SJB
Reputation: 904
(Likers: 0 / Critics: 0)
Posts: 3,715
|
| Nishant2011 said: | It would most certainly and incontrovertibly destroy it within a certain period of time because no new Bishops can be appointed to episcopal sees and all Bishops occupying such sees would die off. This is the principle that I thought your words admit, though you obviously contested its application. Do you deny the principle itself?
I don't see how I disagree with Van Noort. What these Popes have done is a serious problem, I admit, which is why I say often that if we were considering merely the putative papacy of a single claimaint against his non-papacy, the probabilities might tilt in the favor of the other position. But we are not. We are considering the hypothesis of a 50 year vacant See and its attendant consequences against a normal Petrine succession. And if the former is actually incompatible with Apostolicity, then all appearances to the contrary notwithstanding, the latter must be the truth. |
The fact that there is a single false claimant makes the situation different than just a vacant see (pope dies and there is no election for 50 years). We are considering a series of unopposed false popes with apparent canonical elections.
The latest just appointed a public heretic to what amounts to The Holy Office. Don't you think a public heretic in The Holy Office endangers the faith of all Catholics?
Van Noort also says the rule of Faith for a Catholic is the preaching of the Church ...
| Van Noort said: | The remote rule of faith is the Word of God (handed down in writing or orally), which was directly entrusted to the Church's rulers that from it they might teach and guide the faithful. The proximate rule of faith, from which the faithful, one and all, are bound to accept their faith and in accordance with which they are to regulate it, is the preaching of the ecclesiastical magisterium.(27) The following assertions concern the proximate rule of faith.
1. The Church's preaching was established by Christ Himself as the rule of faith. This can be proved from Matthew 28:19—20 and Mark 16:15—16; the command to teach all nations certainly implies a corresponding duty on the part of the nations to believe whatever the apostles and their successors teach, On the other hand, there is no notice anywhere of Christ's having commanded the apostles to give the people the doctrine of salvation in writing, and never did He command the faithful as a whole to seek their faith in the Bible.(28)
2. The Church's preaching is a rule of faith which is nicely accommodated to people's needs. For (a) it is an easy rule, one that can be observed by all alike, even the uneducated and unlettered. What could be easier than to give ear to a magisterium that is always at hand and always preaching? (b) It is a safe rule, for the Church's teaching office is infallible in safeguarding and presenting Christ's doctrine. (c) It is a living rule, in accordance with which it is possible in any age to explain the meaning of doctrines and to put an end to controversies. |
|
.........................
It would be comparatively easy for us to be holy if only we could always see the character of our neighbours either in soft shade or with the kindly deceits of moonlight upon them. Of course, we are not to grow blind to evil for thus we should speedily become unreal; but we must grow to something higher, and something truer, than a quickness in detecting evil. - Fr. Faber
|
| Posted Jul 29, 2012, 3:29 pm |
|
Ignored by: 0
|
|
|
Nishant
Reputation: 767
(Likers: 0 / Critics: 0)
Posts: 1,091
|
Yes, but this does not help the sedevacantist case. Here is Msgr.Noort, Dogmatic Theology, the sources of faith.
| Quote: | Since it was established in the volume, Christ’s Church, that the Church’s infallible teaching power extends to matters connected with revelation and that its infallible authority deserves an absolutely firm assent, the only question which remains is what name to give that assent and how to describe its nature. These points will be discussed in just a moment.
Meantime, notice that the Church possesses infallibility not only when she is defining some matter in solemn fashion, but also when she is exercising the full weight of her authority through her ordinary and universal teaching. Consequently, we must hold with an absolute assent, which we call “ecclesiastical faith,” the following theological truths: (a) those which the Magisterium has infallibly defined in solemn fashion; (b) those which the ordinary magisterium dispersed throughout the world unmistakably proposes to its members as something to be held (tenendas).
So, for example, one must give an absolute assent to the proposition: “Pius XII is the legitimate successor of St. Peter”; similarly (and as a matter of fact if this following point is something “formally revealed,” it will undoubtedly be a dogma of faith) one must give an absolute assent to the proposition: “Pius XII possesses the primacy of jurisdiction over the entire Church.” For — skipping the question of how it begins to be proven infallibly for the first time that this individual was legitimately elected to take St. Peter’s place — when someone has been constantly acting as Pope and has theoretically and practically been recognized as such by the bishops and by the universal Church, it is clear that the ordinary and universal magisterium is giving an utterly clear-cut witness to the legitimacy of his succession |
.
Thus, the question, "Or that the last remaining vestiges of those with any divine mandate and authority to rule the Church of God can together teach by example and practice what is objectively false?" is not an extrapolation. What you are saying is the opposite of what St.Pius X said, and does necessarily invert the order that exists in the Church by divine institution where the Church taught hears the teaching Church, including on such matters as Msgr.Noort says above.
| Quote: | | The fact that there is a single false claimant makes the situation different than just a vacant see (pope dies and there is no election for 50 years). We are considering a series of unopposed false popes with apparent canonical elections. |
Ok, so this is your position. Good.
The reason such a stance is untenable is because it pretends that a person outside the Catholic Church who is deprived on any power to command within it is nonetheless able to effect even what no mere true Bishop of the Church who does have the power to command within it does. Surely, this is by all accounts an impossibility.
|
.........................
"There will be an Ecumenical Council in the next century, after which there will be chaos in the Church. Tranquility will not return until the Pope succeeds in anchoring the boat of Peter between the twin pillars of Eucharistic Devotion and Devotion to Our Lady. This will come about one year before the end of the century." ~ St. John Bosco, "Twin Pillars prophecy", A.D. 1862.
|
| Posted Jul 30, 2012, 8:14 pm |
|
Ignored by: 0
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
