According to the infallible decree of Pope Eugene IV, at the Council of Florence in Session 8, on Nov. 22, 1439, Exultate Deo, “All these sacraments are made up of three elements: namely, things as the matter, words as the form, and the person of the minister who confers the sacrament with the intention of doing what the Church does. If any of these is lacking, the sacrament is not effected.” [1]
Popes, such as Pope St. Pius X, have taught that “It is well known that to the church there belongs no right whatsoever to innovate anything on the substance of the sacraments. (Ex quo nono).” [2]
Session 21, Chapter 2 of The Council of Trent taught, “It [Council of Trent] declares further that this power has always been in the Church, that in the administration of the sacraments, without violating their substance, she may determine or change whatever she may judge to be more expedient for the benefit of those who receive them.” [3]
Pope St. Pius V, in De Defectibus, implies that the substance is the meaning.
During the Protestant Revolt, the Anglican Church altered the rite of Holy Orders. On June 20, 1555, Pope Paul IV issued the Bull Praeclara carissimi, which stated “that anyone not properly and correctly ordained was to be reordained.” On Oct. 30, 1555, Pope Paul IV issued the papal brief, Regimini universalis, against the bishops consecrated in the Anglican rite that “anyone ordained to the rank of bishops or archbishops by rites other than those used by the Church are not properly and correctly ordained.” The proper and correct way for ordination and consecration comes from the “customary form of the Church.” [4]
In 1896, Pope Leo XIII specified in Apostolicae Curae the cause for the invalidity of the Anglican Orders: “From them has been deliberately removed whatever sets forth the dignity and office of the priesthood in the Catholic rite. That form cannot be considered apt or sufficient for a Sacrament which omits that which it must essentially signify. 28. The same holds true of episcopal consecration. For to the formula, “Receive the Holy Ghost”, not only were the words “for the office and work of a bishop”, etc. added at a later period, but even these, as we shall presently state, must be understood in a sense different to that which they bear in the Catholic rite. Nor is anything gained by quoting the prayer of the preface, “Almighty God”, since it, in like manner, has been stripped of the words which denote the summum sacerdotium [high priesthood]…. So it comes to pass that, as the Sacrament of Order and the true sacerdotium of Christ were utterly eliminated from the Anglican rite, and hence the sacerdotium is in no wise conferred truly and validly in the episcopal consecration of the same rite, for the like reason, therefore, the episcopate can in no wise be truly and validly conferred by it, and this the more so because among the first duties of the episcopate is that of ordaining ministers for the Holy Eucharist and sacrifice…. Being fully cognizant of the necessary connection between faith and worship, between “the law of believing and the law of praying”, under a pretext of returning to the primitive form, they corrupted the Liturgical Order in many ways to suit the errors of the reformers. For this reason, in the whole Ordinal not only is there no clear mention of the sacrifice, of consecration, of the priesthood (sacerdotium), and of the power of consecrating and offering sacrifice but, as we have just stated, every trace of these things which had been in such prayers of the Catholic rite as they had not entirely rejected, was deliberately removed and struck out.” [5]
Other parts of the ceremonial rite, known as the signification ex adjunctis, clarify the meaning of the form. Pope Leo XIII was referring to the signification ex adjunctis of the Anglican rite, which omits all the references of the meaning of the priesthood therefore, being the essential cause of the demise and invalidation of the rite. In other words, the form can take on a different meaning with signification ex adjunctis, which it clearly does in the Anglican rite. As Pope Leo XIII taught in Apostolicae Curae, “Sacraments of the New Law, as sensible and efficient signs of invisible grace, must both signify the grace which they effect and effect the grace which they signify.” The signification ex adjunctis found in the Anglican rite demonstrated that their sacramental form didn’t “signify the grace which they effect.”
The reason for pointing out this solemn and infallible condemnation of the Anglican rite of Orders by Pope Leo XIII is due to the fact that, when it made its big splash in the Catholic world, Paul VI’s new 1968 rite came bearing precisely the same deficiencies as the condemned Anglican rite.
The form for the Sacrament of Holy Orders was infallibly taught by Pope Pius XII in Sacramentum Ordinis, Nov. 30, 1947: “But regarding the matter and form in the conferring of every order, by Our same supreme apostolic authority We decree and establish the following: … the form consists of the words of the preface of which the following are essential and so required for validity:
Grant, we beseech You, Almighty Father, to these Your servants, the dignity of the Priesthood renew the spirit of holiness within them, so that they may hold from You, O God, the office of the second rank in Your service and by the example of their behavior afford a pattern of holy living.” [6]
In the new 1968 rite, the essential phrase “so that” is missing, which affects the substance. Without “so that” what was implied isn’t necessarily the same. Pope Pius XII taught the necessity of this phrase “so that” in order for the validity of the sacrament and to remove all doubt about it.
However, the 1968 rite does more than merely leave out a simple phrase in the form. It eliminated all references to the summum sacerdotium [high priesthood] in the signification ex adjunctis, as did the Anglican rite. Wouldn’t you know, the Anglican Church has no problem with Paul VI’s new rite, unlike the traditional Catholic rite. As you’ll find in the Anglican rite, words like: sacrifice, priesthood, and mass are present, but they are ambiguously phrased. For example, “offering sacrifice to God” is not the same as “offering THE sacrifice to God.” Everyone offers sacrifice to God, and the faithful can only offer THE sacrifice through the priest, but without the high priesthood, THE sacrifice to God is impossible. Therefore, there are two types of priesthood: the priesthood of all believers, and the ministerial [high] priesthood. The distinction must be made in favor of the high priesthood, with the understanding that this priesthood represents Christ and not the faithful.
Paul VI’s novel 1968 rite eliminated and abolished the following:
“Receive the power to offer the Sacrifice to God and to celebrate Masses for the living and the dead.”
“Theirs be the task to change with blessing undefiled, for the service of thy people, bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Thy Son.”
“Receive the Holy Ghost, whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them, and whose sins you shall retain, they are retained.”(John 20:22)
“Be pleased, Lord, to consecrate and sanctify these hands by this anointing, and our blessing. That whatsoever they bless may be blessed, and whatsoever they consecrate may be consecrated and sanctified in the name of Our Lord Jesus Christ.”
“For it is a priest’s duty to offer sacrifice, to bless, to lead, to preach and to baptize.”
“The new priests then promise obedience to their bishop who ‘charges’ them to bear in mind that offering Holy Mass is not free from risk and that they should learn everything necessary from diligent priests before undertaking so fearful a responsibility.”
“That Thou wouldst recall all who have wandered from the unity of the Church, and lead all believers to the light of the Gospel.”
“The blessing of God Almighty, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, come down upon you, and make you blessed in the priestly Order, enabling you to offer propitiatory sacrifices for the sins of the people to Almighty God.”
The hatchet job to the rite for bishops is more drastic. It’s also more important than the rite for priests since bishops make priests. If any doubt is found in the episcopacy, then those priests whom they ordain automatically become doubtful. Invalidity must be presumed when there is reasonable doubt. [7]
In Sacramentum Ordinis, Pope Pius XII declared: “But regarding the matter and form in the conferring of every order, by Our same supreme apostolic authority We decree and establish the following:… in the Episcopal ordination or consecration… the form consists of the words of the ‘Preface,’ of which the following are essential and so required for validity: Complete in Your Priest the fullness of Your ministry, and sanctify him, adorned (as he is) with the ornament of all glorification, with the dew of heavenly anointing.
Pope Pius XII’s intention was to settle the matter once and for all to clear up the mess and remove all doubt for priests and bishops. But within 21 years, Paul VI completely changed it all again, especially the rite for bishops. The new rite: “So now pour forth upon this chosen one that power which is from You, the governing Spirit whom You gave to your beloved Son, Jesus Christ, the Spirit given by Him to the holy Apostles, who found the Church in every place to be your temple for the unceasing glory and praise of your name.” [8]
Do the two forms mean the same thing? What do we find in the signification ex adjunctis but more eliminations and abolishment. For instance, the bishop elect was once asked to confirm his belief in each article of the Apostles’ Creed, and if he would, “anathematize every heresy that shall arise against the Holy Catholic Church.” However, Paul VI’s new ecumenical rite did away with these all important aspects of the rite. Other words and prayers were eliminated in the new rite, such as:
“A bishop judges, interprets, consecrates, ordains, offers, baptizes and confirms.”
And
“Give him, O Lord, the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven… Whatsoever he shall bind upon earth, let it be bound likewise in Heaven, and whatsoever he shall loose upon earth, let it likewise be loosed in Heaven. Whose sins he shall retain, let them be retained, and do Thou remit the sins of whomsoever he shall remit… Grant him, O Lord, an Episcopal chair.”
The Anglicans have no problem with new rite because all things absolutely Catholic have been removed. According to sacramental requirements taught as the customary form of the Church by Popes Leo XIII and Pius XII, the new 1968 rite of Holy Orders by Paul VI is lacking that which is required for validity, at least, it appears so. Therefore, serious and reasonable doubt about the validity of the new rite is present and an honest Catholic cannot in good faith accept it. The real kicker is that a true pope can’t do what Paul VI has done, namely, create reasonable doubt about the sacraments. The new rite by Paul VI is the bad fruit Christ instructs his followers to recognize in order that we know and “beware of false prophets who come to you in sheep’s clothing but inwardly are ravenous wolves.” (Matt. 7:15)
- Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, Georgetown Univ. Press, Vol. 1, p. 542; Denzinger, The Sources of Catholic Dogma, 695
- http://www.rore-sanctifica.org/bibilotheque_rore_sanctifica/06-magistere-sacrements/1910-st_pie_10-ex_quo_no_no-substance_des_sacrements/St_Pie_X_Ex_Quo_No_no_26_octobre_1910.pdf3.
- Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils
- Bishops and Reform in the English Church, 1520-1559, by Kenneth Carleton, and The Destruction of the Christian Tradition, by Rama P. Coomaraswamy, pp. 321-322, Apostolicae Curae, Promulgated September 18, 1896 by Pope Leo XIII
- http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Leo13/l13curae.htm
- http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Pius12/P12SACRAO.HTM
- Pope Innocent XI, in a decree of the Holy Office, March 4, 1679
- The Destruction of the Christian Tradition, by Rama P. Coomaraswamy, p. 330
Speray's Catholicism in a Nutshell 
Hello, Steven.
I think the new rite of episcopal consecration sufficiently signifies the grace it effects. For, consider that
1. It makes mention of the Spirit given to Christ, and we know from Scripture that Christ was a High Priest of the order of Melchizedek. Therefore, it is the Spirit of the high priesthood spoken of.
2. Further, it speaks clearly of that Spirit given to the Apostles. But it is a point of faith, which it is not lawful to doubt, that the Apostles were Bishops. Therefore, etc
3. Finally, the term governing Spirit also seems nicely to express a particular power that all know is proper to the episcopate.
So it doesn’t seem doubtful at all to me that the form deemed essential by Pope Paul VI suffices to effect the consecration.
SPERAY: Well you haven’t convinced me at all. You didn’t address anything that I wrote about. The Anglicans have much if not all of what you state as well and the Anglicans is invalid.
But actually, there is a flaw in your argument. For it is circular, a Papal clarification suffices to assuage all doubts, even from that of the most learned and eminent theologians.
SPERAY: You have just demonstrated why you don’t understand my position. You assume you have a papal clarification. I don’t. Of course, they are going to clarify their nonsense. Whatever it takes for people like you to accept it.
Therefore if something is doubtful in our judgment, but assured by the Church’s judgment, it is not doubtful anymore, for what the Church has bound on earth is bound in heaven.
SPERAY: You assume it’s the Church’s judgment. I don’t. I have no reason to assume it given all the heresies it’s taught.
This is the way even His Eminence Cardinal Ottaviani and others progressed on similar matters, for the definitive word of the Pope sufficed. The argument, then, it is key to note does not prove, except to one with prior sedevacantist presuppositions and is therefore circular.
SPERAY: Wrong again. We don’t need the new mass or the new rite of orders at all for sedevacantism. The fact that you seem to think so proves that you don’t understand. These are the bad fruits.
Finally, even to a sedevacantist, I think it can be shown that the rite is not doub tful, for even if Pope Paul Vi were note Pope, the rite of St.Hippolytus recorded in Apostolic Tradition is still valid. But examining the rite itself, in its entirety, it will be plain that the episcopate is duly signified. I post one portion here.
“Father, you know all hearts. You have chosen your servant for the office of bishop. May he be a shepherd to your holy flock, and a high priest blameless in your sight, ministering to you night and day; may he always gain the blessing of your favor and offer the gifts of your holy Church. Through the Spirit who gives the grace of high priesthood grant him the power to forgive sins as you have commanded, to assign ministries as you have decreed, and to loose every bond by the authority which you gave to your apostles. May he be pleasing to you by his gentleness and purity of heart, presenting a fragrant offering to you, through Jesus Christ, your Son, through whom glory and power and honor are yours with the Holy Spirit in your holy Church, now and for ever. R. Amen.”
SPERAY: I can see that you haven’t really read Fr. Coomaraswamy’s book. If you had, you wouldn’t have argued any of this.
Hello again Steven.
Have you read the SSPX study published in the Angelus that critiqued Dr.Coomaraswamy’s claim that the new rites are “almost certainly invalid”. The same study concluded the rite of episcopal consecration was not per se invalid.
SPERAY: The SSPX must say it since the implications prove them wrong and sedevacantism right if they don’t.
SS: They are loosely modeled after them and you didn’t address how the Protestants accept the new mass which you think is perfectly orthodox.
X: But I did. Protestants accept them because some of these prayers are from early liturgies and writings, which Protestants accept but misunderstand the Catholic phraseology inherent in these words. “It’s irrelevant if Protestants understand it in an incorrect way, as they also understand scriptural texts in an incorrect way, but that doesn’t mean the Catholic Church should stop using Scripture.”
SPERAY: Thanks for proving my point. Rome changed it so that they can accept it, whether you think they misunderstand it or not.
SS: “You missed the point again. WHY DID ROME CHANGE THE MASS SO RADICALLY TO BEGIN WITH XAVIER?
X: I read Bella Dodd’s testimony that Communists were attempting to, and successfully did, even in the 40s and 50s infiltrate the Catholic Church. I believe Archbishop Bugnini was probably a Mason. I don’t deny that they tried to undermine the Church in various ways, I just believe they did not cross the line that indefectibility requires. Van Noort summarized this.
SPERAY: You didn’t answer the question, and the fact that you don’t believe it didn’t cross the line means nothing. It’s obvious that you don’t want it to since the implications prove you wrong. The changes are RADICAL and that in itself is a problem.
SPERAY: Sure, some Protestant do, but not all. I just talked to a local Episcopalian who accepts the new mass and says it’s practically the same as her mass. Why is that Xavier????
X: Please ask her to profess her faith in the Encylical Mysterium Fidei then which explains the theology of Pope Paul VI regarding the Mass in an orthodox Catholic manner.
SPERAY: It doesn’t matter since the mass is so watered down that it creates the very thing you know to be false. The law of worship is the law of belief. You worship in a watered down manner and you will believe in a watered down manner. Most so-called Catholics (not just a lot) don’t correctly believe as they ought and it began with the Vat2 and the new mass. You’re going to tell me that’s coincidental?
SPERAY: Come on, Xavier? I feel like you’re insulting my intelligence.
X: Steven, “This law, considering all the circumstances, is most opportune.” This is a decree of practical judgment” according to Van Noort. Catholics are not required to say that every change the Church makes is a perfect one, merely that it squares with faith and morals.
SPERAY: Altar girls doesn’t square up with faith! Women lectors doesn’t either.
I think you’re insulting my intelligence when you make it out that I believe, or am obliged to believe, every change was always for the better. I am not.
SPERAY: I never implied it. However, every change can’t lead to ruin either. Look around you. The novus ordo crowd is a joke! They make me sick. New Rome can go back to hell where it came from.
SPERAY: WHAT ABOUT RATZINGER’S STATEMENT THAT IT WAS HARMFUL? You completely ignored this important statement.
X: I said, “Pope Benedict XVI, whom I’ve often seen misquoted by sedevacantists, who has clarified he was speaking of abuses of the Mass rather than the Mass itself, appears there to be speaking of the remote danger to faith under a secondary aspect when ecclesiastical authorities make imprudent decisions.”
SPERAY: HE WAS SPEAKING ABOUT THE MASS ITSELF. I see you never actually read what he wrote.
SPERAY: “FOR ALL” WAS HETERODOX and you failed miserably in the past to deny it. Place the new mass side by side with the traditional Mass and the Anglican and Lutheran masses and see the differences.
X: For all is effectively shown from Scripture itself,
SPERAY: WRONG! Scripture effectively shows that it is not!
since Christ said He would give His flesh for the life of the world, which provided it is understood correctly is unproblematic,
SPERAY: I SEE THAT YOU DON’T AGREE WITH THE HISTORIC CATHOLIC FAITH AND TRENT’S CATECHISM ON THE SUBJECT.
and in any case has been translated correctly now.
SPERAY: Too late. I submit that the Church could have never approved a faulty translation on the consecration to begin with. By saying that it translated correctly now, implies that it was not translated correctly before. The implications are enormous, but you must deny any of it to keep yourself at bay with satanic Rome.
There are sufficient references in the new Mass to the sacrificial character of the Holy Eucharist, which you will not find in Anglican ceremonies.
SPERAY: In some places, sure. So what? The new mass as a whole is in affront against God.
Are you telling me
“we, your servants and your holy people,
offer to your glorious majesty
from the gifts that you have given us,
this pure victim,
this holy victim,
this spotless victim,
the holy Bread of eternal life
and the Chalice of everlasting salvation.”
from the link above is a prayer a Protestant would be perfectly comfortable in praying?
SS: YES I DO! He was speaking under normal conditions for we have historic precedents to show what Pope Pius XII meant!
X: Pope Pius XII said he had established this discipline for the entire Church in consequence of the faith professed at the Vatican Council. The Church never revokes or admits exceptions to a discipline that is so closely connected to a dogma she has now explicitly professed.
SPERAY: I DON’T WHAT WE WERE TALKING ABOUT. YOU CUT TOO MUCH OUT.
SPERAY: THEY MOST HAVE CERTAINLY FALLEN INTO GRAVE HERESY. THEY ALSO DENY THE DIVINE LAW OF GOD ABOUT INTER-RELGIOUS WORSHIP TOO! I suggest you read Mortalium Animos and see how the conciliar popes completely reject it.
X: But if this is true, where is the Church, which St.Robert said is as visible as the Republic of Venice? Where is the teaching Church, the episcopal college in the present day?
SPERAY: I’VE SPENT HOURS EXPLAINING THIS IN THE PAST. GO BACK AND READ IT.
SPERAY: Wrong! You apparently don’t understand the term and how it applies or else you wouldn’t have made this statement!
X: Do you know what is material and formal Apostolic succession?
SPERAY: DO YOU? WHY DON’T YOU EXPLAIN IT FOR ME AND THEN GIVE ME THE SOURCE FOR YOUR INFO AND HOW IT APPLIES THE QUESTION.
SPERAY: There is a thing called supplied jurisdiction and it still exists.
X: Wrong, at least some Bishops of the Church must possess habitual jurisdiction at every point in time. It is only such Bishops who have entered the episcopal college and are successors to the Apostles and their offices in the strict sense.
SPERAY: Can you explain habitual jurisdiction and give the official teaching of the Church on the matter?
SPERAY: Your misunderstanding of theology locks you up in the great apostasy where your popes can believe, teach, and promote anything under the sun and still be popes.
X: This opinion was held by St.Alphonsus Ligouri and is confirmed by several theologians. An election accepted by all the Bishops of the Church with a teaching office is undoubtedly a valid one, it is not necessary, but it is a sufficient sign and effect of a valid election.
SPERAY: HE ALSO STATED, “If ever a pope, as a private person, should fall into heresy, he would at once fall from the pontificate. If, however, God were to permit a pope to become a notoriously and contumacious heretic, he would by such fact cease to be pope, and the apostolic chair would be vacant.” (Verita della Fede, Pt. III, Ch. VIII. 9-10) YOU HAVE TAKEN ST. ALPHONSUS OUT OF CONTEXT FOR CUM EX BY POPE PAUL IV GAVE THE LAW ON THE ISSUE. The good saint wasn’t giving an extraordinary circumstance as we have today.
Thank you.
Anyway, the reason I quoted the SSPX study is because it critiques the claims made by Fr.Coomaraswamy and some of his disciples, and shows these to be factually incorrect. Moreover, as the study says, the per se validity of the new rites are guaranteed by the fact that it almost verbatim to the third century text contained in St.Hippolytus’ Apostolic Tradition and one on which eastern rites have been substantially based on, since time immemorial, even if there were a certain imprudence in “restoring ancient rites and ceremonies indiscriminately” as Pope Pius XII says.
SPERAY: Hippolytus wrote his rite during his schism with the Church. You can’t say “almost verbatim” since much of it is lost. There is no evidence whatsoever that the form of Paul VI’s rite was ever used to consecrate bishops. That’s just the facts. When you stated that the SSPX study “concluded the rite of episcopal consecration was not per se invalid” why use the word per se? My argument is that it’s extremely doubtful, but again, there is no historic evidence for the form of Paul VI’s rite ever being used.
Protestants more easily accept something if it is directly from Scripture or from early Tradition. Catholics accept all, whether in earlier ages or later. But that doesn’t mean something chosen from an earlier age is to be despised just because Protestants might accept it. Moreover, in this way they can be led gradually to see that the Catholic faith is reasonable and Scriptural,
SPERAY: Why should we accept the rite (what we have of it) of St. Hippolytus to begin with since it’s not shown to have ever been used, especially in the light of the fact that he wrote it during his schism?
That is the point of adding prayers like “When we eat this Bread and drink this Cup, we proclaim your Death, O Lord, until you come again.” which is straight from Scripture and also I remember an addition about how those who eat the sacrifice participate on the Altar which is also from St.Paul and both of which affirm what the Catholic faith teaches.
SPERAY: I don’t have problems with adding, deleting, or changing certain things. The point is what things are being changed and for what reason.
You say so many Catholics water down their faith, I answer that’s why those who know and live the faith need to redouble their commitment to orthodoxy and their fidelity to Rome more than ever before, that’s how Catholics have always responded for 2000 years, there appears to be no need for a novel theory that solves fewer questions than it raises.
SPERAY: THIS IS WHERE WE PART WAYS! I don’t recognize as Catholic any cleric who believes, promotes, and practice inter-religious worship which has been condemned for 2000 years. In the past, you defended this practice against my condemnations. So here is what I want you to do: Invite all your non-Catholic neighbors such as Muslims, Buddhists, Voodooists, etc into your house to pray to their gods for world peace. Then I want you to imitate your pope, and go into your nearest mosque, take off your shoes, fold your hands, and bow towards Mecca with the leaders of that satanic religion and pray with them. Don’t comment again until you do so, and if you actually do those two things, don’t comment anyway. Now if you know those two things are contrary to the Divine law, I want you to concede that I’m right, because our discussion really ends right here!!!!
You’ll find what I said about jurisdiction in any theology textbook or manual. From the Catholic Encyclopedia, briefly, “This authoritative transmission of power in the Church constitutes Apostolic succession. This Apostolic succession must be both material and formal; the material consisting in the actual succession in the Church, through a series of persons from the Apostolic age to the present; the formal adding the element of authority in the transmission of power. It consists in the legitimate transmission of the ministerial power conferred by Christ upon His Apostles. No one can give a power which he does not possess.”
Habitual jurisdiction is ordinary or delegated. Jurisdiction is called ordinary when it is attached to an office. Episcopal consecration alone does not make one a successsor to the Apostles, one must have possession of an actual ecclesiastical office which one cannot enter without the express permission of him who holds the Keys. Hence Pope Pius XII says those Bishops he names though validly consecrated possess no jurisdiction.
Pope Pius XII has also taught the same thing in his various Encyclicals in both doctrine and discipline. Ordinary jurisdiction, said he, flows to the Bishops only through the person of the Roman Pontiff, not from an empty seat.
SPERAY: Awesome! Now how does supplied jurisdiction not take care of business during extraordinary circumstances? After all, I can supply Vat1 theologians that have taught the possibility of our position on the matter even giving historic precedents of the Great Western Schism.
It seems to me
SPERAY: You give yourself away with the above phrase. What seems to you is just that. I have provided those theologians that have already explained the possibility of the circumstances which I believe have happened. You have every right to disagree with them. I don’t always agree with theologians either. But here’s the thing Xavier, we will ultimately choose our way based on our emotions, historic or reasonable evidence, logic, etc. and so far you have attempted to argue against my position rather than defend your position. Even if I’m wrong and sedevacantism is false, I will still argue against Modernist Masonic Rome! I hold to my position of sedevacantism because that’s my answer to something I know is false. Rome has lost the faith and you can’t defend them.
that this ensures, by God’s most wise design, that the Church cannot carry on forever without a Pope without her divine constitution and hierarchical structure being irremediably altered after some point of time when all Bishops who have possesssion of ecclesiastical offices or episcopal sees die off,
SPERAY: No one is saying that it’s died off. I hold that if Benedict XVI converts and rejects his errors, he can be the pope by universal acceptance. It’s happened in the past several times before.
since new ones cannot be installed except through the Pope. This is found in Cajetan and the earlier theologians as well.
SPERAY: Sure it can during extraordinary circumstances. This is the part you seem to not understand. It’s like Baptism of Desire. Those who oppose it can’t distinguish between ordinary and extraordinary circumstances. In the past, bishops have been installed without the pope. We have historic precedence for it.
The contrary proposition, that there is nothing to show there must be a head to remain forever with the Church militant has been condemned and therefore it appears that there is a natural limit to an interregnum after all. John Lane and other sedevacantists concede the principles I mentioned above, though they have certain speculative theories to avoid the conclusion, each as improbable as the next, in my opinion.
SPERAY: Perhaps the only natural limit is if there is no valid bishop at all on earth. Even then, the Church apparently recognizes Pope Hadrian V and he never received Holy Orders.
The argument is as follows.
1. The Apostolicity of the Church requires that there be Bishops in the Church with ordinary jurisdiction (jurisdiction which is attached to an office)
2. Bishops receive their ordinary jurisdiction only through the person of the Supreme Pontiff
Christ, says Cajetan, sends the power to govern, or jurisdiction, first on the head and only thence to the rest of the body. The Bishops consecrated during interregna in the past only received their ordinary jurisdiction after an actual Pope was elected. When a Bishop says jurisdiction is supplied for one of his acts, and that is all jurisdiction is supplied for, he by that fact itself says he does not have ordinary jurisdiction possessing it as a habit or state. That’s why jurisdiction needs to be supplied to him in the first place, for individual sacramental acts (confession, marriage etc) for which jurisdiction is required for valid completion.
Therefore, without a living Pope, the Catholic Church would cease in time to be Apostolic. Hence a natural limit to an interregnum follows.
SPERAY: Wrong. Go read what Apostolic means and how it applies.
And it has in this case, the last 54 year case, been exceeded by any reasonable standard.
SPERAY: The Great Western Schism, if you take in account the election time, was 51 years. I’ve given the answer in my last comment but apparently you didn’t read it very closely.
For there are only 15 Bishops in the world with ordinary jurisdiction, consecrated before 1958, and all these accept Pope Benedict as Pope.
SPERAY: I see that you’re not going to accept such an easy concept.
Also, St.Alphonsus teaching, who was not unaware of Cum Ex, poses a problem since the Saint asserts that an election that is received with moral unanimity is by that fact alone shown to be valid.
SPERAY: HE WASN’T INCLUDING HERETICS!!!!! CAN’T YOU UNDERSTAND HOW THIS WORKS? HE ALREADY SAID THAT A HERETIC CAN’T BE POPE!!!!!
Several writers and theologians have maintained this is the reason Savanarola was wrong, about Pope Alexander VI.
SPERAY: Savonarola followed the law of the Church. Popes and saints have vindicated him. He has many miracles attested in his name. Savonarola was right!!!! He destroys your argument altogether.
Here is Msgr. Van Noort treating a similar question. “So, for example, one must give an absolute assent to the proposition: “Pius XII is the legitimate successor of St. Peter”; similarly (and as a matter of fact if this following point is something “formally revealed,” it will undoubtedly be a dogma of faith) one must give an absolute assent to the proposition: “Pius XII possesses the primacy of jurisdiction over the entire Church.”
For — skipping the question of how it begins to be proven infallibly for the first time that this individual was legitimately elected to take St. Peter’s place — when someone has been constantly acting as Pope and has theoretically and practically been recognized as such by the bishops and by the universal Church, it is clear that the ordinary and universal magisterium is giving an utterly clear-cut witness to the legitimacy of his succession”
SPERAY: Sure, if the individual is not a manifest heretic. However, Van Noort is incorrect since we’ve had antipopes reign and accepted as pope by the universal Church. Even theologians get it wrong sometimes.
Remember, with regard to Pope Benedict XVI’s actions, we can judge that it is certainly not to be imitated, as we could judge of St.Peter’s actions.
SPERAY: St. Peter knew what he did was wrong. Benedict believes, promotes, and practices his abominations as something good. If you can judge Benedict’s actions as something evil and not to be imitated, then you have proved my case. Do you think you know the faith better than Benedict XVI? He repeats his abominations over and over. He repeats his heresies over and over. I guess he can do so and it means nothing, because in your mind a pope can do anything, believe anything, promote anything, and he is pope regardless. That’s not Catholic!
But was this an act of heresy or apostasy without doubt at all?
SPERAY: OF COURSE!!!!! He’s no dummy!
Now, it is pertinacity that gives heresy its form, as a species of the vice of unbelief. But, pertinacity is something in the will, in the soul, and is not visible. It is true that we may form reasonable judgments from its outward manifestation and canon law presumes pertinacity, but then the Pope is above canon law, so this is not useful.
SPERAY: We’re talking about Divine law here too. Benedict knows exactly what he is doing. He’s intelligent enough to know that this is contrary to the constant teaching of the Church. He is a total and manifest apostate!!! Are you suggesting that you know better, I know better, our children know better, but the so-called pope doesn’t know better? This is the same bogus argument used by everybody who knows that we are right.
All I say is that, given the above, there are serious reasons for reserving or withholding judgment altogether on the question, since there cannot be the required moral certainty.
SPERAY: I’m sorry to say this, but you’re acting a fool. So please, I don’t want ever hear from you again until you admit that your wrong!!!! As far as I’m concerned, you’re an enemy of God and his Catholic Church for making the above statement!!!! You’re completely contradicting yourself.
No one can be blamed for failing to adopt a position, that so far as he can see at least, compromises the divine and necessary characteristics of the whole Apostolic hierarchy.
SPERAY: As far as you can see? Go do some more studying on the issue. The position that you have adopted compromises the divine law, church law, and even a particular dogma. The position that you have adopted is not supported anywhere in the Church.
The St.Pius X Society study also shows that essentially the same form has been used in Eastern rites, naming the Coptic and West Syrian rites in particular, and reproducing these in their entirety for easy comparison.
SPERAY: The East have never used the form found in Paul VI’s rite. Besides, we don’t even know exactly what the form was for Hipploytus and you didn’t answer the questions I asked about Hippolytus.
I think sedevacantists reason like the Donatists did.
SPERAY: Stop it already. The pope can do, believe and teach anything whatsoever and you’re going to say, “there are serious reasons for reserving or withholding judgment altogether on the question, since there cannot be the required moral certainty. You’re being willfully blind.
The mystery of the Church in the present day is the same mystery of the Cross, of how could One who was once so powerful, so beautiful, so majestic, so manifestly divine now seem almost pathetic, so bruised, so beaten, so human, as “one from whom men hid their faces” as the Prophet says.
SPERAY: That’s my position, not yours. Your religion is on the up and up. WE DON’T SHARE THE SAME RELIGION.
Thus you are scandalized by having recourse to a false opinion, as some denied the divinity of Christ on this account. So it was with Christ, so it is with His Church. Some did not understand it then, you do not understand it now. The enemies of the Church began to prevail even in the 1930′s according to Bella Dodd, so what? What you propose strikes me as unreasonable, I will not turn my back on the Church in her hour of need.
SPERAY: You mean that you will never turn your back on your counterfeit church founded in the 1960’s. I can see that. You are the real enemy of the Church because you dismiss absolute and total apostasies as if they don’t mean a thing or don’t or can’t apply. You will continue to attack others and not be able to defend your own. I totally reject with my whole heart, mind, and soul Vat2’s teaching on the satanic Muslims, and Protestants. I totally reject with my whole being inter-religious worship which is just as evil as homosexuality if not more so. I totally reject the new mass concoction and the evil practice of altar girls and women lectors and extraordinary ministers of the Eucharist fulfilled by the same women. I reject Vat2’s new definition of the Church of Christ. I could go on and on, but you get the point. You accept all these things and you will not turn your back on a religion that keeps up the apostasy. I realize that many poor Catholics don’t know what’s going on because they have been so secularized, but you know better. You’ve seen the arguments. You know what abominations Benedict XVI believes, promotes, and practices, and still, you will accept him as your Catholic father in faith and over all the faithful. You will lose your soul if you don’t come to your senses.
It’s quite clear by what you say above that you haven’t understood my position at all, perhaps you have not encountered it before in all your writing and speaking about the subject, since what you say about Pope Alexander VI is certainly mistaken, even though Savonorola was not a schismatic for his mistaken opinion.
SPERAY: You don’t know what you’re talking about!
“Finally, whatever you still think about the possibility or impossibility of the aforementioned hypothesis (of a Pope heretic), at least one point must be considered absolutely incontrovertible and: placed firmly above any doubt whatever (Comment: note the degree of certainty ascribed to this proposition) : the adhesion of the universal Church will be always, in itself, an infallible sign of the legitimacy ofa determined Pontiff, and therefore also of the existence of all the conditions required for legitimacy itself (Comment: this is the key phrase, “existence of all the conditions required for legitimacy itself”).
SPERAY: I’ve already explained this a dozen times. We can still have a pope! Your arguments are false and you keep repeating what many people have tried here, but apparently you don’t read. You’ve made of your mind?
It is not necessary to look far for the proof of this, but we find it immediately in the promise and infallible providence of Christ: “The gates of hell shall not prevail against it”, and “Behold I shall be with you all days”. For the adhesion
of the Church to a false Pontiff would be the same as its adhesion to
a false rule of faith, seeing that the Pope is the living rule of faith
which the Church must follow and which in fact she always follows
will become even more clear by what we shall say later. God can
permit that at times a vacancy in the Apostolic See be prolonged for
a long time. He can also permit that doubt arise about the legitimacy
of this or that election. He cannot however permit that the whole
Church accept as Pontiff him who is not so truly and legitimately.
Therefore, from the moment in which the Pope is accepted by the
Church and united to her as the head to the body, it is no longer
permitted to raise doubts about a possible vice of election or a possible
lack of any condition whatsoever necessary for legitimacy. For the
aforementioned adhesion of the Church heals in the root all fault in
the election and proves infallibly the existence of all the required
conditions.
Let this be said in passing against those who, trying to
justify certain attempts at schism made in the time of Alexander VI,
allege that its promoter broadcast that he had most certain proofs,
which he would reveal to a General Council, of the heresy of
Alexander. Putting aside here other reasons with which one could
easily be able to refute such an opinion, it is enough to remember
this: it is certain that when Savonarola was writing his letters to the
Princes, all of Christendom adhered to Alexander VI and obeyed
him as the true Pontiff. For this very reason, Alexander VI was not a
false Pope, but a legitimate one. Therefore he was not a heretic at
least in that sense in which the fact of being a heretic takes away
one’s membership in the Church and in consequence deprives one,
by the very nature of things, of the pontifical power and of any other
ordinary jurisdiction.”
SPERAY: No one is saying Alexander VI was a heretic. He bought the office which nullified his election according to the law of the church at that time. Pope Julius II rejected Alexander as pope. So the above statement is factually incorrect. I don’t care who wrote it. The whole church has recognized several antipopes in the past.
If you understand this, even if you disagree, you will understand my position.
SPERAY: YOUR POSITION SUPPORTS A TOTAL APOSTATE AS POPE. THERE’S NO HISTORIC PRECEDENT, NO CHURCH TEACHING, OR LAW THAT SUPPORTS YOUR POSITION.
Also, if you read Van Noort, what makes the determination such is when all true Bishops throughout the world submit to an uncontested successor, not when there is a Pope whose election is contested by another, hence Savonorola and Pope Alexander VI are the best examples.
SPERAY: Not all true bishops accepted Alexander VI. Giuliano della Rovere most certainly didn’t. The case of Boniface VII also disproves Van Noort.
In the case of a true antipope, when there is one false claimant and one true one,the consent of the Bishops alone would not suffice since it would be opposed to that of a Pope.
That’s also why I personally have given much more credence to the sedeimpedist theory than to the sedevacantist theory. If there were a true Pope today, or one in 1958 at least, then what I’ve said would not apply. Whether I chose sedevacantism or sedeimpedism, there’d be little or no difference in how I’d live in response to that, but I think the one is a better theory than the other.
SPERAY: What you’ve said doesn’t apply anyway.
Coming to a concrete case, though, when I studied the issue, I found Cardinal Siri (the only real candidate for sedeimpedism)’s relationship with both Archbishop Lefebvre and Pope John Paul II made it clear he was no sedevacantist nor believed himself Pope. In fact, I think His Eminence could possibly have been a little more favorable to the Archbishop than he was.
SPERAY: Siri, a concrete case? The only thing concrete about Siri is that he accepted Vat2, the new mass, all the conciliar popes, and the theory that he was a secret pope is false. Lefebvre knew that sedevacantism was correct but was a coward. You should read all that he said about sedevacantism.
I go to daily Mass (so obviously would be willing to hear a valid objection to going to Mass, and have also seen the difference this makes to the interior life of grace) everyday (travelling about 3 hours in all back and forth often in inclement weather, from my secular university which is one of India’s finest, and ), say the complete Rosary as well (though sometimes with a bit of tardiness, which I make up the next or following days) and have consecrated my life to the Immaculate Heart of Mary according to St.Louis’ Marie’s method of Holy slavery. I take the evils the Church is facing seriously and intend to give my life and all I am to her for her exaltation over them and the coming triumph of the Immaculate Heart and the Age of Mary and peace promised in Fatima.
SPERAY: Our Lady of Fatima said a great chastisement would take place between 1957 to 1960 and that it would be great. What was it? She also said that these are the very last days of time. Have you ever read how JP2 and Ratzinger have contradicted themselves on the 3rd secret? Also, the Church approved apparition of Our Lady of Good Success prophesied that in the 20th century, the Church would go through a dark night without a prelate and father to watch over it. When did that happen?
I care less than nothing what you or anyone at all thinks of me.
SPERAY: GOOD!
God is my witness to all these things, I only felt obliged to write to you, thinking perhaps you were ready with an answer to that what I’d come to discover, reasons of such force I knew this had come as enlightenment from above, that I had not yet considered, which it now seems you do not. This will be my last reply as well and I wish you and your family the best.
SPERAY: YOU’VE GIVEN NO REASONS BUT EXCUSES! YOU’VE ACCEPTED ROME WITH ALL OF ITS ABOMINATIONS. Every time I tell you something, like inter-religious worship, praying in Mosques, etc. etc. etc., you either dismiss it, or defend it.
Coming back to a treatment of the subject, then, given the existence merely of universal assent to the election of a Roman Pontiff, it is a certain and sufficient proof both that it was valid and the internal conditions required for validity were fulfilled, even in spite of some appearances to the contrary.
SPERAY: I’ve given historic precedents but you reject them.
You claim I compromise divine law, church law and a “particular dogma”, I answer that none of the above is true.
SPERAY: WE’LL SEE…
1. Divine law requires that a formal heretic cannot be Pope, for a formal heretic lacks the supernatural virtue of faith (faith and unbelief are a virtue and a vice opposed to one another, the presence of the one implies the absence of the other and vice versa) in him which is the bond of unity in the Church required for membership.
Whereas, a “material heretic”, even he who has denied a dogma has not lost the virtue of faith in doing so and thus remains a member of the Church.
Pertinacity alone is the form of heresy present in the will. He who is pertinacious is a heretic, strictly so called, and has lost the virtue of faith. He who is not pertinacious in his will is not a heretic in the strict sense.
2. At least in the case of such universal consent, since Catholic faith obliges us to hold such universal consent is a sure proof of validity of election,
SPERAY: The Church has never defined it.
it must be held that the person in question was not a formal heretic, but perhaps only a material one, since the lesser certainty (that derived from reason, pertains to the exterior and judged from circumstances) yields to the greater (that derived from faith, pertains to the interior and that does not change)
SPERAY: The Church has not defined this. Cum ex says the opposite.
Ecclesiastical law presumes pertinacity for all clerics subject to it, that is to say, the presumption of pertinacity, unlike pertinacity itself, applies to all those subject to canon law. So for Bishops who violate the law or outwardly deny a dogma, pertinacity is always presumed.
Whereas he who is validly elected and is the Pope is above canon law, so this does not apply to him.
SPERAY: What difference does that make if the Divine law says that a pope can’t be a heretic? Anyway, a pope is a not pope BEFORE the election. You compromise the Divine law because you know very well what it states and you ignore it by accepting a radical heretic as pope because he is “universally” accepted as pope.
You’re also wrong about Apostolicity.
SPERAY: I asked you to read what it means.
1. “Jurisdiction is essential to Apostolicity” This is from the Catholic Encyclopedia itself, in agreement with every single theology manual, which I’ve read but cannot copy paste here, stating why a Church full of valid Bishops would still not be Apostolic without jurisdiction. Ordinary Jurisdiction is the formal element in Apostolicity, material succession does not suffice. Supplied jurisdiction is not a type of ordinary jurisdiction, but jurisdiction is supplied only for individual acts when ordinary jurisdiction is lacking.
SPERAY: Would you say that Apostolicity is not found in the Eastern Orthodox, then?
Bishops with only supplied jurisdiction (“episcopi vagantes”) are not successors to the Apostles in the strict sense. You will find this in Woywod and all the canonists.
SPERAY: Do they deny it, in extreme circumstances?
2. “Jurisdiction flows to the Bishops only through the Roman Pontiff” – This is from Pope Pius XII who settled the dispute on the subject, that’s why citing former theologians will not help your case about the great schism.
SPERAY: You fail to distinguish between ordinary and extraordinary circumstances. The Great Schism proves me right.
Most of these same theologians though also held there was at every time a true Pope so you are still in disagreement with them above that, and their opinion would maintain the transmission of ordinary jurisdiction and formal Apostolic succession at least in some Bishops, like those aligned with the true Pope.
SPERAY: Who was the true pope during the Great Schism? The Church can’t tell us for sure, and of course hasn’t done so. Your argument fails.
It’s also said there never was a true schism, in which case even those Bishops in the wrong camp could be given jurisdiction by the legitimate Pontiff, as some writers have also said.
SPERAY: NO TRUE SCHISM? 3 POPES AND NO SCHISM? REALLY?
This suffices to establish that sedevacantism is false.
SPERAY: You’ve sufficed nothing but private opinions which are easily answered.
By the way, one of your “principal heresies”, showing the lack of care with which you and modern sedevacantist writers use the term was affirmed by Pope St.Gregory VII,(writing to a Muslim king “This affection we and you owe to each other in a more peculiar way than to people of other races because we worship and confess the same God though in diverse forms and daily praise and adore Him as the creator and ruler of this world.”) perhaps he was a heretic too, or perhaps the Church that canonized him was not the Catholic Church.
SPERAY: RED HERRING! They’re Catholic sedevacantist, and heretical sedevacantists.
You don’t understand why the Second Vatican Council said, “The Church looks on this as the preparation for the Gospel”, which shows that this does not suffice for salvation, but is a preparation, as is any true knowledge of God such as His unity of Being, however strained the sources through which it has come down, for its full revelation in Christ, What Christ said about the Samaritans with reference to the Jews also applies, and if men already acknowledge one God, or already acknowledge that that God whom Abraham called on, and who wished to be known as the God of Abraham was the true God, that can be used by Christians to build on in evangelising Muslims. The Church reaffirmed that he who rejects Christ and the Church could not be saved, and issued a document specifically on the missions.
SPERAY: SO GO WORSHIP WITH THEM LIKE YOUR DEMONIC “POPES”. Vat2 statements on Islam and Muslims are downright blasphemous. The fact that you keep defending them proves where your heart really is.
What, so we’re carrying on, then? Look, if you want to stop at some time, there’s no need to yell. Just say so, and we will.
SPERAY: I’ve made myself clear in the past with you that when I use capital letters it’s to emphasize a point, not yelling. I apologize for not being clear in my last comment, and I apologize for what appears to be yelling and rudeness. The problem with my writing is that it doesn’t come out as I would say it verbally. If we could have a conversation over the phone you would understand how I’m really saying what I’m saying. I do like writing things out for reference or time to look up or think about things. Anyway, I’m glad you replied back, but I would like to hear you concede to something. Things like altar girls, women lectors, and other practices you never conceded in the past either. Now it’s inter-religious worship. You’re probably thinking the same thing about me.
I didn’t call you either a heretical sedevacantist or a Catholic sedevacantist, I just said you were careless, and this carelessness is rampant in your posts.
SPERAY: I don’t take back what I said. I still deny that Muslims worship God. Pope Gregory didn’t know exactly what the Muslims believed since the Koran wasn’t in a language that the pope could read. Every time someone brings up the issue of Muslims worshiping the true God, the letter by Pope Gregory keeps popping up, but they never really think about it. You should think about how one can reject and blaspheme the Holy Trinity, but they still worship Him in love and adoration.
Ought you not to be a little more diffident than to be so rashly eager to give a modernized and evolved meaning to the dogma of Apostolicity?
SPERAY: I didn’t give a meaning to it all. Ought you not to be little more careful in making false accusations?
Or do you really care so little about dogma after all that it matters to you only when you can accuse others of being heretics?
SPERAY: The Dogma is that God is Three in One. Muslims reject A three in one god, and therefore reject THE Three in One God, thus they don’t worship God. They curse the Christian God and I personally know several Muslims that will tell you that we don’t worship the same God.
Provide a single authority who understood the manner as you have, or denied that the formal element of Apostolicity is jurisdiction, I can assure you you will find none.
SPERAY: And how do I understand it? You don’t know because I haven’t told you precisely. I reject your notion that sedevacantism has lost it. I have no problem with the Catholic Encyclopedia’s explanation. We have historic precedents for our position. Read: http://www.cmri.org/96prog9.htm Explain how those bishops without a papal mandate who controlled those particular sees didn’t have apostolicity.
Baptism of desire, your attempted counterexample, is easily demonstrable from Scrpture, tradition and authority, but what you are proposing is sheer modernism, that Apostolicity can be understood in a differerent way than it has been always understood and unanimously taught if this is necessary according to the circumstances of our time, in order to save the theory of sedevacantism. Insanity.
SPERAY: What are you talking about? I don’t understand it a different way.
And yes, exactly, the separated Greek Church is not Apostolic. They are all valid Bishops, yet none of them is a successor to the Apostles. They are acephalous strictly speaking, just like sedevacantism makes the Catholic Church such.
SPERAY: Wrong. The Orthodox don’t have the faith of the Apostles, but sedevacantist bishops do. That’s the difference. Anytime the Church is in interregnum period, would you call it acephalous strictly speaking?
You can’t redefine what successor to the Apostles means just because it suits your theory, sorry.
SPERAY: Agreed.
Rage at me all you will, this just isn’t done.
SPERAY: I’m raging at you because you won’t accept that Rome has lost the Faith, which is so abundantly clear and you have been informed of it all.
It’s not at all a Catholic attitude to be so disdainful of authority,
SPERAY: Who’s doing that?
to anathematize every one, even those traditional theologians of the past, more learned than you, approved by the Church, having taught and trained priests, written and lectured and whose works are circulated in seminaries for centuries and who’ve written profound treatises on the contemplative and spiritual life.
SPERAY: I don’t anathematize any of them. However, some of them are simply in error on some points. You have 5 theologians that reject the Divine law implicitly and say that a pope need not be Catholic. I don’t anathematize them, but I do hold them in suspicion. Why do you have to misrepresent me like this?
Remember, the very Pope who defined infallibility condemned those who said we’re only obliged to hold the defined dogmas of the Church, saying Catholics are also bound to hold theological truths and conclusions that are unanimously held. Sedevacantists ignore all of this and reduce sacred theology to a free-for-all sham.
SPERAY: Come on? That’s my argument against you. I don’t ignore unanimously held conclusions by the whole church. Theologians are not the whole Church.
You can hold any opinion you like on Savonarola, and opinion you like on are obliged to hold that a universally accepted election is valid. That is not optional. Note the degree of certainty mentioned by Cardinal Billot. This is also mentioned by St.Alphonsus (who classified BoD as de fide, which Feeneyites foolishly deny) etc. You are obliged to hold the consenus of theologians.
SPERAY: Are you admitting that Alexander VI might not be the pope after all since he wasn’t universally accepted? What does universally accepted mean? Absolutely everyone? Most everyone?
And no, Savanarola did say, “The man is not a Christian – he does not even believe any longer that there is a God” so it wasn’t just simony.
SPERAY: That’s the conclusion he made based on his actions. So what? The actions are what were judged. Simony was the issue.
But even he didn’t react as you sedevacantists erroneously do.
SPERAY: He most certainly did react the same way, and I don’t understand how you can say that we react erroneously. I suppose we should accept that a pope can do, believe, practice, and prove whatever he wants and still be pope, right? If not, how are we to react?
There were worldly Popes then and they are now.
SPERAY: Mere worldliness has nothing to do with it. Popes can be bad, wicked, and just plain worldly, but they can’t be radical apostates worshiping in mosques and synagogues and inviting pagans to pray to their pagan gods for world peace as something good and holy that we all most accept.
Pope Benedict XVI rebuked Pope John Paul II at first, but then he also could not now help being worldly. Now being worldly meant something different two centuries ago, when it was more about greed and power than it does today when it is more about people-pleasing and stuff, in both cases what is sin remains sin before God.
SPERAY: Has no bearing on the issue whatsoever.
You are wrong about Msgr.Van Noort. The ordinary and universal Magisterium of all Bishops even in an interregnum whether dispersed throughout the world or gathered in imperfect general council possesses true authority to determine (in a morally unanimous, not a mathematically unanimous means) such matters as are within the bounds of their competence.
SPERAY: I gave a historical precedent that proves me right. You haven’t addressed it. What you’re saying above is something else.
That’s why the consensus of Bishops is important if there is not a true Pope somewhere, but doesn’t come into play when there is.
SPERAY: The consensus of bishops has recognized several antipopes in the past but now we understand that they were in error. How do you explain that? I use consensus loosely as I do the word universal.
And you’re also wrong about Cum Ex. Cum Ex, which by the way is modelled on the Lateran Council’s condemnation of simony as an invalidating factor of Papal elections and which uses the same language, though Pope St.Pius X later annulled it. Cum Ex says an invalid election cannot become valid no matter who accepts it.
SPERAY: Pope St. Pius X annulled the part about simony, but he didn’t annul the divine law that a heretic can’t become pope.
What St.Alphonsus teaches is that an election being universally accepted is an infallible sign that a given election was valid and therefore that putative defects did not exist, that no precluding interior conditions to validity could have been present. We are obliged to hold what cardinal Billot says, at the least he is not a formal heretic, since a formal heretic cannot be Pope.
SPERAY: I don’t know what the problem is.
Here is the Catholic Encyclopedia answering why it wasn’t a true schism.
“From this brief summary it will be readily concluded that this schism did not at all resemble that of the East, that it was something unique, and that it has remained so in history. It was not a schism properly so called, being in reality a deplorable misunderstanding concerning a question of fact, an historical complication which lasted forty years. In the West there was no revolt against papal authority in general, no scorn of the sovereign power of which St. Peter was the representative. Faith in the necessary unity never wavered a particle; no one wished voluntarily to separate from the head of the Church. Now this intention alone is the characteristic mark of the schismatic spirit (Summa, II-II, Q. xxxix, a. 1). On the contrary everyone desired that unity, materially overshadowed and temporarily compromised, should speedily shine forth with new splendour. The theologians, canonists, princes, and faithful of the fourteenth century felt so intensely and maintained so vigorously that this character of unity was essential to the true Church of Jesus Christ, that at Constance solicitude for unity took precedence of that for reform. The benefit of unity had never been adequately appreciated till it had been lost ….”
SPERAY: It was a schism none the less even if a unique one. The fact remains that we don’t know who the true pope was for sure. Saints were on both sides, and saints were canonized from both sides, yet how could this be? Who had ordinary jurisdiction? All of them or none of them or some of them?
And about Muslims, sigh. You know, I probably believe in the more common opinion that restricts their possibility of salvation more than you do (since if I remember correctly, you hold that explicit faith in God and His Providence is sufficient for those baptised by desire, whereas I believe explicit faith in the Holy Trinity and Incarnation is necessary even for these, though grant both opinions are freely discussed, as St.Alphonsus also mentions) According to you, St.Gregory VII would have been a demonic “Pope”. You completely ignored what he said.
SPERAY: Well, I dealt with St. Gregory now for you. So no, I don’t hold that he was a demonic pope since he didn’t have all the info available to him (at least, that’s the appearance of it.) Muslims can’t be saved in their religion. Baptism of desire requires several things which I’ve addressed elsewhere on my blog.
Why didn’t he go worship with Muslims, then, despite saying they recognize God’s existence? Because even among those who profess to believe God, there is a vast difference between those who adore God only in ignorance and in folly versus those who worship Him in Spirit and in Truth. Thus Our Lord said of the Jews, “In vain do they worship Me teaching for doctrines the commandments of men” which also applies to Muslims.
SPERAY: That’s my argument! St. Gregory wouldn’t dream of doing the abominable act of worshiping with Muslims. Benedict XVI rejects it! He rejects the universal teaching on what you just stated. That’s my whole point. Benedict XVI rejects the DIVINE LAW and he promotes the breaking of the First Commandment.
St.Pius X’s Catechism says Muslims recognize that Muslims admit one true God.
SPERAY: Of course, Muslims admit such. I’ve never denied it. Allah is one, they cry. I deny that they worship the Holy Trinity, the Three in One.
Who are infidels?
A. Infidels are those who .. though admitting one true God, they do not believe in the Messiah, neither as already come in the Person of Jesus Christ, nor as to come; for instance, Mohammedans and the like.
SPERAY: Absolutely, but Vatican 2 teaches that they actually worship the one true God, and teach…well read: https://stevensperay.wordpress.com/2011/08/23/the-vatican-2-debate-between-sungenis-and-dimond/
Innumerable medieval theologians have held the same thing, even though I personally hold the other opinion (that explicit faith in the Holy Trinity and Incarnation, which the Church even in Pope Pius XII’s days never settled, allowing both opinions), and their writings make clear that they believed Muslims recognize God, His unity, His existence, His Providence, the Last Day etc.
Albert Pighius: “The Apostle says, ‘Whoever would draw near to God must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who seek him.’ There are many who believe these things about God, even though they are totally ignorant of the Christian faith; thus did Cornelius believe, and was pleasing to God for his faith, before he was taught about Christ…
“One cannot doubt that in so great a multitude of those who follow the doctrine of Mohammed, being imbued with this by their parents from infancy, there are some who know and revere God, as the cause of all things, and the rewarder of the good and the wicked, and who commend to him their salvation, which they hope from him, and they keep the law of nature written in their hearts, and they submit their wills to the divine will.”
Domingo de Soto: Common to these Dominican theologians was an unshaken belief in God’s universal salvific will, which would leave no one who was doing what lay in his power without the means necessary for salvation.”
Francisco Suarez: “Now we are saying the same thing with regard to anyone who has faith in God, and sincere repentance for sin, but who is not baptized, whether he has arrived at explicit or only implicit faith in Christ. For, with implicit faith in Christ he can have an implicit desire for bap¬tism…”
SPERAY: So is it careless of me to say that denying Christ outright and blaspheming the Holy Trinity is a rejection of God? What did Christ say about the Jews in John 8? According to Jesus, who is their Father and why? Lastly, I like to think that you believe as I do on inter-religious worship, but you’re not thinking about the implications of what’s happening.
Okay, Steven. That’s good to know, and now that you mention it I remember you said so earlier that your typing in CAPS is not yelling. I’m going to answer some of your questions above first, then ask some of my own, if that’s fine with you. I want to know, do you agree with Tuas Libenter of Pope Pius IX and its teaching on the consensus of theologians? What Cardinal Billot, St.Alphonsus and many others say is of the faith you must accept as such.
SPERAY: What did Pope Pius IX teach about the consensus of theologians? Provide the quote for me.
Regarding women lectors, I’ve read a whole lot on the issue trying to see what tradition says about it, St.Thomas says this, that deaconesess who were mere women laity did this, “But deaconess there denotes a woman who shares in some act of a deacon, namely who reads the homilies in the Church”. The matter is more historically complicated than we think. I don’t like this sort of “antiquarianism” or introduction of practices just because they were done in the early Church either, but given statements like this, from the Angelic Doctor, how can anyone say women lectors are impossible? Whereas we can say women priests are impossible, and even women deacons strictly so called, because tradition explicitly says so in both cases and so it was understood by Saints and theologians.
1. What must be explicitly believed in order to be baptized even by desire? God and His Providence alone (as it was sufficient for the just of the Old Testament), or the Holy Trinity and Incarnation? Do you agree with Suarez and the many other medieval theologians I quoted above that there can be Muslims who have an explicit faith in God and an implicit faith in Christ and so can be saved?
SPERAY: Yes, provided perfect contrition is also present, etc. At that point, it is Christ who saves by bringing such a person into the Church through a mystery we don’t fully understand. The Muslim would then no longer be a Muslim, but a Christian. We don’t have to believe there has ever been such a case, but the possibility is there.
This is the key point, if one believes these two articles, it can be said that one believes in God. Not that this suffices for salvation.
I think your explanation about Pope St.Gregory VII is rather strained, in truth, at best. He clearly understood the Mohammedans had a false understanding of God.
SPERAY: Everyone not Catholic has a false understanding of God. I’m not sure what Islam taught a thousand years ago. The religion has evolved too. I heard that an ancient Koran was found which is at complete odds with the Koran today. Robert Spencer of Jihadwatch.com wrote a book about how Mohammed didn’t even exist. There’s no evidence of him. What did Pope St. Gregory know and believe about Muslims in total? I don’t know. But I’ll give him the benefit of the doubt. Benedict XVI actually worships with them. I don’t give him the same benefit.
Besides, St.John Damascene and even St.Thomas say the same thing. In discussing Islam, they treat God as God and Mohammedanism as a heresy, they don’t write like Robert Morey claiming Allah (which Arabic Christians also use) is a moon god.
SPERAY: It is a heresy. It’s the same heresy as Arianism in one sense. Muslims most certainly believe in one (G)god who created everything. But since they adamantly reject Christ as God and blaspheme the Holy Trinity, do they WORSHIP the same God as us? The key word is worship. It’s possible that some ignorant Muslims do in fact worship the true God, but not as a whole.
2. I understand precisely the CMRI position, but I think you do not realize its consequences. The CMRI claims their Bishops were consecrated due to a state of necessity and so because of canonical equity did not receive the excommunication announced by Pope Pius XII. Now, this claim is itself debatable, but I’m freely granting it here. Here’s the thing, the CMRI itself, being aware of the doctrine that ordinary jurisdiction is only granted through the Pope agrees their Bishops possess no ordinary jurisdiction, that is, they are not in possession of ecclesiastical offices.
Otherwise, why say they have supplied jurisdiction only? Why not say they have ordinary jurisdiction? So your own CMRI position even does not claim what you appear to claim.
SPERAY: I’m in agreement with CMRI. St. Athanasius stated: “Even if Catholics faithful to tradition are reduced to a handful, they are the ones who are the true Church of Jesus Christ.” (Coll. Selecta SS. Eccl. Patrum. Caillu and Guillou, Vol. 32, pp. 411-412)
During an interregnum, Bishops who have already entered the episcopal college and have taken possession of their sees do not lose the ordinary jurisdiction they were given, for that is stable. This is mentioned by Cardinal Franzelin and others. Thus, they remain true successors to the Apostles, and the Catholic Church as a whole does not cease to be Apostolic. The same is true during your historical precedents, at least some Bishops always possessed ordinary jurisdiction.
SPERAY: I agree.
It is when there is not a single Bishop in the Church who posseses it that the Catholic Church has ceased to be Apostolic, which of course is erroneous and even heretical. “Pastores et doctores” in the First Vatican Council (there will be shepherds and teachers in the Church until the end of time) also refers to this, Bishops who are part of the episcopal college and successors to the Apostles.
SPERAY: You didn’t answer the question. I ask how those non papal mandate bishops who took over sees didn’t have Apostolicity? Did they not have the necessary jurisdiction to operate through supplied jurisdiction?
3. Do you agree an imperfect general council has true authority to settle matters in an interregnum?
SPERAY: Not necessarily.
Well, then, those who claim there is an interregnum show their position to be self-refuting, since the world’s Bishops with a teaching office have with moral unanimity identified Pope Benedict XVI as Pope and this authoritative determination would still be binding on them.
SPERAY: The world’s bishops recognized antipope Benedict X as pope. The world’s bishops recognized Antipope Boniface VII as pope. BTW, have you read Cum ex?
Now, do you agree that all the Bishops in the world put together do not possess the same authority when the See is occupied, if they are not in express agreement with him?
SPERAY: Yes.
All Bishops can say that an antiPope is Pope provided there is a true Pope elsewhere, but not in a true interregnum.
SPERAY: Sorry, but it’s already happened. The Church hasn’t defined it.
But those who do not claim there is an interregnum but postulate a hidden Pope, as I did, cannot be answered so easily.
SPERAY: A hidden pope would amount to a doubtful pope. Would it not? I don’t buy a hidden pope theory because it only creates another problem.
In that case, we would have to examine specific cases, and had I found even a shred of evidence that Cardinal Siri could have been Pope, I would have totally accepted this theory, which is very close to sedevacantism in practice, but differs very much in theory, since it answers both jurisdiction, Apostolicity, universal consent, a true Petrine hierarchy in the Roman Church, and many, many more matters I had considered.
SPERAY: The Siri case is false.
4. I don’t think the Popes are right in doing what they’ve done.
SPERAY: This is the point I want to stick with right here. You APPEARED to accuse me that I knew better than, “traditional theologians of the past…more learned… approved by the Church, having taught and trained priests, written and lectured and whose works are circulated in seminaries for centuries and who’ve written profound treatises on the contemplative and spiritual life” yet it appears that you know better than the pope (a skilled theologian, no doubt) on how the faith should be believed, practiced, and promoted????? I WANT TO SPEND THE NEXT COMMENTS ON THIS POINT. Why do you disagree with the popes? Are the conciliar popes a bunch of dummies that don’t any better, but you, and I, and our children do?
Savonorala proves my position the more prudent one, because he presumed pertinacity which was a judgment derived from reason when there were other infallibly certain facts derived from faith such as those I’ve mentioned known through universal acceptance and all, to merely shun the outward action, as indeed we should do even today, but do no more. Nobody is asserting that one ought to worship with Muslims. That is madness. But it is the question of the pertinacity of the Pope that is more complicated than you seem ready to concede.
SPERAY: Benedict is asserting it. He does it over and over. He also worships with Lutherans bowing towards their altars praying with women bishops of that satanic religion. This is madness, right? A pope can’t be mad (insane). You have completely proved my point. Pertinacity is judged on the external appearances only. No one can judge hearts. He’s either pertinacious or insane. There’s no other reasonable explanation, unless he’s possessed.
I think you grant he was wrong that Pope Alexander VI was not a Christian after all (which he affirmed “with certitude”, and he was a reasonable and intelligent man in general, showing how easy it is to form a false judgment on the matter) Even St.Peter and St.Barnabas were not immune in their day to making a tacit concession to the Judaizers before they were rightly and soundly rebuked by St.Paul.
SPERAY: Pope Alexander VI may not have been a Christian. He was so wicked that it does appear that he had contempt for Christianity. I never really thought about it until now. I’m glad you have pointed this out to me. I think I agree with Savonarola. Of course, St. Peter and the rest sinned. We all sin. To what degree, for how long, etc. Alexander VI seemed never to care about his soul. The papacy was only about power and wealth to him, at least in appearance. Christianity was tool, not a faith. In my book Papal Anomalies, I give other examples even worse than Alexander VI.
P.S: Wanted to write this above. My best to you and your family. Hope
everything is going well with you.
The same here. I wish you and yours all the best!
Well, what you say about Pope Alexander VI only confirms to me that the way you approach the question altogether is wrong, and I submit that is why you make the same error about Pope Benedict XVI.
SPERAY: That’s your opinion, but you didn’t answer the key questions that I asked you. I want to know about your disagreement with Benedict XVI and how “it appears that you know better than the pope (a skilled theologian, no doubt) on how the faith should be believed, practiced, and promoted????? I WANT TO SPEND THE NEXT COMMENTS ON THIS POINT. Why do you disagree with the popes? Are the conciliar popes a bunch of dummies that don’t any better, but you, and I, and our children do?
You are obliged to accept and apply the relevant theological principles in treating any historical matter, otherwise all Catholics are bound to disregard your conclusions altogether as we would disregard that of today’s heretics and modernists in treating the Gospels who don’t accept the guidelines laid down by the Church.
SPERAY: I’m not going against any guidelines of the Church. You asked me what I thought of Alexander VI and I told you, but I was basing the fact that Savonarola was right that Alexander wasn’t pope due to simony.
Fr.Cekada wrote a decent article explaining the consensus of theologians, including with the citations I mentioned from Pope Pius IX and other Popes that is worth perusing, and how it applies to a matter like BoD long settled in Catholic circles for several centuries actually, but which, because of sedevacantism’s free for all theological mentality has recently created confusion in their own circles.
Click to access BaptDes-Proofed.pdf
SPERAY: You and Cekada didn’t provide that quote that says or implies precisely what you said about the consensus of theologians. But that’s okay for now, because I want to focus on your opinion why you believe Benedict XVI is wrong.
When you apply this, you will see that Pope Alexander VI had to have remained Pope.
SPERAY: He wasn’t universally held by all the bishops. Giuliano della Rovere (later Pope Pius II) didn’t, and I’m sure there were others. So your position doesn’t apply anyway.
And it is similar for other Papal anamolies.
SPERAY: I gave you two, which you didn’t address the how’s. Again, that’s okay because I want to focus on your disagree with B16 for the moment.
Now, it’s possible to apply the same principles which everyone grants and come to different conclusions, as one finds several traditional authorities favoring a different version of the events of the “Great schism”, but the principles themselves are not at all open to dispute. One of these pertains to universal acceptance as I said being a sure guarantor of validity.
SPERAY: It didn’t guarantee the two antipopes I gave you.
As a Christian wife is obliged to submit not only to a worthy and gentle husband but also to a violent and vicious one, for the Lord’s sake and which is more meritorious so it is with the bride of Christ united to a wicked head as her temporal lord.
SPERAY: The argument is about apostasy and heresy, not other sins. I’ve been clear about this from the get go.
Msgr Journet writes,
“The Church has no power to change the form of her government, nor to control the destiny of him who, once validly elected, is no vicar of hers but Vicar of Christ. Consequently she has no power to punish or depose her head. She is born to obey. This truth may seem hard, but the best theologians have never attenuated it; rather, they have accentuated it. To make us aware of all that we ought to be ready to suffer for the Church, of how much heroism she can ask of us, they have proposed extreme cases. They have supposed a Pope who shall scandalise the Church by the gravest sins; they have supposed him to be incorrigible; and then they ask whether the Church can depose him. Their answer is, no. For no one on earth can touch the Pope.
SPERAY: I absolutely believe this. I actually say this all the time!!!
In his Summa de Ecclesia (lib. II, cap. cvi) Cardinal Turrecremata pointed out several remedies for such a calamity: respectful admonitions, direct resistance to bad acts, and so forth. All these could, of course, prove useless. There remains a supreme resource, never useless, terrible sometimes as death, as secret as love. This is prayer, the resource of the saints. ” See that I do not have to complain of you to Jesus crucified, ” wrote Catherine of Siena to Pope Gregory XI;
To the bad theologians who thought that the Church would be defenceless if not allowed to depose a vicious Pope, Cardinal Cajetan, who had seen the reign of Alexander VI, had but one answer: he reminded them of the power of prayer. For never has it such power as in such crises. We must always have recourse to prayer, as one of the purest weapons a Christian can use.”
If then, on the one hand, the means available to human effort [providentia humana], even if super-elevated by the authority of the Church, are a force inferior to prayer, appointed as the highest of second causes by God, to whom all creatures, corporeal or spiritual, are subject; and if, on the other hand, a remedy against a bad but still believing Pope is among the highest effects in the Church, it follows that God, in His wisdom, must have given the Church for remedy against a bad Pope, not now any of these merely human means which may avail for the rest of the Church, but prayer alone.”
This is how one must respond to a vicious Pope. This is how Savanorola was corrected in his day, and later, he was mistaken on this point. Pope Alexander VI was the Pope.
SPERAY: I don’t think Savonarola was mistaken. I don’t accept Alexander VI as pope. I told you why. I gave you the law of the Church. I showed that the later Pius II also rejected Alexander for simony. I’m not talking anymore about it. I want to know why you disagree with Benedict XVI!
Msgr. Van Noort says we must give an assent of ecclesiastical faith to the infallible proposition that Pope Pius XII (in his day) possessed supreme jurisdiction over the Church, as a truth received from the ordinary and universal Magisterium dispersed throughout the world. This is called a dogmatic fact. The CE explains, “It is also generally held, and rightly, that questions of dogmatic fact, in regard to which definite certainty is required for the safe custody and interpretation of revealed truth, may be determined infallibly by the Church. Such questions, for example, would be: whether a certain pope is legitimate”
SPERAY: And yet, the whole Church has been mistaken more than once about who the pope is. I accept the historical proof. I don’t know what else to tell you. But let’s spend the next comments on why you disagree with BENEDICT XVI especially in light of the fact that he has the consensus from just about everybody, yet you disagree.
Because the same thing that applies to Pope Alexander VI also applies to Pope Benedict XVI.
SPERAY: That’s my point. You’ve acknowledged that a pope can’t be a heretic by Divine Law and that pertinacity is part of being a heretic. I asked you why disagree with how Benedict XVI believes, practices and promotes the faith. You didn’t answer the question. I KNOW THAT I’VE GOT YOU RIGHT HERE, but you wont’ answer the question.
If this were a few centuries ago you’d be trying to convince me the former wasn’t a Christian along with Savonorola while I’d be telling you along with the better theologians and authorities that the serious problems and scandal he caused had to be dealt with without introducing another false opinion that only served to confuse rather than clarify.
SPERAY: I already explained that Alexander VI wasn’t pope because he bought the office which automatically nullifies his election according to the law of the Church at that time.
“For this very reason, Alexander VI was not a false Pope, but a legitimate one. Therefore he was not a heretic at least in that sense in which the fact of being a heretic takes away one’s membership in the Church and in consequence deprives one, by the very nature of things, of the pontifical power and of any other ordinary jurisdiction”
SPERAY: You’re changing the subject because this is not the issue and I never made it one. You’re NOT DEALING with why you disagree with the consensus of nearly the whole Church that Benedict XVI is wrong for believing, practicing, and promoting what he does, such as bowing towards Mecca while worshiping with Muslims. You called it madness. What makes it madness? Are you admitting that Benedict XVI is either mad or pertinacious? What other reasonable explanation is there?
Do you think you know more than Pope Alexander VI?
SPERAY: Most all of us know more than Alexander VI because the faith wasn’t as defined then, but you missed the point. You appeared to accuse me that I’m think I know more and better that all the theologians, and yet you do think you know better than Benedict XVI about how to believe, practice, and promote the faith.
Was he a dummy? You see the same questions can be asked about you.
SPERAY: Alexander was no dummy. He was pertinacious as is clear. I’m sure he knew what he was doing was evil. What about Benedict XVI? I can answer the questions, can you? You lose right here. It’s over! You must admit that Benedict XVI is no dummy either, which proves he is pertinacious (or mad), which in turn, proves he can’t be pope because you already confess the Divine law on the issue. Benedict XVI believes, practices, and promotes as good something you know and I know to be evil, yes madness!!!! YOU HAVE PROVEN SEDEVACANTISM RIGHT HERE!
It isn’t on human grounds that we believe in it, for you to make such a weak argument as “the consensus of nearly the whole Church that Benedict XVI is wrong for believing, practicing, and promoting what he does” but specifically on the grounds of what the faith teaches that the specific consensus of the whole Church to Pope Benedict XVI as Pope suffices to show he is a valid Pope (and doesn’t apply at all in the manner you are trying to imply), and therefore is a divine proof that all precluding interior conditions to validity (such as pertinacity and others) don’t exist.
SPERAY: I see that you’re not going to deal with the issue at hand. You called Benedict XVI’s belief, practice, and promotion of inter-religous worship as “mad” and which would mean what? Is Benedict XVI a dummy, mad, pertinacious, or possessed? Those are your only options, but of course you can’t answer it without undercutting your own position.
You don’t understand this properly, Cardinal Billot says such universal consent is a sufficient proof that Pope Alexander VI was not a formal heretic, all else to the contrary notwithstanding. You don’t seem willing to believe it even if you did understand it.
SPERAY: Savonarola is not the issue and I’ve already dealt with Savonarola, and you keep misrepresenting what I’m saying. Alexander didn’t obtain the office because he bought it which according to the law at the time nullifies his election. That was the argument. Now, I don’t want to hear anymore about Savonarola, Billot, or anything else on him. I want to hear you answer the above question based on what you stated. THAT’S ALL!
I’ve already explained the various human reasons that can be given.
SPERAY: About what?
I think a certain worldly spirit has come over the Roman authorities, by which they try to please the world by being “nice” rather than preaching the tough truth about Christ and Him crucified.
SPERAY: He actually believes what he is doing is good and keeps repeating it no less. He believes breaking the 1st Commandment and rejecting the Divine law in belief and practice is OKAY in order to be “NICE”? If that’s your answer, then he would be pertinaciously against the Faith, and you prove me right.
What is sin remains sin, but your extrapolations are clearly contrary to the faith and to the teaching of theologians which you are not willing to submit to.
SPERAY: BENEDICT XVI IS NOT CATHOLIC and you know it! Your position is against the faith, Divine Law (which you apparently can’t apply or will not) and the theologians who have taught what I’m holding and practicing. Also, you don’t submit to your theologians that all hold that JP2 and Benedict are great.
There is a divine proof that the Pope can’t be pertinacious, you’re ignoring it, you’re refusing to talk about it, you don’t believe it though it’s a teaching of the faith, then you want to attempt human proofs of pertinacity which would otherwise be very helpful but are of no use when there is a divine proof to the contrary.
SPERAY: Of course a pope can’t be pertinacious and still be pope. But all those teachings from all those saints, popes, and theologians mean nothing to you because they all said that a pope could indeed become a heretic. You lose!
That’s why I said you are obliged to concede the relevant Catholic principles first, before we can even begin to discuss their application, but you don’t because they would devastate your cause. You can type in BOLD all you like, you are simply mistaken, and unwilling to admit this teaching of theologians about the faith which Pope Pius IX said you must and which is a divine proof in the present day against what you are saying, that the Pope is not pertinacious and therefore not a formal heretic.
SPERAY: You’ve already undercut what you think are Catholic principles. It’s over. You proved me right with your answer. I WILL BLOCK ALL FURTHER COMMENTS FROM YOU SINCE YOU CAN’T BE HONEST.
Obviously, you’re still going to deny it, but here’s the 1965 American Ecclesiastical Review to the same effect.
“Certainty of the Pope’s Status
Question: What certainty have we that the reigning Pontiff is actually the primate of the universal Church … that he was validly elected Pope?
Answer: Of course, we have human moral certainty … this type of certainty excludes every prudent fear of the opposite.
SPERAY: It doesn’t apply to a radical apostate. You already proved me right with your answer before.
But in the case of the Pope we have a higher grade of certainty – a certainty that excludes not merely the prudent fear of the opposite, but even the possible fear of the opposite. In other words, we have infallible certainty … This is an example of a fact that is not contained in the deposit of revelation but is so intimately connected with revelation that it must be within the scope of the Church’s magisterial authority to declare it infallibly.
The whole Church, teaching and believing, declares and believes this fact, and from this it follows that this fact is infallibly true. We accept it with ecclesiastical – not divine – faith, based on the authority of the infallible Church”
SPERAY: YEP, you believe a pope can believe, do, practice, and promote anything whatsoever. He’s still pope. The Divine law really means nothing to you. All the teachings of all the popes, saints, and theologians really mean nothing to you. I WILL BLOCK ALL FURTHER COMMENTS FROM YOU SINCE YOU CAN’T BE HONEST.
No need to block it, I won’t continue myself. Good bye.
What specific date did the Roman Rite begin using the new invalid form’s of Holy Order’s? Are the Eastern Catholic and Eastern Orthodox rite of Holy order’s similar to the pre-1968 valid Roman Rite? Are they radically different from each other? Any links to helpful articles explaining answers to these questions? This specific subject fascinates me.
Speray Replies: The new Western rite began in 1968. The Eastern Catholic and Eastern Orthodox are valid and similar to each other as far as I know. Don’t have any links for you. Sorry. It is a fascinating subject, I agree.
I have read it was made into law June 1968.At that point the new rites of holy orders were optional and in April 1969 became mandatory. Is this correct or wrong? Personally wishing I knew where I could read both rites side by side.Internet articles I find on this subject give snippets comparing the pre/post 1968 rites of ordination/consecration.
Did the Mozarabic Rite change their rites of Holy order’s after June 1968?
Speray replies: I don’t know. I’ll try to find the answer soon.