Fr. Eugene Heidt and Archbishop Levada (A diocesan priest's experience)

Priest Where Is Thy Mass, Mass Where Is Thy Priest? | January 2004

[Dominick]

The Pope can't level the Church, the Holy Spirit prevents such an action. Are you saying the Holy Spirit is incapable of this action? Vatican I says you may not resist the Pope and stay in the Church, because resisting the Pope is resisting the action of the Spirit through the Pope.

[murphE]

So you're saying the pope cannot resist the Holy Ghost? I didn't really see that you answered that question.

[Gerard.P]

The Holy Spirit prevents anyone from succeeding in leveling the Church.

Vatican I states that no decision of the Pope can lawfully be overturned (eg. by a council) That is not what this discussion is about.

Schism requires someone to deny the authority of a Pope. Not to resist or disobey unjust or sinful commands.

[murphE]

because resisting the Pope is resisting the action of the Spirit through the Pope.

Are you implying that the Holy Spirit is responsible for every action of the Pope? That every action of the Pope is guided by and is the direct will of the Holy Spirit? Please clarify.

[Dominick]

"To him, in blessed Peter, full power has been given by our lord Jesus Christ to tend, rule and govern the universal Church."

...

"So, then, if anyone says that the Roman Pontiff has merely an office of supervision and guidance, and not the full and supreme power of jurisdiction over the whole Church, and this not only in matters of faith and morals, but also in those which concern the discipline and government of the Church dispersed throughout the whole world; or that he has only the principal part, but not the absolute fullness, of this supreme power; or that this power of his is not ordinary and immediate both over all and each of the Churches and over all and each of the pastors and faithful: let him be anathema."

...

"Thus the tendency to schism is removed and the whole Church is preserved in unity, and, resting on its foundation, can stand firm against the gates of hell."

...

"Therefore, [...] we teach and define as a divinely revealed dogma that when the Roman Pontiff speaks EX CATHEDRA, that is, when, in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole Church, he possesses, by the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter, that infallibility which the divine Redeemer willed his Church to enjoy in defining doctrine concerning faith or morals. "

So the Pope can resist the Holy Spirit?

No. It should be obvious if you click the link and read.

[Dominick]

The governance of the Church is the sole perogative of the Pope. Not every action of the day. Those related to the CHurch. Read Vatican I as I have linked.

[Gerard.P]

So you are saying a Pope can't refuse to speak Ex-Cathedra?

So you are saying he can't refuse to use the full power granted him?

So you are saying that if a man holds the office, he can't use his free will to abuse his authority on matters outside his infallibility?

Interesting you actually believe the Pope has no free will.

[Dominick]

Interesting you actually believe the Pope has no free will.

The Pope can govern the Church as he sees fit by the authority of Christ guided by the Holy Spirit. The Church is unique in this respect, unless you decide to apply the old formula of resisting an Ex Cathedra item of Dogma, like most schismatics.

[St. Johann Tetzel]

"why believe the hearsay of a vagus priest that Bishop Levada is a wolf?"

I don't believe or disbelieve either this priest or Levada, based on this article alone.

However, there are some stellar conservative Catholic figures, in no way associated with trads or trad thinking, who are openly questioning the prudence of this decision.

I'm not going to worry over it. I'm in my place a refuge, a Byzantine parish that time forgot, and I'm happy. The storms in the Church generally don't reach us there.

[murphE]

I don't think your link says the same thing you are saying, but maybe I'm just misunderstanding what you mean, that's what I'm trying to discern.

Let me re phrase the question again. Are you implying that the Holy Spirit is responsible for every action of Church governance by the Pope? That every action of Church governance by the Pope is guided by and is the direct will of the Holy Spirit? Please clarify.

And did you just say:

So the Pope can resist the Holy Spirit? No.

It should be obvious...

Another one with the "it should be obvious", I know what link says, I want to know what you think it means.

[murphE]

The storms in the Church generally don't reach us there

Yet.

[St. Johann Tetzel]

It would be foolhardy to think there are any places in the Church that would never be affected by the storms blowing right now, but we can still search for places of shelter, right?

[murphE]

You betcha.

[Dominick]

I think it means:
The Pope, by application of his office is incapable of destroying the Church by positive action. Overt acts to destroy the Church by an evil Pope are not possible, because of the unique position of the Church as established by Christ, and guided and guarded by the Holy Spirit. This doesn't apply to the peccability of the Pope, nor does it apply to omissions of governance on the part of the Pope. When the Pope rules, as in Women's Ordination, it is final.

In the case of resistance to positive action of the Pope, in the specific case of Lefebvrists, this is unlawful, as the action of the Pope in governance of the Church, where the ordination was forbidden, resistance was unlawful, and impugned the divine nature of the Church and the office of the Pope.

Resistance of the Pope is possible, but only lawful outside the Church, lets say Pope Benedict comes over and asks me for my last Budweiser...

[gbcdoj]

Vincent Gasser, at the First Vatican Council,
Relator for the Deputation de Fide

Note well. It is asked in what sense the infallibility of the Roman Pontiff is "absolute." I reply and openly admit: in no sense is pontifical infallibility absolute, because absolute infallibility belongs to God alone, who is the first and essential truth and who is never able to deceive or be deceived. All other infallibility, as communicated for a specific purpose, has its limits and its conditions under which it is considered to be present. The same is valid in reference to the infallibility of the Roman Pontiff. For this infallibility is bound by certain limits and conditions. What those conditions may be should be deduced not "a priori" but from the very promise or manifestation of the will of Christ. Now what follows from the promise of Christ, made to Peter and his successors, as far as these conditions are concerned? He promised Peter the gift of inerrancy in Peter's relation to the Universal Church: "You are Peter, and on this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it ..." (Mt. 16:18). "Feed my lambs, feed my sheep" (Jn. 21:13-17). Peter, placed outside this relation to the universal Church, does not enjoy in his successors this charism of truth which comes from that certain promise of Christ. Therefore, in reality, the infallibility of the Roman Pontiff is restricted by reason "of the subject," that is when the Pope, constituted in the chair of Peter, the center of the Church, speaks as universal teacher and supreme judge: it is restricted by reason of the "object," i.e., when treating of matters of faith and morals; and by reason of the "act" itself, i.e., when the Pope defines what must be believed or rejected by all the faithful.

[Canticle_of_Deborah]

Remember Levada's reaction when Bishop Patrick Ziemann crashed and burned after his catamite went public?

The archbishop described himself as a lifelong friend of Ziemann's and said he joined "friends throughout California and beyond in thanking him for the energy and gifts he has shared far and wide.

Reality check. How many straight men do you know who enjoy close friendships with promiscuous homosexual men? Ziemann's "gifts" included diocesan bankruptcy, homosexual affairs, protection of sexual abusers and spiritual and emotional devastation. What kind of person calls those things gifts?

Levada, Mahony and Steinbock were all classmates at St. John's seminary in Camarillo which is known as the "homosexual bathhouse." Any one who doesn't join in the fun is expelled or runs away on their own. Levada went on to teach at the seminary. All three of the above mentioned have sheltered, protected, associated with and entertained promiscuous homosexuals.

Thinking people can do the math.

[sempertrad]

If the SSPX did not break away from the Church, name one SSPX chapel that recognizes the jurisdiction of the ordinary in whose diocese it is located.

If it had been Archbishop Lefebvre's intention to break away from the Church and set up some sort of parallel church, how come he did not give jurisdiction to the bishops he consecrated?

[Wessex]

"I also am sure he (Pius X) is very displeased with the schismatic organization who usurped his name to start a Jansenist organization of Cafeteria Catholics."


Hardly a displeasure toward a society formed to pursue his great anti-modernist cause with vigour. More likely his displeasure would be shown to his successors after Pius XII who are knee-deep in modernism. So easy for JPII to rely on church law when he could not get his head around one of the bigest crises in church history; a crisis which will not go away.

[Wessex]

"I also am sure he (Pius X) is very displeased with the schismatic organization who usurped his name to start a Jansenist organization of Cafeteria Catholics."


Hardly a displeasure toward a society formed to pursue his great anti-modernist cause with vigour. More likely his displeasure would be shown to his successors after Pius XII who are knee-deep in modernism. So easy for JPII to rely on church law when he could not get his head around one of the bigest crises in church history; a crisis which will not go away.

[Wessex]

"I'm not going to worry over it. I'm in my place a refuge, a Byzantine parish that time forgot, and I'm happy. The storms in the Church generally don't reach us there."


Be careful; you are displaying schismatic tendencies. Why are you not loudly and openly embracing all the wonderful reforms lavished on Catholics during the last few decades? Where is this spirit of Vatican II?