But that does not address the issue of what we have been told about "Indefectibility" by those we all agree had authority, as, for example, the hierarchy and the theologians who worked with, and under the auspices of, Cardinals Franzelin and Ottaviani in the Vatican I and Vatican II schemas I referenced, and the theologians of the Catholic Encyclopedia.
It is what they told us about Indefectibility, for example, that has us all tied up into knots regarding the status of the Catholic Church since Vatican II and its developments.
One can quibble about the precise limits of infallibility in the strict sense, but if the Magisterium and Public Worship and Universal Discipline of the Church can become so corrupt as to permit and even require Catholics to break submission to and communion with the hierarchy, then the Church has clearly defected. When you cannot co-exist in conscience with these people, considering them to be in a different religion, the Church has defected.
We're not talking about a purported error here or there ... that one might address by respectfully disagreeing with the Church hierarchy.
If you think that the Conciliar Church continues to be substantially the Catholic Church, then you need to do as the Motarians, the
Ecclesia Dei groups, and get back in there, fighting the battle from within the Church, outside of which there is no salvation.. But if you think that the Conciliar Church is no longer substantially Catholic, to the point that you cannot co-exist with them as co-religionists, then the Church has clearly defected. If the "Catholic Church" is no longer substantially the "Catholic Church," then that's the very definition of something ceasing to be (what it was) and therefore defecting.
If you claim that the Catholic Church can, while continuing to be the Catholic Church, based merely upon a material continuity, become this thoroughly corrupted, then you gut the very purpose for Christ having founded the Church and you're no longer Catholic.
This is not merely a difference in degree in terms of one error vs. twenty-five errors, but a difference in kind, where there's a substantial discontinuity.
R&R try to nitpick this as just all an accruing number of errors in discrete or individual non-infallible teachings that happened to be wrong, rather than as a substantial transformation ... and it's only the latter that can justify a severing of subjection to and communion with the hierarchy of that (non-Catholic institution), at which point you most hold that the hierarchy of said non-Catholic religion is not the Catholic hierarchy.
It's that simple ... the very principles laid out in basic Catechism classes and simple Apolgetics manuals in the theological explanation for why Christ founded One True Church and the nature of that Church as having the notes where it can be easily identified as one and the same as the Church founded by Christ. Simple thought experiment to demonstrate this is to pretend that St. Pius X had been timewarped forward to today. Would he recognize this Conciliar abominaton as the Catholic Church? If you say that he would, you're even more of a liar than I first thought.
This really is Catholicism 101, and if this doesn't compute or make sense to you as basically almost self-evidence by Catholic principles, then you absolutely have lost the faith and are nothing but a heretic of the Old Catholic variety who clings to the smells and bells. It's perplexing how any "Catholic" could possibly spew the apostatic heresies that are vomited from the mouths of self-professed Trads.
Snap out of it before you lose your souls.
Topic: Considering Sedevacantism and Jurisdiction (Read 5095 times)