Monday, 27 April 2020

About that CDF survey on Summorum Pontificum ...

You are no doubt familiar with the recent public release of a survey to bishops from the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith on the situation and development of Summorum Pontificum. Many are seeing this as an omen of bad things to come and are losing their heads.

I do not share this conspiracy theory. Not that I trust anything coming out of the Vatican, notwithstanding. 

Let me just briefly comment on the Archdiocese of Toronto and three of its suffrage dioceses of Hamilton, London and St. Catharines. There are nearly thirty priests whom I know who on Sundays or other days or at least privately, offer the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass in the traditional Rite and I am not referring here to the Society of St. Pius X which operates at least four chapels in Toronto, New Hamburg, Orillia and St. Catharines. In the Diocese of London there are two growing communities in Windsor and St. Thomas. In St. Catharines, the Fraternity of St. Peter and a sprinkling of ad hoc diocesan Masses. In Hamilton, the Mass is every Sunday in Kitchener and Hamilton and less frequent in Brantford. In Toronto proper there are five every Sunday plus at least three other parishes where at least once a week, a priest offers the traditional rite. The Triduum had been held for six years, though the planned one this past March, was of course, cancelled. The Cardinal Archbishop, Thomas Collins, has always been supportive. Many of the Ordinandi of the last decade have offered the Holy Mass according to the traditional Form. This is not going to change and there are, I believe, eight ordinations this year for Toronto. There is no gain for this Archdiocese to attack these communities. 

There is a lot of hysteria in this matter. Don't buy into it.

For more sanity, I refer you to Father Zuhlsdorf.


https://wdtprs.com/2020/04/wherein-fr-z-muses-about-the-survey-sent-to-bishops-about-summorum-pontificum-rant-and-suggestions/


28 comments:

Peter Lamb said...

Imagine if the SSPX would simply acknowledge that an heretic cannot be Pope and that Recognizing and Resisting was non-catholic rubbish. Imaging if they reverted to real, true Catholicism, in other words what we call sedevacantism. Then we would be a remnant to be reckoned with. They are big enough to break with the novus ordo and survive.
Just a quick and incomplete reminder of Papal authority:

Christ built his Church on the foundation rock of St.Peter. To him and his successors He gave the Keys; the power of loosing and
binding; of preserving and passing on the Faith, intact and incorrupt, as he received, it under the guidance and protection of the Holy Ghost. The pope is the sovereign Visible Head of Christ's Church and the Vicar of Christ. He rules the Church by the authority of Christ Himself. Christ's Church is a Monarchy. It is not a Democracy. He is the Teacher, we are the Taught. In matters of Faith, Morals and Church Governance, we obey him as we would submit to and obey Christ Himself. This is not "papolatry", this is Catholic doctrine. Of course none of this applies to bergoglio and judeo-masonic mates, who is/were not Pope/s, or Catholic/s.

Of course, this modern fashion of laymen, or any cleric, sifting the teaching of him whom they recognize as being a true Pope, according to their own opinions, is a gross protestant aberration unknown to Catholics.

Widespread today, is the misconception that the Church’s, or the Pope’s Authority derives from their inability to be wrong, but this is not the case. Rather, the Church and the Pope are authoritative because they are the divinely-appointed Teacher, infallible, or not. This is beautifully explained by Canon George Smith in his 1935 essay, “Must I Believe It?”. Thus, the Pope has the right and the power to bind his subjects’ consciences, not because he is infallible, but because he is the Vicar of Christ. This is something continually ignored and denied by the SSPX and the various “resistance traditionalists.”

Tom A. said...

I would not refer to “Fr” Z for sanity. When Jorge was elected in 2013 it was “Fr” Z who assured us that nothing had changed and all we had to do was “read Francis through Benedict.” What a joke that turned out to be. But I should be grateful because I started “reading” Benedict through Francis and discovered that Ratzinger is just as much a modernist heretic as Bergoglio. Here is my advise to those who are satisfied being in the traditional ghetto of the NO false church, “Get out.” It was a pipe dream to believe that the true mass and the false mass could exist side by side. It was foolhardy to think that the NO false mass could “enrich” the true Mass. “Fr” Z pushed this nonsense and garbage for months/years before he realized that Jorge was not your average modernist.

Peter Lamb said...

Pope Pius IX, published Redditae Sunt almost 20 years before the Declaration of papal infallibility:
"In fact, Venerable Brother, you are not ignorant of the truth that nothing should be nearer to a Catholic Bishop, nothing is more obligatory for him, than heartfelt respect for the supreme power of this Chair of St. Peter, whence flows sacerdotal unity, the ordination of bishops, and the government of the Church; than to defend with all his strength the rights of this See and to honor them, splendid as they are with an authority, not human, but divine; than to attach himself firmly to the Sovereign Pontiff, to recognize him, faithfully to render to him all respect and obedience, this Pontiff, placed in this See, who has received from Our Lord Himself in the person of the Blessed Prince of the Apostles, all power to feed the sheep and the lambs, to confirm his brethren, to rule and govern the whole Church throughout the world.
(Pope Pius IX, Apostolic Letter Redditae Sunt, Jan. 6, 1851; excerpted in Papal Teachings: The Church, p. 153.)

Nor can we pass over in silence the audacity of those who, not enduring sound doctrine, contend that “without sin and without any sacrifice of the Catholic profession assent and obedience may be refused to those judgments and decrees of the Apostolic See, whose object is declared to concern the Church's general good and her rights and discipline, so only it does not touch the dogmata of faith and morals.” But no one can be found not clearly and distinctly to see and understand how grievously this is opposed to the Catholic dogmaof the full power given from God by Christ our Lord Himself to the Roman Pontiff of feeding, ruling and guiding the Universal Church. (Pope Pius IX, Encyclical Quanta Cura, n. 5.)

Peter Lamb said...

"... contempt of the Church's authority is opposed to the command of Christ and consequently opposes the apostles and their successors, the Church's ministers who speak as their representatives. He who hears you, hears me; and he who despises you, despises me [Lk 10:16]; and the Church is the pillar and firmament of truth, as the apostle Paul teaches [1 Tim 3:15]. In reference to these words St. Augustine says: “Whoever is without the Church will not be reckoned among the sons, and whoever does not want to have the Church as mother will not have God as father.”
Therefore, venerable brothers, keep all these words in mind and often reflect on them. Teach your people great reverence for the Church's authority which has been directly established by God. Do not lose heart. With St. Augustine We say that “all around us the waters of the flood are roaring, that is, the multiplicity of conflicting teaching. We are not in the flood but it surrounds us. We are hard pressed but not overwhelmed, buffeted but not submerged.”(Pope Leo XII, Encyclical Ubi Primum, nn. 22-23.)
…So it has been a common characteristic both of the ancient heretics and of the more recent Protestants -- whose disunity in all their other tenets is so great -- to attack the authority of the Apostolic See. Butnever at any time were they able by any artifice or exertion to make this See tolerate even a single one of their errors. (Pope Pius IX, Encyclical Noscitis et Nobiscum, nn. 16-17.)
When one loves the pope one does not stop to debate about what he advises or demands, to ask how far the rigorous duty of obedience extends and to mark the limit of this obligation. When one loves the pope, one does not object that he has not spoken clearly enough, as if he were obliged to repeat into the ear of each individual his will, so often clearly expressed, not only viva voce, but also by letters and other public documents; one does not call his orders into doubt on the pretext – easily advanced by whoever does not wish to obey – that they emanate not directly from him, but from his entourage; one does not limit the field in which he can and should exercise his will; one does not oppose to the authority of the pope that of other persons, however learned, who differ in opinion from the pope. Besides, however great their knowledge, their holiness is wanting, for there can be no holiness where there is disagreement with the pope. (Pope St. Pius X, Address to the Priests of the Apostolic Union, Nov. 18, 1912; in Acta Apostolicae Sedis 4 [1912], p. 695)
To the shepherds alone was given all power to teach, to judge, to direct; on the faithful was imposed the duty of following their teaching, of submitting with docility to their judgment, and of allowing themselves to be governed, corrected, and guided by them in the way of salvation. Thus, it is an absolute necessity for the simple faithful to submit in mind and heart to their own pastors, and for the latter to submit with them to the Head and Supreme Pastor. (Pope Leo XIII, Apostolic Letter Epistola Tua, 1885)

Peter Lamb said...

There is plenty more, but I will stop for some sort of brevity. Space is inadequate to discuss Papal Infallibility, but let me squeeze a few facts in: Vatican I did NOT limit the Pope's Infallibility; the Ordinary Universal magisterium is every bit as infallible as the Solemn magisterium; the Solemn magisterium is simply part of the Ordinary magisterium; Catholics are obliged to submit to both.
Finally:
"The Holy Apostolic See and the Roman Pontiff have primacy in the entire world. The Roman Pontiff is the Successor of Blessed Peter, the Prince of the Apostles, true Vicar of Christ, Head of the whole Church, Father and Teacher of all Christians." (Pope Benedict XIV, Apostolic Constitution Etsi Pastoralis, May 26, 1742; excerpted in Papal Teachings: The Church, p. 32.)
And:
"Furthermore, we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff." (Pope Boniface VIII, Bull Unam Sanctam, Nov. 18, 1302.)
But remember: None of the above applies to bergoglio et al!

Peter Lamb said...

So I ask with tears in my eyes and on my knees:

WHY does the SSPX proclaim an heretic as true Pope???

WHY does SSPX ignore the Magisterial Teachings just presented and proclaim and practice the evil non-Catholic doctrine of R&R ???

Why do ths SSPX offer the Blessed Sacrament to His Father in company of, together with and in union with an heretical minion of satan?

Somebody please tell me, but tell me through Catholic Doctrine.

I can honestly only see one explanation for the anti-Catholic behavior and doctrine of the SSPX and that is that they are part and parcel of the novus ordo church. They are the special forces controlled opposition department to keep semi-trad laymen entrapped. If you think I'm wrong, please don't fight me. Just explain where I am wrong and how I am wrong, but stick to Catholic doctrine please.

Tom A. said...

Peter, sorry it cannot be done. Just read any document put out by the SSPX concerning their “duty” to resist the Roman Pontiff. You will not find any quote from any Pope. It will be based on arguments pieced together (with lawyerly language) and a few historical examples as interpreted by Gallican and Protestant sources. But their arguments never includes actual quotes from real Popes concerning the Papacy.

Aqua said...

Bergóglio was elected 7 (long) years ago.

It is prudent to observe what has happened in those seven years and make appropriate judgements about where we are going. To ignore this, is ... imprudent.

One thing is certain: Jorgé Bergóglio is aiming for the fence. He is a revolutionary. And it is certainly appropriate to notice that our house is being burned down and take appropriate action in response, commensurate to the threat.

P. O'Brien said...

Peter Lamb, hard to argue with you. Just a minute today I read this from Abbot Marmion: "The Catholic accepts the Church's dogma and regulates his conduct according to this dogma because he sees in the Church and her head the Sovereign Pontiff another Christ who teaches and governs in the name of the Son of God. The Protestant admits such or such a truth because he discovers it by his personal lights. The Protestant admits, the Catholic believes. As soon as the Church speaks, the Catholic submits in all obedience as to Christ Himself." ("Christ the Ideal of the Monk," Abbot Columba Marmion)

Anonymous said...

Peter Lamb's comments might as well be their own separate post.

Regardless; Vox, this is one of those (rare?) times I agree with you.

When confronted with something like this, it is well-worth asking "what is the worst-case scenario?" Well, the worst-case scenario might well be the revocation of all permission to celebrate the TLM / Mass according to the 1962 Missal. So ... a more realistic worst-case scenario might be the revocation of SP and a return to some sort of indult situation, where diocesan bishops give permission for the TLM to be celebrated (at specific times, etc).

Looking at the situation in the Diocese of London, the Masses in Windsor and in St. Thomas are safe. In a worst-case scenario, there may be an attempt to restrict some of the nascent Masses that have sprung up in other locations (such as the First Friday TLM in Sarnia), but I really don't see the diocese stopping the two principal TLMs anytime soon, regardless of what happens with SP. Similarly, I really don't envision any meaningful pulling back of the TLM in Hamilton either, for that matter.

And that's the wort-case scenario.

More realistically, what is happening? Rome has sent out a survey, to all diocesan bishops, regarding the TLM. Perhaps some curial officials are discussing the TLM and (no doubt) at least some would like SP to be curtailed. So, they have decided to send out a survey. Sending out a survey may well be their way of "doing something about the TLM" -- without necessarily doing anything at all (beyond the survey itself).

This is bureaucratic stuff, which happens in bureaucratic institutions. Things get started, forms get filled, and life goes on.

This is, most realistically, what is happening. I really don't see any revocation of SP anytime soon. What I *do* see is some bureaucrats saying "we need to do something" -- and about the only thing they can do (in light of the thumbs-up they may have been given) is to issue this survey.

This is one of those times where Father Zed sounds reasonable. So, yes, let them fill out that survey. Lay people should certainly feel free to chip in (CC-ing Rome too, of course), but let's face it. If it was Rome's desire to revoke SP, they would not send out a survey asking such questions before hand.

Tom A. said...

Jorge is no worse that the previous V2 anti-popes.

me said...

Regardless of the actual results of the survey, it can and will be used against the faithful. You can count on that. Nobody in Bergoglio's circle gives a rats behind about truth.

Irenaeus said...

Your levelheadedness is appreciated, Vox. Thank you.

Tom A. said...

That is the modernist MO. Dialogue first, then enact whatever you were intending in the first place based on the so called dialogue. SPs days are numbered. Frankie’s goal all along was to push all the trads into the SSPX ghetto while slowly corrupting the SSPX hierarchy with meaningless gestures such as granting pseudo faculties. The key event to watch will be coming soon. Will the SSPX ordain any new Bishops? Will softliners like Fellay ordain a hardliner SSPX priest? Or will Rome influence the SSPX hierarchy into nominating ordinands that Rome feels they can work with? Lay with dogs and you will get fleas. Dialogue with the NO sect and you will compromise a tenant of the Faith.

Brian said...

Vox
I hope I am wrong, but I think the greatest threat to the future of our St.Thomas TLM, is, increased attendance. Think of 175-200 each Sunday. That is threatening and something that the conciliar wolves in the diocese, simply, will not tolerate. All it will take is the bishop moving our priest far away and replacing him with a "safe" conciliar cleric. Our Latin Mass Apostolate will be over and done. Also, keep in mind that our current priest has been there since 2013. Time for a move?

Tom A. said...

Brian, you and many are faced with an impossible task, trying to be Catholic in a non-Catholic Church. Accepting modernists as the hierarchy makes it impossible to retain the Faith. The NO hierarchy simply do not believe the Catholic Faith any longer. To keep your Latin Masses and your side chapel of Tradition in the modernist pantheon, you will at some point have to offer your pinch of incense to the modernist ecumenical gods.

Brian said...

Salve Tom A.
If you try to maintain a Catholic profile that is in tune with the 1900 year continuum that brought us into the second half of the 20th century, then yes, it is an impossible task to do so when using the Conciliar playbook. IT DOES NOT WORK. I know this, from the school of hard knocks, teaching in the mainline Catholic school system. The Modernist pantheon as you call it has absolutely no bearing on my catholicity. The incense I offer, I assure you, will be to that of the one Triune Deity of Nicea I, Constantinople I or Toledo XI (which includes my favourite creedal summary by the way). Lastly, I think you are a Sededvacantist. Correct me if I am wrong. On Tuesday, October 28th, 1958, a roly poly Angelo Roncalli emerges onto the loggia and is introduced to the world as John XXIII. He dies about 56 months later, in June of 1963. At what point in that pontificate did it become invalid? And please identify the unimpeachable magisterial authority that declares the invalidity of the Roncalli papacy.

Fidem non prodam.

Tom A. said...

I don’t have any answers to your questions. Your questions have absolutely no bearing on the fact that it is impossible to keep your Catholic Faith inside the structures of a non Catholic church (ie the Novus Odro sect.)

Peter Lamb said...

Dear Brian,

If Fr. Luigi Villa is to be believed, and I see no reason why he should not be believed, then neither roncalli, nor montini were even eligible for election - both having become excommunicated masons before their elections. Neither was ever Pope.

The proof of their invalidity lies in the defectibility of vatican II and their teachings:

https://inveritateblog.com/2020/04/29/the-great-western-schism/#more-685

Brian said...

To Peter Lamb
Who is the unimpeachable magisterial authority declaring the Roncalli and Montini papacies invalid? Fr. Villa? I don't think so. What ecclesial authority excommunicated Roncalli and Montini. When did this excommunication take place? These are fair questions.

Peter Lamb said...

Dear Brian,
I don't think you understood me. Have you read Fr. Villa's work, or the link on defectibility I posted? Father Villa was commissioned by Pope Pius XII, under supervision of Cardinals Ottaviani and Bacci, to investigate and expose masons in the Vatican. He discovered that roncalli and montini had joined the grand orient in Paris on the same day. He gives their masonic code names etc. The 1917 canon law forbids Catholics to become masons under pain of excommunication. Thus ronc. & mont were automatically excommunicated the moment they became masons. There is your magisterial authority. A candidate for election to the Papacy must be a Catholic. As excommunicants, neither of those minions of satan were eligible for election. More magisterial authority.
It is a dogma of the Catholic Faith that the Faith is indefectible because God is immutable. vatican II and the conciliar impostors have all defected from the faith. Therefore it is proved beyond any argument that the Holy Ghost is not protecting them from error and that the impostors and their church are false. Please read Bishop Sanborn's post which I have appended.

Please read Fr. Villa:

http://padrepioandchiesaviva.com/uploads/Chiesa_viva_441_S_en_New_Corrected.pdf

Brian said...

Salve Iterum Peter
Yes a long time ago I came across Fr. Vila's work. I read, with caution, of course. When did Pope Pius discover the masonic status of Roncalli and Montini? Why did Pius elevate (January 12, 1953)a Modernist Roncalli to the college of cardinals? Would not such an act by Pius make him an invalid pope, or, at the very least, eviscerate the ontological diginity of his Papacy? I did read Bishop Sandborn's piece. It was an enjoyable read, but nothing new. There is nothing you have presented that I have not read years ago. By the way, Pope Pius XII is considered a valid Pope, by most Sedevacantists. Why then, do so many Sedevacantists not celebrate the Feast Day of St. Joseph the Worker,(CMRI does celebrate it) that is today, May 1. I mean, this feast day was instituted by Pius XII, a valid pope. Or, was there a "creeping", as yet not publicly acknowledged, invalidity to the Pontificate of Pius XII after the carving up of our venerable Holy Week in 1955, which could be used to justify non compliance?


Fidem Non Prodam

Vox Cantoris said...

Pius XII's changes to the Missal were the beginning of the disaster. Other than the hours of the Triduum, the whole creation from Palm Sunday to the Vigil of Pentecost has been a disaster. Frankly, other than Offertory forward, I prefer the Novus Ordo which at least tried to restore things and stopped the insane costume changes.

The simple fact is. Pius XII was not all he was cracked up to be. He hired Bugnini, he promoted Roncalli and Montini. All these were there. This is where the Sede argument breaks down for me. Pius XII had his problems.

Peter Lamb said...

Dear Brian,
"Yes a long time ago I came across Fr. Vila's work. I read, with caution, of course."
I am surprised you found "caution" necessary to read the findings of a Catholic Priest, a Doctor of Theology commissioned by a Pope to investigate and report on a matter? How did you fear being deceived, or mislead? How is it obvious, ("of course"), that "caution" was necessary in reading Fr. Villa's work?
If you read his work long ago, you must have read "Paul VI Beatified?" Please read the link I gave you which is updated and more complete. I think you will find an excess of hard evidence that ron. and mont. were masons and therefore excommunicated and ineligible for election.

"I did read Bishop Sandborn's piece. It was an enjoyable read, but nothing new."
That is precisely the point! - the dogma of the indefectibility of the Faith does not, has never and will never contain anything "new."
You have read and know very well what I am trying to say. In summary:
1. Catholic doctrine teaches immutably indubitably and absolutely that an heretic cannot become, or remain a true Pope.
2. The Catholic Faith is indefectible for all time - immutable dogma.
3. Recognizing and resisting the teaching of a Pope regarding Faith, Morals, or Church Governance is heretical and schismatic.
4. Vox, there is no such thing as a Sedevacantist argument. Sedevacantism is nothing more than the best attempt to confront our unique current situation according to our immutable Catholic Faith. There is nothing "new" in sedevacantism. It is just plain Catholicism.
5. Pope Pius XII was a Holy and True Pope.
6. None of the changes he instituted on an experimental and temporary basis, were heretical, or erroneous, or damaging in any way.
7. He was absolutely entitled, as Pope, to alter the Liturgy as he thought fit.
8. He was human. He was dying of stomach cancer. His two Pro Secretaries of State, his Confessor, he was surrounded by deceiving, conniving, lying, judeo-masonic minions of satan, who he trusted. They persuaded him to make some changes, for ostensibly good reasons, of an experimental nature for a limited time. This he did in good faith. He did not know that the satanists had tricked him into taking a first step which they would divert to a path of attempted destruction of the Church. Is he the first person to be fooled, betrayed and deceived by those he trusted?
Yes, "Pius XII had his problems", but so do we all. He was a true and holy Pope. He did much good. He did no wrong in his liturgical changes.

Vox Cantoris said...

"He did no wrong in his liturgical changes."

No Peter, I must disagree, he did enormous wrong. The serious gutting of Palm Sunday and the Holy Saturday vigil and the Vigil of Pentecost were particularly bad. We can add to that the elimination of the Vigils of Epiphany and Corpus Christi.

While it can be argued that there was a need to simplify some rankings and ensure that Sunday was not overridden with Saints Days, he went too far and gave Bugnini a free hand. The 1962 Missal was primarily the work of the Pian papacy. He did nothing to rid the Vatican of the Modernists that Pius X warned about.

Sedevacantism places Pius XII above reproach because he is where the line has been drawn. This is why one reason that I cannot abide it.

Peter Lamb said...

Dear Vox,

I happily bow to your much superior knowledge of the Liturgy. Whether the Liturgical changes made were improvements, or not, I gladly leave for you Liturgists to opine. We now know that the judeo-masons were setting their plans of revolution in motion, but I will bet my life that Pope Pius XII was not fully aware of what was going on around him. There is no evidence that Pope Pius was mad, or a mason. bugnini was his confessor! I really don't believe he would confess knowingly to a mason. He must have trusted bugnini completely to have him for Confessor.
Personalities vary. One man is a fighter, another is a philosopher. Pope Pius XII was not a Pope Pius X,with regard to the masonic problem and neither was Pope Pius IX.
But the factors of overriding importance with which we are concerned and about which there can be no argument are:
1. Pope Pius XII was a valid Pope.
2. None of the changes he instituted are heretical, defected from the Faith, or damaging to the salvation of souls.
3. He was entirely within his authority to make the changes he made, whether they were generally popular, or not.
4. The terms Sedevacantism and Catholicism are synonymous. The former merely indicates a current interregnum, (to the best of our knowledge.)There is NOTHING of the Catholic Faith altered, added to, or taken away from the Faith by Sedevacantists. Sedevacantists are just as Catholics always have been.
5. My dear Vox,
Is bergoglio your Pope?
Is bergoglio an heretic?
Is bergoglio a valid and true Pope?
Is the Catholic Church Infallible and Indefectible?
If you have answered in the afirmative to the above:
Do you obey the infallible and indefectible teaching of the Vicar of Christ, bergoglio?
If not, why not?



Vox Cantoris said...

PETER, MY RESPONSES:

1. Pope Pius XII was a valid Pope.
OF COURSE
2. None of the changes he instituted are heretical, defected from the Faith, or damaging to the salvation of souls.
CORRECT.
3. He was entirely within his authority to make the changes he made, whether they were generally popular, or not.
TRUE.
4. The terms Sedevacantism and Catholicism are synonymous. The former merely indicates a current interregnum, (to the best of our knowledge.)There is NOTHING of the Catholic Faith altered, added to, or taken away from the Faith by Sedevacantists. Sedevacantists are just as Catholics always have been.
WE DO HAVE MORE IN COMMON AS CATHOLIC BROTHERS THAN THE CATHOLICS WITH WHOM I WORK AT MY CATHOLIC SCHOOL BOARD.
5. My dear Vox,
Is bergoglio your Pope?
WELL, IN LAW TO THE BEST WE CAN KNOW, HE IS THE BISHOP OF ROME AND THEREFORE, POPE.
Is bergoglio an heretic?
IN MY OPINION, HE HAS MADE HERETICAL AND SCANDALOUS STATEMENTS, SADLY, I LACK THE AUTHORITY TO TRY AND SENTENCE HIM!
Is bergoglio a valid and true Pope?
I THINK IT IS HIGHLY POSSIBLE THAT BENEDICT XVI WAS FORCED IN ONE WAY OR ANOTHER TO RESIGN BUT UNLESS CARDINALS COME FORTH TO SAY THAT ELECTION WAS IN VALID, AND CARDINAL BURKE HAS EVEN ADDRESSED THIS MATTER, THEN HE WAS VALIDLY ELECTED AS BISHOP OF ROME.
Is the Catholic Church Infallible and Indefectible?
YES.
If you have answered in the afirmative to the above:
Do you obey the infallible and indefectible teaching of the Vicar of Christ, bergoglio?
If not, why not?
I ONLY OBEY BERGOGLIO WHEN HE OBEYS CHRIST AND THE "INFALLIBLE AND INDEFECTIBLE" TEACHING OF THE COMPLETE AND WHOLE UNIVERSAL MAGISTERIUM.


Peter Lamb said...

Dear Vox,
Thank you for your response. We are Catholic brothers and getting very close to unity in our faith. The only real point of diversion I can see left is the question of whether Declaration is necessary for Deposition. You believe it is; I believe it is not.
Thank you for your blog and thank you for allowing reasonable discussion and debate. Yours is the only blog that I know of that does so. I only wish we could sit down with 2kg rump steak, 2 x six packs of Black Label and a pot of pap. All questions would be settled pronto. :)