Hello Tim,
My replies below…
Tim: Hello Steven,
Since I have been around and around with you on this for scores of pages in the past (I am sure we went well over a hundred), I don’t see the need to do this all again. I will respond to this one email, but I really don’t see how any good will come of another several hundred pages with you. Don’t you agree? So please do not expect another back-and-forth because it is not going to happen.
SPERAY2: I didn’t start this thing. I simply asked if you believed if Vatican 2 was infallible in virtue of itself. After you gave your answer, you attacked me on sedevacantism which I had no intention of getting into. So I’m going to defend myself and my position.
Tim: See below:
Dear Tim Staples,
On Catholic Answers Live, July 10, 2012, you gave the wrong answer on three separate points against me on the position of sedevacantism.
First point:
Tim, you argued that since Church law requires that only cardinals can elect a pope, sedevacantism fails because it adherents recognize that the cardinal elect is extinct and there is no way to get another pope. Thus, Christ’s promise of the gates of hell not prevailing, failed, because Vatican I dogmatically defined that there are perpetual successors until the end of the time.
Your argument is a straw-man, because you misrepresented the law and its application. The inability to apply a church law can’t prohibit the Divine right that Peter has successors. Vatican approved experts explain:
“When it would be necessary to proceed with the election, if it is impossible to follow the regulations of papal law, as was the case during the Great Western Schism, one can accept, without difficulty, that the power of election could be transferred to a General Council…Because natural law prescribes that, in such cases, the power of a superior is passed to the immediate inferior because this is absolutely necessary for the survival of the society and to avoid the tribulations of extreme need.” (De Ecclesia Christi, Billot)
Tim: As I said on the air, I would need magisterial authority here. In order to make a claim that papal law could be declared null and void and a “General Council” could exercise such authority I would need to see it taught by the Church and not just by a “Vatican approved expert” as you claim.
SPERAY2: What Church teaching is Cardinal Billot rejecting by saying the cardinal-elect could become extinct? I would like to see that magisterial teaching that states what you’re implying, Tim.
Tim: There are multiple problems here. First, a “General Council” has no authority without a Pope.
SPERAY2: It would have the same authority as the conclave. Why wouldn’t it?
Tim: Second, the Great Western Schism was not settled by a Council taking authority over the Pope.
SPERAY2: Agreed!
Tim: It was settled when Pope Gregory XII graciously submitted his letter of resignation at the Council of Constance. If he had not done so, the Council would have had no authority to depose him and the subsequent election of Martin V would have been invalid.
SPERAY2: Not exactly. You’re assuming Gregory was a true pope. He most certainly was recognized as one by many and his stepping down allowed for Martin to come into the picture, but it wasn’t over yet. Clement VIII was elected and some confusion still remained until Clement abdicated, and then there was absolutely certainty.
Tim: You are presenting a conciliarist argument here, but conciliarism was condemned by both Pius II in his Papal Bull Exsecrabilis and by Vatican I, both of which you acknowledge as valid.
SPERAY2: I’m not presenting a conciliarist argument at all, because I’m not saying that a council had anything to do with it. I’m arguing that reasonable doubt remained until one claimant was left and he was recognized by the rest of the faithful.
“.. . by exception and by supplementary manner this power (that of electing a pope), corresponds to the Church and to the Council, either by the absence of Cardinal Electors, or because they are doubtful, or the election itself is uncertain, as it happened at the time of the schism.” (De Comparatione Auctoritatis Papae et Concilii, Cajetan, OP)
Tim: Interesting theory, but no Church teaching to back it up.
SPERAY2: Where’s the Church teaching to back up your theory, Tim? At least, I present experts that support my position. Can you cite an expert to support yours?
“Even if St. Peter would have not determined anything, once he was dead, the Church had the power to substitute him and appoint a successor to him … If by any calamity, war or plague, all Cardinals would be lacking, we cannot doubt that the Church could provide for herself a Holy Father…Hence such an election should be carried out by all the Church and not by any particular Church. And this is because that power is common and it concerns the whole Church. So it must be the duty of the whole Church.” (De Potestate Ecclesiae, Vitoria)
Tim: We have the testimony of Scripture in Acts 1 with St. Peter clearly stepping in and declaring how Judas’ replacement would be chosen and the testimony of our fourth Pope St. Clement who explicitly tells us that the apostles did in fact make provision that after their deaths “other approved men should take up their office” (see Pope St. Clement I, Letter to the Corinthians, 42, 44).
SPERAY2: I have no problem here, so how does it apply. Vitoria isn’t disagreeing with it, he’s saying “even if” and then the position I’m advocating still works.
Tim: Also, I would note that as a matter of history, the entire Catholic world received Pope John XXIII as Pope and not only the Cardinals who elected him. The whole Church has also received each of his successors right down to Benedict XVI. A handful of disgruntled clergymen does not the Church make.
SPERAY2: Not everybody. Dr. Elizabeth Gerstner never accepted Roncalli. She was the Vatican insider who leaked out that Roncalli was going to be elected because it was all planned ahead. She knew them all personally. There are 10,000 Catholics who never received Benedict XVI as pope. Also, Pope Paul IV was clear that it didn’t matter if a heretic is acknowledged as pope by the whole world such a person is not pope. I submit that this teaching is part of the Divine law which is immutable. So your argument is moot.
Hence, the experts presuppose that the cardinal elect could become extinct despite Church law. So, who should we listen to? Tim Staples or the Vatican approved experts?
Tim: Listen to the teaching and directives of the Church.
SPERAY2: So where is that Church teaching that teaches your theory on this matter?
Also, I could point out that the Catholic Church had many true popes in the past who were unlawfully elected. Popes Vigilius, St. Eugene, John XII, and Alexander VI are just a few examples. Therefore, from historic precedent, it’s not absolutely necessary to have a true pope through lawful election. This being said, if Benedict XVI renounced his errors, got conditionally consecrated bishop, we radical traditionalists would accept him as pope for the good of the universal Church. After all, some antipopes in the past just assumed the Chair of Peter by the acceptance of the faithful. If it happened before, it could happen again.
Tim: You assume the nefarious events that surrounded the elections of these Popes means they were invalid.
SPERAY2: I didn’t say they were invalid. They were valid, but they were unlawfully elected.
Tim: The law concerning elections has changed over the years. The Popes have the authority to change those laws. Vigilius’ crimes of simony and at least complicity in murder do not invalidate his election.
SPERAY2: I never said it did. I said he was a pope, but he began unlawfully.
Tim: St. Eugene being elected while his predecessor was still Pope is an interesting case. His election, it is presumed, was validated after the death of St. Martin.
SPERAY2: St. Eugene started off unlawfully. He wasn’t pope until St. Martin abdicated.
Tim: John XII was quite the immoral fellow, but there is nothing about his election that is in question.
SPERAY2: Oh yes, there was. His election violated the decree of Pope St. Symmachus (March 1, 499 A.D.) forbidding agreements during a pope’s lifetime about the choice of his successor.
Tim: Though some argue against it, there was most likely simony involved in Alexander VI’s election, but the Cardinals certainly and freely elected him.
SPERAY2: The papal law at that time forbade simony as a nullifying factor in papal elections. Pope St. Pius X changed it. Alexander VI was unlawfully elected.
Tim: And this leads to another point. Even among the various theories of how a Pope could be “deposed” (all of which I reject),
SPERAY2: I agree with you. No one can depose a pope, except the pope himself.
Tim: you first have the theory that an Ecumenical Council could do so (which is absurd because a Council has no authority apart from the Pope as I said).
SPERAY2: I absolutely agree that a council can’t depose a true pope.
Tim: You also have the theory that the same people who elected the Pope could depose him. Or you have the theory that “the whole Church” could elect or depose. Though I reject all of these theories, none of them apply in the case of sedevacantists today.
SPERAY2: I agree with you 100%. I would even go so far as to say those theories are contrary to the Divine law, and yes, they don’t apply in the case of sedevacantism, because the position of sedevacantism doesn’t hold to anything like that. Only a pope can depose himself.
Tim: The Cardinals who elected Pope Blessed John XXIII were alive and well for years after his election without a peep. The Universal Church received and loved Pope John and all of his successors.
SPERAY2: I submit that this is radically false, but even if it were true which it is not, it doesn’t mean a thing. The whole Church could possibly recognize an antipope as it has done before.
Tim: And I don’t recall Vatican II ever deposing him. So even if any of these theories were true, this little “sedevacantist” sect does not fit the criterion. A couple or three bishops do not make an Ecumenical Council. A handful of sedevacantists (relatively speaking) do not equal “the whole Church.”
SPERAY2: Believe it or not, I agree with this statement 100%. The problem, Tim, is that you don’t really understand sedevacantism at all. You think that you do, but you’ve simply got us wrong.
When asked if you could provide the Church teaching that gives an interregnum limit, you said the Church gave it with Pope Pius XII’s decree and the death of the last cardinal. This is your mere private interpretation of the law which contradicts the experts and simple logic. You may disagree with sedevacantism, but you can’t use the false argument that a true pope can’t be elected without cardinals.
Tim: I argue that a true Pope cannot be elected without the law of the Church.
SPERAY2: The Natural and Divine laws are also part of the Church, but you are incorrect, because I just demonstrated how we have true popes apart from the law of the Church.
Tim: And he certainly cannot be elected by a handful of disgruntled bishops fifty-four years after the election of the last Pope.
SPERAY2: To a certain extent that may be true, because I don’t automatically exclude all novus ordo Catholics as outside of the Catholic Church. Many are just in error, but they are certainly Catholic.
Tim: You do not have the law of the Church on your side.
SPERAY2: I do have the law on my side because I don’t hold to what you think I’m holding. Again, I gave an alternative with Benedict XVI himself.
Second point:
Tim, you argued that we know who the true popes were during the Great Schism. I submit that you may believe who they were, but you can’t say with absolute assurance.
Again the experts explain: “The Church is a visible society with a visible Ruler. If there can be any doubt about who that visible Ruler is, he is not visible, and hence, where there is any doubt about whether a person has been legitimately elected Pope, that doubt must be removed before he can become the visible head of Christ’s Church. Blessed Bellarmine, S.J., says: ‘A doubtful Pope must be considered as not Pope’; and Suarez, S.J., says: ‘At the time of the Council of Constance there were three men claiming to be Pope…. Hence, it could have been that not one of them was the true Pope, and in that case, there was no Pope at all….” (The Defense of the Catholic Church, 1927, Fr. Francis X. Doyle, S.J.)
Tim: It has been believed generally by the overwhelming majority of theologians for hundreds of years now that Gregory XII was the valid Pope who resigned at Constance. My faith is not rooted in the details of past elections, it is rooted in Matthew 16:18-19 as it has been definitively understood in the Church at least since Vatican I. God cannot go back on his own word. He said the gates of Hell would not prevail and they cannot. Your sect bases its existence on nothing but the opinions of this theologian and that theologian.
SPERAY2: That is where you are wrong. I agree with your statement above except the last sentence. You’re not presenting a case against me, because you don’t understand sedevacantism at all.
Tim: And even those are taken out of context. There is nothing in those statements that says they would agree with your interpretation of them nor would they have necessarily agreed with your application of them. You say I don’t have absolute assurance of the line of Gregory XII. You don’t have absolute assurance of anything.
SPERAY2: Of course, I do. You’re not paying attention.
The official list of popes, Annuario Pontificio, is technically not an official Catholic document. It isn’t authoritative and binding on Christians. The Catholic Church has never defined who all has reigned as Roman Pontiffs. As a matter of fact, the Annuario Pontificio has altered the list several times. Boniface VII was removed from the list in 1904 after a thousand years of recognition as true pope.
Tim: I think you are stretching the truth when you say Boniface VII was recognized as true pope for a thousand years. That may well be true, I don’t know, but there is no evidence he was ever validly elected.
SPERAY2: What difference does that make?
Tim: That I do know. And though there is little information at all about Popes of his time, we do know that he was dragged through the streets naked and mutilated after death. He did not seem to be the most beloved of Popes. And he did commit murder a couple times in attempting to gain the Papal throne. While that would not invalidate him per se it does seem to cast some question as to his validity. But again, my faith is not resting in the particulars of history surrounding our 264 successors of St. Peter (depending of course on how many times you count Benedict IX). It rests in Christ and the teachings of the Church, in particular for our purpose here, Session Four of Vatican I, which graces us with infallible assurance that there is and always will be (except for the interregnum periods, which are provided for in the law of the Church) a successor of St. Peter on the throne in the Bishop of Rome.
SPERAY2: I see that you don’t know your papal history very well and that is fine. You’re right about the rest, and I have always agreed with it.
Tim: Your sect is left to a situation where there is no Pope and there is no valid way to elect one.
SPERAY2: What? I explained how we can have a lawful election, and I demonstrated how to have valid pope through an unlawful election. You simply don’t know what you’re talking about! By the way, we aren’t a sect. You’re the sect since you can’t find the Vat2 particulars of your religion prior to Vat2.
We are free as Catholics to accept or not accept the Roman line during the Great Schism.
Tim: Yes, but we are not free to conclude from that that Pope Pius XII was the last valid Pope.
SPERAY2: I didn’t say or imply it. I’m giving historic precedent. That’s all.
Third point:
Tim, you denied that Benedict XVI ever bowed towards Mecca. This fact is so devastating that you and Catholic Answers Live have to deny that it ever happened, but it most certainly did as you can read here: http://www.traditioninaction.org/religious/m012rpRatzingerInMosque.html
Tim: This is an example of why it is near impossible to have a meaningful discussion with you, Steven. You misrepresent what I say time and again. This is just like the old days. And it is never enough with you to simply disagree respectfully, you have to publish every word I say and try to make me (or any of your opponents) look as bad as you can. I truly feel sorry for you.
SPERAY2: This is simply untrue! You said Benedict XVI never bowed towards Mecca. If I’m publishing every word you say and you look bad, that’s not my fault. I’m trying to show people the truth which Catholic Answers doesn’t do all the time.
Tim: But at any rate, what I said was the Pope did bow and pray. In fact, I did a little more research and found that he took off his shoes as well. I’m sure you are upset about that as well. I am not. This he did out of respect. I think that is a good thing. The Pope simply bowed and prayed in the same direction everyone else did. And yes, it was toward Mecca. And BTW, this is also the same direction as Jerusalem. Hmmmmm.
SPERAY2: But you said he didn’t bow towards Mecca and that’s my point. Why couldn’t you just admit that you were wrong instead of falsely accusing me of misrepresenting you? BTW, Benedict XVI also folded his arms like the Muslims and I’m sure you think that’s a good thing too. Shoes off, arms folded, bowing towards Mecca while praying with Muslims, and you think this is a good thing! I rest my case!!!!
Tim: But why do Muslims bow to Mecca in the first place? It is believed that the Ka’aba (the black square building toward which Muslims face) contains an altar that was built by Abraham, our Father in the Faith according to Scripture. The Pope may well have been praying in the direction of Mecca to show our solidarity with Muslims in our belief in the one God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. I really don’t believe he was rejecting Christ and acknowledging Muhammad as his prophet, nor was he involving himself in some sort of syncretism. The reason why I did not agree with you is because of your conclusion from the fact that he bowed and prayed, not that he bowed and prayed. You assume the worst; I choose to give the benefit of the doubt unless I can be given reason not to. Reason that you and your article did not supply.
SPERAY2: Inter-religious worship is what you think is a good thing. I’m sorry, but this is where you depart from historic Christianity.
Tim, you stated that bowing towards Mecca would only constitute a sin and not a loss of the pontificate. Are you more Catholic than your pope? Benedict XVI doesn’t think it’s a sin. He promotes his actions as good Catholic discipline. Last year, he bowed before a Lutheran altar and prayed with a woman bishop. Watch the devastating video here: http://youtu.be/UD53KzHx-2Q By the way, would this be a venial or mortal sin for a knowledgeable theologian like Ratzinger?
Tim: Once again you misrepresent me. I said, “even if he did” fall into some sort of sin that would not result in the loss of his pontificate. I did not say he actually did. Can you at least see why I would not want to have an on-going dialogue with you? Just like last time where I spent an enormous amount of time trying to help you, I have to spend a huge proportion of the time just correcting your mis-representations of what I say. No, thank you. This will end my discussion with you.
SPERAY2: You also misrepresent me, when I’m trying to help you. You didn’t get the difference between unlawfully elected and invalidly elected. What about bowing towards the Lutheran altar and praying with a women bishop? Good thing, too?
Benedict XVI, as did John Paul II, teaches and promotes inter-religious worship which the Catholic Church has always taught as contrary to the Divine law. In 1986, John Paul II actually wore a pagan stole as he actively participated with a priestess in a Zoroastrian worship ceremony. Look at photos here: http://www.traditioninaction.org/RevolutionPhotos/A281rcJPII-Zoroastrian.htm
Tim: I’ve been down this road with you before. Why are you doing this again?
SPERAY2: What are you talking about? You never dealt with this with me.
I could give many more examples but these suffice. Your “great popes” aren’t mere sinners, but radical apostates. Apostates aren’t popes! We have many saints who gave up their very lives for refusing to bow or worship in pagan temples. John Paul II and Ratzinger even receive public blessings from shamans. Read one such example: http://www.traditioninaction.org/RevolutionPhotos/A111rcWojtylaShaman.htm
Tim: There is a qualitative difference between being forced to offer adoration to false Gods and freely choosing to acknowledge legitimate agreements we have with other religions. But here we go again. We’ve done this before. And for a lot of pages. In fact, I still have all of them.
SPERAY2: There is a qualitative difference between being forced to receive blessings from heathens and freely choosing to be blessed by heathens. There’s also a qualitative difference between being forced into pagan temples and wearing their outfits and freely choosing to do so. Your “popes” freely do so and that’s my point!!!!
The Church considers blessings from heretics as curses, but your Vatican 2 popes think nothing of receiving blessings from heathens. Canon XXXII states, “It is unlawful to receive the blessing of heretics, for they are rather curses, than blessings.” (The Seven Ecumenical Councils, Vol. 14, Hendrickson Publishers, 1995)
Tim: A heretic is someone who has knowingly and willingly left the Catholic Faith that they possessed. That canon does not apply to a situation where a person of another religion wishes to bless someone.
SPERAY2: The principle most certainly applies.
The Vatican 2 popes mock the papacy established by Christ, the Catholic Faith and the blood of those martyrs, all the while Catholic Answers defends these claimants to the papacy as greats.
Tim: Just as before, you haven’t given me any examples of this.
SPERAY2: You’re right, this discussion is useless.
The fact remains, however, that Benedict XVI bowed towards Mecca which you denied on the radio with your outright silly explanation about how you might accidently bow towards Mecca while praying in your California chapel.
Tim: That was called an “analogy.” The reason why I gave it is because I was trying to help you to see that bowing and praying in a Mosque does not mean that one is committing a sin ipso facto. It may mean, as I said before, he is acknowledging what we have in common with Muslims. This is not heresy nor is it a sin.
SPERAY2: That is not what you meant on the radio. Come on, Tim.
In my first question over the radio, you were dishonest in your reply about your debate several years ago with Sungenis over the infallibility of Vatican 2. Back in 2003, Sungenis clearly explained that Vatican 2 was not infallible in virtue of itself and you argued against him because (as you wrote), “It was an Ecumenical Council that was ratified by the Pope and used language that was very clear, for example, as I said before, in the Dogmatic Constitution on the Church and the Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation. Did you catch that word ‘Dogmatic’?” Based on your position now, you couldn’t admit that back then, you were wrong and Sungenis was right. I have the full debate on file.
Tim: I have it as well. And Bob and I agreed that there is much in Vatican II that is infallible, but there were no new infallible declarations made extraordinarily. That is what he meant by “it is not infallible.” He was correct. I just thumbed through our dialogue and I did not see anywhere where I claimed that there were extraordinary infallible statements. But if I did, I would be wrong. However, I did see where I pointed out that there are other means whereby the Church can declare something infallibly. For example, the Universal and Ordinary Magisterium of the Church. I pointed out that we have to listen to the language of the Council (do we see words like, “we must believe…” or “the Church holds definitively…” or words to that effect), and if we have teachings that have been repeated in the Church over time, we may well be seeing infallible teaching communicated in that way as well. Let me use another analogy. Pope John Paul II, in Ordinatio Sacerdotalis, declared the Church does not have the authority to ordain women and it uses very strong language. However, it was not an ex cathedra statement. But does that mean it was not infallible? By no means! It was infallible by virtue of the fact that it was repeating what was already the teaching of the Universal and Ordinary Magisterium of the Church. We may well have examples analogous to this from the Council. For example, when the Council taught, in Gaudium et Spes 22, “… we must hold that the Holy Spirit offers to all the possibility of being made partners, in a way known to God, in the paschal mystery.” Is this a new and infallible declaration of the Extraordinary Magisterium? No. But it may be (notice, I said “may be,” which means good Catholics can disagree on this) that this is a reiteration of a teaching that was already infallible by the fact that it is taught by the Universal and Ordinary Magisterium. In fact, I argue that this statement has antecedents as far back as the Council of Trent, in Pope Leo XIII, John Paul II and more, but at any rate, that is just an analogy.
Lastly, Patrick Coffin and you manipulated the discussion and used the 10 second delay in airtime to edit out my comments you didn’t want to deal with. My views were therefore misrepresented to an audience unsuspecting of your tactics. In the end, you made me and sedevacantism look foolish over the airwaves. If you were so sure that you’re right, then you would have given both sides a fair hearing. I only got a couple seconds to answer before you interrupted with your long replies (several minutes apiece). What you did is supremely dishonest, and uncharitable.
Tim: Actually, I let you speak while you interrupted me more than once.
SPERAY2: Not true. You never let me speak.
Tim: The only time I interrupted you is when you started plugging your website while refusing to answer the question at hand.
SPERAY2: I was trying to plug my website because you weren’t letting me speak. I knew as soon as I started to say something, you would interrupt me, and you did.
Tim: And I don’t have to “make” sedevacantism look foolish. It does that all by itself. It is a foolish position to take.
SPERAY2: Then you should have had no worries letting speak. Clock the time I spoke after you went after me on sedevacantism.
When it comes to topics concerning the papacy and sedevacantism, you should call yourselves Not-so-Catholic Answers Live.
Tim: In your opinion, which is ultimately what your sect is based upon. Your opinion and the opinions of others. Your sect is void of any Magisterial authority precisely because you have left the living Magisterium of the Church.
SPERAY2: Right back at ya!
Tim: God Bless,
Tim
Sincerely,
Steven Speray
TIM STAPLES REPLIES AGAIN IN ANOTHER LETTER BELOW
Tim,
I knew you couldn’t resist replying to me again. Now I will leave you with another reply since you ignored or misrepresented the issues as usual.
Steven,
As I said before, after 118 pages with you before I am not going to re-argue everything. But I did read your letter and I must say it was painful to read. When I said the whole world accepted the elections of John XXIII, you said, “Not everybody. Dr. Elizabeth Gerstner never accepted Roncalli.” Dr. Elizabeth Gerstner. Really? Is that really your answer?
SPERAY: That’s right. She’s not the only one, of course, but she is important because she proved that something was wrong. But you also said that the whole world accepted Benedict XVI and that’s simply false. You forgot 10,000 Catholics who rejected him on the basis that he is a radical modernist. You know, the kind of guy who likes to invite pagans to pray to their pagan gods, or bows toward Mecca with Muslims in a Mosque, and towards Lutheran altars and praying alongside women bishops. But you know what, my original letter was about 3 wrong answers you made and instead of admitting that you’re wrong, you’ve attacked my position more and have made this a debate about sedevacantism. My intention was not to debate sedevacantism, but to simply show where and why you were mistaken on those 3 points.
Moreover, if you don’t know the difference between a Papal conclave, which has the authority of the Pope behind it, and a group of bishops without Papal authority, I don’t know what to say.
SPERAY: Why would a group of bishops not have the same authority as a papal conclave in extraordinary circumstances? If you can’t understand the simple explanation of the experts, I don’t know what to say.
There is a qualitative difference here akin to the difference between a dog and a human being. There is a substantial difference between the two.
SPERAY: Are you serious? That’s the best you can do? It’s hard for me to believe you had the nerve to send this to everybody. I asked you to give me that magisterial teaching that supports your theory which Cardinal Billot is rejecting and you give me nothing, but a… I don’t know what to say.
I will leave you with this. You can multiply theories from Cardinals long past and recount disciplinary documents from over 1,500 years ago that have been superseded all you want, but Pope St. Pius X and later Pius XII (long after Cardinal Billot, BTW) declared the way in which Popes would be chosen. Roma locuta est, causa finite est.
SPERAY: UNDER NORMAL CIRCUMSTANCES, WHICH I AGREE! The law about only cardinals electing was in play during Billot’s time too. That’s why Cardinal Billot stated, “if it is impossible to follow the regulations of papal law” THEN WHAT, TIM?Your Protestant-like personal interpretation of the law isn’t found anywhere in Church teaching or even by theologians. You can’t cite one source to support your theory. Thanks for proving me right again!
Whatever the Pope binds on earth is bound in heaven.
SPERAY: No kidding?
Though these matters are not infallible, that does not mean the Holy Spirit does not guide the Pope. The Holy Spirit guides the Church even in matters juridical. For Catholics, when the Pope speaks the matter is settled and the power of heaven will move heaven and earth to back up the Church. You may have had an argument a few hundred years ago (though even then there would need to be more things happen to give your sect claim to even a hint of a legitimate argument), but the Holy Spirit saw your little sect coming. The Church (the Kingdom of God) is as a grain of mustard seed (Jesus said that, remember), it starts small and grows becoming more and more distinguishable and defined.
SPERAY: You sound like a fifth-grader. I cited an approved manual by a famous Bishop and I believe that manual was used in the Pontifical Schools in Rome and yet, you can’t admit that you were wrong.
The Church has moved on from Conciliarism. It has moved on from questions as to whether or not a Pope’s personal sins can depose him automatically. They cannot.
SPERAY: You obviously didn’t read my reply very well or you wouldn’t have stated any of this. I don’t believe in conciliarism, and I don’t believe that a pope’s mere personal sins can depose him. So what is it, Tim? Where do we stand? You don’t know, because you don’t care to know. Your reply shows just how you’re being deliberately ignorant on the subject.
I have already gone over the difference between a Pope losing his authority de more verse de jure. All of your questions concerning the election of Popes have been answered by our Popes. The Pope has spoken. There is nothing more to say. We’ve been back and forth on this and a lot more.
SPERAY: You may do good against Protestants, but you lose every time to Catholics.
The way I see it, your sect has lost the Faith because it lost its faith in God to keep his word. Read Luke 22:29-32 and notice the emphasis on 1. the juridical authority of the Popes and bishops in union with the Pope (notice the emphasis on Jesus making the Apostles “judges”) and 2.
SPERAY: Another fifth-grade answer, from one who refuses to know where we stand. You don’t have the faith at all, unlike Sungenis who knows that inter-religious worship is contrary to the Divine law. I can recognize Sungenis, Tradition in Action, etc. as Catholics even though they reject sedevacantism. I respectfully disagree with them, on that point. However, you’re a radical modernist who hates the traditional Catholic Faith, and what’s worse, you’re egotistical. No one at Catholic Answers is quite like you. Akin, Keating, and Serpa, at least sound humble, but not ole Tim. He’s got to go overboard with the Scripture verses to show how much he knows. I could listen to Jimmy all day answer questions. I don’t want to sound uncharitable, but someone has to tell you. I’d be surprised if at least one of your co-workers didn’t think the same. Go ask them to give you an honest answer, and if they all think I’m nuts, then maybe it really is just me.
It is the devil that loves to intervene in these matters juridical to divide the Church. Unfortunately, your sect has fallen prey to the Devil’s schemes to divide the Church resulting in a few disgruntled clergy and laity throwing pebbles to try and knock down Mt. Everest.
SPERAY: I feel like I’m having rocks thrown at me by a child in elementary school.
Finally, if I couldn’t help you in 118 pages of back-and-forth, I don’t think 118 more will help. So please note for the record that I will not respond to any more emails from you.
SPERAY: We’ll see, but I suggest you keep quiet too, since you keep digging yourself a deeper grave.
Believe it or not, Steve, I respond to hundreds and hundreds of emails. I have to be judicious about who I spend time with as there are only 24 hours in a day. I have spent more time on your emails than 99% of people who email me. But there has to be a time when someone decides to stop. That someone is going to be me and that time is now. So please respect my decision on this and leave me out of any further of these email exchanges.
God Bless,
Tim Staples
SPERAY: I’ll be praying for your conversion, at least one of humility if nothing else.
Speray's Catholicism in a Nutshell 
I was able to go back and re-listen to the show on July 10th and I wouldn’t say Tim Staples made sedevacantism look bad (even though he did try to). I will say he did make himself out to be unfair. First of all, the show is called Catholic Answers. This means callers, who call in ask them the questions. Tim Staples and his partner started to ask Mr. Speray the questions about another topic that he didn’t ask about and then once they found out he was a Catholic claiming to hold the sedevacantist position they took a radio break. I thought this was an interesting time to take a break. So after the short break (as they probably used that time to figure out how they were to plot Mr. Speray and his positions) they interrupt him as he talks, especially when tries to make his point so that he could explain where he’s coming from. Later on after Tim Staples takes his time and tries to answer the question that he ask, Mr. Speray says they were being unfair for interrupting him. After all it was there radio show. They then smart off and say that other callers are being interrupted by his long call. I thought it was not only rude of him to say that, but hypocritical since it was he that was doing the majority of the talking. Tim Staples did deny on the radio that Benedict XVI bowed toward Mecca (which is all over the internet) and then with his partner gets the last word by saying that we should pray for all non-catholics to return to the Catholic Church. I’m sure his ‘pope’ would be ashamed of him for saying that, since his ‘pope’ believes that non-catholics build the Church of Christ. In my opinion, he was a prideful man, who really didn’t know what he was talking about and tried to cover himself from being humbled on his own show.
The exchange was odd. The hosts of the show were unfair by any objective standard. They asked Steve for his position and then would not allow him to give it. Then to go further, they said Steve was the one not allowing the host to talk; which was quite strange.
What is more unfortunate is that I think the debate is on the wrong subject. Steve’s position on the election of a new pope (if such were needed) is reasonable on the face of it. The debate is elsewhere.
There are theologians and other authorities who say that in such exceptional cases it is to the Roman clergy to whom it would fall by right (even “Cardinals” themselves are “incardinated” in a sense into the Holy Roman Church, Mother and Mistress of Churches) to elect the Bishop of Rome, to which See the supreme pontificate is attached. In addition, there are authorities, even Saints and Doctors, who do say that a morally unanimous universal acceptance (the non-acceptance of a lay person, especially a woman doesn’t count) indubitably proves that an election was valid, which however is sufficient though not necessary, and which moreover is the effect of a valid election, not a claim that an invalid election later becomes valid. There is also another principle laid out even in Papal teaching from which a natural limit to an interregnum arises, which not many would be aware of, except implicitly, since everyone recognizes a 1000 or 2000 year interregnum is not consonant with the nature of the Church as Christ instituted it. I don’t think Tim Staples is aware of any of this, but there it is.
SPERAY: Tim Staples doesn’t care.
I’m not sure if Steven still reads this comments, but in any case, if he remembers me from our last exchange, I want to say, since that time after much meditation, thought and prayer, I’ve come to the recognition (which is still based on pre-Vatican II theologians) that sedevacantists, though mistaken, are still Catholics.
SPERAY: How could I forget you, Xavier? No one has ever commented more on my blog, and you were very charitable. I also recognize some antisedevacanters as Catholics, but mistaken.
And on most other matters essentially to hold the position of St.Peter’s fraternity, supporting solidly orthodox priests wherever they are found, and hoping for, along with a general return to traditional doctrine in preaching and catechesis, the universal restoration of the Tridentine Mass (though I still believe the new mass is valid) according to the 1962 Missal to every parish.
SPERAY: The new mass is valid now that Rome has fixed the words of consecration. Before, it was doubtful (although I believed it was invalid) which must be avoided. Many arguments were used to defend the old “For All”, but none of the arguments removed reasonable doubt. The same goes with the sacrament of Holy Orders, read here: https://stevensperay.wordpress.com/2012/04/15/why-catholics-cant-accept-the-new-rite-of-holy-orders-for-priests-and-bishops/
Hello Steven. How’ve you been? I’ve been engrossed in my studies for a while, and it’s a real pleasure to be talking to you again.
SPERAY: I’m doing well. Glad to hear from you again.
>>>How could I forget you, Xavier? No one has ever commented more on my blog, and you were very charitable.
I’m glad you’d say that, but in any case, I wanted to apologize, because I felt especially toward the end, all said, I had overstepped my bounds in some regards, and been rather ruder than I should have. I want to blame it on the internet! but I know I should rather have recognized as I began to descend into polemics it should have been the sign to spend more time on prayer and take a break from arguments and the net for a few weeks!
SPERAY: You weren’t rude in the least bit. If you thought you were, I never took that way, at least from what I remember.
>>>The new mass is valid now that Rome has fixed the words of consecration …
Right. Maybe it would be better if I commented, regarding validity and doubtfulness and all, under that page, on the rite of orders, if you prefer, so that there would be some structure in the discussion, and also so the readers of your blog can see pertinent topics on their own page? Tell me if that’s cool and I’ll reply there, otherwise, I’ll continue on holy orders here in my next reply.
SPERAY: However you want to do it is fine.
Now, here, regarding the Holy Mass itself, just two quick things.
1. There was a general movement to reform carefully and in accord with Tradition the Roman liturgy throughout the last century before the Council.
SPERAY: Pope St. Pius X started it.
Apart from the writings of the Popes such as in Mediator Dei, there were some good books too I’ve read that spoke that active participation by the people, even by a devout and pious recitation of the responses is not forbidden began to be commended and encouraged. Also that the faithful learn the prayers of the Mass which expresses the faith of the Church.
Now these same books say that if not undertaken with utmost care, the attempt is still fraught with dangers, and even Popes can be imprudent in some of their decisions as all theologians concede. Now, I want to ask you, if I may, whom are you affiliated with, Steven? CMRI? SSPV? Independents? Because, I want to know, do you accept the dialogue Mass? Do you follow the Pope Pius XII holy week reforms? I have seen some rather acerbic sedevacantist criticisms of Pope Pius XII which come rather close to saying all the major doctrinal principles of reform are already there in Pope Pius XII. So I’d be interested in knowing your stance on this?
SPERAY: I’m not affiliated with anyone. I like CMRI. Yes, I follow the Holy Week reforms of Pope Pius XII, or I should say that I accept them. I don’t have a problem with Pope Pius XII at all.
2. If we were to take the ramblings of Luther and Cranmer as typical of the first Protestant services, then surely if there is one writing in particular that typifies the New Mass and the theology underlying it, it is Mysterium Fidei, written by Pope Paul VI in 1965.
http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/paul_vi/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-vi_enc_03091965_mysterium_en.html
But, as you’ve probably read it, I think you’d agree the writing is entirely orthodox, contains numerous patristic citations, including from the Greek Fathers, speaks about transubstantiation, and that by the words of institution, worship of latria, the sacramental and sacrificial aspect and so on and so forth. In addition, there are numerous unambiguously sacrificial passages in the Mass even today.
SPERAY: The novus ordo mass abolished 75% of the traditional mass. It’s even less reverent than Luther and Cramner’s masses. The novus ordo is accepted by Protestants in the wording since the wording is ambiguous and can be interpreted in two different ways. I don’t have a problem with liturgical reform and though Pope Pius XII’s changes are acceptable, the novus ordo is not an acceptable change. It’s radical and not thoroughly Catholic.
Just a brief sampling of some prayers
92. “Therefore, O Lord, as we celebrate the memorial of the blessed Passion, the Resurrection from the dead, and the glorious Ascension into heaven of Christ, your Son, our Lord, 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.
94. In humble prayer we ask you, almighty God:
command that these gifts be borne
by the hands of your holy Angel
to your altar on high
in the sight of your divine majesty,
so that all of us, who through this participation at the altar
receive the most holy Body and Blood of your Son,
He stands upright again and signs himself with the Sign of the Cross, saying:
may be filled with every grace and heavenly blessing.
113. Look, we pray, upon the oblation of your Church and, recognizing the sacrificial Victim by whose death you willed to reconcile us to yourself,
grant that we, who are nourished by the Body and Blood of your Son and
filled with his Holy Spirit, may become one body, one spirit in Christ.”
Click to access order-of-mass.pdf
Would you disagree?
SPERAY: You have to understand where Cramner was coming from. In the Book of Common Prayer, Cramner prefaced the Words of Institution with “Hear us, O merciful Father, we beseech Thee; and with Thy Holy Spirit and Word vouchsafe to bless and sanctify these Thy gifts and creation of bread and wine that they may be made unto us the body and blood of Thy most dearly beloved Son, Jesus Christ.” Do you have a problem with these words? You should because it’s written in a very precise manner that makes it ambiguous. All 4 Eucharistic prayers found in the novus ordo is worded in the same way and they came be understood in Protestant theology. If you would like, I can go through each of them and show you precisely where and how. As a matter of fact, I can through each part of the novus ordo mass and show how it is compatible to either Luther or Cramner’s masses. The changes were done on purpose! I’m sorry, Xavier, but the novus ordo is extremely problematic even when it’s valid. It’s simply not Catholic at all. The entire structure is Protestant in nature, and words are ambiguous. I can’t believe that I attend daily novus ordo mass for 15 years. May God forgive me of my ignorance!
That’s a lot of questions I know!
Please take your time in responding.
My regards to you and your family.
In Our Lord and Our Lady.
Ok, I’m glad to hear that. Anyway, I’ll comment on holy orders in the other thread. We can examine the four Eucharistic prayers, then, and the parts that follow as well. You can use the very link I gave above if you like on the order of Mass. For reference they are respectively in p.83-98, 99-106, 107-115,116-123 in the pdf. We can do it one by one or however else you like.
I have two basic contentions.
1. That the prayers are indeed in the last analysis unambiguously sacrificial, and speak indubitably also of transubstantiation while however also highlighting those aspects which the Catholic Faith has always held but which on the other hand Protestants also accept.
SPERAY: WRONG! They are not unambiguous. That’s my point. You only interpret them as so. They are worded in a way that ARE accepted by Protestants.
I think both Coomaraswamy and Davies, though making some good points worthy of consideration, misrepresent the reality when they mention figures such as that, I’ll explain why later on.
SPERAY: They don’t misrepresent anything. The reality is that there was a purpose for the novus ordo, and that was to radically change the way Catholics worship.
2. When the Catholic Church “baptized” paganism, for example when Christians drew pagans who adored the sun to Christ by pointing out that Christ is the “true Sun of Justice” as the prophet Malachi had said, they weren’t approving paganism, but merely making it easier for them to appreciate Him as the Light of the world. Many modern skeptics think at this point of time, “paganism infiltrated and change Christianity”, but the truth is the opposite. It is the same with the Catholic Church not being afraid to highlight those things which Protestants believe in, but which happen to be true, and just as we are not worshipping the sun when we proclaim Christ the sun of justice, we are not admitting Protestant theories when we speak of the bread actually being changed and becoming the body of Christ, just because Protestants did a similar thing in a heterodox way, though they only said “be unto us” not “become”.
SPERAY: And that is precisely how the 4 Eucharistic prayers word things. They can be understood in the Protestant understanding.
Most of the first Protestants vigorously denied the sacrificial nature of the Eucharist, and some insisted on the sacramental nature alone. But the Catholic Church has never denied the sacramental nature, and need not, and can indeed correctly and without contradicting herself, point out that it is the very sacrificial nature of the Eucharist that makes it sacramental as a means of grace for us, as Bishop Fulton Sheen for one often did, for Christ was sacrificed and died that we might have life.
SPERAY: You’re proving my point. It’s about words and structure.
Likewise with transubstantiation, all the Protestant and other theories are rejected in the Encyclical Mysterium Fidei and the true explanation upheld. That is why the corresponding equivalent terms in the Catholic rite still even today signify a true and proper change of the elements in the species of bread and wine.
SPERAY: Sure they do, but they can also not do so depending on interpretation.
Neither Luther nor Cranmer could ever accept that Encyclical nor the Mass, nor a studied follower of theirs who ponders closely and carefully the words of the Mass in its entirety, unless he gradually begins to appreciate and accept the Catholic understanding.
SPERAY: Protestants already accept the the new mass and Luther and Cramner didn’t go as far as the novus ordo.
Many Protestants who’ve become Catholic have come to love and marvel at the Holy Mass in the Ordinary Form and at its solid Scriptural basis, indeed for some it was the first step in that direction, including for those who are now solid in traditional Catholic theology.
SPERAY: They only accept the correct interpretation.
The truth is, many lay Protestants have only a very vague idea of Catholic prayers, and do not know the depth and riches that have always been present in the liturgy. But especially now, they can appreciate such traditional prayers as that from 2 Cor 13:14, the Confiteor and its basis in 1 John 1:8-9, the Kyrie, the Gloria, the Creed, the Sanctus, the centurion’s prayer in mat 8:8 etc and so can be more easily led to come to the correct Catholic understanding that the bread and wine truly become the body and blood of Christ.
SPERAY: The novus ordo abolished most of the mass! It’s nothing like the traditional mass. Why do you think Rome changed it so radically to begin with?
I still would like to see at least a partial if not a universal restoration of Latin chant in the liturgy, if I were Pope, I would restore the traditional Mass in its entirety, but Pope Pius XII in any case had already said in future if the Pope approves, Mass could be said in the vernacular and there could be advantages to it if done properly.
SPERAY: Why would you restore the traditional mass if there is absolutely nothing wrong with the novus ordo? Please answer this question because it is key to our discussion.
Well. here is Msgr.Van Noort, if you’ve seen this quote, then the question you said was key would be answered.
“Assertion 3: The Church’s infallibility extends to the general discipline of the Church. This proposition is theologically certain.
By the term “general discipline of the Church” are meant those ecclesiastical laws passed for the universal Church for the direction of Christian worship and Christian living. Note the italicized words: ecclesiastical laws, passed for the universal Church.
The imposing of commands belongs not directly to the teaching office but to the ruling office; disciplinary laws are only indirectly an object of infallibility, i.e., only by reason of the doctrinal decision implicit in them. When the Church’s rulers sanction a law, they implicitly make a twofold judgment:
1. “This law squares with the Church’s doctrine of faith and morals”; that is, it imposes nothing that is at odds with sound belief and good morals. (15) This amounts to a doctrinal decree.
2. “This law, considering all the circumstances, is most opportune.” This is a decree of practical judgment.
Although it would he rash to cast aspersions on the timeliness of a law, especially at the very moment when the Church imposes or expressly reaffirms it, still the Church does not claim to he infallible in issuing a decree of practical judgment. For the Church’s rulers were never promised the highest degree of prudence for the conduct of affairs. But the Church is infallible in issuing a doctrinal decree as intimated above — and to such an extent that it can never sanction a universal law which would be at odds with faith or morality or would be by its very nature conducive to the injury of souls.
The Church’s infallibility in disciplinary matters, when understood in this way, harmonizes beautifully with the mutability of even universal laws. For a law, even though it be thoroughly consonant with revealed truth, can, given a change in circumstances, become less timely or even useless, so that prudence may dictate its abrogation or modification. “
You didn’t answer my questions that were key.
Why would you restore the traditional mass if there is absolutely nothing wrong with the novus ordo?
Why do you think Rome changed it [mass] so radically to begin with?
I could give more quotes from theologians and popes about the infallibility of disciplines. For instance:
Pope Gregory XVI, Quo Graviora, 4-5 (1833): “…[the evil “reformers”] state categorically that there are many things in the discipline of the Church in the present day, in its government, and in the form of its external worship which are not suited to the character of our time. These things, they say, should be changed, as they are harmful for the growth and prosperity of the Catholic religion, before the teaching of faith and morals suffers any harm from it. Therefore, showing a zeal for religion and showing themselves as an example of piety, they force reforms, conceive of changes, and pretend to renew the Church. While these men were shamefully straying in their thoughts, they proposed to fall upon the errors condemned by the Church in proposition 78 of the constitution Auctorem fidei (published by Our predecessor, Pius VI on August 28, 1794). They also attacked the pure doctrine which they say they want to keep safe and sound; either they do not understand the situation or craftily pretend not to understand it. While they contend that the entire exterior form of the Church can be changed indiscriminately, do they not subject to change even those items of discipline which have their basis in divine law and which are linked with the doctrine of faith in a close bond? Does not the law of the believer thus produce the law of the doer? Moreover, do they not try to make the Church human by taking away from the infallible and divine authority, by which divine will it is governed? And does it not produce the same effect to think that the present discipline of the Church rests on failures, obscurities, and other inconveniences of this kind? And to feign that this discipline contains many things which are not useless but which are against the safety of the Catholic religion? Why is it that private individuals appropriate for themselves the right which is proper only for the pope?”
Did you see the quote from Msgr.Noort, Steven? That “This law squares with the Church’s doctrine of faith and morals” is ensured, but that “This law, considering all the circumstances, is most opportune.” is only a prudential judgment, and in many cases, the change could be actually imprudent, in which case we are permitted, respectful of authority, to request the universal and exclusive restoration of traditional discipline and liturgy. But since I’m not Protestant, I know there’s nothing I can do about it, since the irght is “proper only to the Pope”
SPERAY: I read the quote but I most certainly don’t think the new mass as a whole fits the quote as applied.
>>>Why would you restore the traditional mass if there is absolutely nothing wrong with the novus ordo? Why do you think Rome changed it [mass] so radically to begin with?
Because I think the introduction was imprudent,
SPERAY: Why do you think it was imprudent? After all, there’s nothing wrong with the new mass in your eyes. What would make it imprudent if there’s nothing wrong?
and in many respects the intended reform went too far (but not by being heteredox as they claim) as it had already been warned was possible if due care was not taken. Like you, I’d support a true reform and a reasonable one and in accord with Tradition.
SPERAY: TOO FAR? According to Pope Pius VI, Gregory XVI, etc. you can’t say this. Too far, implies that there is something wrong with it. Too far, makes heterodox the teachings of the past popes on infallibility of doctrine. It wouldn’t fall under what Noort was speaking. Besides, in the past, I’ve already proved that Altar Girls was considered evil by any standard, which is impossible for the True Catholic Church.
1. Here is Fr.Cekada on how some of the principles of reform find precedent in the writings of Pope Pius XII. I wonder what you think of that, especially the 14 points he enlists.? http://www.traditionalmass.org/articles/article.php?id=82&catname=6
SPERAY: I totally disagree with Cekada. He’s wrong about why he doesn’t follow Pope Pius XII’s decree, but that’s another topic for a another day. What about Ratzinger saying of the new mass, “The liturgical reform has produced extremely grave damage for the Faith . . . The drastic manner in which Pope Paul VI reformed the Mass in 1969 provoked extremely serious damage to the Church…. The suppression of the old Mass marked a break in the history of the liturgy, the consequences of which could only be tragic…. I am convinced that the ecclesial crisis in which we find ourselves today depends in great part upon the collapse of the liturgy.” (Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, La Mia Vita, San Paolo Editor, 1997). Tim Staples didn’t know what do with this one, because he saw his pope rejecting the teaching of the Church that it can’t do what Ratzinger said it did. What say you, Xavier?
2.The three prayers I cited above. Do you agree they are unambiguously sacrificial?
SPERAY: Are these the prayers that 6 Protestants accepted in 1969?
You make no comment on the unimpeachable orthodoxy of Mysterium Fidei, which is the underlying theology of the New Mass. Some of the prayers used in the Mass are ancient, one of them I believe is from a text called Apostolic Tradition, and that is the only reason some Protestants are more willing to consider it. But these texts still talk of sacrifice and they are Catholic texts.
SPERAY: They are loosely modeled after them and you didn’t address how the Protestants accept the new mass which you think is perfectly orthodox.
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: You missed the point again. WHY DID ROME CHANGE THE MASS SO RADICALLY TO BEGIN WITH XAVIER?????? They made precisely the same changes as the Protestants, too. What they did is just awful!!!
I heard on a forum that 2 of the 6 Protestants became Catholic, but I’ll have to check back on that one. Tell me, which Protestant denominations today use or accept the new mass? I don’t think you’ll find any. I know some denominations judged it unacceptable.
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????
The prayers I gave you are used in the Mass today, Steven. It’s apparent they are steeped in Scriptural allusions and clearly sacrificial.
SPERAY: So are the Protestants. Your argument is moot.
It was imprudent because, for the sake that the faithful may more easily begin to learn the prayers,
SPERAY: Come on, Xavier? I feel like you’re insulting my intelligence. There aren’t very many prayers and they are shorter and they’re in the vernacular. You can’t learn liturgical prayers until they’re in the liturgy. You learn as you go. It’s now been 40 years and most don’t want to go back, not like they wanted to begin with. Your answer is not honest at all!!!!! You know very well that it’s wrong and you don’t want to admit it. You said it went TOO FAR AND YOU KNOW THAT IT CAN’T DO SO! PLEASE DON’T COMMENT ANYMORE ON THE NEW MASS.
a principle already found in Pope Pius XII, (by the way, I know Fr.Cekada was wrong, I wasn’t asking about that. But he enlists 14 points on which the reform was based from the beginning which are key) the prayers were simplified to an extent more than was necessary. Pope Paul VI said, “Understanding of prayer is worth more than the silken garments in which it is royally dressed”. 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: WHAT ABOUT RATZINGER’S STATEMENT THAT IT WAS HARMFUL? You completely ignored this important statement.
The new Mass translation with a more solemn language is definitely a step in the right direction. Now that the Mass texts are more familiar to the faithful, moreover, there is nothing to prevent in the new Mass itself at least the re-addition of some of the prayers that were omitted, and the introduction once more of Latin chant, which we may hope will happen in due time.
For the sedevacantist to make his case based on the liturgical reform, he would have to show something actually heteredox in the new Mass.
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.
Here are some considerations about sedevacantism itself, and about some of your other points. Pope Pius XII said episcopal consecrations without pontifical mandate are evil, criminal and sacrilegous and incur ipso facto excommunication. Do you take this in the same way you take Pope Gelasius? I’m quite sure you would not!
SPERAY: YES I DO! He was speaking under normal conditions for we have historic precedents to show what Pope Pius XII meant! YOU SIMPLY LOST WITH POPE GELASIUS AND HIS CONDEMNATION OF ALTAR GIRLS.
Furthermore, another doctrine laid out in Papal teaching proves that no sedevacantist cleric today has ordinary jurisdiction.
SPERAY: When did I deny it?
We are talking here not of a single Pope who may have fallen into heresy, or of a true Pope opposed by an antipope, but of a 54 year vacant see, remember, and that has ecclesiological consequences of this sort.
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.
This means the Catholic Church has ceased to be Apostolic,
SPERAY: Wrong! You apparently don’t understand the term and how it applies or else you wouldn’t have made this statement!
for jurisdiction is a requirement of Apostolicity, but this is impossible and therefore the proposition that the see has been vacant for these last 54 years must be regarded as worthy of censure, at least “erroneous in theology”.
SPERAY: There is a thing called supplied jurisdiction and it still exists.
Finally, a morally unanimous universal episcopate, according to various theologians, recognizing a particular successor is proof of his legitimate succession, sufficient though not necessary. And this further proves that the teaching Church, whom the Church taught is bound to hear, and which is considered an expression of the ordinary and universal teaching office or magisterium and of bishops dispersed throughout the world, assures us that the See of Peter is not empty.
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.
Steven, I fear our discussion is once again becoming heated. Maybe we should leave it at this, I don’t want there to be a fight, and I need a time out from the internet. I’ll check back in a couple of weeks.
Regards.