops may have ordinary jurisdiction since they are valid bishops appointed to their sees by someone presumed by common error to be the pope. Does this sound correct? If so, would that mean that Catholics would be obligated to seek out an Eastern Catholic parish if possible (even in places like the US where they have eparchies rather than normal dioceses), relying on the supplied jurisdiction of sedevacantist bishops only when necessary?
So, their subscribing to what you coin "heresy" in Vatican 2 basically amounts to a hill o' beans as far as working things out at the level of principles, because you can equally be said to believe in a "defected" Church, by subscribing Apostolicity to these men who have lost the Apostolic faith (no heresy). What good do the Holy Orders if the Orthodox serve then without the faith? Accepting Vatican 2 is to accept what it teaches, and you agree it teaches hersey, so around and round we go.
Simple point stated yet again:
Catholics should NOT be labeled with a "schismatic spirit" for holding that a body of people who publicly profess to be "Catholic" while simultaneously embracing heretical novelty, are public material heretics as defined by the manulists. You have to impugn the more common opinion of the theologians then. Which if YOU want to, do so at your own peril, but don't act like it is a lack of charity to take that opinion.
Your niwthness isn't the charity you presuppose it to be.
I can't wait until Savonarola is canonized. Almost happened under Julius II and Pius XII
What do you think our understanding of the Eastern Churches and Bishops should be? I understand they have valid orders and may be subjectively doing what they believe is correct, and yet it seems difficult to say that attending an Eastern Rite Liturgy would be perfectly fine under normal circumstances given their being in communion with someone who is objectively a false pope. Would we have to investigate each bishop individually to determine the degree to which he adheres to the errors of Vatican 2? Thank you for your help.
I *would* say that attending their liturgy is perfectly fine, if the priest is Catholic, i.e., if he doesn't explicitly profess heresy, just as I consider that attending the SSPX or Resistance Masses is perfectly fine, and they also are in communion (or at least they say they are) with someone who is objectively a false pope, just as I would say that going to the Mass said by St. Vincent Ferrer was more than fine, even though he prayed for a probable antipope in the Canon. It is just the confusion of the Crisis.
I don't think you are obliged to investigate their bishops at all, unless you intend to attend a specific bishop's liturgy. I would advise caution against errors, however, because it is probable that their clergy will profess a higher amount of errors than trad clergy. But that is a problem (almost) everywhere, because if you are looking for a society which does not profess any errors, you are going to have a hard time finding it, whether it be sedeplenist or sedevacantist, Latin or Eastern Catholic. Jeremy gave a few examples of sede errors above. Errors are everywhere today because there is no principle of unity, there is no Roman Pontiff, for whom Vatican I says:
"This gift of truth and never-failing faith was therefore divinely conferred on Peter and his successors in this see so that they might discharge their exalted office for the salvation of all, and ***so that the whole flock of Christ might be kept away by them from the poisonous food of error*** and be nourished with the sustenance of heavenly doctrine. ***Thus the tendency to schism is removed and the whole church is preserved in unity***, and, resting on its foundation, can stand firm against the gates of hell."
I cannot believe that a true pope can fall into heresy, occult or public. Opinion No. 1 is the true opinion.
It is a pious opinion and we permitted to believe so, but how do you then explain the universal and peaceful acceptance of John XXIII, and of Paul VI before his heresies were manifest?
Because I do not hold them as manifest heretics.
This creates a major problem regarding Paul VI, since his words and actions, and confirmation of Vatican II, are impossible for a Roman Pontiff or the Church to do.
You're welcome to it! Personally, I dont have an opinion on the question of whether the First Position is true or not, but it do agree with Bellarmine, as expressed by da Silveira below. I.E., on the hypothesis that they First is false, the Fifth is true and certain.
Of course, the principles behind the Fifth, which he says are most certain, also preclude one who is an open heretic being validly elected.
https://www.wmreview.org/p/bellarmine-silveira
But Bellarmine was of the First Opinion.
Bellarmine was of the first opinion, that a Pope cannot fall into heresy? I think you either need to re-read Bellarmine, or my message above.
He says of the first opinion:
"This opinion is probable and can easily be defended, as we shall later demonstrate in its proper place. However, since it is not certain, and the common opinion is to the contrary, it will be worthwhile to consider what should be answered if the pope could be a heretic."
Then further along he says:
"Therefore, the true opinion is the fifth, according to which the Pope who is manifestly a heretic ceases by himself to be Pope and head, in the same way as he ceases to be a Christian and a member of the body of the Church; and for this reason he can be judged and punished by the Church."
Emphasis: "the true opinion."
And what did he say it was based on?
"For, in the first place, it is proven with arguments from authority and from reason that the manifest heretic is “ipso facto” deposed. The argument from authority is based on St. Paul (Titus, c. 3), who orders that the heretic be avoided after two warnings, that is, after showing himself to be manifestly obstinate—which means before any excommunication or judicial sentence. And this is what St. Jerome writes, adding that the other sinners are excluded from the Church by sentence of excommunication, but the heretics exile themselves and separate themselves by their own act from the body of Christ. Now, a Pope who remains Pope cannot be avoided, for how could we be required to avoid our own head? How can we separate ourselves from a member united to us?
"This principle is most certain. The non-Christian cannot in any way be Pope, as Cajetan himself admits (ib. c. 26). The reason for this is that he cannot be head of what he is not a member; now he who is not a Christian is not a member of the Church, and a manifest heretic is not a Christian, as is clearly taught by St. Cyprian (lib. 4, epist. 2), St. Athanasius (Scr. 2 cont. Arian.), St. Augustine (lib. de great. Christ. cap. 20), St. Jerome (contra Lucifer.) and others; therefore the manifest heretic cannot be Pope."
Emphasis: "most certain."
And on what authorities?
"Finally, the Holy Fathers teach unanimously not only that heretics are outside of the Church, but also that they are “ipso facto” deprived of all ecclesiastical jurisdiction and dignity. [...]
"This is the opinion of all the ancient Fathers, who teach that manifest heretics immediately lose all jurisdiction"
Emphasis: "the Holy Fathers teach unanimously [...] This is the opinion of all the ancient Fathers."
As I said: Bellarmine adhered to the First Opinion in a conditional way, and to the Fifth in a "conditional [alternative-successive]" way, as da Silveira puts it. In other words, on the hypothesis that the First is false, the Fifth is true.
https://www.wmreview.org/p/ipso-facto-bellarmine-five-opinions
What he held as most certain of the Fifth Opinion is that manifest heretics lose office ipso facto. He did not hold it as most certain that the pope be the one in manifest heresy. The Fifth Opinion is given in relation to the pope ONLY if the First Opinion was hypothetically false.
That is exactly what I said. You're disagreeing with me without reading my messages.
However what you are missing is that the first opinion is presented as PROBABLE, whereas the fifth is CERTAIN, IF the Pope can fall into heresy.
I find this whole episode, let me say, peculiar for lack of a better term. No valid pope has ever been guilty of heresy per Vatican I. True enough if Alexander VI's heresy was never public. But such a declaration glosses over the potential of putting to death the one who accuses and plans to appropriately make public the confirmation of the charge of heresy to have eventuated the affirmation of Vatican I. Wonder if any historical analysis or search for evidence of Savonarola's charge was ever conducted or perhaps even suppressed to allow such an affirmation to be achieved. Just perhaps if Savonarola had been successful we might be in a better position today to correct the fiasco of papal malfeasance of Vatican II and beyond with that historical example.
Nope. *IF* Alexander VI was a heretic, he was not a public heretic. Secret heretics remain part of the Church, otherwise the visibility of the Church would be destroyed - we would never be able to know who was a member of the Church. If Pope Alexander's alleged heresies were made public and his pertinacity made evident, then the Church would conclude that he lost the pontificate, which is what I believe happened with Paul VI.
Well, I am inclined to agree. But Fr Hurtaud has an excellent article on the subject, which makes a case for the alternative (without adopting it himself).
Could you please elaborate further?
Not at present but it was in the French article in Revue Thomiste
Could you at least say what you mean exactly by "alternative"?
That he was already not the Pope.
I think that was my point and I understand your IF. But if someone who would make that public and undeniable gets put away so to speak by the one or his supporters who would be so named, then true enough the heresy is not public but only for a nefarious reason. And given Alexander VI's posthumous condemnation as an example by a subsequent pope, it seems not inconceivable that a heretic can be recognized posthumously as well but I do not know that for certain. So if the evidence was there and incontrovertible and then or later found, perhaps that could have been actionable.
I disagree with you on Paul VI. Not that he may not have been or, to many, was a heretic but that his public heresy is not recognized as such by but a handful or two of marginalized prelates and much less than 1% of all Catholics, however correct they may be. Not what one would expect if his public heresy was so evident and undeniable (which is part of the issue in trying to get over the additional burden of his acting via a "valid" ecumenical council that very few or no Catholics thought invalid at the time). But given no pope ever was a public heretic for 2000 years prior, it makes the bar for the average lay Catholic that much higher to accept, because most who now believe he was a heretic are indeed lay, average Catholics.
If there was evidence about Alexander VI, Savonarola never revealed it, or it was destroyed. We will only know at the end of time.
Regarding Paul VI, according to canonists, "much less than 1% of all Catholics" is more than sufficient to make something canonically public (I think they say it is enough if five persons in a community know about it). However, I believe that the percentage is actually much higher because many of those who call themselves Catholic today actually publicly and pertinaciously depart from the Church's infallible teaching.
That he was a public heretic and no Pope at least from 1965 is certain because otherwise we would be forced to affirm that the grave errors and heresies of an ecumenical council come from the Apostolic See and from the Church, which is not possible. However, if he was a public heretic and no Pope, then the council is not ecumenical, which means it could err, and it also explains all of his other heretical acts, as well as the promulgation of a harmful and deficient rite in 1969.
I find this article interesting as Mr. Lane published a reprint of a book through his TradiBooks label exonerating Alexander VI of the claims against him, both moral and theological. That author even praised him as a fine, just governor and better pope than his immediate successor.
You’re thinking of John Daly there. Contrary to certain theories, they are different persons!