Livestream: RC Institute and Thesis 3Q Q&A - With Most Rev. Donald J. Sanborn
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 21 ก.ย. 2024
- Our main apostolate is the training of Catholic priests.
Send a Super Chat and support the Roman Catholic Institute!
romancatholici...
romancatholicm...
Excellent as usual. There is always something new to learn ! Thank you for these helpful interviews. When I listen to Bishop Sanborn, I see genuine, informed and clear explanations to questions. I understand everything he says which is a miracle for me.
Doesn’t a valid elector have to profess the actual Catholic faith? In other words, doesn’t a valid elector have to be an actual Catholic rather than an adherent of the Novus Ordo religion?
My knowledge is lacking, do not quote me. If I remember correctly, as I am not the best at explaining things I will do my best, that because none of these cardinals were legitimately removed juridically, they despite having no faith, still retain the power to elect a possible Pope, because the power to elect a Pope doesn't have anything to do with an ordination of a priest or bishop, because cardinals are a purely human thing, and that remains.
Roncalli and other extreme modernists were Cardinals and him and other modernists were capable of being elected Pope in 1958, and Roncalli's vote would count alongside the other modernists insofar as in nobody doubted their ability to act as electors. It doesn't make Roncalli and the other modernists in any way Catholics, but they had something we don't: the designation to elect a pope. For Roncalli himself and his papal pretender successors, the only thing they have is a valid election, but have no jurisdiction or authority whatsoever to teach, rule, or sanctify the Church, because a valid election doesn't make somebody the Pope: being a Catholic is one, and actually accepting it is another.
This next part is my opinion, not necessary a part of the thesis:
A non-Catholic who would somehow receive votes from Cardinals to attempt to elect them Pope, would in all essentials first not be Pope due to not being a Catholic and merely their non-Catholicism would manifest by openly broadcasting to the whole world an apostasy or a heresy as it would be a de facto proof of a defect of intention in the election externally.
But, moreover, the false Popes still have: an ability to name electors, but that's it. Like these cardinals who have no faith can still operate as electors, but that's it. Those things are merely human, not to be confused with anything to do with authority at all. John XXIII/Roncalli possessed a valid election, but can not possibly have been Pope. The same argument that applies to the cardinals, applies to the false Pope. By election, he can appoint electors. And that only. That's it. Due to that by itself and nothing else.
I hope I imperfectly answered your question which I didn't explain very well, but I think I communicated enough to be reasonable.
@@Corvus001 Tortured nonsense. I asked yes or no questions.
@@JeremiahAlphonsus Let me put it this way. Doesn't a valid priest have to profess the actual Catholic faith to administer sacraments?
It's not a 'yes' or 'no' question. Which the answer to that question is 'yes'; but only legally. It would still be valid: case, confession in danger of death, holy orders still valid. But it would be illicit and immoral.
Point being, if I just answer 'yes' or 'no', I'm leaving out necessary information to either points.
Which by the way, I think the short answer is yes, if being a valid elector had something to do with the faith*, which it doesn't. Since it doesn't pertain to faith*, the premise is lacking in the sense being an elector is not in itself a matter of faith as the Papacy is.
A more accurate question is if a valid Pope has to profess the actual Catholic faith, which that is a definite yes, but not the electors, for unlike the Papacy being a Cardinal doesn't have anything to do with you being ordained or not or being a heretic* or not. A Pope teaching heresy is impossible or else the promise of Christ was in vain, which would be a blasphemy. Therefore, he must not be the Pope, which means there must be an impediment preventing him from being one in his acceptance of the position.
* = they would have to externally be removed or remove themselves from the Church legally for them to lose that status. A heretical cardinal is infinitely more likely than a heretical pope, but like I maintained before, to all externals heretical cardinals have existed before and especially do right now. That much is true.
Theology isn't nonsense, but it is sometimes complicated. I told you I'm not the best nor the most qualified person to answer, but I am trying to give some sort of answer charitably with what I know.
@@Corvus001 Kindly stop piling up walls of text and let someone give a coherent answer. Think of your abstention henceforth as an act of charity.
@@JeremiahAlphonsus but you are acting charitable when you claim his response, which, I assume, was meant well and just to help you, was "tortured nonsense"? Look who's talking.
Peter's confession is the rock.
How are people donating on this site? I don't see a thanks, join or donation button. Thank you.
@@PoohnTiggersMom during the livestream there is a dollar sign next to the chat box. If you’re watching afterwards, look at the line that includes the thumbs up button. Go all the way to the right and see “thanks” and that allows you to contribute afterwards.
The whole issue is what we might call an issue of location. Where do we now locate The Church? How can it be located in V2? Sedevacantism locates the truth where it is found.
Can you address in the future Paul VI breaking a 1,000 year tradition when he placed the age limit of 85 on elector cardinals?
I accept Sede vacante, and am currently in catechisis through MHTS. My question is not as to the validity of the general position, but as to the ecclesiastical authority of the Sede chaples, and clergy.
If it is a sign and duty of the Church hierarchy to teach rule and sanctify, yet the Sede clergy will not claim legitimate authority to rule, how is what they preside over The Church?
As a layman, I sympathize with the reluctance to assume what has not been granted by canonical means. Even to personally make the judgment that the throne of Peter is empty, is a judgment way out of my purview, and I rely on clergy to confirm this decision.
Yet, the clergy, especially the bishops, have taken on the passive authority to rule by claiming Sede vacante, teaching this position, encouraging people to leave the NO, offering Sacraments to exhiles, and through many other subtle pronouncements 'rule' over the congregations of continuing Catholics; iseems impossible to isolate ruling from teaching and sanctifying.
Is there any canonical difference between taking the authority to yourself, outside the normal hierarchy, as to teaching, and sanctifying, and assuming the authority to rule?
By moral philosophy, it seems that ruling is the dynamic active function of the three, whereas teaching and sanctifying are more set though active functions, and so require less consideration, and so less personal responsibility on the part of clergy. Though, in the case of assigning penance after confession, the line between ruling and sanctifying is less distinct.
Not meaning to undermine here at all, I would prefer it if the bishops would rule more, not less. And it seems in the current state of crisis, taking authority to teach and sanctify is in no means different than assuming authority to rule.
If we consider an abstract case where someone needs an ecclesiastical ruling, not ruling is a form of ruling, in that it either leaves the layman to his own judgment, or it assumes the most cautious course of action. Which is a ruling, if only by previously determined default.
If the recent popes are only so materially, are we not in some way in union with them? Materially?
Maybe the thesis adherence should offer their masses one in faith with the "pope elect" Francis.
Are there any photos or video from Bp. Sanborns consecration?
Yes.
@@MichaelHellmann-jy9ob where could I find them, curious to see.
Smith Kevin Lewis Jose Williams Jose
21:29
47:15