Commenting only on the latter part of it, at the very end:
The ERRORS of Archbishop Lefebvre and the SSPX w/ John Salza
Robert Sungenis, a year ago
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vyVKOpd_DOI
1:45:43 I just came across Reason and Theology attacking Taylor Marshall for attacking Nostra Aetate on Buddhism.
I looked it up.
No "Again, Buddhism, in its various forms, realizes the radical insufficiency of this changeable world; it teaches a way by which men, in a devout and confident spirit, may be able either to acquire the state of perfect liberation, or attain, by their own efforts or through higher help, supreme illumination" does not mean that "may" as "may in fact" it translates a subjunctive which in Latin involves referral to the purpose of sth - so "may be able" means "are supposed to be able" ...
B U T ... "Religions, however, that are bound up with an advanced culture have struggled to answer the same questions by means of more refined concepts and a more developed language."
Oooops ... whether you mean "religions, bound as they are with advancement of culture" or you mean "[those specific] religions that are bound with a [more] advanced culture" you are repeating the kind of "anthropology of religions" that was popular with 19th C. academia. Pope Michael was right to reject that council.
And thank you for rejecting (as he did) the idea "a council called by an actual pope" could be "pastoral, therefore not infallible" ... It's invalid or infallible.
1:49:05 In Vatican council 1869-70, it is said that the Pope is infallible:
- when judging in unanimity with all the bishops around the world on a daily basis
- when assembling them on an ecumenic council
- when the Pope judges alone.
This would kind of make papal infallibility in the sense it is usually most often referred to ("was used twice in 2000 years" referring to two Marian dogmas, or canonisations by the Vatican according to less restrictive views) a subset of the infallibility the Pope is anyway exercising with the college of bishops.
I hope successors of Pope Michael won't consider this as heresy on my part ... but it gives the same result in accepting the material content of Lumen Gentium being correct without having LG being an act of the authentic magisterium.
- AndyTheCrimson
- @andythecrimson8877
- Who is Pope Michael?
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- @hglundahl
- @andythecrimson8877
- @andythecrimson8877 Here is a very brief overview:
- Ex-Seminarian of Winona
- Concluded Sedevacantism and that it could be fixed with an emergency "conclave", clergy participation desirable, but not necessary, elected the the other 5 who came on 16.VI.1990
- Ordained priest Saturday and consecrated bishop Gaudete Sunday, civil year 2011
- Died in 2022
- His successor (already bishop) elected in 2023, took the name Michael II.
I happened to know him over the internet and not yet accept him at the time when he was ordained.
His internet presence is Vatican in Exile (it's a team work and didn't go away because he died). In Kansas, his friend Father Francis Dominic celebrates mass, in the Philippines, his successor does and there are some other clergy too.
- AndyTheCrimson
- @hglundahl who's ordained and consecrated him? Was he has an apostolic succession line?
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- @andythecrimson8877 Bob Bjarnesen, line of Duarte Costa, through certain Old Catholics.
@andythecrimson8877 The above for Pope Michael I.
Michael II was ordained and consecrated by an Antiochene Orthodox bishop. Later reconciled to the Church by Pope Michael I, and therefore capable to use his episcopal powers licitly.
- AndyTheCrimson
- @hglundahl Where are their church? I will check it later
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- @andythecrimson8877 They have several church buildings.
Kansas and Philippines would be two go-tos. Check Topeka, or they should be able to get you further.
And some hundreds of faithful around the world ("small remnant" style).
- AndyTheCrimson
- @hglundahl I think it's conclavist. What's the different with Pope Pius XIII
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- @andythecrimson8877 From the point of Pius XIII, he pretended to consider Michael I invalid due to lay only participation in the conclave.
From the point of Michael I and supposing the lay only electors can be managed:
- Pope Michael I was there before Pius XIII (1990 vs 1998)
- Pulvermacher's conclave was by internet vote, impossible to verify only or even mainly Catholics participated
- Pulvermacher had this idea that his supposed papal authority could release in a simple priest subject to him the power to ordinate and even consecrate himself bishop
- Pope Michael I remained there after him (deaths in 2009 vs 2022)
- Pope Michael I has a successor. It seems Pulvermacher hasn't, or perhaps he even considered Michael I as his successor.
- possibly also heterodoxy on the part of Pulvermacher, Pope MIchael I considered it contrary to a decision of Pius XII that Pulvermacher used the pendulum.
@andythecrimson8877 You could also ask, what's the difference with Linus II / Victor von Penz?
Well, two things:
- Victor von Penz also came after Michael I (Pulvermacher considered him invalid due to having celebrated "una cum")
- Victor von Penz withdrew.
Perhaps you want to investigate about Alejandro IX as well?
On his side:- he claimed that sedevacantist bishops had done the first election, he was by the way a successor of Leo XIV
On Pope Michael I's side (again supposing lay only conclave was possible), here:
- Alejandro was heterodox as Feeneyite (Pope Michael I counted that has heterodox, Pius XII at least agreed on that one)
- Alejandro seems to have withdrawn and himself or an associate or a pretended such claim Alejandro IX was a media hoax.
1:50:20 Sure. When Martin Luther 1525 in Wittenberg said "Christ is risen" that is an infallible statement, but not by virtue of Martin Luther saying it.
1:54:12 The problem Michael Lofton has with Dignitatis Humanae is, it is in contradiction with Exsurge Domine.
Proof : he tried to define away the infallible definitive condemnation of proposition 33.
Anyone can reconcile two policies, like Leo X saying it's fine to burn heretics in England if Bible oriented or in Germany if witchcraft oriented, and Paul VI saying "let's not burn heretics anywhere" ... circumstances have changed.
But of the following, one is eternally true and the other is eternally false:
- religious liberty is a right innate in a man by virtue of his being man, and remains even if his choice exercises it in the service of error
- religious liberty is a right of God to the religious duties of men who are actually obeying Him, and can therefore licitly be denied those who are in fact not obeying Him in their choice of religious expression.
And this means on the matter there cannot be an infallible but non-definitive teaching.
I think the latter view is implied in the condemnation of proposition 33.
The former is pretty near direct expression in DH.
1:56:02 How does John Salza pretend to prove private persons could not judge factually in a discretionary judgement that so and so teaching something non-Catholic is not a Catholic and is not the Pope?
Dimond Brothers are citing an early Pope who was praising the laymen, perhaps even priests, who dissented from Nestorius from the moment he began to preach heresy. At that point anything like "The Church" in Constantinople was Patriarch Nestorius, so that judgement was very clearly a private one - or what Salza here calls so.
1:56:45 Here we have a very big problem.
Honorius was basically, like Pius XII in Humani Generis sitting on the hedge by not condemning a clearly condemnable proposition (Adam having non-human ancestry and Christ having just one will-faculty). The fact that Honorius never preached Monotheletism, just asked to leave it alone where preached, means that most parts of the Church actually were spared this heresy. It was regional, the Maronites are re-united ex-Monothelites, a bit like Catholic Cops are not Monophysites.
But if Honorius had himself preached Monotheletism, how could the Church have survived that the fifty years up to his condemnation (which Pope St. Leo II signed only insofar as it concerned his non-action and its culpability)?
Pius XII, as Evolution- indifferent (Evolution here meaning Evolution up to mankind) would be a case like Honorius, judgeable at leisure long after his death.
JP-II, B-XVI and F have all been directly promoting Evolution (up to mankind) as what they consider in fact to be true. This is spreading geographically all places in communion with them. That's why we don't have the same leisure.
- Lev Lionboy
- @easternRomanOrthodox
- That is not what Pius XII said. Robert already explained it in videos. Honorius only misspoke & paid the price, he meant that the wills are acting as one united. Only the anti-Pope & Francis are heretics.
1:56:57 Formosus was not tried for anything he was preaching to the whole Church, but for the bad example he was giving locally in Rome. It's a bit as if Alexander VI had been dug up and tried for bad living in the sexual sense.
However, 1046, a synod assembled in Sutri under Henry III of the HRE deposed Gregory VI who responded by abdicating. The synod was held while he was still alive. Again, as with Formosus, we don't have anything like a heresiarch or even heresy tolerator, we are just dealing by a man scandalously living bad while holding the papal office.
Nevertheless, if a pope needed deposition for falling into heresy, the Sutri model would be more appropriate than the Formosus/Honorius model.
In our times, with religious freedom de facto being there, it is not even needed. One can have two parallel papacies, not recognised on national levels like Avignon/Rome, but on individual level of adherence like one Evolutionist and one Creationist Pope.
While Pope Michael already died, do ask the team at St. Helen's Catholic Mission how to adher to him posthumously!
vatican in exile dot com (as one word)
https://www.vaticaninexile.com/
No comments:
Post a Comment