Someones Attacked Pope Michael

Evidence of bad faith: Not Very Credible · Someones Attacked Pope Michael · Someone Played Foul · Possibly here too: James Martin is Wrong

Historical Development of the Liturgy Part 1 - Fr. Keith Kenney
St. Anne Roman Catholic Parish, 15 Sept. 2022
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a3UXR3aUyjw

Hans-Georg Lundahl

This video had a clip mirrored on Reason and Theology. I commented there, but it concerns you too:

Just mentioning, while Pope Michael was against the Novus Ordo, he was not against the vernacular.

You recall those missals where you have Latin text on one side and English on the other side?

Well, Pope Michael authorised priests to say Mass from the English page. And presumably the Spanish page too.

Gerald

Who is that??

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Gerald He died Aug. 2nd.

He was elected in an emergency conclave 1990. He was ordained and consecrated bishop on the Gaudete weekend 2011.

a comment invisible

by a J Stevo, content deduceable from my responses.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@J Stevo By then, six people, including the one who voted for someone else, recognised him as Pope.

Before he died last year, quite a few more did.

The podcast Pontifacts, by a deacon's daughter, interviewed him, and the interview is also on the youtube channel Vatican in Exile.

a comment invisible

by a J Stevo, content deduceable from my responses.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@J Stevo "six people in secret are not the church."

I dispute "in secret" - at least the five voting for him were rationally assured that he had sent invitations, and if he defrauded them on that point, it doesn't invalidate their intention.

Now, it is a pretty heavy accusation against a man who died, how about wondering whether some of those he invited were lying about not having received any such invitation.

"they werent cardinals,"

Election by cardinals is by a positive Church law of human prudential origin.

Emergency dispensations in moral theology set aside things that aren't of divine law, the election was claimed as an emergency one.

"we already had a pope,"

After Synagogue visit and Assisi prayer meeting that is highly disputable. Even improbable. I would say impossible.

"the faithful didnt even know about it,"

All of the faithful being aware of a conclave is not a requirement of its validity.

In older times people could go on praying "una cum papa nostro Gregorio" when Sabinian was already elected (not really, the interregnum lasted many months, but I take this as an example).

"those deceived by him"

I dispute "deceived"

"entered schism from the already reigning pontiff,"

I dispute "already reigning pontiff"

"theres no way to elect a new pope now that hes died."

His remaining clergy is preparing a conclave for this year ... perhaps they were waiting to get the possible adhesion of Beneplenists after Ratzinger died. He approved of the at least idea of "hermeneutics of continuity" and was therefore probably less strict on Ratzinger and Beneplenists than on Wojtyla and Bergoglio.

J Stevo

@Hans-Georg Lundahl i dispute emergency, the lack of current pope due to assissi and the synagogue meeting, and the idea that we again have no pope. you dont get to call his little group the church while he rest of the catholics of the world already recognise the current pope. and the emergency wouldnt qualify because even if the pope needed to be deposed it would need to be done publicly by the bishops and they would elect a new pope. i say in secret because the church didnt know that we needed a new pope or that the current one wasnt the pope or that there was a election for one. in fact majority of the church still hasnt heard of this guy.

William Avitt

Michael was not the Pope. He was an Antipope. He wasn't even a legitimate priest. He was a dude elected "Pope" by his parents and a few others. Please don't refer to that man as "Pope Michael." He was no such thing

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@William Avitt "He was an Antipope."

As in the perpetrator of Assisi 86 having been the real one? Na ...

"He wasn't even a legitimate priest."

He was a valid priest and bishop from 2011 - ordained a Saturday in Advent and consecreated the ensuing Gaudete Lord's Day.

"Please don't refer to that man as 'Pope Michael.' He was no such thing"

What is your claim of knowing that better?

Ignorance of his circumstances of priesthood?

Acceptance of Antipope "Francis" with his bias for abortionists and Evolution theory? His having buried as a "Catholic bishop" an invalidly "consecrated" and on top of that modernist Anglican "bishop" named Tony Palmer?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@J Stevo "i dispute emergency, the lack of current pope due to assissi and the synagogue meeting,"

Whereby you advocate Syncretism or Communicatio in sacris with infidels.

"you dont get to call his little group the church while he rest of the catholics of the world already recognise the current pope."

There were arguably already thousands, perhaps already ten thousand sedevacantists who didn't.

His difference was drawing the correct practical conclusion from it.

"and the emergency wouldnt qualify because even if the pope needed to be deposed"

It was not based on a deposition of someone up to then recognised as Pope, but recognition he never was Pope and those who accepted him were at least materially schismatic and at least materially accomplices of heresy and apostasy.

"it would need to be done publicly by the bishops and they would elect a new pope."

Supposing there were faithful bishops left (those later consecrating Pope Michael were then schismatic, didn't participate in the conclave, didn't recognise him until 21 years later).

"i say in secret because the church didnt know that we needed a new pope"

You call "the Church" people who reasonably could have known "JP-II" wasn't pope, if they had looked closely and trusted their eyes.

"or that there was a election for one."

As said, he at least claimed to have sent invitations to lost of bishops.

" in fact majority of the church still hasnt heard of this guy."

In fact, due to the hierarchy you consider legitimate doing moves of pretending to be protective and therefore discrete.

People were prevented of speaking of him, and those who spoke of him were marginalised, like he ...

William Avitt

@Hans-Georg Lundahl the Pope is the person elected by the College of Cardinals to be the Bishop of Rome. Stop spreading heresy. You're endangering your eternal soul by buying into nonsense. And that's all I'm going to say on the matter because I don't argue with people who refuse to listen to reason. Go to confession and repent of Pope Michael and his nonsense

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@William Avitt "the Pope is the person elected by the College of Cardinals to be the Bishop of Rome."

That is a usual canonic requirement. It is not of divine law and did not take place during at least most of the first millennium (not sure if the change was in 900's or 1000's).

You are missing out on some requirements for election:

• being male
• being Catholic.

"Stop spreading heresy."

The usual definition of epikeia in moral theology involves that human laws can be set aside in an emergency, in order to remove it.

"John Paul II" - emergency verified
"elected by college of cardinals" - of human ecclesiastic law, verified.

"You're endangering your eternal soul by buying into nonsense."

Same to you. Same to you.

"And that's all I'm going to say on the matter because I don't argue with people who refuse to listen to reason."

Your opinion is REASON and mine is not? Who made you pope of rationality?

"Go to confession and repent of Pope Michael and his nonsense"

I tend to avoid confessions I'd fear would be invalid.

William Avitt

@Hans-Georg Lundahl you're on your way to avoiding salvation as well

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@William Avitt An invalid confession to an invalid priest with invalid jurisdiction is not likely to provide salvation.

Dito if the priest is valid (SSPX, Duarte-Costa lineage, Thuc lineage, some Old Catholic lineages as per Leo XIII and Pope Michel), but schismatic, or would require adhesion to heresy.

William Avitt

@Hans-Georg Lundahl the only thing invalid is your claim to be Catholic. SSPX is in schism, their priests aren't valid

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@William Avitt Their priests are valid priests, as are Orthodox priests, also in schism.

Neither schism nor heresy abolishes priesthood, unless the heresy is directly against the intention of the sacrament.

It is clear that the Protestant Deformation involved an intention to not celebrate the sacrifice of the Mass, it is at least disputedly alleged, and Pope Michael accepted that, that the adaptation of liturgy after Vatican II to Protestantism went far enough to delete true sacrifice of the Mass, and dito for the new episcopal consecration.

J Stevo

@Hans-Georg Lundahl and most of those sedes still didnt recognize michael.

saying he never was pope is simply false. i would say that for michael though anyway and his supporters.

you dont become schismatic by accident though and recognising a person as pope who isnt when no one actually is simply isnt schismatic (especially when all the bishops recognise him as pope and he went through a valid election) unless you reject the other bishops which no catholics did. the sedes did though.

jp 2 was pope and its reasonable to need the bishops to confirm him not being one because as laity your judgement of the matter is not authoritative or universal etc etc.

its very reasonable also to not speak of him and to marginalise those who do due to them causing confusion in the church and sowing dissent.

no one gets to privately decide who is or isnt pope. we turn to the visible church to show us through authoritative statements like the bishops election and their communion

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@J Stevo "and most of those sedes still didnt recognize michael."

Which is when they became schismatic after previously being Catholic.

"you dont become schismatic by accident though and recognising a person as pope who isnt when no one actually is simply isnt schismatic (especially when all the bishops recognise him as pope and he went through a valid election) unless you reject the other bishops which no catholics did."

Doesn't apply if the "Pope" is visibly heretic and supporting him becomes support for heresy. Then it is schism if you don't share the heresies, and heresy if you do. Including for the bishops.

"jp 2 was pope"

Fairly obviously not, though.

"and its reasonable to need the bishops to confirm him not being one because as laity your judgement of the matter is not authoritative or universal etc etc."

Authoritative and universal is less important than true.

"its very reasonable also to not speak of him and to marginalise those who do due to them causing confusion in the church and sowing dissent."

If your assessment were true, the Catholic tactic would be condemnation - which involves speaking of him.

What you think of as a reasonable response is the tactic by which Rabbis have for centuries avoided their "parishioners" looking fairly and squarely at Isaiah 53.

How do you say "parishioner" if the "parish" is a synagogue? Synagogitioner? Minyanitioner?

So, your choice of tactics shows you non-Catholic. It's a very different thing from how Leo XII dealt with La Petite Église or Pius XI with the Mariavites.

@J Stevo "no one gets to privately decide who is or isnt pope. we turn to the visible church "

How far do you push that?

In Protestant countries for centuries Anglican and Lutheran establishments could have said that to Catholic converts, they were privately deciding and going "against the visible Church" ...

It was my responsibility, in order to become a Catholic, received 1988, to make a decision in the privacy of my conscience before showing it up in public. It was equally so when it came to recognise Pope Michael.

J Stevo

@Hans-Georg Lundahl "Doesn't apply if the "Pope" is visibly heretic and supporting him becomes support for heresy. Then it is schism if you don't share the heresies, and heresy if you do. Including for the bishops."

yes it does. a "visible" heretic is literally meaningless if its not formal heresy. if its material heresy then he cannot possibly lose office because he is not culpable for it. he requires 2 corrections from the bishops before its considered formal.

and jp2 fairly obviously was a pope. just like all the others after him and before. he wasnt even a notorious heretic since the church didnt ever consider him one during his pontificate. (again even if he was it wouldnt depose him automatically he needs to be deposed by a council).

with the case of pontifical office authoritative and universal are required for it to be true. you dont need to privately discern whether every new pope is validly elected or still validly pope.

"So, your choice of tactics shows you non-Catholic. It's a very different thing from how Leo XII dealt with La Petite Église or Pius XI with the Mariavites. "

completely irrelevant. theres not a "true catholic way" of dealing with problems in the church.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@J Stevo "if its material heresy then he cannot possibly lose office because he is not culpable for it"

Sed contra est casus Nestorii, secundum verba papae sancti Caelestini ...

A layman in the pew stood up and shouted "heresy" or "heretic" after Nestorius had said "not Mother of God, but rather Mother of Christ" - and Pope St. Celestine I confirmed that Nestorius lost office immediately on starting to teach heresy.

Note, for it to be heretical, there was no need for formal heresy rather than just material. This was before Ephesus (I) formally defined Mother of God as dogma.

@J Stevo "theres not a "true catholic way" of dealing with problems in the church."

You just contradicted what you are pushing against sedes and us Conclavists.

J Stevo

@Hans-Georg Lundahl we have no confirmation that it works the same for a pope (since it would be considered a canonical penalty rather than some Tradition), and the people werent at fault for believing nestorious was a priest until he was publicly deposed. as for nestorious teaching he certainly was a formal heretic. so this isnt really comparable in any sense to this case and especially not to an invalid election.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@J Stevo "protestants have no visible church due to their lack of sacraments, authority, and lack of head."

Are you speaking from experience of non-conformists, non-denominationals etc?

Lutherans and Anglicans have apparent Churches, with apparent Sacraments, apparent authority, apparent head (King + archbishop sharing the authority, a bit like King and Prime Minister in politics).

So, your point was you have an apparent Church with apparent Sacraments, apparent authority and apparent head?

"im very sad to hear that you have been stuck in the same error for the last 40 years."

This is a side note on me. 1988 I converted to Novus Ordo, believing then that "John Paul II" was Pope. From Lutheranism, precisely.

I recognised Pope Michael when finally rejecting Bergoglio within a year of his "election" - to Ratzinger I had been often Recognise and Resist (c/o SSPX).

"we have no confirmation that it works the same for a pope"

From Sts Robert Bellarmine and Francis of Sales you do, see the documentation of Dimond brothers rather than trust people like Salza trying to tell you "IV Council of Constantinople condemned laymen deciding for themselves whom they recognise as bishop" when in fact it condemned the imposition of a bishop by a lay ruler on the legitimate bishop who was thrown into prison.

"the people werent at fault for believing nestorious was a priest until he was publicly deposed."

He remained a priest, even ontologically bishop - what he wasn't was bishop of Constantinople.

It is highly clear that those who refused to recognise him from the words against Mother of God and on were not at fault, it is less clear for those who continued to go to Sunday Mass in his Cathedral.

"as for nestorious teaching he certainly was a formal heretic."

Not yet at that time. We speak of things leading up to Ephesus 431. It didn't become formally heretic until 431. Materially heretic plus openly against previous and well known tradition was sufficient.

Shawn M

Pope Michael?

Tell us you are not in communion with the Catholic Church without telling us you are not in communion with the Church.

🙄

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Shawn M Fun fact - a Novus Ordo priest tried to give him the sacraments.

Fun fact too - he seems to have never been excommunicated.

There was a rumour he had withdrawn his position, then the rumour was withdrawn. As he was severely brain damaged from a cardiovascular accident, as I heard from Vatican in Exile, he was not in a position to do such a thing validly. Fr Francis Dominic gave him the last rites for real.

Shawn M

@Hans-Georg Lundahl

So?

I would hope any priest would try to help in that situation

As for excommunication, there are those imposed by ecclesiastical authority and those incurred by someone for grave actions performed. "Pope Michael" would have incurred the latter.

If he had damaged faculties as you claim, that is good as it mitigates to some extent his full culpability in his crimes. Only God knows to what extent of course and it is in His hands now. I pray the Lord is merciful to Michael.

Fun fact: when in danger of death, any priest can validly give sacraments so in that rare circumstance, even Last Rites administered by a schismatic heretic priest would be efficacious.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Shawn M "If he had damaged faculties as you claim, that is good as it mitigates to some extent his full culpability in his crimes"

He was not a criminal.

His brain damage was a cardiovascular accident one month or so before he died, and prior to that his capacity was normal.

Your last fun fact is to be recalled if I need to die in the vicinity of SSPX priests and far absence of priests from Vatican in Exile.

Shawn M

@Hans-Georg Lundahl

May your administering priest be both Novus Ordo and a liberal 🙂

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Shawn M If he's Novus Ordo, I may doubt his orders.

Pope Michael on the one hand stated NO ordinations are probably invalid (at least indirectly, by defining as valid successions Old Catholic, Duarte Costa, Lefebvre, Thuc) and on the other hand stated he preferred the people who took at least some kind of misguided care to have valid jurisdiction, not just orders with a permanently prolonged emergency state jurisdiction.

I proposed I could go to confess to an EO priest who had SSPX ordination, and who was in Paris, and go to the Eucharist with Sedes who weren't saying "una cum papa nostro Francisco" - he told me, no, they could think me mad.

Avoiding a pastoral which seeks to discredit one's mental capacities is a valid reason to avoid confessing. I stepped out of an SSPX "chapel" that was actually a Church, three consecrations done, for that reason.

Now, as for a liberal, I'd doubt the goodness of his advice, or what he's ask me to make resolutions for, should I survive.

@Shawn M When I converted in 1988, being a Novus Ordo didn't mean being formally in schism against Pope Michael, not yet elected, and I had a chaplain who was validly ordained in 1958 as my first Father Confessor.

Thank God for that!