Read an Interview with Matthew, the owner of CathInfo

Author Topic: A challenge for those in SSPX or Resistance  (Read 2395 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Pax Vobis

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 3104
  • Reputation: +1901/-961
  • Gender: Male
Re: A challenge for those in SSPX or Resistance
« Reply #30 on: June 13, 2018, 07:56:11 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!2
  • Quote
    Like the very big facet of needing a "convalidation feedback loop" as Lad calls it when dealing with a pope.
    "... the Magisterium then becomes subject to a convalidation feedback loop.  Pope teaches dogma.  Is dogma Traditional?  If yes, then accept.  If not, then reject pope.  Rinse.  Repeat.  Ultimate arbiter of dogma then becomes the individual's private judgment. "
    I disagree with your and Ladislaus' over-simplification of the magisterium.  He might be right in his understanding of it, but his explanations on this site are wrong, in my opinion.  Here's why I say that.

    When Christ ascended into heaven 40 days after Easter, he left the Apostles with ALL the teachings of the Church.  After the Ascension, the 'revelation' of truth by Christ was over.  So, we can say that after the Ascension ALL of the truths of our Faith were understood by the Apostles.  These were passed on to the future by only 2 means - Scripture (written) or Tradition (oral).

    Scripture or Tradition contains ALL Catholic Truth.  As of 33 A.D., the Church had the FULL Truth.  As of 33 A.D., the Magisterium (the teaching authority of the Church) had the FULL Truth.  Ergo, after 33 A.D., the Truths of the Faith are set in stone.

    Because of these facts, anytime in the future (i.e. post 33 A.D.) when the Church makes use of Her teaching office (i.e. Magisterium), Her job is to re-teach, or clarify those truths which have existed since 33 A.D.  The Magisterium cannot teach something new, or make new doctrines, or dogma, etc.  All Truths of our Faith were handed down by Christ to the Apostles and the Church's job after the Apostles is to teach "that which has always been taught".  Her job is to clarify and certify the Truth when She faces heretics, schismatics and pagans.  

    ...So, in answer to the above quoted sentences, I say:
    1.  The Magisterium is not subject to a "feedback loop".
    2.  If the Pope teaches dogma, then He is certifying, by his Apostolic Authority that such a dogma "always existed" since the time of Christ.
    3.  The question of "is the dogma traditional?" is nonsensical.  All dogma is traditional, by definition, because all dogma is Apostolic in origin, as taught by Christ.
    4.  The question which is not being asked is this:  "Is all papal teaching dogma or doctrine?"  The answer is "no".  There are different levels of authority to papal teaching, just as there are different levels to the magisterium.  Those papal teachings which are infallible are doctrine/dogma, for the pope uses his apostolic authority to tell us that such a teaching is 1) to be believed with certainty of faith, 2) because it is apostolic in origin, and 3) came from Christ.
    5.  All "teachings" which are fallible, are not "of the faith" and not from Christ because they are:
     a.  not taught with 'certainty of faith'
     b.  not taught with apostolic authority
     c.  not taught as binding under pain of sin

    Such fallible teachings by the magisterium are not 'dogma' or 'doctrine' and are not part of the Faith.  Ergo, if one compares FALLIBLE teachings with previous INFALLIBLE teachings of the Church, this is not wrong, or prideful, but expected.  Just as current theologians have debated with theologians of the past, so magisteriums can challenge previous magisteriums.

    How is this so?  Because the magisterium is not always infallible.  The magisterium is the teaching authority of the church, which is the hierarchy + the pope.  There are 2 ways the magisterium can teach infallibly:  
    1.  If the magisterium fulfills the requirements of infallibility as set forth by Vatican 1, then it is solemnly infallible.
    2.  If the magisterium teaches "that which has always been taught" and proves it is of Apostolic times, then it is non-solemnly infallible.  

    Yet, if a magisterium of the Church, attempts to teach a truth which a) does not fulfill the requirements of Vatican 1, and b) is not apostolic, then we can be sure it is not from Christ.  V2 is an example of a "teaching" which a) did not fulfill the requirements of Vatican 1, and b) has failed to show how its novel ideals are apostolic and Traditional (i.e. from Christ).

    So in such a case of contradiction and confusion, how do we know which magisterium is right?  By the language used and the 'certainty of faith' with which things are taught, by the 'apostolic authority' expressed and by the 'binding nature' of the teaching.  If some "teachings" are missing the 3 above attributes, then they are not part of official Church teaching, and are outweighed by previous magisteriums which taught with all 3 attributes.

    V2 did not teach with 'certainty of faith' or 'by apostolic authority' or 'under pain of sin' therefore it did not teach infallibly.  Therefore, in any area where V2 contradicts previous dogma, doctrine or infallible statement, then it is overruled, it is superceded, it is anathema.

    Offline Ladislaus

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 15239
    • Reputation: +8039/-2523
    • Gender: Male
    Re: A challenge for those in SSPX or Resistance
    « Reply #31 on: June 14, 2018, 09:02:20 AM »
  • Thanks!2
  • No Thanks!2
  • At best, they are a logical answer when one facet (and one facet only) of the problem is hyper-focused upon. But as soon as you zoom out a bit, sedevacantism looks much less appealing. No pope for 60 years? What about Christ's promise that Peter would have perpetual successors? And so forth.

    And when you zoom out of R&R, it looks much less appealing too.  Sure, we have a Pope sitting in the chair.  But we're required to universally ignore him, denounce his Magisterium, denounce and reject the Universal Discipline he has imposed, etc.

    So what if there's a Pope in the chair when he's the opposite of the very raison d'etre of the papacy, to be the rock of our faith?  You'd be BETTER OFF WITHOUT a pope.  It's similar to how some people rejoice in the "government shutdown" because we're better off without such a corrupt government.

    So it's pick your poison.  Empty or partially-empty chair for 60 years or corrupt Magisterium and Universal Discipline leading souls to hell for 60 years.  If for one would rather believe that the chair has been empty than that the chair has been actively corrupting faith and morals for 60 years.


    Offline Ladislaus

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 15239
    • Reputation: +8039/-2523
    • Gender: Male
    Re: A challenge for those in SSPX or Resistance
    « Reply #32 on: June 14, 2018, 09:31:58 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!1
  • I disagree with your and Ladislaus' over-simplification of the magisterium. 

    ...

    V2 did not teach with 'certainty of faith' or 'by apostolic authority' or 'under pain of sin' therefore it did not teach infallibly.  Therefore, in any area where V2 contradicts previous dogma, doctrine or infallible statement, then it is overruled, it is superceded, it is anathema.

    Oh, on the contrary, it is YOU who oversimplify the Magisterium.  According to you, it's open season anything outside the .5% of dogmatic teachings in the Magisterium.  Since they're not strictly infallible, 99.5% of the Magisterium could be corrupt.  Anything short of that is subject to being examined and rejected by any Catholic.

    That is totally contrary to everything ever taught by any Catholic theologian before Vatican II.  Talk about un-Traditional.

    Offline Meg

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 2626
    • Reputation: +1218/-1869
    • Gender: Female
    Re: A challenge for those in SSPX or Resistance
    « Reply #33 on: June 14, 2018, 10:55:44 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!3
  • And when you zoom out of R&R, it looks much less appealing too.  Sure, we have a Pope sitting in the chair.  But we're required to universally ignore him, denounce his Magisterium, denounce and reject the Universal Discipline he has imposed, etc.

    So what if there's a Pope in the chair when he's the opposite of the very raison d'etre of the papacy, to be the rock of our faith?  You'd be BETTER OFF WITHOUT a pope.  It's similar to how some people rejoice in the "government shutdown" because we're better off without such a corrupt government.

    So it's pick your poison.  Empty or partially-empty chair for 60 years or corrupt Magisterium and Universal Discipline leading souls to hell for 60 years.  If for one would rather believe that the chair has been empty than that the chair has been actively corrupting faith and morals for 60 years.

    We need a Pope because we're Catholic.

    The idea of the seat being vacant is appealing to Americans who have an idea that they can decide who is or isn't a true Pope. It's similar to the Puritans who decided to go to the New World 400 years ago - so that they could be free from oppression in England. Well, it seems the same thing now with sedevacantists. They don't want the oppression that goes along with a seriously erring Pope. They want to be "free." Now look at what has happened in the U.S., and what "freedom" has done to it. 

    The Catholic Church requires a pope. +ABL knew this.

    Offline Pax Vobis

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 3104
    • Reputation: +1901/-961
    • Gender: Male
    Re: A challenge for those in SSPX or Resistance
    « Reply #34 on: June 14, 2018, 11:02:25 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!1
  • Quote
    According to you, it's open season anything outside the .5% of dogmatic teachings in the Magisterium.
    The magisterium's purpose is to teach.  Their job is to re-teach and clarify the truths of the Faith which are to be believed "everywhere, always and by all".  If the non-dogmatic, non-infallible magisterium errs (and they most certainly can), a catholic can only "reject" or question such error by pointing to a previous dogmatic/infallible statement and asking such authorities for clarification and why there seems to be a contradiction.

    You purposely sensationalize my argument to make me appear as some anarchist-catholic or a crazed protestant, instead of factually looking at the limits of the magisterium, examining their duties and then accepting the conclusion that if they act outside of their duties, and if they ignore the teaching formulas which they are supposed to use to teach the faithful and to have the utmost clarity, then such teachings are not dogma, are not certain, and not binding on anyone...ESPECIALLY when such fallible, non-dogmatic teachings CONTRADICT previous infallible, dogmatic magisterial decrees, which are WITHOUT A DOUBT binding and necessary for salvation.  

    In the past, when the fallible magisterium erred, or appeared to err, there were enough orthodox clergy who recognized such errors and who challenged them.  This is the normal course of action - Church officials are supposed to correct other church officials in order to protect the laity.  Normally, the laity is not involved, they are not educated enough to weigh in.

    In our current situation, we still have some church officials who stepped up to challenge errors by the fallible magisterium, most notably Cardinals Ottaviani, Bacci, etc who wrote against the new mass; +ABL and +Castro Meyer and many other priests during the 70s who spoke out against V2 and who helped to start Tradition.  What were these 'TLM founding fathers' doing but what I have suggested above, which my suggestion is not from me but simply a reiteration of their mindset?  They looked at the facts and realized that infallible magisterial teachings are greater than a fallible magisterial teaching (i.e. V2).  So they rejected novelties and stuck with Tradition.  This is exactly what St Athanasius did as well.

    This mindset is the foundation of the traditional movement.  The only difference is that currently, most of the 'founding fathers' are dead and their successors have not lived up to the founder's ideals or integrity.  Thus, in this 2nd phase of the fight for tradition, the laity are even more on their own, since most clerics of our day are giving into new-rome and compromise.

    If you criticize the idea that a catholic can challenge the fallible magisterium, then you shouldn't be a traditional catholic and should attend the local indult and be part of new-rome.  The fight for tradition was founded on the principals that 1) Truth does not change, and 2) the faith is handed down and cannot be "updated for modern man". 


    Offline Ladislaus

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 15239
    • Reputation: +8039/-2523
    • Gender: Male
    Re: A challenge for those in SSPX or Resistance
    « Reply #35 on: June 14, 2018, 11:27:32 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • The magisterium's purpose is to teach.

    And ours is to submit to said teaching.

    Offline Ladislaus

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 15239
    • Reputation: +8039/-2523
    • Gender: Male
    Re: A challenge for those in SSPX or Resistance
    « Reply #36 on: June 14, 2018, 11:28:47 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!1
  • You ... make me appear as some anarchist-catholic or a crazed protestant, ...

    You make YOURSELF appear that way.

    If the shoe fits, wear it.

    Offline Pax Vobis

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 3104
    • Reputation: +1901/-961
    • Gender: Male
    Re: A challenge for those in SSPX or Resistance
    « Reply #37 on: June 14, 2018, 02:00:25 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: Pax Vobis on Today at 12:02:25 PM
    Quote
    The magisterium's purpose is to teach.



    Quote
    Ladislaus said:
    And ours is to submit to said teaching.


    Submission is only required if said teaching is proposed as an article of faith, to be believed for salvation, under pain of sin.  All other "teachings" are not from the official Church, but from individual popes, bishops or cardinals who "teach" fallibly as private theologians, or clerics.  No catholic has to follow their local bishop into heresy, nor do they have to follow a pope who proposes novelties outside of his apostolic authority.

    If the magisterium proposes a teaching, but does not require it to be believed, then submission is also not required.  One cannot submit to an option.  V2 is not required for salvation, therefore submission is not required.

    The magisterium has limits to their teaching authority, just like the pope does.  You have ignored this fact, and continue to ignore it.


    Offline Cantarella

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 7035
    • Reputation: +4279/-556
    • Gender: Female
    Re: A challenge for those in SSPX or Resistance
    « Reply #38 on: June 14, 2018, 02:17:23 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: Pax Vobis on Today at 12:02:25 PM



    Submission is only required if said teaching is proposed as an article of faith, to be believed for salvation, under pain of sin.  All other "teachings" are not from the official Church, but from individual popes, bishops or cardinals who "teach" fallibly as private theologians, or clerics.

    Rather believe Vatican I Council than Pax Vobis.

    Pastor Aeternus:

    Quote
    2. Wherefore we teach and declare that, by divine ordinance, the Roman Church possesses a pre-eminence of ordinary power over every other Church, and that this jurisdictional power of the Roman Pontiff is both episcopal and immediate. Both clergy and faithful, of whatever rite and dignity, both singly and collectively, are bound to submit to this power by the duty of hierarchical subordination and true obedience, and this not only in matters concerning faith and morals, but also in those which regard the discipline and government of the Church throughout the world.
    If anyone says that true and natural water is not necessary for baptism and thus twists into some metaphor the words of our Lord Jesus Christ" Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Spirit" (Jn 3:5) let him be anathema.

    Offline Pax Vobis

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 3104
    • Reputation: +1901/-961
    • Gender: Male
    Re: A challenge for those in SSPX or Resistance
    « Reply #39 on: June 14, 2018, 02:46:12 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Disciplines of the Church and her governmental laws must all have penalties associated with them, in order for sin to be committed.  If there are no penalties for breaking a discipline or law, there is no sin, because in these areas the pope has the power to "bind and loose".  For example, the church says it's a sin to receive communion if you have eaten less than 1 hour before.  If the Church did not attach the penalty of sin, then if one were to break it, no sin would be committed.

    The Church has not attached the penalty of sin to the acceptance of V2 or the NOM.  New-rome has repeatedly said that these must be accepted with 'religious CONDITIONAL assent', not the same level as doctrine (which would automatically involve sin).

    Offline TKGS

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 4412
    • Reputation: +3795/-230
    • Gender: Male
    Re: A challenge for those in SSPX or Resistance
    « Reply #40 on: June 14, 2018, 03:57:56 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!1
  • Submission is only required if said teaching is proposed as an article of faith...
    I guess it is fortunate for you that you have the authority to determine which Church teachings are proposed as articles of faith and which Church teachings are proposed to lead souls to hell.


     

    Sitemap 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16