tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6466183320330735196.post6363115687855619075..comments2024-03-29T04:51:09.098-07:00Comments on Introibo Ad Altare Dei: The Schizophrenic Church Of R & RIntroibo Ad Altare Deihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11377479441601352059noreply@blogger.comBlogger82125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6466183320330735196.post-12862585086966037292022-06-18T14:18:57.563-07:002022-06-18T14:18:57.563-07:00@Anonymous 12:59PM
No one has all of the answers,e...@Anonymous 12:59PM<br />No one has all of the answers,even Bishop Lefebvre referred to Sedevacantist opinion as possible,not certain.<br />If we're going by infallible councils,Pius XII lost his office by violating Council of Trent Session 7 Canon 13 via introducing the <br />"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.<br />-Andrew Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6466183320330735196.post-71795014625652763572018-12-26T08:36:59.415-08:002018-12-26T08:36:59.415-08:00Please note too, I said contemporaries Of Dorsch, ...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!<br /><br />—-Introibo Introibo Ad Altare Deihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11377479441601352059noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6466183320330735196.post-3638846183221398302018-12-26T08:35:25.357-08:002018-12-26T08:35:25.357-08:00I received this response from a friend:
"The...I received this response from a friend:<br /><br />"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.<br /><br />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."Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6466183320330735196.post-20361466838486989132018-12-26T08:32:38.553-08:002018-12-26T08:32:38.553-08:00I was looking for that citation. Until I find it, ...I was looking for that citation. Until I find it, I quote theologian O’Reilley:<br /><br />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:<br /><br />"There had been anti-popes before from time to time, but never for such a continuance... nor ever with such a following...<br />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). <br /><br />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.<br /><br />—-Introibo Introibo Ad Altare Deihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11377479441601352059noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6466183320330735196.post-35581426561827267152018-12-26T08:00:45.952-08:002018-12-26T08:00:45.952-08:00"Of Dorsch speculated an interregnum Of a cen..."Of Dorsch speculated an interregnum Of a century or more!"<br /><br />Where does he say this? Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6466183320330735196.post-20767607908571902422018-12-25T17:28:51.182-08:002018-12-25T17:28:51.182-08:00Thank you for commenting my friend!
Merry Christm...Thank you for commenting my friend!<br /><br />Merry Christmas!<br /><br />—-Introibo Introibo Ad Altare Deihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11377479441601352059noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6466183320330735196.post-82053207825396499242018-12-25T17:28:11.776-08:002018-12-25T17:28:11.776-08:00Wrong again. The Great Western Schism lasted 39 ye...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! <br /><br />—-Introibo Introibo Ad Altare Deihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11377479441601352059noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6466183320330735196.post-87360737171559653522018-12-25T17:16:53.933-08:002018-12-25T17:16:53.933-08:00"OR EVEN FOR MANY YEARS"
How many years..."OR EVEN FOR MANY YEARS"<br /><br />How many years is "many years"? The longest the author would have been familiar was a few years. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6466183320330735196.post-40302453212381174382018-12-25T13:39:25.094-08:002018-12-25T13:39:25.094-08:00Merry Christmas, Introibo!
I see that that your ...Merry Christmas, Introibo!<br /><br />I see that that your anonymous nemesis got a grindstone for Christmas, and with sharpened axe in hand he cometh for you. :)<br /><br />Nasty businesses these "isms," eh? Fascism, Communism, Sedevacantism, Nazism... <br /><br />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.<br /><br />"Sede vacante" and "interregnum" - two completely normal and accepted terms used by theologians. Nothing to see here. Nothing bizarre about these terms. <br /><br />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."Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6466183320330735196.post-67239002921774575142018-12-25T12:31:39.809-08:002018-12-25T12:31:39.809-08:00If Sedevacantism is “heretical garbage” then theol...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!!<br /><br />—-Introibo Introibo Ad Altare Deihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11377479441601352059noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6466183320330735196.post-60404968941028058752018-12-25T12:18:11.300-08:002018-12-25T12:18:11.300-08:00@anon11:35
You don’t understand Catholic teaching ...@anon11:35<br />You don’t understand Catholic teaching on the papal office. <br />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.…<br />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…<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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)<br /><br /> 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)<br />—-Introibo <br />Introibo Ad Altare Deihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11377479441601352059noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6466183320330735196.post-17832193469834096692018-12-25T11:35:59.922-08:002018-12-25T11:35:59.922-08:00The Papal office can hardly be the source of eccle...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. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6466183320330735196.post-22071338057702610012018-12-25T09:00:16.088-08:002018-12-25T09:00:16.088-08:00See Tom’s response below.
God Bless,
—-Introibo...See Tom’s response below. <br /><br />God Bless,<br /><br />—-Introibo Introibo Ad Altare Deihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11377479441601352059noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6466183320330735196.post-75241352671968714952018-12-25T04:51:04.377-08:002018-12-25T04:51:04.377-08:00In addition, we must remember that Pastor Aeternus...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. Tom A.https://www.blogger.com/profile/13680594973982446985noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6466183320330735196.post-26799656487614395362018-12-25T04:40:52.717-08:002018-12-25T04:40:52.717-08:00In short, no. The Ordinary Magesterium, like the ...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. Tom A.https://www.blogger.com/profile/13680594973982446985noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6466183320330735196.post-41497215002196531082018-12-24T06:55:01.809-08:002018-12-24T06:55:01.809-08:00The way the Magisteirum (or magisterial teaching i...The way the Magisteirum (or magisterial teaching is divided) is divided (at least as I have seen presented) is threefold:<br /><br /><br />(1) The Ordinary (non-infallible) Magisterium<br />(2) The Ordinary and Universal Magisterium (Infallible)<br />(3) The Extraordinary Magisterium (Infallible)<br /><br /><br />My question focuses specifically on #1. Can we find heretical teachings under the ordinary-non-infallible-magisterium? <br /><br />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,<br /><br />"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.”Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6466183320330735196.post-45382248267138026552018-12-23T22:54:17.091-08:002018-12-23T22:54:17.091-08:00@anonymous4:41
According to theologian Van Noort:
...@anonymous4:41<br />According to theologian Van Noort:<br />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].<br /><br />[…]<br /><br />…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….<br /><br />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….<br /><br />Proof:<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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]…<br /><br />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.<br /><br />(See "Dogmatic Theology" [1957], pp. 111-116)<br /><br />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?<br /><br />God Bless,<br /><br />---IntroiboIntroibo Ad Altare Deihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11377479441601352059noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6466183320330735196.post-56395249385525592802018-12-23T22:29:36.803-08:002018-12-23T22:29:36.803-08:00@Andrew
No. They are valid, but have no Ordinary j...@Andrew<br />No. They are valid, but have no Ordinary jurisdiction, which can only come by way of the pope.<br /><br />God Bless,<br /><br />---IntroiboIntroibo Ad Altare Deihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11377479441601352059noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6466183320330735196.post-90615756379257828282018-12-23T04:15:46.541-08:002018-12-23T04:15:46.541-08:00I wish we trad-Catholics would unite and stop usin...I wish we trad-Catholics would unite and stop using academic terms such a<br />'R&R' and 'Sedevacantist.'<br />It keeps us divided at a time when the Communist Left is 💯% united.<br /><br />"This sisterhood is UNITED!"<br />-Lucy Lu <br />Women's March<br />Washington DC 2017 <br /><br />-AndrewAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6466183320330735196.post-34847062050509815392018-12-22T16:41:08.739-08:002018-12-22T16:41:08.739-08:00I came across a sedevacantist recently that claims...I came across a sedevacantist recently that claims that the authentic (non-infallible magisterium) can't teach heresy. <br /><br />What are your thoughts about this? <br /><br />What do the pre-Vatican II canonists have to say about this? <br /><br />Is it not the case that a bishop exercises the authentic magisterium every time he gives a sermon? Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6466183320330735196.post-74965642757116655272018-12-22T15:50:30.809-08:002018-12-22T15:50:30.809-08:00Is it possible the Thuc bishops,3 consecrated in 1...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?<br />Meaning,Bp.Thuc who was consecrated in 1938,went onto to consecrate priests ordained before 1965/1968,as did Bp.'s Carmona & Des Lauriers.<br />(i.e. Thuc-Des LLauriers-McKenna-Slupski we're all ordained pre-1965/1968.)<br />Could these priests have kept some type of jurisdiction after 1965/1968 and kept it with their subsequent Consecration?<br />Also,the Bishop consecrated in Brazil by 3 SSPX Bishops in 1991 was ordained in 1967.(trad rite ordination by trad rite Bishop.)<br />Could any of them have had jurisdiction outside of supplied?<br />Hope this isn't worded in a confusing manner.<br />-ANDREWAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6466183320330735196.post-25866653271044041592018-12-22T15:38:11.190-08:002018-12-22T15:38:11.190-08:00I went from a regular secular Americanist,
to dioc...I went from a regular secular Americanist,<br />to diocesan Indult,<br />then to sedevacantist opinion via the Internet.<br />The SSPX seemed ok for Holy Mass & Sacraments if that's your only option and nothing more.<br />They are more illogical and obtuse when compared with the Novus Ordo.<br />At least the Novus Ordo anti-church sticks to their guns and says we are all (sede or SSPX) "schismatic" or "in error."<br />-ANDREWAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6466183320330735196.post-11988937604543810062018-12-22T15:30:46.493-08:002018-12-22T15:30:46.493-08:00Personally,I think it's highly possible Archbi...Personally,I think it's highly possible Archbishop Lefebvre was considering going public with the sedevacantist opinion before his death.<br />It's a shame him & Bishop Thuc couldn't work together with Bishop De Castro Meyar before Bp.Thuc died in 1984.<br />Imagine if all 3 had consecrated a few Bishops with each other and/or ordained/conditionally ordained priests days before the ceremony.<br />Unity amongst Traditional Catholics wouldn't be so unobtainable now if that had transpired.<br /><br />'THIS SISTERHOOD IS UNITED!!!'(thunderous applause/screaming)<br />-Lucy Lu @Women's March <br />Washington DC Jan.2017.<br />-An-ANDAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6466183320330735196.post-73109698003403159242018-12-16T16:20:22.663-08:002018-12-16T16:20:22.663-08:00The R&R sound like Protestants to me as they h...The R&R sound like Protestants to me as they have no teaching authority.<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6466183320330735196.post-56899071927349951282018-12-16T15:53:21.479-08:002018-12-16T15:53:21.479-08:00That happened to me too. All my comments were bei...That happened to me too. All my comments were being deleted so I started simply quoting true Popes. Those comments were "detected as spam."Tom A.https://www.blogger.com/profile/13680594973982446985noreply@blogger.com