Sedevacantists are schismatic and excommunicated

“By withdrawing submission from the Holy Father and the faithful in communion with him, Sedevacantists are schismatic and hence automatically excommunicated from the Church under both Divine and ecclesiastical law (canon 1325, par. 2).”

The Errors of Sedevacantism and Ecclesiastical Law

by John Salza, J.D.
http://www.scripturecatho...ors_of_Sedevacantism.pdf

Sedevacantists use many different authorities and arguments to support their thesis that we have no Pope. However, their biggest “stick” is Pope Paul IV’s Cum Ex Apostolatus Officio (1559). In this Apostolic Constitution, Pope Paul IV declared that if the Roman Pontiff, prior to his election to the papacy, was a heretic, then his election to the papacy is invalid. Pope Paul IV further declared that the invalidity of such an election happens automatically, without any need for further declaration. (Cum Ex does not address the situation of a legitimately elected Pope who falls into heresy after his election, which most Sedevacantists believe is almost if not entirely impossible; however, the analysis that follows also applies to that hypothetical). Following are the pertinent parts of Cum Ex:

“In addition, 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;

“(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, honor, title, authority, office and power.”

Pope Paul IV’s decree on the invalidity of the papal election of a heretic affirms the Divine Law that formal heresy results in self-expulsion from the Church, without the need for ecclesiastical censure, and that such self-expulsion disqualifies one from being Pope (one severed from the Body cannot rule the Body). This begs the obvious question: How does one determine whether a Cardinal was a heretic prior to his election to the papacy? How does one know whether self-expulsion for pre-election heresy has occurred?

While Sedevacantists answer the question by literally “taking the law into their own hands,” Catholics are required to look to the ecclesiastical law of the Church to resolve the issue. Ecclesiastical law (canon law and other papal legislation) helps to understand the Divine Law in light of the facts and circumstances of a particular case. Because Sedevacantists believe Pope John Paul II was an “anti-pope,” they believe that the 1917 Code of Canon Law (and not the 1983 Code promulgated by John Paul II) is the operative law. Hence, we begin by looking to the 1917 Code.

First, the 1917 Code says that the Pope is the sole judge of the Cardinals. Canon 1557, par. 1-2 says: “It belongs entirely to the Roman Pontiff to judge…Cardinal Fathers / Cardinal Priests.” Moreover, canon 1558 says: “In the causes of which canon 1556, 1557 treat, the incompetence of any other judge is absolute.” In other words, only the Pope – and no one else – can judge a Cardinal in doctrinal or disciplinary matters. The Pope’s authority is absolute (est absoluta) in this regard. Unlike the Pope, who has no judge, the Cardinals do have a judge – and it is the Pope alone. Therefore, the Pope alone determines if a “Cardinal…prior to his elevation as Roman Pontiff, has deviated from the Catholic Faith or fallen into some heresy.”

As applied to the Sedevacantist thesis, Sedevacantists claim that Pope John XXIII (Cardinal Roncalli) was invalidly elected because he was a heretic prior to claiming the papal throne. This is a reason why Sedevacantists don’t believe we have had a Pope since 1958. But in order for Cardinal Roncalli’s election to the papacy to have been invalidated for heresy (or any other transgression), Pope Pius XII would have had to judge that Cardinal Roncalli was a heretic, since Pius XII is sole judge of his Cardinals under canons 1557 and 1558 of the 1917 Code of Canon Law. But he did not. Therefore, Cardinal Roncalli’s election to the papacy cannot be invalidated using Cum Ex because Pope Pius XII did not judge him guilty of heresy, or any other crime which violates Divine Law.

Sedevacantists correctly maintain that Divine Law expels a formal heretic from the Church without further declaration. They point to canon 188, par. 4 of the 1917 Code which says that “all offices whatsoever fall vacant and without any declaration if the cleric…publicly defects from the Catholic Faith.” However, the same Code of Canon Law also determines how we know a cleric has publicly defected from the Faith and lost his office as a result of the defection: The Church tells us. Thus, ecclesiastical law follows Our Lord’s directive: “tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector” (Mt 18:17). While the person in Matthew 18 was publicly suspected of a transgression, Jesus tells us to treat him as excommunicated only after the Church judges the matter.

Attempting to ignore Jesus’ words and take matters into their own hands, Sedevacantists also refer to Titus 3:10-11 where St. Paul tells Titus to avoid a heretic after two admonitions because he is self-condemned. However, Titus 3 is consistent with Matthew 18. Titus has the authority to determine who is a heretic in his diocese because he is their bishop. He has God-given authority over his subjects. St. Paul is not giving every Catholic the authority to make a formal and binding determination of another Catholic’s orthodoxy. Titus 3 is an instruction from one apostle and bishop to another bishop concerning his ecclesial authority. Similarly, Matthew 18 is an instruction from Our Lord to his future bishops concerning their authority. Both passages reveal that ecclesial authority (either the bishop of a diocese or the Church at large) must determine whether Divine Law has been violated. The case of a claimant to the papal throne would necessarily involve the jurisdiction of the Church at large (a “Matthew 18” case vis-à-vis a “Titus 3” case).

As applied here, the Pope is the sole judge of whether the self-expulsion of a Cardinal contemplated by Cum Ex and canon 188.4 has occurred. This papal judgment is required even if the Pope does not affirm the self-expulsion with a public decree of excommunication (but, as we will see, canon law also requires declaratory sentences to be issued for the common good of the Church). Said differently, with regard to the putative heresy of a Cardinal, ecclesiastical law requires the Pope (and no one else) to determine whether Divine Law has been violated (irrespective of whether the Pope issues a canonical censure). Sedevacantists ignore the mandates of the governing ecclesiastical law and Scripture itself and, consequently, make themselves the judge of Divine Law.

The 1917 Code of Canon Law imposes other requirements that Sedevacantists ignore. For example, canon 1939, par. 1 requires a special investigation for certain transgressions against Divine Law (e.g., heresy):

If the transgression is not notorious, or not entirely certain, but has arisen from rumor or public report . . . before anyone is summoned to answer for the transgression, a special investigation must be undertaken to decide whether, and or what foundation, the charge may be founded.

The alleged heresies of Cardinal Roncalli must be considered “not notorious” and “not entirely certain” because they do not meet the definition of “public” and “notorious” under canon 2197 of the 1917 Code. The alleged heresies cannot be considered “public” under canon 2197, par. 1 because they were not “already commonly known” (evidenced by the fact that Pope Pius XII neither investigated nor rendered any judgment against Roncalli for heresy and almost the entire Catholic population accepted Roncalli as Pope).

Further, under the same canon, the circumstances were not such as to lead to the conclusion that the alleged heresies would easily become commonly known (evidenced by the fact that, over the last 50 years, the College of Cardinals, the four successor Popes and almost the entire Catholic world held Roncalli as a true Pope).

Further, the alleged heresies cannot be considered “notorious in fact” under canon 2197, par. 3 because they were not “publicly known” (for the reasons explained above) and were not committed under such circumstances that “no maneuver can conceal nor legal defense excuse” them. In fact, since Pope Pius XII (or anyone else with ecclesiastical authority) never even alleged that Roncalli committed heresy, it is not possible to raise, much less evaluate, a “maneuver” or “legal defense” (to such “non-allegations”) as this canon requires. Of course, if no canonical defense could excuse Roncalli’s public and notorious heresies, then one must explain how Pope Pius XII failed to recognize such grievous crimes, much less punish Roncalli for them.

The same canonical conclusions apply to the alleged heresies of Cardinals Montini, Wojtyla and Ratzinger before they were validly elected to the papacy. That being the case, ecclesiastical law requires a special investigation (inquisition specialis) to be undertaken to assess such accusations of transgression. This investigation is required for “anyone” who is suspected of a transgression, and would certainly apply to someone who claimed to be Pope. Further, canon 1939, par. 2 specifically applies this rule to the question of whether a declaratory sentence is required against someone who has already incurred self-expulsion for heresy.

As we alluded to, Canon 2223, par. 4 sets forth the rules for when declaratory sentences are required:

In general, to declare a penalty latae sententiae is left to the prudence of the superior; but whether at the instance/request of a party who is involved, or because the common good requires it so, a declaratory sentence must be given.

While, according to Divine Law, formal heresy results in self-expulsion from the Church without the need for a declaratory sentence, ecclesiastical law (can 2223.4) requires a declaratory sentence (sententia declaratoria dari debet) of said heresy if the common good of the Church requires it. Needless to say, it is in the best interests of the Catholic Church to know whether we have a valid Pope. Nothing more important for the Church could possibly be imagined. Hence, a declaratory sentence proclaiming a Cardinal’s pre-election heresy “must be given.” If such an ecclesiastical declaration were not required, the Church would never know with certainty whether Divine Law has been violated, and this uncertainty would undermine the Church’s very mission and existence. This also means maintaining the Sedevacantist position (that a given papal election is invalid) in the absence of a declaratory sentence attacks the best interests of the Church.

Further, it should go without saying that the required declaratory sentence must be given by ecclesiastical authority (Mt 18:17; Titus 3:10-11). Of course, nothing in either positive law or Divine Law permits just any Catholic individual or group to issue declaratory sentences and ecclesiastical censures, nor does the law permit Catholics to licitly resist a duly elected Pope in the absence of these required ecclesiastical adjudications. As applied here, since the elected Pope would be the object of the investigation, any declaratory sentence would have to come from the College of Cardinals – the next highest authoritative rank in the Church. Further, we are reminded that a declaratory sentence of heresy against an anti-pope would simply affirm that he excommunicated himself (ecclesiastical law determining that self-expulsion occurred under Divine Law), and that a valid Pope has no judge on earth but God.

Ecclesiastical law poses further problems for the Sedevacantist thesis. Popes St. Pius X and Pius XII legislated that a Cardinal’s election to the papacy is presumed to be valid, irrespective of any ecclesiastical censures he may have incurred prior to his election.

Pope St. Pius X: “None of the Cardinals may be in any way excluded from the active or passive election of the Sovereign Pontiff under pretext or by reason of any excommunication, suspension, interdict or other ecclesiastical impediment” (Vacante Sede Apostolica, 1904).

Pope Pius XII: “None of the Cardinals may, by pretext or reason of any excommunication, suspension, or interdict whatsoever, or of any other ecclesiastical impediment, be excluded from the active and passive election of the Supreme Pontiff” (Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis, 1945).

First, to participate “actively” in the election of the Supreme Pontiff means to vote for the Pope, and to participate “passively” in the election means to be elected Pope (to be the “passive” object of the “election”). Second, Popes St. Pius X and Pius XII’s legislation is clear that “by reason of any excommunication…whatsoever” a Cardinal is not excluded from being elected to the papacy. “Any excommunication whatsoever” necessarily includes a Cardinal’s excommunication for heresy. This means the governing ecclesiastical law – which Sedevacantists agree applies to the question at hand – presumes the validity of papal elections, until there is a determination by the Church of whether or not Divine Law has been violated. Ecclesiastical law, then, requires this formal determination to be made by the Church after the election.

As applied here, we recall that Pope Pius XII never declared Cardinal Roncalli a heretic. Roncalli was never excommunicated under ecclesiastical law. Thus, if, according to the Pius X/XII legislation, a Cardinal who was a heretic by both Divine and ecclesiastical law (self-expulsion affirmed by judicial sentence) can be elected to the papacy, how much more so can a Cardinal be elected Pope who, like Cardinal Roncalli, never incurred ecclesiastical censure for heresy! The “more” includes the “lesser,” and thus if a self-expelled censured heretic (the “more”) can be elected Pope, then a self-expelled but non-censured heretic – the Sedevacantist claim against Cardinal Roncalli – (the “lesser”) can also be elected Pope.

These ecclesiastical provisions provide Cardinals with the opportunity to follow the same path to the papacy as St. Peter himself took. St. Peter committed a public act of apostasy by denying Our Lord before validly ascending to the papal office. Hence, ecclesiastical law requires the Church to presume that the elected Pope has reconciled with Christ (as St. Peter did) and thus pre-election heresy, apostasy or schism does not automatically invalidate his election (whether the offense continues after the election is a separate question determined by the same procedures of ecclesiastical law requiring special investigations and declaratory sentences). If there were no presumptive validity of papal elections, then Catholics would never have assurance that they have a true Pope, for any ecclesiastical impediment would operate to nullify his election. This would cripple the Church.

The presumption of valid papal elections is also reflected in the 1917 Code. Canon 2264 provides that even if a Cardinal excommunicated himself for heresy prior to his election to the papacy, his jurisdiction as pope is valid, and also licit if recognized by the faithful:

An act of jurisdiction carried out by an excommunicated person, whether in the internal or the external forum, is illicit; and if a condemnatory or declaratory sentence has been pronounced, it is also invalid, without prejudice to can. 2261, par. 3 [not applicable to self-expelled heretics]; otherwise it is valid and also licit, if it was requested by the faithful in accordance with the norm of can. 2261, par. 2.

Canon 2261, par. 2 provides:

Without contradicting paragraph 3, the faithful may, for any just cause, request sacraments and sacramentals from an excommunicated person, especially if other ministers are not available, in the this case the excommunicated person can administer them and is not under any obligation to enquire as to the reason for the request.

As applied here, Cardinals Roncalli, Montini, Wojtyla, and Ratzinger were never excommunicated by declaratory sentences before being elected to the papacy. Therefore, Canon 2264 says they had (and Pope Benedict XVI continues to have) valid jurisdiction over the universal Church. Canon 2264 also indicates that even a Pope who, as a Cardinal, “excommunicated” himself for heresy (self-expulsion), still has valid jurisdiction over the Church if no “condemnatory or declaratory sentence has been pronounced.” Moreover, because the faithful (which is 99.9 percent of the people in the Catholic Church) request the sacraments from the current Pope and the bishops and priests in communion with him, his jurisdiction is also licit in addition to being valid.

Thus, even if Sedevacantists argue, for example, that Cardinal Ratzinger was self-expelled before his papal election for heresy (often pointing to some of his controversial writings as a private theologian), the Sedevacantists are still subject to his jurisdiction as Pope, which is both valid and licit under the Church’s ecclesiastical law. By withdrawing submission from the Holy Father and the faithful in communion with him, Sedevacantists are schismatic and hence automatically excommunicated from the Church under both Divine and ecclesiastical law (canon 1325, par. 2).

In summary, ecclesiastical law presumes we have a valid Pope unless the Church formally declares otherwise. These ecclesiastical provisions serve the Divine Law and the Church’s unicity and indefectibility. They also reflect the wisdom of the Church which recognizes that determining formal heresy is a sensitive matter requiring great caution and prudence – especially when dealing with a claimant to the papal throne. To be a formal heretic, one must willfully and pertinaciously deny or doubt a dogma of the Faith. If St. Paul formally and publicly rebuked St. Peter for a disciplinary matter (Gal 2:11-12), how much more formal and public would the investigation of a Pope need to be for a doctrinal matter, and one whose outcome determines the validity of his office! As with St. Peter, the reigning Pope must be formally confronted with his errors by legitimate authority, and given time to respond before any offense can be asserted. As we have seen, the Church’s ecclesiastical law mandates the requirements for this procedure.

In 1917, Our Lady came to Fatima to warn the Church of the crisis of Faith we are now experiencing. She also revealed that the Holy Father would have much to suffer (in none of Her reported communications did She say the Pope would lose his office for heresy). In that same year, Pope Benedict XV providentially promulgated law that would prevent people from saying the forewarned crisis was so bad we no longer have a Pope. As we have seen, Popes St. Pius X and Pius XII followed suit with their own legislation.

Sadly, Sedevacantism is an over-reaction to the crisis in the Church foretold by Our Lady, accompanied by an ignorance of ecclesiastical law. In fact, it is fair to conclude that Sedevacantism is part of the very crisis in question, since it has created even more confusion among the faithful, already so confused and scandalized by the doings of the post-conciliar era. Restoring the Church will be furthered by recognizing the authority of the current Pope, as well as properly distinguishing his binding papal teachings from his mere opinions and actions, which may be the product of human weakness or self-respect, but which can never be evidence of formal heresy.

In the following link Brother Peter Dimond of Most Holy Family Monastery completely refutes in detail the lawyer and former high ranking Freemason John Salza's attack on sedevacantism in what Salza calls "the errors of sedevacantism and ecclesiastical law." His article appeared in the false traditionalist publication The Remnant in the July 15, 2010 issue. Peter Dimond carefully examines his arguments and identifies his primary errors and distortions of Catholic teaching. It also exposes his distortion of canon law. In John Salza's article he falls into massive contradictions which is carefully pointed out in Br. Peter Dimond's refutation. It should be also noted that Br. Peter Dimond on August 23, 2010, challenged John Salza to a telephone debate-conversation on the topic of sedevacantism. Here’s the e-mail he sent which is also contained in the following link:

Hi John,

My name is Brother Peter Dimond. I'm a member of Most Holy Family Monastery. You're probably familiar with us or with some of our material.

I was wondering if you would be interested in a recorded telephone conversation/debate on the issue of sedevacantism, i.e., whether Benedict XVI is the pope? I realize that you consider Benedict XVI to be a valid pope, and that you believe the sedevacantists are quite wrong. I think a conversation on this matter would be very valuable and interesting for people. Please let me know if you are interested.

Thanks,

Bro. Peter Dimond

This e-mail was followed up a few days later with a certified letter sent to his address. The certified letter was received and signed for at his address. Even though he definitely got our letter, as of this writing we have not received any response to the debate challenge. We believe Salza is avoiding us because he realizes that such an encounter would not go well for him. Perhaps he recognizes that he has no response for the numerous manifest heresies of Benedict XVI. Sure, he can conveniently ignore them in articles that focus on perverting Catholic principles and aspects of canon law. The false traditionalist audience reading his article will not notice or care that the real issues haven’t been addressed.

However, in a debate with us, he would have to address the real issues front and center with nowhere to run. Moreover, considering that his attack on sedevacantism comprises a system of involved distortions that is superficially impressive but in reality specious (as I will show), Salza might not even believe in what he has written. When we consider that he has the audacity to assert that sedevacantists should be called “empty heads,” his evasion of a debate with us speaks to his insecurity, his cowardice, and his inability to defend his position.

http://www.mostholyfamilymonastery.com/Articles/john_salza.php

"The Spider and the Fly"

The Dimond brothers may well be a cunning spiders but I don't think John Salza is a simple fly. His mission is not to convert the devil but rather to keep others from falling into his traps. It remins me of an old poem.

It's a shame Fatima that you ever stepped into the spider's parlour.. "Unto an evil counsellor, close heart and ear and eye. "


Will you walk into my parlour?" said the Spider to the Fly,
'Tis the prettiest little parlour that ever you did spy;
The way into my parlour is up a winding stair,
And I've a many curious things to show when you are there."
Oh no, no," said the little Fly, "to ask me is in vain,
For who goes up your winding stair can ne'er come down again."


"I'm sure you must be weary, dear, with soaring up so high;
Will you rest upon my little bed?" said the Spider to the Fly.
"There are pretty curtains drawn around; the sheets are fine and thin,
And if you like to rest awhile, I'll snugly tuck you in!"
Oh no, no," said the little Fly, "for I've often heard it said,
They never, never wake again, who sleep upon your bed!"


Said the cunning Spider to the Fly, " Dear friend what can I do,
To prove the warm affection I 've always felt for you?
I have within my pantry, good store of all that's nice;
I'm sure you're very welcome -- will you please to take a slice?"
"Oh no, no," said the little Fly, "kind Sir, that cannot be,
I've heard what's in your pantry, and I do not wish to see!"


"Sweet creature!" said the Spider, "you're witty and you're wise,
How handsome are your gauzy wings, how brilliant are your eyes!
I've a little looking-glass upon my parlour shelf,
If you'll step in one moment, dear, you shall behold yourself."
"I thank you, gentle sir," she said, "for what you 're pleased to say,
And bidding you good morning now, I'll call another day."


The Spider turned him round about, and went into his den,
For well he knew the silly Fly would soon come back again:
So he wove a subtle web, in a little corner sly,
And set his table ready, to dine upon the Fly.
Then he came out to his door again, and merrily did sing,
"Come hither, hither, pretty Fly, with the pearl and silver wing;
Your robes are green and purple -- there's a crest upon your head;
Your eyes are like the diamond bright, but mine are dull as lead!"

Alas, alas! how very soon this silly little Fly,
Hearing his wily, flattering words, came slowly flitting by;
With buzzing wings she hung aloft, then near and nearer drew,
Thinking only of her brilliant eyes, and green and purple hue --
Thinking only of her crested head -- poor foolish thing! At last,
Up jumped the cunning Spider, and fiercely held her fast.
He dragged her up his winding stair, into his dismal den,
Within his little parlour -- but she ne'er came out again!


And now dear little children, who may this story read,
To idle, silly flattering words, I pray you ne'er give heed:
Unto an evil counsellor, close heart and ear and eye,
And take a lesson from this tale, of the Spider and the Fly.

The Spider and the Fly
Mary Howitt


Mary Howitt (1799-1888)

Mryan Wrote:
Ecclesiastical law poses further problems for the Sedevacantist thesis. Popes St. Pius X and Pius XII legislated that a Cardinal’s election to the papacy is presumed to be valid, irrespective of any ecclesiastical censures he may have incurred prior to his election.

Pope St. Pius X: “None of the Cardinals may be in any way excluded from the active or passive election of the Sovereign Pontiff under pretext or by reason of any excommunication, suspension, interdict or other ecclesiastical impediment” (Vacante Sede Apostolica, 1904).

Pope Pius XII: “None of the Cardinals may, by pretext or reason of any excommunication, suspension, or interdict whatsoever, or of any other ecclesiastical impediment, be excluded from the active and passive election of the Supreme Pontiff” (Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis, 1945).

Mryan I haven't time just now so I'll just make one observation on the above quote which caught my eye.
The ecclesiastical impediments mentioned are those which have been imposed by Church disciplinery law. These are not considered when the college is called to elect a Pope but the Divine Law is not overiden (nor can it legitimately be) in the case of apostacy or heresy. A known heretic or apostate would not be permitted to participate.

Mryan, so are John Kerry, Nancy Pelosi and Joe Biden Catholic? Most traditional Catholics and neo-conservative Catholics would say these liberal abortion supporting politicians are not Catholic. If you say they are not, then by what authority do you make such a claim outside of any formal declaration from the Church? If you claim a Catholic doesn't need a formal declaration from the Church to determine that these abortion supporting politicians are not Catholic, then how can you make the claim, without sounding hypocritical , that someone holding office in the Church needs a formal declaration from the Church to determine that they don't hold office in the church, even though canon 188.4 says that a Catholic doesn't need any formal declaration from the Church to recognize that someone has lost their office in the Church due to schism or heresy?

C_T, I never said that the notorious named individuals were “not Catholic”, so you just spent a lot of ink building a case for hypocrisy where none exists.

In March of 2006, The PONTIFICAL COUNCIL FOR LEGISLATIVE TEXTS issued ACTUS FORMALIS DEFECTIONIS AB ECCLESIA CATHOLICA, presenting “new canonical legislation … distinct from the other – rather 'virtual' (that is, deduced from behaviors) – forms of 'notoriously” or 'publicly' abandoning the faith.'”

If you are a sedevacantist, you will not recognize this change to the law because your authoritative, living and permanent Magisterium went into a coma in 1917, though even here I know of at least one sede who believes the 1917 Code is “formally defective” and thus, without force of law, except where he agrees with the law. This is not to say that sede's do not recognize the legislative decrees of say, Pope Pius XII, especially with regard to papal elections, though even here they seem to have run out of ideas on how laymen can elect a pope; though not from want of trying. See, most of them are haunted by the fact that an interregnum of some 53 years may not be what our Lord, or VCI, had in mind when establishing and defining the visible Church, Papal Primacy, indefectibility and perpetual succession.

Of course, some sleep soundly at night secure in their association with their respective sede cult where they can pretend that the Magisterium exists and is interpreted through these fearless leaders; all of whom are experts in canon law and formal defection; just ask them.

However, if you have not rejected the Pope, you might find the new instruction quite interesting, and informative:

PONTIFICAL COUNCIL FOR LEGISLATIVE TEXTS

ACTUS FORMALIS DEFECTIONIS AB ECCLESIA CATHOLICA

Vatican City, 13 March 2006
Prot. N. 10279/2006

Your Excellency:

For quite some time, a considerable number of Bishops, Judicial Vicars and others working in the field of canon law have been posing to this Pontifical Council questions and requests for clarification concerning the so-called actus formalis defectionis ab Ecclesia catholica mentioned in canons 1086, § 1, 1117 and 1124 of the Code of Canon Law.  The concept therein presented is new to canonical legislation and is distinct from the other – rather “virtual” (that is, deduced from behaviors) – forms of “notoriously” or “publicly” abandoning the faith (cfr. can. 171, § 1, 4°; 194, § 1, 2°; 316, § 1; 694, § 1, 1°; 1071, § 1, 4° and § 2).  In the latter circumstances, those who have been baptized or received into the Catholic Church continue to be bound by merely ecclesiastical laws (cfr. can. 11).

The issue was carefully examined by the competent Dicasteries of the Holy See in order  to identify, first of all, the theological and doctrinal components of an actus formalis defectionis ab Ecclesia catholica and then in turn the requirements or juridical formalities that would be necessary so that such an action would constitute a true “formal act” of defection.

After having received the decision of the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith concerning the theological and doctrinal elements, and after subsequently examining the entire matter in Plenary Session, this Pontifical Council communicates the following to the Presidents of Episcopal Conferences:

1. For the abandonment of the Catholic Church to be validly configured as a true actus formalis defectionis ab Ecclesia so that the exceptions foreseen in the previously mentioned canons would apply, it is necessary that there concretely be:

a) the internal decision to leave the Catholic Church;
b) the realization and external manifestation of that decision; and
c) the reception of that decision by the competent ecclesiastical authority.

2.  The substance of the act of the will must be the rupture of those bonds of communion – faith, sacraments, and pastoral governance – that permit the Faithful to receive the life of grace within the Church. This means that the formal act of defection must have more than a juridical-administrative character (the removal of one’s name from a Church membership registry maintained by the government in order to produce certain civil consequences), but be configured as a true separation from the constitutive elements of the life of the Church: it supposes, therefore, an act of apostasy, heresy or schism.

3.  The juridical-administrative act of abandoning the Church does not per se constitute a formal act of defection as understood in the Code, given that there could still be the will to remain in the communion of the faith.
On the other hand, heresy (whether formal or material), schism and apostasy do not in themselves constitute a formal act of defection if they are not externally concretized and manifested to the ecclesiastical authority in the required manner.

4.  The defection must be a valid juridical act, placed by a person who is canonically capable and in conformity with the canonical norms that regulate such matters (cfr. cann.124-126). Such an act must be taken personally, consciously and freely.

5.  It is required, moreover, that the act be manifested by the interested party in written form, before the competent authority of the Catholic Church:  the Ordinary or proper pastor, who is uniquely qualified to make the judgment concerning the existence or non-existence of the act of the will as described above in n. 2.

Consequently, only the convergence of the two elements – the theological content of the interior act and its manifestation in the manner defined above – constitutes the actus formalis defectionis ab Ecclesia catholica, with the corresponding canonical penalties (cfr. can. 1364, § 1).

6. In such cases, the competent ecclesiastical authority mentioned above is to provide that this act be noted in the baptismal registry (cfr. can. 535, § 2) with explicit mention of the occurrence of a “defectio ab Ecclesia catholica actu formali”.

7. It remains clear, in any event, that the sacramental bond of belonging to the Body of Christ that is the Church, conferred by the baptismal character, is an ontological and permanent bond which is not lost by reason of any act or fact of defection.

With the certainty that the Bishops of your Conference, conscious of the salvific dimension of ecclesiastical communion, will well understand the pastoral motivations underlying these norms, I welcome this opportunity to renew my sentiments of fraternal esteem.

What does all of this mean? It means, C_T, that even if one holds another Catholic to be a notorious heretic and excommunicated by the force of law, no one has the right to declare that he or she is "not Catholic" until the appropriate steps are taken by both parties (the individual and the Church) to formally recognize that the act of formal defection has resulted in one's voluntary expulsion from the Church.

This does not mean that acts of heresy, apostasy and schism do not sever one from the life and communion of the Church, but it does clarify that "formal acts of defection" cannot automatically sever one's sacramental, ontological and permanent bond of baptism; the bond that makes one a "Catholic member"; even if the bond is a dead one.

columba wrote:
Mryan I haven't time just now so I'll just make one observation on the above quote which caught my eye.

The ecclesiastical impediments mentioned are those which have been imposed by Church disciplinery law. These are not considered when the college is called to elect a Pope but the Divine Law is not overiden (nor can it legitimately be) in the case of apostacy or heresy. A known heretic or apostate would not be permitted to participate.

I would tend to agree with you that a “known” heretic or apostate, who was formally excommunicated for such an offense, would not be able to participate, at least until he was formally reconciled and his excommunication lifted.

But, we are not the “experts” in such matters and the legislation is sufficiently ambiguous to be able to know the precise will of the Supreme Legislator; though, taken at face value it does seem to indicate that such a person may in fact participate (though I cannot envisage his election – unless, of course, his status as a member in good standing with the Church was first confirmed!).

However, in light of the ACTUS FORMALIS DEFECTIONIS AB ECCLESIA CATHOLICA, I wonder, once having read it (see my previous post), if you would still like to raise that objection. Perhaps Pope Pius XII was ahead of his time by recognizing that the excommunication of a Cardinal elector (for “any” reason) does not automatically expel him from the Church, even if he is excommunicated from the life of the Church. As such, he can still participate in her juridical actions, when so called upon.

In the final analysis, it may be just one more of those remote and insignificant “hypotheticals” with just enough ambiguity that we need not concern ourselves with it. Let the sede's stamp their feet; who cares?

Catholic_Truth wrote: Mryan, so are John Kerry, Nancy Pelosi and Joe Biden Catholic?

MRyan wrote:C_T, I never said that the notorious named individuals were “not Catholic”.

So, MRyan, you admit that you consider the liberal, anti-God, abortion pushing politicians, Joe Biden, John Kerry and Nancy Pelosi to all be Catholic . Well, I think that says it all. Your idea of the Catholic Church is a Church where it's members need not have "FULL COMMUNION OF FAITH" . But unlike you, Traditional Catholics hold to the truth which is that all Catholics must have "FULL COMMUNION OF FAITH"(One God, One Church, One Faith) and if any person rejects the teachings of the Church, then they automatically ex-communicate themselves from the Church and are no longer Catholic. But you, MRyan consider even "formal heretics" who are outside the Church to still be Catholic. Your position certainly gives a whole new meaning to Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus in the name of a "DEEPER UNDERSTANDING" .

MRyan wrote:
However, in light of the ACTUS FORMALIS DEFECTIONIS AB ECCLESIA CATHOLICA, I wonder, once having read it (see my previous post), if you would still like to raise that objection.

Hmm.. You wouldn't happen to have an official Swahili translation of this. I don't understand it in English.

“By withdrawing submission from the Holy Father and the faithful in communion with him, Sedevacantists are schismatic and hence automatically excommunicated from the Church under both Divine and ecclesiastical law (canon 1325, par. 2).”

True.

Bull of Pope Paul IV — Cum Ex Apostolatus Officio, 1559

“Further, if ever it should appear that any bishop (even one acting as an archbishop, patriarch or primate), or a cardinal of the Roman Church, or a legate (as mentioned above), or even the Roman Pontiff (whether prior to his promotion to cardinal, or prior to his election as Roman Pontiff), has beforehand deviated from the Catholic faith or fallen into any heresy, We enact, decree, determine and define:

— “Such promotion or election in and of itself, even with the agreement and unanimous consent of all the cardinals, shall be null, legally invalid and void.

— “It shall not be possible for such a promotion or election to be deemed valid or to be valid, neither through reception of office, consecration, subsequent administration, or possession, nor even through the putative enthronement of a Roman Pontiff himself, together with the veneration and obedience accorded him by all.

— “Such promotion or election, shall not through any lapse of tune in the foregoing situation, be considered even partially legitimate in any way . . .

— “Each and all of the words, as acts, laws, appointments of those so promoted or elected —and indeed, whatsoever flows therefrom — shall be lacking in force, and shall grant no stability and legal power to anyone whatsoever.

— “Those so promoted or elected, by that very fact and without the need to make any further declaration, shall be deprived of any dignity, position, honor, title, authority, office and power.”

Also true. The divine law, which trumps all canonical legislation, is expressed here. So much for Salza.

I will therefore present the true argument that puts sedevacantism to rest as the error it is.

Our Lord established the Church as the organ of truth and salvation, as the interpreter of his law, and as a light on the hill to his sheep. If there is a question, on any matter pertaining to salvation, the answer is to be found by looking to Her - by Our Lord's "law" and decree.

A mass apostasy within a body appearing to be the Catholic Church in the end times is of such dire importance to the salvation of those living in those times that the Church, the light on the hill and guide to Christ's sheep, would have spoken of it. She would have warned of such, and provided the answer to those who were to live and need the answer in those dire times.

Now, follow this: THE CHURCH HAS NEVER INDICATED THAT THERE WILL BE AN APOSTASY IN A BODY THAT APPEARS TO ALL MEN TO BE THE VISIBLE CHURCH NEAR THE END TIMES SUCH THAT HER ELECT MUST ABANDON THAT 'FALSE' BODY AND FLEE TO THE MOUNTAINS. One has to resort to private interpretation of Scriptural passages to get there, or one has to apply statements by the Magisterium about an apostasy in the last days or the Antichrist to a "Vatican Institution" that purports to be the visible Church - a leap which the living Magisterium for two millenia before the "fall into apostasy" has never indicated would need to be made.

Surely, we would have been warned. Surely, Our Lord would have told us through the Church when it was indeed His Body and the voice of truth. He would not have left it to "private interpretation" in those dire times. Rather, He has said that He would be with the Church until the end of time, with "the Church" something visible and known to all men, and not just a word or tag put on a rabblement in a self-fulfilling fashion so as to preserve and save the consistency of Our Lord's words and prophecy.

So I defy any sede to show us how the Magisterium (during those two millenia when it was the Magisterium), or the sensus Catholicus as expressed in any traditional Catholic annotation of the relevant scriptural passages such as the Douay Rheims of the 16th century or the Haydock Bible, has predicted these dire times and given us, with the full weight of its authority and guidance, the sign and direction telling us (who need such guidance desperately) that a time will come when we must - Christs' sheep placed in Her care - abandon a heretical, false institution that has all appearances (even a universally acclaimed pope) of being the Church established by Our Lord to provide that very guidance.

Sedes, in the final analysis, resort to their private magisteriums and judgment (of course just applying infallible statements and such ) under conditions where the appointed authority has become heretical or is "absent" because "out to lunch or dysfunctional" (Father Paul Trinchard, whom I recommend, nonetheless, one reading on the theology of the Holy Latin Mass of the Latin Rite). If it were to come to that, if the elect were to have to do so in the last days - surely we would have been told so, and not by the voice of the Holy Ghost whispering in our ears, but by the organ set up to verify and confirm the coming of such a reality, the Church.

But the Church has never told us these days would come. And it would have. Case closed.

tornpage

Catholic_Truth wrote:

Catholic_Truth wrote: Mryan, so are John Kerry, Nancy Pelosi and Joe Biden Catholic?

MRyan wrote:C_T, I never said that the notorious named individuals were “not Catholic”.

So, MRyan, you admit that you consider the liberal, anti-God, abortion pushing politicians, Joe Biden, John Kerry and Nancy Pelosi to all be Catholic . Well, I think that says it all. Your idea of the Catholic Church is a Church where it's members need not have "FULL COMMUNION OF FAITH" . But unlike you, Traditional Catholics hold to the truth which is that all Catholics must have "FULL COMMUNION OF FAITH"(One God, One Church, One Faith) and if any person rejects the teachings of the Church, then they automatically ex-communicate themselves from the Church and are no longer Catholic. But you, MRyan consider even "formal heretics" who are outside the Church to still be Catholic. Your position certainly gives a whole new meaning to Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus in the name of a "DEEPER UNDERSTANDING" .

So, C_T, your rant and accusation says it all. You can no more recognize the true voice of authority and the indefectibility of the Church than you can recognize distinctions in the law governing automatic severance of Catholics from communion with the Body (excommunication), and formal expulsion from the Body as set forth in the actus formalis defectionis ab Ecclesia catholica.

And as far as “Traditional Catholics” rejecting the authority of the Church in this matter by insisting (with you) that any person who appears to you to have “rejected the teachings of the Church” is automatically excommunicated “and no longer Catholic”, you can only be pointing to the sede swamp Catholics who reject the authority of the Church and are in schism against the visible Church of Rome.

At least we know where you stand and you can stop playing this fence-sitting game. You are either in communion with Pope Benedict XVI, or not.

I would say that the Council of Basel fits nicely with Salza's thesis:

"To avoid scandals and many dangers and to relieve timorous consciences, this holy synod decrees that henceforth nobody shall be obliged to abstain from communion with anyone in the administration and reception of sacraments or in any other sacred or profane matters, or to shun someone or to observe an ecclesiastical interdict, on the ground of any ecclesiastical sentence, censure, suspension or prohibition that has been promulgated in general by a person or by the law, unless the sentence, prohibition, suspension or censure was specifically or expressly promulgated or pronounced by a judge against a specified person, college, university, church or place, or if it is clear that someone has incurred a sentence of excommunication with such notoriety that it cannot be concealed or in any way excused in law. For the synod wishes such persons to be avoided in accordance with canonical sanctions. By this, however, it does not intend any relief or favour to those so excommunicated, suspended, interdicted or prohibited. " http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Councils/ecum17.htm

There needs to be a judge. Plus the marks of the Church are missing from the Sede camp: One, Holy, Catholic, Apostolic.
I see no "Oneness" in their position. But I do understand that they are the result of the Church not doing its job. Neglect can be sinful, but not heretical. To let the laity be savaged by modernists for such a long time, it is understandable Sedevicantism came to be. I do not think it is a wise or valid position but I understand why it could have come to be. The Church did not enough to reform prior to the Reformation of Luther. I pray the Church will start to display its power in the near future to correct all the confusion.

tornpage wrote:

— “Those so promoted or elected, by that very fact and without the need to make any further declaration, shall be deprived of any dignity, position, honor, title, authority, office and power.”

Also true. The divine law, which trumps all canonical legislation, is expressed here. So much for Salza.

Why? Canon law also stipulates that for the divine law, as expressed in this particular canon, to become "effective" requires an authority that can interpret it, render a judgment, and make it effective through legislative action. In other words, the fact on which loss of office is based does not depend on the authority’s declaration, but its effectiveness does. This is all spelled out in the law, and sanctioned commentaries on the law, and I can cite chapter and verse if you like.

Salza is correct, the divine law does not exist in a vacuum, or was left to the private interpretation of laymen. It must be interpreted and codified into ecclesiastical law. These canons cannot be read in isolation. The divine law governing communicatio in sacris is the classic case in point where we can see the results of private interpretation when the ecclesiastical law is ignored, read in isolation, or distorted.

tornpage wrote:Sedes, in the final analysis, resort to their private magisteriums and judgment [...] If it were to come to that, if the elect were to have to do so in the last days - surely we would have been told so, and not by the voice of the Holy Ghost whispering in our ears, but by the organ set up to verify and confirm the coming of such a reality, the Church.

But the Church has never told us these days would come. And it would have. Case closed.

Quite so; and for good reason because the Church has infallibly declared that she will always remain visible so that Catholics will always know where they can find her.

Where there is Peter, there is the Church.

It really is that simple.

Thanks, Duckbill. That citation from the Council of Basel really does shed some light on the subject and demonstrates the wisdom of the Church.

Fatima for our times wrote:In the following link Brother Peter Dimond of Most Holy Family Monastery completely refutes in detail the lawyer and former high ranking Freemason John Salza's attack on sedevacantism in what Salza calls "the errors of sedevacantism and ecclesiastical law." His article appeared in the false traditionalist publication The Remnant in the July 15, 2010 issue. Peter Dimond carefully examines his arguments and identifies his primary errors and distortions of Catholic teaching. It also exposes his distortion of canon law. In John Salza's article he falls into massive contradictions which is carefully pointed out in Br. Peter Dimond's refutation. It should be also noted that Br. Peter Dimond on August 23, 2010, challenged John Salza to a telephone debate-conversation on the topic of sedevacantism. Here’s the e-mail he sent which is also contained in the following link:

http://www.mostholyfamilymonastery.com/Articles/john_salza.php

I see; first call into question the very faith and Catholic character of Mr. Salza by mentioning that he was a “former high ranking Freemason”, as if this fact alone somehow discredits his scholarship. I mean, we can't trust this man, he is a “former high ranking Freemason”! Of course, considering the cult you follow, this type of character assassination should not surprise us.

Anyone who wants to find out for themselves how Salza became involved with the Masons can read the article here:

http://www.scripturecatholic.com/john_salza.html

He also wrote a book of his experience titled: Masonry Unmasked: An Insider Reveals the Secrets of the Lodge.

The next step is to call The Remnant, where his article was first published, a “false traditionalist publication”, thereby impugning not only the paper, but all Catholics who subscribe to and/or who write for the paper.

Of course, everyone of a traditionalist bent who remains in union with the pope is in your eyes a “false traditionalist”, so again, no surprise.

As far as your assertion that Bro. Peter Dimond “completely refutes” the article of Salza, that is your unbiased objective opinion, to be sure.

It is not surprising that Br. Peter Dimond challenged John Salza to a telephone debate-conversation on the topic of sedevacantism, for that is their modus operendi and favored means for controlling a debate.

Forum members should take note of the comments of “athanasius” who, after writing a devastating multi-part critique of sedevacantism, and a refutation of the arguments of a Dimond Bro. supporter, was challenged to a telephone debate by the Dimond Bro's. He wrote:

05 October 2010

The strange church of Mr. and Mr. Dimond

http://athanasiuscm.blogspot.com/search/label/sedevacantism
Last year, as I noted in a refutation of a supporter of the Dimond Brothers, I had chance to offend him by refusing a phone debate with him, so he put up two videos against my person. As I noted at that time, I never backed out of anything, I said from the start that I had no interest in debating the Dimond brothers except in written form. Well they didn't like that so they asserted that anyone who prefers written debate to spoken debate is trying to hide something. Not only is that disingenuous, it is frankly contrary to supernatural charity. Secondly, we are not the Apostles with personal infallibility, to deal with issues requiring multiple distinctions and mountains of reading cannot be done in spoken discourse. It requires large bodies of writing with citations.

Now let's turn to the comments of someone who has no problem with telephone debates and in fact debated Peter Dimond on the validity of the New Mass. Here is what he said when asked why there was no follow-up debate on the validity of VCII:

http://catholiclegate.blogspot.com/2010/04/robert-godfrey-who-runs-sedevacantist.html

Dimond Brothers and Debating

Robert Godfrey, who runs the Sedevacantist Printing Card Company in Corpus Christi, Texas has asked me why Peter Dimond pulled out of a future possible debate on the Validity of Vatican II against me.

I recently did a video on this very issue, but I thought it best to provide the images here as well. Mr. Dimond, after our debate on the New Mass, made a number of demands in order for a debate on Vatican II to happen. It is my conviction that Mr. Dimond put so many obstacles in the way of a future debate against me simply due to his awful performance in our previous debate on the New Mass. After that debate Mr. Dimond even went as far as to setting up a ridiculous amount of parameters in order for another debate to occur! Mr. Dimond's outrageous behavior led numerous Sedevacantists to APOLOGIZE for his behavior.

… Well, Mr. Dimond also says that I have to agree that if any comments I make in the debate that he deems NECESSARY to be "DELETED", then he gets the right to DELETE them from the debate!

Mr. Dimond doesn't want a debate. Mr. Dimond wants a puppet that he can manipulate to his own liking. After Mr. Dimond and the Monastery's numerous awful performances, we aren't surprised that they set up SO many OUTRAGEOUS demands. The Monastery KNOW that no one would accept such outrageous demands. As such, it's an easy way to avoid defending your position that has been refuted many times over already.

Here is what a well-known sedevacantist, John Daly, has to say about the Dimonds:

http://sedevacantist.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=115
Probably the most salient characteristic of Dimond's writings is the habitual pretence at having shown what he has merely alleged or has supported by entirely spurious argument.

Here is a sample from Issue 5, p. 57:

Commenting on JP2's words "...Jesus Christ, the Incarnate Word of God, who is the perfect realization of human existence" (Fides et Ratio), Dimond comments:

"There you have it! Jesus Christ is the perfect realization of human existence. Or if you prefer it another way, look up the word 'realization' in a thesaurus and you will find that it means the same thing as the word 'understanding'. Antipope John Paul II is saying that Jesus Christ is the perfect understanding of human existence."

Well, XXXXX, to borrow a phrase, there you have it!

1. Obscurity. What do the words "Or if you prefer it another way" mean here? We haven't had "it" any way yet; we have just had JP2's words repeated with no indication of what is wrong with them.

2. Absurdity. To find out what a word means, if we are in doubt, we look it up in a dictionary, not a thesaurus, which is a collection of words of broadly similar, but not necessarily identical, meaning.

3. Further absurdity. Some words have several meanings. Finding in a thesaurus, or even a dictionary, that a word can mean one thing, does not preclude its perhaps having a second meaning.

4. Ignorance. As a matter of fact, the word "realization" is one of those words that has more than one meaning. Admittedly it often approximates to "understanding", but at other times it means "making real" or "giving actuality to".

5. Fallacious argument. Diamond presumes that JP2 means "understanding" when he says "realization". In fact, Diamond's case here amounts to tacitly admitting that in order to expose the heresy he believes is contained in JP2's words, he has to change those words to others which better suit his objective - a procedure justified on the basis of his thesaurus trick. Common sense shows where we shall end up if we may use a thesaurus to alter words in the statements of others to some other word included in the thesaurus as having a broadly similar meaning.

6. Factual error. Quite clearly the meaning intended by JP2 here is not "understanding" but "making real" or "actualisation".

7. False witness. While JP2's words here are not in conformity with traditional Catholic expression, and could be said to convey a whiff of Gnosticism, nevertheless, they are not, for a change, heretical. Human existence has indeed never been more perfectly made real than in Jesus Christ.

Such sophistry is rife in Dimond's writings.

But Dimond's own commentaries are so exaggerated, so tendentious, so slapdash, so wanting in logical rigour or theological exactitude as to be worse than worthless.

I say worse than worthless because defending the truth with invalid arguments makes the truth vulnerable to the appearance of refutation when the invalid arguments are exposed (and there are various answers to Dimond already on the Web, contributed by JP2ers). And in any event, it will be no merit to anyone on the Day of Judgment to have been convinced by Dimond's shoddy reasoning to reject the Polish heresiarch.

But in any event, Dimond's claim is vitiated by the fact that while pontificating on alleged mistranslations of Latin [Sess. 6, Ch. 4], he does not actually know the language. Theologians writing in Latin (and Mr Dimond has never read one, for he does not have the ability to do so) would never dream of using the word "votum" (desire/vow) to express the intention that must be had by the recipient of a sacrament during its administration. The claim is merely ludicrous as anyone familiar with ecclesiastical Latin will confirm to you.

So we find Mr Dimond:

(a) Radically distorting the meaning of a dogma.
(b) Accusing others of radically distorting the meaning of the very dogma he is twisting in knots.
(c) Pretending to a competence in Latin he needs but does not possess.
(d) Performing intellectual acrobatics to twist meanings and logic while claiming that his crazy "interpretation" is manifestly the only correct one.
(e) Doing all the above because it doesn't suit him to believe what Trent actually defined.

Another grave departure from Catholic orthodoxy is found in Dimond's attitude to those papal decrees and declarations, encyclicals, etc., which fall short of the requirements for pertaining to the Extraordinary Magisterium. Dimond sees no difficulty in arguing that as they are not guaranteed by direct infallibility, they may well contain error and that Catholics are free to reject their contents, indeed sometimes bound to...

As a matter of fact, as Pope Pius XII explains in Humani Generis, and as any serious student of Catholic doctrine knows, Catholics are bound in conscience to submit both exteriorly and interiorly to these non-infallible documents also, and the words of Our Lord "He that heareth you, heareth me" apply to them. Dimond rejects that truth by a combination of ignorance and necessity, for he cannot admit a fact that would at a stroke destroy his false doctrine concerning Baptism in voto.

There we are, XXXX. I am sorry that time prevents me from being more thorough, but I think I have written enough to make it clear why I do not wish to be associated with Michael Dimond in any way.

Robert Sungenis, in his closing remarks (Robert Sungenis Vs. Dimond Bros) on the CAI website, had this to say:

In closing, the Dimond Brothers have shown their incompetence throughout this discussion. Their left hand doesn’t know what their right hand is doing. They claim to obey one set of Church teachings, yet they flatly deny another set, and all this by their own personal judgment which they esteem so highly.

The Dimond Brothers have simply failed to make the proper distinctions, and unfortunately for them, the Catholic religion is all about making the proper distinctions. So many people in history have fallen by the wayside by what appears to be contradictory teaching from the Church, but that is a trap that the devil sets for them.

The Dimond Brothers hold that Vatican II contradicts previous Church teaching, but that is only because they neither understand previous teaching nor understand Vatican II. We saw this quite easily in the Dimond Brothers’ opening remarks in which they attempted to list 10 heresies of Vatican II, their best shot at proving their point, but they utterly failed.

The best that can be concluded is that Vatican II has some ambiguous statements, but that is far from being in formal heresy.

The truth is that the Dimond Brothers are promoting heresy, and they are seeking to separate people from the Catholic Church by appearing as if they are supporting the Catholic Church. Ultimately, the Dimond Brothers have repudiated Jesus Christ, for it was He who said that the gates of hell would NOT prevail against the Church, but the Dimond Brothers believe that hell has, indeed, prevailed, for we are headless, without a leader, and have been for the last 47 [53] years, the very opposite of what Jesus promised. Not only is it incorrect, it is absurd.

The main problem, of course, is that the Dimond Brothers have not learned to distinguish between judging faith and morals for the sake of their own conscience and the far different position of judging the Magisterium. At will, the Dimond Brothers declare the whole Magisterium heretical and non-Catholic, yet, as we have seen, they barely have the capability to read a document for what it actually says, and have less capability to understand the context, or synthesize apparent contradictions into a unified whole. That is because they are bent on destroying the Catholic Church and declaring themselves the true holders of the faith. Didn’t we go through this once before with Martin Luther and John Calvin? Apparently, the Dimond Brothers haven’t learned from history, but that is no surprise, for when pride and arrogance get in the way, history means nothing to the egomaniac.

The Dimond Brothers have gone back to the error of Balaam and the error of Korah (Jude 1:11), cases in which mere underlings tried to usurp authority from the rightful magisterium. God simply has no mercy upon those who arrogate authority to themselves, regardless whether the authority in charge is good, bad or indifferent.

[...]

The Dimond Brothers are on the road to perdition, and anyone who follows them is putting their soul on the precipice of hell. Run, don’t walk, away from them as fast as you possibly can.

This exchange is actually quite funny; from one sede to another (a rabid Feeneyite)

Against An Extreme Feeneyite Sedevacantist
http://stevensperay.wordpress.com/against-extreme-feeneyite-sedevacantist/
2010/7/28

Dear XXXXX,

I reply to your statements below…

Dimonds are heretics since they obstinately defends the position that one can go to someone for the sacraments who you know are a heretic.

Steven replies: Good for you! I agree with you here!

We could go on and on by demonstrating what other sede and non-sede's think about the notorious Dimond brothers (the mutual anathemas of sedes is quite a spectacle), but that should suffice.

I've heard enough about the Dimond brothers, but thanks for regurgitating their stuff and for providing a never ending source of entertainment.

On a more serious note, you really should consider extracting yourself from the web of deceit with which you have been so easily ensnared.

RashaLampa on Mon Feb 14, 2011 8:37 pm, wrote:

Have you read Adam Miller's book on the Novus Ordo? He points all the different Eastern rites that have different anaphoras. While it is true that none of them say "all". Some of them don't use "pro multis" they use other phrases like "for the life of the world and expiation of transgressions."

I have read it, and you are mistaken. Miller produces specific examples of at least three ancient Eastern rite anaphoras that use "all" instead of "many".

His evidence totally discredits the sede's and others who are on record as saying that no rite of the Church has ever used "all" in its consecration formula. Here is one example, from pages 16 and 17 of "Is the New Mass of Pope Paul VI Invalid?"

The Consecration of the wine in the ancient Maronite Canon (which itself was a Syriac translation of the Latin) reads as follows:

"This is the chalice of my blood of the new and eternal Testament which shall be shed for you and for all unto the remission of sin.".

And, he has the documentation to prove it.

Unto an evil counsellor, close heart and ear and eye

simple Faith,

Spider to the fly, indeed.

“"Sweet creature!" said the Spider, "you're witty and you're wise,
How handsome are your gauzy wings, how brilliant are your eyes! . . .
Alas, alas! how very soon this silly little Fly,
Hearing his wily, flattering words, came slowly flitting by."

It’s very flattering and alluring to think that one is part of a special remnant God has chosen to enlighten with His truth and understanding that others just don’t see. But this enticement is as old as Christianity itself.

Gnosticism was around in the beginning of the Church and tried to infiltrate it then with it’s belief in special secret knowledge. But Christianity has never been about that. Christianity is about PUBLIC revelation that is obvious, clear and easy for all to recognize and learn and believe onto salvation, if they will accept His grace.

Thanks, SF.

MRyan,

Superb. Thanks so very much for all your posts and hard work. I pray the Lord blesses you for them. And thank you for defending John Salza from the smear by the Dimond Bros. I’ve heard the man on EWTN exposing freemason secrets and lies. He is a good Catholic devoted to the Church.

I’d like to say something about this quote you posted from Robert Sungenis:

The Dimond Brothers have gone back to the error of Balaam and the error of Korah (Jude 1:11), cases in which mere underlings tried to usurp authority from the rightful magisterium. God simply has no mercy upon those who arrogate authority to themselves, regardless whether the authority in charge is good, bad or indifferent. . . . .
The Dimond Brothers are on the road to perdition, and anyone who follows them is putting their soul on the precipice of hell. Run, don’t walk, away from them as fast as you possibly can.

In case someone reading doesn’t know what the error of Balaam and the error of Korah are and doesn’t have time to look it up, they are very important. Both are mentioned in St. Jude’s warning in verse 11 of his Epistle about those who “perished in the rebellion of Korah” and “Balaam’s error for the sake of gain.”

Balaam’s error can be found in Numbers 22. Balaam was gifted and spoke by “the spirit of God.” He was tempted 3 times by payment of riches to curse the Israelites and he showed King Balek how “to put a stumbling block before the Israelites: to eat foods sacrificed to idols and to play the harlot,” to apostasy. (Revelation 2) He was eager for God to allow him to curse God’s people so he could receive his payment from the king. However, Balaam followed God’s call and instead blessed them 3 times. Although God was angry at him for sinning and wanting personal gain, God still used Balaam to do His will and bless the people. Even a sinful man can be chosen by God in His plan for His people. God can and has and still may entrust the care of His people to such men. Flawed and sinful, but still having the authority given to them by God. An authority clear and visible for all to see.

“The rebellion of Korah” is the story in Numbers 16. God ordains certain men for certain tasks. Christ set up His Apostles who in turn passed on their authority and selected men to carry on their work and laid hands upon them. (“How can people preach unless they are sent?” - Romans 10:15) And their authority should not be usurped by those not chosen by God to have His authority amongst His people.

Excerpts from Numbers 16:

“Korah, son of Izhar, son of Kohath, son of Levi, (and Dathan and Abiram, sons of Eliab, son of Pallu, son of Reuben) took two hundred and fifty Israelites who were leaders in the community, members of the council and men of note. They stood before Moses, and held an assembly against Moses and Aaron, to whom they said, "Enough from you! The whole community, all of them, are holy; the LORD is in their midst. Why then should you set yourselves over the LORD'S congregation?"

When Moses heard this, he fell prostrate.
Then he said to Korah and to all his band, "May the LORD make known tomorrow morning who belongs to him and who is the holy one and whom he will have draw near to him! Whom he chooses, he will have draw near him. . . . . . . .

He has allowed you and your kinsmen, the descendants of Levi, to approach him, and yet you now seek the priesthood too. . . . .

Then, when Korah had assembled all his band against them at the entrance of the meeting tent, the glory of the LORD appeared to the entire community, and the LORD said to Moses and Aaron,
"Stand apart from this band, that I may consume them at once." . . . . . .

No sooner had he finished saying all this than the ground beneath them split open, and the earth opened its mouth and swallowed them and their families (and all of Korah's men) and all their possessions. They went down alive to the nether world with all belonging to them; the earth closed over them, and they perished from the community.”

(end of passage quote)

Sedes, in the final analysis, resort to their private magisteriums and judgment (of course just applying infallible statements and such ) under conditions where the appointed authority has become heretical or is "absent" because "out to lunch or dysfunctional" (Father Paul Trinchard, whom I recommend, nonetheless, one reading on the theology of the Holy Latin Mass of the Latin Rite). If it were to come to that, if the elect were to have to do so in the last days - surely we would have been told so, and not by the voice of the Holy Ghost whispering in our ears, but by the organ set up to verify and confirm the coming of such a reality, the Church.

But the Church has never told us these days would come. And it would have. Case closed

Tornpage,

You presented your case and wrapped it up perfectly. Reasonable, logical, true and irrefutable. You should be a lawyer or something. lol

I was reflecting on the private interpretation part. By now I’m sure most can see the corollary between how Protestants interpret Sacred Scripture differently and apart from the visible Church and how sedes interpret Sacred Tradition differently and apart from the visible Church. Because of this private interpretation, these 2 groups refuse to submit to Christ’s Vicar here on earth, His chief steward and head of His Church.

But today I was thinking about how Protestantism came about 500 years ago after a few centuries of the printing press led some (who were literate) to read the Bible more. Which is a good thing and was encouraged by the Church. But then some began to interpret the Bible differently than the Church did.

It seems to me that the internet has caused a similar phenomena. A hundred years ago most Catholics had no access to Papal encyclicals and canon law and knew little to nothing about them. Now with the internet they are handy for anyone who wants to read them, which is a good thing. But some have begun to interpret them differently than the Church does.

When the Church told the Protestants 500 years ago that they were wrong in their private interpretations, they just said that the Church was not the Church of Christ and left. Same today with the sedes. They believe they are right and if the Church disagrees, then it is not the Catholic Church of Christ and they are in schism because of it. May God have mercy on us.

I agree with Duckbill. Like the Protestants 500 years ago when it was sins and abuses by men in the Church that led some to leave and follow false prophets, some sincere and some malicious. Same today. The abuses, sins and confusion caused by men in the Church have led some to follow false prophets, some sincere and some malicious.

Tornpage, I want you to know how much your post touched my heart today. I know that you put your trust in God’s Word, the Church of Christ and His visible head, and that does not always come easy when we see abuses and modernism around us. You “walk by faith and not by sight.” God bless you, dear friend.

“Oh, Mary, conceived without sin, pray for us who have recourse to you.”

May Mary immaculate keep us under her protection. May the Holy Spirit of truth lead us all to proper discernment. May Christ always deepen our faith and draw us all closer to His Most Sacred Heart.

God bless you all and your families.
Love,
Elisa

MRyan,

I say worse than worthless because defending the truth with invalid arguments makes the truth vulnerable to the appearance of refutation when the invalid arguments are exposed

That's a great quote from Daly. It's often why I take a role against some of the people you quote - while I agree with their positions. I often find you more informative and persuasive than the authority you rely on.

And that goes for Miller, too.

Miller produces specific examples of at least three ancient Eastern rite anaphoras that use "all" instead of "many".

We've discussed this before. I know that two of those three examples specifically qualify that "all" with a qualifier like "of the faithful" or such, making it clear that it is referring to those who receive the fruits of Our Lord's Passion. In other words, the actual language leaves no room for ambiguity or confusion. With the vernacular translations of the NO, we have to provide the language "of the faithful," which is not there. I wonder why not - but, as I've said, that's my problem. Rome has approved the vernacular translations and said they must be interpreted in accordance with the approved Latin of the NO, which has "many." So the case is indeed closed, but two of Miller's examples don't close that door.

As to the third, I wonder why it took Miller to bring that forth as an example of the use of "all" in the same fashion (without the qualifier "all of the faithful") - I am not aware of that being advanced in the more "official" defenses of the NO, which rely in most part on ridiculous arguments like "the NT was written in Greek and authoritatively translated into our reliable and without error Latin text (which both have "many"), but Our Lord and the apostles spoke Aramaic, and actually spoke a word meaning 'all' . . . " Blah, blah, blah. Pretty lame when we have the Biblical texts, inerrant and infallible, themselves, and the official liturgical language of the Latin Rite, in the same language as one of those inerrant texts, using the same Latin word, "multis."

I am also dubious of his relying on two priests who use the Marionite rite as saying, "yeah, I've seen it in one of our anaphora." In the long testimony of the Church, and the discussions about this contentious translation, there is no better "proof" of this venerable and ancient usage of "all" without qualifying language?

I also have cause for doubting Miller based upon one of the examples we've discussed before. If you don't remember, I can remind you.

Which now gets me to my problem with Salza's argument. It's essentially procedural: we can only know who has fallen from the faith "without declaration" when the Church tells us who has. If the Church hasn't told us (by its declaration - procedure), we can't tell if they have. Well, the sedes say the "Church," namely the visible head and the bishops in union with him, have fallen by heresy. In effect, Salza's rule requires that the foxes tell us that foxes have plundered the chicken coop, while dressed up like chickens and pretending to be chickens in a chicken coop who's business goes on as usual. Like you're fond of saying, "good luck with that." It's an ineffective argument to convince a sede of the falsity of the sede position . . . don't ya think?

To convince the sede of the falsity of their position, you need to attack as false the idea that the visible Church could fall and be headed by an impostor masquerading as pope, and that the Church would have no true pope, but a single one masquerading as pope, for over 50 years. Salza's procedural argument utterly fails in that regard. To accept Salza's argument, you have to assume that the Church is the Church. You need to convince and reason with the sede of the necessity of that assumption, and his procedural argument just assumes it.

Anyway, great quote from Daly. Indeed, it has been some of the weak defenses of the NO etc. that actually drew me towards a sede mind frame. So I repeat Daly:

I say worse than worthless because defending the truth with invalid arguments makes the truth vulnerable to the appearance of refutation when the invalid arguments are exposed

E,

Thanks for your kind words my friend. You have been with me through my periods of questioning and helped me stay where I need to be. You say, "I walk by faith and not by sight." And I say, "I don't know about the faith part, but I often feel blind."

“Oh, Mary, conceived without sin, pray for us who have recourse to you [I insist on saying, 'thee'].”

May Mary immaculate keep us under her protection. May the Holy Spirit of truth lead us all to proper discernment. May Christ always deepen our faith and draw us all closer to His Most Sacred Heart.

Amen to that.

One of the things I picked up from reading Father Paul Trinchard - who makes some arguments in favor of the Magisterium being "out to lunch" that are so ridiculous that you reject the idea of the Magisterium being "out to lunch," while also making some arguments that are so profound regarding the Latin Mass that make you truly appreciate the necessity and meaning of the Mass for our salvation (God bless him for doing both for me!) - is his habit of referring to Our Blessed Mother as "the Immaculata." Beautiful, and quite right.

The Immaculata - I like that!

God bless you, E.

tornpage

Tornpage wrote:

We've discussed this before. I know that two of those three examples specifically qualify that "all" with a qualifier like "of the faithful" or such, making it clear that it is referring to those who receive the fruits of Our Lord's Passion. In other words, the actual language leaves no room for ambiguity or confusion. With the vernacular translations of the NO, we have to provide the language "of the faithful," which is not there. I wonder why not - but, as I've said, that's my problem. Rome has approved the vernacular translations and said they must be interpreted in accordance with the approved Latin of the NO, which has "many." So the case is indeed closed, but two of Miller's examples don't close that door.

It funny that you say that Rome closed the case, but that two of Miller's examples do not help to close the door. Are you suggesting that the door is still open? Or are you suggesting that Miller's examples have nothing to do with the door being closed?

Rome does not need the testimony of Miller, but his testimony is true and shuts the door on those who have been asserting all along with the utmost confidence that ”ALL” has never been used in any approved Liturgical Canon, East or West.

And you seem to want to question Miller's integrity for what I see as the most frivolous of reasons. We're just lucky that he was never a Mason! (Or was he?)

Let's try this again by citing Miller:

THE ANAPHORA OF ST. JOHN THE APOSTLE AND EVANGELIST,

“This is the chalice of my blood of the New Testament: Take drink ye of it: this is shed forth for the life of the world, for the expiation of transgressions, the remission of sins to ALL that believe in him forever and ever.”

THE ANAPHORA OF ST. MARK THE EVANGELIST,

“This is my blood of the New Testament: Take, drink ye all of it, for the remission of sins of you and of ALL the true Faithful, and for eternal life.”

Miller simply cannot win. He provides two anaphoras that not only contain “ALL”, but also provide its clear signification. “To all” and “for all” clearly mean for “all of the elect” or “to all of those upon whom the Blood of Christ is efficacious”, and that is the only point he is making when considering the Maronite and the ICEL canons.

You seem genuinely disappointed that the Maronite anaphora is an almost word-for-word translation of the ICEL version, which is probably why you wish to create doubt as to its authenticity, or to question Miller's credibility.

Why is Adam Miller the first (that we know of) to reveal these ancient anaphoras? Perhaps because he is the first Latin Catholic in modern times to conduct a thorough investigation, and the first Latin rite Catholic who did not take at face value the assertions of Patrick Omler, the Dimond's, and others.

Is that reason enough to doubt his scholarship? Apparently so.

Tornpage wrote:

I am also dubious of his relying on two priests who use the Marionite rite as saying, "yeah, I've seen it in one of our anaphora." In the long testimony of the Church, and the discussions about this contentious translation, there is no better "proof" of this venerable and ancient usage of "all" without qualifying language?

For the record, here are the relevant passages from Miller's book (pages 16 and 17):

Maybe most damaging to the anti-"for all" advocates is the fact that the clause "for all" was used for a number of centuries in one of the old Maronite Canons (they call it the "Anaphoras"). In this ancient Sacred Liturgy there were traditionally 22 Anaphoras. Of these twenty-two Anaphoras, some being perhaps the most ancient in the history of the Church, there are just six still in general use among Maronites at this time. In one of these, the Consecration of the wine did not say "for many." It said "shed for you and for all." For over 300 years this Maronite Anaphora used the Syriac (or Aramaic) translation of the Old Latin text; and in the consecration of the wine in that translation they used the words "for all." This fact is confirmed by two sources.

"The translation of the old Latin texts said: 'For All.' The original Syriac texts from our liturgy [was] translated 'For Many.' In our recently updated translation, more faithful to the original Syriac, we now have: 'For you and for many."'
-Chorbishop Hector Doueihi, Eparchial Liturgist, Brooklyn, NY

"[M]y old Maronite liturgical books indeed do say in the Consecration 'For All.' In our recent versions, this has been changed to 'For you and for many.' Your point is interesting and well-taken."
-Father Richard Saad, St. Elias Maronite Church, Birmingham. AL (from a private correspondence with an associate of the author)

The Consecration of the wine in the ancient Maronite Canon (which itself was a Syriac translation of the Latin) reads as follows:

"This is the chalice of my blood of the new and eternal Testament which shall be shed for you and for all unto the remission of sin."

This translation was used legitimately and validly and appropriately, without censure from Rome, but with approval. I am not talking about Modern English translations here. The vernacular has never been used in a Maronite Consecration, but always the Aramaic (also called Syriac). The translation was from Latin into Syriac/Aramaic. Their vernacular being, of course, Arabic (in which the REST of the Mass is said). The updated ("Novus Ordo") translations into the world's vernaculars still has its Consecrations in Syriac/Aramaic. Mr. Omlor, though dealing with an English translation of the Maronite Rite (pp. 160-162), conveniently does not address this fact which refutes his entire argument.

This fact alone proves that the wording in the Novus Ordo English translations do not invalidate the Consecration of the wine and thus invalidate the entire Mass.

Did you notice that in the first example the Latin (mis)translation served as the ICEL of its day?

"yeah, I've seen it in one of our anaphora." Sure, that's what they said.

Tornpage wrote:

I also have cause for doubting Miller based upon one of the examples we've discussed before. If you don't remember, I can remind you.

I remember, and one unverifiable “Feeneyite” quotation from another book that is attributed to Pope Paul VI (if memory serves) and taken from one of his weekly general audiences, does not have to place into doubt the scholarship of his work in “Is the New Mass of Pope Paul VI Invalid?”

Miller new that his book on the New Mass would be scrutinized from top to bottom because he was making a direct challenge to the elites of the sedevacantist world (and in particular, Patrick Omler) whose arguments against the validity of the New Mass were taken as the Gospel truth.

As to your “doubt”, if Miller failed to verify the primary source for a citation he obtained from another Feeneyite source (a Feeneyite affliction, for sure, but they are not alone in this regard), he was not about to leave himself open to this charge in building his case for the validity of the New Mass.

In fact, the sede objections that I've read sound just like yours. “Who is Adam Miller, why should we believe him, and who are these 'sources' of his”?

His sources are documented, and verifiable.

Tornpage,

If my defense of Adam Miller against your “doubts” leaves you wondering why I take such strong exception, let me just say that I know him a little bit better than you might suspect; and I have absolutely no reason not to trust the integrity of his sources and his scholarship with respect to these ancient Anaphoras.

We carried on an extensive correspondence when I was engaged in an off-line debate with a Feeneyite of considerable influence who questioned the validity of the New Mass, and I grew in respect for him, his faith, and the Catholic life he leads as a husband and home-schooling father of 8 or 9 (perhaps more).

Obviously, I can no longer support his opinions on justification and the Holy Office Letter, but I have no reason to question his sincerity or integrity.

Adam keeps a low profile, and I no longer have his email address.

I hope you understand, even if you still have “doubts”.

Adam Miller's book is available here as a paperback or a PDF download:

http://www.lulu.com/browse/search.php?fSearchData[author]=Adam+S.+Miller&fSearchData[lang_code]=all&fSort=salesRankEver_asc&showingSubPanels=advancedSearchPanel_title_creator

I also recommend Vin Lewis's audio

The Status of the Novus Ordo Rite

http://www.lulu.com/product/file-download/the-status-of-the-novus-ordo-rite/6196035?productTrackingContext=search_results/search_shelf/center/2

It's more of a common sensical analysis of the Novus Ordo.

MRyan,

Are you suggesting that the door is still open?

tornpage wrote:

So the case is indeed closed . . .

Ah . . . no. As I said.

And you seem to want to question Miller's integrity for what I see as the most frivolous of reasons. We're just lucky that he was never a Mason! (Or was he?)

Who am I, Fatima? You spend a lot of time talking about strawmen, and right well you should. Is this a dream? I thought you knew me better than that.

I never said anything about Miller's integrity. I have doubts about the persuasiveness of Miller's arguments. I was after all addressing in my post Daly's observation about the counter-productiveness to truth of weak arguments. And had you remembered our discussion in this regard, you would have known that. You could have asked me what I was referring to. But no, just go ahead and assume I'm questioning Miller's integrity.

Below is what I was referring to, and it had nothing to do with your "Feeneyite" quote. You had quoted a passage from Miller were he had supposedly destroyed Omlor's objection that "may" is conditional and therefore the vernacular use of it in the NO cannot be referring to the elect. Here's the passage:

ADDENDUM

There has been a response to my refutation of #'s 70-72 (p. 74), and #81 (p. 76) above (p. 34 in The Robber Church), where Mr. Omlor states that "may" denotes only possibility, and thus cannot fulfill proper signification, since "may" implies "may not," and we know that this could never be applied to the Elect. The words "for all" in the new form, then, must be including more than the Elect, thus changing proper signification. What follows are those objections and my responses.

Objection: In order to buy the argument that "For all" is speaking of "all of the elect" you have to say that the words immediately proceeding "so that sins may be forgiven" can be speaking of the elect. But this is impossible. The word "may" necessitates that something may not happen. You cannot say that the elect may not have their sins remitted. Therefore the "for all" in the Novus Ordo cannot be referring to the elect but must be referring to some who may not have their sins remitted. This means that the "new form" is necessarily referring to sufficiency and not efficacy.

Answer: We must remember our context -that of a sacramental form. So the word is not employed simply in its secular/common usage, but in a technical sense -just like the words "for you and for many," and plenty of other terms, which take on a particular sacramental/theological meaning once employed within a sacramental formula, but do not necessitate such a meaning outside of such a sacramental context. (I demonstrate this substantially in Point H: The Principle of Supplied Catholic Understanding.) The word "may" in this sacramental formula does not necessitate that something (i.e., the forgiveness of sins) may not happen. Thus, his conclusion does not follow.

Objection: You cannot employ words which always connote a particular meaning in an unheard of way and then call it "technical". Miller is telling us that we have to understand "may" as meaning "towards" and leaving no possibility for "may not" even though may is never used in this way. This is false. This word "may" must necessarily leave open the possibility of "may not". Therefore it cannot be exclusively referring to the elect of which there is --no possibility that they "may not" (have their sins forgiven). You cannot use a word and then say that your meaning must be understood in an opposing way to it's usual signification to then salvage the orthodoxy of what would normally be understood as heretical.

Answer: According to the above objection, one cannot force a meaning/sense upon a word in which the word itself is never used and understood as such. This is true of itself, but this fact, this restriction does not apply to "may." Why not? We begin our answer to this with a question: Is their any precedence for the use of the word "may" that does not necessarily leave open the possibility of "may not," and thus can mean "shall," as in it SHALL occur? Yes. I know of two instances:

1. Prayers for the faithful departed, and

2. Legal usage in contractual law.

1. When Catholics pray for the dead, we only (and can only) pray for those souls detained in Purgatory; and the souls there WILL be going to Heaven. There is no chance for them not making it to the Beatific Vision. There is no possibility of them not eventually "resting in peace." They are among the Elect. Yet in officially approved prayers with indulgences attached to them, the word "may" is used with no such possibility as "may not" occurring.

"MAY the souls of the faithful departed rest in peace. Amen."

Here is a legitimate use of the word "may" applied to the Elect in reference to their Eternal End that does not in any way imply that this End "may not" be attained by them. In other words, there is no possibility -as to final outcome- that it "may not" happen for them.

You may buy Miller's argument about the use of "may" in prayers for the departed, but I don't. As I said when we discussed this:

For example, as to Mr. Miller's citation or living example of "may" being used in a way that precludes "may not" - namely, in indulgenced prayers for those in purgatory. The line at issue goes like this:

"MAY the souls of the faithful departed rest in peace. Amen."

Miller states, as to these souls in purgatory, that " There is no possibility of them not eventually "resting in peace." They are among the Elect." All very well and good and true. They will be in Heaven some day. But the relevant point to those praying for them now is that they are not in heaven now. I'd love to have Miller read a chapter or two of that fabulous book, The Stripping of the Altars, or even look at a mural or two of a painting of Purgatory from a Catholic Church in England reproduced in that book, to see that souls in Purgatory indeed "suffer" and are not "resting in peace" now, when the prayers are made. They are "serving time," not exactly, even if we "moderns" look at Purgatory differently from our forebears, a "resting in peace." We are praying to shorten time and suffering in Purgatory for these souls, so that their suffering and time may be shortened - otherwise, it may not.

No, I do not doubt Miller's integrity. I do doubt the persuasiveness of his argumentation.

Miller simply cannot win. He provides two anaphoras that not only contain “ALL”, but also provide its clear signification.

And those two anaphoras, one says "all of the true faithful," and the other, "all that believe in him," thus clearly qualifying the "all" in the liturgical texts themselves, just like I said.

Why is Adam Miller the first (that we know of) to reveal these ancient anaphoras? Perhaps because he is the first Latin Catholic in modern times to conduct a thorough investigation, and the first Latin rite Catholic who did not take at face value the assertions of Patrick Omler, the Dimond's, and others.

The first Latin Catholic to conduct a thorough investigation regarding this contentious translation that many a sede has referred to as proving the seat vacant? Sure, I guess that's possible. But I have nothing to add here. If you don't buy it or think my questioning legitimate, hey, we all know I suspect him for a free mason, so I understand.

In fact, the sede objections that I've read sound just like yours. “Who is Adam Miller, why should we believe him, and who are these 'sources' of his”?

Really? That's nice. If that's what you gather from what I said . . . whatever.

It appears to me that MRyan can't tolerate any questioning of - not of himself, whom I have never questioned, but extolled for his scholarship and penetration - even those he cites. Apparently doing so lumps you in with the sedes. Or makes you sound like one, at least.

Hey, it's a nice rhetorical point for the crowd, even if the point is at the expense of someone who is a friend, and . . . whatever.

Fatima? I hope not.

With respect to the example you were referring to where you took exception to a previous argument of Miller's, yes, I was mistaken. That particular objection to the meaning of “may” in the prayers for the faithful departed didn't resonate with me then (or now), which is why I thought you were talking about the other issue (which was mostly Roguejim's objection).

My apologies for not remembering.

But what does that disagreement have to do with giving you cause for doubting Miller in the present discussion? An honest disagreement in the interpretation of a prayer for the faithful departed justifies casting doubt on his testimony on the ancient Anaphoras? How are the two related when in the latter case Miller is providing solid evidence for his position rather than making an argument of interpretation? Either what he presents as evidence is true, or it isn't. Why doubt him?

As to the rest, my little joke about being a Mason seems to have gone right over your head, and I will say nothing more about it since you are implying that I am suggesting that your protests are in this same category. Please.

But here are a couple of facts to consider. Despite your protests to the contrary, you clearly gave the impression that Miller's sources, priests who are actually familiar with the ancient Eastern Canons under discussions, and their translations, are “dubious” at best in that you expect “better proof" than that.

And characterizing their testimony as “yeah, I've seen it in one of our anaphora" clearly misrepresents what they actually said, so excuse me for taking exception to your innocent off-handed comment.

Tornpage wrote:

The first Latin Catholic to conduct a thorough investigation regarding this contentious translation that many a sede has referred to as proving the seat vacant? Sure, I guess that's possible. But I have nothing to add here. If you don't buy it or think my questioning legitimate, hey, we all know I suspect him for a free mason, so I understand.

Actually, he may have been the first Latin Catholic to conduct a thorough investigation on behalf of Joe-Catholic in the pew regarding this contentious translation that many a sede has referred to as proving the invalidity of the New Mass. Whether that leads to an empty seat or not is not the issue being addressed.

I'm sure there are other scholars who are aware of these ancient Anaphoras (Miller did not discover anything new), but perhaps they don't run in the same contentious circles, or publicize these findings for the general public. Why this is not more generally known is a good question, but I don't know why this should cast "doubt" on the actual "dubious" proofs and testimony presented by Miller.

In fact, Patrick Omler was aware of at least one of these canons, and did not make mention of the facts presented since he used an English translation. So Miller is not the first to discover these Anaphoras, but may be one of the few to investigate their ancient usage.

You may have all the doubts you want – I will not take public exception to those doubts again.

Contrary to what you may think - this changes nothing between us, as far as I am concerned. Your comments and scholarship are always appreciated, even if we do not always agree.

Tornpage wrote:
Hey, it's a nice rhetorical point for the crowd, even if the point is at the expense of someone who is a friend, and . . . whatever.

Hey Tornpage. it's par for the course here. Too much back-patting can interfere with the truth (friendship or not) and be a little cringe worthy at times. At least MRyan is consistent in his approach regardless if friend or foe and I for one am learning to overlook his (or anyone elses) style and concentrate on the arguments.
Merely giving as good as you get without taking it to heart seems to work best even though I still believe that Rasha should ban all those who disagre with me.

I know, enough of this “little cringe worthy” stuff. Yech.

Hey columba; I do have to hand it to you, you stay on an even keel, even if your keel has you tacking in a vicious circle.

Don't worry about Tornpage, he'll slap me a couple of times, and then act like I'm not the insufferable antagonist that I often am.

Tornpage wrote:
So I defy any sede to show us how the Magisterium (during those two millenia when it was the Magisterium), or the sensus Catholicus as expressed in any traditional Catholic annotation of the relevant scriptural passages such as the Douay Rheims of the 16th century or the Haydock Bible, has predicted these dire times and given us, with the full weight of its authority and guidance, the sign and direction telling us (who need such guidance desperately) that a time will come when we must - Christs' sheep placed in Her care - abandon a heretical, false institution that has all appearances (even a universally acclaimed pope) of being the Church established by Our Lord to provide that very guidance.

Im not a sede but the form that these dire times would take haven't necessarly been revealed to the Church but dire times ahead have certainly been prophesied in scripture and through the ages by private (but approved) revelation.
That the Church (even in her Magesterium) could become lax in her discipline and even in her proclamation of the gospel is not in doubt.

If the Lord could declare the possibility of "finding no faith on earth" on His return, then surely it would take something like an apostacy within the Church to account for this. Warnings have been given in scripture and by saints all throughout history. Although we presume that the Church will always be the Church and as visible in those days as it is now, the sede's maintain too that the Church will always be preserved even if that be in an unusual form.

Like you say, reliance on spurious argument can be detrimental to defeating the sedevacantist position and I think your argument on declared Magesterial warnings isn't strong enough to achieve this defeat.
A bit too fast with the "closed case" statement IMO.

Tornpage wrote:
Sedes, in the final analysis, resort to their private magisteriums and judgment (of course just applying infallible statements and such

Applying infallible statements ain't a bad way of lending credibility to ones argument.

BTW, does anyone know if the La Salette prophecies have universal Church approval?

columba wrote:
BTW, does anyone know if the La Salette prophecies have universal Church approval?

Only the initial accounts of Melanie enjoy official approbation. The additions made several yeas later by Melanie, which includes the infamous "Rome will lose the faith" or other such dire stuff, is not only not approved, but, as far as I know, Catholics are still expressly forbidden from publicizing or spreading these non-sanctioned prophesies.

That "Rome will lose the faith", meaning the Holy See of Rome, is the stuff of heretical legend.

Columba,

Hey Tornpage. it's par for the course here. Smile Too much back-patting can interfere with the truth (friendship or not) and be a little cringe worthy at times. At least MRyan is consistent in his approach regardless if friend or foe and I for one am learning to overlook his (or anyone elses) style and concentrate on the arguments.
Merely giving as good as you get without taking it to heart seems to work best even though I still believe that Rasha should ban all those who disagre with me.

Hey, my skin is thicker than most, as MRyan well knows. I've been around a bit regarding these types of exchanges. Were MRyan just a mere someone whom I have had disagreements with on a Catholic forum, I wouldn't even have blinked. But I consider MRyan a good friend who does know me better than the implications that I read him as importing into my argument - such as doubting Miller's honesty or integrity.

But perhaps others read my remarks that way, and then in fact I should thank MRyan for noting that, since I intended nothing of the sort. As far as I know (and hope), Adam Miller is a far better man than me.

I too appreciate MRyan's style, and would not want to crimp it.

Enough said on a stupid bit of nonsense.

MRyan,

It is forgotten here, and I know it is forgotten there.

My apologies.

I know at times my style rubs you - a devil's advocacy against Truth. I understand that can be a little irritating at times. It's just that I do take very seriously, and agree with, Daly's remarks about the counter-productiveness of weak arguments - they bother me immensely. One of my quirks.

Now, getting back to business on this Omlor/Miller business. This is Miller's quote of the actual Marionite text at issue:

The Consecration of the wine in the ancient Maronite Canon (which itself was a Syriac translation of the Latin) reads as follows:

"This is the chalice of my blood of the new and eternal Testament which shall be shed for you and for all unto the remission of sin."

You do not see the use of the conditional "may" in "shall be shed . . . for all unto the remission of sins." I couldn't find the current ICEL translation handy on the internet (odd, but I couldn't), but Lord knows I've heard it enough, and it goes something like "so that sins may be forgiven."

It seems to me that the Marionite version is immune to Omlor's argument regarding "may," and that Omlor's argument stands as to the vernacular translations of the NO.

I accept the ICEL translation because Rome says it's ok and that it must be interpreted in accordance with the Latin, which uses "pro multis." Now . . . that's a real argument and a definitive one for any Catholic. As I said, "case closed."

We should be about the business of convincing sedes that the Church is the Church, and the rest will fall into place.

On this issue, I'd have a hard time justifying the liturgical language of the ICEL as it stands on its own text, and, again, do not find the arguments of Miller in this regard convincing.

Sorry, bud.

Columba,

Im not a sede but the form that these dire times would take haven't necessarly been revealed to the Church but dire times ahead have certainly been prophesied in scripture and through the ages by private (but approved) revelation.
That the Church (even in her Magesterium) could become lax in her discipline and even in her proclamation of the gospel is not in doubt.

If the Lord could declare the possibility of "finding no faith on earth" on His return, then surely it would take something like an apostacy within the Church to account for this. Warnings have been given in scripture and by saints all throughout history. Although we presume that the Church will always be the Church and as visible in those days as it is now, the sede's maintain too that the Church will always be preserved even if that be in an unusual form.

Like you say, reliance on spurious argument can be detrimental to defeating the sedevacantist position and I think your argument on declared Magesterial warnings isn't strong enough to achieve this defeat.
A bit too fast with the "closed case" statement IMO.

I repeat my challenge: show me a quote from the Magisterium, or even in an approved apparition of the Blessed Mother, or even a quote from a saint (though a offhand quote from a saint wouldn't support it - but I'm not aware of a saint even saying the Pope would be the heretical Antichrist, etc.) that indicates the visible Church in union with the duly elected pope will one day fall into heresy and in effect institute the abomination of desolation.

You refer to the passage in St. Luke about Christ "finding faith" on the earth when He returns. The passage simply implies that there will be few of the faith left at the end. Where does that meaning indicate that the pope will have become a heretic and the visible Church will have become the seat of the Antichrist? The passage could be interpreted in a purely orthodox sense to mean the pope and the faithful united to him will be few at the second coming. Your "surely it will take something like an apostacy within the Church to account for this" is a leap that is not necessary. And, in any event, show us how the passage in Luke has been interpreted by the Magisterium or the fathers to support the sede thesis - you can't! Like I said, it's all private interpretation. Which shouldn't be a Catholic's game.

Take the "Rome will lost the faith argument" from La Sallete. As I heard Peter Kreeft note, that could simply mean that the city, Rome - its people and populace - will lose the faith, not that the pope and his bishops in Rome will lose the faith. Doesn't the vision given to Sister Lucy include the pope fleeing Rome and then being murdered? That would be consistent with the secular population of Rome losing the faith and the pope needing to flee Rome under persecution of some sort. In other words, even if you were to privately interpret, you could interpret the prophecies together in an orthodox sense.

In any event, as I said, it's all private interpretation. Were things to occur as the sedes say they have, the Church, which they maintain was the true bride of Christ for centuries, would have told us, or else she would have failed, and Hell would have prevailed.

Christ did not leave us to private interpretation to figure these things out, but gave us the Church to give us the faith and lead us to salvation. She did not fail our forebears, and she will not fail us.

Tornpage wrote:

Which now gets me to my problem with Salza's argument. It's essentially
procedural: we can only know who has fallen from the faith "without
declaration" when the Church tells us who has. If the Church hasn't told
us (by its declaration - procedure), we can't tell if they have. Well,
the sedes say the "Church," namely the visible head and the bishops in
union with him, have fallen by heresy. In effect, Salza's rule requires
that the foxes tell us that foxes have plundered the chicken coop, while
dressed up like chickens and pretending to be chickens in a chicken
coop who's business goes on as usual. Like you're fond of saying, "good
luck with that." It's an ineffective argument to convince a sede of the
falsity of the sede position . . . don't ya think?

To convince
the sede of the falsity of their position, you need to attack as false
the idea that the visible Church could fall and be headed by an impostor
masquerading as pope, and that the Church would have no true pope, but a
single one masquerading as pope, for over 50 years. Salza's procedural
argument utterly fails in that regard. To accept Salza's argument, you
have to assume that the Church is the Church. You need to convince and
reason with the sede of the necessity of that assumption, and his
procedural argument just assumes it.

I'm not sure I understand your objection to Salza. Are you saying that sedes are absolutely sure that Pope...Bishop...etc... are heretics, so they can't accept Salza's argument?

I think the whole point of his argument is to cast doubt on the ABSOLUTE INFALLIBLE knowledge Sedes claim --that so-and-so is a heretic and outside the Church. No one can know (outside the person and God) if the said person, who appears to want to be a Catholic, has bad will and therefore is a culpable heretic, unless the Church declares it. If Sedes can't be sure they are right, in this, then their argument falls apart and there is a Church--abeit a little unclear-- but it has not lost its head, the Pope, nor its authority.

Tornpage,

Its already forgotten; and yes, we know each other too well to let silly stuff like this bother us.

But we have some unfinished business:

Tornpage wrote:

You may buy Miller's argument about the use of "may" in prayers for the departed, but I don't. As I said when we discussed this:

For example, as to Mr. Miller's citation or living example of "may" being used in a way that precludes "may not" - namely, in indulgenced prayers for those in purgatory. The line at issue goes like this:

"MAY the souls of the faithful departed rest in peace. Amen."

Miller states, as to these souls in purgatory, that " There is no possibility of them not eventually "resting in peace." They are among the Elect." All very well and good and true. They will be in Heaven some day. But the relevant point to those praying for them now is that they are not in heaven now. I'd love to have Miller read a chapter or two of that fabulous book, The Stripping of the Altars, or even look at a mural or two of a painting of Purgatory from a Catholic Church in England reproduced in that book, to see that souls in Purgatory indeed "suffer" and are not "resting in peace" now, when the prayers are made. They are "serving time," not exactly, even if we "moderns" look at Purgatory differently from our forebears, a "resting in peace." We are praying to shorten time and suffering in Purgatory for these souls, so that their suffering and time may be shortened - otherwise, it may not.

No, I do not doubt Miller's integrity. I do doubt the persuasiveness of his argumentation.

As I said, this did resonate with me before because I am not moved by your argument. You are changing the words of the prayer to reflect how you believe they should be understood (and yes, they are also understood in that manner), rather than taking the clear meaning of the words themselves such that “May” they "rest in peace" does not mean that the souls of the faithful departed MAY NOT finally REST IN PEACE.

You seem to want to imply that Miller does not understand that they are not resting in peace NOW; when he clearly does; but that is NOT the argument. The argument put forth by Omlor is that the use of MAY in the consecration formula necessitates that something MAY or MAY NOT happen, or become efficacious.

Miller's point, then, is not that we pray that the souls in purgatory MAY have their time of suffering shortened (we do), but that this means that we pray that they may have eternal rest (by having their time shortened), a rest they are guaranteed (there is no chance that it MAY NOT happen).

He is arguing on precedent by demonstrating that MAY may also mean SHALL; and I notice you ignored his other cited precedence from contractual law.

Tornpage wrote:

MRyan wrote: Miller simply cannot win. He provides two anaphoras that not only contain “ALL”, but also provide its clear signification.

And those two anaphoras, one says "all of the true faithful," and the other, "all that believe in him," thus clearly qualifying the "all" in the liturgical texts themselves, just like I said.

And, just like Miller said:

We can see with these two examples that in the former "to all" is used, and in the latter "of all" is used in reference to whom the Sacrifice (and its fruits) are applied. The difference is that these two rites provide the Catholic understanding in the text itself. This fact alone demonstrates for us that it is not illegitimate to understand the words "for all" as meaning precisely all of the Elect, or all those upon whom the shed Blood of Christ us efficacious. It also proves that the clause "for all" can, in fact, signify the proper, and thus does not necessitate a signification contrary to Catholic teaching.

Like I said, Miller can't win.

MRyan,

We do need a bit of context.

I have not said that the words cannot be taken in an orthodox sense. Of course they can be taken in an orthodox sense. If I believed they couldn't, I would be a sede.

The issue is Miller's argument. I am not convinced by Miller's argument. I have given the reasons in several posts already. There are big issues out there for discussion, like sedevacantism, adherence to the teachings of the Magisterium, etc.

Whether I am persuaded by Miller or not, and a verdict on the quality of his argument, is not a point worth the amount of energy that is being expended.

So you can have the last word - I've already given my reasons. Anything beyond that is merely justifying my argument - winning the debate - which means nothing to me, now. Who cares if I am wrong or right about Miller's argument? I don't even care, since Miller and I agree, anyway.

The same goes for Salza' arguments, Duckbill. I've given my reasons for not finding him convincing: his argument begs the big question. I have no interest in battling to prove my view of Salza's (or Miller's) argument is best.

I reject sedevacantism, and find the NO valid - I even attend it. Whether I reject sedevacantism for Salza's reasons, or accept the NO for Miller's reasons is really beside the point. It's worth a give and take and exchange of opinion, but not the amount of labor that it's drawing forth.

So, with nothing to add, I remove myself from the Miller/Salza discussion.

May we move on to something more important?

The title of the this thread being "Sedevacantists are schismatic and excommunicated" is presented as a statement rather than posed as a question.
The trouble with the statement is that it uses the same premises to excommunicate the sede's as the sede's use to depose the Pope. i.e, ones own personal authority and interpretation of evidence.

The sedevacantists would argue that the Church you're excommunicating them from isn't in fact the true Church and therefore they willingly accept the sentance while declaring that the post Vat II Church is anathema. However there is one sedevacantist who actually agrees that no one has the authority to make a judgement concerning a Pope and that the only one who can Depose a Pope is God Himself, or, the Pope volutarily resigning the office. He uses an argument which -if it can be convincingly defeated- could blow the whole sedevacantist movement out of the water.

Using Canon 218, this sedevacantist (by the name of Griff L Ruby) states;

"218 specifies a fundamental component of the definition of what it means to be Pope, and furthermore this Canon is rooted not merely in some disciplinary decision but in the dogmatic definition of the Papacy itself. It states:"

§ 1. The Roman Pontiff, the Successor in primacy to Blessed Peter, has not only a primacy of honor, but supreme and full power of jurisdiction over the universal Church both in those things that pertain to faith and morals, and in those things that affect the discipline and government of the Church spread throughout the whole world.

§ 2. This power is truly episcopal, ordinary, and immediate both over each and every church and over each and every pastor and faithful independent of any human authority.



Using Canon 218 he asserts that Pope Paul VI resigned his office as Pope by accepting another incompatible (and lesser) office that stands opposed to the Divinely instituted office of Pope insomuch as he did not possess (nor accept) jurisdiction over the whole Church who's parameters were redefined in Lumen Gentium.

you can read it here. http://www.dailycatholic.org/issue/09Jun/jun22str.htm

tornpage wrote:
May we move on to something more important?

Sounds good to me!

columba wrote:The title of the this thread being "Sedevacantists are schismatic and excommunicated" is presented as a statement rather than posed as a question.

That's because it is not a question, it is an objective fact.

columba wrote:The trouble with the statement is that it uses the same premises to excommunicate the sede's as the sede's use to depose the Pope. i.e, ones own personal authority and interpretation of evidence.

Nonsense. If there were any question as to the status of the Pope (whether he is or he isn't) you might have a point. As it stands, your point is mute because it actually places an "opinion" that the Chair is vacant on the same level as objective reality - we have a pope.

If you didn't catch that, there is not one self-respecting sedevacantist who will tell you that his position is an objective fact - he will tell you that his is an informed "opinion", and that's all it is (we do not include the notorious Dimonds in the "self-respecting" category).

I am not here to assign guilt, but we shouldn't shy away from objective facts.

columba wrote:The sedevacantists would argue that the Church you're excommunicating them from isn't in fact the true Church and therefore they willingly accept the sentance while declaring that the post Vat II Church is anathema.

Who cares? We didn't excommunicate anyone -- they excommunicated themselves by refusing communion with the Vicar of Christ and with Catholics who remain in communion with him. That's the definition of schism. Are you suggesting that they are not in schism?

columba wrote:However there is one sedevacantist who actually agrees that no one has the authority to make a judgement concerning a Pope and that the only one who can Depose a Pope is God Himself, or, the Pope volutarily resigning the office. He uses an argument which -if it can be convincingly defeated- could blow the whole sedevacantist movement out of the water.

Using Canon 218, this sedevacantist (by the name of Griff L Ruby) states;

"218 specifies a fundamental component of the definition of what it means to be Pope, and furthermore this Canon is rooted not merely in some disciplinary decision but in the dogmatic definition of the Papacy itself. It states:"

§ 1. The Roman Pontiff, the Successor in primacy to Blessed Peter, has not only a primacy of honor, but supreme and full power of jurisdiction over the universal Church both in those things that pertain to faith and morals, and in those things that affect the discipline and government of the Church spread throughout the whole world.

§ 2. This power is truly episcopal, ordinary, and immediate both over each and every church and over each and every pastor and faithful independent of any human authority.

Using Canon 218 he asserts that Pope Paul VI resigned his office as Pope by accepting another incompatible (and lesser) office that stands opposed to the Divinely instituted office of Pope insomuch as he did not possess (nor accept) jurisdiction over the whole Church who's parameters were redefined in Lumen Gentium.

you can read it here. http://www.dailycatholic.org/issue/09Jun/jun22str.htm

Swell. And what a creative way to declare that the See of Peter is vacant; let the Pope depose himself by submitting his resignation by "accepting" a lesser office. So, that was a "tacit" resignation, was it?

I never could read anything by Ruby all the way through. Perhaps its just me. Thanks for promoting more of this nonsense.

How about providing the link to the site(s) promoting Cardinal Siri as Pope Gregory XVII -- there are a couple of those out there and wow, it really could be true, you know?

Food for thought:

QUARTUS SUPRA, Pope Pius IX, Encyclical Promulgated on 6 January 1873:

6. The chief deceit used to conceal the new schism is the name of "Catholic." The originators and adherents of the schism presumptuously lay claim to this name despite their condemnation by Our authority and judgment. It has always been the custom of heretics and schismatics to call themselves Catholics and to proclaim their many excellences in order to lead peoples and princes into error.

And the man who abandons the See of Peter can only be falsely confident that he is in the Church.[8] As a result, that man is already a schismatic and a sinner who establishes a see in opposition to the unique See of the blessed Peter[9] from which the rights of sacred communion derive for all men.[10]

For the Catholic Church has always regarded as schismatic those who obstinately oppose the lawful prelates of the Church and in particular, the chief shepherd of all. ... For the Church consists of the people in union with the priest, and the flock following its shepherd.[24] Consequently the bishop is in the Church and the Church in the bishop, and whoever is not with the bishop is not in the Church.[/color]

13. But the neo-schismatics have gone further, since "every schism fabricates a heresy for itself to justify its withdrawal from the Church."[26] Indeed they have even accused this Apostolic See as well, as if We had exceeded the limits of Our power in commanding that certain points of discipline were to be observed in the Patriarchate of Armenia...

Sede's are in an objective state of schism.

MRyan wrote:
there is not one self-respecting sedevacantist who will tell you that his position is an objective fact - he will tell you that his is an informed "opinion",

Griff L Ruby says that his position is an objective fact.

Who cares? We didn't excommunicate anyone -- they excommunicated themselves by refusing communion with the Vicar of Christ and with Catholics who remain in communion with him. That's the definition of schism. Are you suggesting that they are not in schism?

There schismatic position is yet to be tested. No Pope -to my knowledge- has issued any direct decree which they have refused to follow and they have not been brought before a tribunal to be given the opportunity of either renouncing or persisting in their stance. Hmm.. That would be a case worth following.

Swell. And what a creative way to declare that the See of Peter is vacant; let the Pope depose himself by submitting his resignation by "accepting" a lesser office. So, that was a "tacit" resignation, was it?

That indeed is quite creative; especially when he's hanging his whole sedevacantist position on it being true and indeed it would be a tacit resignation if his analysis were true.

I never could read anything by Ruby all the way through. Perhaps its just me. Thanks for promoting more of this nonsense.

Well if you don't read their arguments you can't very well refute them and as it was you who opened this thread I thought you might be up for some refutation. Calling it nonsense doesn't actually refute anything.
Yes, you can thank me for providing a sede position of a non-Dimond bros variety.

How about providing the link to the site(s) promoting Cardinal Siri as Pope Gregory XVII -- there are a couple of those out there and wow, it really could be true, you know?

Your knowledge is obviously greater than mine as I haven't heard of this but if it is such nonsense as you say, surely a man of your convictions could easily expose this nonsense for what it is.

Re; the quote from QUARTUS SUPRA, Pope Pius IX, Encyclical;
Sedevacantists don't deny the legitimacy of the Papal office (as say protestants do), they deny (by their own deductions) the authenticity of the authority of certain claiments to the Chair while still recognizing the authority of previous Popes who they (again by their own authority) deem legitimate.

columba wrote:

MRyan wrote:
there is not one self-respecting sedevacantist who will tell you that his position is an objective fact - he will tell you that his is an informed "opinion",

Griff L Ruby says that his position is an objective fact.

So, it's an objective fact that Pope Paul VI abdicated his authority and his Primacy as Christ's true Vicar because he "accepted a lesser position".

Funny that this "objective fact" seems to have gone unnoticed by the Catholic world at large.

You mean, because G. Ruby says it is an objective fact, it is, just like the "objective fact" that Pope John XXIII was an alleged Freemason prior to his elevation to the papacy. And these "objective facts" are just as objective as the fact that we have a true pope in the person of Benedict XVI.

Sure.

columba wrote:

MRyan wrote:Who cares? We didn't excommunicate anyone -- they excommunicated themselves by refusing communion with the Vicar of Christ and with Catholics who remain in communion with him. That's the definition of schism. Are you suggesting that they are not in schism?

There schismatic position is yet to be tested. No Pope -to my knowledge- has issued any direct decree which they have refused to follow and they have not been brought before a tribunal to be given the opportunity of either renouncing or persisting in their stance. Hmm.. That would be a case worth following.

Yet to be tested? You mean the objective fact that we have a pope has not been tested?

Being in an objective state of schism (it is an objective fact), guilt is always presumed until otherwise proven in an ecclesiastical court of law, or when the competent authority renders a judgment. You know, the very ecclesiastical authority sede's do not recognize in the first place.

columba wrote:

MRyan wrote:I never could read anything by Ruby all the way through. Perhaps its just me. Thanks for promoting more of this nonsense.

Well if you don't read their arguments you can't very well refute them and as it was you who opened this thread I thought you might be up for some refutation. Calling it nonsense doesn't actually refute anything.
Yes, you can thank me for providing a sede position of a non-Dimond bros variety.

The only thing proposed here is your assertion that Ruby said that his position is an objective fact, which you have not demonstrated; and the idea that if I do not read his paper all the way through, I am not in a position to refute it.

My question to you is why should I read every single sede link that is posted on this forum, and why am I obliged to reftute their detailed arguments when I know that the conclusions they draw from these arguments are patently false?

The so-called "objective fact" of Pope Paul VI's "resignation" is not worth my time "investigating" any further, I read his thesis some time ago (his major premise) and I am not about to sink my nose in that rot again. But, go ahead and make the argument for Ruby, and I'll refute it if you think it has merit.

MRyan I think Columba has a point you cannot say Sedes are in schism. They are willing to submit to the pope (if one existed--to their way of thinking.) but SSPX will not submit to the pope which they say is the legitimate Vicar of Christ but the Church has stated the SSPX are not in schism.

"Darío Cardinal Castrillón Hoyos has repeatedly affirmed that the Society
of St. Pius X (SSPX) is not a case of formal schism on at least five
separate occasions in public interviews"
http://www.renewamerica.com/columns/mershon/070410

While I would say Sedes and SSPX are logically both schismatic, as my personal opinion, I would hesitate to to pronounce it as an obvious fact,
because, the Vatian seems to has discarded logic for about 30 or 40 year now

duckbill wrote:MRyan I think Columba has a point you cannot say Sedes are in schism. They are willing to submit to the pope (if one existed--to their way of thinking.) but SSPX will not submit to the pope which they say is the legitimate Vicar of Christ but the Church has stated the SSPX are not in schism.

"Darío Cardinal Castrillón Hoyos has repeatedly affirmed that the Society
of St. Pius X (SSPX) is not a case of formal schism on at least five
separate occasions in public interviews"
http://www.renewamerica.com/columns/mershon/070410

While I would say Sedes and SSPX are logically both schismatic, as my personal opinion, I would hesitate to to pronounce it as an obvious fact,
because, the Vatian seems to has discarded logic for about 30 or 40 year now

Columba’s point is irrelevant. If you wish to join him in making excuses for schism, that's fine.

By the very definition of schism, sede’s are in schism, or the definition is meaningless. The fact that they are willing to submit to a pope if they only had one does not change the fact that they refuse communion with Christ’s true Vicar in the person of Benedict XVI.

You, like columba, seem to want to place schism in the context of subjective guilt; “I mean things are so bad, who can blame them for rejecting the Vicar of Christ, right?” Therefore, we should avoid stating the objective truth and keep this discussion on a level where each position is valid until the Church renders a judgment that sede’s are, or are not, in schism.

Nope. Sede’s like to cite canon law in justifying their presumption of guilt in the external form (until adjudicated otherwise), as it relates to the so-called heresies and apostasy of the conciliar Pontiffs. I am simply returning the favor by using the same argument.

Sede’s say that the conciliar Pope have no “excuse” for their so-called defections from the Faith and for orchestrating a heretical change in direction of the Church, and I say the same to sede’s – they have no excuse for their rejection of the pope and for denying his universal and perpetual Papal Primacy.

The SSPX argument is a non-starter. In fact, the illicitly condecrated Bishops and AB Lefebvre were excommunicated for an objective act of schism. Did ABL intend to sever himself from communion with the Pope? No, but did that change the reality of his act of willful disobedience or render the excommunications null and void? No.

The Church also warned those who attend the illicit SSPX services that if they do so in the same spirit of schism that caused the Episcopal excommunications, they would suffer the same ipso facto excommunication.

That warning still holds, even after the excommunications were lifted.

But your judgment that the SSPX is “schismatic” is severe. Why are you more severe than the Church? The more radical elements of the SSPX are probably schismatic, but blanket statements such as yours should be avoided.

The SSPX recognizes Pope BXVI as Christ’s true Vicar, even if they are not in “full communion” with him (lacking jurisdiction). Sede’s reject the Pope and have no jurisdiction.

Again, I am well aware that sede’s would be in communion with Christ’s "true" Vicar if they could find one worthy of their submission; but, again, this does not change the fact that we have a true Pope and that those who refuse communion with him are in schism. The fact that they do not see it this way, or may even be morally inculpable, is irrelevant.

"schism is the refusal of submission to the Roman Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him." [Code of Canon Law c.751]

The SSPX are in worse shape than the sedevacantists because they acknowledge Benedict XVI as our Holy Father and refuse communion with the universal Church. When I was with them, I was told that if I attended a novus ordo Mass that it was a sin and that I was endangering my faith. The priest said that if I lost my faith, it would be very hard to get it back.

If that is not a schismatic attitude, what is?

Lourdes wrote:The SSPX are in worse shape than the sedevacantists because they acknowledge Benedict XVI as our Holy Father and refuse communion with the universal Church. When I was with them, I was told that if I attended a novus ordo Mass that it was a sin and that I was endangering my faith. The priest said that if I lost my faith, it would be very hard to get it back.

If that is not a schismatic attitude, what is?

Yes, that is a schismatic attitude, but it is NOT the attitude of the leadership of the SSPX, particularly Bishop Fellay. Since the excommunications were lifted, and efforts towards a reconciliation have begun, most of the more contentious articles have been removed from the SSPX websites.

Without a strong faith, one can very well lose it in certain Novus Ordo parishes. One can also lose the faith in so-called “Independent” or “traditional” churches and chapels not in full communion with the Church. The “we are the remnant” attitude and incessant fault-finding with the Pope and the Church can easily turn into a spirit of schism.

Don't get me wrong, I have little respect for the "cardboard Pope" attitude of some rad trads where communion with the Holy Father is for display purposes only. In some respects, this very well might be more damaging than the sede position, which at least follows where their convictions take them - they do not pretend to be in communion with the visible Catholic Church.

In some respects, this very well might be more damaging than the sede position

There is much truth to what you have written. It is something so obvious to me now but I never noticed it since it was obscured by the traditional trappings. However, you are right.

Once that doubt is introduced into your thoughts, it is hard to eradicate it.

Lourdes,

Interesting topic.

I’m not a Feeneyite or even a Traditionalist. I’m an EWTN neocon who started reading Traditionalists on message boards 7 years ago, when I was on a site about the Passion of the Christ movie, where we engaged in debates with Protestants. My first time reading message boards.

If I may, I’d like to give my outsider opinion.

I definitely see what you are saying and I do see that some SSPXers can have a schismatic type mentality. But I think their hearts hold them back.

Which is why I can have affection for Bishop LeFebvre and his successor, but have none for the Dimond bros who are defacto antipopes and the sedes with their other declared antipopes and other sede leaders with no declared pope who lead good Catholics astray.

Personally, I find the SSPX theology to be illogical. (this is not everyone who goes to SSPX Masses because they like the Traditional Latin Liturgy) Frankly, I think sedes are more logical. If I believed the Pope could or did believe heresy, then I’d be a sede. A lot of SSPXers hate the Pope and believe he is heretical and that the Masses I go to “are invalid at best, blasphemous at most.” (That was the first radtrad comment directed to me 7 years ago. lol) And, like you said, some of them think the Masses are sinful and one should not even go to Mass on Sunday if they can’t get to a TLM.

To me none of that makes sense logically. To believe all that but still think the Pope is the Pope and the Church is still visibly headed in Rome. Yet I see that what their minds and mouths (or keyboards) are saying is not what their hearts are saying. The reason they still recognize the Holy Father is because deep down inside they know he is and they don’t want to be out of communion with him. They want to remain in the bosom of the Church, unlike sedes who will only remain on their terms, if the Pope agrees with them, not the other way around. (Some people have doubts and simply are examining sede thinking and have not actually become sedes in their hearts and separated themselves from the Church. Although some have accepted sede thinking in their hearts and don’t want to take that final step and call themselves sedes.)

And the Church wants to shepherd all her children and lovingly keep them within her bosom, so she patiently waits on the SSPX, who have given her some good advice. So while the Church says they are not in full communion, she doesn’t want to call them schismatic.

Anyway, that’s my opinion on which is “worse,” sede or SSPX. I find sedes more logical, but the SSPX more Catholic at heart, while still needing to learn more respect and obedience to the Holy Father and the magisterium that SOME of them trash right and left.

I believe God reads the hearts and minds of people and He knows who is rejecting His truth out of pride or stubbornness or a sinful reason and who is sincerely confused.

God bless all here.
Love,
Elisa


PS By the way, I love your name. One of my earliest memories is being 7 yrs old praying in the grotto at Lourdes. It made a very big impression on me and I took Bernadette as my confirmation name.

Dear Elisa,

Thank you for your thoughtful post! At least you know what you are ("a neo-con" ), which is more than I can say for myself these days. Confusion reigns supreme in my poor tired brain. That is why I am here.

To my way of thinking, if someone regards Benedict XVI as the legitimate Successor of Peter, they have no business being outside the Church. Even if you have your doubts, I think it is best (and you can't lose doing it) giving him the benefit of that doubt. I find the thought process of most SSPX followers to be muddled, but they wouldn't agree with me I am sure. The sedevacantists are more cut and dry, more black and white.

Both groups deserve our prayers, and it is always good to remember that there but for the grace of God go any one of us. It is such an easy web to become entangled in, and only powerful graces can help someone to even begin to extricate themselves from it.

I know that there are some Dimond Bros. followers here. I find the Dimond Bros. the most dangerous of them all. It scares me to even read their e-exchanges. So many taken in by them, and all of this condemnation to hell of anyone who won't give 100% assent to their "teachings".

If Satan can't get you one way, he will get you another. The best safeguards are obedience to Holy Mother Church and humility. You can't go wrong with this combination.

Pray for me, Elisa, as I continue to search for my "nitch" in Holy Mother Church!

Lourdes,

I agree with everything you said. Especially the part about realizing that “there but for the grace of God, go I.” You’re right, we should never forget that.

Of course, I will pray for you. Please pray for me and my family, as well. But I wouldn’t worry too much, if I were you. It sounds like you have some of the most important truths already. Faith in Christ and obedience to Holy Mother Church and the virtue of humility. You are so right about those safeguards.

Like Our Lord who “humbled Himself by becoming obedient to death, even death on a cross.” (Philippians 2:

"God resists the proud, but gives grace to the humble.” (James 4:6)

“Humility is the foundation of all the other virtues” and “humility is the mother of all virtues,” like St. Augustine and Mother Theresa said.

The answers you are seeking will come. Our Lord said, “Ask and it will be given to you; seek and you will find; knock and the door will be opened to you. For everyone who asks, receives; and the one who seeks, finds; and to the one who knocks, the door will be opened.” (Matthew 7)

You seek with a sincere and humble heart. But be at peace while you do so. Luckily for you a Catholic only needs to call themselves a Catholic. lol All the other labels and categories, in the end, are just silly. Descriptive for these discussions where we don’t know each other. That’s why I called myself a neocon. But you and I and most here are simply Catholics who are trying their best to be devout and faithful and love Christ and the Church, and most of us here are orthodox Catholics loyal to the magisterium of the Church. That’s it. The only category and label you need.

This is not directed to you, but to everyone. In my opinion, to be honest, if a good Catholic is going through a period of doubt about one thing or another or if a good Catholic is mistaken about Baptism of Desire or some such thing, I don’t think it’s the end of the world. As long as they believe in the basics and aren’t drawn away from Holy Mother Church. Minor things don’t make someone unCatholic. It’s not like we need to get our membership cards validated every year. A sincere desire to know His truth and faith in Him and His Church and the love for Him in your heart is all that is needed, along with His sacraments to strengthen us with His grace. Even major doubts don’t make someone unCatholic. They are simply a Catholic who is doubting.

Your salvation doesn’t rest on all the other stuff. Give your questions and doubts to Him and He will lead you through all the terrible confusion going on in the Church today. (May God have mercy on us.)

You already put your trust in His Church so you are on the right path.

Your “nitch” is resting in His Most Sacred Heart. God bless you always.
Love,
Elisa