Sedevacantism and the Church's Indefectibility

We declare, moreover, that, whether one considers its existence or its constitution, the Church of Christ is an everlasting and indefectible society, and that, after it, no more complete nor more perfect economy of salvation is to be hoped for in this world. For, to the very end of the world the pilgrims of this earth are to be saved through Christ. Consequently, his Church, the only society of salvation, will last until the end of the world ever unchangeable and unchanged in its constitution. Therefore, although the Church is growing—and We wish that it may always grow in faith and charity for the upbuilding of Christ's body—although it evolves in a variety of ways according to the changing times and circuмstances in which it is constantly displaying activity, nevertheless, it remains unchangeable in itself and in the constitution it received from Christ. Therefore, Christ's Church can never lose its properties and its qualities, its sacred teaching authority, priestly office, and governing body, so that through his visible body, Christ may always be the way, the truth, and the life for all men.


Jesuit Fathers of St. Mary's College. The Church Teaches: Docuмents of the Church in English Translation . TAN Books. Kindle Edition.

"the following rights:

the right to frame and sanction laws which it considers useful or necessary, i.e. legislative power;

the right to judge how the faithful observe these laws i.e. judicial power;

the right to enforce obedience, and to punish disobedience to its laws i.e. coercive power;

the right to make all due provision for the proper celebration of worship, i.e. administrative power.


https://www.catholic.org/encyclopedia/view.php?id=5760

There is a simple way to show that sedevacantist bishops are not members of the Catholic hierarchy (of jurisdiction). Sedevacantist bishops do indeed have supplied power to forgive sins. But does anyone recognize the power to enact laws in a sedevacantist bishop? Authority is defined as 'the ability to pass a law'. Does your sedevacantist bishop enact laws in your church? Does your sedevacantist bishop have power over a particular territory? Does your sedevacantist bishop grant special indulgences? Does your sedevacantist bishop refers to his church as a cathedral? The answer to these questions is in the negative. If your sedevacantist bishop were in fact a member of the Catholic hierarchy (of jurisdiction), he would be able to demand obedience. His laws would bind in conscience. No sedevacantist bishop has such power.

tornpage wrote:Sedes hold to the theological distinctions and "truths" of the Pre-V2 Magisterium and the theologians and their manuals. Thus, they maintain that the Church remains "indefectible" post-V2 as understood by the above, despite the apostate, or at least heretical - in their view at least, with their New Mass, etc. - "Conciliar" hierarchy.

Well, let us look at the pre-V2 understanding of the Church's indefectibility.

Cardinal Franzelin (papal theologian to Vatican I) and associates, who drafted the First Dogmatic Constitution of the Church in preparation for Vatican I, like the schema Cardinal Ottaviani oversaw in preparation for Vatican II, said this about the indefectibility of the Church:

We declare, moreover, that, whether one considers its existence or its constitution, the Church of Christ is an everlasting and indefectible society, and that, after it, no more complete nor more perfect economy of salvation is to be hoped for in this world. For, to the very end of the world the pilgrims of this earth are to be saved through Christ. Consequently, his Church, the only society of salvation, will last until the end of the world ever unchangeable and unchanged in its constitution. Therefore, although the Church is growing—and We wish that it may always grow in faith and charity for the upbuilding of Christ's body—although it evolves in a variety of ways according to the changing times and circuмstances in which it is constantly displaying activity, nevertheless, it remains unchangeable in itself and in the constitution it received from Christ. Therefore, Christ's Church can never lose its properties and its qualities, its sacred teaching authority, priestly office, and governing body, so that through his visible body, Christ may always be the way, the truth, and the life for all men.


Jesuit Fathers of St. Mary's College. The Church Teaches: Docuмents of the Church in English Translation . TAN Books. Kindle Edition.

The "governing body" is one possessed with the "power of order and jurisdiction," which entails:

"the following rights:

the right to frame and sanction laws which it considers useful or necessary, i.e. legislative power;

the right to judge how the faithful observe these laws i.e. judicial power;

the right to enforce obedience, and to punish disobedience to its laws i.e. coercive power;

the right to make all due provision for the proper celebration of worship, i.e. administrative power.


https://www.catholic.org/encyclopedia/view.php?id=5760

On March 3, 2023, Fr. Desposito, a Sede priest under Bishop Sanborn - a Sedeprivationist, but that's another story; suffice for our purposes to say, Sede - posted the following on what was known as Twitter (now X):

There is a simple way to show that sedevacantist bishops are not members of the Catholic hierarchy (of jurisdiction). Sedevacantist bishops do indeed have supplied power to forgive sins. But does anyone recognize the power to enact laws in a sedevacantist bishop? Authority is defined as 'the ability to pass a law'. Does your sedevacantist bishop enact laws in your church? Does your sedevacantist bishop have power over a particular territory? Does your sedevacantist bishop grant special indulgences? Does your sedevacantist bishop refers to his church as a cathedral? The answer to these questions is in the negative. If your sedevacantist bishop were in fact a member of the Catholic hierarchy (of jurisdiction), he would be able to demand obedience. His laws would bind in conscience. No sedevacantist bishop has such power.

Very good, and correct.

So where is the "governing body" of the Church, which "indefectibility" requires to be extant, continuing the role of Christ as King and ruler on earth with the power of command, "to the very end of the world" (see the fathers of Vatican I's schema above) Bishop Sanborn? No, even his underling, Fr. Desposito, would reject that claim.

If the Church remains "indefectible," my Sede friends, where is it's governing body? Where is the ordinary who rejects the "heresy" of V2, the New Mass, etc.? The "ordinary," the bishop, with both the Catholic faith and the power of jurisdiction?

After 11 years of relentless grave error and heresy - Either Jorge Bergoglio isn't pope - or the Church isn't indefectible I'm not going to twist myself into tortuous canonical knots or rarified, obscure theological arguments to square this circle

MRyan wrote:

tornpage wrote:Sedes hold to the theological distinctions and "truths" of the Pre-V2 Magisterium and the theologians and their manuals. Thus, they maintain that the Church remains "indefectible" post-V2 as understood by the above, despite the apostate, or at least heretical - in their view at least, with their New Mass, etc. - "Conciliar" hierarchy.

Well, let us look at the pre-V2 understanding of the Church's indefectibility.

Cardinal Franzelin (papal theologian to Vatican I) and associates, who drafted the First Dogmatic Constitution of the Church in preparation for Vatican I, like the schema Cardinal Ottaviani oversaw in preparation for Vatican II, said this about the indefectibility of the Church:

We declare, moreover, that, whether one considers its existence or its constitution, the Church of Christ is an everlasting and indefectible society, and that, after it, no more complete nor more perfect economy of salvation is to be hoped for in this world. For, to the very end of the world the pilgrims of this earth are to be saved through Christ. Consequently, his Church, the only society of salvation, will last until the end of the world ever unchangeable and unchanged in its constitution. Therefore, although the Church is growing—and We wish that it may always grow in faith and charity for the upbuilding of Christ's body—although it evolves in a variety of ways according to the changing times and circuмstances in which it is constantly displaying activity, nevertheless, it remains unchangeable in itself and in the constitution it received from Christ. Therefore, Christ's Church can never lose its properties and its qualities, its sacred teaching authority, priestly office, and governing body, so that through his visible body, Christ may always be the way, the truth, and the life for all men.


Jesuit Fathers of St. Mary's College. The Church Teaches: Docuмents of the Church in English Translation . TAN Books. Kindle Edition.

The "governing body" is one possessed with the "power of order and jurisdiction," which entails:

"the following rights:

the right to frame and sanction laws which it considers useful or necessary, i.e. legislative power;

the right to judge how the faithful observe these laws i.e. judicial power;

the right to enforce obedience, and to punish disobedience to its laws i.e. coercive power;

the right to make all due provision for the proper celebration of worship, i.e. administrative power.


https://www.catholic.org/encyclopedia/view.php?id=5760

On March 3, 2023, Fr. Desposito, a Sede priest under Bishop Sanborn - a Sedeprivationist, but that's another story; suffice for our purposes to say, Sede - posted the following on what was known as Twitter (now X):

There is a simple way to show that sedevacantist bishops are not members of the Catholic hierarchy (of jurisdiction). Sedevacantist bishops do indeed have supplied power to forgive sins. But does anyone recognize the power to enact laws in a sedevacantist bishop? Authority is defined as 'the ability to pass a law'. Does your sedevacantist bishop enact laws in your church? Does your sedevacantist bishop have power over a particular territory? Does your sedevacantist bishop grant special indulgences? Does your sedevacantist bishop refers to his church as a cathedral? The answer to these questions is in the negative. If your sedevacantist bishop were in fact a member of the Catholic hierarchy (of jurisdiction), he would be able to demand obedience. His laws would bind in conscience. No sedevacantist bishop has such power.

Very good, and correct.

So where is the "governing body" of the Church, which "indefectibility" requires to be extant, continuing the role of Christ as King and ruler on earth with the power of command, "to the very end of the world" (see the fathers of Vatican I's schema above) Bishop Sanborn? No, even his underling, Fr. Desposito, would reject that claim.

If the Church remains "indefectible," my Sede friends, where is it's governing body? Where is the ordinary who rejects the "heresy" of V2, the New Mass, etc.? The "ordinary," the bishop, with both the Catholic faith and the power of jurisdiction?

The visible governing body, like the visible Church itself, I beleive an informed sede would tell you, is there, but greatly obscured, for the true Church has been eclipsed (no shortage of prophesies here) by a false church, but not totally (like the still visible auro of the sun behind the moon's eclipse).

The bigger question in my mind is, where is the unity and unicity of the Church if there is no unity of Faith?

As Deacon Nick Donnelly (@ProtecttheFaith) said:

After 11 years of relentless grave error and heresy - Either Jorge Bergoglio isn't pope - or the Church isn't indefectible I'm not going to twist myself into tortuous canonical knots or rarified, obscure theological arguments to square this circle

Indeed.

tornpage wrote:As to Deacon Nick, I'm not doing any twisting either. It is all rather simple. As Our Lord said, and in the Olivet discourse itself (most relevantly), "behold, I have told you before."

No man was God, could be God, until the time came for God to become man.

Then the time gave it proof.

tornpage wrote:As to Deacon Nick, I'm not doing any twisting either. It is all rather simple. As Our Lord said, and in the Olivet discourse itself (most relevantly), "behold, I have told you before."

No man was God, could be God, until the time came for God to become man.

Then the time gave it proof.

tornpage wrote:

tornpage wrote:As to Deacon Nick, I'm not doing any twisting either. It is all rather simple. As Our Lord said, and in the Olivet discourse itself (most relevantly), "behold, I have told you before."

No man was God, could be God, until the time came for God to become man.

Then the time gave it proof.

The Church did not, could not defect, until the time came for the Holy Spirit to be "taken out of the way."

Then the time gave it proof.

Where is the "governing authority"? Maybe it's "eclipsed," or is there by implication . . . an "implied governing body."

MRyan wrote:

tornpage wrote:

tornpage wrote:As to Deacon Nick, I'm not doing any twisting either. It is all rather simple. As Our Lord said, and in the Olivet discourse itself (most relevantly), "behold, I have told you before."

No man was God, could be God, until the time came for God to become man.

Then the time gave it proof.

The Church did not, could not defect, until the time came for the Holy Spirit to be "taken out of the way."

Then the time gave it proof.

Wait, you sarcastically stated:

Where is the "governing authority"? Maybe it's "eclipsed," or is there by implication . . . an "implied governing body."

You now say (I think) that God has abandoned, as Scripture says, the divinely established protection of the Church (the pope?). Would that be the one 'governing body' ... possessed with the "power of order and jurisdiction"?

tornpage wrote:

Mike wrote:
Wait, you sarcastically stated:

Where is the "governing authority"? Maybe it's "eclipsed," or is there by implication . . . an "implied governing body."

You now say (I think) that God has abandoned, as Scripture says, the divinely established protection of the Church (the pope?). Would that be the one 'governing body' ... possessed with the "power of order and jurisdiction"?

Sorry if that was confusing.

Sedes say they hold to the pre-V2 expressions of the faith, liturgically, in doctrine, etc. Well, that doctrine says that the "governing body" must be extant and in the Church until the end of the world, and so it has to be there for the Sede position to be true - in the sense of, the old doctrine is true and holds until the end of the world, as they maintain.

To simply say, the "governing body" is eclipsed is a cop out, and evasion if you really believe as they do. I'm being sarcastic, yes: "oh, yeah, it's 'eclipsed' - it's like an implied governing body, like an implicit faith, like an implicit baptism of desire, etc.

Those other "implicit" chimera.

Bad joke, I guess. Certainly a flat one.

tornpage wrote:Well, I know you too well to think you don't see the difference. This is you dusting off and polishing the old sword. Ok . . . we 'll call that a palpable hit.

tornpage wrote:As to what I believe, the old rules don't apply in these prophesied times, so I don't need to identify a hierarchy with the true power of jurisdiction.

Not my problem . . . it's theirs.

Chrysostom: An Exposition of the Orthodox Faith, Book IV
It should be known that the Antichrist is bound to come. Every one, therefore, who confesses not that the Son of God came in the flesh and is perfect God and became perfect man, after being God, is Antichrist (1 John 2:22). But in a peculiar and special sense he who comes at the consummation of the age is called Antichrist.

That the last judgment, then, shall be administered by Jesus Christ in the manner predicted in the sacred writings is denied or doubted by no one, unless by those who, through some incredible animosity or blindness, decline to believe these writings, though already their truth is demonstrated to all the world. And at or in connection with that judgment the following events shall come to pass, as we have learned: Elias the Tishbite shall come; the Jєωs shall believe; Antichrist shall persecute; Christ shall judge; the dead shall rise; the good and the wicked shall be separated; the world shall be burned and renewed. All these things, we believe, shall come to pass; but how, or in what order, human understanding cannot perfectly teach us, but only the experience of the events themselves. My opinion, however, is, that they will happen in the order in which I have related them.

City of God, Book XX, Chapter 30
https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/120120.htm

Daniel 12

9 And he said: Go, Daniel, because the words are shut up, and sealed until the appointed time.

Et ait : Vade, Daniel, quia clausi sunt signatique sermones usque ad praefinitum tempus.

10 Many shall be chosen, and made white, and shall be tried as fire: and the wicked shall deal wickedly, and none of the wicked shall understand, but the learned shall understand.

Eligentur, et dealbabuntur, et quasi ignis probabuntur multi : et impie agent impii, neque intelligent omnes impii : porro docti intelligent.

MRyan wrote:

tornpage wrote:Well, I know you too well to think you don't see the difference. This is you dusting off and polishing the old sword. Ok . . . we 'll call that a palpable hit.

Just a glancing blow, bounced right off. Of course I see it, and perhaps it is not as subtle as I implied. You summed up the difference like this:

tornpage wrote:As to what I believe, the old rules don't apply in these prophesied times, so I don't need to identify a hierarchy with the true power of jurisdiction.

Not my problem . . . it's theirs.

Which means you believe the "consummation of the age" is here. You also cited Chrysostom in imploring us to return to the Scriptures because the proximate rule of faith has been taken away - that which stands in the way of the antichrist. A sede would say no, that time has not yet come, but we're clearly headed in that direction (though the visible "governing authority" complete with the ordinary power of order/jurisdiction is out there, somewhere, it MUST be, if only eclipsed).

Chrysostom: An Exposition of the Orthodox Faith, Book IV
It should be known that the Antichrist is bound to come. Every one, therefore, who confesses not that the Son of God came in the flesh and is perfect God and became perfect man, after being God, is Antichrist (1 John 2:22). But in a peculiar and special sense he who comes at the consummation of the age is called Antichrist.

If this is the consummation, where are the "signs and wonders" of the Antichrist? What if Francis is a precursor to the AntiChrist? Does he not at least "confess that the Son of Man came in the flesh"? Hmmm, has he ever confessed this? He's a humanist and a naturalist, and hardly ever (or never) speaks of the divine nature of Christ as 2nd Person of the Trinity. Seems to speak only of His humanity.

Whether Francis is the precursor, or the real deal (Antichrist), the proximate rule of faith seems to have been taken away and we are sheep without a shepherd. Perhaps you are correct.

I read the B.E. Strauss Even to the Consummation of the Age link, but can you provide the link to the CI discussion to which you refer?  Thanks.

6 And he wondered because of their unbelief, and he went through the villages round about teaching

et mirabatur propter incredulitatem eorum, et circuibat castella in circuitu docens.  [Mark 6:6]

https://www.drbo.org/cgi-bin/d?b=drl&bk=48&ch=6&l=6#x

tornpage wrote:

MRyan wrote:

tornpage wrote:Well, I know you too well to think you don't see the difference. This is you dusting off and polishing the old sword. Ok . . . we 'll call that a palpable hit.

Just a glancing blow, bounced right off. Of course I see it, and perhaps it is not as subtle as I implied. You summed up the difference like this:

tornpage wrote:As to what I believe, the old rules don't apply in these prophesied times, so I don't need to identify a hierarchy with the true power of jurisdiction.

Not my problem . . . it's theirs.

Which means you believe the "consummation of the age" is here. You also cited Chrysostom in imploring us to return to the Scriptures because the proximate rule of faith has been taken away - that which stands in the way of the antichrist. A sede would say no, that time has not yet come, but we're clearly headed in that direction (though the visible "governing authority" complete with the ordinary power of order/jurisdiction is out there, somewhere, it MUST be, if only eclipsed).

Chrysostom: An Exposition of the Orthodox Faith, Book IV
It should be known that the Antichrist is bound to come. Every one, therefore, who confesses not that the Son of God came in the flesh and is perfect God and became perfect man, after being God, is Antichrist (1 John 2:22). But in a peculiar and special sense he who comes at the consummation of the age is called Antichrist.

If this is the consummation, where are the "signs and wonders" of the Antichrist? What if Francis is a precursor to the AntiChrist? Does he not at least "confess that the Son of Man came in the flesh"? Hmmm, has he ever confessed this? He's a humanist and a naturalist, and hardly ever (or never) speaks of the divine nature of Christ as 2nd Person of the Trinity. Seems to speak only of His humanity.

Whether Francis is the precursor, or the real deal (Antichrist), the proximate rule of faith seems to have been taken away and we are sheep without a shepherd. Perhaps you are correct.

I read the B.E. Strauss Even to the Consummation of the Age link, but can you provide the link to the CI discussion to which you refer?  Thanks.

I have some thoughts about "signs and wonders." I will post later after I put it together. For now, consider a spiritual dimension - always good to think about God using metaphors, symbols, and words as "signs" themselves. Consider, for example, Our Lord and what made Him "wonder":

6 And he wondered because of their unbelief, and he went through the villages round about teaching

et mirabatur propter incredulitatem eorum, et circuibat castella in circuitu docens.  [Mark 6]

https://www.drbo.org/cgi-bin/d?b=drl&bk=48&ch=6&l=6#x

Hey . . . and in the last post, I just mentioned agreeing with Fr. Nix that the pachamama statue in St. Peter's was a "sign" of the "abomination of desolation."  

So, there's one of Franny boy's "signs."

Actually, not funny at all.

tornpage wrote:Mike,

And I want to stress here the point that it is not about a one to one correspondence in all particulars. For example, I disagree with St. Augustine about a time coming when there's some mass conversions of Jews when "the Jews shall believe" - God doesn't work with that group anymore; they've been judged and desolated; the elect Jews who are to be saved have been converting since St. Peter, St. Paul, etc.

MRyan wrote:

tornpage wrote:Mike,

And I want to stress here the point that it is not about a one to one correspondence in all particulars. For example, I disagree with St. Augustine about a time coming when there's some mass conversions of Jews when "the Jews shall believe" - God doesn't work with that group anymore; they've been judged and desolated; the elect Jews who are to be saved have been converting since St. Peter, St. Paul, etc.

Yes and no. Yes, the Jews have "been judged and desolated; the elect Jews who are to be saved have been converting since St. Peter, St. Paul, etc." But, NO, to no mass conversion, for "the future conversion of the Jewish nation to the Faith", as Br. Andre says, “Though it is not a defined dogma, ... is a common teaching of the Fathers and Doctors, inferred directly from Holy Scripture. This mass conversion (which need not be absolutely total) will be a sign of the immanent approach of the General Judgment.”

See: The Jewish Nation will Enter the Church by Brother Andre Marie (https://catholicism.org/ad-rem-no-310.html).

Unfortunately, some would use the "end times conversion" doctrine as an excuse (e.g., Benedict XVI) to say "leave the Jews alone, it's in God's hands", as if our Lord' s command in Matthew 28:19 does not apply to present and future generations of Jews. Unbelievable (and implies that Jews faithful to their "Irrevocable Covenant" can be saved right where they are. See, they can't be faulted for not recognizing the "time of their visition").

This prophesy of the return of Elias — who never died, but was taken away in a fiery chariot — was so strong at the time of our Lord that both He and Saint John the Baptist were mistaken for Elias by many of the people. Our Lord even referred to Saint John as Elias, but also reassured the Apostles after the Transfiguration that “Elias indeed shall come and restore all things” (Matt. 17:11).

10 And his disciples asked him, saying: Why then do the scribes say that Elias must come first? 11 But he answering, said to them: Elias indeed shall come, and restore all things.  12 But I say to you, that Elias is already come, and they knew him not, but have done unto him whatsoever they had a mind. So also the Son of man shall suffer from them.  13 Then the disciples understood, that he had spoken to them of John the Baptist.

To their next question, if he was not Elias? He answered: he was not: because in person he was not; though our Saviour (Matthew xi. 14.) says he was Elias: to wit, in spirit and office only. Their third question was, if he was a prophet? He answered, no. Yet Christ (Matthew xi.) tells us, he was a prophet, and more than a prophet. In the ordinary acceptation only, they were called prophets who foretold things to come: John then, with truth, as well as humility, could say he was not a prophet; not being sent to foretell the coming of the Messias, but to point him out as already come, and present with the Jews. (Witham)

For the reasonings of any men whatsoever, even though they be Catholics, and of high reputation, are not to be treated by us in the same way as the canonical Scriptures are treated. We are at liberty, without doing any violence to the respect which these men deserve, to condemn and reject anything in their writings, if perchance we shall find that they have entertained opinions differing from that which others or we ourselves have, by the divine help, discovered to be the truth. I deal thus with the writings of others, and I wish my intelligent readers to deal thus with mine.

Augustine, Saint. The Complete Works of St. Augustine: Cross-linked to the Bible and with in-line footnotes (p. 1534). Kindle Edition.

4 For the children of Israel shall sit many days without king, and without prince, and without sacrifice, and without altar, and without ephod, and without theraphim.  5 And after this the children of Israel shall return, and shall seek the Lord their God, and David their king: and they shall fear the Lord, and his goodness in the last days.

”tornpage” wrote:Let's quote Br. Andre in full:

This prophesy of the return of Elias — who never died, but was taken away in a fiery chariot — was so strong at the time of our Lord that both He and Saint John the Baptist were mistaken for Elias by many of the people. Our Lord even referred to Saint John as Elias, but also reassured the Apostles after the Transfiguration that “Elias indeed shall come and restore all things” (Matt. 17:11).

Yes, brother, Our Lord did an explication de texte of the OT prophecy of Elias's return: He said St. John was the "Elias" that was to come (Mt 11:14) but apparently he [Our Lord] was "mistaken" as to St. John being Elias as well. So how does Br. Andre deal with Our Lord's "mistaken" explication de texte - by citing Mt. 17:11.

"the coming of Enoch and Elias, who live even now and shall live until they come to oppose Antichrist himself, and to preserve the elect in the faith of Christ, and in the end shall convert the Jews, and it is certain that this is not yet fulfilled."

“not displeasing to the Lord, but rather, acceptable to Him that the Dispersion of the Jews should live and do service under Catholic Kings and Christian princes – the remnants of which then will finally be saved (Romans 9:3-24), since in those days Judah will be saved (Jeremiah 33:6-26) and Israel will dwell in mutual trust.”

“Whereas the Jews are made to the image of God, and a remnant of them will one day be saved, and whereas they have sought our protection: following in the footsteps of our predecessors We command that they be not molested in their synagogues; that their laws, rights and customs be not assailed; that they be not baptized by force, constrained to observe Christian festivals, nor to wear new badges, and that they be not hindered in their business relations with Christians.”

MRyan wrote:

”tornpage” wrote:Let's quote Br. Andre in full:

This prophesy of the return of Elias — who never died, but was taken away in a fiery chariot — was so strong at the time of our Lord that both He and Saint John the Baptist were mistaken for Elias by many of the people. Our Lord even referred to Saint John as Elias, but also reassured the Apostles after the Transfiguration that “Elias indeed shall come and restore all things” (Matt. 17:11).

Yes, brother, Our Lord did an explication de texte of the OT prophecy of Elias's return: He said St. John was the "Elias" that was to come (Mt 11:14) but apparently he [Our Lord] was "mistaken" as to St. John being Elias as well. So how does Br. Andre deal with Our Lord's "mistaken" explication de texte - by citing Mt. 17:11.

No, Mark, Br. Andre never said that our Lord was "mistaken" about “St. John being Elias as well”, he said, “many of the people… were mistaken”, and then “Our Lord even referred to Saint John as Elias”, which He certainly did without mistaking him for Elias in the flesh - but referred to him spiritually - as a metaphor. Read him again, you should know better than to suggest Br. Andre would accuse Our Lord of being “mistaken” about anything.

Concerning Mt. 17:11, when Our Lord declared that “Elias indeed shall come, and restore all things”, He was speaking of the end times, precisely as Malachi prophesized:

“Behold, I am going to send you Elijah the prophet before the coming of the great and terrible day of the Lord. He will restore the hearts of the fathers to their children and the hearts of the children to their fathers, so that I will not come and smite the land with a curse” (Malachi 4:5-6).

So, yes, Malachi could be read as referring both to the Messiah in the Flesh (through Elias=John the Baptist), and in the End Times (through Elias). Our Lord spoke about the destruction of Jerusalem in 70AD and the Apocalypse precisely in these "singular" terms. But, in the context of Mt. 17:11, it should be clear He is referring to the End Times.  

John the Baptist said the prophecy from Isaiah 40:3 applied to him, while simultaneously maintaining he was not Elias (John 1:23). This was true because there would be two advents, and the disciples, right after the Transfiguration (with the appearance of Elias), were still in the dark about His 2nd Coming, and because they seemed to believe that they were already in or at least very near the end times, there is a sense we could say they were right, for IF Israel had accepted Jesus, that was what would have occurred. Jesus alluded to this when He answered:

“And if you are willing to accept it, John himself is Elias who was to come” (Matthew 11:14). This verse suggests that John the Baptist would have been a complete fulfillment of the ministry of Elijah as Jesus’s forerunner—IF Israel had accepted Jesus as its Messiah.

I’ll close with just three testimonies to this truth:

St. Robert Bellarmine in De Summo Pontifice (I, 3):

"the coming of Enoch and Elias, who live even now and shall live until they come to oppose Antichrist himself, and to preserve the elect in the faith of Christ, and in the end shall convert the Jews, and it is certain that this is not yet fulfilled."

Pope Innocent III in Regi Francorum (a letter about the Jews to the Kings of France and Germany):

“not displeasing to the Lord, but rather, acceptable to Him that the Dispersion of the Jews should live and do service under Catholic Kings and Christian princes – the remnants of which then will finally be saved (Romans 9:3-24), since in those days Judah will be saved (Jeremiah 33:6-26) and Israel will dwell in mutual trust.”

Pope Martin V, Declaration on the Protection of the Jews, 1419:

“Whereas the Jews are made to the image of God, and a remnant of them will one day be saved, and whereas they have sought our protection: following in the footsteps of our predecessors We command that they be not molested in their synagogues; that their laws, rights and customs be not assailed; that they be not baptized by force, constrained to observe Christian festivals, nor to wear new badges, and that they be not hindered in their business relations with Christians.”

You wrote: "That's it for now . . . I'm exhausted."

Well, I can imagine, it must exhaustive constantly kicking "against the goad.”

New Jerusalem Bible

11 In truth I tell you, of all the children born to women, there has never been anyone greater than John the Baptist; yet the least in the kingdom of Heaven is greater than he. 12 Since John the Baptist came, up to this present time, the kingdom of Heaven has been subjected to violence and the violent are taking it by storm. 13 Because it was towards John that all the prophecies of the prophets and of the Law were leading; 14 and he, if you will believe me, is the Elijah who was to return. 15 Anyone who has ears should listen!

. . .

NABRE

11 Amen, I say to you, among those born of women there has been none greater than John the Baptist; yet the least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he. 12 From the days of John the Baptist until now, the kingdom of heaven suffers violence, and the violent are taking it by force. 13 All the prophets and the law* prophesied up to the time of John. 14 And if you are willing to accept it, he is Elijah, the one who is to come. 15 Whoever has ears ought to hear.

John is the "greatest" of all the OT prophets because he is the Elias foretold . . . as Our Lord said.

Hey, those Conciliar heretic translators get some things right.  

I look forward to listening to the answer with you, St. Robert and those popes in heaven some day. . .  [tornpage says Act of Hope here]

tornpage wrote:Act of Hope

"O My God, relying on Thy infinite goodness and promises, I hope to obtain pardon of my sins, the help of Thy grace and life everlasting, through the merits of Jesus Christ, my Lord and Redeemer."

One of my favorite prayers.

MRyan wrote:

tornpage wrote:Act of Hope

"O My God, relying on Thy infinite goodness and promises, I hope to obtain pardon of my sins, the help of Thy grace and life everlasting, through the merits of Jesus Christ, my Lord and Redeemer."

One of my favorite prayers.

Amen. A part of our morning prayers, a favorite:

Prayer of Repentance
(taken from Psalm 51)

Have mercy on me, God, in your kindness. In your compassion, blot out my offenses. O wash me more and more from my guilt and cleanse me from my sins.

My offenses, truly I know them; my sins are always before me. Against You, You alone, have I sinned; what is evil in Your sight I have done.

Cleanse me that I may be pure. Wash me. Make me purer than snow. Give me back the joy of Your salvation. Sustain in me a generous spirit.

O Lord, open my lips and my mouth will speak Your praise. Glory be to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Spirit.