Friday, May 10, 2013

Attempting To Replace The Heretical With The Delusional


Consider the following list of colorful characters:
  • An illiterate chicken farmer who loses both eyes in a car accident
  • A man rejected by Traditionalist seminaries, has never held a real job, has no formal education above high school and lives in a farm house with his mother
  • A Dominican priest ordained in 1958, who claims God revealed to him that the form of Baptism was wrong since the first century and he was correctly baptized by an angel from heaven
  • A 38 year old "self-educated" expert in many alleged fields of knowledge with serious medical issues
 Are these the characters from a long lost transcript for a book written by Malachi Martin? No. Sadly, each of the men described above claims to be the "pope." Conclavism is an unfortunate by product of having no pope. Someone with delusions of grandeur (or just plain delusions) decides to end the period of sedevacantism by holding a "conclave" and electing a real "pope" (interestingly, it's almost always the person who starts such a group who gets "elected"). Also, there is a category called Mysticalists who are not "elected" but "chosen" by some alleged apparition of Christ and/or Mary.

It is alleged that sedevacantism leads to this kind of insanity. The SSPX put out a book entitled Sedevacantism: A False Solution to a Real Problem, in which they make the same attempt to discredit the idea that there is a vacancy of the Holy See by citing to the various independent bishops spuriously consecrated on a whim and alleged "popes." While it is true that sedevacantism is a necessary presupposition of these papal claimants (why attempt to fill a position if you already have a pope?); to say that it is also necessary that conclavism and mysticalists must follow is a non sequitur. It is the fallacy of affirming the consequent.
Examples:
Major Premise: If X is a conclavist pope, he is a sedevacantist.
Minor Premise: X is a sedevacantist
Conclusion: X is a conclavist pope.
This is a fallacy. Consider:
Major premise: If X is a cat, it is an animal
Minor Premise: X is an animal
Conclusion: X is a cat.
Obviously fallacious.

As far as some dubious or unworthy Traditionalist bishops consecrated under a time of near universal apostasy, remember the words of Our Lord: "Then Jesus told them, "This very night you will all fall away on account of me, for it is written: "'I will strike the shepherd, and the sheep of the flock will be scattered.'" (St. Matthew 26: 31). Without a pope, the Vicar of Christ, this is what will happen from time to time as we have no shepherd to guide us. Compare this to the Vatican II sect which allegedly has a pope (Frankie-Bergoglio), yet has less unity and more scandal than anyone.

The frauds of the conclavist/mysticalist movement can be spotted in their own heretical positions and/or absurd situations. "Pope" Michael (David Bawden, claiming papacy since 1990) was "elected" by six people; his parents, himself and three neighbors who were "the only viable Catholics remaining in the world." He lives at home with his mother on the farm. He claims to have been ordained and consecrated a bishop, but he refuses to name the alleged bishop who ordained and consecrated him. There is a documentary on his sad life you can view on YouTube.

The "Palmarian Catholic Church" started by one Clemente  Dominguez, claimed to have been "mystically crowned pope by Jesus Christ" upon the death of Paul VI, who was an imprisoned "martyr and saint" within the Vatican. An impostor took his place in public. Taking the name "Gregory XVII", he lost his eyes in a car accident. He was actually able to convince Archbishop Thuc to ordain and consecrate himself and five others in 1976, but Thuc repented for having been duped. Further, as an illiterate chicken farmer, he is canonically unfit (as were the other five), so there is no presumption of validity in any sacraments they confer. All their "clergy" are dubious. Add to this the revelation after he died that he engaged in sex with several of his so-called nuns, and it's obvious this is not from God. The heresy of his "Palmarian Council" stated that Mary shall be called the "Irredeemed" because she who had no sin did not need redemption! This contradicts the constant teaching of the Church, including the infallible decree of Pope Pius IX Ineffabilis Deus, proclaiming the Immaculate Conception. It states that Mary WAS redeemed "in view of the merits of Jesus Christ", hence in a unique way, but redeemed nevertheless. They are on their third antipope, "Gregory XVIII."

Conclavism/Mysticalism is started by the deluded, charlatans looking to make money and feel important, and those who have big egos and are ignorant of theology. This is not a post-Vatican II phenomenon.
Consider the following under Pope Pius XII:

"Frenchman Michel Collin or Colin, born in a village of Lorraine in 1905 and ordained a priest in 1935, announced in 1936 that he had been ordained a bishop by Christ himself. He founded a community called the Order of the Mother of God (a name later changed to "Apostles of Infinite Love"), in response to the 1846 request made by the Blessed Virgin Mary, as reported later by Mélanie Calvat, one of the seers of La Salette. In 1950 he announced that he had been crowned Pope and had taken the name Clement XV. Pope Pius XII laicized him in 1951and publicly declared him, by name, a vitandus (one who should be avoided) excommunicate." (See, e.g., Smoke of Satan by Michael Cuneo, also in wikipedia; emphasis mine).

How then do we get a real pope? As Fr. Cekada has written:

IF THE POST-VATICAN II popes are not true popes, how might the
Church one day get a true pope again? Here are some theories:
1. Direct Divine Intervention. This scenario is found in the writings
of some approved mystics.
2. The Material/Formal Thesis. This holds that should a post-
Vatican II pope publicly renounce the heresies of the post-
Conciliar Church, he would automatically become a true pope.
3. An Imperfect General Council. The theologian Cajetan (1469–
1534) and others teach that, should the College of Cardinals become
extinct, the right to elect a pope would devolve to the
clergy of Rome, and then to the universal Church. (de Comparatione
13, 742, 745)

Each of these seems to present some difficulties. But this
should not be surprising, because the precise solution to an unusual
problem in the Church cannot always be predicted beforehand.
This can be seen from the following comment in the 1913
Catholic Encyclopedia: “No canonical provisions exist regulating
the authority of the College of Cardinals sede Romanâ impeditâ,
i.e. in case the pope became insane, or personally a heretic; in
such cases it would be necessary to consult the dictates of right
reason and the teachings of history.” (“Cardinal,” CE 3:339)

Moreover, an inability at present to determine exactly how
another true pope would be chosen in the future does not somehow
make Paul VI and his successors into true popes by default.
Nor does it change what we already know: that the post-
Conciliar popes promulgated errors, heresies and evil laws; that
a heretic cannot be a true pope; and that promulgating evil laws
is incompatible with possessing authority from Jesus Christ.
To insist despite this that the post-Conciliar popes must be
true popes creates an insoluble problem for the indefectibility of
the Church — Christ’s representatives teach error and give evil"

Let's stick to true Traditionalism, and let the problem play out until the Lord makes things clear to us. Someone suggested making the character Yoda from Star Wars the "pope." It was a joke, but not more of a joke than Bergoglio (Francis) or any of these other conclavists/mysticalists. As "Pope Yoda" might say:
"Become conclavist do not. Soul will you lose. Know true Faith and theology you must."





10 comments:

  1. Very good article on the insanity of the do-it-yourself popes but the author himself still clings to illusions. I find this with all Sedevacantists who insist there is no pope based on heresy, which presupposes the Roman Church has the power to infallibly prescribe doctrines as a matter of eternal salvation in the first place. The church of Rome can and always has been able to contradict itself. Francis is the pope, but not because he isn't a heretic, but in reality because the church has never been infallible or indefectible. Sedevacantism is a theory of defection, not papal interregnum. If you are a Sedevacantist then you have become convinced the church defected and I would agree with that position. See the new book: The Sedevacantist Delusion: Why Vatican II's Clash with Sedevacantism Supports Eastern Orthodoxy.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The book you cite is little more than a rant against the True Church. Yes, the popes are infallible and the Church is indefectible. All attempts by schismatics to show otherwise have been without merit. The Church Herself has always taught that the HIERARCHY could defect by the sin of heresy. I have not become convinced the Church defected (She can't) but the hierarchy has, and the True Church remains with the Traditionalists until God provides a successor to Pope Pius XII.
      ---Introibo

      Delete
  2. Let us clarify your position. According to your beliefs you must sever yourself from the Holy Roman See because it is no longer Roman Catholic, yet somehow the Church is infallible and indefectible? Moreover, you insist that scattered bands of "Traditionalists" are the "True" Church? Read the book.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No, I will clarify my position. According to the unanimous teaching of the theologians, an heretical pope is no pope. Pope Paul IV actually decreed this in Cum Ex Apostolatus Officio, fearing that a cardinal might secretly hold Lutheran heresies.

      I do not separate myself from the Roman See as it is currently unoccupied. The See is and shall ever remain Catholic even without a Pope to fill the vacancy.

      You do not understand the teaching of the Church in this matter. St. Athanasius, (you Eastern guys like him, right?) stated, "Even if Catholics faithful to Tradition (I.e. Not heretics) are reduced to a handful---they are the True Church Of Jesus Christ." The schismatic/heretical easterns have been so infiltrated by Communists and willing to join the syncretic World Council of Churches, as to become a joke like Frankie

      Delete
  3. But you have in fact separated yourself from the Roman See -which by definition is schism. I don't blame you but my point is you did so only because it defected from the faith. So the very fact of your existence and this Website proves my point. Actually, I understand the teachings of the Church very well. It is you who do not understand them. For one thing, it is supposed to be impossible for the Holy Roman See to defect. Yet it did. For another thing, the foundation of Roman Catholicism is NOT the faith, so it does you very little good to uphold Roman doctrines and claim you, as a Sedevacantist, are the "true" Church when you lost the foundation of Roman Catholicism. You are in fact just like Eastern Catholics, which judging from you response, you despise as schismatic. There is the irony. You are no different from Eastern Orthodox because you, like them, condemn the Roman See for its fall into heresy and apostasy. Welcome to the club- you're just a thousand years late.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. If the Roman See is falsely occupied I have in fact NOT separated from the Holy See. You can't differentiate from the hierarchy ---which can defect---and the Magisterium which cannot. As a matter if fact, it is Church teaching that one who "holds suspect the person of the Supreme Pontiff" is NOT schismatic!
      The hierarchy defecting is not the same as the See defecting. The foundation of the Church is the Faith upheld by the Pontiffs---but as theologian Dorsch points out, there is nothing that prevents the See from being vacant for long periods, even hundreds of years, yet the Church remains intact by the profession of the True Faith.

      Your "club" is one that denies the infallibility and primacy of the institution of the papacy. You deny the papacy. I deny THIS PARTICULAR PAPAL CLAIMANT.

      If you can't see the difference, I can't help you. Before I was a lawyer I was a teacher. Unfortunately for you I did not teach special ed.
      ---Introibo

      Delete
  4. Good evening “Introibo.” I see that you thought it was important to mention you are a lawyer and teacher. Thank you but for certain I am not interested in your resume’ but only your theology and your real name if you don’t mind. Is there a reason you conceal your identity, especially given the magnitude of the issues for which you stand? Anyhow, here a few things I would like you to clarify please.

    1. You say you have not separated from the Holy See. Would you please identify it for me?
    2. After identifying the Roman see, would you please demonstrate how you are in communion with it? (e.g., indicate that you are in communion with a local diocese under its jurisdiction or something such as that).
    3. You said “I can’t differentiate from the hierarchy which can defect and the magisterium which cannot.” Could you explain how the hierarchy can defect and where I can find that teaching?
    4. Since you said the magisterium couldn’t defect, could you show me who comprises the Roman Catholic Church’s living magisterium at the present time?
    5. You said “the hierarchy defecting is not the same thing as the Roman See defecting.” I’m not sure if you believe the roman see could defect or not so would you clarify what you mean please?
    6. If you believe the Roman see could defect, what might constitute its defection?
    7. You said “The foundation of the church is the faith upheld by the pontiffs” but I believe you are close to stating the foundation of the Orthodox faith but not Rome. So could you show me where you found this teaching please?
    8. You said “I deny this particular papal claimant” but most Sedevacantists do not begin with Francis, rather John XXIII, so could you please tell me when the alleged vacancy of the papal chair began in your opinion?

    That is all for now and I look forward to receiving your answers. Thanks, jonny.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Good Evening Jonny,

      I'm glad you're not concerned with my resume, but only my theology. That is one of the reasons I keep my identity strictly private. I do not want either notoriety nor personal attacks that distract from the message of the One True Church of Christ. My (thus far) 230 posts are well-researched and (hopefully) well-written. I also wish to spare my family and friends from the enemies of the Faith who may hold my religious beliefs and writing on this blog against them.

      What you're asking calls for an entire post, and I only publish once a week as I'm pulled in many different directions with work, family, etc. Nevertheless, I will answer your queries which you presented to me with as much brevity and clarity as I can.

      In order to answer your first two questions, I quote from the theologian Dorsch,so that you may first understand the nature of the Church:

      “The Church therefore is a society that is essentially monarchical. But this does not prevent the Church, for a short time after the death of a pope, OR EVEN FOR MANY YEARS, from remaining deprived of her head. [vel etiam per plures annos capite suo destituta manet]. Her monarchical form also remains intact in this state.…

      Thus the Church is then indeed a headless body.… Her monarchical form of government remains, though then in a different way — that is, it remains incomplete and to be completed. The ordering of the whole to submission to her Primate is present, even though actual submission is not…

      For this reason, the See of Rome is rightly said to remain after the person sitting in it has died — for the See of Rome consists essentially in the rights of the Primate.

      These rights are an essential and necessary element of the Church. With them, moreover, the Primacy then continues, at least morally. The perennial physical presence of the person of the head, however, [perennitas autem physica personis principis] is not so strictly necessary.” (de Ecclesia 2:196–7)

      The Holy Roman See is currently unoccupied. A heretic can't be pope. Moreover, you can't be Bishop of Rome unless you are a bishop. The new rites of priestly ordination and episcopal consecration were rendered invalid in 1968, when the form and intention of the sacrament was substantially altered so as to render it null and void. This principle of sacramental theology was explained in detail by Pope Leo XIII in his Apostolic Constitution "Apostolicae Curae" of 1896, declaring Anglican Orders invalid. Francis is a layman and Ratzinger only a priest. Hence, that (aside from heresy) would prevent them from holding the See.

      Can you imagine a layman claiming to be "patriarch of Constantinople?" Would you recognize him as such? Does the SEE of Constantinople cease to exist during this layman's usurping? Obviously not. Therefore, I am united to the Roman See as explained by Dorsch. During an interregnum, Catholics don't cease to be united to the Roman See because there is no current occupant.

      There is also historical precedent for this situation. Prior to Vatican II, the longest interregnum was from 11/29/1268 to 9/1/1271 (2 years and 10 months)between the death of Pope Clement IV and the election of Pope Gregory X. Several Diocesan Bishops died during this time. Ordinary jurisdiction can only be granted by the pope. However, nearby bishops consecrated a priest of the diocese to act with supplied jurisdiction until the papacy could be restored. What happened when Pope Gregory X was elected? He praised the bishops who so acted for giving the people access to Bishops and the sacraments. The bishops so consecrated, he ratified and then supplied them with Ordinary jurisdiction.

      (Continued below)

      Delete
    2. In answer to question 4, the hierarchy can defect by the profession of heresy (as private individuals) causing them to immediately cease to be members of the Church. Those who are not members of the Church, cannot be the head (pope) or teachers (bishops) within that Church. Where can this teaching be found? The unanimous consent of the pre-Vatican II theologians and two popes.

      Pope Paul IV (Ex Cum Apostolatus Officio,

      In addition, [by this Our Constitution, which is to remain valid in perpetuity We enact, determine, decree and define:] that if ever at any time it shall appear that any Bishop, even if he be acting as an Archbishop, Patriarch or Primate; or any Cardinal of the aforesaid Roman Church, or, as has already been mentioned, any legate, or even the Roman Pontiff, prior to his promotion or his elevation as Cardinal or Roman Pontiff, has deviated from the Catholic Faith or fallen into some heresy:

      (i) the promotion or elevation, even if it shall have been uncontested and by the unanimous assent of all the Cardinals, shall be null, void and worthless;
      (ii) it shall not be possible for it to acquire validity (nor for it to be said that it has thus acquired validity) through the acceptance of the office, of consecration, of subsequent authority, nor through possession of administration, nor through the putative enthronement of a Roman Pontiff, or Veneration, or obedience accorded to such by all, nor through the lapse of any period of time in the foregoing situation;

      (iii) it shall not be held as partially legitimate in any way;

      (iv) to any so promoted to be Bishops, or Archbishops, or Patriarchs, or Primates or elevated as Cardinals, or as Roman Pontiff, no authority shall have been granted, nor shall it be considered to have been so granted either in the spiritual or the temporal domain;

      (v) each and all of their words, deeds, actions and enactments, howsoever made, and anything whatsoever to which these may give rise, shall be without force and shall grant no stability whatsoever nor any right to anyone;

      (vi) those thus promoted or elevated shall be deprived automatically, and without need for any further declaration, of all dignity, position, honour, title, authority, office and power.
      ope Pius XII:"Mystici Corporis"
      Actually only those are to be included as members of the Church who have been baptized and profess the true faith [=Catholics], and who have not been so unfortunate as to separate themselves from the unity of the Body [such as heretics, schismatics, or apostates], or been excluded by legitimate authority for grave faults committed [the excommunicated].... As therefore in the true Christian community there is only one Body, one Spirit, one Lord, and one Baptism, so there can be only one faith. And therefore if a man refuse to hear the Church let him be considered -- so the Lord commands -- as a heathen and a publican. It follows that those [who] are divided in faith or government cannot be living in the unity of such a Body, nor can they be living the life of its one Divine Spirit.... For not every sin, however grave it may be, is such as of its own nature to sever a man from the Body of the Church, as does schism or heresy or apostasy. (Paragraphs 22 and 23)

      Continued Below

      Delete
    3. The idea of a pope, in his personal capacity, able to defect from the faith or become a heretic is not something made up by post Vatican II sedevacantists. Prior to Vatican II, theologians and canonists, as well as at least two popes teach the principle behind it. When the fact of his defection becomes manifest, such a pope automatically (ipso facto) loses his office and authority.

      St. Robert Bellarmine wrote, “A pope who is a manifest heretic automatically (per se) ceases to be pope and head, just as he ceases automatically to be a Christian and a member of the Church. Wherefore, he can be judged and punished by the Church. This is the teaching of all the ancient Fathers who teach that manifest heretics immediately lose all jurisdiction.”(De Romano Pontifice, II, 30)

      St. Alphonsus Liguori wrote, “If ever a pope, as a private person, should fall into heresy, he would at once fall from the pontificate.”(Oeuvres Completes, 9:232)

      The magisterium is currently awaiting restoration of an occupant to the Holy Roman See.

      As to questions 5 and 6, hopefully the teachings of the theologians I have cited shows what it means that the hierarchy can defect, but the Roman See cannot; Christ so wonderfully made Her that way and thereby ever victorious over the Gates of Hell which shall never prevail!

      As to question 7, the teaching is found in the unanimous consent of the theologians. To cite theologian Salaverri, instead of being a “primary foundation… without which the Church could not exist,” the pope is a “secondary foundation,” “ministerial,” who exercises his power as someone else’s (Christ’s) representative. (See De Ecclesia 1:448)The primary foundation is the Integral Catholic Faith.

      As to question 8, I also believe the vacancy began with Roncalli (John XXIII) who was under suspicion of heresy under Pope Pius XII who unfortunately was too ill and badly advised to throw the bum out. Nevertheless, it is morally certain that the See has been vacant since at least November 21, 1964 when the damnable document "Lumen Gentium" containing rank heresy was signed by Montini (Paul VI). Had he been a true pope, the Holy Ghost would have prevented him from signing it, meaning he was a heretic (as a private theologian) prior to that date. He too was under suspicion of heresy in the 1950s. I'm praying for your conversion.

      ---Introibo

      Delete