It is currently Tue Dec 11, 2018 2:44 am




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 396 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next
 Siri's "election"/acceptance of popes/Paul VI 
Author Message
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post Re: Siri Thesis
Teresa Ginardi wrote:
I think you've asked an important question: what is the definition of 'universal acceptation', by whom, how long, etc.?


By the whole Church. A few weeks would be insufficient - a few years definitely sufficient. Let's not debate when precisely a beard is a beard - especially when the subject is clean shaven, as John XXIII appears to have been.

But you've missed the crucial qualifier, "peaceful." I don't know why, since it has been hammered here in this thread repeatedly that the problem with Paul VI's reign was precisely the lack of peace. The adherence to him by the Church was anything but peaceful.

_________________
In Christ our King.


Wed Oct 17, 2007 6:53 am
Profile E-mail
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post 
Chris Browne wrote:
The concept of 'adherence' becomes clearer when we realize that the state of Catholicism in 1963 was very different from that of 1958. 'Cracks' had begun to appear in the masonry, and it was evident that the attempt to dismantle the Church had begun. Dissent was more common - and open.

Exactly.

_________________
In Christ our King.


Wed Oct 17, 2007 6:56 am
Profile E-mail
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post Re: Response to Ken Gordon
Robert Bastaja wrote:
Miles Peior wrote:
I'm late to the party, obviously. But, responding to your response to my earlier post regarding the POSSIBILITY of a pope becoming a heretic, I offer the following simple logic:

All men have free will.

The individual elected to the papacy is a man and remains a man even after ascending to his office.

Therefore the pope has free will.

Heresy is an act of the will.

Therefore the pope can choose to be a heretic.

To claim that "God would not allow" a pope to fall into heresy would mean that a pope no longer has free will.


Miles,

Sometimes "simple logic" is mistaken. :)


Yes, and also the missing premiss is that the theologians who say that a pope cannot fall into heresy do not deny the free-will of popes - they point out that Christ has promised that "Peter's" Faith will not fail. So, the doctrine is an interpretation of Holy Writ. It is a question of divine revelation. In logic, this is a fact, or if you prefer, a datum. There is no argument against it, except by denying that it is factual. That is, by arguing that it is a mistaken interpretation.

I'm not willing to argue that Bellarmine misunderstood Scripture, especially when most theologians followed him. I'm not saying it's impossible he erred - just that without a good enough reason, it would not seem likely.

_________________
In Christ our King.


Wed Oct 17, 2007 7:01 am
Profile E-mail
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post Re: Response to John Lane's reply to Pat Beck
Miles Peior wrote:
Mrs. Beck cites p.24, para 3, “The position of the Society of Pius X is... ‘John Paul II is the pope if he teaches what is orthodox, and is not if he teaches heresy.’” Mr. Lane claims that the authors are in fact only stating what the Society is ACCUSED of saying.

Mr. Lane is unequivocally wrong. I am looking at the text right now! The cited passage is exactly the authors’ statement of the position of the SSPX (at the time, though perhaps not any longer). The entire preceding section introduces this statement, explaining that this represents the “prudential view” taken by the Society. It is NOT a “caricature by sedevacantist critics” as Mr. Lane alleges.

I am appalled that Mr. Lane can later condescend in his post that Pat Beck needs “to take more care in presenting the work of others.” I have verified each of her citations, and the book says EXACTLY what she quotes it to say. That Mr. Lane denies it, is deeply disturbing to me. What happened to Catholic honesty? Is it possible to lack reading comprehension to the extent of actually not realizing what such a simple text means?


Miles, please just type or scan the relevant page into a post and we'll leave it to the reader to decide for himself what the book says.

I cannot understand how any English-speaker could misunderstand the text, so perhaps English is your second language? You owe me an apology, but I'll leave it to others to convince you.

_________________
In Christ our King.


Wed Oct 17, 2007 7:08 am
Profile E-mail
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post Re: Reply to Robert
KenGordon wrote:
However, one of the most important things you are, apparently, missing here is that at the moment, I, at least, am not answering John's ripostes concerning the Siri question, since he has not yet been able, for one reason or another, to answer my questions.


Dear Ken,

It is simply that your questions are either already answered, or not answerable.

Already answered: Universal acceptance of a pope is self-defining. It means that everybody accepts the claimant as the pope. This is a moral question – a question of human acts - and therefore we speak of “morally” universal. This means that Benedict XIII (Peter de Luna) and his two cardinals didn’t suffice to undo it, but that, for example, twenty cardinals would certainly suffice to undermine it. This acceptance must be peaceful to be considered valid.

Unanswerable: How many dissidents and of what weight does it take to eliminate moral universality? In the case of a beard, we cannot say which day it comes into being. But we can say when it isn’t there, and we can say when it is – and if we’re sufficiently fuzzy-minded, or have nothing worthwhile to do, we can debate the line-ball cases. But the truth is that men of prudence will agree on nine-tenths of cases off the bat, and they will agree on nine-tenths of the remainder after conferring a little, and the remaining one-tenth of one-tenth of cases will go into the books under headings such as “Great Western Schism” and “Savonarola” and “Suppression of the Jesuits.”

Perhaps, and I am loath to say such a thing but I feel that the circumstances make it more useful than dangerous, this present situation will end up in the same category – as a mystery the solution of which we will be given in heaven, but not before.

A few more comments below, my friend.


KenGordon wrote:
1) From a post here on this thread, and from previously mentioned sources, amongst them, Sacerdotium, we learned that Roncalli was most likely a Mason, and, apparently, publicly acknowledged his membership (and that of Montini) in the Masonic order.

I don’t think so. But please see if you can find the evidence.


KenGordon wrote:
We have also, in other threads, discussed what has been agreed on, that a non-Catholic, which I assume also means that particular type of "excommunicate" which Roncalli falls into, can not be the head of something to which he does not belong.

Roncalli, assuming he was an excommunicate, was a toleratus which means that, on that score, he remained a member of the Church.



KenGordon wrote:
3) There is our discussion of the papal bull, Cum Ex Apostolatus Officio that while, as John and some others insist, is not dogmatic, still must, at least, show to us the mind of the Church on these matters.

It does show the mind of the Church. I would say it is consistent with her constant tradition on the matter.


KenGordon wrote:
Against these, John's only real argument seems to be that Roncalli's pontificate "...was accepted universally and peacefully by everyone...".

Well, that’s a killer argument, even if you don’t feel its force. But it isn’t the only one – there is also the fact that his election was apparently regular and not disputed, so that it cannot be described as “doubtful”, and also there is the fact that to accuse him of public heresy we would need to say what dogma he doubted or denied, and then present the evidence. I’m in full agreement with you that he was awful, and in many ways responsible for the entire V2 revolt, but that doesn’t make him a non-pope.



KenGordon wrote:
For example, within a legitimate conclave, when a pope is elected, only the cardinals and others present there have any idea that anyone at all has been elected, and who he is. If the election is completely above-board, the only "...universal acceptance..." which takes place, or is even possible, is by those in attendance. The rest of the Church, those outside, have no idea what has taken place. Therefore, in the larger sense, the elected has not been "...universally accepted..." at all, but only by a very few men locked away in a room. Yet we all agree that, all things being equal, he IS the pope. Is this not correct?

Yes, but you still appear to be confusing sufficiency and necessity. It is sufficient that a man be universally accepted; it is not necessary.


KenGordon wrote:
Depending on HOW YOU DEFINE IT, one can most certainly say, with justification, that Anacletus II was "...peacefully universally accepted..." by a large percentage of the Catholic world at the time, and must, therefore according to what has been discussed here, have been the true pope during that time.

As already commented, significant portions of the Church did not accept Anacletus at any time, but at all times there was a lack of PEACE anyway, thus ruining the whole notion of a peaceful universal acceptance.

_________________
In Christ our King.


Wed Oct 17, 2007 10:59 am
Profile E-mail
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post Re: Response to John Lane's reply to Pat Beck
Miles Peior wrote:
Finally, replying to Pat Beck saying “that it is impossible for a pope to be a heretic,” Mr. Lane has at long last come out from under cover, with a simple “Yes, that was the opinion of Bellarmine, and the majority of theologians. It’s also my opinion.”

Really, Mr. Lane? Would you be kind enough to provide the citation for this? Exactly where does Bellarmine say that it is impossible for a pope to be a heretic, and what is the precise quote?


I hadn't bothered with the rest of your tirade until now, and just rattled off an instant response to your main misunderstanding and associated rudeness, but I now see that you are so unaware of Bellarmine and the rest of modern theologians that you think I am spouting a novelty when I say that popes can't lose the Faith. But more, you add to this expression of ignorance the allegation that I have been keeping this a secret. You know, if I ever have any reason to doubt my stand in favour of charity towards sedeplenists, there is always a sedevacantist brother to remind me of the rightness of my position. Thank you.

Here is an email I wrote to Fr. Cekada eight years ago on this point:


-----Original Message-----
From: John Lane [mailto:john@nethow.com]
Sent: Tuesday, 3 August 1999 10:19 PM
To: Fr Anthony Cekada
Subject: Re: #3882: Bellarmine Quote

Dear Father,

Fr. Vaillancourt recently used your article "Did Bellarmine Condemn Sedevacantism?" in a controversy. It really is a brilliant exposition of Bellarmine's true meaning, and certainly shuts the door on that quote.

This does raise one point, though, which I've been meaning to bring to your attention for a very long time, but which never seemed important enough to prioritise. It appears to me that you made an error in the last sentence quoted below. The impression it gives is that Bellarmine thought a pope COULD become a heretic, when in fact his view was the opposite. Now this does not in any way impact on the sedevacantist fact, since the fundamental principles expounded by all of the fathers and doctors prove beyond doubt that heretics cannot possess offices. Consequently, however it happened, the heretic Wojtyla is not pope. I raise it simply because even if I am inferring something from your article which you did not intend, it does objectively give a false impression.

Am I wrong, or misreading your text?

Yours in JMJ,
John Lane.

_________________________________________________________________________

II. BELLARMINE TEACHES THAT A HERETICAL POPE AUTOMATICALLY LOSES HIS OFFICE

In the chapter which immediately follows the passage cited, St. Robert Bellarmine treats the following question: "Whether a heretical pope can be deposed."
Note first, by the way, that his question assumes a pope can in fact become a heretic.

_________________
In Christ our King.


Wed Oct 17, 2007 12:05 pm
Profile E-mail
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post 
Miles,

Ken Gordon has already posted Bellarmine on the question of whether a pope could ever lose the Faith, but here is Cardinal Billot expounding the point in greater detail, basing himself on Bellarmine, whom he quotes at the end of the passage. This translation is from Da Silveira's book:

Quote:
…admitted the hypothesis that the Pope should have become notoriously heretical, one must concede, without hesitation, that he would lose ipso facto the pontifical power, since by his own will he has put himself outside the body of the Church, becoming an unbeliever (...)

I said: “admitted the hypothesis”. But it appears by far more probable that this hypothesis is a mere hypothesis, never reducible to act, in virtue of what St. Luke says (22: 32): “I have prayed for you that your faith not fail, and you, once being converted, confirm your brethren”. That this ought to be understood of Saint Peter and of all his successors, is what the voice of Tradition attests, and what we shall demonstrate ex professo later, on treating of the infallible magisterium of the Roman Pontiff. For the time being we shall consider this as absolutely certain. Now, even though these words of the Gospel refer principally to the pontiff in as much as a public person who teaches ex cathedra, one ought to affirm that they extend, by a certain necessity, also to the private person of the pontiff, in regard to his preservation from heresy. To the pontiff, in effect, was given the ordinary function of confirming the rest in faith. For this reason, Christ – who for His dignity is heard in everything – asks for Him the gift of an indefectible faith. But in favour of whom, I ask, is this petition made? Of an abstract and metaphysical person, or, rather of a real and living person, upon whom it is incumbent to confirm the rest? Or perhaps he will be called indefectible in the faith, who cannot err in establishing what the others must believe, but personally can become shipwrecked in the faith? And – observe – even though the Pontiff, falling into notorious heresy lost “ipso facto” the pontificate, he would however, logically fall into heresy before losing his charge; this being so, the defectibility in the faith would co-exist with the duty of confirming his brethren, which the promise of Christ would seem to exclude in an absolute way. More yet: if, considering the providence of God, it cannot happen that the Pontiff fall into occult or merely internal heresy, for this would cause concomitant evils very much worse. Now, the order established by God, requires absolutely that, as a private person, the Supreme Pontiff cannot be a heretic not even losing the faith in the internal forum alone. “For – writes Saint Robert Bellarmine (De Rom. Pont., lib. IV, c. 6) – the pontiff not only must not and cannot preach heresy, but he must also always teach the truth, and without doubt he will do that, given that Our Lord ordered him to confirm his brethren. But how, I ask, will a heretical pontiff confirm his brothers in the faith and always preach the true faith? God can, without doubt, wrench from a heretical heart a confession of the true faith, as at another time he made the mule of Balsam speak. But this would be rather violent and not at all in conformance with the manner of acting of Divine Providence, which disposes all things with sweetness. Finally, if the hypothesis of a Pope who turned notoriously heretical were made a reality, the Church would be thrown into such and so many afflictions, that already a priori one can perceive that God would never permit it.”

_________________
In Christ our King.


Wed Oct 17, 2007 12:15 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Thu May 18, 2006 4:46 pm
Posts: 269
New post Re: Siri Thesis
John Lane wrote:
Teresa Ginardi wrote:
I think you've asked an important question: what is the definition of 'universal acceptation', by whom, how long, etc.?


By the whole Church. A few weeks would be insufficient - a few years definitely sufficient. Let's not debate when precisely a beard is a beard - especially when the subject is clean shaven, as John XXIII appears to have been.

But you've missed the crucial qualifier, "peaceful." I don't know why, since it has been hammered here in this thread repeatedly that the problem with Paul VI's reign was precisely the lack of peace. The adherence to him by the Church was anything but peaceful.


John,

I don't think that I've missed the reference to "peaceful". Your post states: "that a few years definitely sufficient". Paul VI became pope on June 30, 1963. I have asked anyone to show any "non-acceptance, non-adherence, or non-peace" for Paul VI from June 30, 1963 until December 31, 1965. I am not speaking about the years after the Council, with especially the promulgation in 1967 of the all-English Canon of the Mass, and the later promulgation of the First Sunday of Advent, 1969 of the Novus Ordo Missae.

2-1/2 years certainly meets your criteria of "a few years definitely sufficient". Please list the works, or notable, knowledgeable clerics, hierarchs, laity, press releases that in anyway created a "non-peaceful", "non-acceptance", or "non-adherence" to Paul VI as pope in the time span of 6/30/1963 - 12/31/1965.

I was, also, wondering where you derived the "few years" would be sufficient? Is there some theological work that prescribes "universal acceptance" as a "few years", or is that your definition? I don't want to belabor when's a beard, a beard, but a papal election and universal acceptance of that election hardly qualifies in the 'beard' category.

BTW, have the theologians argued "when's a beard, a beard"; or have they been content that the Cardinal electors (who are the clergy of Rome for the last centuries) adhered to the newly elected pontiff and that by the time of formal coronation/installation of the pope that is sufficient time for a display of "universal acceptance, "universal adherence", or "universal peace"?

_________________
In the Holy Family,
Teresa


Wed Oct 17, 2007 5:15 pm
Profile

Joined: Mon Sep 04, 2006 10:21 pm
Posts: 10
New post Reply to Mr. Lane
Mr. Lane:

I was surprised that you called my posting “rude” and then proceeded to hurl pages of insults at me. I will ignore all of them, and instead address the facts of the issue as I have done all along.

I first posted in response to your reply to Pat Beck’s post quoting a publication of the SSPX (Sedevacantism: A False Solution to a Real Problem). You directly stated that she had misrepresented the contents of that book, and purported to explain what the book REALLY says. In other words, you told Mrs. Beck that she was a liar or perhaps just devoid of reading comprehension. I posted to say that I have the book, and she is neither. The quotes are exactly as she said.

This led you to attack me too, demanding that I post a scan of the text. Then it occurred to me: if you have the book and are so certain that my quotes misrepresent it, why haven’t YOU posted the “actual” text?

Is it possible that you don’t even have the book? But this did not prevent you from categorically stating what it says, and arguing as though with complete authority and command of the text. If your representation of the book’s contents are true, then you should have no problem posting p.24, para 3, (the statement of the Society’s position) to prove that I am wrong!

I will wait a day, and then post the page in question to show readers that my citation is exactly correct. I hope you will allow this post so that “readers may decide for themselves,” as you wrote.


Wed Oct 17, 2007 6:44 pm
Profile

Joined: Thu May 18, 2006 4:46 pm
Posts: 269
New post 
John Lane wrote:
Chris Browne wrote:
The concept of 'adherence' becomes clearer when we realize that the state of Catholicism in 1963 was very different from that of 1958. 'Cracks' had begun to appear in the masonry, and it was evident that the attempt to dismantle the Church had begun. Dissent was more common - and open.

Exactly.


Well, not exactly as to the "universal acceptance" of Paul VI's election. Chris, you've indicated that there were cracks in the masonry of the Church, and it was evident that the attempt to dismantle the Church had begun. The topic is not about cracks in masonry or dismantling: the topic is the supposed lack of "universal acceptance, adherence, peace, (whatever else gets added) to Paul VI's election as pope. Chris, I take it you were around during 1963 and can give some evidence regarding the papal election and its non-peaceful acceptance. If you can, please, demonstrate that lack of peace towards Paul VI's election in late June of 1963.

I'm not referring to lack of peace "during the reign" of Paul VI. This is apples and oranges. What is being discussed, I thought, was that fact of the infallibility of the act of "universal acceptance" of a papal election/claimant, not some distant unrest later in a papal reign.

Billot again: "..... Therefore, from the moment in which the Pope is accepted by the Church and united to her as the head to the body, it is no longer permitted to raise doubts about a possible vice of election or a possible lack of any condition whatsoever necessary for legitimacy. For the aforementioned adhesion of the Church heals in the root all fault in the election and proves infallibly the existence of all the required conditions."

Please present any evidence about the election of Paul VI as pope that demonstrates there was not "universal acceptance".

_________________
In the Holy Family,
Teresa


Wed Oct 17, 2007 7:18 pm
Profile

Joined: Sat May 20, 2006 11:46 pm
Posts: 728
Location: Western Washington, USA
New post 
Pax Christi

Dear Miles Peior,

Can we please refrain from making things so personal? I saw no inference from John Lane's post that he accused Pat Beck of being " a lair", nor , upon reading, does it appear he hurled pages and pages of insults at you.

Please address the topics.

Thanks in advance for your understanding.

In Xto,
Vincent

P.S. And yes I do believe you owe Mr. Lane an apology. Catholic gentleman to Catholic gentleman.


Wed Oct 17, 2007 7:55 pm
Profile

Joined: Tue May 23, 2006 9:03 pm
Posts: 515
New post 
Teresa Ginardi wrote:
John Lane wrote:
Chris Browne wrote:
The concept of 'adherence' becomes clearer when we realize that the state of Catholicism in 1963 was very different from that of 1958. 'Cracks' had begun to appear in the masonry, and it was evident that the attempt to dismantle the Church had begun. Dissent was more common - and open.

Exactly.


Well, not exactly as to the "universal acceptance" of Paul VI's election. Chris, you've indicated that there were cracks in the masonry of the Church, and it was evident that the attempt to dismantle the Church had begun. The topic is not about cracks in masonry or dismantling: the topic is the supposed lack of "universal acceptance, adherence, peace, (whatever else gets added) to Paul VI's election as pope. Chris, I take it you were around during 1963 and can give some evidence regarding the papal election and its non-peaceful acceptance. If you can, please, demonstrate that lack of peace towards Paul VI's election in late June of 1963.

I'm not referring to lack of peace "during the reign" of Paul VI. This is apples and oranges. What is being discussed, I thought, was that fact of the infallibility of the act of "universal acceptance" of a papal election/claimant, not some distant unrest later in a papal reign.

Billot again: "..... Therefore, from the moment in which the Pope is accepted by the Church and united to her as the head to the body, it is no longer permitted to raise doubts about a possible vice of election or a possible lack of any condition whatsoever necessary for legitimacy. For the aforementioned adhesion of the Church heals in the root all fault in the election and proves infallibly the existence of all the required conditions."

Please present any evidence about the election of Paul VI as pope that demonstrates there was not "universal acceptance".


Teresa,

You are saying that the very moment a new pope is elected...there is either peaceful acceptance or no peaceful acceptance. I don't see how this can be the case...there's no magic acceptance that occurs in an instant...poof!...we have a pope...this type of proof can only occur after some length of time. Also, remember that it may never occur at all...it is sufficient but not necessary.

I had mentioned adherence as well as acceptance because there must be some time lapse to determine if a peaceful adherence has occured...I don't see how it can be any other way.

Robert

P.S.

I might add as well, that just because a peaceful acceptance/adherence is not instantaneous...that fact wouldn't mean we would necessarily have any reason doubt the claim either.


Last edited by Robert Bastaja on Wed Oct 17, 2007 10:01 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Wed Oct 17, 2007 9:34 pm
Profile

Joined: Tue May 23, 2006 9:03 pm
Posts: 515
New post 
Teresa Ginardi wrote:
I don't want to belabor when's a beard, a beard, but a papal election and universal acceptance of that election hardly qualifies in the 'beard' category.

Teresa,

Why?

John Lane wrote:
A few weeks would be insufficient - a few years definitely sufficient.

And why do you assign exactly two years to the statement of "a few years"?

Robert


Wed Oct 17, 2007 9:49 pm
Profile

Joined: Fri May 18, 2007 2:26 am
Posts: 31
New post 
The Italian original of the FSSPX's dossier on sedevacantism is reproduced wholly in the following forum: http://www.politicaonline.net/forum/sho ... hp?t=40634.

The disputed excerpt gives ample reason to John Lane, as can be seen below, even by those who don't understand much Italian.

For that end, I've underlined the disputed sentence, which is (a) quoted between quotation marks (guillemets) and (b) attributed to the "Guérardian sedevacantist" review Sodalitium. So...

Plus, I've placed two brief expressions in boldface and translated them into English, because they prove that the whole context of the quotation is that of exposing what the FSSPX author claims are caricatures of the FSSPX's position allegedly perpetrated by sedevacantists.

Quote:
Paradossalmente è proprio dagli ambienti sedevacantisti che ci viene una prima conferma -quantunque indiretta -del valore intrinseco di questa posizione [of Mgr Lefebvre and the SSPX]; infatti per argomentare contro di essa è necessario innanzitutto occultarne il carattere prudenziale e presentarne una grottesca caricatura [present a gross caricature] etc. [...] È infatti giocoforza che ogni espressione o presa di posizione del fondatore della Fraternità San Pio X venga inevitabilmente decontestualizzata [inevitably decontextualized] dal terreno prudenziale che le è proprio e reinterpretata in base alle pregiudiziali assolute e alle categorie di pensiero proprie invece al sedevacantismo (e quindi strumentalizzata secondo le necessità contingenti).Ne viene fuori un mons.Lefebvre che al contempo abbraccia tutta la gamma di posizioni possibili:dal sedevacantismo più subdolo fino all ’antisedevacantismo più esacerbato (Cfr.F.Ricossa,op.cit.,p.4 e p.25). Di conseguenza ancora oggi, in una nota specifica avente per oggetto proprio la precisazione dei termini,la posizione della Fraternità San Pio X viene letta e presentata nel modo seguente:«Giovanni Paolo II è papa se insegna qualcosa di ortodosso e non lo è se insegna l ’eresia » (Sodalitium,55,p.58 ).


I believe this proves beyond the shadow of any doubt that John Lane was right in his claim.

Now, not say that I agree 100% with him on everything else he said about the FSSPX dossier, perhaps I should point out that the FSSPX author(s) of this dossier were not all that charitable in my point of view, and I believe their lack of charity in some respects was amply demonstrated by Fr. Ricossa in the special edition of Sodalitium refuting the FSSPX dossier. Unfortunately, it can be easily found online in almost every main language (French, Italian of course, Spanish...), but not in English! :(

Another important thing that Fr. Ricossa argues is that, contrary to the FSSPX's dossier's claims, sedevacantism didn't really come later than the lefebvrist resistance, but rather it was the other way around. Which should nuance some of Mr. Lane's claims made elsewhere, though I believe his thesis remains intact as a whole, in his laudable campaign against the trend of a schismatic drift on the part of sedevacantists.

I'll try and discuss both of these arguments when I have more time, now I just wanted to mention them so that everyone sees I'm not in full agreement with everything Mr. Lane has to say, and hence it's with all impartiality that I'm forced to conclude that, with respect to the precise issue at stake in the present thread, John Lane is right, and someone else owes him an apology for sure.

In the Immaculate Heart of Mary,


Wed Oct 17, 2007 9:55 pm
Profile

Joined: Sun Jan 28, 2007 3:42 am
Posts: 740
Location: Moscow, Idaho, U.S.A.
New post Re: Reply to John
John Lane wrote:
KenGordon wrote:
However, one of the most important things you are, apparently, missing here is that at the moment, I, at least, am not answering John's ripostes concerning the Siri question, since he has not yet been able, for one reason or another, to answer my questions.


Dear Ken,

It is simply that your questions are either already answered, or not answerable.


Dear John: (Gee...my first "Dear John" letter! :D )

So you say, but isn't your word as good as mine? Now...

Quote:
Already answered: Universal acceptance of a pope is self-defining. It means that everybody


Everybody?!?!? Come, John, aren't you the one who has repeatedly insisted on precision and sources for important things we post here? I think "everybody" is entirely too vague and imprecise, not to mention inaccurate, in this context.

For example (and I am somewhat surprised I have to do this), "everybody" could mean every single living breathing person on the face of the earth, or every person on this list, or every person in your family, or every person in MY family, or....but I am sure you get the idea.

Quote:
accepts the claimant as the pope. This is a moral question – a question of human acts - and therefore we speak of “morally” universal. This means that Benedict XIII (Peter de Luna) and his two cardinals didn’t suffice to undo it, but that, for example, twenty cardinals would certainly suffice to undermine it. This acceptance must be peaceful to be considered valid.

Unanswerable: How many dissidents and of what weight does it take to eliminate moral universality?


I don't know. You tell me. However, I will say this from experience: consensus is very often incorrect, since people are so fallible, and are so easily fooled.

Quote:
In the case of a beard, we cannot say which day it comes into being.


The Beard is irrelevant to this discussion. It is a smoke-screen.

Quote:
But we can say when it isn’t there, and we can say when it is – and if we’re sufficiently fuzzy-minded, or have nothing worthwhile to do, we can debate the line-ball cases. But the truth is that men of prudence will agree on nine-tenths of cases off the bat, and they will agree on nine-tenths of the remainder after conferring a little, and the remaining one-tenth of one-tenth of cases will go into the books under headings such as “Great Western Schism” and “Savonarola” and “Suppression of the Jesuits.”


All of which happened.

Quote:
Perhaps, and I am loath to say such a thing but I feel that the circumstances make it more useful than dangerous, this present situation will end up in the same category – as a mystery the solution of which we will be given in heaven, but not before.


Which, to me, makes more sense than practically anything else you have yet said on this subject.

Quote:
KenGordon wrote:
1) From a post here on this thread, and from previously mentioned sources, amongst them, Sacerdotium, we learned that Roncalli was most likely a Mason, and, apparently, publicly acknowledged his membership (and that of Montini) in the Masonic order.

I don’t think so. But please see if you can find the evidence.


Obviously you haven't the time to read every word posted here: in point of fact, one of the quite early posts to this thread mentioned a recent book in which it is reported that Roncalli openly admitted that he, and Montini, were Masons.

Here is the quote:
kstewskis wrote:
In Simon Galloway's recent book, "No Crisis in the Church?" it noted in the Appendix several quotes where John XXIII not only encouraged maintaining membership within Masonry, but quotes saying that he himself (as well as Montini) were Masons , both installed in Paris.


That's one. Now I will have to go through my ancient Sacerdotiums and find another article or series of articles on that question...

But then again, since it is pretty obvious to me that you have your mind already made up on this issue, will any of my support be sufficient for you? :?

Quote:
KenGordon wrote:
We have also, in other threads, discussed what has been agreed on, that a non-Catholic, which I assume also means that particular type of "excommunicate" which Roncalli falls into, can not be the head of something to which he does not belong.

Roncalli, assuming he was an excommunicate, was a toleratus which means that, on that score, he remained a member of the Church.


As I suspected.

Quote:
KenGordon wrote:
3) There is our discussion of the papal bull, Cum Ex Apostolatus Officio that while, as John and some others insist, is not dogmatic, still must, at least, show to us the mind of the Church on these matters.

It does show the mind of the Church. I would say it is consistent with her constant tradition on the matter.


Again, as I suspected.

Quote:
KenGordon wrote:
Against these, John's only real argument seems to be that Roncalli's pontificate "...was accepted universally and peacefully by everyone...".

Well, that’s a killer argument, even if you don’t feel its force. But it isn’t the only one – there is also the fact that his election was apparently regular and not disputed,


So, the information we have posted on our website concerning the 1958 election, which you, supposedly, HAVE read, bears no weight with you whatever, then?

Quote:
so that it cannot be described as “doubtful”, and also there is the fact that to accuse him of public heresy we would need to say what dogma he doubted or denied, and then present the evidence. I’m in full agreement with you that he was awful, and in many ways responsible for the entire V2 revolt, but that doesn’t make him a non-pope.


Agreed on the last point. But it certainly should point us in the direction of looking for confirmation either way, rather than relying on a theological argument which, perhaps, does not accurately fit this particular set of circumstances, wouldn't you think?

Quote:
KenGordon wrote:
For example, within a legitimate conclave, when a pope is elected, only the cardinals and others present there have any idea that anyone at all has been elected, and who he is. If the election is completely above-board, the only "...universal acceptance..." which takes place, or is even possible, is by those in attendance. The rest of the Church, those outside, have no idea what has taken place. Therefore, in the larger sense, the elected has not been "...universally accepted..." at all, but only by a very few men locked away in a room. Yet we all agree that, all things being equal, he IS the pope. Is this not correct?

Yes, but you still appear to be confusing sufficiency and necessity. It is sufficient that a man be universally accepted; it is not necessary.


No. I am not. I am simply calling into question your "everybody" again, and if not directly saying so, at least trying to imply that the "....peacefully and universally accepted..." doesn't necessarily fit this particular set of circumstances.

For example, I very clearly remember Montini's election and what followed for some time afterwards. His election was most certainly "...peacefully and universally accepted..." by the vast majority of Catholics in the world at the time of his election and for several years afterwards. We had no reason not to. Neither, apparently, did the electors.

I think the first inkling the generallity of us living at the time had of his perfidy was possibly as late as 1968. Up to that time, we were simply confused. That would have been 5 years after his "election". Yet you say he was NOT "...peacefully and universally accepted...". I lived through it, and I say that, in general, he most certainly was.

Further, you say on the basis of his NOT being so, he was most likely not the pope. As far as I am concerned, you appear to be trying to have it both ways here, John. It is not clear to me what you are basing your argument of his NOT being, etc. on.

Quote:
KenGordon wrote:
Depending on HOW YOU DEFINE IT, one can most certainly say, with justification, that Anacletus II was "...peacefully universally accepted..." by a large percentage of the Catholic world at the time, and must, therefore according to what has been discussed here, have been the true pope during that time.

As already commented, significant portions of the Church did not accept Anacletus at any time, but at all times there was a lack of PEACE anyway, thus ruining the whole notion of a peaceful universal acceptance.


I said....DEPENDING ON HOW YOU DEFINE IT....

_________________
Kenneth G. Gordon CinC
Moscow, Idaho
U.S.A.


Wed Oct 17, 2007 11:12 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Sun Jan 28, 2007 3:42 am
Posts: 740
Location: Moscow, Idaho, U.S.A.
New post Reply to Zaqueu and a question to the list
Zaqueu wrote:
The Italian original of the FSSPX's dossier on sedevacantism is reproduced wholly in the following forum: http://www.politicaonline.net/forum/sho ... hp?t=40634.


Would you, and possibly other members of this list, think it worthwhile for this document to be translated into English and posted to a website somewhere?

If so, I will get our oldest son right to work on it.

Please, one and all, let me know.

_________________
Kenneth G. Gordon CinC
Moscow, Idaho
U.S.A.


Wed Oct 17, 2007 11:19 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Tue May 23, 2006 9:03 pm
Posts: 515
New post 
Ken Gordon wrote:
Everybody?!?!? Come, John, aren't you the one who has repeatedly insisted on precision and sources for important things we post here? I think "everybody" is entirely too vague and imprecise, not to mention inaccurate, in this context.

For example (and I am somewhat surprised I have to do this), "everybody" could mean every single living breathing person on the face of the earth, or every person on this list, or every person in your family, or every person in MY family, or....but I am sure you get the idea.

Are you trying to be ridiculous here, Ken?

Ken Gordon wrote:
John Lane wrote:
...accepts the claimant as the pope. This is a moral question – a question of human acts - and therefore we speak of “morally” universal. This means that Benedict XIII (Peter de Luna) and his two cardinals didn’t suffice to undo it, but that, for example, twenty cardinals would certainly suffice to undermine it. This acceptance must be peaceful to be considered valid.

Unanswerable: How many dissidents and of what weight does it take to eliminate moral universality?


I don't know. You tell me. However, I will say this from experience: consensus is very often incorrect, since people are so fallible, and are so easily fooled.

Yes, it is unanswerable. When the moral unanimity of theologians tell us some doctrine is theologically certain…then it is certain. You may not dissent from that teaching...are you going to argue that we can't know what moral unanimity is unless it is precisely defined in numbers that can be applied in all situations? That's what it sounds like to me.

This is similar to those who argue that the number of ex cathedra prouncements is only two (the Assumption and the Immaculate Conception). There is no precise form for an ex cathedra prounouncement so therefore we can't really determine what they are at all...right?

Quote:
Quote:
In the case of a beard, we cannot say which day it comes into being.



The Beard is irrelevant to this discussion. It is a smoke-screen.


A beard is not relevant…but the error of the beard is relevant. Can’t you see that Ken?

Robert


Thu Oct 18, 2007 12:05 am
Profile

Joined: Fri May 19, 2006 1:54 am
Posts: 147
New post Re: Reply to John
KenGordon wrote:
John Lane wrote:
I don’t think so. But please see if you can find the evidence.


Obviously you haven't the time to read every word posted here: in point of fact, one of the quite early posts to this thread mentioned a recent book in which it is reported that Roncalli openly admitted that he, and Montini, were Masons.

Here is the quote:
kstewskis wrote:
In Simon Galloway's recent book, "No Crisis in the Church?" it noted in the Appendix several quotes where John XXIII not only encouraged maintaining membership within Masonry, but quotes saying that he himself (as well as Montini) were Masons , both installed in Paris.


That's one. Now I will have to go through my ancient Sacerdotiums and find another article or series of articles on that question...


Maybe these are what you were referring to (quoted in an appendix to the book you reference and found on its publishing site http://www.newolivepress.co.uk )?:

“On the same day, in Paris the profane Angelo Roncalli (Pope John XXIII) and the profane Giovanni Montini (Pope Paul VI) were initiated into the august mysteries of the Brotherhood. Thus it was that much that was achieved at the Council (Vatican II) was based on Masonic principles.” (Carlos Vazquez Rangel, Grand Commander of the Supreme Council of the Masons of Mexico, Interview with the political weekly 'Processo', 1993 )

“John XXIII was initiated to Freemasonry when he was a Nuncio in Paris. That is what I was told. Besides, in his messages I caught many aspects that are in fact Masonic. I was pleased to hear him say one must place the accent upon man” (The Grand Master of the Grand Orient of Italy, Virgilio Gaito, in two interviews given to reporter Fabio Andriola of L’ Italia Settimanale January 26, 1994 (n. 3), p. 74 and Trenta Giorni the monthly of the Comunione e Liberazione quoted in John XXIII “Blessed”, Too? Open Letter to the Episcopate by Fr. Dr. Luigi Villa, p. 32)

“It seems Pope John XXIII was initiated in Paris, and participated in the works of the Workshops at Istanbul” (The Grand Master of the Grand Orient of Italy, Virgilio Gaito in an interview given to the journalist Cubeddu, of Trenta Giorni, the monthly of the Comunione e Liberazione quoted in John XXIII “Blessed”, Too? Open Letter to the Episcopate by Fr. Dr. Luigi Villa, p. 33)

“Angelo Roncalli was supposedly initiated to Freemasonry in Paris” (The Grand “Commendatore” of the Supreme Council of Mexican Freemasonry, Carlos Vasquez Rangel in Hearing n. 832, 12 October 1992, cited by C. D. L. Reporter, May 1995, n. 179, p. 14, quoted in John XXIII “Blessed”, Too? Open Letter to the Episcopate by Fr. Dr. Luigi Villa, p. 33)


Thu Oct 18, 2007 12:14 am
Profile

Joined: Fri May 19, 2006 1:54 am
Posts: 147
New post 
If all this is true and John XXIII was a true pope, can someone please help me understand how this statement of his is not heretical? Thanks:

“Also among man’s rights is that of being able to worship God in accordance with the right dictates of his own conscience, and to profess his religion both in private and in public.” (Pope John XXIII, Pacem in terris (# 14), April 11, 1963)


Thu Oct 18, 2007 12:20 am
Profile
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post Re: Reply to Mr. Lane
Miles Peior wrote:
This led you to attack me too, demanding that I post a scan of the text. Then it occurred to me: if you have the book and are so certain that my quotes misrepresent it, why haven’t YOU posted the “actual” text?

Is it possible that you don’t even have the book?.


Dear Miles,

My spare time is extremely limited. I really try and do things with it which I consider important.

I have two copies of the book. I was so sure that Pat would realise her error when I responded strongly and forced her to re-read the passage, that it would be unnecessary to post any extracts. When you arrived and supported her mis-reading, I was amazed. When you added your accusations of dishonesty, I was disedified and certainly in no mood to take time out to scan and post material which is actually unnecessary except to defend myself from such accusations. If people think I would lie about a text, then they don't know me at all and I can't assist them.

Now, you made allegations of dishonesty - you scan, correct, and post the relevant text. I suggest the three pages 22-24, beginning with the heading, "The Necessity of a Prudential Position."

_________________
In Christ our King.


Thu Oct 18, 2007 1:01 am
Profile E-mail
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post Re: Reply to John
Colin Fry wrote:
Quote:
Obviously you haven't the time to read every word posted here: in point of fact, one of the quite early posts to this thread mentioned a recent book in which it is reported that Roncalli openly admitted that he, and Montini, were Masons.


Dear Colin, and Ken,

As you can see, even Mr. Galloway doesn't say that Roncalli admitted being a Mason. Nor did Sodalitium publish such a claim, as far as I recall. The whole allegation (that Roncalli was a Mason) is correctly categorised as "hearsay." Which is not to dismiss it, but merely to ensure we keep our thoughts ordered and give things their proper weight.

Ken, with respect to the '58 election, you have grounds which would suffice to motivate a prudent man with the spare resources to investigate it further. But as far as I have observed, so far you have no evidence which would suffice to call into question the election of Roncalli. The various pieces of circumstantial evidence are intriguing, and do point towards a possibility of irregularity, in my opinion - but they don't amount to a probability or certainty of irregularity. Which leaves us with an already established public fact of a regular election and the peaceful acceptance of its result by the whole Church - two causes which would suffice to guarantee the papacy of John XXIII.

In the case of Paul VI, you seem to be forgetting that Vatican II was under way and the Church was, as a result, in crisis already. There was a war going on at the Vatican between the orthodox party and the liberals, and we know that by December 1965 total victory had been achieved - by the liberals. This lack of peace was, I agree, not in itself a refusal to recognise Montini, but it was a factor which detracted from the proper attitude that Catholics have to the pope. In other words, despite acknowledging him as pope, good men regarded him with suspicion and actively worked against his agenda. They knew whom he was before he was elected, and he immediately showed that he would continue Roncalli's liberal agenda after his election. The distrust and opposition was immediate.

_________________
In Christ our King.


Thu Oct 18, 2007 1:25 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Fri May 19, 2006 1:54 am
Posts: 147
New post 
oh I understand that, and got the same impression reading those quotes from the site I referenced in that post. I was just posting what I thought were the relevant texts that Mr. Gordon was referring to. I'm not really arguing against you in this thread because what you're saying makes sense, I'm just trying to be certain enough. Do you think you could help me out on that text from Pacem in Terris that I posted? Thanks


Thu Oct 18, 2007 1:35 am
Profile

Joined: Fri May 18, 2007 2:26 am
Posts: 31
New post 
Ken Gordon wrote:
Zaqueu wrote:
The Italian original of the FSSPX's dossier on sedevacantism is reproduced wholly in the following forum: http://www.politicaonline.net/forum/sho ... hp?t=40634.


Would you, and possibly other members of this list, think it worthwhile for this document to be translated into English and posted to a website somewhere?

If so, I will get our oldest son right to work on it.

Please, one and all, let me know.


Oh, no. This is the link to the Italian original of this English book they're all discussing about. I don't have the English translation, so I had to have recourse to the Italian text online in order to verify the issue. Since my mother tongue is also Latin-based, I have no problem reading Italian.

Now, what I think could be useful would be a translation, at least partial, of Fr Ricossa's response to the FSSPX dossier. It would surely enrich the debate!

I must alert you, though, that it is written from a Guérardian point of view, and also attacks "total sedevacantism", in the person of either Fr Paladino or Fr Grossin, I can't remember now exactly. Maybe both?

But it has some great quotations to say the least, for instance one of a canonist (Wernz-Vidal themselves?) according to whom it is a conceivable hypothesis that, during the Great Western Schism, none of the three claimants were popes at all and the See was vacant all along, (if I remember well) because of the principle "a dubious pope is no pope". Which I think serves as a great counterpart to that quotation from Jesuit Fr Edward O'Reilly on how a long interregnum is not repugnant to Theology.

A quick perusal on Google points to the following addresses to this text, besides the obvious one of the review Sodalitium:

Italian original: http://sedevacantisme.free.fr/documents ... _it_56.pdf

French translation:
http://sedevacantisme.free.fr/documents ... ium_55.pdf

Spanish translation (by Fr Morello):
http://www.sodalitiumpianum.it/index.php?pid=40

I wish I had the time to try and translate myself at least the juiciest parts!

* * *

Now that we're at it, I would like to ask John Lane if there is any thorough refutation of Fr Bernard Lucien's treatment of the Cassiciacum Thesis, translated to English by Rama Coomaraswamy. I know that your own "The Loss of Ecclesiastical Offices" refutes some of his arguments, and other arguments of his are also refuted in other texts here and there, but is there anything directly addressing his article (quoting chapter and verse, so to speak), more specifically his arguments against "total sedevacantism"?

Because it seems to remain as a kind of "canonical" exposition of sedeprivationism, in spite of the fact that poor Fr Lucien has gone Ecclesia Dei...

For example, I wonder if the Guérardian theory on the conciliar Nope's "lack of habitual intention" to promote the common good of the Church, which would be less than a schism but enough to prove their non-(formal)papacy: is it acceptable the way they present it?

And incidentally, would a Pope losing the Papacy for schism be as repugnant as his losing it for heresy, once we accept the first of the five opinions according to St Bellarmine? Because it is not hard to envision the commitment to "pastorality" falsely so-called as a kind of renounciation of authority, from which perhaps could follow an accusation of schism or at least of "lack of habitual intention" against John XXIII and his followers? I wonder.

But I'd better stop here or else create another thread later, for the number of questions that pop up as we study this issue more and more is ever increasing! And if there is need to wait for the unfolding of the current discussion, that's okay, of course.

Thank you all beforehand and please do not refrain from correcting any ill-phrased or ill-thought sentence I might write. Which is very likely to occur more than often...


Thu Oct 18, 2007 2:27 am
Profile

Joined: Mon Oct 01, 2007 2:14 am
Posts: 20
Location: AZ
New post Re: Reply to John
John Lane wrote:
As you can see, even Mr. Galloway doesn't say that Roncalli admitted being a Mason. Nor did Sodalitium publish such a claim, as far as I recall. The whole allegation (that Roncalli was a Mason) is correctly categorised as "hearsay." Which is not to dismiss it, but merely to ensure we keep our thoughts ordered and give things their proper weight.


The quotes in Galloway's book are from several Masonic sources. I reckon they could be filed under the "food for thought, but consider the source" catagory. :wink:

_________________
"Tolerance is what happens when one loses their principles." Fr. A. Saenz


Thu Oct 18, 2007 2:44 am
Profile
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post 
Colin Fry wrote:
If all this is true and John XXIII was a true pope, can someone please help me understand how this statement of his is not heretical? Thanks:

“Also among man’s rights is that of being able to worship God in accordance with the right dictates of his own conscience, and to profess his religion both in private and in public.” (Pope John XXIII, Pacem in terris (# 14), April 11, 1963)


Dear Colin,

The task is to show why it is heretical. I agree it is erroneous, at least by omission, but heresy involves a direct incompatibility with dogmatic truth.

Part of the difficulty is that the concept of a "right" is modern, and ill-defined. In the Church's understanding of these things, what can be called "rights" flow from duties. One has the right to do what one is obliged to do. But the whole idea of the "Rights of Man" is to consider "rights" in entire abstraction from any corresponding duties. Immediately one is at a loss to grasp the nature and extent of the "right" being proposed. This present case is an exact example.

Man does indeed have the right to worship God, because he has a duty to do so. That duty is defined in terms of how God wishes to be worshipped; the corresponding right is thus defined as the right to worship God truly, thus excluding any notion that man might have a right to worship God according to a false religion. But if you propose a thing you call a "right" and deliberately omit any discussion of the duty to which it corresponds, you leave the reader without any anchor by which to stabilise the meaning of the proposition. In a word, you have guaranteed ambiguity.

So, it is the very vagueness of the text from Pacem in terris which leaves it open to an orthodox interpretation, but also which makes it so dangerous and so likely to lead to error and heresy - which is what it did.

I don't have a problem accusing somebody of heresy based upon their use of deliberate ambiguity, but I have a problem saying that a text which is objectively ambiguous is heretical. To understand how the Church has reacted to such ambiguity and careful omission of consecrated theological terms, one may profitably review the Synod of Pistoia and its condemnation by the Church.

_________________
In Christ our King.


Thu Oct 18, 2007 3:25 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Sun Jan 28, 2007 3:42 am
Posts: 740
Location: Moscow, Idaho, U.S.A.
New post Another reply to Robert.
Robert Bastaja wrote:
Ken Gordon wrote:
Everybody?!?!? Come, John, aren't you the one who has repeatedly insisted on precision and sources for important things we post here? I think "everybody" is entirely too vague and imprecise, not to mention inaccurate, in this context.


Are you trying to be ridiculous here, Ken?


I have cut out the part you think is ridiculous, Robert. Does it make more sense to you now?

Quote:
Ken Gordon wrote:
John Lane wrote:
...accepts the claimant as the pope. This is a moral question – a question of human acts - and therefore we speak of “morally” universal. This means that Benedict XIII (Peter de Luna) and his two cardinals didn’t suffice to undo it, but that, for example, twenty cardinals would certainly suffice to undermine it. This acceptance must be peaceful to be considered valid.

Unanswerable: How many dissidents and of what weight does it take to eliminate moral universality?


I don't know. You tell me. However, I will say this from experience: consensus is very often incorrect, since people are so fallible, and are so easily fooled.

Yes, it is unanswerable. When the moral unanimity of theologians


We, apparently, are not talking about the "moral unanimty of theologians", Robert. We are talking about "...everybody...", whoever THAT is...

Quote:
tell us some doctrine is theologically certain…then it is certain. You may not dissent from that teaching...are you going to argue that we can't know what moral unanimity is unless it is precisely defined in numbers that can be applied in all situations? That's what it sounds like to me.


If that last is so, then, again, you are not understanding what I am trying to get at here, Robert.

Quote:
This is similar to those who argue that the number of ex cathedra prouncements is only two (the Assumption and the Immaculate Conception). There is no precise form for an ex cathedra prounouncement so therefore we can't really determine what they are at all...right?


Wrong. That is NOT what I am driving at, Robert. Boy! I must be really terrible at trying to get my point across!!!!!

Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
In the case of a beard, we cannot say which day it comes into being.


The Beard is irrelevant to this discussion. It is a smoke-screen.


A beard is not relevant…but the error of the beard is relevant. Can’t you see that Ken?


Yes, Robert dear, I most certainly can see that. Can you see that I am not arguing that point? Obviously not.

Have you yet read the stuff we have posted on our web site? Obviously not.

_________________
Kenneth G. Gordon CinC
Moscow, Idaho
U.S.A.


Thu Oct 18, 2007 3:41 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Sun Jan 28, 2007 3:42 am
Posts: 740
Location: Moscow, Idaho, U.S.A.
New post Reply to Zaqueu
Zaqueu wrote:
Ken Gordon wrote:
Zaqueu wrote:
The Italian original of the FSSPX's dossier on sedevacantism is reproduced wholly in the following forum: http://www.politicaonline.net/forum/sho ... hp?t=40634.


Would you, and possibly other members of this list, think it worthwhile for this document to be translated into English and posted to a website somewhere?

If so, I will get our oldest son right to work on it.

Please, one and all, let me know.


Oh, no. This is the link to the Italian original of this English book they're all discussing about. I don't have the English translation, so I had to have recourse to the Italian text online in order to verify the issue. Since my mother tongue is also Latin-based, I have no problem reading Italian.


Boy! I am having the greatest difficulty getting my points across lately!

First of all, I thought you said in one of your recent posts that the original Italian document was NOT available in English, that there WAS NO English translation of it available anywhere.

If that is so, then I had proposed putting my son to work to translate it into English, if you all here thought it might be valuable.

And I am fully aware that the ideas in it may not be compatible with our ways of thinking here, but that it probably contained some useful material.

_________________
Kenneth G. Gordon CinC
Moscow, Idaho
U.S.A.


Thu Oct 18, 2007 3:47 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Sun Jan 28, 2007 3:42 am
Posts: 740
Location: Moscow, Idaho, U.S.A.
New post Re: Reply to John
Colin Fry wrote:
Maybe these are what you were referring to (quoted in an appendix to the book you reference and found on its publishing site http://www.newolivepress.co.uk )?:


I don't know yet. I have the book coming and will read it as soon as I can. I was quoting the other fellow, zsweskis (?). I took him at his word. Now it appears that Roncalli DID NOT say he was a Mason...or perhaps I misunderstood who the "he" was.

In any case, I will read the book and attempt to verify what was quoted.

Then, of course, there is the book by Paul Williams, The Vatican Exposed and its report of U.S. State Department and FBI files on the 1958 election to consider...

_________________
Kenneth G. Gordon CinC
Moscow, Idaho
U.S.A.


Thu Oct 18, 2007 3:54 am
Profile E-mail
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post 
Zaqueu wrote:
I must alert you, though, that it is written from a Guérardian point of view, and also attacks "total sedevacantism", in the person of either Fr Paladino or Fr Grossin, I can't remember now exactly. Maybe both?


Dear Zaqueu,

It's interesting that in the English-speaking world the Guerardian hostility to what they call "total sedevacantism" is mostly unknown, probably because there are hardly any English-speaking Guerardians, and partly because the two main ones happen to be Bishop Sanborn and Bishop McKenna - the former likes to play down the differences (perhaps he doesn't think the differences are really substantial?), and the latter is too humble to criticise anybody at all. :)


Zaqueu wrote:
But it has some great quotations to say the least, for instance one of a canonist (Wernz-Vidal themselves?) according to whom it is a conceivable hypothesis that, during the Great Western Schism, none of the three claimants were popes at all and the See was vacant all along, (if I remember well) because of the principle "a dubious pope is no pope". Which I think serves as a great counterpart to that quotation from Jesuit Fr Edward O'Reilly on how a long interregnum is not repugnant to Theology.

That would be a very useful quote. Unfortunately The Catholic Encyclopedia is the main source for many English-speaking laymen's information concerning historical and even theological issues, and too many people assume that it presents a consensus or a certainty, when often it presents merely one writer's prejudiced position on any given point.


Zaqueu wrote:
Now that we're at it, I would like to ask John Lane if there is any thorough refutation of Fr Bernard Lucien's treatment of the Cassiciacum Thesis, translated to English by Rama Coomaraswamy. I know that your own "The Loss of Ecclesiastical Offices" refutes some of his arguments, and other arguments of his are also refuted in other texts here and there, but is there anything directly addressing his article (quoting chapter and verse, so to speak), more specifically his arguments against "total sedevacantism"?

Not that I am aware of.



Zaqueu wrote:
For example, I wonder if the Guérardian theory on the conciliar Nope's "lack of habitual intention" to promote the common good of the Church, which would be less than a schism but enough to prove their non-(formal)papacy: is it acceptable the way they present it?

Actually, the Italian SSPX book we are discussing here has some very acute comments on that point, and I really don't know how Fr. Ricossa or any Guerardian could answer them. If you can't identify heresy, for which task you can bring to bear all of the richness of history and the intellectual framework of canon law and jurisprudence, then I don't know how you can identify a lack of good intention, a notion invented out of whole cloth by Guerard des Lauriers for the express purpose of holding a sedevacantist-like position whilst defending the continuity of the Church (which he believed was destroyed by "total sedevacantism").

Incidentally, Fr. Cekada's recent dismissal of the term "crime" in relation to "papal heresy" seems to me to strip us of the same tools that Guerardianism does, leaving us with the unenviable task of proving "sin" - a thing which is generally forbidden and for which we have no developed framework. For example, we can discuss how the pertinacity required for the crime of heresy is known in the external forum and bring in quotes from authorities to guide us. But we can't do the same thing with respect to sin. The discussion of sin as sin is all about the internal forum.



Zaqueu wrote:
And incidentally, would a Pope losing the Papacy for schism be as repugnant as his losing it for heresy, once we accept the first of the five opinions according to St Bellarmine? Because it is not hard to envision the commitment to "pastorality" falsely so-called as a kind of renounciation of authority, from which perhaps could follow an accusation of schism or at least of "lack of habitual intention" against John XXIII and his followers? I wonder.


Yes, so do I. I am not dogmatically opposed to the idea of a pope losing his office by heresy or schism – I am merely not going to adopt such a minority opinion, against men of the status of Bellarmine, unless compelled to do so by the facts, and at present I am not convinced that we need to consider that Paul VI did lose a validly obtained papacy. I think Da Silveira’s penetrating questions about the nature of peaceful acceptance suffice to undermine the certitude about Montini’s claim from the very beginning.

But I would sooner consider that popes can lose the Faith than believe that Montini was pope in, say, 1966, because it seems to me that Montini as pope promulgating Vatican II destroys most of our notions about the magisterium, a vastly more significant problem altogether.

_________________
In Christ our King.


Thu Oct 18, 2007 4:14 am
Profile E-mail
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post Re: Reply to Zaqueu
KenGordon wrote:
First of all, I thought you said in one of your recent posts that the original Italian document was NOT available in English, that there WAS NO English translation of it available anywhere.


Dear Ken,

It's available in print in English, but not online.

_________________
In Christ our King.


Thu Oct 18, 2007 4:16 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Sun Jan 28, 2007 3:42 am
Posts: 740
Location: Moscow, Idaho, U.S.A.
New post Re: Reply to John
John Lane wrote:
As you can see, even Mr. Galloway doesn't say that Roncalli admitted being a Mason. Nor did Sodalitium publish such a claim, as far as I recall.


John: First of all, I was quoting one of our list members. I have not yet read the book, but certainly will do so now. Secondly, as far as Sodalitium is concerned, it was a LONG time ago: quite some time before I had ever heard of you, and may even have been before you became this involved in Traditionalism. I will have to go dig them out of my files, re-read them, and post what I find here.

Quote:
The whole allegation (that Roncalli was a Mason) is correctly categorised as "hearsay." Which is not to dismiss it, but merely to ensure we keep our thoughts ordered and give things their proper weight.


Perhaps. I think it is very strong circumstantial evidence, because it comes from multiple sources, not all of them Masonic, and it is consistent.

Quote:
Ken, with respect to the '58 election, you have grounds which would suffice to motivate a prudent man with the spare resources to investigate it further. But as far as I have observed, so far you have no evidence which would suffice to call into question the election of Roncalli.


Well, first of all, John, if you will remember, I have stated several times that finding any direct evidence is, in my opinion, impossible. When you say I/we have "...no evidence..." I must admit that I am mystified by what, exactly, you mean by that flat, un-explained, statement. What must you have: a movie from some sort of hidden camera of the goings on in the Conclave, coupled with notarized affidavits of those who were there? A certified recording? What do you want, what do you expect, for evidence? What evidence would most certainly satisfy you? I cannot even imagine what that might be.

All of what we have (not necessarily what we have presented in public) is completely consistent and points to only one possible conclusion.

Unfortunately, much of the evidence we have involves the lives of other people. We are certain that at least two people involved in our investigation of the 1958 conclave were murdered. One of those was a Monsignor whose own sister, a doctor, assured one of our investigators that he had been poisoned some short time after he was visited by Cardinal Villot (sp?). Another was purposely run down by a car. One of our investigators has become so frightened by the threats and intimidation he has undergone that he has completely shelved his part of the entire investigation; an investigation on which he had spent the better part of 20 years of his and his family's lives.

Quote:
The various pieces of circumstantial evidence are intriguing, and do point towards a possibility of irregularity, in my opinion - but they don't amount to a probability or certainty of irregularity.


And I have never, ever, said they did.

Quote:
Which leaves us with an already established public fact of a regular election and the peaceful acceptance of its result by the whole Church - two causes which would suffice to guarantee the papacy of John XXIII.


OK.

Quote:
In the case of Paul VI, you seem to be forgetting that Vatican II was under way and the Church was, as a result, in crisis already. There was a war going on at the Vatican between the orthodox party and the liberals,


...which most of us out there in the trenches knew very little, if anything, about.

Quote:
and we know that by December 1965 total victory had been achieved - by the liberals.


We know that now, in hindsight, but, I assure you, we did NOT know it then!

Quote:
This lack of peace was, I agree, not in itself a refusal to recognise Montini, but it was a factor which detracted from the proper attitude that Catholics have to the pope. In other words, despite acknowledging him as pope, good men regarded him with suspicion and actively worked against his agenda. They knew whom he was before he was elected, and he immediately showed that he would continue Roncalli's liberal agenda after his election. The distrust and opposition was immediate.


It was NOT immediate! Again, I insist, you can say this...in hindsight, but you were not there. I was. It was far from clear what was happening at the time.

All right: since you insist on being so stubborn and uncooperative, and will not help our investigation in any way, but will only use your considerable influence and abilities to put as many obstacles in the way as possible, I promise you that from now on, for as long as I choose to be a part of this list, I will never, ever say or imply anything further on the Siri question, and if anyone else brings it up I promise you I will be totally silent.

_________________
Kenneth G. Gordon CinC
Moscow, Idaho
U.S.A.


Thu Oct 18, 2007 4:30 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Mon Oct 01, 2007 2:14 am
Posts: 20
Location: AZ
New post Re: Reply to John
Colin Fry wrote:
Maybe these are what you were referring to (quoted in an appendix to the book you reference and found on its publishing site http://www.newolivepress.co.uk )?:


KenGordon wrote:
I don't know yet. I have the book coming and will read it as soon as I can. I was quoting the other fellow, zsweskis (?). I took him at his word. Now it appears that Roncalli DID NOT say he was a Mason...or perhaps I misunderstood who the "he" was.
In any case, I will read the book and attempt to verify what was quoted.


That would be Miss kstewskis Image (how ya doin', we haven't formally "met")

I was impressed by the book. There isn't much commentary, just an objective comparison listing of pre and post concillar teachings and quotes by Popes and Church Doctines/councils. The quotes I mentioned earlier in the thread (that are in the appendix at the back of the book) are under the title, "Important Quotes from Freemasons About the Catholic Church." There is another appendix on Jewish Freemasonry and the subversion of the Catholic Church and State, in addition to a "list" of alleged Freemasons in the Catholic Hierarchy as well (reprinted from the Bulletin de L'Occident Chre'tien, Number 12, July 1976).

It will make for good reading, and for me at least, good reference material.

_________________
"Tolerance is what happens when one loses their principles." Fr. A. Saenz


Thu Oct 18, 2007 4:41 am
Profile

Joined: Sun Jan 28, 2007 3:42 am
Posts: 740
Location: Moscow, Idaho, U.S.A.
New post Re: Reply to John
kstewskis wrote:
KenGordon wrote:
Colin Fry wrote:
Maybe these are what you were referring to (quoted in an appendix to the book you reference and found on its publishing site http://www.newolivepress.co.uk )?:


KenGordon wrote:
I don't know yet. I have the book coming and will read it as soon as I can. I was quoting the other fellow, zsweskis (?). I took him at his word. Now it appears that Roncalli DID NOT say he was a Mason...or perhaps I misunderstood who the "he" was. In any case, I will read the book and attempt to verify what was quoted.


That would be Miss kstewskis Image (how ya doin', we haven't formally "met")


I'm doing fine, Ma'am, and I hope you are also. It is mighty good to hear from you. :D

Quote:
I was impressed by the book. There isn't much commentary, just an objective comparison listing of pre and post concillar teachings and quotes by Popes and Church Doctines/councils. The quotes I mentioned earlier in the thread (that are in the appendix at the back of the book) are under the title, "Important Quotes from Freemasons About the Catholic Church." There is another appendix on Jewish Freemasonry and the subversion of the Catholic Church and State, in addition to a "list" of alleged Freemasons in the Catholic Hierarchy as well (reprinted from the Bulletin de L'Occident Chre'tien, Number 12, July 1976).


Sounds mighty interesting. We have read that last bulletin you mentioned. My Wife reads French well enough. We found it extremely interesting.

Quote:
It will make for good reading, and for me at least, good reference material.


I should like to have it. I have ordered it via Interlibrary Loan here at the University of Idaho. Thank you very much for the directions to the book. I really appreciate it.

God Bless you and yours, Young Lady. :D

_________________
Kenneth G. Gordon CinC
Moscow, Idaho
U.S.A.


Thu Oct 18, 2007 5:03 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Sat May 27, 2006 10:50 pm
Posts: 99
Location: Rock Island, Illinois, USA
New post 
Teresa Ginardi wrote
Quote:
Well, not exactly as to the "universal acceptance" of Paul VI's election. Chris, you've indicated that there were cracks in the masonry of the Church, and it was evident that the attempt to dismantle the Church had begun. The topic is not about cracks in masonry or dismantling: the topic is the supposed lack of "universal acceptance, adherence, peace, (whatever else gets added) to Paul VI's election as pope. Chris, I take it you were around during 1963 and can give some evidence regarding the papal election and its non-peaceful acceptance. If you can, please, demonstrate that lack of peace towards Paul VI's election in late June of 1963.


and

Quote:
Please present any evidence about the election of Paul VI as pope that demonstrates there was not "universal acceptance".


Teresa,

Well, I was five years old then, so I don’t remember much. When I think of it, I can’t recall any of it as it happened!

My point simply was to acknowledge that Mr. Bastaja had touched on a perspective which was worthy of consideration regarding the notion of ‘adherence’, with the hope that it might ease our understanding of the concepts being discussed. Specifically, the disposition (or climate) of the Catholic world at the time, and the degree to which this disposition might affect ‘adherence’ or ‘peace’. It was not my intent to apply this to the concept of ‘acceptance.’

You have asked for specific examples. I readily admit that I have none from first-hand, contemporary experience. Perhaps I was mistaken in assuming that the climate at the time of Paul VI’s election was commonly held by those on this list to be a time of polarization between progressive and conservative forces within the Council, and that the election of Paul VI was an indication that there was no turning back in the efforts to bring the Church to terms with the World. (Although I cannot offer any proof in support, can we at least agree that it isn't a stretch to state that Paul VI was clearly aligned with the progressives?) To my mind, however, that satisfactorily illustrates the concept of ‘adherence’, and how it might be applied (or does apply) to the pontificate of Paul VI from the moment of his election. “Peace’ had already been breeched, and his election only exacerbated the conflict.

How else can we explain the proliferation of ‘prayer’ cards quoting Gandhi and Teilhard de Chardin produced during this time? Or the perceptible degradation of Church art and architecture? Or the Ottumwa, Iowa, Sisters of Humility (and the Dubuque, Iowa, Sisters of Charity of the BVM, and more orders than we'd like to recall) addressing problems with ‘patriarchy’ in their chapter meeting?

Or that Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, Bishop Castro de Meyer, and several other bishops recognized that the Council agenda had been hijacked, and that there was a need to form a conservative alliance in response?

The climate was anything but ‘peaceful’. And, as for 'adherence' it is difficult to adhere to ‘cracked masonry’, or to become attached to a compromised foundation. Like an adhesive, the surface must be 'clean'. (Sorry I can't do better with my metaphors!)

I am sorry if this doesn’t answer your question. I was reluctant to delve into the discussion, if only because I hadn’t been following it all that closely. Mr. Bastaja’s comment struck me as thought-provoking.

Chris Browne


Thu Oct 18, 2007 10:00 am
Profile

Joined: Sat May 27, 2006 10:50 pm
Posts: 99
Location: Rock Island, Illinois, USA
New post 
Teresa,

At the risk of making matters worse, if I were to summarize my thoughts regarding adherence (not acceptance) and Paul VI:

The Pope, as a Shepherd, should be a unifier. To my mind, at least, Paul VI did not (and probably, could not) unify his flock. If anything, he made it worse.

Oh, how I long for the day when discussions such as these are purely academic, with no immediate implications (like we have now.)

Chris


Thu Oct 18, 2007 10:23 am
Profile

Joined: Fri May 18, 2007 2:26 am
Posts: 31
New post Zapelena's quote
Dear Mr. Lane,

Here is the quotation. Unfortunately, it's only indirect (my memory sort of betrayed me), but still, Fr. Ricossa seems to be very trustworthy in these matters. And he quotes the source to the direct quote, which is a note appended by Sodalitium only to the Italian translation of Bishop Sanborn's "The Material Papacy". I haven't managed to find that yet, but as soon as I do, I'll try to post it.

“Some have thought that every one of the three popes [during the Great Western Schism] were objectivelly dubious popes, and therefore no popes: in this case, Christendom would have been neither with three popes (which is impossible) nor with a pope and two antipopes, but rather with a very long period of vacant See (73). While defending the legitimacy of the ‘Roman’ obedience, Jesuit theologian Zapelena does not consider impossible the hypothesis according to which, all three claimants to the Pontificate being dubious popes, they would all have remained null popes [no popes], purely putative ones. In this case, there would have been absent in act in the Church the jurisdiction and magisterium... and including legitimate electors, from a purely legal point of view (every Cardinal and residential Bishop were equally dubious!); exactly that which for the SSPX (and Fr Cantoni in his day) would be an impossible hypothesis; Zapelena explains how, in such a hypothesis, Christ would have supplied jurisidiction as much as was necessary (to the election) in favour of those who had at least a “colored (apparent) title” to participate in that atypical Conclave (T. ZAPELENA S.J., De Ecclesia Christi, pars altera apologetico-dogmatica, Roma, Università Gregoriana, 1955, p. 115. Quoted in Sanborn, Il papato materiale, pp. 61-63, note 7 [by Sodalitium]), that would really elect Martin V. The indefectibility and visibility of the Church would not have been compromised even in such an eventuality, because even then it would be possible to proceed with a valid election of the Pope”
(Father RICOSSA, in: Sodalitium, Anno XIX n. 2 - Settembre 2003 – number 56, p. 25, note 74 incorporated to the text).

[Note 73:
“The Church has the right to elect the Pope, and therefore the right to certain knowledge as to who is elected. As long as any doubt remains and the tacit consent of the universal Church has not yet remedied the possible flaws in the election, there is no Pope: papa dubius, papa nullus. As a matter of fact, remarks John of St. Thomas, insofar as a peaceful and certain election is not apparent, the election is regarded as still going on. And since the Church has full control, not over a Pope certainly elected but over the election itself, she can take all measures needed to bring it to a conclusion. The Church can therefore judge a Pope to be doubtful. Thus, says John of St. Thomas, the Church judged three popes to be doubtful, of whom two were deposed and the third resigned (II-II, qu. 1-7, a. 3, nn. 10-11; t. VII, p. 254).” (Cardinal Charles Journet, L’Eglise du Verbe incarné, Ed. Saint Augustin, Saint-Just-la-Pendue, 1998, excursus VIII: L’élection du pape, p. 978).]


Thu Oct 18, 2007 11:13 am
Profile

Joined: Tue Nov 28, 2006 3:57 am
Posts: 391
Location: Indiana, USA
New post 
Please forgive this interjection from someone who is obviously a novice in these issues.

However, firstly, it seems to me that the issue of "universal acceptance" of the election of a pope can only be one, very minor, unimportant, and merely circumstantial piece of evidence as to whom may be a true pope. If it were a more important concern it would render Pope Paul IV's Cum Ex Apostolatus Officio rather meainingless, I would think.

Secondly, it would seem that the Siri Thesis is, at best, an interesting footnote in history. It seems that Cardinal Siri, even if he was elected, declined the office for he (did he not?) recognized someone else as pope later. If, for the sake of argument, he really was pope, he was a very poor one at that and refused to rule.

Even though this discussion has not come to a resolution and people's minds were not, apparently, changed, my hope is that such discussions continue as all of the parties who have contributed add their own perspectives that help us who are less informed. In the end, it will not be this group who will solve the puzzle but it will be a future pope who restores and rebuilds the Church of our fathers, crushes the scourge of Modernism, and undertakes a complete theological investigation on the matter. How this will come about, I don't know. The only other alternative is that we will all know the complete Truth at the Last Judgment.


Thu Oct 18, 2007 12:17 pm
Profile
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post 
TKGS wrote:
However, firstly, it seems to me that the issue of "universal acceptance" of the election of a pope can only be one, very minor, unimportant, and merely circumstantial piece of evidence as to whom may be a true pope.


Dear TKGS,

The doctrine concerning universal acceptance has the same status as, for example, the doctrine that the Church is infallible in her universal disciplinary provisions (i.e. in her laws). Both truths are commonly taught by the theologians, and both are therefore certain and obligatory.

The doctrine that a pope who became a public heretic would lose his office ipso facto is the more common opinion of theologians, but by no means what is called "the common opinion". That is, it differs from the above-mentioned examples by the fact that quite a few weighty authors disagree with it. It is therefore a doctrine which any Catholic is free to disagree with, if for example the arguments of Cajetan or John of St. Thomas appeared more cogent to him.

Another example of a "more common opinion" (indeed, all but universal after Bellarmine's time) is the doctrine that a pope cannot lose the faith. Fr. Cekada, as we have seen, rejects this opinion.

It is indeed ironic that Fr. Ricossa, for example, openly denies the doctrine concerning universal acceptance (he too misunderstands Cum ex apostolatus, as though Billot had never seen it!), whilst other sedevacantists attack the SSPX for (apparently) rejecting the doctrine concerning the infallibility of the Church in her universal laws. If we can jettison the common doctrines of the schools when it suits our particular theory, I don't see how we have any right to abuse others for doing so.

_________________
In Christ our King.


Thu Oct 18, 2007 3:40 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Thu May 18, 2006 4:46 pm
Posts: 269
New post 
Chris Browne wrote:
to the concept of ‘acceptance.’

You have asked for specific examples. I readily admit that I have none from first-hand, contemporary experience. Perhaps I was mistaken in assuming that the climate at the time of Paul VI’s election was commonly held by those on this list to be a time of polarization between progressive and conservative forces within the Council, and that the election of Paul VI was an indication that there was no turning back in the efforts to bring the Church to terms with the World. (Although I cannot offer any proof in support, can we at least agree that it isn't a stretch to state that Paul VI was clearly aligned with the progressives?) To my mind, however, that satisfactorily illustrates the concept of ‘adherence’, and how it might be applied (or does apply) to the pontificate of Paul VI from the moment of his election. “Peace’ had already been breeched, and his election only exacerbated the conflict.



Chris,

I have to agree with Ken in this debate. He and I are of a similar age, and I concur with his assessment of that papal election. Everything about the "non-peace", etc. that you are referring to was revealed way after the fact. Recall this is 1963, no internet, no lay theologians, no instant messenging ... 1963. One session of the Council had taken place. Few knew in the general Catholic world about an agenda and the scrapping of the documents prepared for the Council. All this "non-peace" came some years later; perhaps, in 1st quarter 1966, at earliest. There was no Vatican website to visit, and no little internet forums spreading the word about "cracks in the masonry".

Ken has stated accurately that unrest was not visible in the normal Catholic milieu. Additionally, councils have notoriously been times of partisanship and unrest. Look at Vatican I when members of the Council went home; so, to purposely avoid voting on the proposed measures. Are we to take it that Pope Pius IX had "unpeace" during his reign that left him suspect of his legitimacy to office. Please understand what Billot's quote states: "at the moment" of universal acceptance. Every last man in the hierarchy gave their willing, and peaceful assent to Paul VI. There was no feeling of "unease" about his election in the external forum.

Everything you've stated is knowledge gained subsequent to the Council by some years. Please don't impose an historical knowledge gained later upon 1963. Every last Catholic, starting with the Cardinal Electors, to the hierarchy, and the laity gave "universal acceptance", to use Cardinal Billot's words: "at the moment" to Paul VI.

If you can show any evidence of notable, knowledgeable hierarchy, laity, press releases, pamphlets, etc. that showed any dissent from Paul VI legitimacy "at the moment" of his election; please do. I ask again, please show any evidence from 1963 that in anyway casts doubt upon Paul VI's election to the papacy: demonstrate from that election the lack of "univeral acceptance", "lack of adherence or "lack of peace" to Paul VI.

Also, Cardinal Billot didn't say "several years" to demonstrate "non-acceptance". It was "from the moment". Where did the "several years" come in? What theologian said a pope is a "virtual pope" for several years ... until what, until whom, ... what's this several years?

Please, again, "from the moment" of Paul VI's election, give evidence of Catholic "non-acceptance", or "non-adherence" to this election.

_________________
In the Holy Family,
Teresa


Thu Oct 18, 2007 3:44 pm
Profile

Joined: Sat May 27, 2006 10:50 pm
Posts: 99
Location: Rock Island, Illinois, USA
New post 
Teresa,

I guess if you are asking me to come up with some proof that someone said upon Paul VI's election, "This is not a valid Pope", then I cannot come up with any proof. But, there is certainly proof that there was some 'dis-ease' with what was happening in the Church at the time, and the beginnings of a breakdown in 'adherence'. It might have been a low-grade fever, but it was there, nevertheless.

Since I can't provide clear-cut, unequivocable proof, then I respectfully withdraw the suggestion that it be worthy of consideration.

Chris


Thu Oct 18, 2007 4:02 pm
Profile
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post 
Teresa Ginardi wrote:
Please understand what Billot's quote states: "at the moment" of universal acceptance. Every last man in the hierarchy gave their willing, and peaceful assent to Paul VI. There was no feeling of "unease" about his election in the external forum.

"At the moment" seems to you to imply that a few minutes after the public announcement of a new election, a dogmatic fact exists and nobody can question it. But that isn't right. The Great Western Schism would not be a mystery if your interpretation were correct - Urban was certainly accepted initially by all, but this acceptance was obviously not "peaceful" or perhaps was in some sense superficial. It took some time for the various cardinals who rejected him to manifest their non-submission. Nor can you merely argue that those cardinals were wrong. They may have been wrong, but that's irrelevant. The point is that if Billot thought that the magic moment had passed and Urban was dogmatically pope, he'd not have considered the Great Western Schism to be a mystery at all, and neither would any other author. Yet it remains an open question.

The point is merely that when you have a genuine peaceful and universal acceptance of a pope, you have at that very moment a dogmatic fact. But the judgement that the prudent observer needs to form, about the presence or absence of said universal peaceful acceptance, may and probably always will, take some time. It would certainly take more than a few weeks, because in the nature of things it would take more than a few weeks even to gather essential facts.

How do men show their submission to the pope? Surely their actions are the most clear signs, but actions take time to occur. I would be surprised if any theologian would consider that in the first few weeks or even months of a new papacy the status of that papacy was a dogmatic fact. Actually, I'd be stunned by such a doctrine. It would demonstrate a complete abstraction from the real world, and an inability to form judgements concerning moral matters.

Teresa Ginardi wrote:
Also, Cardinal Billot didn't say "several years" to demonstrate "non-acceptance". It was "from the moment". Where did the "several years" come in? What theologian said a pope is a "virtual pope" for several years ... until what, until whom, ... what's this several years?

The "several years" was an example of a case which all would consider solid, contrasted with "several weeks" which nobody would think sufficed. At no point has it been suggested that a universal peaceful acceptance of less than several years would be insufficient. Perhaps you could now re-think the point.

_________________
In Christ our King.


Thu Oct 18, 2007 4:14 pm
Profile E-mail
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post 
Teresa Ginardi wrote:
What theologian said a pope is a "virtual pope" for several years ...


Nobody has said anything so ridiculous. Nobody has said that until universal acceptance is clear, the claimant is not pope. The difference is merely one of grades of certainty. In the beginning one is merely certain based upon one's own judgement; afterwards, one may have the assurance provided by the infallibility of the Church.

I repeat, since it seems to be lost in translation, universal acceptance is a guarantee of validity - it is not necessary, but merely sufficient.

_________________
In Christ our King.


Thu Oct 18, 2007 4:20 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Thu May 18, 2006 4:46 pm
Posts: 269
New post 
John Lane wrote:
Teresa Ginardi wrote:
What theologian said a pope is a "virtual pope" for several years ...


Nobody has said anything so ridiculous. Nobody has said that until universal acceptance is clear, the claimant is not pope. The difference is merely one of grades of certainty. In the beginning one is merely certain based upon one's own judgement; afterwards, one may have the assurance provided by the infallibility of the Church.

I repeat, since it seems to be lost in translation, universal acceptance is a guarantee of validity - it is not necessary, but merely sufficient.


John,

I've already pointed out the fact of "sufficiency" not "necessity" in a prior post. So, I'm well aware of that fact. I suspect that since the Second Session of Vatican Council II took place approximately 4 months subsequent to Paul VI's election, the hierarchy considered, by that time, that Paul VI was indeed pope. The continuation of that Council and their presence and active participation would certainly imply in the external forum, that they "adhered" to Paul VI as valid pope: so, did the rest of the Church. The laity, at that time, would have been horrified to contemplate something so abhorrent to their Catholic sensus to consider someone accepted by their hierarchy as not the pope. Again, I repeat, this is 1963. Catholics implicitly trusted their hierarchy and Church. Don't take some book, document, pamphlet that was published late '70's, early '80's, and try to place that historical knowledge on 1963. The unrest came somewhat later and cannot be applied to 1963.

Silveira considered this fact of "universal acceptance" rather carefully. He could not find a way around the fact that within a reasonable amount of time, (at the moment), Paul VI was "universally accepted". I've asked many times to point out evidentiary documentation from any Catholic or secular source from June, 1963 until December, 1965, the fact that Paul VI was not pope. That timeframe should be sufficient to find a "non-acceptance" to Paul VI.

Absent the contrary evidence to "universal acceptance", John, was Paul VI pope in 1963? In a prior thread, I believe you indicated that he was pope until 1965 (signing of VII documents). Is this your position?

_________________
In the Holy Family,
Teresa


Thu Oct 18, 2007 5:35 pm
Profile

Joined: Tue May 23, 2006 9:03 pm
Posts: 515
New post 
Teresa Ginardi wrote:
Silveira considered this fact of "universal acceptance" rather carefully. He could not find a way around the fact that within a reasonable amount of time, (at the moment), Paul VI was "universally accepted". I've asked many times to point out evidentiary documentation from any Catholic or secular source from June, 1963 until December, 1965, the fact that Paul VI was not pope. That timeframe should be sufficient to find a "non-acceptance" to Paul VI.


Teresa,

You seem to be making some assumptions here: (1) A reasonable amount is exactly two years. (2) non-acceptance or non-adherence is determined by someone openly calling the claimant an antipope.

It also appears that both of these points were brought up before and just ignored. I think you want this "universal peaceful acceptance/adherence" to be strictly defined...but it is not.

Also, the idea of universal peaceful acceptance is often (I'm not saying exclusively, mind you) quoted by those who wish to provide "the silver bullet" to the "pope" discussion. There just ain't no "silver bullet" on either side of the question, IMHO.

Robert


Thu Oct 18, 2007 6:51 pm
Profile

Joined: Sun Jan 28, 2007 3:42 am
Posts: 740
Location: Moscow, Idaho, U.S.A.
New post Notice to Robert
Robert Bastaja wrote:
Also, the idea of universal peaceful acceptance is often (I'm not saying exclusively, mind you) quoted by those who wish to provide "the silver bullet" to the "pope" discussion.


...as you have been doing concerning Roncalli...

Yet you then say:
Robert Bastaja wrote:
There just ain't no "silver bullet" on either side of the question, IMHO.


I rest my case.

_________________
Kenneth G. Gordon CinC
Moscow, Idaho
U.S.A.


Thu Oct 18, 2007 7:36 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Tue May 23, 2006 9:03 pm
Posts: 515
New post Re: Notice to Robert
KenGordon wrote:
Robert Bastaja wrote:
Also, the idea of universal peaceful acceptance is often (I'm not saying exclusively, mind you) quoted by those who wish to provide "the silver bullet" to the "pope" discussion.


...as you have been doing concerning Roncalli...

Yet you then say:
Robert Bastaja wrote:
There just ain't no "silver bullet" on either side of the question, IMHO.


I rest my case.


Ken,

We were discussing Paul VI and later claimants I believe. I never said it couldn't be a "silver bullet"; only that it wasn't in these cases.

Robert


Thu Oct 18, 2007 7:59 pm
Profile

Joined: Mon Sep 04, 2006 10:21 pm
Posts: 10
New post Posting requested transcription (pointlessly)
Taken from Sedevacantism: A False Solution to a Real Problem. (Angelus Press, available on Amazon.com for $8 new, $5 used.) Pages 22-24:


The Necessity of a Prudential Position

Both sedevantist positions arise from the supposition that it is possible to resolve the question of the papacy in an apodictic way, and thus to govern one’s own conduct in conformity with this solution. Thus any solution of a prudential character that aims to act on the basis of a sufficient number of elements, without contemplating a definitive solution to the problem of authority in the Church (the position of the society of Saint Pius X belongs to this category), is a priori excluded and branded as pragmatism. Thus it should be observed that, even before substantial differences emerge, there is a difference of register between the stance of the Society and positions of a sedevacantist variety. The Society admits the possibility of discussion regarding whatever explanation it may advance with regard to the nature of John Paul II’s authority. For sedevacantism, on the other hand, its fundamental positions on the authority of John Paul II represent absolute stipulations, certain and beyond discussion. In this light the markedly bitter attitude characteristic of sedevacantist polemics, whether ad extra or ad intra, is perfectly comprehensible. This generalization of course admits of exceptions, and is based on an overall evaluation of the history of sedevacantism.

From this difference of register naturally arises a fundamental gulf of comprehension between the prudential and the sedevacantist positions. This gulf creates manifest difficulties on discussion and debate.

At this point we shall proceed by way of a reductio ad absurdum, precisely in order to prove the necessity of a prudential approach. In so doing we shall make some of the sedevacantist stipulations our own and draw their rigorously logical conclusions. If an argument is correct in its premises it will necessarily be correct also in its final conclusions. Accordingly, our intention is not to demonstrate directly that John Paul II is the pope, rather than a pope materialiter or not the pope at all. Rather, we intend to show that, in the current situation, the path of prudence is the only one that is practical with absolute certainty. If the difficulties we have encountered up to now legitimize the use of this approach, we believe that the following observations make it necessary.

When we speak of a prudential solution we mean the attitude of Archbishop Lefebvre towards this most delicate question. We have already indicated something of the complexity of this problem, and other elements of this complexity will be signaled in the course of this study. In view of this complexity, and lacking as we do the authority to make a judgment on the person of John Paul II, it is our duty to continue to recognize him as Supreme Pontiff so long as this remains the common opinion of the Church throughout the world. Our assumption is based on this objective fact. It belongs solely to the Church herself, for example in the person of a future pope, to give definite clarity to the problems relative the authority of John Paul II and its exercise. Paradoxically, a first confirmation - albeit an indirect one - of the intrinsic value of this position comes from sedevacantist circle themselves. In order to argue against this position it seems necessary from the outset to conceal its prudential character by presenting it in a grotesque caricature. “As perfect Gallicans, they say that they are attached to the See of Peter, but reject the doctrine of Peter (Of him whom they recognize as Peter), making themselves the picture of schismatics (who do not submit to the pope) and of heretics (who reject the magisterium of the Church).” Unfortunately expressions of this kind are common in sedevacantist publications; such expressions are the main reason for the impossibility of a calm analysis of the question. They stem, in our opinion, not only from a good dose of superficiality (precisely where they are accustomed to make the most subtle theological distinctions), but also from a univocal and ideological reading of the elements of a prudential position. On the basis of these presuppositions it is inevitable that one will interpret as “contradictory” and “ambiguous” the attitude of someone who, while also recognizing certain difficulties, does not resolve them on the basis of the interlocutor’s prejudices.

Finally, let us observe that the refusal –or the inability – to take account of the prudential character of the position of the Society of Saint Pius X, and thus to recognize all the elements of which it is composed, has given rise, in sedevacantist circles, to wildly discordant and sometimes diametrically opposed interpretations of Archbishop Lefebvre’s attitude. Therefore by necessity every expression or statement of the founder of the Society of Saint Pius X is immediately taken out of its prudential context and reinterpreted on the basis of the absolute prejudices and categories of thought characteristic of sedevacantism. His statements are thus put to use in the service of contingent necessities. In this way sedevacantist writings can depict an Archbishop Lefebvre who embraces the whole gamut of possible positions at the same time, from the most underhanded sedevacantism to the most acerbic anti-sedevacantism.

Thus even today, in a note that aims to clarify terms, the position of the Society of Saint Pius X is read and presented in the following manner: “John Paul II is the pope if he teaches what is orthodox, and is not if he teaches heresy.”


Thu Oct 18, 2007 8:20 pm
Profile

Joined: Mon Sep 04, 2006 10:21 pm
Posts: 10
New post Last Hurrah.
As requested I have posted a transcription of the pages from the SSPX publication in question (Sedevacantism: A False Solution to a Real Problem). At this stage it is clearly pointless to discuss the implications of the SSPX arguments vis-a-vis the original focus of this thread (the recognition of a pope’s election somehow guarantees his permanent orthodoxy, even trumping the man’s free will). The only point to this was to show that the text originally quoted by Pat Beck in her October 15 post, "...the position of the Society of St. Pius X is read and presented in the following manner: 'John Paul II is the pope if he teaches what is orthodox, and is not if he teaches heresy.'" is indeed accurately cited.

Why the SSPX authors chose to quote from the (sedevacantist) publication Sodalitium for the conclusion of their chapter presenting the “prudential view” of the Society, I don’t claim to know. It certainly would be clearer if they simply stated their own position in their own words. If Mr. Lane is arguing that this chapter should be understood as concluding with the citation by the authors of an unanswered slur on the true SSPX position, while their true position remains unspoken by the authors, that is quite incredible.

Does Mr. Lane really think the SSPX authors so inept that they never bothered to express what the section heading extols as the “prudential position,” instead closing the chapter with a false position attributed to them by others? If so, I guess there is no reason to argue any further.

This ends the matter for me, and please leave me out of any subsequent recriminations.


Thu Oct 18, 2007 8:26 pm
Profile

Joined: Tue May 23, 2006 9:03 pm
Posts: 515
New post 
Miles,

I just read (it was painful to read, I might add) the excerpt you posted. I read it as saying the position of the Society is "read and presented" in the following manner...this is attributed to them.

Quote:
Thus even today, in a note that aims to clarify terms, the position of the Society of Saint Pius X is read and presented in the following manner: “John Paul II is the pope if he teaches what is orthodox, and is not if he teaches heresy.”


The above quote is presented as the "logical conclusion" to their position of resistance while saying that Benedict XVI is a true Pope. I don't think they are saying the quoted above at all.

Now, I'll admit that I have never understood what their position actually is...or how they explain why this is not a "logical conclusion"...it seems to me they are merely witholding judgment on the Pope question. How do I know that? ... that's what they've told me! I don't agree that "withholding judgment" is a "safer course"... but I also know that the majority of traditional Catholics also withhold judgment.

Robert


Thu Oct 18, 2007 9:10 pm
Profile

Joined: Thu May 18, 2006 4:46 pm
Posts: 269
New post 
Robert Bastaja wrote:
Teresa,

You seem to be making some assumptions here: (1) A reasonable amount is exactly two years. (2) non-acceptance or non-adherence is determined by someone openly calling the claimant an antipope.

It also appears that both of these points were brought up before and just ignored. I think you want this "universal peaceful acceptance/adherence" to be strictly defined...but it is not.

Also, the idea of universal peaceful acceptance is often (I'm not saying exclusively, mind you) quoted by those who wish to provide "the silver bullet" to the "pope" discussion. There just ain't no "silver bullet" on either side of the question, IMHO.

Robert


Robert,

I'm making no assumptions. "Universal Acceptance" is clearly considered by the Church an infallible act, both on account of the ordinary and universal magisterium and of the indefectibility of the Church as a whole. "Universal Acceptance" has a definition, whether you choose to believe that or not. It can be recognized objectively in the external forum. Forget time, forget "silver bullets", "cracks in the masonry", etc., etc. Those who claim Paul VI was not the pope because of the lack of "universal acceptance" should be able to prove their assertion. The lack of such acceptance should be verifiable in the 'real' world.

Do you accept Paul VI's election to the papacy in 1963 as valid by the "sufficient" proof of "universal acceptance"? If you do not, I find it interesting that you can define "universal acceptance" for some popes by external criteria, but you can't quite tell us by some observable criteria when that "universal acceptance" is lacking.

Robert, if I claimed to you that some pope was not "universally acccepted" as pope upon election because of unrest in his papacy, or some other chink in the armor, what would you expect of me? After you finished laughing, you'd say "PROVE IT". Not an unreasonable thing to ask of me, I'd say. I rest my case.

EDITED: Second to the last paragraph amended sentence, last paragraph added.

_________________
In the Holy Family,
Teresa


Thu Oct 18, 2007 9:22 pm
Profile
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post Re: Last Hurrah.
Miles Peior wrote:
As requested I have posted a transcription of the pages from the SSPX publication in question (Sedevacantism: A False Solution to a Real Problem).


Thank you. Perhaps you are not aware of Sodalitium, which is the publication of the "sedevacantist" Fr. Ricossa, and therefore the footnotes did not add anything to your understanding of the text, but for the sake of other readers here they are with the main body text to which each applies. The effect on the text is quite striking. I hope that is not why you omitted them.

"As perfect Gallicans, they say that they are attached to the See of Peter, but reject the doctrine of Peter (of him whom they recognize as Peter), making themselves the picture of schismatics (who do not submit to the pope) and of heretics (who reject the magisterium of the Church)." (16) Sodalitium, no. 36, P. 76.

In this way sedevacantist writings can depict an Archbishop Lefebvre who embraces the whole gamut of possible positions at the same time, from the most underhanded sedevacantism to the most acerbic anti-sedevacantism. (17) Cf. Ricossa Risposta, pp. 4, 25.

Thus even today, in a note that aims to clarify terms, the position of the Society of Saint Pius X is read and presented in the following manner: "John Paul II is the pope if he teaches what is orthodox, and is not if he teaches heresy." (18) Sodalitium no. 55, P. 58.

___________________________________________________

So, as you can see, the entire chapter is a defense of what is described as the "prudential position" of the SSPX against the caricatures of the sedevacantists, with examples drawn from the most well-known "sedevacantist" journal in Europe, Sodalitium. I can understand a cursory reading of this resulting in an erroneous understanding. But I find the accusation of dishonesty most unacceptable and the failure to admit the error or to apologise, disgraceful.


Miles Peior wrote:
Why the SSPX authors chose to quote from the (sedevacantist) publication Sodalitium for the conclusion of their chapter presenting the “prudential view” of the Society, I don’t claim to know.

Frankly, you're only discrediting yourself with this kind of comment. The text is sufficiently clear.


Miles Peior wrote:
It certainly would be clearer if they simply stated their own position in their own words. If Mr. Lane is arguing that this chapter should be understood as concluding with the citation by the authors of an unanswered slur on the true SSPX position, while their true position remains unspoken by the authors, that is quite incredible.

Incredible. Did you not read it? "When we speak of a prudential solution we mean the attitude of Archbishop Lefebvre towards this most delicate question. We have already indicated something of the complexity of this problem, and other elements of this complexity will be signaled in the course of this study. In view of this complexity, and lacking as we do the authority to make a judgment on the person of John Paul II, it is our duty to continue to recognize him as Supreme Pontiff so long as this remains the common opinion of the Church throughout the world. Our assumption is based on this objective fact. It belongs solely to the Church herself, for example in the person of a future pope, to give definite clarity to the problems relative the authority of John Paul II and its exercise."


Miles Peior wrote:
Does Mr. Lane really think the SSPX authors so inept that they never bothered to express what the section heading extols as the “prudential position,” instead closing the chapter with a false position attributed to them by others? If so, I guess there is no reason to argue any further.

There is certainly no need to argue any further.

_________________
In Christ our King.


Thu Oct 18, 2007 11:38 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Thu May 18, 2006 4:46 pm
Posts: 269
New post 
p.s. Robert,

Robert Bastaja wrote:
Ken Gordon wrote:
In an admittedly weak attempt to show that at least some did not "...peacefully accept..." Roncalli's pontificate, I mentioned my Mother and her discussion with like-minded Catholics. This was my attempt to show that if even some simple lay-folk found him suspect, surely there were other more powerful and knowledgeable clerics who had questions.

John dismissed that as irrelevant.


Ken,

What is irrevelant is your Mother's discussion with other Catholics. What is not irrelevant is "more powerful and knowledgeable clerics who had questions".

Now, who were these "more powerful and knowledgeable clerics who had questions" and where is the evidence that these people, in fact, ever existed? Who were they? What were their questions? You are merely suggesting that they existed...that's not evidence...it is 100% speculation.

Robert


Now, if you sought 'proof' from Ken concerning Pope John XXIII's election, why is there now a difference in seeking that same evidence from you regarding Paul VI's "universal acceptance"?

_________________
In the Holy Family,
Teresa


Thu Oct 18, 2007 11:40 pm
Profile
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post 
OK, here's a scoop for you. I don't believe this has ever been re-published elsewhere.

On December 7, 1965 the most controversial of all of the documents of Vatican II, Dignitatis Humanæ, was promulgated by Paul VI. In that very same month, an arresting question was raised at the American Ecclesiastical Review. “What certainty have we that the reigning Pontiff is actually the primate of the universal Church?” Rev. Francis J. Connell, CSSR, the theologian who responded, gave the standard answer from the theology manuals, as one would expect. But this was a case in which the answer was not the point of interest – the question was.

This is the full text of the question and answer. American Ecclesiastical Review, Vol. 153, Dec. 1965, page 422.

Certainty of the Pope's Status

Question: What certainty have we that the reigning Pontiff is actually the primate of the universal Church – that is, that he became a member of the Church through valid baptism, and that he was validly elected Pope?

Answer: Of course, we have human moral certainty that the reigning Pontiff was validly elected in conclave and accepted the office of Bishop of Rome, thus becoming head of the universal Church. The unanimous consensus of a large group of Cardinals composing the electoral body gave us this assurance. And we also have human moral certainty that the reigning Pontiff was validly baptized, since there is a record to that effect in the baptismal register of the church in which the sacrament was administered. We have the same type of certainty that any bishop is the true spiritual head of the particular see over which he presides. This type of certainty excludes every prudent fear of the opposite.

But in the case of the Pope we have a higher grade of certainty – a certainty that excludes not merely the prudent fear of the opposite, but even the possible fear of the opposite. In other words, we have infallible certainty that the present Sovereign Pontiff has been incorporated into the Church by a valid baptism and has been validly elected head of the universal Church. For if we did not have infallible assurance that the ruling Pontiff is truly in the eyes of God the chief teacher of the Church of Christ, how could we accept as infallibly true his solemn pronouncements? This is an example of a fact that is not contained in the deposit of revelation but is so intimately connected with revelation that it must be within the scope of the Church's magisterial authority to declare it infallibly. The whole Church, teaching and believing, declares and believes this fact, and from this it follows that this fact is infallibly true. We accept it with ecclesiastical – not divine – faith, based on the authority of the infallible Church.


Fri Oct 19, 2007 12:22 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Thu Jun 01, 2006 12:34 pm
Posts: 89
Location: Griffin, GA
New post Coomaraswamy's response
in a footnote, I found this:
Page 160: THE DESTRUCTION OF CHRISTIAN TRADITION by Rama Coomaraswamy 2006 edition
Footnote 54: “His father, a banker employed by the Vatican came forth from a Jewish family, and his mother was a convert from Judaism at the time of her marriage. Now, no traditional Catholic can have any objection to his Jewish ancestry. What is however significant is that no record of his baptism can be found. If in fact he was never baptized, then his Orders are totally invalidated (Myra Davidoglou, La Voie, Cahier No. 5 [France, Imbert-Nicholas, Dec. 1982]

_________________
"Fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom."


Fri Oct 19, 2007 12:47 am
Profile

Joined: Sat May 20, 2006 11:46 pm
Posts: 728
Location: Western Washington, USA
New post 
Pax Christi


Dear Miles Peior,

Do you intend to withdraw the inference of " dishonesty" you leveled towards Mr. John Lane?

In Xto,
Vincent


Fri Oct 19, 2007 1:43 am
Profile
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post 
The following quotes and items of information are all taken from "History of Vatican II, Vol. II" by Giuseppe Alberigo
& Joseph A. Komonchak, Orbis Books/Peeters, 1997.

Monsignor Joseph Fenton, Diary entry, October 13, 1962 (i.e. two days after the Council opened, and during the reign of John XXIII, who died on June 3, 1963):

"I always thought this council was dangerous. It was started for no sufficient reason. There was too much talk about what it was supposed to accomplish. Now I am afraid that real trouble is on the way."

And, after taking the oath as a Conciliar expert on October 8, 1962, Msgr. Fenton lamented, "it is a crime that we did not take the Anti-Modernist Oath."

Fenton was at that time working with Cardinal Ottaviani, Secretary of the Holy Office, to compile and circulate a list of orthodox candidates for conciliar commissions to counteract the already circulating list put out by what Ottaviani called "the Blocco" (Wiltgen calls them the Rhine fathers). The battle lines were already clear, and John XXIII was still alive.

By November 1962, several indicators made it clear that the liberals were in the majority at the Council, and the orthodox party was therefore deeply concerned. "I went up to see the old man [i.e. Ottaviani] in the afternoon. He was angry, and he talks about more action from our side. He is not going to get it with the bunch he has now. As I left, Paul Philippe was going in. He was crying. And he said that this was the time of the devils." (Diary, November 23, 1962.)

"...some other people believe what I have thought for several months, namely, that John XXIII is definitely a lefty ... In the light of what Tedeschi has written, it is easy to see why O [Ottaviani] has taken such a beating in the Council and from the Pope." (Diary, November 25, 1962.) Tedeschi had just published his theory that the Council's liberal orientation was a result of a conspiracy between the USA and the Soviet Union to create a "Christian International."

I think that these few extracts give a flavour to the period just prior to the election of Montini, who was of course well-known as a liberal. Grown men crying and characterising the situation as "the time of the devils" is revealing of both the intensity of the struggle and the pathos of the situation for the persons involved.

Montini's election a few months later was seen for what it was - a very great danger for orthodoxy in the Church.

_________________
In Christ our King.


Fri Oct 19, 2007 2:03 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Sun Jan 28, 2007 3:42 am
Posts: 740
Location: Moscow, Idaho, U.S.A.
New post Reply to John.
John Lane wrote:
Montini's election a few months later was seen for what it was - a very great danger for orthodoxy in the Church.


Not by the generallity of Catholics! Not by a long shot! The hierarchy kept those sorts of things to themselves so as not to "scandalize" the stupid, sheep-like, uneducated faithful. WE were never, ever told of the things you have quoted from a book written 30 years after the fact.

But I guess we are not to be included in your "...peaceful and universal acceptance...".

_________________
Kenneth G. Gordon CinC
Moscow, Idaho
U.S.A.


Fri Oct 19, 2007 2:26 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Tue May 23, 2006 9:03 pm
Posts: 515
New post 
Teresa Ginardi wrote:
Robert Bastaja wrote:
Teresa,

You seem to be making some assumptions here: (1) A reasonable amount is exactly two years. (2) non-acceptance or non-adherence is determined by someone openly calling the claimant an antipope.

It also appears that both of these points were brought up before and just ignored. I think you want this "universal peaceful acceptance/adherence" to be strictly defined...but it is not.

Also, the idea of universal peaceful acceptance is often (I'm not saying exclusively, mind you) quoted by those who wish to provide "the silver bullet" to the "pope" discussion. There just ain't no "silver bullet" on either side of the question, IMHO.

Robert


Robert,

I'm making no assumptions. "Universal Acceptance" is clearly considered by the Church an infallible act, both on account of the ordinary and universal magisterium and of the indefectibility of the Church as a whole.

Teresa,

I think you are making assumptions. You assume that exactly two years is sufficient in one place...and then say that universal (you always leave out the 'peaceful' modifier) acceptance/adherence is immediate...it occurs right after the election. It cannot be because of the nature of the question...a universal accessment cannot be made in an instant!

Quote:
"Universal Acceptance" has a definition, whether you choose to believe that or not.


I don't claim it has no definition...just that it is a moral question that is accessed over some finite period of time. It cannot be instantaneous. Btw, what is the precise definition?

Quote:
It can be recognized objectively in the external forum. Forget time, forget "silver bullets", "cracks in the masonry", etc., etc. Those who claim Paul VI was not the pope because of the lack of "universal acceptance" should be able to prove their assertion. The lack of such acceptance should be verifiable in the 'real' world.


No one is saying that. The claim that is usually made is that Paul VI was a true pope because he was peacefully accepted/adhered to by a moral unaminity of Catholics...not that he was a false pope because he was not peacefully accepted/adhered to by a moral unaminity of Catholics! There are plenty of other reasons why he would be suspect as an non-pope.

Quote:
Do you accept Paul VI's election to the papacy in 1963 as valid by the "sufficient" proof of "universal acceptance"?


No, I don't think he was peacefully accepted and peacefully adhered to either. I think this is obvious. Sometimes it seems he was not really adhered to by anyone. Btw, how can one adhere to ambiguities?

Quote:
If you do not, I find it interesting that you can define "universal acceptance" for some popes by external criteria, but you can't quite tell us by some observable criteria when that "universal acceptance" is lacking.


Peaceful dear...peaceful. The fact that he was anything but peacefully accepted/adhered to is an observable fact.

Quote:
Robert, if I claimed to you that some pope was not "universally acccepted" as pope upon election because of unrest in his papacy, or some other chink in the armor, what would you expect of me?


Unrest in his papacy is quite vague...did he cause the unrest? If yes, then I would say it is not clear that he was peacefully accepted/adhered to...there is a doubt.

Quote:
After you finished laughing, you'd say "PROVE IT". Not an unreasonable thing to ask of me, I'd say. I rest my case.


I'm not laughing. :) I think you have some misunderstandings regarding what is meant by peaceful acceptance...the time required to make such a moral accessment...and the whole concept of sufficient vs. necessary.

I rest my case. :)

Robert


Fri Oct 19, 2007 3:10 am
Profile
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post Re: Reply to John.
KenGordon wrote:
But I guess we are not to be included in your "...peaceful and universal acceptance...".


Well, Ken, the whole point about universality or, to use an equivalent term, unanimity, is that it only takes some part of the whole to be removed, and the unanimity no longer exists. (I repeat, this is a question of moral unanimity, not absolute, but the point stands).

Please stop and think about your position. In relation to Roncalli, you cite your mother's misgivings; in relation to the open warfare going on between the orthodox party and the liberals at Vatican II, you point out that you and other laymen were generally unaware of it. One was a private comment which passed and was no more; the other was the greatest crisis in the history of the Church as it became manifest to all. Articles describing the machinations of the various parties were appearing in news media repeatedly, right from October '62. The battle was not a secret on any level, even if it was not adverted to in most parishes in the USA.

Paul VI was elected in the middle of this great public battle. He immediately declared his intention to continue John XXIII's agenda, in precisely the same manner that Wojtyla immediately declared his intention to continue Monitini's agenda in 1978, and as Ratzinger did when he was elected. The reaction of orthodox men each time was similar - I'll keep the Faith, even if it means disobeying "the pope." That is not a genuine submission to papal authority and paternity. It is essentially conditional. That is all that I am saying, in line with the questions posed by Da Silveira. The "acceptance" begins conditionally, moves to a generally sceptical attitude and then to a hardening of agenda in opposition to the "pope," and ends with openly expressed doubts about the validity of the claim.

Consider the December '65 question posed in the American Ecclesiastical Review. How can we be sure that Paul VI is pope? It's a startling question. There seem to me to be two possibilities which would explain its appearance at that time. Either the editor was hoping to squelch the question which had been raised some time before, or he intended to put a shot across the bows of Montini by raising the question openly for the first time. It certainly wasn't a purely academic question. Either way it supports the Da Silveira position.

_________________
In Christ our King.


Fri Oct 19, 2007 3:23 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Tue May 23, 2006 9:03 pm
Posts: 515
New post 
Teresa Ginardi wrote:
p.s. Robert,

Robert Bastaja wrote:
Ken Gordon wrote:
In an admittedly weak attempt to show that at least some did not "...peacefully accept..." Roncalli's pontificate, I mentioned my Mother and her discussion with like-minded Catholics. This was my attempt to show that if even some simple lay-folk found him suspect, surely there were other more powerful and knowledgeable clerics who had questions.

John dismissed that as irrelevant.


Ken,

What is irrevelant is your Mother's discussion with other Catholics. What is not irrelevant is "more powerful and knowledgeable clerics who had questions".

Now, who were these "more powerful and knowledgeable clerics who had questions" and where is the evidence that these people, in fact, ever existed? Who were they? What were their questions? You are merely suggesting that they existed...that's not evidence...it is 100% speculation.

Robert


Now, if you sought 'proof' from Ken concerning Pope John XXIII's election, why is there now a difference in seeking that same evidence from you regarding Paul VI's "universal acceptance"?


Teresa,

I think that John XXIII was accepted peacefully and adhered to peacefully. With that as my premise, and only because of that premise, I was asking Ken to tell me who (specifically) questioned John XXIII's pontificate...because he suggested that there were Catholics who did in fact question it.

Also, I notice that you keep leaving out the "peaceful" part...do you think it is an unnecessary modifier?

Robert


Fri Oct 19, 2007 3:24 am
Profile
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 396 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 26 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group.
Designed by Vjacheslav Trushkin for Free Forums/DivisionCore.