- [Status of] Rick De Lano
- To those who are insistent upon defending the grotesque affront to every Catholic who loves the Latin Mass which has just been perpetrated in Fort Worth, may I say that I will make it a Lenten penance to try and avoid simply writing you off as dupes.
To those who find themselves in any way at all moved, as if the slanders and rumors and gossip-mongering somehow justify the illegal and chilling suppression of the Mass, I ask you to consider this:
"Then, and most importantly, the whole coetus has to be heard - otherwise, this can be a cause for the suppression of a Mass at any time and in ANY place, including yours (yes, pay attention, including yours), if you go regularly to a Traditional Mass. That is, just one or a couple of individuals can cause the end of the Mass for any group - and I am sure you can see the grave danger in this, right? No group of Catholics must live under this kind of terror, the sword of Damocles hanging over their heads because there might be "bad apples" in the group, and always in fear of an immediate suppression of their Mass. What is the Church, a totalitarian state in which the faithful live under permanent terror of a true or false accusation that can bring the shutdown of their Mass at any moment for allegations against individual members of the whole coetus? Is it only the very minoritarian faithful attached to the Extraordinary Form who must live under this regime of liturgical terror? There is no Ordinary Form Mass shutdown for the many, many errors, heresies, schismatic notions, grave liturgical abuses being spread out openly in many regular parish churches, and university campuses and chapels? No, there are rightful procedures in Canon Law to identify apostates, schismatics, heretics, whatever may be the rite, form or use they adhere to, providing them with the right to be heard, to defend themselves and their views, and to repent. And, even if individuals are rightfully convicted, the innocent members of the coetus must be spared.
No, we cannot remain silent because we must breathe. We will not allow ourselves to be suffocated after Summorum Pontificum by dangerous precedents. Once sacred, always sacred, said Benedict - and always free."
Rorate Cæli : First Things First: It's not about specific persons, it's about the principle - and the grave precedent
- Hans-Georg Lundahl to status
- As you may already know, my point about the bishop is he could have left the Latin Mass in peace whatever fish he had to fry with Mr King.
- You stated it very well, Rick DeLano. The pseudo-trads around here are falling all over themselves accepting every the neo-con Taylor Marshall says and excusing the "bishop" when he indicates that the true Mass is a danger to the faith of Catholics.
- Rick DeLano
- It is demoralizing in the extreme to witness the degree to which the allegedly Catholic are ready to not merely accept, but actively and positively affirm the illegal suppression of the Traditional Mass, on grounds that it is somehow a danger to souls.
- There seems to be more here than meets the eye. If King is a sedevacantist or close to it, and is influencing the college students and faculty in that direction, then that's a serious problem. Let us not too quickly scapegoat the bishop. I've had nothing but bad experiences with sedevacantists and those who are sympathetic to that fever swamp of spiritual and intellectual pride.
Although I don't quite understand why in disciplining Mr. King who according to Mr. Dr. Marshall's letter needed disciplining he refused to permit the celebration of the extraordinary form at the college. That does not seem to follow
- I have come to realize that the entire Vatican establishment since 1958 is a farce and not the Catholic Church whatsoever.
- Sedevacantism is insanity. You are now holding propositions condemned by the Council of Constance (1414-1418): "if the pope is foreknown and evil, and consequently a member of the devil, he does not have the power over the faithful given to him by anyone, unless perchance by Caesar." and: "If the pope is wicked and especially if he is foreknown, then as Judas, the Apostle, he is from the devil… and he is not the head of the holy militant Church, since he is not a member of it." The thing is Porter, the objective criterion required by Catholic theology for recognizing who is a true pope is the recognition of the one elected by the Cardinals, Bishops and by the Whole Church. In your mind, it is impossible for such criterion to be objective, but will necessarily make appeal to a fundamentally subjective source, even if an effort is made to MAKE IT APPEAR as objective. And we know who can make things appear to be true. Sedevacantism is from hell.
- Hans-Georg Lundahl to JP
- There is a very clear difference between foreknown and evil (which latter at times was true of Alexander VI and which former may have been true of him - since then he has found out) and being open heretic or apostate (which was very much NOT the case with Alexander VI).
So, no, Sedevacantism is not the same thing as the propositions condemned by Council of Constance.
For instance, if Bergoglio is the Antichrist that does not automatically mean he is not Pope. But if Bergoglio is uncatholic in doctrine, that automatically means he is no Catholic and no Pope, even if he is not antichrist.
If Bergoglio is Antichrist he is foreknown, and is either already evil or will be so later. But if he is uncatholic, he is, after a Catholic Baptism, either slightly heterodox (in which case he is still Catholic and might be Pope) or directly heretical or apostatic, in which case he is not Catholic and not Pope. Only in a non-baptised person (as perhaps Kent Hovind, since his Baptist Baptism is probably not valid, lack of due intention, or similarily Jonathan Sarfati) would uncatholic doctrine be totally innocent. Of course, humble people among Lutherans and Anglicans could sometimes have the excuse of being badly instructed. Such an excuse is not conceivable for a man in the position of even a local bishop, or even an auxiliary bishop.
- Yes, Hans, even though the Apostolic Constitution Cum ex Apostolatus of Pope Paul IV declares invalid the election of a heretic to any ecclesiastical office, including the supreme pontificate. However, it cannot be used to prove the invalidity of the election of a heretic because that bull was merely disciplinary, and not doctrinal. Since that time, the Church has judged that it would be better for her to be validly governed by a heretic than to be invalidly governed by the same, with all of his acts void and giving no power. The law governing papal elections which was in force for the elections of Popes John XXIII and Paul VI was that of Pope Pius XII who legislated it on 8 December 1945 "None of the Cardinals may, by pretext or reason of any excommunication, suspension, or interdict whatsoever, or of any other ecclesiastical impediment, be excluded from the active and passive election of the Supreme Pontiff. We hereby suspend such censures solely for the purposes of the said election; at other times they are to remain in vigor." to participate in an election 'actively' means to vote in the election and to participate 'passively' means to be elected to the office, to be the 'passive' (acted upon) object of the election. Thus, no cardinal subjected to "any excommunication" was "excluded from the active and passive election of the Supreme Pontiff" and any of them could have become pope. I'll stick with Pius XII on this. Cheers
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- It is Catholic Teaching per se that a Heretic who remains so cannot validly be elected or validly hold by himself any office.
If subordinate to Pope his acts might nevertheless be juridically valid if "supplet ecclesia" = supplent his superiors. Even while a notorious heretic was awaiting a not yet had condemnation for heresy.
What Cum Ex Apostolatus added to that was that if a man had ever been heretic before election, even if he had since returned to the Catholic faith, even then he could not be validly elected.
ONLY that is disciplinary about Cum Ex Apostolatus. ONLY that can be changed.
As for the words of Pius XII, I have debated them with David Bawden alias Pope Michael I, whichever of both he may be.*
He considered it impossible that Pius XII could have meant it that way, I considered it possible that Pius XII was himself already a heretic. Or at least not a very ardent defender of Catholic doctrine.
* "whichever of both he may be" can be considered as "salva debita reverentia" in case he should be the real Pope.
- "I considered it possible that Pius XII was himself already a heretic" And that's where we part company Hans.
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- You are free to do so.
Do you condone NFP too?
Do you think evolutionist scenario can be reconciled with Adam's soul specially created, even if its timeline very much contradicts Marc 10:6, as has been pointed out since?
- Hans-Georg Lundahl to TJK
- Mr King need not be Sedevacantist. What bothered the bishop was basically his agreement with Iota Unum.
One can say John XXIII and Paul VI were Popes but Vatican II not a valid council if one restates that as they did not state the right intentions as to convening or confirming the council as such, but the wrong ones (pastoral council, not there to condemn errors = invalid, even if convened or confirmed by a real Pope thinking it valid). That is the position of Iota Unum and the core position of SSPX. It may be a position impossible to defend theolgically. It may be a position that does not account for "Papal" Quran kissing.* But it is not a position that no one has ever seriously attempted to hold.
You are a Pole. It was actually a countryman of yours, who owned the since defunct url wandea.pl who saved me from Palmarianism after I had been a Palmarian for 14 months. He quoted a Palmarian catechism saying Antichrist sees the world from the fourth dimension, the Blessed Virgin Mary (or Most Pure Virgin) from the eighth.
I left Palmar de Troya in 2002 since I hold with St Augustine that the world has three dimensions, to remind us of the Blessed Trinity, its Creator. I do not agree with saying it has more dimensions. So, I thank a Sedevcantist who is your countryman for telling me that.
* Or for "Papal" actions proclaiming a common responsibility of all to actively protect nature. Or a "Papal" way of being that reminds of a Nonconformist Minister exhorting his congregation to more and more fervour. Or a "Pope" more eager to rival brilliant writers than to judge their doctrine.
Addition - a link and my comment on one of its statements on Rorate Cæli:
aleteia.org : Something's "Fishy" in Texas
Brantly Millegan, 05.03.2014 //
Not just a simple “oppressive bishop vs. faithful traditionalist martyrs” story, there’s “more than meets the eye” in the Fisher More College controversy.
Rorate Caeli, self-described as “the most-read international traditional Catholic blog on the Internet,” called the action “a grave injustice” and urged its readers to raise media pressure against the bishop’s decision.
As to "the most-read international traditional Catholic blog on the Internet", I am not sure if they can compare to all my blogs together, but perhaps to any one of them. Last time I checked total number of page views with blogger statistics, I was not far from 300.000. What is their sum?
And how well is their blog indexed?
My different ones have for one thing the distinction between them to make an article easier to find, but also on some greater ones either incomplete indexes or complete ones:
deretour III FR
Trivium 7 Quadrivium (all)
First to New blog on the kid
Creation vs. Evolution : Index to English Crea-vs-Evolu-series
Creation vs. Evolution : Pour francophones tendance monoglottes, sur d'autres blogs
And sometimes not to a blog per se, but to a subject:
En lengua romance en Antimodernism y de mis caminaciones : Chronicle of Susan Pevensie
En lengua romance en Antimodernism y de mis caminaciones : Questiuncula de veritatibus in paganismo
(own reflections in Latin)
En lengua romance en Antimodernism y de mis caminaciones : Index in stephani tempier condempnationes
(the systematic version of Bishop Stephen Tempier's 219 condemned thesis, with my footnotes to clarify precisly what is being condemned and what the obverse obligatory truth is)
But sometimes also such a series, if small enough, is not given a separate index post, but an index in the top of each message. Pretty often even. Example below, giving just one message of it, which contains links to all in top and to next in series in bottom./HGL
Staying with Father Murphy's God
[four parts, linking to part 1]
PS: If you look up at the page button [click link -> ] Blogs / bloggar / bloggi ... [ <- click link!], you will see that I have also indexed the entire number of these blogs on blogger. Might just one of these days add those on wordpress and livejournal./HGL
Others on the question of heresy and heretical Popes:
6. The Catholic Church teaches that a heretic would cease to be pope, and that a heretic couldn’t be validly elected pope
Newadvent site / Catholic Encyclopedia : Heresy
Support the Catholic Press!
The Remnant is pro-family, pro-life, pro-Catholic across the board, which is why it is hated by the far-Left and has even been targeted by powerful Liberal lobby groups such as the Southern Poverty Law Center. We need your help if there's to be a Catholic response to universal Christophobia that really matters. Please consider a tax-exempt donation of any size to The Remnant Foundation to help subsidize this website:
We are outnumbered by the "big guys" in the Christophobic mainstream media but we feel confident that The Remnant is in a position to take a stand that matters to you, your family and your Church. For more information about how you can help us fight back, please visit the Remnant Newspaper Donation Page
We're tired of the militant Catholic-bashing going on utterly unchecked everywhere today, and we think you are too. Please join us in the name of Christ the King, and let’s never surrender the Catholic cause.
In Christo Rege,
Editor, The Remnant
Where did I come across this appeal? When opening the following article:
Thursday, February 27, 2014
The Curious Case of Fr. Paul Nicholson
Written by Chris Jackson | Remnant Columnist
From which I quote the famous quote of Mgr Lefèbvre:
There is no question of us separating ourselves from Rome…nor of establishing a sort of parallel church as the Bishops of Palmar de Troya have done in Spain. They have even elected a pope, formed a college of cardinals... It is out of the question for us to do such things. Far from us be this miserable thought to separate ourselves from Rome!...
Far be it from me to set myself up as pope! I am simply a bishop of the Catholic Church who is continuing to transmit Catholic doctrine. I think, and this will certainly not be too far off, that you will be able to engrave on my tombstone these words of St. Paul: "Tradidi quod et accepi-I have transmitted to you what I have received," nothing else.
I think my blogs can have some support two, first item.
Second item, when I (for 14 months only) became a Palmarian, I of course knew of them through this rejecting word by Mgr Lefèbvre and a similar rejection by Fr Bryan Houghton. Third, my question is how long one can go on and say "the Pope is wrong on this one, even if he is not heretic and therefore even if he is Pope" without sooner or later concluding that perhaps he is after all a heretic, perhaps he is after all no Pope.
And of course, when it came to making decisions about subjecting or not to Conclavist Popes, first of whom was Michael I alias David Bawden, one was already biassed in some quarters due to rejection of Palmarian and similar Popes.
He admitted - Pope Michael or David Bawden, whichever he may be - that a private revelation could settle which of rival claimants was the real Pope, but unlike me at the time, since I was defending Palmar, he saw it as impossible that a line of Popes starting from St Peter could end and then a new one start by a Private Revelation. By - as claimed the first Palmarian Pope - St Peter and St Paul chosing someone in a Heavenly conclave.
So, no, he is not exactly the same thing as Palmarian Schismatic Popes.
But my use has up to now not been to clarify who is the real Pope, ma has been right, I have not been able to decide on the matter.
My use has rather been certain things which are and remain true independently of who is the Pope. See for instance my debate with the Catholic branch of the Darwin family:
Darwin Catholic : Monday, February 24, 2014
Did Augustine and Aquinas Believe In A Literal Interpretation of Genesis
As per writing moment, I am last commentator on the post, but that may presently change./HGL