Ultra-Romanism - Page 3
See Page I | Page II | Page III | Page IV
To: "chip prescott" preschip_-at-_hotmail.com
From: prakashjm45_-at-_yahoo.com
Subject:intend to post ur tome
NOTE: This is an excised version of the original letter.
Dear Chip,
For beginners, I do not consider myself a 'learned man.' There is too much to learn, and I am still in 'pre-school,' as it were.
However, I take for myself that verse (from, I think, an American poet?): 'The fool who knows that he is a fool, a pundit atleast he is in this...'
I was checking out the Feeneyite, Richard Joseph Michael Ibranyi's site again, and found his exchange with his rival Feeneyite, Thomas Sparks aka Bro. Benedict Mary, MICM Tert. It seems that Ibranyi is a convert from Judaism and it seems that Sparks attacks him because of his Jewish birth. Idiotic. I disagree with Ibranyi, but I insist that because a man was born a Jew is no reason to attack him - or his claim to be a Catholic today.
Although I dislike Ibranyi as being rude, presumptive, pompous, conceited, and in sum grossly stupid - virtues cultivated by Feeneyism, I found Sparks' RACIST attitude positively disturbing / nauseating.
Regarding that "In Pectore" cardinals losing office with death of appointing Pope - I have known for very long. I cannot remember when or where I learnt it from, but I think it is part of Canon Law.
However, it is Pope Michael / Br. Hermenegild OFM Tert (David Allen Bawden, NOT Brawden) who reminded me of this...
It is NOT at all true that a man validly consecrated, even if secretly, loses it on the death of the appointing pope. The man who told you that is does not know what he is talking about, unless you misunderstood him.
Once validly consecrated, forever a bishop. Even if he departs into heresy, schism, apostacy.
The Episcopal character, like the Sacerdotal character, cannot ever be lost.
However, it is a fact that if a man cannot prove that he was validly consecrated, perhaps because of being secretly consecrated, and there are no surviving witnesses or consecrant, then he is forbidden, in my understanding, from exercising that function, publicly or even discretely, at the pain of causing mortal sin by way of scandal... If he is in conscience absolutely certain of his validity, however, he may celebrate the Liturgy in strict privacy, without telling anyone whatsoever of this.
However, such laws do not apply in the areas of repression where secret ordinations are permitted. The Church makes exceptions for these areas.
On normalization in such areas, such individuals are required to undergo conditional re-consecration in order to remove any shadow of doubt regarding the validity of orders received. For the rest, the Church supplies, by deliberate and declared intent, in necessity in a condition of repression of the Church.
I think that we can probably settle this point by a quick reference to the Catholic Encyclopedia of 1908-1913: Should be under the headings 'Cardinal' & 'Bishop'. Go to http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/c.htm and check down the list for Cardinal. Likewise for Bishop.
Catholic Encyclopedia: Cardinal
Catholic Encyclopedia: Bishop
Catholic Encyclopedia: In Petto
Catholic Encyclopedia: The Defect of Birth - Illegitimacy
Catholic Encyclopedia: Irregularity
Catholic Encyclopedia: Canonical Impediments
[I think Mr. Giuffre's replies to these two points (lapse of in pectore Cardinals, and persistence of the episcopal character) are eminently sufficient.
I reproduce here: "The principle is found in Canon 234 and is ably explained by Father C. Paul Augustine in his commentary. The secret appointment of cardinals by the pope die with the pope, unless beforehand he made the promotions public or left behind a written testament of his intentions.
"The only bishops that I know of who have been consecrated without documentation are those behind the Iron Curtain, and this was for their own safety, but even then, there would have been witnesses, since otherwise, it would be impossible to ascertain whether a bishop were legitimate or not."
Place empahsis upon these words: 1. "The secret appointment of cardinals by the pope die with the pope, unless..." and 2. "Otherwise it would be impossible to ascertain whether a bishop were legitimate or not."
Lane has the entire Code of Canon Law down on his site. You can look up Canon 234. It reads: "Promotus absens a Curia debet in recipiendo bireto rubro iurare se intra annum, nisi legitimo detineatur impedimento, Summum Pontificem aditurum."
Um, I can't make much of Latin... It is all Latin & Greek to me... ]
I agree with your placard of ROB "is extremely learned and a vessel of calming thoughts."
Regarding what your SSPX source tells you about direct appointment of a successor by the previous pope, I would recommend that you quickly go over the Catholic Encyclopedia's articles on 'Papal Elections' and 'Election of the Popes'. Yes, there ARE two articles, complementary to each other.
You will find there a good and strong rebuttal of that idea and claim.
Regarding the idea that the next pope, the immediate successor of Pius XII will be supplied only by a miracle, I suggest that you read my arguments on Pseudo-Mysticalism at UDI Dictionary of the Resistance
(You might also find this page interesting: Orthopapism: Mission Statement)
St. Vincent Ferrer followed an antipope (the claimant of the IInd line, that of Avignon, Pedro de Luna or Benedict XIII) in ignorance, and that antipope was no heretic.
According to Catholic law, therefore, he was not culpable. See the subject of invincible and vincible ignorance.
When St. Vincent learned the correct situation, he abandoned that antipope and went over to Martin V and to Constance.
By that same principle, those FEW and RARE souls who ignorantly follow the Antichurch and its heresiarchs in the misconception that it is the Church and they are the popes, are excused from interior culpability on grounds of invincible ignorance. (They are not, however, excused from culpability in the External Forum, unless they can prove beyond doubt, Invincible Ignorance.)
However, in the Antichurch, given the intense propaganda against Catholicism and for spiritual fornication, invincible ignorance is gravely improbable. And that it why, in opposition to the claims of many, (notably, I think, also Daly, Lane & Case?), I affirm that such souls are FEW and RARE only.
There is a world of a difference between the situation then obtaining, with Roman, Avignonese and Pisan lines of papal claimants, and that obtaining now. The rival claimants were not, per se, heretics, and since the truth was obscured, Catholics were not sure as to who exactly was the true pope.
(But the Cardinals who deliberately and mischievously obscured the legitimacy of Pope Urbanus VI and commenced the rival Avignonese line, were culpable.)
By comparision, we know beyond the leastest shadow of doubt that Wojieboy, the lying pole, is no more pope than I or you are...
And, if things came to that, with all our failings and deficiencies, we would still make a better pretender that the Lying Pole!
------------------
(Added since reading your futher posts...)
I agree with Giuffre's attitude of extreme doubt regarding the claim that Martin was a bishop and a Cardinal. I note that he had played a crucial part in V2 - Nostra Ætate. That makes him extremely doubtful. Should you not consider the possibility that he was sent in to spy and to mislead?
Certainly, he had the strict obligation to come clean in public, make a public retraction and repudiation of V2, his role, etc., etc. Instead he put off till he died.
I find this doubtful, very doubtful.
I believe that in such matters, Catholics are required by law to act with the Restraint of Prudence, refusing to publicly credit or act as if crediting or credited such claims until publicly proven.
I do not appreciate all this secrecy stuff. Folk are required to act publicly in order to witness to their faith before all and to avoid causing scandal by permitting people to think that what they apparently see is the real and complete truth.
That principle holds true for Martin and for 'Pope Siri.'
So much for now.
Our Lady, Mother Mary, Liberator of Captives, pray for us that we be delivered from the dogs that compass us...
Yours in Christ Jesus,
Prax Maskaren
p.s. I will reply to Mr. Case's reply in a day or two.
Date: Mon, 12 May 2003 18:48:17 +0100 (BST)
From: "Prax Maskaren" prakashjm45_-at-_yahoo.com
Subject: Re.: Our Lady of La Salette: Authentic vs. Spurious Messages
To: "Rob" rawbit_-at-_catholic-dispatch.com, "chip prescott" preschip_-at-_hotmail.com
CC: "Prakash Mascarenhas" prakashjm45_-at-_yahoo.com
To Rob & Chip.
Dear Friends,
Allow me to comment on your exchange, as below:
RGP: Loughnan's explanation that the Secret of La Salette was indexed by the Holy Office and that remains in force. St. Peter Canisius, I believe he cite, preached against "the anti-christ will take Rome" or similar.
Rob: I would like to see this index. We must remember that there are officially indulgenced prayers to Our Lady of La Salette in the Raccolta from around the 1920's.
PJM: The Church, through the local Ordinary, approved the original message delivered to the two children at La Salette.
However, later, Melanie Calvet came under the influence of occultists, apocalyptic conspiracy theorists, etc., many of them borrowing eclectically from Prots, etc.
Under these influences, she began to put out a forged and spurious 'message' which the Church refused to countenance, and which the Church ultimately had put up on the Index.
The Original Message remains approved.
The most important part of the FORGED, SPURIOUS Melanist message is the 'prophecy' of the Satanist Lotharius (Martin Luther), founder of the Lutheran heresy, who said, "Rome will lose the faith and become the seat of the Antichrist."
This FORGED, SPURIOUS and REGURGIATED nonsense was published in 1878 - eight years after the Council of the Vatican, and in sharp AND HERETICAL contradiction of that Council's Dogmatic teaching:
Rome, the Church of Rome, is Indefectible; its faith the norm for all the Churches; etc., etc. (Pastor Æternas. See my page http://www.geocities.com/orthopapism/romanism.html)
However, Pastor Æternas does not exclude the scenario that Rome could become the Seat of the Antichrist, one that was made known to H.H. Pope Leo XIII while celebrating the Holy Sacrifice and which moved him to institute the St. Michael prayer.
Such a scenario does not exclude the continued survival of the Church of Rome in an occulted remnant.
This is what I think is the situation pertaining today.
The ideology outlined by the Spurious Message of Melanie Calvet is what is called Melanism - and the basis of the heresy and schism of Colinism: Michael Colin, France, who established the Ultra-Modernist sect of the Renovated Church of Christ in Lyons, France, and pretended to be the Pope (during the lifetime of H.H. Pope Pius XII) as Clement something.
Colin has two 'successors' - one in France (Leo? of Anjouleme? & 'John-Gregory 17' of the Order of the Magnificat, St. Jovite, Quebec, Canada.)
Yours sincerely in Christ Jesus,
Prax Maskaren
From: "Gary_Giuffr�" ggiuffre_-at-_airmail.net
To: "Rob" rawbit_-at-_catholic-dispatch.com, "chip prescott" preschip_-at-_hotmail.com
CC: prakashjm45_-at-_yahoo.com, regitiger_-at-_rcn.com
Subject: RE: Papal Elections etc. revisited
Date: Mon, 12 May 2003 16:04:16 -0500
Chip and Rob:
Check the commentaries of three expert canonists dealing with the historical reality of the popes who appointed their successors, Fathers John Abbo, Jerome Hannan, and C. Paul Augustine, and you will see that such did take place, however rarely - the last confirmed example having occurred in 530 A.D.
In his annotations regarding Canon 160, Fr. Augustine cites the case of Felix III (IV) who appointed Boniface II in that year, when he became convinced that the orderly election of a true pope after his own death would be highly problematic. This historical detail is also noted by Abbo and Hannan in their commentaries on Canon 219, and like Fr. Augustine, they point out that since the mode of passing on the papacy has been established by human and not divine edict, the pope certainly has the power to determine the method of papal succession that best suits the needs of the Church in his time. Moreover, the pope would not be bound by the legislation of a previous pontiff, since neither the style nor system of papal selection is rooted in any direct command of Christ.
Despite these considerations, the Roman clergy did not accept Boniface and, after Felix's death, promptly elected Dioscorus, only to see their choice taken away three weeks later by the angel of death. Following this development, the churchmen had a change of heart, and saw the death of Dioscorus as a sign of Heaven's acceptance of Boniface, whose pontificate was thereafter universally accepted. The material point here is that, since Dioscorus has ever been regarded as an antipope by the historians of the Church, therefore, the defining moment in the succession of Boniface was not the eventual acceptance of his claim to office by the electors, but his original appointment by Felix, since the latter had the power to pass on the papacy by whatever reasonable means he deemed necessary.
The irony of the story, alluded to in Rob's note, was that Boniface nearly continued the practice of direct papal appointment that had been started by this predecessor, when he announced that Vigilius would succeed him. Such might have become the standard mode of papal succession, had Boniface not made public his change of mind about the appointment, sometime before his
death. Vigilius would later become pope in his own right, after a brief stint at an antipope, almost exactly like Eugene I, a hundred years later.
My understanding of the history of the antipopes (there were at least 44 from 217 to 1449) is somewhat different from Rob's. After the death of Antipope Anacletus II in 1138, the abdication of his antipope successor, Victor IV, and the return of the reins of the Church's government into the hands of the true-pope-in-exile, Innocent II, all the decrees of the antipope, accumulated during his 8-year usurpation, and his appointments to the episcopacy with few exceptions, were stricken from the books. Indeed, Anacletus, like many of his other fellow anti-popes, did promote heresy, either of his own invention or by others.
The antipope, Benedict XIII (Pedro de Luna), who enjoyed the support of Saint Vincent Ferrer, seems to have been orthodox in his theology, however, and probably sincere in his belief that he was the rightful pontiff, at least until 1418. This was the year that the Council of Constance, with the cooperation of Pope Gregory XII, brought the Great Western Schism to a close, and united the vast majority of the faithful around the new pontiff, Martin V. At this point, Benedict lost the support of St. Vincent, but continued to press his claims to the papacy until his death, 11 years later.
The 1915 Vatican monitum in question, concerning "the Secret of La Salette," was not a proscription against the text of the secret itself (impossible, since it had the approval of two popes), but against commentaries, and interpretations of the document that were being published by prominent persons such as Bishop Zoli of Lece, Italy, who had assisted Melanie in
publishing the Secret, and the English Cardinal, Henry Edward Manning, the principle author of the papal infallibility decree at the First Vatican Council. Freemasons, already highly placed in the Vatican, were determined to stop the discussion about the Secret of La Salette, because it was about to give the game away about what would soon happen to the Church.
Although the Secret was not condemned, the monitum had a chilling effect upon Catholic publishers, who were worried about incurring penalties for even mentioning the Secret in their books and periodicals. The Secret, which warned of impending catastrophe for the pope and the Church, was effectively suppressed, and in the following year, St. Michael the Archangel began appearing at Fatima, and Our Lady, the year after that, thus beginning the process all over again of Heaven trying to warn the faithful of an imminent crisis in the Church. There can be little wonder why the Masonic Lodge would have wanted the to forestall any sounding of alert to the clergy and laity of the coming dangers to the Church and Vicar Christ, and thereby
sabotage any remedy of prayer and penance by the Church that alone could have averted the crisis.
The Secret of La Salette confirms the predictions of the Church's most learned Scripture scholars of the 16th Century. In their commentaries on Matthew 24:15, II Thessalonians 2:3-4, and Apocalypse Chapter 17, the annotators of the original Douary-Rheims New Testament, published in 1582, Fathers Gregory Martin, Robert Bristow, Thomas Worthington, and William Allen, state in the clearest terms that in the latter days, the true pope would be banished from Rome, antichrist would usurp the Chair of Peter, and the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass would be abolished - IN THAT ORDER.
Melanie also seemed to confirm this in her comments to Fr. Paul Combe in 1903: "The Church will be eclipsed. At first, we will not know which is the true pope. Then secondly, the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass will cease to be offered in churches and houses; it will be such that, for a time, there will not be public services any more. But I see that the Holy Sacrifice has not really ceased: it will be offered in barns, in alcoves, in caves, and underground." (Abbot Paul Combe: "The Secret of Melanie and the Actual Crisis", Rome, 1906, p.137.)
The contention by the SSPX, that the obscuration of the papacy contradicts the Church's divine attribute of visibility, is indicative either of the organization's gross ignorance of Church history, or a deliberate attempt to delude its own followers. In "The Catechism Explained" (1899), Fathers Spirago and Clarke state that "the visibility of the Church is maintained
wherever Catholic priests and people are to be found."
It is true that St. Robert Bellarmine wrote in his "De Romano Pontifice" that a pope might lose his office through heresy. But his was only a theoretical hypothesis of the learned theologian, and is even disputed by contrary opinions referenced in Addis and Arnold's "Catholic
Dictionary" (1896). Furthermore, it has never been a doctrine of the Church that the pope, in his capacity as Vicar of Christ could fall into heresy.
In fact, the decree on Papal Infallibility promulgated at the First Vatican Council, says that he cannot. This was ratified by Pope Pius IX long after the death of Bellarmine, and greatly diminishes the arguments of those who contend that, not one, but four popes in a row, after receiving valid election to the See of Peter, fell into heresy and lost their offices. Again, to cite the eminent canonists, Abbo and Hannan - they note that "some have maintained that a pope could lose his office either by insanity or notorious lapse into heresy," but, they conclude, "neither has happened in the long history of the papacy."
Other theories that the conciliar popes are somehow in "material" possession of the office, but not "formally," and represent a new line of "split-personality popes" that are without precedent in Church history, in that they do not enjoy the full, universal jurisdiction possessed by all true popes throughout the ages, but are still true popes, would seem to contradict the doctrinal teaching regarding the full and supreme primacy of the pope, as taught at Vatican I.
Therefore, the only conclusion that seems possible for explaining how John XXIII could have promulgated an encyclical which contradicted previous papal definitions as though it were an expression of the Magisterium of the Church; how Paul VI could have officially ratified a general council shot through with heresies; how JP2 could have based his entire "pontificate"
upon the heretical notions of that same council, is that, due to conclave irregularities and/or ineligibility for office, none of the conciliar actors were true popes in the first place.
In answer to Chip's previous question, I do not care how he wishes to disseminate my comments, if he thinks that some people might benefit from them.
Regards,
GG