Author Topic: Considering Sedevacantism and Jurisdiction (Read 5104 times)

Yeti · « **Reply #60 on:** March 28, 2025, 07:14:28 PM »

Quote from: Änσnymσus on March 28, 2025, 02:14:07 PM

Anyone with discernment and honesty can see that Decem is correct in stating that sedevacantism and privationism fail to maintain the indefectibility of the Church. Lad is also correct that the vatican 2 hierarchy fails to meet the same requirements on different grounds, and they also introduce condemned heresies.

There is no reconciling either the novus ordo position, the motu position, the R&R position, or the sede/semi-vacantist positions with Vatican 1 and the indefectibility of the Church. Those with eyes to see can read this whole thread and see that.

.

It is not defined dogma that there will always be bishops in the Church with jurisdiction. I have asked people who make this claim for a canon from a council, or a dogmatic definition from any pope to this effect, and no one has ever been able to provide it.

Quote

Vatican 1 and the indefectibility of the Church

What exactly from Vatican I are you referring to? And what definition of the indefectibility of the Church are you referring to? Which pope defined your definition?

Yeti · « **Reply #61 on:** March 28, 2025, 07:34:23 PM »

Quote from: Änσnymσus on March 28, 2025, 02:14:07 PM

There is no reconciling either the novus ordo position, the motu position, the R&R position, or the sede/semi-vacantist positions with Vatican 1 and the indefectibility of the Church. Those with eyes to see can read this whole thread and see that.

.

Okay, so then which position do you think can be reconciled with those things?

Änσnymσus · « **Reply #62 on:** March 29, 2025, 01:11:08 AM »

Quote from: Yeti on March 28, 2025, 07:14:28 PM

.

It is not defined dogma that there will always be bishops in the Church with jurisdiction. I have asked people who make this claim for a canon from a council, or a dogmatic definition from any pope to this effect, and no one has ever been able to provide it.

What exactly from Vatican I are you referring to? And what definition of the indefectibility of the Church are you referring to? Which pope defined your definition?

Quote from: Yeti 3/28/2025, 7:14:28 PM
.
It is not defined dogma that there will always be bishops in the Church with jurisdiction. I have asked people who make this claim for a canon from a council, or a dogmatic definition from any pope to this effect, and no one has ever been able to provide it.
What exactly from Vatican I are you referring to? And what definition of the indefectibility of the Church are you referring to? Which pope defined your definition?
Forgive me for not having quotes on hand. It has been some time since I studied these things. The requirement for ordinary bishops (bishops in the full sense of the word is all this is) is contained in the very Nicene Creed. It is part of the mark of Apostolicity. Mere vagrant "bishops" who dispense sacraments are not properly successors of the apostles. This is common teaching in any dogmatic theology manual. And despite what guerardians claim, this intrinsic part of apostolicity can no more be present "merely in act" than can the mark of catholicity, holiness, or unity. It is absurd to think so, and such a theory is the result of a desperate mind. (As a side note for Lad and others, Fr Desposito himself acknowledges the need for this and thus when pressed states that the modernist hierarchy possesses jurisdiction not merely in potency but in "first act.") Rationalist sophistry.
My mentioning of Vatican 1 was primarily directed to the groups who adhere to a heretical pope. However, Vatican1 does also state that there will be perpetual successors of St Peter in the Roman See. It has been 70 years and there is no successor. While it's true that no timeliness was defined, there must be a mechanism for a pope to be elected (there is not, except in the privationist view, which is an extreme novelty and causes more problems than it attempts to solve.) We are nearing a century of no pope according to these people. That is 1/20th of the Church's existence. It is an extreme cope to pretend this isn't contrary to what Vatican 1 was meant to teach.

I find it odd for a sede to require an infallible ex cathedra statement on indefectibility, since they typically acknowledge the Universal ordinary magisterium. This teaching can be found in ant dogmatic theology manual (ott or tanquerey are easy english examples) as well as any larger catechism. They will invariably teach that the Church's constitution includes a teaching hierarchy. The Catechism may not get into the details, but we know from dogmatic that a teaching hierarchy is precisely those bishops with habitual/ordinary jurisdiction. It is intrinsic to the nature of the Church. I think it's fairly obvious. It was always part of the Church for nearly 200 years,l... are we going to radically alter the perennial ecclesiology in a desperate attempt to cope with the realities in front of us? (heretical bishops in Rome and elsewhere)

Änσnymσus · « **Reply #63 on:** March 29, 2025, 01:36:20 AM »

Evidently I failed to post properly and it is very hard to read. Here is my last post done properly:

Forgive me for not having quotes on hand. It has been some time since I studied these things. The requirement for ordinary bishops (bishops in the full sense of the word is all this is) is contained in the very Nicene Creed. It is part of the mark of Apostolicity. Mere vagrant "bishops" who dispense sacraments are not properly successors of the apostles. This is common teaching in any dogmatic theology manual. And despite what guerardians claim, this intrinsic part of apostolicity can no more be present "merely in act" than can the mark of catholicity, holiness, or unity. It is absurd to think so, and such a theory is the result of a desperate mind. (As a side note for Lad and others, Fr Desposito himself acknowledges the need for this and thus when pressed states that the modernist hierarchy possesses jurisdiction not merely in potency but in "first act.") Rationalist sophistry.
My mentioning of Vatican 1 was primarily directed to the groups who adhere to a heretical pope. However, Vatican1 does also state that there will be perpetual successors of St Peter in the Roman See. It has been 70 years and there is no successor. While it's true that no timeliness was defined, there must be a mechanism for a pope to be elected (there is not, except in the privationist view, which is an extreme novelty and causes more problems than it attempts to solve.) We are nearing a century of no pope according to these people. That is 1/20th of the Church's existence. It is an extreme cope to pretend this isn't contrary to what Vatican 1 was meant to teach.

I find it odd for a sede to require an infallible ex cathedra statement on indefectibility, since they typically acknowledge the Universal ordinary magisterium. This teaching can be found in ant dogmatic theology manual (ott or tanquerey are easy english examples) as well as any larger catechism. They will invariably teach that the Church's constitution includes a teaching hierarchy. The Catechism may not get into the details, but we know from dogmatic that a teaching hierarchy is precisely those bishops with habitual/ordinary jurisdiction. It is intrinsic to the nature of the Church. I think it's fairly obvious. It was always part of the Church for nearly 200 years,l... are we going to radically alter the perennial ecclesiology in a desperate attempt to cope with the realities in front of us? (heretical bishops in Rome and elsewhere)

Änσnymσus · « **Reply #64 on:** March 29, 2025, 06:01:13 AM »

Quote from: Änσnymσus on March 29, 2025, 01:36:20 AM

Evidently I failed to post properly and it is very hard to read. Here is my last post done properly:

Forgive me for not having quotes on hand. It has been some time since I studied these things. The requirement for ordinary bishops (bishops in the full sense of the word is all this is) is contained in the very Nicene Creed. It is part of the mark of Apostolicity. Mere vagrant "bishops" who dispense sacraments are not properly successors of the apostles. This is common teaching in any dogmatic theology manual. And despite what guerardians claim, this intrinsic part of apostolicity can no more be present "merely in act" than can the mark of catholicity, holiness, or unity. It is absurd to think so, and such a theory is the result of a desperate mind. (As a side note for Lad and others, Fr Desposito himself acknowledges the need for this and thus when pressed states that the modernist hierarchy possesses jurisdiction not merely in potency but in "first act.") Rationalist sophistry.

What would those same theology manuals say if they were to be written today? IOW, no theologian foresaw the aftermath of the situation in the Church after V2, this total lack of foresight is reflected in what those theology manuals teach.

Änσnymσus · « **Reply #65 on:** March 29, 2025, 08:28:51 AM »

If this was not repeated over and over if would be quite astounding, but, as the Book says, "we've been told this before.

Luke 16:29 And Abraham said to him: They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them.

It has been revealed by sacred Scripture that the saints would be overcome by the beast/antichrist/man of sin (for example, in Daniel and the Apocalypse), and that this would happen "in the holy place" (Mt24:15) or the "temple of God" (2 Thess. 2:4).

But evidently that's not good enough, since we gotta follow man's teaching that the Church and its hierarchy would be "indefectible" until the Lord's return. Why, well, the "indefectible" ones told us so. Right. Got it.

I'll listen to the direct revelation of God, since He told us before. Mt 24:15.

But hey, let's twist ourselves into pretzels about these guys who have betrayed their commission and mandate, and placed the "abomination" in the holy place.

Or pretend that they really aren't who they say they are . . . yeah, that's better.

2 Cor. 11:3 But I fear lest, as the serpent seduced Eve by his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted, and fall from the simplicity that is in Christ.

Maybe tomorrow, St. Paul. Maybe.

The sun doesn't usually stand still in the sky, and men don't usually rise from the dead . . . but it happens, according to the will of God. Not really that complicated after all.

Änσnymσus · « **Reply #66 on:** March 29, 2025, 08:29:12 AM »

Quote from: Änσnymσus on March 29, 2025, 08:28:51 AM

If this was not repeated over and over if would be quite astounding, but, as the Book says, "we've been told this before."

Luke 16:29 And Abraham said to him: They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them.

It has been revealed by sacred Scripture that the saints would be overcome by the beast/antichrist/man of sin (for example, in Daniel and the Apocalypse), and that this would happen "in the holy place" (Mt24:15) or the "temple of God" (2 Thess. 2:4).

But evidently that's not good enough, since we gotta follow man's teaching that the Church and its hierarchy would be "indefectible" until the Lord's return. Why, well, the "indefectible" ones told us so. Right. Got it.

I'll listen to the direct revelation of God, since He told us before. Mt 24:15.

But hey, let's twist ourselves into pretzels about these guys who have betrayed their commission and mandate, and placed the "abomination" in the holy place.

Or pretend that they really aren't who they say they are . . . yeah, that's better.

2 Cor. 11:3 But I fear lest, as the serpent seduced Eve by his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted, and fall from the simplicity that is in Christ.

Maybe tomorrow, St. Paul. Maybe.

The sun doesn't usually stand still in the sky, and men don't usually rise from the dead . . . but it happens, according to the will of God. Not really that complicated after all.

DecemRationis · « **Reply #67 on:** March 29, 2025, 08:30:08 AM »

That was me.

Änσnymσus · « **Reply #68 on:** March 29, 2025, 08:52:01 AM »

It makes sense that facing the crisis in the roman catholic church today makes many want to deny her previously established doctrines and diminish their authority in order to avoid what is a blatant contradiction. Every one of the roman catholic positions at this point does this: novus order, motus, r&r, sede, guerardians... every one of them has to reinvent certain plain teachings in order to construct a "hermeneutics of continuity" as the modernist have coined it.

The problem is that we are not speaking of some recent invention of theologians which can simply be discarded. It is plain to anyone not already confused by their own position that the early Church had authority (jurisdiction) and this is intrinsic to the Church's nature. I understand the confusion, but by adhering to a supposed Church that lacks teaching and ruling authority, we make ourselves protestants. Just read the last few posts... the protestants did the same thing, appealing to end times prophecies to justify their claim that there was no more living hierarchy tk which they had to adhere. Why? Because the Bible said so, according to their private interpretation.

We can't just reinvent the wheel here. For instance, it is very popular now to allege that the "abomination in the holy place" spoken of is Rome in the eschaton. This is NOT a patristic view. It is an understandable novelty meant to justify a departure from Rome as it exists today.

The Universal teaching of the Church (not merely after Vatican 1 mind you) is that she will always have the power to govern and teach. It is intrinsic to what Christ established. If your position forces you to deny this or invent novel distinctions to wiggle out of it, your position is simply wrong. Indefectibility is simply a fleshing out of Christ's promise concerning the gates of hades.

Tonuse Sanborns famous Aristotelean syllogism, change is either accidental or substantial. The Church established by Christ hasthe power to trach and rule. To suddenly lack these powers would be a substantial, not merely an accidental change. Therefore a Church lacking these things is not the Church established by Christ. It is different in substance.

Änσnymσus · « **Reply #69 on:** March 29, 2025, 08:56:06 AM »

So these are the positions and none of them are legit?

Indult - There is no problem with Vatican II.
SSPX/R'n'R - He's a legitimate pope but we make our own rules.
SVPriv - Heretics and Apostates can't be popes/Church can't teach error, so no way can he be pope VII clearly isn't the Church.
Other - None of these work.

So what is the alternative if someone is seriously looking to find the Church?

Angelus · « **Reply #70 on:** March 29, 2025, 09:28:11 AM »

Quote

Quote from: DecemRationis on Today at 08:28:51 AM

If this was not repeated over and over if would be quite astounding, but, as the Book says, "we've been told this before."

Luke 16:29 And Abraham said to him: They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them.

It has been revealed by sacred Scripture that the saints would be overcome by the beast/antichrist/man of sin (for example, in Daniel and the Apocalypse), and that this would happen "in the holy place" (Mt24:15) or the "temple of God" (2 Thess. 2:4).

But evidently that's not good enough, since we gotta follow man's teaching that the Church and its hierarchy would be "indefectible" until the Lord's return. Why, well, the "indefectible" ones told us so. Right. Got it.

I'll listen to the direct revelation of God, since He told us before. Mt 24:15.

But hey, let's twist ourselves into pretzels about these guys who have betrayed their commission and mandate, and placed the "abomination" in the holy place.

Or pretend that they really aren't who they say they are . . . yeah, that's better.

2 Cor. 11:3 But I fear lest, as the serpent seduced Eve by his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted, and fall from the simplicity that is in Christ.

Maybe tomorrow, St. Paul. Maybe.

The sun doesn't usually stand still in the sky, and men don't usually rise from the dead . . . but it happens, according to the will of God. Not really that complicated after all.

Decem, I will explain where I think you and I disagree.

In my opinion, you are not distinguishing between the true Church vs the counterfeit Church.

The true Church is "indefectible." That is the Catholic dogma. The people who make up the true Church are referred to as the "wheat," who will be collected by the angels and put into "the barn."

The Counterfeit of the Church, that institution composed of what St. Augustine and other called the "false brethren," is not "indefectible." They will definitely "defect" from the true Faith in the end times and follow the Antichrist to their own destruction. These people are the "tares" or the "cockle," which will be burned.

The word "Church" comes from the New Testament Greek word "ecclesia," meaning those who are "called out," as in called out of "the world." Metaphorically, the "Church" is also called the "mystical body of Christ."

The institution that we call "the Church" is made up of two parts: those who are truly members and the false members. Again, this is Augustine and others, not me.

Defection means that one deviates from the true Faith. The person who "defects" is a heretic or an apostate or a true schismatic. An institution cannot "defect." Individual people "defect" from the Faith. Defection requires acts of intellect and will. Only individual people have those faculties.

Therefore, the "indefectibility of the Church," in its dogmatic meaning derived from Jesus's "gates of Hell" comment, is true. But it is only applicable to the true believers, not the false members who posture as Catholics. And "indefectiblity" is not a thing that can be accomplished by in impersonal institution. It is the triumph of the true believers, the faithful remnant.

The purpose of the end times is to allow Satan to sift the Church so that the true wheat is separated from the false wheat through voluntary, individual decisions. The true wheat will choose to follow Our Lord's instructions and commandments. The false, the cockle, will follow the Antichrist in his contradictions of Our Lord's teachings.

Does this make sense? Have I misunderstood you? If so, I apologize.

Änσnymσus · « **Reply #71 on:** March 29, 2025, 10:01:41 AM »

I have read Kalistos Ware again? I looked into Orthodoxy so I won't be going there.

Matthew · « **Reply #72 on:** March 29, 2025, 10:08:34 AM »

Quote

SSPX/R'n'R - He's a legitimate pope but we make our own rules.

This was clearly written by someone who does not hold the position in question. Not exactly objective. That should be obvious to all.

Matthew · « **Reply #73 on:** March 29, 2025, 10:18:06 AM »

Univocity has been banned for heresy/schism. CathInfo is a forum for TRADITIONAL CATHOLICS, not anyone and everyone who ever had anything against the institutional Catholic Church, Papacy, etc.

CathInfo is certainly not a place for the Orthodox (capital O, schismatics/heretics) to hang out.

Saying "The solution is Holy Orthodoxy" is saying you don't belong here.

If Univocity left any other such "gems" after he decided to unmask himself, I'd appreciate any reports letting me know about it. I am not tolerant of so-called "Orthodoxy" (which is actually schism and heresy) on my forum.

Änσnymσus · « **Reply #74 on:** March 29, 2025, 10:29:57 AM »

Quote from: Änσnymσus on March 29, 2025, 08:56:06 AM

So these are the positions and none of them are legit?

Indult - There is no problem with Vatican II.
SSPX/R'n'R - He's a legitimate pope but we make our own rules.
SVPriv - Heretics and Apostates can't be popes/Church can't teach error, so no way can he be pope VII clearly isn't the Church.
Other - None of these work.

So what is the alternative if someone is seriously looking to find the Church?

Indult - Not sure which way to go / "It's the best I can do for now" / "I can go here and still be a good Catholic" / etc.

SSPX / R&R - That the pope is a heretic and all but completely condemns the Mass of PPV and those who attend it, means the pope is gravely wrong.

SV always on tilt - Pope is a heretic, heretics and Apostates can't be popes / Pope is a heretic, heretics and Apostates can't be popes / Pope is a heretic, heretics and Apostates can't be popes / Pope is a heretic, heretics and Apostates can't be popes / Pope is a heretic, heretics and Apostates can't be popes / Pope is a heretic, heretics and Apostates can't be popes / Pope is a heretic, heretics and Apostates can't be popes / Pope is a heretic, heretics and Apostates can't be popes / Pope is a heretic, heretics and Apostates can't be popes / Pope is a heretic, heretics and Apostates can't be popes / Pope is a heretic, heretics and Apostates can't be popes / Pope is a heretic, heretics and Apostates can't be popes / Pope is a heretic, heretics and Apostates can't be popes / Pope is a heretic, heretics and Apostates can't be popes / Pope is a heretic, heretics and Apostates can't be popes / Pope is a heretic, heretics and Apostates can't be popes / Pope is a heretic, heretics and Apostates can't be popes / Pope is a heretic, heretics and Apostates can't be popes / Pope is a heretic, heretics and Apostates can't be popes / Pope is a heretic, heretics and Apostates can't be popes / Pope is a heretic, heretics and Apostates can't be popes / Pope is a heretic, heretics and Apostates can't be popes / Pope is a heretic, heretics and Apostates can't be popes / Pope is a heretic, heretics and Apostates can't be popes / Pope is a heretic, heretics and Apostates can't be popes / Pope is a heretic, heretics and Apostates can't be popes / Pope is a heretic, heretics and Apostates can't be popes / Pope is a heretic, heretics and Apostates can't be popes / Pope is a heretic, heretics and Apostates can't be popes / Pope is a heretic, heretics and Apostates can't be popes / Pope is a heretic, heretics and Apostates can't be popes / Pope is a heretic, heretics and Apostates can't be popes / Pope is a heretic, heretics and Apostates can't be popes / Pope is a heretic, heretics and Apostates can't be popes / Pope is a heretic, heretics and Apostates can't be popes / Pope is a heretic, heretics and Apostates can't be popes / Pope is a heretic, heretics and Apostates can't be popes / Pope is a heretic, heretics and Apostates can't be popes / Pope is a heretic, heretics and Apostates can't be popes / Pope is a heretic, heretics and Apostates can't be popes / Pope is a heretic, heretics and Apostates can't be popes / Pope is a heretic, heretics and Apostates can't be popes / Pope is a heretic, heretics and Apostates can't be popes / Pope is a heretic, heretics and Apostates can't be popes / Pope is a heretic, heretics and Apostates can't be popes / Pope is a heretic, heretics and Apostates can't be popes / Pope is a heretic, heretics and Apostates can't be popes / Pope is a heretic, heretics and Apostates can't be popes / Pope is a heretic, heretics and Apostates can't be popes / Pope is a heretic, heretics and Apostates can't be popes / Pope is a heretic, heretics and Apostates can't be popes / Pope is a heretic, heretics and Apostates can't be popes / Pope is a heretic, heretics and Apostates can't be popes / Pope is a heretic, heretics and Apostates can't be popes / Pope is a heretic, heretics and Apostates can't be popes / ad infinitum.....

Author Topic: Considering Sedevacantism and Jurisdiction (Read 5104 times)

Yeti

Re: Considering Sedevacantism and Jurisdiction

Yeti

Re: Considering Sedevacantism and Jurisdiction

Änσnymσus

Re: Considering Sedevacantism and Jurisdiction

Änσnymσus

Re: Considering Sedevacantism and Jurisdiction

Änσnymσus

Re: Considering Sedevacantism and Jurisdiction

Änσnymσus

Re: Considering Sedevacantism and Jurisdiction

Änσnymσus

Re: Considering Sedevacantism and Jurisdiction

DecemRationis

Re: Considering Sedevacantism and Jurisdiction

Änσnymσus

Re: Considering Sedevacantism and Jurisdiction

Änσnymσus

Re: Considering Sedevacantism and Jurisdiction

Angelus

Re: Considering Sedevacantism and Jurisdiction

Änσnymσus

Re: Considering Sedevacantism and Jurisdiction

Matthew

Re: Considering Sedevacantism and Jurisdiction

Matthew

Re: Considering Sedevacantism and Jurisdiction

Änσnymσus

Re: Considering Sedevacantism and Jurisdiction