Monday, December 10, 2018

The Schizophrenic Church Of R & R


 All Traditionalists believe what has been defined and taught by the Church. One of the most basic and ancient expressions of the Faith is the Nicene Creed, composed in part and adopted at the First Ecumenical Council of Nicaea (325 A.D.) and revised with additions by the First Ecumenical Council of Constantinople (381 A.D.). Recited at the Most Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, the Church proclaims, "Et unam sanctam catholicam et apostolicam Ecclesiam." (I believe) in One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church." Do the "recognize and resisters" (R&R) of the Society of St. Pius X (SSPX), or Bishop Richard Williamson's St. Marcel Initiative, or their apologists (John Salza, Robert Siscoe, The Remnant, etc.) really believe it?

 Of course they profess it, and would (correctly) state that the denial of such is heresy. However, upon closer inspection, their refusal to acknowledge sedevacantism has lead to a de facto ecclesiology (teaching on the nature of the Church) which denies the unity of the Church. They believe in a Schizophrenic "Church" whereby there are two distinct--and even contradictory-- modes of belief and worship, yet they remain mysteriously unified. Don't believe me? Let's examine what the R&R camp says and see if it squares with authentic Church teaching.

The Church Teaching On Unity

 According to theologian Van Noort, "[The Church] enjoys a three-fold unity...unity of doctrine and profession, unity of communion, and unity of government." (See Dogmatic Theology [1956] 2:126; Emphasis in original). 

1. Doctrine and Profession of Faith
"The unity of Faith which Christ decreed without qualification consists in this, that everyone accepts the doctrines presented for belief by the Church's teaching office." (Ibid:127; Emphasis in original). Furthermore, "Christ demanded faith not just in some doctrines, but in all those doctrines which authority set up by Him should teach. Consequently, any distinction between fundamental and non-fundamental articles of belief is contrary to the mind and will of Christ...Furthermore...it is impossible to determine a sure standard for distinguishing fundamental from non-fundamental articles" (Ibid:128). 

2. Communion
"Christ willed that His Church enjoy unity of communion or of (social) charity which consists in this, that all members of the Church, whether as individuals or as particular groups, mutually cohere like the finely articulated parts of one moral body, one family, one single society. It follows from this that they all share the same common benefits: sacrifice [Mass], sacraments, intercession." (Ibid:128)

3. Government
"Christ willed that His Church enjoy unity of rule (hierarchical unity) which consists in this, that all members of the Church obey one and the same visible authority." (Ibid:130)  

Anticipating the objections of  the R&R (as well as Vatican II apologists), who will claim that the Mark of Unity as expressed by the Church does not apply to the sedevacantists because (1) we have different groups (SSPV, CMRI, etc.) and (2) we don't have a visible authority to follow, a couple of responses are in order. 

In a prolonged state of sedevacante, you would expect that novel theological questions would cause rifts. Nevertheless, we profess the Integral Catholic Faith. As Van Noort teaches, "[During the Great Western Schism]...hierarchical unity was only materially, not formally, interrupted.  Although Catholics were split three ways in their allegiance because of the doubt as to which of the [papal] contenders had been legitimately elected, still all were agreed in believing that allegiance was owed to one legitimate successor of Peter, and they stood willing to give that allegiance." (Ibid:131; First Emphasis in original, second emphasis mine)

According to canonist Wernz-Vidal, "... [the] visibility of the Church consists in the fact that She possesses such signs and identifying marks that, when moral diligence is used, she can be recognized and discerned..." (See Commentary on the Code of Canon Law, pg. 454; Emphasis mine). The Church does not, strictly speaking, need an actual living pope to be a visible society, the Mystical Body of Christ. 

R&R Ecclesiology
1. There exists "Eternal Rome" and "Modernist Rome," of which the pope is the head of both. When he speaks for Eternal Rome, you obey. When he speaks for Modernist Rome, you resist.
The Society is fond of quoting from a statement of Archbishop Lefebvre, which seems the starting point for their schizophrenic "Church:"
"We adhere, with all our heart, with all our soul to Catholic Rome, guardian of the Catholic Faith and of the traditions necessary for the preservation of that faith, to Eternal Rome, teacher of wisdom and truth. On the other hand we refuse and have always refused to follow the Rome of the neo-Modernist and neo-Protestant tendency that clearly manifested itself in the Second Vatican Council and after the Council in all the reforms that resulted from it."

They put this into practice with disastrous results.

From "Frequently Asked Questions About The SSPX" ("FAQ")
 (available online at http://archives.sspx.org/sspxfaqs.htm): 
"We are not to co-operate blindly in the destruction of the Church by tolerating the implementation of a new religion or by not doing what we can to defend the Catholic faith. Archbishop Lefebvre was surely our model here: No authority, not even the highest in the hierarchy, can compel us to abandon or to diminish our Catholic Faith, so clearly expressed and professed by the Church’s Magisterium for 19 centuries." 

How can a true pope "implement a new religion"? It's one thing to say that a pope is not without sin and can do morally evil acts. This is true and in this he is to be resisted (e.g., the pope asks someone to "murder one of my enemies for me"). However, it is a dogma that the Church is Indefectible, i.e., She cannot give that which is false or evil to Her members, such as imposing a "new religion."

Therefore, the pope cannot give that which is evil or erroneous to the whole Church. According to theologian Herrmann:

"The Church is infallible in her general discipline. By the term general discipline is understood the laws and practices which belong to the external ordering of the whole Church. Such things would be those which concern either external worship, such as liturgy and rubrics, or the administration of the sacraments… If She [the Church] were able to prescribe or command or tolerate in Her discipline something against faith and morals, or something which tended to the detriment of the Church or to the harm of the faithful, She would turn away from her divine mission, which would be impossible."
(Institutiones Theologiae Dogmaticae, Vol. 1, p. 258)

Pope Gregory XVI, Mirari Vos, Para. #9:

"[T]he discipline sanctioned by the Church must never be rejected or be branded as contrary to certain principles of natural law. It must never be called crippled, or imperfect or subject to civil authority. In this discipline the administration of sacred rites, standards of morality, and the reckoning of the rights of the Church and her ministers are embraced."

Pope Pius XII, Mystici Corporis, Para. #66

"Certainly the loving Mother [the Church] is spotless in the Sacraments, by which she gives birth to and nourishes her children; in the faith which she has always preserved inviolate; in her sacred laws imposed on all; in the evangelical counsels which she recommends; in those heavenly gifts and extraordinary graces through which, with inexhaustible fecundity, she generates hosts of martyrs, virgins and confessors."

Yet the SSPX and the other R&R recognize Bergoglio, a man they claim is "implementing a new religion" (along with the other post-Vatican II "popes" before him), can be pope over both Modernist Rome (new religion) and Eternal Rome (true religion) simultaneously. Moreover, the true and the false religion seem to "subsist" together in the same overarching "Church" (sound familiar?).

2. The Eternal Rome Can Refuse to Have Communion with Modernist Rome
The SSPX: "Now, the Novus Ordo Missae [New "mass"] assumes these heterodox elements alongside the Catholic ones to form a liturgy for a modernist religion which would marry the Church and the world, Catholicism and Protestantism, light and darkness...If the Novus Ordo Missae is not truly Catholic, then it cannot oblige for one’s Sunday obligation. Many Catholics who do assist at it are unaware of its all pervasive degree of serious innovation and are exempt from guilt. However, any Catholic who is aware of its harm, does not have the right to participate. He could only then assist at it by a mere physical presence without positively taking part in it, and then and for major family reasons (weddings, funerals, etc)." (See FAQ cited above).

According to theologian Szal, to be schismatic, one must meet four requirements:

  • one must withdraw directly (expressly) or indirectly (by means of one's actions) from obediance to the Roman Pontiff and separate oneself from ecclesiastical communion with the rest of the faithful, even though one does not join a separate schismatic sect
  • one's withdrawal must be made with obstinacy and rebellion
  • the withdrawal must be made in relation to such things by which the unity of the Church is constituted
  • despite this formal disobedience the schismatic must recognize the Roman Pontiff as the true pastor of the Church, and he must profess as an article of faith that obedience is due the Roman Pontiff 
(See The Communication of Catholics with Schismatics, [1948], pg. 2)

The Church is thereby in schism with itself. The SSPX is part of Eternal Rome with Bergoglio as "pope" and yet they cannot participate in public worship with Modernist Rome which also has Bergoglio as "pope" because their "mass" is Modernist and evil. The idea of an evil "mass" given by a real pope would contradict the dogma of Indefectibility as stated above, and in this case, they are refusing communion in worship with members alleged to be Catholic, just as they are. Eternal Rome and Modernist Rome form the same Church, but somehow have different religions and can't have unity in communion with each other.  

3. The Magisterium of Modernist Rome Needs to be Corrected by Eternal Rome 
The teaching authority of BOTH Eternal Rome and Modernist Rome resides in Bergoglio. However, if Bergoglio (or his "bishops") make a decision regarding, e.g. annulments and canonizations, the members of Eternal Rome (SSPX) must "correct" his teaching authority.

 A Fr. Gleize,  professor of ecclesiology at the SSPX seminary in Econe,  has written an article "Santo Subito: Is There a Problem?" in which he attempts to prove that we can decide which canonizations to accept and which to reject.  Fr. Gleize readily admits that canonizations are held to be infallible:


"Canonization is the act by which the Vicar of Christ, judging in ultimate instance and emitting a definitive sentence, inscribes in the catalogue of the saints a servant of God previously beatified. Canonization has a triple finality and does not refer only to the worship. In first instance, the pope declares that the faithful deceased is in the celestial glory; secondly, he expresses that the faithful deceased deserved to reach this glory for having practiced heroic virtues, which set an example for the whole Church; thirdly, so as to offer more easily these virtues as an example and to thank God for having cause it, he prescribes that the faithful deceased should receive a public cult. On these three scores the canonization is a precept and obliges the entire Church, and it constitutes a definitive and irreformable act."

Father claims..."it is clear that, by itself, the procedure does not have the rigor of the older one. It is much less exigent in matters of guarantees from Churchmen, so that the divine assistance may insure the infallibility of the canonization, and, with greater reason, the absence of error of fact in the beatification. Besides, Pope John Paul II decided not to follow the present procedure (which disposes that the beginning of the beatification process not take place before five years after the death of the candidate), by authorizing the introduction of the cause of Mother Teresa of Calcutta three years after her passing away. Benedict XVI did the same regarding the beatification of his predecessor. The doubt becomes much more legitimate when one considers the reasons the Church has to act cautiously in these matters."

He asserts that we are justified to doubt canonizations if a certain procedure is not carried out. However, the Divine assistance of infallibility has never been held by the Church to be dependent upon following a certain preliminary set of actions. He gives no citation for this novel idea. The process of canonization has taken different forms through the centuries, but all that is needed for the declaration to be infallible (according to the First Vatican Council and the teaching of the theologians) is that the pope intends to define a matter of Faith and/or morals as Supreme Teacher of the Church, and he intends to bind the faithful. Decrees of canonization meet this requirement. To assert that canonizations may not be infallible due to some procedural misstep is to admit the possibility that the "saint" might actually be a damned soul held up to be emulated and venerated. That would mean the Church can give evil to its members, which is impossible.  

Conclusion
R&R ecclesiology results in a schizophrenic "church," with two separate faiths lead by the same "pope" in which you must decide for yourself what is good and bad, true and false. Bergoglio's Vatican II ecclesiology just adds to the confusion by "giving jurisdiction" for SSPX priests to hear confessions and perform marriages for members of his sect. They're in "partial communion," after all. The SSPX bishops are also in some strange state with Bergoglio; neither excommunicated, yet without Sees or ordinary jurisdiction. 

All of this cannot be reconciled with authentic Church teaching. How much longer before the SSPX seeks to go into "full communion" with Bergoglio, and end the self-created "church within a church"? How much longer can we assume good faith on the part of R&R clerics and their apologists before we can no longer look upon them as Catholics? The only way out is sedevacantism. Being a true Traditionalist means being in the ONE True Church, not some divided concoction that gives both good and evil with clerics speaking out of both sides of their mouths.  

82 comments:

  1. Like the Modernists, the R&Rers have to redifine the meaning of words to preserve "unity." Therefore they can openly profess the Creed with a straight face because they long ago adopted the Gallican notion of being in union with Rome. For modernists, the Church began with Vatican 2, but for R&Rers, the Church began with Abp Lefebrve.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Introibo, you can show us something about papal about the dogma of the Church's indefectibility?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Junior,
      Do you mean a specific papal decree about Indefectibility?

      —-Introibo

      Delete
    2. Read Vatican Council Paster Aeternus.

      Delete
    3. Junior,
      Tom is correct if you’re looking for an authoritative document.

      God Bless,

      —-Introibo

      Delete
  3. If Francis-John XXIII are true popes then they must submit to him. It's that simple. That group of stubborn people along with its clergy refuse submission and invent a notion that is impossible for Catholics to believe. The notion that one can resist every single time something a pope teaches, decrees etc and yet somehow recognize him anyway. What's the point of him at all? No matter the excuse, they're in serious trouble with their souls unless the change and become sedevacantist (the ONLY logical conclusion). Here is why

    Pope Pius IX taught:
    “And, we cannot pass over in silence the boldness of those who “not enduring sound doctrine” [II Tim. 4:3], contend that “without sin and with no loss of Catholic profession, one can withhold assent and obedience to those judgments and decrees of the Apostolic See, whose object is declared to relate to the general good of the Church and its right and discipline, provided it does not touch dogmas of faith or morals. There is no one who does not see and understand clearly and openly how opposed this is to the Catholic dogma of the plenary power divinely bestowed on the Roman Pontiff by Christ the Lord Himself of feeding, ruling, and governing the universal Church…Therefore, by our Apostolic authority, we reprobate, proscribe, and condemn all the singular and evil opinions and doctrines severally mentioned in this letter, and will and command that they be thoroughly held by all children of the Catholic Church as reprobated, proscribed and condemned.” (Quanta Cura, Dec 8, 1864.)

    Pope Leo XIII said,
    By certain indications it is not difficult to conclude that among Catholics – doubtless as a result of current evils – there are some who, far from satisfied with the condition of “subject” which is theirs in the Church, think themselves able to take some part in her government, or at least, think they are allowed to examine and judge after their own fashion the acts of authority. A misplaced opinion, certainly. If it were to prevail, it would do very grave harm to the Church of God, in which, by the manifest will of her Divine Founder, there are to be distinguished in the most absolute fashion two parties: the teaching and the taught, the Shepherd and the flock, among whom there is one who is the head and the Supreme Shepherd of all.

    To the shepherds alone was given all power to teach, to judge, to direct; on the faithful was imposed the duty of following their teaching, of submitting with docility to their judgment, and of allowing themselves to be governed, corrected, and guided by them in the way of salvation. Thus, it is an absolute necessity for the simple faithful to submit in mind and heart to their own pastors, and for the latter to submit with them to the Head and Supreme Pastor. In this subordination and dependence lie the order and life of the Church; in it is to be found the indispensable condition of well-being and good government. On the contrary, if it should happen that those who have no right to do so should attribute authority to themselves, if they presume to become judges and teachers, if inferiors in the government of the universal Church attempt or try to exert an influence different from that of the supreme authority, there follows a reversal of the true order, many minds are thrown into confusion, and souls leave the right path. Epistola Tua (1885)

    BTW I've tried posting comments like that on the Remnant newspaper and they censored it by not not posting it. Yes censor true popes! So they can claim to believe in this or that all they like, but in reality they reject Catholicism in many more ways than one. Sadly many lay people fall for the trap of believing and following them due to ignorance, appearance, and convenience.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I couldn’t agree more!

      God Bless,

      —-Introibo

      Delete
    2. That happened to me too. All my comments were being deleted so I started simply quoting true Popes. Those comments were "detected as spam."

      Delete
  4. What about the Sedvacantist groups who refuse Communion to one another. That is not Catholic. Also, where is their unity?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Some refuse Communion because of failure to submit to certain ideas that cannot receive definitive answers absent a pope. They are wrong in so doing, but those things are to be expected without a Shepard. Our unity is in the willingness to submit to a legitimate pope and the profession of the Integral Catholic Faith.

      —-Introibo

      Delete
    2. Ok, so why don't you use your Catholic "unity" and elect your pope so you can submit to him? In the meantime, you should leave us R & R Traditionalists alone until you find a way to solve your own problems.

      Delete
    3. Sedevacantism is not a movement or a sect or an apostolate. It is simply someone who believes the See is Vacant. There are no dogmas other than Catholic ones, there are no doctrines other than Catholic ones. Based on all the Church professed about faith and morals before Vatican 2, this new Church of Man, that Bergolio and Ratzinger currently co-administer, is not the Church that Christ established. To equate those apostates with Holy Mother Church is a blasphemy and goes against centuries of authentic Church teaching about Herself.

      Delete
    4. @anonymous12:59
      See my post http://introiboadaltaredei2.blogspot.com/2018/09/when-can-we-say-habemus-papam-again.html?m=1
      As to how a vacancy can be ended. It’s not simple according to the theologians. Yet you believe a man who professes “There is no Catholic God” can be pope. This runs counter to ALL Catholic teaching and is not the same as getting another pope.

      —-Introibo

      Delete
    5. You tell me nothing. Once again, use your unity to elect your pope or leave us R & R Catholics alone.

      You can't expect people to join you until you resolve your own defects. I don't believe you can. Neither does anyone else I know. that is why most traditionals will have nothing to do with sedevacantism.

      Delete
    6. anonymous12:59

      How bout you all free yourselves from schismatic and heretical disunity or submit to its own pope and the teachings of the second Vatican council. The way I solve my problems is that if a sedevacantist group is as anti Catholic as an R&R group (there are) then I point it out, avoid the particular group and go some place until I find the most consistent and honest with following Catholicism. There is a few groups out there that has their act together but you can only expect so much without a pope. I honestly don't understand how the R&R group can call themselves Catholic. I mean what do you all teach your little ones about the Magisterium and Papal infallibility when the topic comes up, especially if you believe Francis is the Vicar of Christ and Supreme Shepherd? I think the cross is too hard for the R&R to bear because the facts are so devastating because they know they will have to make a change in their life and give up alot (their church, friends, etc.) What did Jesus say? He that loveth his life shall lose it; and he that hateth his life in this world, keepeth it unto life eternal. Jn. 12:25

      Delete
    7. @anonymous3:10
      We have no "problems." The Church continues to thrive during a long period without a pope, only in a different mode. According to theologian Dorsch:

      "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; Emphasis mine).

      You believe in a "Church" that can teach error and give evil. That is clearly against ALL CHURCH TEACHING PRIOR TO VATICAN II. Your recognition of Frankie forces you into a false ecclesiology, one that is heretical in practice.


      ---Introibo

      Delete
    8. anonymous3:10

      "You can't expect people to join you until you resolve your own defects." Explain how a person can be Catholic and at the same time reject what he/she thinks to be the pope? That's not only a defect, it's separation from Catholicism otherwise what difference is there between that and Eastern Orthodoxy? Hence that is the real reason "why most traditionals will have nothing to do with sedevacantism" because they are protestants who like their bells and smells. Truly pathetic.

      Delete
    9. @Anonymous 12:59PM
      No one has all of the answers,even Bishop Lefebvre referred to Sedevacantist opinion as possible,not certain.
      If we're going by infallible councils,Pius XII lost his office by violating Council of Trent Session 7 Canon 13 via introducing the
      "New Holy Week." Problem is, there is no authority to resolve these matters,even by your standards. The Supreme Apostolic Authority which has that power is denied by you and other R+R objectionists.
      -Andrew

      Delete
  5. Denying Communion between sedevacantist groups is not like saying "There is no Catholic God" (sic) "God made you gay" (sic) "Jesus made himself a devil" (sic) "Pardon to the muslims because a Catholic army won them at war" (sic) "Proselytism is nonsense" (sic) and millions of more anti-catholic heresies.
    The reason we keep bothering your R&R theory is because it is 1: Schizophrenic 2: Contradicts Church teaching 3: It is gallican (no true papal authority) and schismatic, while the division between sedevacantist group is not so serious.
    You can also solve your own problems before calling us "schizophrenic sede-vacationists". I was a R&R like you, and i have seen evidence of hatred between de SSPX and the SPPX-SO. Most R&R are very angry with Mons. Fellay re-union with the novus ordo, thought he should not be sinning if Frankie is the Pope... or was it Benny?
    The problem that both conclavists and R&R have is that they think everybody can be the pope: Pelagians, Modernists, Gallicans, Masons, etc.
    So instead of coming to bother we sedevacantists, try to find what is the teaching of the Church that you defend so much.
    For Greater Glory of God,
    Long Life Christ the King and Our Lady of Guadalupe.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. poni,
      Yes. Also, the denial of Communion is not because, for example, the SSPV considers the CMRI heretical--they (wrongfully) doubt the validity of Thuc line Bishops. It's not a matter of the SSPX calling the Novus Bogus "mass" heretical, and then claiming it's part of the same Church as the True Mass--as if the Church can give evil to Her members! That's a blasphemous lie!

      God Bless,
      ---Introibo

      Delete
    2. The key is the Catholic Faith. R&Rers do not have a proper understanding of what the Faith is and its definition. The Catholic Faith are truthes revealed by God and taught by the Catholic Church. R&Rers and Neo con NOites look soley on the institution and completely ignoring the Faith. In essence the R&Rers destroy the dogmas and doctrines on the papacy and ecclesiology just as ruthlessley as modernists.

      Delete
  6. What are the R&R doing reading a sedevacanist blog if they are so adamant in their beliefs and positions?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I feel that most R&R websites have more about personal opinions that Church Teachings.

      Delete
    2. Poni,
      Without a doubt!

      God Bless,

      —-Introibo

      Delete
  7. Very helpful and down to earth . Sedevacantism makes sense. Do any N.O. or R&R suggest it is sinful? If it is a matter of opinion, why are they so upset? (I can't wait until Frank-at-the-bank bans the Latin Mass! They all will blame the sedevacantists!) - Pray for the church in China.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The Vatican II sect considers Sedevacantism as “heretical.” R&R considers it false (at best) or “Schismatic” (at worst).

      God Bless,

      —-Introibo

      Delete
    2. I fail to find anyplace that the Novus Ordo takes any notice of us sedevacantists whatsoever, one way or the other, not counting individual lay apologists acting on their own.

      Delete
    3. I wish we trad-Catholics would unite and stop using academic terms such a
      'R&R' and 'Sedevacantist.'
      It keeps us divided at a time when the Communist Left is 💯% united.

      "This sisterhood is UNITED!"
      -Lucy Lu
      Women's March
      Washington DC 2017

      -Andrew

      Delete
  8. What do you think of the idea that the traditional Bishops are the hierarchy? This would be based on the fact that during interregnums of the past and other instances when the explicit mandate was not possible the bishops consecrated during that time continued the hierarchy validly and licitly apart from the expressed mandate but only with what the theologians call a tacit mandate from the Apostolic See. I'm thinking primarily during the early Church, the Great Western Schism and in monasteries.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. They are the hierarchy, but without Ordinary jurisdiction. Are you suggesting they have Ordinary jurisdiction? That, in my opinion, cannot be maintained, and no Traditional bishops (except for the late Louis Vezelis) ever claimed to possess it.

      God Bless,

      —-Introibo

      Delete
    2. I am suggesting it. Have you read Griff Ruby's book SEDEVACANTE!?

      I mean they are the only known Catholic bishops on the planet. Why wouldn't they have it? If the apostolic was implicit during past interregnums why would it not be now? I have never seen that question adequately answered, even by the strongest of the cassiciacum pushers.

      Delete
    3. Do you agree that their has to be a bishop both valid and licit for the Church to exist and be visible or can the hierarchy be composed of only the illict?

      Delete
    4. I m reading Mr. Ruby’s book which I find most interesting. I don’t believe Traditionalist bishops to be illicit. They are working during a time of necessity. However, bishops cannot possess Ordinary jurisdiction unless designated by the pope. They cannot authoritatively teach, rule, or govern as in normal times. As theologian Dorsch teaches, the Church continues to exist but in a materially different way.

      God Bless,

      —-Introibo

      Delete
    5. Thank you for your patience Introibo. BTW. I love your site. Most excellent. One of the better ones out there. The whole point is that in the past bishops had ordinary jurisdiction through the tacit mandate i.e. without the expressed designation from a Pope. Why wouln't they now? Does Dorsch teach that the Church can exist when there is no bishop with ordinary jurisdiction?

      Delete
    6. John,
      Thank you for the kind words my friend. I’m not convinced of Ordinary jurisdiction through tacit mandate. We know that the theologians teach that only the pope receives universal Ordinary jurisdiction upon the acceptance of his election. Bishops receive it through the pope EXPRESSLY. In the past, when bishops took actions in time of necessity, they were ratified by the Pontiff which would be unnecessary if they had Ordinary jurisdiction by some tacit bestowal of power.

      There’s another problem: If Traditionalist bishops possesss Ordinary jurisdiction, over whom is it exercised? Is Bishop Kelly my Bishop? Bishop Pivarunas?

      That Traditionalist bishops are valid and licit, I concede. That they possess Ordinary jurisdiction I deny. Dorsch doesn’t address the issue directly, but if such were the case, Ordinary jurisdiction by tacit approval would have been taught by some theologians.

      God Bless,

      —-Introibo

      Delete
    7. Is it possible the Thuc bishops,3 consecrated in 1981,Bp.Dattessen & the Palmar bishops 1976,all ordained decades before new rite of Holy Orders,had some type of jurisdiction?
      Meaning,Bp.Thuc who was consecrated in 1938,went onto to consecrate priests ordained before 1965/1968,as did Bp.'s Carmona & Des Lauriers.
      (i.e. Thuc-Des LLauriers-McKenna-Slupski we're all ordained pre-1965/1968.)
      Could these priests have kept some type of jurisdiction after 1965/1968 and kept it with their subsequent Consecration?
      Also,the Bishop consecrated in Brazil by 3 SSPX Bishops in 1991 was ordained in 1967.(trad rite ordination by trad rite Bishop.)
      Could any of them have had jurisdiction outside of supplied?
      Hope this isn't worded in a confusing manner.
      -ANDREW

      Delete
    8. @Andrew
      No. They are valid, but have no Ordinary jurisdiction, which can only come by way of the pope.

      God Bless,

      ---Introibo

      Delete
  9. Would it be possible for me to get your e-mail address sir?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Send me your email address via these comments. I promise not to publish it. I will then contact you from an email address that protects my anonymity. It will read “From Introibo” in the subject line.

      —-Introibo

      Delete
  10. Introibo Ad Altare:
    I would want to ask you a question. ¿Do we need permission from a Church Authority to translate magisterial documents ej., Papal Encyclicals, Theological Texts and Papal Bulls?. I am asking this because i own a Traditionalist Blog (as you know) and i would like to Translate English articles to Spanish, and Spanish articles to English.
    For greater Glory of God,
    Long Life Christ the King and Our Lady of Guadalupe

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Poni,
      There is no one to give permission in a state of Sedevacantism. As long as you preface your Translation by saying something like, “I have tried to translate this as faithfully to the original as possible. Should anything be inaccurate, it is not my intention to publish anything contrary to Church teaching.”

      In my opinion, that should be sufficient.

      Good luck and God Bless,

      —-Introibo

      Delete
    2. So, when we have someone to give permission, we must ask them i guess. Thank God that i know English and Spanish very well. Thank God also that i know very good sedevacantist blogs so i may use the magisterial texts on them to clarify.
      For Greater Glory of God;
      Long Life Christ the King and Our Lady of Guadalupe.

      Delete
    3. That is one of the key problems of today. What Catholic authority do Catholics submit to? The conciliar modernists? Of course not. Then who? Name one prelate that has any sort of authority to bind your conscience?

      Delete
  11. I think the difficulty here is a conflating of "ordinary" jurisdiction with "territorial" jurisdiction. It seems as if someone would be thought of as an "ordinary bishop" if and only if he has been set over some territorial diocese, e. g. being "the Bishop of Brighton" or suchlike. Statistically that has long been by far the most common form an ordinary bishop takes, but that is not required in order to be "ordinary." In particular, such an ordinary is specifically and properly referred to as a "local ordinary" (or sometimes a "residential") bishop. But there are other "ordinaries" who are not "local" or "residential," such as those over virgin missionary territory, vicarates, Abbots of religious order (whose jurisdiction extends to all the members of their order no matter where located or residing), and so forth. In point of fact however I do believe there is a diocese within which our faithful traditional bishops do validly and lawfully serve as auxiliaries, but that is a long and highly-involved discussion, and ultimately mainly only of academic value (something for future ages to use as an idea for "interpreting" the canonical succession of the Church during this crisis (and Popeless) period).

    ReplyDelete
  12. As to the question of "who is your bishop," because there are no conventional geographical territorial boundaries between the respective chains of authority of the various bishops, this does not mean that you have no bishop, or may eclectically choose one thing from one and another from the next. Joining the Church, not only as a validly baptized person, but as a person on the membership rolls in some parish, is as much required as always to be a Catholic (though granted, circumstances such as extreme distance may excuse). But in the absence of Catholic local ordinaries, it becomes a bit like joining a religious order or congregation. If you are going to do it, you will have to pick one or another to be "your" order or congregation, though it would have to be from among the legitimate orders, of which there are many to choose from. Once joined, its leader is your supreme spiritual leader, rule, and guide (short of the Pope). And if there is a good reason to transfer to a different order that can also be done, but at all times one must belong to one or another (poverty and chastity, like baptism, can be observed absolutely without having to belong anywhere, but obedience is meaningless unless there exists someone one is pledged to obey).

    So how do we know? Who is your "go to" priest, your regular confessor, to whom you would apply if you wanted to get married, or needed the Last Rites (not in an immediate emergency wherein the closest available, whether otherwise preferable or not, would be advised), or have your children baptized or confirmed? That is your regular pastor, and his bishop is your bishop, your (admittedly non-local) Ordinary. As it is, these bishops do each have a particular juridical domain, namely the traditional societies they lead, so Bp. Kelly (or maybe it's now Bp. Santay) is "the bishop" of the SSPV; Bp. Pivarunas is "the bishop" of the CMRI, and so forth.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Introibo, could you please interpret and then summarize whatever mr ubi just said.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. He's saying that:
      1.Not all bishops with Ordinary jurisdiction are Diocesan Bishops (limited to a specific territory) such as the Archbishop of New York City, but bishops can have Ordinary Jurisdiction as was the case of General Superiors of Religious Congregations---for example, when Abp. Lefebvre was in charge of the Holy Ghost Fathers.

      2. The Traditionalist groups (e.g., SSPV, CMRI) are likened to Religious Orders and by joining with the CMRI, that would make Bishop Pivarunas your "de facto" bishop.

      My problem with both points is that only the Pope has authority to erect a religious order. While having some rules to guide you and bring you together through this time of the Great Apostasy, the Traditionalist groups are no more "religious orders" than "The Sacred Heart Auto League" or "The Knights of Columbus."

      If there is "ordinary jurisdiction by implication" there's nothing that stops Traditionalist bishops from, e.g. granting annulments. Ironically, only the SSPX which acknowledges Bergoglio as "pope" dares to do such. To the best of my knowledge and belief, no sedevacantist bishop claims ordinary jurisdiction, nor do they attempt things like granting of annulments.

      It is my opinion, based on Church teaching, that this theory is dangerous. It recognizes too much authority and is the opposite error of the Home Aloners who recognize NO authority. As per usual, "In medio stat veritas"---The truth lies in the middle.

      God bless,
      ---Introibo

      Delete
  14. I don’t know much as I am fairly new to Tradition, however, when anyone attempts to play Pope or bind me, a big red flag goes off. Also, when persons think they have this crisis all figured out - I steer clear. Navigating this crisis is very, very difficult and CAUTION is a word I have learned to put into action extensively.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Joann,
      Absolutely! Traditionalists who attempt to assert authority where none exists, do us more harm. We need each other to address issues carefully. The times are dangerous enough already!

      God Bless,

      —-Introibo

      Delete
    2. This is why recognize-and-resist blogs make so much damage, at giving themselves authority. But Novus Ordo Watch, for example, does not gives himself authority: The authority you find it on the Magisterial Text they cite.

      Delete
    3. Cite is quote. I did not translate it.

      Delete
  15. In my journey out of Novus Ordo Land, I spent perhaps a month or so as an R&Rer. I had stopped going to NO fake masses and stuck with diocesan Indult masses. But there is an SSPX chapel not too far away so I started to investigate their claim that it wasn't a sin to attend their Masses. In reading their material, I was quickly convinced that they NO church was a false church. It was Abp Lefebrve's own words that the NO church was not the Catholic Church. But I could never figure out why they still sought recognition from an organization they did not believe was Catholic. It was then when I came across the sedevacantist opinion. The straw that broke the camels back was John S. Daly's Evaluation of Michael Davies. In Daly's work, he thoroughly dismantles the errors of the R&R position.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Tom,
      I’m glad you found your way home! What’s disturbing to me is how the SSPX has (in the most infamous traditions of despots) re-published some earlier works of the Archbishop and REDACTED HIS WORDS THE CLEARLY SHOW HE CONSIDERED SEDEVACANTISM. R&R is intellectually dishonest on many levels.

      God Bless,

      —-Introibo

      Delete
    2. Personally,I think it's highly possible Archbishop Lefebvre was considering going public with the sedevacantist opinion before his death.
      It's a shame him & Bishop Thuc couldn't work together with Bishop De Castro Meyar before Bp.Thuc died in 1984.
      Imagine if all 3 had consecrated a few Bishops with each other and/or ordained/conditionally ordained priests days before the ceremony.
      Unity amongst Traditional Catholics wouldn't be so unobtainable now if that had transpired.

      'THIS SISTERHOOD IS UNITED!!!'(thunderous applause/screaming)
      -Lucy Lu @Women's March
      Washington DC Jan.2017.
      -An-AND

      Delete
    3. I went from a regular secular Americanist,
      to diocesan Indult,
      then to sedevacantist opinion via the Internet.
      The SSPX seemed ok for Holy Mass & Sacraments if that's your only option and nothing more.
      They are more illogical and obtuse when compared with the Novus Ordo.
      At least the Novus Ordo anti-church sticks to their guns and says we are all (sede or SSPX) "schismatic" or "in error."
      -ANDREW

      Delete
  16. What the R&R has done with Canonizations makes no sense at all. Didn’t they ever hear of the Communion of Saints or Papal Infallibility? To propagate their position they twist Canonizations to suit their R&R stance. Picking and choosing belongs in a smorgasbord, not in the Roman Catholic Church!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Its nonsense. Padre Pio they accept as a Saint, but Montini they reject. Who made them Pope?

      Delete
    2. Joann—who says we can’t sift the wheat from the chaff?

      Delete
  17. I think you guys should elect Bro. Michael Dimond as your pope. He is the front runner anyways so you might as well make it official.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The Dimond brothers are Feeneyites not Traditionalists; frauds not “Benedictines.” As far as “electing a pope” see my post,
      http://introiboadaltaredei2.blogspot.com/2018/09/when-can-we-say-habemus-papam-again.html?m=1

      —-Introibo

      Delete
  18. Anon @12:01 -True Saints are not chaff to be sifted (pre-Vatican II). Only the R&R sift bogus NO Saints to suit their agenda.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Joann,
      Yes! Moreover, what good is having a teaching authority (Magisterium) if YOU have to make decisions? How is that any different from having no teaching authority at all.

      —-Introibo

      Delete
    2. The R&R sound like Protestants to me as they have no teaching authority.

      Delete
  19. I came across a sedevacantist recently that claims that the authentic (non-infallible magisterium) can't teach heresy.

    What are your thoughts about this?

    What do the pre-Vatican II canonists have to say about this?

    Is it not the case that a bishop exercises the authentic magisterium every time he gives a sermon?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. @anonymous4:41
      According to theologian Van Noort:
      It is evident from Christ’s promises that the magisterium, the teaching office of the Church, was endowed with infallibility so that she might be able to carry out her mission properly, that is, to safeguard reverently, explain confidently, and defend effectively the deposit of faith. But the realization of this purpose demands the extension of infallibility in related matters…. The security of the deposit requires the effective warding off or elimination of all error which may be opposed to it, even though only indirectly. This would be simply impossible without infallibility in the matters listed above [i.e., those matters which are so closely connected with the revealed deposit that revelation itself would be imperiled unless an absolutely certain decision could be made about them].

      […]

      …The Church’s infallibility extends to the general discipline of the Church. This proposition is theologically certain. By the term ‘general discipline of the Church’ are meant those ecclesiastical laws passed for the universal Church for the direction of Christian worship and Christian living….

      The imposing of commands belongs not directly to the teaching office but to the ruling office; disciplinary laws are only indirectly an object of infallibility, i.e., only by reason of the doctrinal decision implicit in them. When the Church’s rulers sanction a law, they implicitly make a twofold judgment: 1. ‘This law squares with the Church’s doctrine of faith and morals;’ that is, it imposes nothing that is at odds with sound belief and good morals. This amounts to a doctrinal decree….

      Proof:

      1. From the purpose of infallibility. The Church was endowed with infallibility that it might safeguard the whole of Christ’s doctrine and be for all men a trustworthy teacher of the Christian way of life. But if the Church could make a mistake in the manner alleged when it legislated for the general discipline, it would no longer be either a loyal guardian of revealed doctrine or a trustworthy teacher of the Christian way of life. It would not be a guardian of revealed doctrine, for the imposition of a vicious law would be, for all practical purposes, tantamount to an erroneous definition of doctrine; everyone would naturally conclude that what the Church had commanded squared with sound doctrine. It would not be a teacher of the Christian way of life, for by its laws it would induce corruption into the practice of religious life.

      2. From the official statement of the Church, which stigmatized as ‘at least erroneous’ the hypothesis ‘that the Church could establish discipline which would be dangerous, harmful, and conducive to superstition and materialism.’” [see Pope Pius VI, Bull Auctorem Fidei, Denz. 1578]…

      The well-known axiom, Lex orandi est lex credendi (The law of prayer is the law of belief) is a special application of the doctrine of the Church’s infallibility in disciplinary matters. This axiom says in effect that formulae of prayer approved for public use in the universal Church cannot contain errors against faith or morals.

      (See "Dogmatic Theology" [1957], pp. 111-116)

      This explains very well the scope of the Church's infallibility. The Church is not infallible only in rare ex cathedra pronouncements. Also, the dogma of Indefectibility assures us that the Church cannot give that which is false or evil. While an INDIVIDUAL bishop can fall into heresy or give evil to his diocese--a universal law (disciplinary, and not only in matters of faith and morals)--- is also protected by infallibility because the universal Church cannot defect. In this sense, correctly understood, the Church cannot teach heresy. If She could, what kind of "teaching authority" would She be, if we can trust what She teaches?

      God Bless,

      ---Introibo

      Delete
    2. The way the Magisteirum (or magisterial teaching is divided) is divided (at least as I have seen presented) is threefold:


      (1) The Ordinary (non-infallible) Magisterium
      (2) The Ordinary and Universal Magisterium (Infallible)
      (3) The Extraordinary Magisterium (Infallible)


      My question focuses specifically on #1. Can we find heretical teachings under the ordinary-non-infallible-magisterium?

      The sedevacantist I was speaking to extends partial infallibility to the ordinary (non-infallible) magisterium. He says heresy taught by heretical bishops is not an act of the authentic magisteirum since according to Bellarmine, a bishop loses his office immediately upon heresy. He writes,

      "It doesn’t matter if a bishop knows whether his teaching is heretical or not. Even if a bishop is personally ignorant or not pertinacious, he still loses his office because it’s presumed in the external forum they know better. They are considered formal heretics. As St. Bellarine taught, “For men are not bound, or able to read hearts; but when they see that someone is a heretic by his external works, they judge him to be a heretic pure and simple, and condemn him as a heretic.”

      Delete
    3. See Tom’s response below.

      God Bless,

      —-Introibo

      Delete
  20. In short, no. The Ordinary Magesterium, like the Extraordinary Magesterium cannot by its essence contain heresy. Do not confuse infaillability with absence of heresy. While all infaillable things are free of heresy, not all things that are free of heresy are infaillable. It is Catholic teaching that Catholics are to submit thier intellects to all Magesterial teachings of the Roman Pontiff. We do not have the option to pick and choose. In our current situation, that means accept the modernist premise that dogmas can "evolve" or reject the authority that has promulgated the contradictions. To "resist" is to destroy the Papacy and the dogma of an indefectible Church. It is better to believe that the Church is very small and Her hierarchy decimated but the Faith intact, than to believe that the institution is still standing but the unity of faith destroyed.

    ReplyDelete
  21. In addition, we must remember that Pastor Aeternus defined the Extraordinary Magisterium to be infaillable. Do not assume this means that the Ordinary Magisterium is faillable. That is a false assumption. Some day a true Pope could claim the Ordinary Magisterium just as infaillable as the Extraordinary Magisterium. A huge error made by the R&R crowd is to believe that the Ordinary Magisterium may contain heresy. It could be argued that their belief is heretical itself. Also ironic is that Vatican 2 contains many heresies and the manner it was issued was absolutely in the form of Extraordinary Magisterium. Its an impossible position the R&Rers have placed themselves. But we are living in a time of great confusion and apostasy. Merry Christmas.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I received this response from a friend:

      "There is a widespread confusion between on the one hand the Ordinary Magisterium of which a particular bishop or pope (or even a council) is the subject which is fallible and is less confusingly called the merely authentic magisterium and on the other hand the Ordinary Magisterium of the Church herself which is infallible because the Church herself never teaches error. The former is found in the documents of bishops and popes and councils when they do not invoke their irreformable defining power (which of course individual bishops do not have taken separately). The latter is found in the universal immemorial consensus of the Church teaching and is less misleadingly called the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium. The key distinction is whether the Church or merely some individual is the subject of the teaching act. As Vatican I says “when the Roman Pontiff speaks ex cathedra … he possesses … that infallibility which the divine Redeemer willed his Church to enjoy in defining doctrine concerning faith or morals”. If the Church is the subject the text is infallible if not it is not.

      There is a further potential for confusion in that error has no rights so in a certain sense error arising in the merely authentic magisterium does not form part of that magisterium because the prelate in question was not given the authority to teach in order to teach error and so by definition acts ultra vires when he does so. However, this is a distinction that is of no practical use as the only way to know definitively that there is an error in such a document is to compare it to the documents of the extraordinary magisterium, to scripture or to the unanimous consensus of the fathers."

      Delete
  22. The Papal office can hardly be the source of ecclesial unity if the office has been vacant for the past 70 years (and counting). Sedevacatnism is heretical garbage.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. @anon11:35
      You don’t understand Catholic teaching on the papal office.
      According to theologian Dorsch, "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; Emphasis mine)

      Second, according to 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)
      —-Introibo

      Delete
    2. If Sedevacantism is “heretical garbage” then theologian Dorsch —one of the greatest approved theologians pre-Vatican II—was a heretic and didn’t understand ecclesiology!!

      —-Introibo

      Delete
    3. "OR EVEN FOR MANY YEARS"

      How many years is "many years"? The longest the author would have been familiar was a few years.

      Delete
    4. Wrong again. The Great Western Schism lasted 39 years, during which no one was sure who, if anyone, was a valid pope! Some contemporaries Of Dorsch speculated an interregnum Of a century or more!

      —-Introibo

      Delete
    5. "Of Dorsch speculated an interregnum Of a century or more!"

      Where does he say this?

      Delete
    6. I was looking for that citation. Until I find it, I quote theologian O’Reilley:

      He wrote his theology book in 1882 (a scant twelve years after the Vatican Council), entitled “The Relations of the Church to Society — Theological Essays.” On page 287, he writes in reference to the Great Western Schism:

      "There had been anti-popes before from time to time, but never for such a continuance... nor ever with such a following...
      The great schism of the West suggests to me a reflection which I take the liberty of expressing here. If this schism had not occurred, the hypothesis of such a thing happening would appear to many chimerical. They would say it could not be; God would not permit the Church to come into so unhappy a situation. Heresies might spring up and spread and last painfully long, through the fault and to the perdition of their authors and abettors, to the great distress too of the faithful, increased by actual persecution in many places where the heretics were dominant. But that the true Church should remain between thirty and forty years without a thoroughly ascertained Head, and representative of Christ on earth, this would not be. Yet it has been; and we have no guarantee that it will not be again, though we may fervently hope otherwise. What I would infer is, that we must not be too ready to pronounce on what God may permit. We know with absolute certainty that He will fulfill His promises; not allow anything to occur at variance with them; that He will sustain His Church and enable her to triumph over all enemies and difficulties; that He will give to each of the faithful those graces which are needed for each one’s service of Him and attainment of salvation, as He did during the great schism we have been considering, and in all the sufferings and trials which the Church has passed through from the beginning. We may also trust He will do a great deal more than what He has bound Himself to by His promises. We may look forward with a cheering probability to exemption for the future from some of the troubles and misfortunes that have befallen in the past. But we, or our successors in future generations of Christians, shall perhaps see stranger evils than have yet been experienced, even before the immediate approach of that great winding up of all things on earth that will precede the day of judgment. I am not setting up for a prophet, nor pretending to see unhappy wonders, of which I have no knowledge whatever. All I mean to convey is that contingencies regarding the Church, not excluded by the Divine promises, cannot be regarded as practically impossible, just because they would be terrible and distressing in a very high degree." (pg. 287).

      Note especially: “...we must not be too ready to pronounce on what God may permit.” Yet the R&R are ready to pronounce how long God will permit an interregnum! If I find the Dorsch citation, I will supply it.

      —-Introibo

      Delete
    7. Please note too, I said contemporaries Of Dorsch, not necessarily Dorsch himself! O’Reilley was one such theologian who speculated on a very long interregnum, and we cannot set limits on what God might be prepared to permit!

      —-Introibo

      Delete
  23. Merry Christmas, Introibo!

    I see that that your anonymous nemesis got a grindstone for Christmas, and with sharpened axe in hand he cometh for you. :)

    Nasty businesses these "isms," eh? Fascism, Communism, Sedevacantism, Nazism...

    And that's the game that the R&R crowd like to play. And I notoriously won't oblige them. I'm NOT a "sedevacantist" and I've got zero idea of what "sedevacantism" is. But I do recognize that we are in a state of sede vacante and it's been an awfully long interregnum.

    "Sede vacante" and "interregnum" - two completely normal and accepted terms used by theologians. Nothing to see here. Nothing bizarre about these terms.

    The only thing I find preposterous, is how people whom purport to be Catholic can claim that such a blatant heretic like Francis could actually be the Catholic pope.Some people are inexplicable. As the English are wont to say, "There's nowt as queer as folk."

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thank you for commenting my friend!

      Merry Christmas!

      —-Introibo

      Delete