Gen Z Catholic made a four part video against Sedevacantism : his overview of the history omits Pope Michael I ·
Do I Believe the Papacy At All? Yes. ·
Gen Z Catholic's Video, a Dialogue ·
Gen Z Catholic vs Me, Argument on Valid or not Papacies, Part I, What Would St. Robert Really Say? ·
Can the Proposed Defense For "united himself to each man" stand? No ·
Bishop Barron Against Rad Trads ·
Gen Z Catholic vs Me, Argument on Valid or not Papacies, Part II, Misreading Documents, Are We? ·
Gen Z Catholic vs Me, Argument on Valid or not Council ·
Gen Z Catholic vs Me, Argument on Valid or not Orders
Same video as in historic overview.
41:09 For papacies "Wojtyla -- Ratzinger -- Bergoglio" I would argue, Notorious in fact, due to acceptance of CCC § 283.
This is in most interpretations about Adam denial of one of the dogmas about him in Trent Session V or of an even more general dogma of God's goodness.
Collectivist and representationist views of how Adam committed the first sin (as a verbal personification of a de facto collective or as a representative of it) deny Trent Session V.
Saying Adam had non-human progenitors gets around this, but involves God's lack of goodness to Adam.
In scenarios where long term Evolutionism is invoked with a short term Biblical chronology from Adam on, it also goes against the evidence of people before carbon dated 4000 BC or 5500 BC (which they accept as corresponding directly to real dates 4000 or 5500 BC) were very clearly human.
In scenarios where Adam is put very far back, like before Homo Heidelbergensis, oldest dates of fossils (dates here not carbon but for instance stratigraphic or K-Ar), it may get around above problem, but only by denying the new scientific discoveries actyally teach us anything of the emergence of man, which goes against the text of CCC § 283.
This putting Adam that far back also involves the problem of how Moses could historically know Genesis 3 events, which are so imprtant for Original Sin and for the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin.
It doesn't help to pretend Moses knew it by prophecy rather than history, a) because that is never claimed, b) because one doesn't see how Moses could have false prophecy about the time spans of Genesis 5 and 11, if he was a true prophet.
And pretending the genealogies of Genesis 5 and 11 are a symbolic selection won't wash either, the parts that are symbolic in Matthew's genealogy are rather, why some generations are omitted. Since the symbolic omission would involve sins making some people impure, the idea of Genesis 5 and 11 symbolically omitting more people than they include amounts to the exact same problem in the older patriarchal covenant as a Protestant genealogy of Churches between Apostles and Reformation era, involving jumping from one group to another has. The people of God would at times have utterly disappeared, which is against the idea of a people of God spanning all ages.
Whatever one may believe of the validity of a Mass said in the III Eucharistic prayer, it certainly is right to affirm, checking the Swedish version which I heard often enough as a Novus Ordo:
"Genom alla tider samlar du åt dig ett folk , för att från solens uppgång till dess nedgång ett rent offer skall frambäras åt ditt Namn ."
It's right after the sentence that immediately follows the Sanctus. I'd translate it as:
(approx) Through all ages, thou gatherest to thyself a people, so that from the rising to the setting of the Sun a pure offering shall be brought forth to thy name.
The same idea is also expressed in Dei Verbum § 3.
You lose that if you put Adam so far back that the history of mankind since his time has been dangerously abridged, just as you lose the historicity and historical epistemology for Genesis 3. But you lose it especially if you believe that omissions in these genealogies are symbolic rather than factual. Because then, the omitted generations would not belong to this people from "through all ages" ....
In the Matthean genealogy, no one pretends that the inclusions as such are symbolic rather than factual, so, the possibility that the omissions are symbolic rather than factual is the only remaining one. Which is no problem if only 5 % of one line are omitted.
41:11 etc. "Such that if someone leaves the Catholic Church and then joins the Methodist Church ..."
Obviously, for notorious heresy to work, when it comes to people otherwise popes, one needs to define it with more amplitude than joining an already extant confession widely recognised as heretical.
Otherwise, Luther would not have been a notorious heretic prior to Exsurge Domine or to the final excommunication in Decet Romanum Pontificem.
41:36 In fact, you are misstating the five opinions.
The question is what happens
if the pope falls into heresy and not
if the pope is a heretic ... the distinction has a difference, since the question
what happens if the pope falls into heresy? is just one part of the latter, the other part being
if a heretic gets elected to papacy ...
42:40 The fifth opinion is correctly stated, but in the previous ones, you missed the distinctions of becoming a heretic after acceeding papacy and becoming (or not) a pope after falling into heresy already beforehand.
Especially the opinion 3 is misstated. It should run (and St. Francis of Sales does not agree with it), "the pope can never fall into heresy."
This is probably true, but doesn't settle whether someone could be ineligible for being a heretic and even so "visibly" "elected."
And that other opinion is dealt with in Cum Ex Apostolatus : even occult heresy renders ineligible, or so one must take Pope Paul IV, and once such heresy becomes manifest, even after the supposed election, it retroactively renders the election null and void.
Whether you hold that Cum Ex is voided since the Pope made the bull or not is not the point. The point about St. Bellarmine is, he did not have to deal with this question, since Pope Paul IV had already (in his opinion definitively) dealt with it.
43:06 Would John Salza argue that someone considering the last three "Popes" as non-such bc of CCC§283 find this also to be a case of "occult heresy" for the reason that
- "scientific theses have added to the knowledge the Bible gave us, and are still knowledge, worthy of comparison with Wisdom 7:21 if they do so"
- "in ways that contradict the obvious sense of the Bible as to time"
- "and/or as to ancestry of Adam"
Salza might argue that notorious heresy can only exist if the heresy is already directly condemned. As the Dimond Brothers mentioned, this is not the case.
- Nestorius lost office on starting to preach heresy
- not waiting to when he was condemned
- also not waiting to when his statement was condemned
- all according to Pope St. Celestine I, in a letter during the preparation for the council of Ephesus.
Or is his argument based on inaccessibility of subjective guilt prior to trial? That would have been the go to for Paul Natterer, back then FSSPX,
"wie müssen wir zum Pabst stehen?"
The problem with that is that Pope St. Celestine stated he lost office directly on starting to preach heresy, and that means, before he could be condemned in a fair trial.
44:25 I totally agree to this point.
The reason that a saint who threatened to withdraw obedience from John XXII if he held to "even the saints in heaven do not see God face to face prior to the Resurrection" (aka soul sleep) did not go sede was that he considered John XXII was looking in to it, with the result that on his death bed John XXII actually, having looked in to it, withdrew the heretical statement.
Now, confer the case of CCC§283.
- Wojtyla approved a catechism in which he placed it
- Ratzinger did not change that catechism (at least not on this topic)
- Bergoglio changed the catechism on another topic, but not on this one.
That's a very different attitude from "I'll look in to it" ...
IF there would be a forthcoming clearance of Bergoglio or even all three on this topic, this does not render rash or culpable the interim conclusions that they either lost papacy or weren't Popes, precisely as with Liberius, who was considered a non-Pope, another Pope was elected, Felix II, I think, and when Liberius got the chance, he cleared himself, and Felix II stepped back.
So, should unbeknownst to myself and others the trio I have considered as very certain antipopes have been willing to look in to it, and actually start endorsing Creation Science or at a minimum cease to promote Evolution "Science" and Heliocentrism and Deep Time, one would have to ask if such and such an alternative papacy was started based on error, but it would clearly have been error in a complicated question, it was difficult to know Bergoglio or perhaps all three were willing to look into it, when since 1992 it has seemed otherwise. Therefore, it would not qualify as schism for exactly the same reason that John's statement does not qualify as heresy.
44:53 I think, just as with the case of someone taking up an existence in Methodism, this test of pertinacity certainly is a sound one, but not the only sound one.
There are other ways of showing pertinacity than in saying "I don't care what the Church says" which 99 % of the heretics directly condemned by the Catholic Church (like Kent Hovind and the late Jack Chick were not directly condemned by Trent, some of their beliefs were, but their persons weren't), they would instead appeal to what they considered apt Church authority.
For instance, while Luther finished saying "neither Popes nor Councils are infallible" which amounts to a rejection of the Church, Calvin admitted the full authority of the first six councils, and of Popes up to St. Gregory I, the Great.
The problem is, there was massive Church authority against two sacraments only (the _De Sacramentis_ treatises by Church Fathers often only treated two sacraments, but even so did not claim Baptism and Eucharist were the only ones).
Similarily, there is massive Church authority against Deep Time, Deep Space, Heliocentrism, and perhaps especially ideas like "Adam lived much longer ago than 7500 years, by orders of magnitude" or "Adam had biological, anatomically human, metaphysically non-human ancestry" or "metaphysical humanity only gradually was bestowed on the population" and so on ...
Wojtyla was wrong in principle to imagine that Pius XII could trump all of that, and also wrong in fact of Pius XII having been more favourable to Evolutionism (on that occasion) than Honorius was to Monotheletism (Salza's example is great, because it brings up the difference in attitude between Honorius and Sergius, which is the same as between Pius XII and Wojtyla).
45:04 "but short of someone saying this"
No, precisely not.
"or publically joining a heretical group"
Meaning one already established as such. Again, no, precisely not.
These are not the only cases in which leaving the Church or pertinaciously holding to heresy can be established by notoriety of fact. They are very typical and clear cut examples, but there are examples that are less clear cut and still totally sufficiently clear cut.
Founding a heretical group is as bad as (or worse than) joining one.
Distorting Church authority to boost one's own pertinacity is at least nearly as bad as entirely dismissing the Church.
Salza's criteria fail to account for Nestorius being auto-deposed (according to Pope St. Celestine I) before his deposition and condemnation was pronounced at Ephesus in 431. The letter by Pope St. Celestine being from 430, before the council fathers convened.
Salza is arguably trying to pull off the bluff that submission of present day Church authority is way more needed than fidelity to the deposit of faith.
Both are needed, but whichever primes in a situation depends on which is more accessible to ascertain.
A Pope cannot be a heretic does not contradict a heretic cannot be a Pope. In a given case of conflict, one needs to ask which is more possible to ascertain.
Salza would pretend that the peaceful acceptance of a pope by all of the faithful and especially all of the bishops equals proof that a man is in fact Pope.
A sede would counter that the acceptance of Wojtyla, Ratzinger and Bergoglio was not peaceful when:
- there were already parallal papacies
- there were already sedevacantist bishops
- the faithful clinging to them being Popes include people who do a R'n'R (Recognise and Resist), like FSSPX
- the faithful clinging to them being Popes and admitted as faithful clearly include people who are stating heresies and pretending the Church "needs to reconsider these matters"
- the faithful clinging to them being Popes and neither FSSPX nor "German Bishops" (you know I don't mean all of the Bishops in Germany, but a certain type) include people who think they have to admonish popes or defend people deposed by them. Or reject a recent writing.
So, next question, is there a sign that, for instance, holding to CCC§283 is not a Catholic but a heretical position?
By the way, the Byzantine Catechism "Jesus - Our Pascha" does not contain that kind of paragraph.
46:18 Was the position of Torquemada ever condemned?
I don't mean by St. Robert, who condemned it in his opinion, I mean officially condemned.
Because, actually, the position involved in Cum Ex Apostolatus, namely that a man be unbeknownst to electors, i e normally cardinals, have fallen into heresy prior to the "election" and this later comes out, involves the idea of even occult heresy (if sinful) being incompatible with actually holding papal or other office.
The idea in Cum Ex and presumably in Torquemada is that one can be accepting as Pope someone who isn't. And one can be doing so innocently, if one is willing to rectify, once the non-papality becomes known.
So, to take a fictitious case in fictitious dates, AD 10 963 Michael Metallinos-Salza* comes to hold that the moral unison of Jesus' two wills came only about because they had ceased to be two will powers and had joined into one, in AD 10 965 he still holds to this, but keeps quiet when getting elected and in AD 10 967 a diary gets found from 10 964, which shows what he held, and in response to this, in AD 10 969 a Council of Ephesus XIII is held deposing him.
Well, in such a case, Michael Metallinos-Salza never was Pope in the first place, the ones accepting him prior to AD 10 967 would have been innocent of crime, the ones still holding to his papacy by 10 968 would be culpable of holding to a very probable non-pope, and the ones disagreeing with them would be the ones who made Ephesus XIII in 10 969 possible.
That St. Robert condemned position 2, personally, even if it was on the different issue of a Pope already such secretly falling into heresy, does not mean that he necessarily was right, it may mean he misunderstood a distinction Torquemada was making between a man not being pope and someone else knowing he was not pope.
Salza is so generous to suspects of when one can be acquitted offhand from manifest notorious heresy, when the suspect would otherwise be pope, but is inversely highly exacting, like a man condemning John for Monotheletism, when it comes to rejecting position 2 with St. Robert.
46:25 Why is John Salza announced in the text as "Mr. John Salza O.P."?
If he's a Dominican Tertiary, it would normally be O.P. Tert. I knew "John Salza Esq" but not "O.P." in connection with John Salza.
[Picture, see above time stamp 52:51]
47:11 "or if he stated that the Immaculate conception was completely false"
Indeed. However, the Biblical proof-texts for Immaculate Conception involve the interaction of Genesis 3:15, Judges and Judith about Jael and Judith, Luke 1.
This means that the literal veracity of the Genesis account is clearly also involved.
There are two ways of denying the Immaculate Conception, the Protestants say She was not excempt from Original Sin, the Orthodox, some of them, say that this was not an actual exception, since original sin doesn't really exist.
However, the literal existence of Original sin is only possible with the literal veracity of a literal fall.
Therefore, a man who does not believe Genesis to be history or that Adam was not literally the first man (which is involved in his capacity of originating a hereditary sin touching all men) or that he literally lived not too many generation overlaps before Moses (which is involved in our capacity of knowing about Adam), is therefore a manifest heretic and therefore not a Pope.
If this is misconstruing the position of Bergoglio, fine, he's free to clear himself. But given CCC§283, Wojtyla, Ratzinger and Bergoglio must, barring such explanation, be considered as having shown forth very clearly their capacity of public heretics.
It is not our duty to twist obvious meanings of stated words to accomodate in some kind of space of beneficial doubt about the hereticality of the position.
In this context, it is interesting that his site Scripture Catholic agrees with me on Geocentrism and a Young Universe.
"Salza a mené des recherches dont il a tiré des livres sur le catholicisme et la franc-maçonnerie. Il est l'infographe du site ScriptureCatholic.com. Il croit au géocentrisme6, est partisan du créationnisme, pensant que la terre est seulement âgée de 14 000 ans7 et est opposé au sionisme pour des raisons liées aux écritures bibliques8."
Here is a page on Geocentrism, not dated (btw, note, a) he is not making technical observations of a scientific type, where Robert Sungenis and I hold different solutions about the mechanism and where we agree on the insufficient proof for the opposite being insufficient, b) in France it is not material to the question of copyright even if I had borrowed my ideas entirely from him), here:
https://www.scripturecatholic.com/geocentrism/
In his Age of the Earth, he does not follow the Roman Martyrology for December 25, but tries to make his own chronology, I definitely disagree with "430 years between Jacob's arrival and the Exodus" since it's 430 years from Abraham's receiving the promise to the Exodus. Abraham lived all his life in a non-Abrahamic society:
https://www.scripturecatholic.com/evolution/#II_The_Age_of_the_EarthA_Scriptural_Chronology
The site does not agree with the wikipedia statement quoted, which would be an erroneous age of the earth.
It can in this connexion be noted, Robert Sungenis and he are more Catholic than the kind of Sedes who accomodate Old Age.
47:53 c. -- 49:20
// St Robert Bellarmine himself notes such as in the case of Pope Honorius so if the the Bishops issued a discretionary judgment that the pope has fallen into heresy then he would ipso facto lose his office and could therefore be punished by the church some set of aontas may say that this is changing definitions and reading Bellarmine in a manner which is different from how his words were intended but Bellarmine himself says it's through men that the office of the papacy is taken away he says for jurisdiction is certainly given to the Roman pontiff but with the agreement of men as is obvious because this man who beforehand was not the PO has from men that he would begin to be the pope therefore he is not removed by God unless it is through men furthermore he clearly states this as his view in De Ecclesia militante in chapter 10 where he says moreover it is certain whatever one or another may think that an occult heretic if he be a bishop or even the Supreme pontiff does not lose his jurisdiction dignity or title of the head of the church until either he publicly separates himself from the church or is convicted of heresy and is separated against his will he gives the clear conditions for a bishop losing his office and even says it applies to the pope a bishop retains his office until a he publicly separates himself from the church which would make him notorious in fact or B he is separated from the church against his will which would make him notorious in law whereby his office would be taken away from him by God and the church could exercise authority over him this was the view of Bellarmine not the idea [that bishops should follow a trail of breacrumbs] //
I think you are making a conflation of different concepts.
A discretionary judgement can be made by anyone. I am making a discretionary judgement when I conclude Bergoglio is not the pope.
If bishops make the same discretionary judgement, the same that I make, they may then from there conclude that Bergoglio not being pope allows them to proceed for what belongs to them, coercive judgements.
It is simply incorrect to suppose:
a) only bishops can make a discretionary judgement or
b) a pope would already fall out of office because of a discretionary judgement.
As long as there is no coercive judgement of someone being a heretic, the question of whether he is or has lost or never held papacy is a matter of opinion contingent on the evidence for notorious in fact heresy.
It's not just a stretch, but a very bad one, to imagine a bishop has more or less right than a layman to make a just discretionary judgement.
It's coercive judgements that belong to bishops, and to popes.
If a number of bishops considering themselves to be sufficiently many proceed from a discretionary judgement to for instance excommunication, they have gone on to coercive judgement, or attempts at such.
The Byzantine Catholic Orthodox Church has already proceeded that way. Since then, they have ended up in a position somewhat analogous to Eastern Orthodox, somewhat analogous to Old Catholics.
The idea that a purely discretionary judgement by bishops could effectively remove a heretical pseudo-pope from the appearance of papacy without any risk of schism is false.
If the person accused of being heretic and pseudo-pope does not agree with the ones making the discretionary judgement, he can reply "I answer with a coercive judgement, which I can, since I am the Pope" ...
For that matter, proceeding to a coercive judgement is also not likely to avoid schism becase a Pope facing an erroneous discretionary judgement leading up to a pseudo-coercive judgement is free to state the judgement is an illegal, an uncanonic one (like Caerularius judging Umberto, or pretending to do so).
The false Pope could absolutely do the same gambit.
One way to avoid this would be if the accused man voluntarily delegated to judges the right to judge him,
or if the diverse papacies in place (in Rome, on the Philippines, in Palmar) agreed to hold a council to decide between them.
49:29 I don't think any Sede holds that God secretly deposed "Paul VI" or "John Paul II" for saying, if meant in a heretical way, the statement:
"Jesus Christ makes us sharers in what he is. Through his Incarnation, the Son of God in a certain manner united himself with every human being."
Yankee Stadium, 1979,
"By his Incarnation, he, the Son of God, has in a certain way united himself with each man." CCC§521
Dimond brothers have made a case for this being understandable only in a heretical and even apostatic sense, coinciding with 2 Thessalonians 2:4.
The question is, can Jesus be the head of
all mankind, earning on Calvary the right to resurrect
every man, if he is not in
some way united even to mortal sinners outside His Church?
Because, when Adam earned us death, for every man, that is because every man is united to him as having him as ancestor. By substitutional atonement for Adam's sin, He is able to resurrect some to glory but also some to eternal dishonour. We do not hold that mortal sinners are annihilated, nor that they are reincarnated, nor that they remain disincarnate as eternally separate souls, we hold that they too are reunited to their bodies.
That would be my best defense for these men,
if any can be had.
But that does not answer about their adherence to CCC§283.
19:29 bis
// Sedevacantists' caricature of Bellarmine:
This man is the Pope.
This man says heretical things, while still recognising that the Catholic Church is the rule of faith.
God secretly deposes the Pope and everyone has to figure out the code by watching the news and comparing Popes against each other. /
/
Sorry, that is not the case. Dimond brothers think that the recognition "John Paul II" had of the Catholic Church being the rule of faith was no longer a sufficient one, that this is very clear from his "apostatic statement" and that this therefore constitutes a very open sign from God that he was not the Pope.
There is no "code" involved in watching the news, there is only ignorance about current affairs in not watching them.
There is also no "code" involved in comparing with Popes of which the orthodoxy is undoubted, it's a matter of saying their judgements are readable, as a living rule of the faith.
What Dimond Brothers use in this venue about Yankee Stadium and CCC§521 is the condemnation of Nestorius.
If one holds that Jesus either being ancestral to all men (by having his Y-chromosome from Adam, when God created Eve), or being a relative of all men (like 73:rd cousin 80 times removed to us who live now, give or take a few generations),
then this statement refers to His assumed humanity. In other words, is not touched by the condemnation of Nestorius or by 2 Thessalonians 2:4.
However, this is only possible by discarding the CCC§283.
If Adam lived 7000 years ago in a "scientific" old earth scenario, this would mean, neither he, nor Jesus, was the human relative of everyone in the Americas prior to Leif Eriksson or the Oceanian "mainland" / "biggest island" Ulimaroa, also known as Australia (the Commonwealth minus Tasmania) prior to van Diemen, and then it could only refer to His divinity and would be heretical in the way the Dimond brothers say.
49:59 -- 50:14
heresy and thus separated against his will so St Robert Bellarmine teaches that a pope not a man who was Pope and has fallen but a true Pope can be judged and convicted of heresy by the church
Now,
that's fairly radical.
That was probably what Revd de Nantes tried when posing, "before Pope Paul VI" an accusation act "against Pope Paul VI" for schism and heresy, i e public defection from the Church.
If Montini had actually listened then, there could already have been a verdict.
Meanwhile, alternative popes have already been elected, so the question would also involve, is by now any other papal line (Vatican in Exile or Palmar de Troya) the real holders of papal office.
It must however be noted, St. Francis of Sales held a different opinion, as soon as the discretionary judgement
leading up to such a process was made, one would not only know that the man was not Pope, but that he had not been so previous to the judgement, since at least when the man openly said sth which led to that decision, so that once they proceeded from dicretionary to coercive judgement, it would already be clear to them, the man they were judging was not Pope.
50:23 No. It
cannot be a discretionary or non-coercive judgement.
The fact that one would not have the military or policing means to force the non-pope to step back does not mean that one would not be trying to coerce him by reading him a sentence (even if he were absent and judged in contumaciam), trying to coerce him by excommunication, and so on. And obviously also trying to coerce the own followers to cease admitting him as Pope, by excommunicating those who remain admitting he's the Pope.
Salza has misconstrued two passages by relating them in a false way, or by relating them in a false way to a distinction.
The discretionary judgement is individual. It cannot be otherwise, since each individual human person actually has a God-given faculty of discretion.
So, what St. Robert Bellarmine is describing in the quote from De Ecclesia Militante, chapter 10, is in fact a coercive judgement.
But here, the object is obviously not a notorious heretic, it is in fact an occult heretic.
Salza is again misconstruing, he is in fact mislabelling the case of a notorious heretic as the case of an occult one.
Please note, Salza is a modern lawyer, not a professional historian of law. He is introducing very modern ideas on stability and due process at the expense of the actual ideas of people during the Renaissance, which obviously includes St. Robert Bellarmine, unless you prefer to say "Baroque" ...
50:50 The Church acts through Her members.
Even a collective consensus is reached only by members standing out.
Once, the Latin rite used to be against the Immaculate Conception, before there was a coercive judgement in favour, first liturgically by Pope Alexander VI, extending Dec 8th as "Feast of the Immaculate Conception" to all of the Church, then dogmatically, by Pope Pius IX, there were individuals, like Duns Scotus, of venerable memory, who proposed it. John Duns Scotus was, individually, making a discretionary judgement on the matter without waiting for the coercive ones by Alexander VI and Pius IX.
The idea that the Church as a hierarchy could make a discretionary judgement without first there being individual ones, not necessarily in the hierarchy, or that the Church could enforce a discretionary judgement without a coercive one, argues a severe confusion about who is in possession of freewill and judgement, it's in fact individuals.
Maybe, while John Salza has sufficiently detested Freemasonry to be saved, he has not sufficiently come over all the errors he held while a Freemason, and is therefore not yet very apt to teach?
Given he's an essayist, which I am also, there is no coercive judgement about forcing him to step back, we only have discretionary judgement to prefer reading for instance me over reading him, just as we have discretionary judgement to read Gilbert Keith Chesterton and not Gilbert Cesbron. (I recall some pages of Cesbron left a bad taste, not the exact topic ....).
51:26 Exactly, opinion 3 in the question by Bellarmine is compatible with an opinion saying that Cum Ex is not merely in all the text expressing divine law, but at least encapsuling divine law when it comes to Church office.
52:22 No, it's not. [a sleight of hand]
1) First, a sede who has abandoned the theory of a pope being Pope and losing office may feel it still needs to be argued, in case someone else should reverse the judgement leading to abandoning the idea that the "5th position" holds.
2) It shows the idea an apparent pope could, by heresy, be non-pope, in a demoted way, even if the application is somewhat different.
Speaking of sleights of hand, you've fallen for one or two of Salza's.
52:51 I'm reminded of Sts Augustine and AQuinas saying basically "we don't need an Immaculate actual first moment of Conception for the Blessed Virgin to be sinless" ... such changes of mood prove very little, given that the Church has
all Her ages at Her disposal.
In everything except what is already condemned.
52:56 -- 53:25
// going to try to fight this battle another way but of course it's a dead end because the constant teaching of the church is that so long as a pope or a bishop is tolerated and remains in external communion with the Roman Catholic Church he's going to retain his jurisdiction after all the church again is a a juridical uh entity a legal uh invisible Society jurisdiction is a legal Authority and hence cannot be losed through the secret machination of of a man's of a man's heart //
This poses three problems.
1) Is the communion which includes "Pope Francis" still the Catholic Church? I don't mean whether everyone in it could be a non-Catholic as to his individual standing before God. I mean, whether the Catholics inside that communion are not in a similar position to Catholic souls in the Orthodox Church, i e in the wrong place. Could for instance the things held in common by CMRI and IMBC be the true Church, or the communions with other popes, one of them?
2) CCC§283 with the 1992 speech where "John Paul II" pretended Galileo was right and "Evolution is more than [just] a theory" is not the secret machination, and neither is CCC§521 with Redemptor Hominis, Yankee stadium, Evangelium Vitae etc. The question only is, is one of these statements heretical?
3) Salza is committing a very heavy-handed sleight of hand when speaking of the "constant teaching of the Church" when both Torquemada and Cum Ex Apostolatus blatantly contradict his doctrine.
In fine, he is basically appealing to his very modern sensibility of what "legal authority" and "due process" are supposed to mean.
54:03 Yes, exactly.
He eventually decided to study the matter, and thereby equals the moral position of John, earlier on in the video. The John who said "I'll have to look it up" when it came to two wills.
This cancels any suspicion a sedevacantist could have against him about pertinaciousness of heretical opinion.
And this was in response to someone basically threatening to become a Sede (not to become an FSSPX-er!) if he didn't retract, which eventually he did on his deathbed, if my memory and sources served me right.
Since we already by hindsight know he retracted, a sede in this time cannot consider him a non-pope for sth we know was not real pertinaciousness.
54:33** 1) No, he was notorious in fact
for this position.
The reason he was not notorious in fact
for pertinacity is that he retracted on his deathbed. Or the day before he died.
The bar for being in some way notorious in fact is not incredibly high, it's normal.
That he was not going against an already defined dogma is probably the reason why so many Churchmen were not agreeing with the saint who actually did threaten to become a sede, possibly after that hold a new conclave.
That doesn't change that he was right in the light of what he knew of the Pope at the time, he only was wrong in the light of what we know since of the death of John XXII.
2) Popes can say incredibly erroneous things in non-infallible settings, granted, but not with pertinacity.
3) There was, as mentioned, a saint who threatened to "withdraw obedience" ... mentioned both by Fr Paul Natterer as threatening to become an FSSPX-er, and by I think Fr Cekada as threatening to become a Sede.
Either view, the reason we don't find this a total duty over the time of John XXII is twofold:
a) we know he retracted the erroneous view, hence that he retained his office (or at worst recovered it)
b) we also know very many fewer back then were aware of everything the Pope was saying.
Plus,
if the man had been
actually withdrawing his obedience, he would have drawn laymen with him, just as clergy in Écône, in St. Gertrude the Great (parish of Fr. Cekada, RIP), in Vatican in Exile are doing.
[Trent Horn replaced Salza]
56:19 Answering Trent Horn:
- I don't think any sedevacantist is in fact taking the moral scandals by themselves, without doctrinal issues, as proof that sedevacancy holds, Trent Horn is speculating over what I think is a strawman.
- The popes who said "Popes can apply the superabundant merits of Jesus and the saints to shorten times in Purgatory" were not saying anything that resembles either:
- a) CCC§283 and "Galileo was right" speach
- or b) CCC§521, Yankee Stadium, Redemptor Hominis, at least when non-creationism is at the very least obscuring the possibility he meant "united as man in family" a k a "kinsman redeemer" ...
56:26 Again the later council, the bishops' vote said he was heretic, the papal confirmation said he was culpable of favouring a heresy not his own.
One single man who
is a heretic and non-pope is not enough to threaten the survival of the Church, as the case of Pope Formosus (if such) proves.
Even a succession over 50 years (the time between Honorius writing to Sergius and the council with Pope St. Leo II) would not invalidate papacy, it does not by far exceed the forty years that Council Fathers at Vatican Council (1869--70) considered possible.
The Apostolic Succession of bishops receiving the sacrament of orders from each other does not depend on the popes holding valid jurisdiction.
The objection is basically rehashing the bad logic of "Pope Formosus and his successor broke Apostolic succession" (confusing the question of succession in office with succession in episcopal rank) which is so dear to the Protestants of a certain type.
56:30 "by creating 56:30 enough gaps in papal succession through these arguments all of apostolic succession would be threatened"
Well, no.
1) Because no one who had a basic Catholic theology to begin with would want to create "enough gaps" or agree to gaps proposed by Protestants
2) second for the reason already stated, the succession of bishops in the sacrament of orders does not depend on the validity of the papacy.
[Bryan Mercier replaced Trent Horn]
57:41 There are, no doubt, ill instructed sedevacantists. I have come across some who think Deep Time is fine, because Pius XII promoted it.
But there is also a possibility that Bryan Mercier is strawmanning even the ones he met.
To refute,
58:26, the claim that Sedevacantism is just doom and gloom, the Creed set by Fr. Cekada:
Credo in Faux Bourdon: Cekada
Rev. Anthony Cekada | 7 July 2019
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZBuMsPf-E8Y
[The channel owner is now going to take the same issue, and use Church Documents instead of St. Robert, and the first of them is Cum Ex Apostolatus. A bit disingenious to take that one as a completely separate issue, and not realise that it by close parallel involves whatever was Torquemada's view on automatic loss of office at even just the
secret sin of heresy — both the document and the theologian state that it
can happen to the Church to for some time believe someone is Pope, when in reality, due to secret heresy, he isn't. And that this actually doesn't hurt. Except of course the secret heretic if he refuses to repent. The fact that the document was later abrogated, if it was, does not mean that its theology was condemned.]
This part was lengthy. This means I had no time to comment on the second part of this issue or on the other two issues. So, this part and the dialogue are being published on Jan. 2, St. Basil the Great. The second part, and the parts on the two other issues are post-poned to Jan. 8 / 9. St. Adrian of Canterbury, with his first Vesper./HGL
* I leave the reader free to dig out the references within the fictitious name.
** And subsequent time stamps up to time of screen shot.
