Send CathInfo's owner Matthew a gift from his Amazon wish list:
https://www.amazon.com/hz/wishlist/ls/25M2B8RERL1UO

« previous next »
Pages: 1 ... 14 15 [16] 17 18 ... 23

Author Topic: Why the Neo-SSPX position on the Crisis is untenable  (Read 30525 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline DigitalLogos

Re: Why the Neo-SSPX position on the Crisis is untenable
« Reply #75 on: August 31, 2022, 04:55:35 PM »
Quote from: ByzCat3000 on August 31, 2022, 04:23:07 PM
it does seem to me that the logical conclusion of this reasoning is that V2 can’t be erroneous because God wouldn’t allow the visible church to get wrong who the pope/councils are
Um....the Great Western schism anyone?
Logged

Offline Ladislaus

  • Supporter
Re: Why the Neo-SSPX position on the Crisis is untenable
« Reply #76 on: August 31, 2022, 05:44:35 PM »
Quote from: DigitalLogos on August 31, 2022, 04:55:35 PM
Um....the Great Western schism anyone?

Right.  So God won't allow the faithful to get it wrong about the Pope, but will allow the Pope to get it wrong about the faith?

This principle of Universal Acceptance actually derives (per Billot) from the notion that the faithful cannot adhere to a false rule of faith.  Hello?  This presumes that the Pope is the rule of faith.  So the faithful cannot adhere to an erroneous RULE of faith, but they can adhere to a false FAITH?  None of this computes.
Logged

Offline ByzCat3000

Re: Why the Neo-SSPX position on the Crisis is untenable
« Reply #77 on: August 31, 2022, 10:23:53 PM »
Quote from: Ladislaus on August 31, 2022, 05:44:35 PM
Right.  So God won't allow the faithful to get it wrong about the Pope, but will allow the Pope to get it wrong about the faith?

This principle of Universal Acceptance actually derives (per Billot) from the notion that the faithful cannot adhere to a false rule of faith.  Hello?  This presumes that the Pope is the rule of faith.  So the faithful cannot adhere to an erroneous RULE of faith, but they can adhere to a false FAITH?  None of this computes.
I’m not arguing for R and R, or really anything in particular. But I don’t see how the great western schism applies here.  With the great western schism, there was a real disagreement among the faithful about WHO the pope is.  Whereas in this case, Sedes AND R and R are kinda numerically insignificant, and none of them have an alternative claimant.  I get that the situation is a mess and we can look at it and plainly see it’s a mess, but I don’t understand the LOGIC of how that beats universal acceptnace
Logged

Offline ServusInutilisDomini

Re: Why the Neo-SSPX position on the Crisis is untenable
« Reply #78 on: September 01, 2022, 05:20:35 AM »
Quote from: ByzCat3000 on August 31, 2022, 10:23:53 PM
I’m not arguing for R and R, or really anything in particular. But I don’t see how the great western schism applies here.  With the great western schism, there was a real disagreement among the faithful about WHO the pope is.  Whereas in this case, Sedes AND R and R are kinda numerically insignificant, and none of them have an alternative claimant.  I get that the situation is a mess and we can look at it and plainly see it’s a mess, but I don’t understand the LOGIC of how that beats universal acceptnace
Arguably, most of the Catholics left are Sedes and R&R.

Quote
Actually only those are to be included as members of the Church who have been baptized and profess the true faith, and who have not been so unfortunate as to separate themselves from the unity of the Body, or been excluded by legitimate authority for grave faults committed.

~ Mystici Corporis Christ
Therefore, the identity of the Pope is very contentious.

I couldn't find the quote now but some theologian said that even if there was no Pope during the Western schism that would be no problem.
Logged

Offline DigitalLogos

Re: Why the Neo-SSPX position on the Crisis is untenable
« Reply #79 on: September 01, 2022, 07:07:42 AM »
Quote from: ByzCat3000 on August 31, 2022, 10:23:53 PM
I’m not arguing for R and R, or really anything in particular. But I don’t see how the great western schism applies here.  With the great western schism, there was a real disagreement among the faithful about WHO the pope is.  Whereas in this case, Sedes AND R and R are kinda numerically insignificant, and none of them have an alternative claimant.  I get that the situation is a mess and we can look at it and plainly see it’s a mess, but I don’t understand the LOGIC of how that beats universal acceptnace
But these Popes aren't universally accepted, now are they? Or do sedevacantists not count? As Fr. Cekada said, "what are we? Chopped liver?"
As for the Schism. It does apply insofar as it is the only other time in history where there was utter confusion about who the Pope was and who to follow. In this situation, many believe these claimants to be Pope, but the fact of their clearly manifest heresies have led to the question of legitimacy rather than identity. Hence why there are two more prominent camps on how to address this problem. It is the most confusing situation in Church history.
There's also the example of Pope Liberius, who was believed to have fallen into heresy. This led the faithful to elect Antipope Felix II, but this withdrawal from universal acceptance of Liberius did not delegitimize his claim to be Pope.
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 14 15 [16] 17 18 ... 23
« previous next »