(i) concerning the recent claims made by Le Lys et la Croix on mhfm purportedly
being in a position similar to the position held by Old Catholics
(condemned in Etsi Multa) :
Pius
IX. Etsi Multa (passage on old catholics). AD 1873.
'they
boldly affirm that the Roman Pontiff and all the bishops, the priests
and the people conjoined with him in the unity of faith and communion
fell into heresy when they approved and professed the definitions of
the Ecumenical Vatican Council'
>>
the above-described actions constitute heresy ; they are, however,
very different from mhfm’s and the traditional catholic position,
which would be :
'they
boldly affirm that the Roman Pontiff and all the
bishops, [almost all] the priests and [many] the
people conjoined with him [them] in the
unity of faith and communion fell into heresy when they
approved and professed the definitions of the Ecumenical
[illegitimate] Vatican Council'
>>
this is not heresy. The Vatican II apostasy occurred as all bishops
agreed on things heretical (believing them to have been proclaimed in
a general council). Vatican II, however, was not a legitimate council
(as it was called by an antipope). The fall into heresy (material for
maybe most and formal for others) still occurred — but not in the
way described in Pius IX’s encyclical (i.e., no Roman Pontiff, no
Ecumenical Council).
note
: cf. bull Cum Ex Apostolatus Officio (1559) (on the nullity
of an election of a heretic) for why Roncalli (who openly taught and
professed modernism, a heresy condemned numerous times by the solemn
Magisterium) was never pope (not even taking into account the highly
dubious conclave election process of 1958...)
(ii) on Singulari Quidem (1856) and the invincible
ignorance allegedly taught by Pius IX.
Pius
IX. Singulari Quidem. AD 1856.
‘This
hope of salvation is placed in the Catholic Church which, in
preserving the true worship, is the solid home of this faith and the
temple of God. Outside of the Church, nobody can hope for life or
salvation unless he is excused through ignorance beyond his control.'
'to
be able to hope' does not equal 'to be able to attain'
>>> the choice to attribute the meaning of 'has a chance of
salvation outside of the Church if he is excused through ignorance
beyond his control' to the above statement (an unfortunate mistake)
is (even though seemingly logical...) a conclusion that goes beyond
that which is written ; 'to be able to hope for' is
(absolutely) not exclusive from 'cannot have' as one
can always hope for the impossible...
Invincible
ignorance (and the consequent possibility of salvation, as
opposed to mere hope) indeed seems to be inferred in the
passage — yes. It is, however, NOT proclaimed. This is a
difference. This so-called hope is actually CONDEMNED explicitly by
the same Pius IX twelve years later :
Pius
IX. Syllabus Errorum. AD 1864.
17.
Good hope
at least is to be entertained of the eternal salvation of all
those who are not at all in the true Church of Christ. [CONDEMNED]
(iii) regarding Indefectibility of the Holy See
Based
on an eastern orthodox author’s book on sedevacantism, Jeremy shows
the criteria defined in the 1913 Catholic Encyclopedia for
indefectibility (versus mhfm’s purportedly lacking criteria). As
one needs to be thorough until the end in these grave times, we
prefer to refer ourselves to the dogmatic (infallible) definition of
indefectibility pronounced at Vatican I (chapter II in particular) :
Vatican
I. Session IV. Intro. AD 1870.
Pius,
bishop, servant of the servants of God, with the approval of the
sacred council, for an everlasting record. [...]
4.
In order, then, that the episcopal office should be one and undivided
and that, by the union of the clergy, the whole multitude of
believers should be held together in the unity of faith and
communion, he set blessed Peter over the rest of the apostles and
instituted in him the permanent principle of both unities and their
visible foundation.
Vatican
I. Session IV. Chapter I. AD 1870.
4.
To this absolutely manifest teaching of the sacred scriptures, as it
has always been understood by the catholic church, are clearly
opposed the distorted opinions of those who misrepresent the form of
government which Christ the lord established in his church and deny
that Peter, in preference to the rest of the apostles, taken singly
or collectively, was endowed by Christ with a true and proper primacy
of jurisdiction.
5.
The same may be said of those who assert that this primacy was not
conferred immediately and directly on blessed Peter himself, but
rather on the church, and that it was through the church that it was
transmitted to him in his capacity as her minister.
6.
Therefore, if anyone says that blessed Peter the apostle was not
appointed by Christ the lord as prince of all the apostles and
visible head of the whole church militant ; or that it was a primacy
of honour only and not one of true and proper jurisdiction that he
directly and immediately received from our lord Jesus Christ himself
: let him be anathema.
Vatican
I. Session IV. Chapter II. AD 1870.
1.
That which our lord Jesus Christ, the prince of shepherds and great
shepherd of the sheep, established in the blessed apostle Peter, for
the continual salvation and permanent benefit of the church, must of
necessity remain for ever, by Christ’s authority, in the church
which, founded as it is upon a rock, will stand firm until the end of
time.
2.
For no one can be in doubt, indeed it was known in every age that the
holy and most blessed Peter, prince and head of the apostles, the
pillar of faith and the foundation of the catholic church, received
the keys of the kingdom from our lord Jesus Christ, the savior and
redeemer of the human race, and that to this day and for ever he
lives and presides and exercises judgment in his successors the
bishops of the holy Roman see, which he founded and consecrated with
his blood.
3.
Therefore whoever succeeds to the chair of Peter obtains by the
institution of Christ himself, the primacy of Peter over the
whole church. So what the truth has ordained stands firm, and
blessed Peter perseveres in the rock-like strength he was granted,
and does not abandon that guidance of the church which he once
received.
4.
For this reason it has always been necessary for every church—that
is to say the faithful throughout the world—to be in agreement
with the Roman church because of its more effective leadership.
In consequence of being joined, as members to head, with that see,
from which the rights of sacred communion flow to all, they will grow
together into the structure of a single body.
5.
Therefore, if anyone says that it is not by the institution of Christ
the lord himself (that is to say, by divine law) that blessed Peter
should have perpetual successors in the primacy over the whole church
; or that the Roman pontiff is not the successor of blessed Peter in
this primacy : let him be anathema.
Ultramontanism
is victorious at Vatican I. The Bishop of Rome, the Roman Pontiff, is
the pillar of the Holy See and eternal Rome. The Roman Pontiff is the
most important element and the rock sustaining the church and
its indefectibility. Indefectibility is, according to Vatican I,
eternally linked to the ‘pillar of faith and the foundation of the
catholic church’ : Peter. Absent a true pontiff, Vatican II was a
mere gathering of strayed bishops. Geographically/materialistically
speaking, Rome has been in the hands of the enemy of the church
before. The eternal Rome, however, remains untouched. Indefectibility
remains untouched. Faith is intact.
(iv) on ‘future popes’ :
Catholics
today cannot believe in a future conclave. For reasons obvious, a
comeback to pre-Vatican II times is not possible. But this is
precisely the reason why the eschatological aspect of
sedevacantism is so strong and why mhfm’s position is justified
(even though not all claims may seem rational). Absent fear of their
beliefs not coming to fruition, true believers will admit that we
have entered unprecedented times from which there is no going back.
But faith and signs oblige us to continue with complete confidence
and conviction on the path set up by Christ for his church militant.
Pseudo-traditionalist groups claiming a concrete temporal solution
will reinstate the (currently dormant) Holy See to its previous glory
are mistaken. We believe the Lord of Hosts who divided the sea can,
if He so wills it, send an angel and appoint a true head of His
church on earth. We also believe the gravity of today’s situation
(not only in matters related to the church, but also the world
itself) may very well signify the beginning of a soon-to-come end...
----------
note
: I do not doubt the good will of Jeremy Austin. His work has indeed
helped many... but I would urge him to reconsider joining a ‘church’
that, in its creed, professes the one, holy, catholic and apostolic
church... one whose heart (Constantinople) was pierced by the
pagans’ sword on Pentecost (qui habet aures audiendi, audiat...), following the people’s proud
rebellion against the accepted, legitimate council of Florence by its
leaders...
IC ✚✚✚
