Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => Crisis in the Church => Topic started by: Quo vadis Domine on January 06, 2020, 04:13:48 PM
-
I know I’m going to get blasted for this, but I think the problem with those who hold the R&R position, is the fact that they are so used to defying what they believe is legitimate authority that they have no problem with lessening the status of the pre Vatican II authorities. The recent controversy about the approved pre Vatican II moral theologian, Jone, highlighted this issue. In all fairness to the R&R people, I can see why they would question some pre Vatican II authors as there are a number of them that are certainly questionable, but before the crisis, one was certainly safe to follow any approved theologian.
I see this as a very serious problem in the future when we do have a true pope. Are the R&R adherents going to sift through his acts and laws and believe that they are themselves the final decision makers? Most of us who hold the sedevacantist position don’t have that problem. There is a line that we draw. If the person is a true pope we simply follow him, no questions asked.
-
Yes, very much so, and here's the line to draw. I could certainly decide that I don't agree with one theologian but agree with another who has a differing opinion on this subject. But, at the same time, I would not dare to accuse of sin someone who sided with a different approved theologian. That distinction is key. If I feel that a certain opinion is problematic, I might raise my argument to the appropriate authorities. So, for instance, if I see what I perceive to be an error in a book that has been approved, I would write to the authorities in question and make my case. If that fails and I don't get a satisfactory response, I might refer the issue to the Holy Office. And that's where it STOPS.
-
Yes, very much so, and here's the line to draw. I could certainly decide that I don't agree with one theologian but agree with another who has a differing opinion on this subject. But, at the same time, I would not dare to accuse of sin someone who sided with a different approved theologian. That distinction is key. If I feel that a certain opinion is problematic, I might raise my argument to the appropriate authorities. So, for instance, if I see what I perceive to be an error in a book that has been approved, I would write to the authorities in question and make my case. If that fails and I don't get a satisfactory response, I might refer the issue to the Holy Office. And that's where it STOPS.
Assuming the matter was not subsequently settled by the pope.
-
Assuming the matter was not subsequently settled by the pope.
Of course. In that case, all the theologians are bound to fall in line.
-
Out of the blue, my most dogmatic sede friend sent me this today:
Fr. Edmund James O’Reilly, S.J.:
On the Idea of a Long-Term Vacancy of the Holy See
By John Daly
Revised and edited by John Lane, October 1999
In 1882 a book was published in England called The Relations of the Church to Society — Theological Essays, comprising 29 essays by Fr. Edmund James O’Reilly S.J., one of the leading theologians of his time. The book expresses with wonderful clarity and succinctness many important theological truths and insights on subjects indirectly as well as directly related to its main theme. For our purposes the book has in one respect an even greater relevance than it did at the time of publication, for in it Fr. O’Reilly asserts with the full weight of such authority as he possesses, the following opinions:
Of course Fr. O’Reilly does not have the status of pope or Doctor of the Church; but, that said, he was certainly no negligible authority. Some idea of the esteem in which he was held can be obtained from the following facts:
In short Fr. O’Reilly was widely recognized as one of the most erudite and important theologians of his time.
Finally, the following quotation by Dr. Ward in the justly renowned Dublin Review (January 1876 issue) is worth quoting (emphasis added):
“Whatever is written by so able and solidly learned a theologian — one so docile to the Church and so fixed in the ancient theological paths — cannot but be of signal benefit to the Catholic reader in these anxious and perilous times.”
Dr. Ward thought his times were anxious and perilous! Well, let us now see what “signal benefit” we, a little more than a century later, can derive from some of Fr. O’Reilly’s writing.
We open with a brief passage from an early chapter of the book, called “The Pastoral Office of the Church”. On page 33 Fr. O’Reilly says this (emphases added):
“If we inquire how ecclesiastical jurisdiction... has been continued, the answer is that... it in part came and comes immediately from God on the fulfillment of certain conditions regarding the persons. Priests having jurisdiction derive it from bishops or the pope. The pope has it immediately from God, on his legitimate election. The legitimacy of his election depends on the observance of the rules established by previous popes regarding such election.”
Thus, if papal jurisdiction depends on a person’s legitimate election, which certainly is not verified in the case of the purported election of a formal heretic to the Chair of Peter, it follows that, in the absence of legitimate election, no jurisdiction whatever is granted, neither “de jure” nor, despite what some have tried to maintain, “de facto.”
Fr. O’Reilly makes the following remark later in his book (page 287 — our emphases added):
“A doubtful pope may be really invested with the requisite power; but he has not practically in relation to the Church the same right as a certain pope — he is not entitled to be acknowledged as Head of the Church, and may be legitimately compelled to desist from his claim.”
This extract comes from one of two chapters devoted by Fr. O’Reilly to the Council of Constance of 1414. It may be remembered that the Council of Constance was held to put an end to the disastrous schism which had begun thirty-six years earlier, and which by that time involved no fewer than three claimants to the Papacy, each of whom had a considerable following.
Back to Fr. O’Reilly:
“The Council assembled in 1414...
“We may here stop to inquire what is to be said of the position, at that time, of the three claimants, and their rights with regard to the Papacy. In the first place, there was all through, from the death of Gregory XI in 1378, a Pope — with the exception, of course, of the intervals between deaths and elections to fill up the vacancies thereby created. There was, I say, at every given time a Pope, really invested with the dignity of Vicar of Christ and Head of the Church, whatever opinions might exist among many as to his genuineness; not that an interregnum covering the whole period would have been impossible or inconsistent with the promises of Christ, for this is by no means manifest, but that, as a matter of fact, there was not such an interregnum.”
Thus one of the great theologians of the nineteenth century, writing subsequently to the 1870 Vatican Council, tells us that it is “by no means manifest” that a thirty-six year interregnum would have been impossible or inconsistent with the promises of Christ. And we can therefore legitimately ask: at what stage, if any, would such be manifest? After thirty-seven years? Or forty-seven years? Clearly, once it is established in principle that a long interregnum is not incompatible with the promises of Christ, the question of degree — how long — cannot enter into the question. That is up to God to decide, and who can know what astonishing things He may in fact decide.
And, indeed, as Fr. O’Reilly proceeds further in this remarkable chapter, written over a hundred years ago but surely fashioned by Divine Providence much more expressly for our day than for his, he makes this very point about what it can and cannot be assumed that God will permit. From page 287 (all emphases added):
“There had been anti-popes before from time to time, but never for such a continuance... nor ever with such a following...
“The great schism of the West suggests to me a reflection which I take the liberty of expressing here. If this schism had not occurred, the hypothesis of such a thing happening would appear to many chimerical. They would say it could not be; God would not permit the Church to come into so unhappy a situation. Heresies might spring up and spread and last painfully long, through the fault and to the perdition of their authors and abettors, to the great distress too of the faithful, increased by actual persecution in many places where the heretics were dominant. But that the true Church should remain between thirty and forty years without a thoroughly ascertained Head, and representative of Christ on earth, this would not be. Yet it has been; and we have no guarantee that it will not be again, though we may fervently hope otherwise. What I would infer is, that we must not be too ready to pronounce on what God may permit. We know with absolute certainty that He will fulfil His promises; not allow anything to occur at variance with them; that He will sustain His Church and enable her to triumph over all enemies and difficulties; that He will give to each of the faithful those graces which are needed for each one’s service of Him and attainment of salvation, as He did during the great schism we have been considering, and in all the sufferings and trials which the Church has passed through from the beginning. We may also trust He will do a great deal more than what He has bound Himself to by His promises. We may look forward with a cheering probability to exemption for the future from some of the troubles and misfortunes that have befallen in the past. But we, or our successors in future generations of Christians, shall perhaps see stranger evils than have yet been experienced, even before the immediate approach of that great winding up of all things on earth that will precede the day of judgment. I am not setting up for a prophet, nor pretending to see unhappy wonders, of which I have no knowledge whatever. All I mean to convey is that contingencies regarding the Church, not excluded by the Divine promises, cannot be regarded as practically impossible, just because they would be terrible and distressing in a very high degree.”
While Fr. O’Reilly himself disclaims any status as a prophet, nevertheless a true prophecy is clearly exactly what this passage amounts to. Moreover it is the kind of prophecy which, provided it is advanced conditionally, as in this case, both can and should be made in the light of the evidence on which he is concentrating his gaze. In respect of much that lies in the future there is no need for special revelations in order that we may know it. As Fr. O’Reilly indicates, except where God has specifically told us that something will not occur, any assumptions concerning what He will not permit are rash; and of course such assumptions will have the disastrous result that people will be misled if the events in question do occur. “For my thoughts are not your thoughts, nor your ways my ways, saith the Lord.” (Isaias 55:8)
-
Out of the blue, my most dogmatic sede friend sent me this today:
Fr. Edmund James O’Reilly, S.J.:
On the Idea of a Long-Term Vacancy of the Holy See
By John Daly
Revised and edited by John Lane, October 1999
In 1882 a book was published in England called The Relations of the Church to Society — Theological Essays, comprising 29 essays by Fr. Edmund James O’Reilly S.J., one of the leading theologians of his time. The book expresses with wonderful clarity and succinctness many important theological truths and insights on subjects indirectly as well as directly related to its main theme. For our purposes the book has in one respect an even greater relevance than it did at the time of publication, for in it Fr. O’Reilly asserts with the full weight of such authority as he possesses, the following opinions:
Of course Fr. O’Reilly does not have the status of pope or Doctor of the Church; but, that said, he was certainly no negligible authority. Some idea of the esteem in which he was held can be obtained from the following facts:
In short Fr. O’Reilly was widely recognized as one of the most erudite and important theologians of his time.
Finally, the following quotation by Dr. Ward in the justly renowned Dublin Review (January 1876 issue) is worth quoting (emphasis added):Dr. Ward thought his times were anxious and perilous! Well, let us now see what “signal benefit” we, a little more than a century later, can derive from some of Fr. O’Reilly’s writing.
We open with a brief passage from an early chapter of the book, called “The Pastoral Office of the Church”. On page 33 Fr. O’Reilly says this (emphases added):Thus, if papal jurisdiction depends on a person’s legitimate election, which certainly is not verified in the case of the purported election of a formal heretic to the Chair of Peter, it follows that, in the absence of legitimate election, no jurisdiction whatever is granted, neither “de jure” nor, despite what some have tried to maintain, “de facto.”
Fr. O’Reilly makes the following remark later in his book (page 287 — our emphases added):This extract comes from one of two chapters devoted by Fr. O’Reilly to the Council of Constance of 1414. It may be remembered that the Council of Constance was held to put an end to the disastrous schism which had begun thirty-six years earlier, and which by that time involved no fewer than three claimants to the Papacy, each of whom had a considerable following.
Back to Fr. O’Reilly:Thus one of the great theologians of the nineteenth century, writing subsequently to the 1870 Vatican Council, tells us that it is “by no means manifest” that a thirty-six year interregnum would have been impossible or inconsistent with the promises of Christ. And we can therefore legitimately ask: at what stage, if any, would such be manifest? After thirty-seven years? Or forty-seven years? Clearly, once it is established in principle that a long interregnum is not incompatible with the promises of Christ, the question of degree — how long — cannot enter into the question. That is up to God to decide, and who can know what astonishing things He may in fact decide.
And, indeed, as Fr. O’Reilly proceeds further in this remarkable chapter, written over a hundred years ago but surely fashioned by Divine Providence much more expressly for our day than for his, he makes this very point about what it can and cannot be assumed that God will permit. From page 287 (all emphases added):While Fr. O’Reilly himself disclaims any status as a prophet, nevertheless a true prophecy is clearly exactly what this passage amounts to. Moreover it is the kind of prophecy which, provided it is advanced conditionally, as in this case, both can and should be made in the light of the evidence on which he is concentrating his gaze. In respect of much that lies in the future there is no need for special revelations in order that we may know it. As Fr. O’Reilly indicates, except where God has specifically told us that something will not occur, any assumptions concerning what He will not permit are rash; and of course such assumptions will have the disastrous result that people will be misled if the events in question do occur. “For my thoughts are not your thoughts, nor your ways my ways, saith the Lord.” (Isaias 55:8)
Although I love Fr. O’Reilly’s book, I’m trying to understand why you posted the excerpt in this thread? Mark, I not being sarcastic, I wondering if I’m missing the connection.
-
I know I’m going to get blasted for this, but I think the problem with those who hold the R&R position, is the fact that they are so used to defying what they believe is legitimate authority that they have no problem with lessening the status of the pre Vatican II authorities. The recent controversy about the approved pre Vatican II moral theologian, Jone, highlighted this issue. In all fairness to the R&R people, I can see why they would question some pre Vatican II authors as there are a number of them that are certainly questionable, but before the crisis, one was certainly safe to follow any approved theologian.
I've seen it regarding St. Alphonsus, but can you post the edict or some authentic source that says Jone is an approved moral theologian and/or that whatever he says in regards to morality is safe to follow?
On this subject, Croixalist said it best because he said the simple truth in the other thread (https://www.cathinfo.com/general-discussion/against-jones-moral-theology/msg682595/#msg682595), when he said: "...The road to Vatican II was paved with perfectly approved theologians..."
And this is also very simple, when an authority, any authority, speaks things that are contrary to the faith, we are bound to defy that authority because we are bound, first and foremost to keep and live our faith all the way up until our last breath. After that, hopefully our faith has saved us and we won't need faith any longer.
We are bound to the keeping of the faith no matter what, even at the expense of defying the person in authority if that's what it takes, and then, even to the point of martyrdom if it were to come to that.
I see this as a very serious problem in the future when we do have a true pope. Are the R&R adherents going to sift through his acts and laws and believe that they are themselves the final decision makers? Most of us who hold the sedevacantist position don’t have that problem. There is a line that we draw. If the person is a true pope we simply follow him, no questions asked.
We have a true pope and there is no sifting. Very simply, if he ever binds us or says something we are bound to obey which is not contrary to the faith, then we will obey. Why do you think R&R would disobey his commands which are not contrary to the faith?
-
I've seen it regarding St. Alphonsus, but can you post the edict or some authentic source that says Jone is an approved moral theologian and/or that whatever he says in regards to morality is safe to follow?
Don't forget the subjective component of sin. There's no sin in someone following a properly-formed conscience, and St. Alphonsus teaches that it's legitimate to form one's conscience based on anything in a probable opinion (as would be found in a Church-approved source). This is true even if the teaching happens to be objectively mistaken. Lay people are not called upon in their duties of state to be theologians. Even if a lay person had received bad advice in the Confessional, his accepting it and acting upon it cannot be sinful, subjectively speaking, even if the advice is incorrect, since the person would be acting in good faith.
-
We have a true pope and there is no sifting. Very simply, if he ever binds us or says something we are bound to obey which is not contrary to the faith, then we will obey. Why do you think R&R would disobey his commands which are not contrary to the faith?
Stubborn, but what you described is the very definition of sifting. You are taking it upon yourself to sift through the supposed pope’s acts and commands. After sifting, you decide which ones are orthodox and which are not. This is not your place nor your duty. Your duty is to simply obey. You are putting yourself above the authority of the pope, which is impossible.
-
On this subject, Croixalist said it best because he said the simple truth in the other thread (https://www.cathinfo.com/general-discussion/against-jones-moral-theology/msg682595/#msg682595), when he said: "...The road to Vatican II was paved with perfectly approved theologians..."
This.
-
Stubborn, but what you described is the very definition of sifting. You are taking it upon yourself to sift through the supposed pope’s acts and commands. After sifting, you decide which ones are orthodox and which are not. This is not your place nor your duty. Your duty is to simply obey. You are putting yourself above the authority of the pope, which is impossible.
I disagree that's what I described. I mean, the faith is the faith, we can (and should always) grow in the faith, or our faith can deteriorate to the point of having very little, or lose the faith completely, but there are those things that are of the faith and those things which are contrary to, or not of the faith.
When we hear something that is contrary to the faith, it doesn't matter who says it, if it's contrary to the faith then it's heresy and we may not follow. To date, I don't know of any command that the conciliar popes have commanded us to do, so far as that goes, the accusation of sifting here is unwarranted.
-
Oh, there's no question that many "approved" theologians were in fact Modernists, since many of the approvers were themselves Modernists. No one has ever said they are infallible and always right. Well, except Father Cekada and a handful of dogmatic sedevacantists. What we're talking about, however, is sin ... there's a very significant subjective element in sin. In order to commit a grave sin, one must know something is wrong and intend to do it. If I see a $20 bill on a table, and pick it up thinking it's mine, and I turn out to have been mistaken (it actually belonged to someone else), while objectively it is theft, I commit no sin because I acted in good faith. While we have a duty to properly inform our consciences, we are not expected in our state to become moral theologians. Consequently, reading up on an issue in a Church-approved moral theology manual suffices for having taken the due diligence to inform our conscience. Unless we know for certain that the information is false, we commit no sin in following the advice. Similarly, seeking and acting upon the advice of a Confessor suffices as well. If people are committing objective sin in following the advice, then it's on the approver. That's why it's such a grave thing to become a Confessor.
Nobody objected to arguing that Jone might have been wrong. What was objected to was imputing sin to someone who acted upon his advice.
-
Stubborn, but what you described is the very definition of sifting. You are taking it upon yourself to sift through the supposed pope’s acts and commands. After sifting, you decide which ones are orthodox and which are not. This is not your place nor your duty. Your duty is to simply obey. You are putting yourself above the authority of the pope, which is impossible.
Our duty to obey is secondary, and this duty remains secondary for the duration of our life after we reach the age where we've attained the use of reason, prior to reaching that age, yes, we either obey or we suffer whatever correction we receive for disobedience. But after that, the primary reason that we have the use of reason is apply it in order to save our own souls. After attaining the use of reason, blind obedience is not permitted. So no, nobody is putting themself above the authority of the pope, that is silly to even say.
-
Our duty to obey is secondary, and this duty remains secondary for the duration of our life after we reach the age where we've attained the use of reason, prior to reaching that age, yes, we either obey or we suffer whatever correction we receive for disobedience. But after that, the primary reason that we have the use of reason is apply it in order to save our own souls. After attaining the use of reason, blind obedience is not permitted. So no, nobody is putting themself above the authority of the pope, that is silly to even say.
Stubborn, authority means absolutely nothing if it is the subject who decides when to obey. In matters of religion you have absolutely no right to question a pope’s decision on faith or morals. If Bergoglio tells you that Amoris Laetitia is official teaching of the Church, you have no right whatsoever to question his decision. When Pope Pius XI promulgated the encyclical Mortalium animos, no Catholic, except if another pope changes non-doctrinal parts, has a right to disobey his teaching.
-
Consequently, reading up on an issue in a Church-approved moral theology manual suffices for having taken the due diligence to inform our conscience. Unless we know for certain that the information is false, we commit no sin in following the advice.
This is not true. If the advice you follow causes you to sin, then a sin has been committed which means that God has been offended, this is certain. What we don't know and what we cannot know in this world, is the culpability on the part of the sinner and/or the one who gave the bad advice.
But to say "we commit no sin in following that advice" is wrong, and it is wrong because a sin was committed, an offense against God did occur. Someone will have to pay something for offending God, if that means penance, or acts of reparation or damnation we may not know, but we do know that someone will have to pay something for that sin.
-
Stubborn, authority means absolutely nothing if it is the subject who decides when to obey. In matters of religion you have absolutely no right to question a pope’s decision on faith or morals. If Bergoglio tells you that Amoris Laetitia is official teaching of the Church, you have no right whatsoever to question his decision. When Pope Pius XI promulgated the encyclical Mortalium animos, no Catholic, except if another pope changes non-doctrinal parts, has a right to disobey his teaching.
Authority certainly does mean absolutely nothing when one is illegitimately using that authority to preach doctrines contrary to the faith. Truth or lies are not dependent upon the pope's authority. If anyone has learned anything these last 60 years, that's gotta be it.
Amoris Laetitia is contrary to the faith, Mortalium animos is of the faith. We reject AL and embrace MA.
Are you trying to say that we are incapable knowing what is of the faith, and what is contrary to the faith?
-
Authority certainly does mean absolutely nothing when one is illegitimately using that authority to preach doctrines contrary to the faith. Truth or lies are not dependent upon the pope's authority. If anyone has learned anything these last 60 years, that's gotta be it.
Amoris Laetitia is contrary to the faith, Mortalium animos is of the faith. We reject AL and embrace MA.
Are you trying to say that we are incapable knowing what is of the faith, and what is contrary to the faith?
Are you saying that you and every Catholic inherently knows every doctrine that the Church teaches? If that is so, the papacy becomes superfluous.
-
I've seen it regarding St. Alphonsus, but can you post the edict or some authentic source that says Jone is an approved moral theologian and/or that whatever he says in regards to morality is safe to follow?
.
Sure! Just look at the title page of your copy of Jone. Note that it describes the book as a manual of theology. Then turn the page and look at the Imprimatur. That makes him an approved theologian.
.
Oh, there's no question that many "approved" theologians were in fact Modernists, since many of the approvers were themselves Modernists.
.
Not true. The modernist theologians of Vatican 2 were all condemned and silenced under Pius XII. It was John XXIII who rehabilitated them. No true pope ever approved them as theologians.
.
In any case, theologians have certainly not -- and cannot -- obscure the doctrines of our faith. In fact, it is heretical to even suggest such a thing, according to Pope Pius VI:
.
The proposition, which asserts "that in these later times there has been spread a general obscuring of the more important truths pertaining to religion, which are the basis of faith and of the moral teachings of Jesus Christ,"--heretical.
.
It was promoted at the false Synod of Pistoia.
-
Are you saying that you and every Catholic inherently knows every doctrine that the Church teaches? If that is so, the papacy becomes superfluous.
I am saying that in having and knowing the faith, that we know what is contrary to the faith when we hear it.
Again, are you trying to say that we are incapable knowing what is of the faith, and what is contrary to the faith?
-
I am saying that in having and knowing the faith, that we know what is contrary to the faith when we hear it.
Again, are you trying to say that we are incapable knowing what is of the faith, and what is contrary to the faith?
Of course you know some doctrine, but I’m certain that you don’t know all of it. So who teaches you when you are unsure or have a question about the Faith? So when Pope Pius XII infallibly pronounced what was the essential matter and form for the sacrament of Holy Orders in the Encyclical Sacramentum Ordinis, why wouldn’t you have cause to question it? If Bergoglio wrote an encyclical settling the dispute on Mary being the Mediatrix of all Graces, would you accept his decision?
-
Of course you know some doctrine, but I’m certain that you don’t know all of it. So who teaches you when you are unsure or have a question about the Faith? So when Pope Pius XII infallibly pronounced what was the essential matter and form for the sacrament of Holy Orders in the Encyclical Sacramentum Ordinis, why wouldn’t you have cause to question it? If Bergoglio wrote an encyclical settling the dispute on Mary being the Mediatrix of all Graces, would you accept his decision?
For me and probably all or nearly all Catholics who have a question about the faith *these days*, we find the answer by either asking a trad priest, or seeking, searching and knocking. We have the internet, which affords us way more resources available to us than ever in history. To discern as true whatever we find, means that whatever we find must not be contrary to the faith.
That's pretty much the way it is ever since the conciliar church has spun the heads of nearly everyone.
If the pope wrote something on Our Blessed Mother, I would treat it the same as all the conciliar docuмents and expect it to be corrupt, filled with errors or heretical, likely all of the above. The reason for that is because that is what they have proven to churn out for 60 years. OTOH, if his encyclical was faithful and did not contradict the faith, then what reason would there be to reject it? - but that is something I certainly would never expect of him.
-
For me and probably all or nearly all Catholics who have a question about the faith *these days*, we find the answer by either asking a trad priest, or seeking, searching and knocking. We have the internet, which affords us way more resources available to us than ever in history. To discern as true whatever we find, means that whatever we find must not be contrary to the faith.
That's pretty much the way it is ever since the conciliar church has spun the heads of nearly everyone.
If the pope wrote something on Our Blessed Mother, I would treat it the same as all the conciliar docuмents and expect it to be corrupt, filled with errors or heretical, likely all of the above. The reason for that is because that is what they have proven to churn out for 60 years. OTOH, if his encyclical was faithful and did not contradict the faith, then what reason would there be to reject it? - but that is something I certainly would never expect of him.
So, how do you reconcile what you wrote above with what Pope Leo XIII teaches below?
“ In defining the limits of the obedience owed to the pastors of souls, but most of all to the authority of the Roman Pontiff, it must not be supposed that it is only to be yielded in relation to dogmas of which the obstinate denial cannot be disjoined from the crime of heresy. Nay, further, it is not enough sincerely and firmly to assent to doctrines which, though not defined by any solemn pronouncement of the Church, are by her proposed to belief, as divinely revealed, in her common and universal teaching, and which the [First] Vatican Council declared are to be believed “with Catholic and divine faith.” But this likewise must be reckoned amongst the duties of Christians, that they allow themselves to be ruled and directed by the authority and leadership of bishops, and, above all, of the Apostolic See.”
-
For me and probably all or nearly all Catholics who have a question about the faith *these days*, we find the answer by either asking a trad priest, or seeking, searching and knocking. We have the internet, which affords us way more resources available to us than ever in history. To discern as true whatever we find, means that whatever we find must not be contrary to the faith.
I agree. And yet the sedevacantist (and sedeprivationist) laymen on the forum would have us believe that we MUST look to them as having the absolute true view and resources on how to know about what is true and what is not, and what is right and what is wrong.
And yet, the Catholic Faith preceded the sedevacantist movement here in the U.S. For the laymen sedes to have the idea that only they have the true view as to the Catholic faith is a bit ridiculous. We don't have to be pre-Vll theologians to know about what is right and what is wrong. And we don't have to look to the sedes as being the only true source of the Catholic Faith. The sedes seem to think that they are all-knowing, and that they alone have the True Faith, as if God Himself has spoken through them.
Even very simple Catholics can know right from wrong, if they have been taught properly by their parents and family, and/or good priests, or from internet resources.
-
So, how do you reconcile what you wrote above with what Pope Leo XIII teaches below?
“ In defining the limits of the obedience owed to the pastors of souls, but most of all to the authority of the Roman Pontiff, it must not be supposed that it is only to be yielded in relation to dogmas of which the obstinate denial cannot be disjoined from the crime of heresy. Nay, further, it is not enough sincerely and firmly to assent to doctrines which, though not defined by any solemn pronouncement of the Church, are by her proposed to belief, as divinely revealed, in her common and universal teaching, and which the [First] Vatican Council declared are to be believed “with Catholic and divine faith.” But this likewise must be reckoned amongst the duties of Christians, that they allow themselves to be ruled and directed by the authority and leadership of bishops, and, above all, of the Apostolic See.”
Being that we must sincerely and firmly assent to doctrines which V1 declared are to be believed with Catholic and divine faith, all doctrines which are contrary to those doctrines are to be rejected - no matter who teaches them.
Keeping the true faith is our primary duty in this life right up until our last breath, our obedience to the pope is dependent upon him promulgating that faith. When he preaches error every time he opens his mouth, we can do nothing about it, but we cannot obey him and at the same time sincerely and firmly assent to doctrines which V1 declared are to be believed.
-
To sum up the problems with SVism and R&R
Sedevacantism basically supposes that every papal election is up to the scrutiny of every random layman Catholic to determine whether or not it was truly legitimate, and that they can reject any pope that they in their private opinion think is invalid.
R&R will have you believe that every single papal decree, promulgation, canon law, etc. is up to the scrutiny of every random layman Catholic, and that they can reject any law/rite/etc. that they in their private opinion think is invalid.
I imagine R&Rers will take exception to my description of them, but I think it certainly does apply to a good majority of them. From questioning the infallibility of canonisations the moment popes they don't like get canonised, to SeanJohnson even having us believe changes to fasting laws of all things can be ruled invalid by his layman opinion - because he doesn't believe they're for the good of the Church.
-
To sum up the problems with SVism and R&R
Sedevacantism basically supposes that every papal election is up to the scrutiny of every random layman Catholic to determine whether or not it was truly legitimate, and that they can reject any pope that they in their private opinion think is invalid.
R&R will have you believe that every single papal decree, promulgation, canon law, etc. is up to the scrutiny of every random layman Catholic, and that they can reject any law/rite/etc. that they in their private opinion think is invalid.
I imagine R&Rers will take exception to my description of them, but I think it certainly does apply to a good majority of them. From questioning the infallibility of canonisations the moment popes they don't like get canonised, to SeanJohnson even having us believe changes to fasting laws of all things can be ruled invalid by his layman opinion - because he doesn't believe they're for the good of the Church.
Yeah, this is the theoretical problem with these positions. In real life most Sedevacantists don’t question the pre Vatican ii popes, and most R and Rs don’t question the teaching of the pre vatican ii popes to the same extent they do the post Vatican ii popes. But theoretically you could.
I don’t know what else to make of this, except that I try to be very careful. Especially when judging others
-
R&R will have you believe that every single papal decree, promulgation, canon law, etc. is up to the scrutiny of every random layman Catholic, and that they can reject any law/rite/etc. that they in their private opinion think is invalid.
No, wherever you came up with that idea, you certainly have a terribly wrong idea about R&R.
R&R means that because the conciliar popes have proven themselves to be at least anti-Catholic conspirators, we pay no heed to their scandalous errors and heresies. Additionally, aside from praying daily for the pope, we do nothing about his status because there is nothing anyone can do about his status.
-
R&R means that because the conciliar popes have proven themselves to be at least anti-Catholic conspirators
.
... in your private judgment. There is no getting around the "private judgment objection on either side. Since both sides are open to the same objection, you would think the logical thing to do would be to take that argument off the table.
-
No, wherever you came up with that idea, you certainly have a terribly wrong idea about R&R.
R&R means that because the conciliar popes have proven themselves to be at least anti-Catholic conspirators, we pay no heed to their scandalous errors and heresies. Additionally, aside from praying daily for the pope, we do nothing about his status because there is nothing anyone can do about his status.
Yes, you in your private judgement declare them anti-Catholic conspirators, and because of that you resist all their actions, decrees, canon laws, promulgations, etc. So basically any pope can have his entire authority ignored if a layman personally believes he's "an anti-Catholic conspirator", just like I said.
-
Yeah, this is the theoretical problem with these positions. In real life most Sedevacantists don’t question the pre Vatican ii popes, and most R and Rs don’t question the teaching of the pre vatican ii popes to the same extent they do the post Vatican ii popes. But theoretically you could.
I don’t know what else to make of this, except that I try to be very careful. Especially when judging others
Right, but sedes and R&Rs extend their omniscient private judgement to declare that the popes pre V2 were good and the popes after were bad. Only difference is sedes use their private judgement to declare the popes non-popes, whereas R&R use their private judgement to declare them "popes who don't actually have any of the power or teaching authority of popes", i.e popes in name alone. So effectively every pope is up to the permanent scrutiny of laymen - which is a fairly untenable, protestant-esque idea if you think about it.
-
Right, but sedes and R&Rs extend their omniscient private judgement to declare that the popes pre V2 were good and the popes after were bad. Only difference is sedes use their private judgement to declare the popes non-popes, whereas R&R use their private judgement to declare them "popes who don't actually have any of the power or teaching authority of popes", i.e popes in name alone. So effectively every pope is up to the permanent scrutiny of laymen - which is a fairly untenable, protestant-esque idea if you think about it.
Ah, but here's a difference. There is a role to be played by human reason vis-a-vis the faith. As Vatican I teaches, the human reason is involved in evaluating the claims of the authority. Moved by these "motives of credibility", the intellect decides that the Church does indeed have the authority of God to teach and then submits to the authority. Once in submission to the authority, one does not merely sift (to paraphrase a famous meme) the teachings of this authority, because in that case there is not and never has been a true submission. This is what R&R does. They say, "yep, you have the authority of God to teach, but we're not going to accept your teaching." What sedevacantism does is to say, "Nope, you are not the authority that I had given assent to, but an imposter. You lack the marks of the Church, and I do not recognize you as the Church." There's a HUGE difference between these two approaches. Yes, both are rooted in private judgment, but one takes place in a sphere where private judgment does in fact operate, the identification of the authority.
-
(https://i.imgflip.com/3lgtsm.jpg)
-
Magisterium-Sifting is also commonly known as "cafeteria Catholicism."
So, in holding that Catholics may pick and choose from the Magisterium and that papal infallibility is extremely limited and rarely exercised, the R&R are in alignment with the liberal Novus Ordites.
Conversely, in holding that Catholics must assent to the Magisterium and that it must be regarded as generally reliable, unable to be corrupt or harmful, and substantially error-free, the sedevacantists are in alignment with conservative Novus Ordites.
So, if you remember SAT analogy format:
sedevacantists:R&R::conservative Novus Ordites:liberal Novus Ordites (in terms of their principles)
Now, the separation between those on the left here is that they regard V2 and the New Mass as harmful, whereas those on the right side do not.
One could make a little table out of it ... with 4 squares.
Magisterium Protected YES NO
V2 Bad?
YES SVs R&R
NO cons. NO lib. NO
Hopefully people can make out my intent here.
SVs: Magisterium Protected, V2 Bad
R&R: Magisterium Not Protected, V2 Bad
cons. NO Magisterium Protected, V2 Good
lib. NO Magisterium Not Protected, V2 Good
-
One does not treat every act of the hierarchy as part of the magisterium.
-
One does not treat every act of the hierarchy as part of the magisterium.
You still owe obedience regardless. Like for example, if fast laws are relaxed, you're perfectly entitled to continue to fast more than necessary as an extra discipline on yourself. But to go around saying "The laws weren't truly relaxed, the attempt to relax them was invalid!" is pseudo-schismatic nonsense.
-
I’ve never heard anyone argue that.
-
I’ve never heard anyone argue that.
I've seen it, but its not as common. Most R + R would agree that the old fasting laws aren't binding per se.
That said "can the Pope ever approve a mass that's actually a sacrilege" is a big point of contention between R + R and everyone else, for better or worse.
-
Magisterium-Sifting is also commonly known as "cafeteria Catholicism."
So, in holding that Catholics may pick and choose from the Magisterium and that papal infallibility is extremely limited and rarely exercised, the R&R are in alignment with the liberal Novus Ordites.
Conversely, in holding that Catholics must assent to the Magisterium and that it must be regarded as generally reliable, unable to be corrupt or harmful, and substantially error-free, the sedevacantists are in alignment with conservative Novus Ordites.
So, if you remember SAT analogy format:
sedevacantists:R&R::conservative Novus Ordites:liberal Novus Ordites (in terms of their principles)
Now, the separation between those on the left here is that they regard V2 and the New Mass as harmful, whereas those on the right side do not.
One could make a little table out of it ... with 4 squares.
Magisterium Protected YES NO
V2 Bad?
YES SVs R&R
NO cons. NO lib. NO
Hopefully people can make out my intent here.
SVs: Magisterium Protected, V2 Bad
R&R: Magisterium Not Protected, V2 Bad
cons. NO Magisterium Protected, V2 Good
lib. NO Magisterium Not Protected, V2 Good
I think one difference here is that the R + R would extend the amount of time a teaching has to be "always and everywhere taught" before its binding (as opposed to the Sedevacantist, which would say that the agreement of all the bishops during one period of time is enough.) Whereas the liberal NOs wouldn't *even* submit to the consensus of *all* history, if that makes sense.
All that said, "good" and "bad" are arguably simplistic terms with regards to V2. I'm sure +Schneider or a lot of FSSP types would stop short of saying its "good", while also stopping short of saying its heresy.
-
Yes, you in your private judgement declare them anti-Catholic conspirators, and because of that you resist all their actions, decrees, canon laws, promulgations, etc. So basically any pope can have his entire authority ignored if a layman personally believes he's "an anti-Catholic conspirator", just like I said.
Of course I say they are anti-Catholic conspirators - because nobody on earth, including you, could ever prove otherwise. Call that private judgement if that somehow consoles to you, I have no problem at all with that, right or wrong it's no big deal at all.
Luckily for me I was raised in this crisis and was in it up to my eyeballs even as a child, which was well before there was an internet, well before anyone even knew what a "decree" was, or what a "canon law" was or wth was happening to our Church. We kept the faith though - and lucky for you that we did, and we did it without knowing anything about any of those things. (When I say "we", I mean all Catholics everywhere who kept the faith in spite of the NO revolution).
You can say we kept the faith based on private judgement of declaring the pope to an anti-Catholic conspirator, but note that if you were to say that, you would be so far from the truth as to be 100% wrong.
I could give plenty personal historical accounts of that era and how we kept the faith, and please note that we kept the faith not only for ourselves, but also so that it would be here for you and others like you should you people ever decide to wake up, but the short of it is that from that day to this, we kept the faith without ever having ignored the pope as pope, or the pope's authority.
-
I think one difference here is that the R + R would extend the amount of time a teaching has to be "always and everywhere taught" before its binding (as opposed to the Sedevacantist, which would say that the agreement of all the bishops during one period of time is enough.) Whereas the liberal NOs wouldn't *even* submit to the consensus of *all* history, if that makes sense.
All that said, "good" and "bad" are arguably simplistic terms with regards to V2. I'm sure +Schneider or a lot of FSSP types would stop short of saying its "good", while also stopping short of saying its heresy.
Snip from a sermon given by Fr. Wathen:
One of the saints, [St. Vincent of Lerins (died 445)] ... made a statement concerning heresy and orthodoxy which I find both wonderfully intriguing as well as important. He says that the true faith is that which has been believed by all the people all the time. [He is] Speaking about all the faithful, all those who are in the Church, which is to say that any idea that has not been held as a part of Catholic doctrine through all the generations of the Church by the vast majority of the people, is not Catholic.
Which is to say that at any given time an idea can be widely held even by the vast majority of the people as is Liberalism among Catholics today. Also a heretical idea can be shown to have been held by a small group within the Church all through history or during a number of generations of history. But the true doctrine of the Church is that which has been held always by everyone.
I bolded the word "Liberalism" to note that that word can be replaced with any number of movements within the Church today, including sedevacantism.
-
Of course I say they are anti-Catholic conspirators - because nobody on earth, including you, could ever prove otherwise. Call that private judgement if that somehow consoles to you, I have no problem at all with that, right or wrong it's no big deal at all.
Luckily for me I was raised in this crisis and was in it up to my eyeballs even as a child, which was well before there was an internet, well before anyone even knew what a "decree" was, or what a "canon law" was or wth was happening to our Church. We kept the faith though - and lucky for you that we did, and we did it without knowing anything about any of those things. (When I say "we", I mean all Catholics everywhere who kept the faith in spite of the NO revolution).
You can say we kept the faith based on private judgement of declaring the pope to an anti-Catholic conspirator, but note that if you were to say that, you would be so far from the truth as to be 100% wrong.
I could give plenty personal historical accounts of that era and how we kept the faith, and please note that we kept the faith not only for ourselves, but also so that it would be here for you and others like you should you people ever decide to wake up, but the short of it is that from that day to this, we kept the faith without ever having ignored the pope as pope, or the pope's authority.
I'm 100% wrong that you're using your private judgement to declare him an anti-Catholic conspirator... so are you going to link me where the Church declared him one or are you going to admit you just called a 100% indisputably correct statement wrong just because you wanted it to be? Telling me about your youthful intuition doesn't exactly turn private interpretation into Church judgement.
Fact of the matter is you can't very well condemn sedes for private judgement re: whether the pope was legitimately elected or not, when not only do you use your private judgement to determine whether he's an "anti-Catholic conspirator" or not, but you also put every single decree/law/rite/etc. he promulgates under the scrutiny of private judgement. Even with fasting laws aren't safe from you lot declaring them invalid because you know better. And then you turn around and tell me you don't ignore the pope's authority? Intellectually dishonest hogwash.
-
I’ve never heard anyone argue that.
SeanJohnson, probably the poster-boy for the SSPX-Resistance on here, has argued numerous times that the new fasting laws are invalid because they weren't for the good of the Church of the faithful, or something along those lines.
-
I'm 100% wrong that you're using your private judgement to declare him an anti-Catholic conspirator... so are you going to link me where the Church declared him one or are you going to admit you just called a 100% indisputably correct statement wrong just because you wanted it to be? Telling me about your youthful intuition doesn't exactly turn private interpretation into Church judgement.
Fact of the matter is you can't very well condemn sedes for private judgement re: whether the pope was legitimately elected or not, when not only do you use your private judgement to determine whether he's an "anti-Catholic conspirator" or not, but you also put every single decree/law/rite/etc. he promulgates under the scrutiny of private judgement. Even with fasting laws aren't safe from you lot declaring them invalid because you know better. And then you turn around and tell me you don't ignore the pope's authority? Intellectually dishonest hogwash.
Your inability to comprehend what I wrote seemingly demonstrates that we have two different faiths. When my soul is in danger, my Catholic faith wholly demands that I utilize my use of reason and make a private judgement in order to avoid sinning, that same faith does not permit me to determine the status of popes.
Is that clear enough?
-
Your inability to comprehend what I wrote seemingly demonstrates that we have two different faiths. When my soul is in danger, my Catholic faith wholly demands that I utilize my use of reason and make a private judgement in order to avoid sinning, that same faith does not permit me to determine the status of popes.
Is that clear enough?
So then you admit that it is just your private judgement that the pope is an anti-Catholic conspirator - why then did you claim I was 100% wrong when I said that?
-
So then you admit that it is just your private judgement that the pope is an anti-Catholic conspirator - why then did you claim I was 100% wrong when I said that?
Because we did not keep the faith based on our private judgement that the pope is an anti-Catholic conspirator, that idea was never even a sparkle of consideration until maybe decades after the revolution began. No one knew wth was happening to our Church, our priests, our pope, society - nothing. All we knew for certain was they were wrong and to keep the faith, we could not go along with them.
In spite of everything that was happening, we kept the faith, and we did it without rejecting the pope as pope.
-
SeanJohnson, probably the poster-boy for the SSPX-Resistance on here, has argued numerous times that the new fasting laws are invalid because they weren't for the good of the Church of the faithful, or something along those lines.
Well, if you think SJ's views on any of the major debatable topics is "normal" for R&R people, you are misguided. While his conclusions may agree with other R&Rs, his reasons are typically emotional rants filled with faulty and superficial theology. He's a passionately catholic guy, who sounds like he loves the Faith but his lack of patience counteracts any attempts at gaining a deep understanding.
.
On the other hand, he's done a fantastic job with his book and with all the other projects he's worked on to spread the Faith, both for the Resistance and in general. I wish I had the energy and insight to accomplish 1/2 of what he's done. Different personalities and talents can accomplish different things.
-
private judgement of declaring the pope to an anti-Catholic conspirator, but note that if you were to say that, you would be so far from the truth as to be 100% wrong.
my Catholic faith wholly demands that I utilize my use of reason and make a private judgement in order to avoid sinning
Just in case anyone needed a reminder that Stubborn is a dishonest arguer with no regard for the truth. Calling me 100% wrong for saying something he admits 2 posts later.
-
Quote
private judgement of declaring the pope to an anti-Catholic conspirator, but note that if you were to say that, you would be so far from the truth as to be 100% wrong.
Quote
my Catholic faith wholly demands that I utilize my use of reason and make a private judgement in order to avoid sinning
Just in case anyone needed a reminder that Stubborn is a dishonest arguer with no regard for the truth. Calling me 100% wrong for saying something he admits 2 posts later.
All it is, is that you simply cannot comprehend the difference between judging the pope to be wrong, and judging his status, and also that for Catholics, keeping the faith is not dependent upon the pope's status, which is one reason why we don't bother with that. That's all it is. Proof of this truth is that we kept the faith without knowing, caring, and never even thought to even consider questioning his status - and nothing has changed from then till now far as all that goes.
-
All it is, is that you simply cannot comprehend the difference between judging the pope to be wrong, and judging his status, and also that for Catholics, keeping the faith is not dependent upon the pope's status, which is one reason why we don't bother with that. That's all it is. Proof of this truth is that we kept the faith without knowing, caring, and never even thought to even consider questioning his status - and nothing has changed from then till now far as all that goes.
I didn't claim you judged his status, I claimed that you used your private judgement to declare him an anti-Catholic conspirator and to therefore reject all his laws and decrees. Which you called me 100% wrong for, before admitting two posts later. Contradicting yourself all over the place because you have no regard for honesty or fair debate.
-
I didn't claim you judged his status, I claimed that you used your private judgement to declare him an anti-Catholic conspirator and to therefore reject all his laws and decrees. Which you called me 100% wrong for, before admitting two posts later. Contradicting yourself all over the place because you have no regard for honesty or fair debate.
I told you yes, I certainly use private judgement to say the conciliar popes have all been anti-Catholic, but that's what I say now, today, because it is obvious, but when this revolution was only in it's infancy, no, nobody even thought it let alone "declare" it - all they did was maintain their faith, and they did so without knowing hardly anything about what was happening to cause this crisis.
They used their private judgement to remain faithful, and by judging whatever it was that was happening within the Church was wrong, they refused to go along with it, THAT'S how they used with their private judgement, not to declare the pope was not the pope or that he was anti-Catholic.
You don't get that there is a difference here, one private judgement is used to discern right from wrong, truth from error, and is used in order to remain faithful, the other private judgement, the one you promote, is used to decide the status of popes. Although the same judgement is applied two completely different ways, it's really no where near as complicated as you are making it.
-
Just in case anyone needed a reminder that Stubborn is a dishonest arguer with no regard for the truth. Calling me 100% wrong for saying something he admits 2 posts later.
Forlorn, to get through to Stubborn is like trying to crack a shagbark hickory nut with tweezers. You can pin his back against the wall a million different ways and he will never admit he is wrong on this.
-
Forlorn, to get through to Stubborn is like trying to crack a shagbark hickory nut with tweezers. You can pin his back against the wall a million different ways and he will never admit he is wrong on this.
I've stopped trying ... there's no use. If anyone has ever chosen a more appropriate screen name for this forum, then I'd like to see it.
-
I've stopped trying ... there's no use. If anyone has ever chosen a more appropriate screen name for this forum, then I'd like to see it.
God bless the man, but he can drive you nuts.
-
If the endgame of the sedes and sedewhatevers is to turn R&R trads into sedes and sedwhatevers, then they have failed miserably with some of us, and will continue to fail. But do keep trying. You obviously have nothing better to do. Y'all obviously have lots of time on your hands to try to convert us to a nonsensical position. Good luck with that.
-
Forlorn, to get through to Stubborn is like trying to crack a shagbark hickory nut with tweezers. You can pin his back against the wall a million different ways and he will never admit he is wrong on this.
It's as easy for me to admit I'm wrong as it is for you to admit you are wrong, but I need to be wrong in order to admit it.
All he is trying to do, is to equate the judging wrong teachings of popes, to meaning popes are not popes. How can anyone with the Catholic faith admit to such a thing as that?
-
blah, blah, blah… nag, nag, nag… blah, blah, blah…etc.
[yawn]
-
I've stopped trying ... there's no use. If anyone has ever chosen a more appropriate screen name for this forum, then I'd like to see it.
You are very, very confused, I don't expect you understand anything I said in my last handful of posts. I think in part, that is due to your apparent attendance at a church that has a magisterium and universal discipline that has gone off the rails. If that's what it is, then you should leave that place and go to a trad Catholic chapel where the magisterium and universal discipline will always be without spot.
-
You are very, very confused, I don't expect you understand anything I said in my last handful of posts.
I doubt that the angelic intellect of St. Michael could understand anything you said in your last handful of posts.
....
[That would be because it's objectively unintelligible.]
-
If the endgame of the sedes and sedewhatevers is to turn R&R trads into sedes and sedwhatevers, ...
No, our end game is simply to defend Catholic doctrine regarding the Magisterium and Universal Discipline of the Church against your pernicious errors ... which have poisoned generations of Catholics. For pretending to be defending Tradition, you have thrown the Traditional ecclesiology of the Church, the theology by which the Church is distinguished from any other non-Catholic sect, right out the window.
-
God bless the man, but he can drive you nuts.
He employs a very Clinton-esque "depends on what the meaning of is is" approach. Stubborn redefines terms to make them mean things completely different from anything that has ever been understood by Catholic theologians. Then he dismisses with the wave of his hand any "20th"-century theologians. Of course, he has begun expanding this back to "19th" and even "18th" century theologians.
One example. He constantly asserts that the Magisterium is absolutely inerrant. He does this by redefining Magisterium to be only the "true things taught authoritatively by the hierarchy" ... and so the inerrancy of the Magisterium, in his terms, reduces to a tautology, aka a "meaningless formula". Certainly the true things taught by the Church are in fact, ehm, true.
Or ... effectively, something is infallible if it's true and not infallible if it's not true, ignoring the fact that infalli-BILITY is by definition the a priori guarantee that a certain proposition must be true. It's infallible if it just so happens to be true. Infallibility reduces to a mere accident.
-
You will know them by their fruits.
We may not judge the "heart" of a person, BUT we may judge the outside actions. Such as we do refuse the new order "mess" for it is heretical. You can see it, hear it, in writing. The Church has had anti-popes and we still, as lay people, can judge and should be able to do so, Based on The True Faith. God would expect us to.
-
Glenn Beck regularly talked about needing to duct tape his head to make sure it doesn't explode. I know what that sensation feels like after reading some of Stubborn's posts. When I lose my temper and become irritable on this forum, it's invariably as a result of this uncomfortable sensation ... which is not unlike what it would feel like to have some daggers implanted in my brain.
-
If the endgame of the sedes and sedewhatevers is to turn R&R trads into sedes and sedwhatevers, then they have failed miserably with some of us, and will continue to fail. But do keep trying. You obviously have nothing better to do. Y'all obviously have lots of time on your hands to try to convert us to a nonsensical position. Good luck with that.
Meg, if you weren’t a woman, I’d call you a idiot. :laugh1:
-
I doubt that the angelic intellect of St. Michael could understand anything you said in your last handful of posts.
....
[That would be because it's objectively unintelligible.]
Oh there is no doubt that St. Michael understands, you cannot understand it, but he sure can.
-
He employs a very Clinton-esque "depends on what the meaning of is is" approach. Stubborn redefines terms to make them mean things completely different from anything that has ever been understood by Catholic theologians. Then he dismisses with the wave of his hand any "20th"-century theologians. Of course, he has begun expanding this back to "19th" and even "18th" century theologians.
One example. He constantly asserts that the Magisterium is absolutely inerrant. He does this by redefining Magisterium to be only the "true things taught authoritatively by the hierarchy" ... and so the inerrancy of the Magisterium, in his terms, reduces to a tautology, aka a "meaningless formula". Certainly the true things taught by the Church are in fact, ehm, true.
Or ... effectively, something is infallible if it's true and not infallible if it's not true, ignoring the fact that infalli-BILITY is by definition the a priori guarantee that a certain proposition must be true. It's infallible if it just so happens to be true. Infallibility reduces to a mere accident.
Yeah, I know. :facepalm: It’s basically circular reasoning.
-
He employs a very Clinton-esque "depends on what the meaning of is is" approach. Stubborn redefines terms to make them mean things completely different from anything that has ever been understood by Catholic theologians. Then he dismisses with the wave of his hand any "20th"-century theologians. Of course, he has begun expanding this back to "19th" and even "18th" century theologians.
One example. He constantly asserts that the Magisterium is absolutely inerrant. He does this by redefining Magisterium to be only the "true things taught authoritatively by the hierarchy" ... and so the inerrancy of the Magisterium, in his terms, reduces to a tautology, aka a "meaningless formula". Certainly the true things taught by the Church are in fact, ehm, true.
Or ... effectively, something is infallible if it's true and not infallible if it's not true, ignoring the fact that infalli-BILITY is by definition the a priori guarantee that a certain proposition must be true. It's infallible if it just so happens to be true. Infallibility reduces to a mere accident.
No, I said I think it was certain of the well respected 19th and 20th century theologians' wrong opinions that people believe are all but defined dogmas that helped get us in the mess we are in - many of them you constantly quote as references to your errors.
Your idea of what the magisterium is, is new, it's the same idea that NOers hold. You cannot accept that even though it is painfully obvious.
See if you can create a syllogism for the magisterium being always infallible, using your idea that it's gone of the rails.....but I use circular reasoning :facepalm:
Pope Pius XI, Divini Illius Magistri
… God Himself made the Church a sharer in the divine magisterium and by His divine benefit unable to be mistaken.
Pope Pius XI, Divini Illius Magistri
To this magisterium Christ the Lord imparted immunity from error...
-
No, our end game is simply to defend Catholic doctrine regarding the Magisterium and Universal Discipline of the Church against your pernicious errors ... which have poisoned generations of Catholics. For pretending to be defending Tradition, you have thrown the Traditional ecclesiology of the Church, the theology by which the Church is distinguished from any other non-Catholic sect, right out the window.
👍👍👍
-
The Ordinary&Universal Magisterium and the simple Ordinary Magisterium are not the same thing. The former, as a theological reality, has existed since the Church started. This is what has been referred to as “the magisterium” from 33AD til the 1800s.
.
The later term, is relatively new, only being used (and developed by theologians) since the mid 1800s (post V1 era), to explain the acts of the hierarchy (including the pope) when they do not meet the notes of infallibility (as defined by V1).
.
In the Vatican 2 era of Modernism, it is hard to identify ANY use of the first type of teaching (including V2 itself). The only exceptions might be Paul VI’s reiteration of the disallowance of contraception and JPII’s reiterations against euthanasia, abortion and women priests.
.
Outside of these formal, authoritative teachings, the V2 era use of the magisterial teaching is ordinary, fallible, non-binding and casual in nature (casual in the sense that the language is imprecise, ambiguous, long-winded and persuasive). Hence, these non-authoritative acts are not (and cannot) be “submitted to” with anywhere close to the submission one must give to past writings which are precise, clear, concise and commanding in nature. Neither has any V2 official claimed that any writings, acts, or speeches be given the same respect (except for the noted topics of contraception, abortion, women priests).
-
Pope Pius XI, Divini Illius Magistri
… God Himself made the Church a sharer in the divine magisterium and by His divine benefit unable to be mistaken.
Pope Pius XI, Divini Illius Magistri
To this magisterium Christ the Lord imparted immunity from error...
Yes, these are the quotes that the sedevacantists always use. Of course, you spin this into the tautology described above.
You invert this from a modus ponens proposition to a modus tollens.
Catholic theolgians. Magisterium means no error.
Stubborn: Error means no Magisterium.
In the first form, the Magisterium is our rule of faith.
In the second, your private judgment determination of truth is your rule of faith.
-
Yes, these are the quotes that the sedevacantists always use. Of course, you spin this into the tautology described above.
You invert this from a modus ponens proposition to a modus tollens.
Catholic theolgians. Magisterium means no error.
Stubborn: Error means no Magisterium.
In the first form, the Magisterium is our rule of faith.
In the second, your private judgment determination of truth is your rule of faith.
Like I said, you are very confused, let me attempt to clarify......
Catholics: Magisterium means no error.
Ladislaus: Magisterium has gone off the rails.
So what is it? Infallible or gone off the rails?
-
Catholics: Magisterium means no error.
Ladislaus: Magisterium has gone off the rails.
So what is it? Infallible or gone off the rails?
Do I have to beat this into your skull with a sledgehammer? We (I, sedevacantists, sedeprivationists) deny V2 is Magisterium because the Popes are doubtful or outright illegitimate (depending on the position).
This is, in fact, the ENTIRE POINT being made by these positions.
You keep regurgitating this nonsense despite the fact that it's been mansplained to you 100 times already.
-
Do I have to beat this into your skull with a sledgehammer? We (I, sedevacantists, sedeprivationists) deny V2 is Magisterium because the Popes are doubtful or outright illegitimate (depending on the position).
This is, in fact, the ENTIRE POINT being made by these positions.
You keep regurgitating this nonsense despite the fact that it's been mansplained to you 100 times already.
Well, we (I, Catholics) deny V2 has anything to do with the Church's magisterium because it is riddled with heresies, errors and whatever other scandalous corruption you care to mention.
The point you cannot accept, is that the Church's magisterium, being always infallible, has absolutely nothing to do with the status of the conciliar popes. And that attempting to base your conclusion on your ENTIRE POINT which is altogether erroneous AT BEST, can only result in utter confusion, which is precisely the state you are in as regards this subject.
Start with and make your immovable foundation, truth. The truth I'm talking about is the truth that the Church's Magisterium is always infallible, just as the popes taught. You will likely find this all but impossible at first, but I have faith in you - if I can do it, you surely can do it with ease. Do not veer away from this truth for anything, make yourself accept the truth and bind yourself to it. I'm of the opinion that until or unless you do this, you will remain in the state of dogmatic doubt, and you'll continue to believe that the Church's Magisterium has gone off the rails, which is a belief that can only possibly lead you to more errors.
-
Well, we (I, Catholics) deny V2 has anything to do with the Church's magisterium because it is riddled with heresies, errors and whatever other scandalous corruption you care to mention.
The point you cannot accept, is that the Church's magisterium, being always infallible, has absolutely nothing to do with the status of the conciliar popes. And that attempting to base your conclusion on your ENTIRE POINT which is altogether erroneous AT BEST, can only result in utter confusion, which is precisely the state you are in as regards this subject.
Start with and make your immovable foundation, truth. The truth I'm talking about is the truth that the Church's Magisterium is always infallible, just as the popes taught. You will likely find this all but impossible at first, but I have faith in you - if I can do it, you surely can do it with ease. Do not veer away from this truth for anything, make yourself accept the truth and bind yourself to it. I'm of the opinion that until or unless you do this, you will remain in the state of dogmatic doubt, and you'll continue to believe that the Church's Magisterium has gone off the rails, which is a belief that can only possibly lead you to more errors.
Stubborn, please explain how do faithful Catholics know when the Church’s Magisterium is teaching?
-
Very little is obvious to me, TBH. But the one thing that is is both sides are right in their critiques of the other side.
Sedes say that R + Rs basically preemptively decide what's true, and then a priori reject whatever they didn't already agree to as "not authentic magisterium." Yup.
R + Rs tell sedes that in the real world, as far as is possibly observable, the conciliar clowns are in fact popes, and that the only way Sedes can decide they aren't is by using their own private judgment to say they aren't. R + Rs are right about this too.
Both sides have their technical workarounds, but in the end both sides are correctly critiquing each other.
I think part of why I get along with Laidslaus is because, while we have very different opinions on some of the particulars, I think there's a general agreement that this stuff is really complicated and the best you can do is kinda take your best guess and trust God.
I don't understand these people who think they can know for sure. Like, how?
-
Stubborn, please explain how do faithful Catholics know when the Church’s Magisterium is teaching?
Well, that's a complicated question because there are different levels of authority. But if we want to strictly talk about the highest levels of teaching authority (i.e. teachings which HAVE to be accepted - no ifs, ands or buts - then the following apply: When the teaching is 1) of faith and morals, 2) authoritative (i.e. binding under pain of sin, and also binding with a 'certainty of faith'), and 3) taught by papal authority, 4) by which to bind the ENTIRE church.
.
The above 4 criteria can be fulfilled in 2 ways,
1) solemn/infallible pronouncements/dogmatic definitions by the pope
Examples: dogma of the Assumption, or VI's defining of infallibility.
2) non-solemn but authoritative language where the pope reiterates universal truths (i.e. "that which has always been taught").
Examples: Paul VI's re-teaching against contraception, or JPII's re-teaching that euthanasia, abortion, and women priests are not allowed.
.
Outside of these areas, the pope is not infallible and he is merely "teaching" with his personal, episcopal authority (in which he can err) because the pope is only protected from error when he engages his APOSTOLIC authority and fulfills the above 4 criteria. This is not to say that we are allowed to ignore the pope or any other bishop when they teach thus, but we are allowed to critique and question any novelties that occur, as no one, not even the pope, can change Church doctrine.
.
Some will argue (not from a theological basis, but only from a logic basis) that V1's definition of infallibility is not full and complete. In other words, there COULD be other ways that the pope is infallible, since V1 "only" defined the parameters for solemn pronouncements. To this I say, "Show me from pre-1800s theology that this idea is legitimate and there is a consensus. The only ones arguing for this idea are the modern theologians (i.e. Fenton) from the 1900s onward. I think this is a modernist notion with no Scriptural or Traditional basis."
-
Well, that's a complicated question because there are different levels of authority. But if we want to strictly talk about the highest levels of teaching authority (i.e. teachings which HAVE to be accepted - no ifs, ands or buts - then the following apply: When the teaching is 1) of faith and morals, 2) authoritative (i.e. binding under pain of sin, and also binding with a 'certainty of faith'), and 3) taught by papal authority, 4) by which to bind the ENTIRE church.
.
The above 4 criteria can be fulfilled in 2 ways,
1) solemn/infallible pronouncements/dogmatic definitions by the pope
Examples: dogma of the Assumption, or VI's defining of infallibility.
2) non-solemn but authoritative language where the pope reiterates universal truths (i.e. "that which has always been taught").
Examples: Paul VI's re-teaching against contraception, or JPII's re-teaching that euthanasia, abortion, and women priests are not allowed.
.
Outside of these areas, the pope is not infallible and he is merely "teaching" with his personal, episcopal authority (in which he can err) because the pope is only protected from error when he engages his APOSTOLIC authority and fulfills the above 4 criteria. This is not to say that we are allowed to ignore the pope or any other bishop when they teach thus, but we are allowed to critique and question any novelties that occur, as no one, not even the pope, can change Church doctrine.
.
Some will argue (not from a theological basis, but only from a logic basis) that V1's definition of infallibility is not full and complete. In other words, there COULD be other ways that the pope is infallible, since V1 "only" defined the parameters for solemn pronouncements. To this I say, "Show me from pre-1800s theology that this idea is legitimate and there is a consensus. The only ones arguing for this idea are the modern theologians (i.e. Fenton) from the 1900s onward. I think this is a modernist notion with no Scriptural or Traditional basis."
If you bothered to look at what I was commenting on, you wouldn’t need to write what you wrote. Stubborn wrote this: “ Start with and make your immovable foundation, truth. The truth I'm talking about is the truth that the Church's Magisterium is always infallible, just as the popes taught.”
Now do you see why I asked Stubborn the question and why your comment had nothing to do with my question? It had nothing to do with defining the Magisterium. It had everything to do with demonstrating how Stubborn employs circular reasoning.
-
Stubborn, please explain how do faithful Catholics know when the Church’s Magisterium is teaching?
Like Lad, you give new meaning to the word "Magisterium" then continually use this new meaning which only causes confusion. When the term, "Church's Magisterium" is used in the sense that Pope Pius XI uses it, and in the sense that V1 uses it, what you said above makes no sense at all.
We know when the Church's clergy or hierarchy is teaching when they perform the act of teaching. We know those teachings are, as V1 states, contained in the Church's Magisterium when, to put in simply, they are or agree with what the Church has always taught.
It's really not complicated.
-
Like Lad, you give new meaning to the word "Magisterium" then continually use this new meaning which only causes confusion. When the term, "Church's Magisterium" is used in the sense that Pope Pius XI uses it, and in the sense that V1 uses it, what you said above makes no sense at all.
We know when the Church's clergy or hierarchy is teaching when they perform the act of teaching. We know those teachings are, as V1 states, contained in the Church's Magisterium when, to put in simply, they are or agree with what the Church has always taught.
It's really not complicated.
Stubborn, do you know what is meant by the term “circular reasoning”? If not, I suggest you look it up.
-
If you bothered to look at what I was commenting on, you wouldn’t need to write what you wrote. Stubborn wrote this: “ Start with and make your immovable foundation, truth. The truth I'm talking about is the truth that the Church's Magisterium is always infallible, just as the popes taught.”
Now do you see why I asked Stubborn the question and why your comment had nothing to do with my question? It had nothing to do with defining the Magisterium. It had everything to do with demonstrating how Stubborn employs circular reasoning.
It is circular to you because you give new meaning to what the Church's Magisterium is.
Try this:
Believe that the quote I gave you from Pope Pius XI is infallibly true. If you do this, then your foundation is that the Church's Magisterium, being "unable to be mistaken" and has "immunity from error" is always infallible.
Do you believe the Pope?
No sense going further if you cannot believe the pope.
-
Stubborn, do you know what is meant by the term “circular reasoning”? If not, I suggest you look it up.
Of course I know what it means. It means because one starts with an empty chair, they end with an empty chair, and in between, all things must point to or agree with an empty chair. That is an example of circular reasoning.
-
It is circular to you because you give new meaning to what the Church's Magisterium is.
Try this:
Believe that the quote I gave you from Pope Pius XI is infallibly true. If you do this, then your foundation is that the Church's Magisterium, being "unable to be mistaken" and has "immunity from error" is always infallible.
Do you believe the Pope?
No sense going further if you cannot believe the pope.
Yes, I believe what Pope Pius XI taught.
You say: “ No sense going further if you cannot believe the pope“.
So I ask you, do you believe your pope Bergoglio when he taught Amoris laetitia?
-
Yes, I believe what Pope Pius XI taught.
Ok, so it is because the Church's Magisterium is always infallible, and because bishops and popes are *not* always infallible - this reason alone should suffice to prove they are not and cannot even be considered to be "The Church's Magisterium" Pope Pius XI talks about.
Do you agree?
You say: “ No sense going further if you cannot believe the pope“.
So I ask you, do you believe your pope Bergoglio when he taught Amoris laetitia?
I have never read it and don't plan to ever read it. I suspect that, like the rest of the NO docs, it's full of, or contains things contrary to the faith. I am sure that, like you, there are 100s if not 1000s of papal docuмents I've never read and have zero knowledge of.
What is in it that you want me to believe?
-
Ok, so it is because the Church's Magisterium is always infallible, and because bishops and popes are *not* always infallible - this reason alone should suffice to prove they are not and cannot even be considered to be "The Church's Magisterium" Pope Pius XI talks about.
Do you agree?
I have never read it and don't plan to ever read it. I suspect that, like the rest of the NO docs, it's full of, or contains things contrary to the faith. I am sure that, like you, there are 100s if not 1000s of papal docuмents I've never read and have zero knowledge of.
What is in it that you want me to believe?
I did it again! I promised myself that I wasn’t going to discuss this subject with you any more. God bless you.
-
I did it again! I promised myself that I wasn’t going to discuss this subject with you any more. God bless you.
Better to just admit you cannot give clear answers to clear questions without contradicting yourself than to end it like that - and thanks for the blessing.
-
It's as easy for me to admit I'm wrong as it is for you to admit you are wrong, but I need to be wrong in order to admit it.
All he is trying to do, is to equate the judging wrong teachings of popes, to meaning popes are not popes. How can anyone with the Catholic faith admit to such a thing as that?
Except I never said any of that. I said you were using your private judgement to declare the popes anti-Catholic conspirators, and that you were putting all of their acts under the scrutiny of your private judgement. That's all I said. And you said I was 100% wrong, before later admitting I was right, and then putting words in my mouth so you could still call me wrong(for something I never said). Incredibly dishonest.
-
Except I never said any of that. I said you were using your private judgement to declare the popes anti-Catholic conspirators, and that you were putting all of their acts under the scrutiny of your private judgement. That's all I said. And you said I was 100% wrong, before later admitting I was right, and then putting words in my mouth so you could still call me wrong(for something I never said). Incredibly dishonest.
You are wrong because I have not put any of their acts under scrutiny, I have simply ignored them.
OTOH, if you want to tell me that he said something necessary, something I actually needed to listen to, THEN I would scrutinize for reasons that should be obvious, but I won't hold my breath waiting for him to say something I need to listen to.
What is it that he has ever said that I need to listen to?
-
So I ask you, do you believe your pope Bergoglio when he taught Amoris laetitia?
Amoris Laetitia was part of the normal, everyday, fallible, "ordinary magisterium" (to use the term invented in the mid 1800s). The docuмent AE is not infallible, is not authoritative, is not binding, is not obligatory on ANYONE to follow, except those that WANT to follow it (i.e. the communist infiltrators that are using AE as an excuse to water down marriage doctrines). Even roman officials have said that it's not infallible and it does not have any teaching weight, as it pertains to sin.
.
You, like Ladislaus, need to do research on the origins of the phrase "ordinary magisterium" and educate yourself on what it means and what its limits are (which are many).
-
Amoris Laetitia was part of the normal, everyday, fallible, "ordinary magisterium" (to use the term invented in the mid 1800s). The docuмent AE is not infallible, is not authoritative, is not binding, is not obligatory on ANYONE to follow, except those that WANT to follow it (i.e. the communist infiltrators that are using AE as an excuse to water down marriage doctrines). Even roman officials have said that it's not infallible and it does not have any teaching weight, as it pertains to sin.
.
You, like Ladislaus, need to do research on the origins of the phrase "ordinary magisterium" and educate yourself on what it means and what its limits are (which are many).
Please provide Church teaching that states that the authentic, ordinary, non-fallible magisterium does not have to be accepted by Catholics.
-
You are wrong because I have not put any of their acts under scrutiny, I have simply ignored them.
OTOH, if you want to tell me that he said something necessary, something I actually needed to listen to, THEN I would scrutinize for reasons that should be obvious, but I won't hold my breath waiting for him to say something I need to listen to.
What is it that he has ever said that I need to listen to?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1983_Code_of_Canon_Law (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1983_Code_of_Canon_Law)
-
You are wrong because I have not put any of their acts under scrutiny, I have simply ignored them.
OTOH, if you want to tell me that he said something necessary, something I actually needed to listen to, THEN I would scrutinize for reasons that should be obvious, but I won't hold my breath waiting for him to say something I need to listen to.
What is it that he has ever said that I need to listen to?
You really should be turning off your air conditioner in the Summer, for one. And, if a couple is co-habitating while receiving Holy Communion, who are you to judge? I mean, who are you to judge ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖs living together either.
-
Amoris Laetitia was part of the normal, everyday, fallible, "ordinary magisterium" (to use the term invented in the mid 1800s). The docuмent AE is not infallible, is not authoritative, is not binding, is not obligatory on ANYONE to follow, except those that WANT to follow it (i.e. the communist infiltrators that are using AE as an excuse to water down marriage doctrines). Even roman officials have said that it's not infallible and it does not have any teaching weight, as it pertains to sin.
.
You, like Ladislaus, need to do research on the origins of the phrase "ordinary magisterium" and educate yourself on what it means and what its limits are (which are many).
It is not possible even for the Ordinary Papal Magisterium to go as thoroughly corrupt as you claim that it can. It is not possible for a Pope to teach heretical doctrine to the Universal Church like Bergoglio did with Amoris Laetitia. While, certainly, not every detail in any Encyclical is guaranteed to be true, the teaching of blatant heresy is indeed a contradiction of Traditional teaching that the Magisterium is essentially free from error. If this Magisterium can teach heresy to the Universal Church that leads to the loss of souls (here condoning cohabitation), then the Magisterium has failed. The overall infallibility of the Magisterium precludes the teaching of heresy to the Universal Church.
-
Like Lad, you give new meaning to the word "Magisterium" then continually use this new meaning which only causes confusion.
You are ridiculous. YOU have redefined the term Magisterium to mean something that no Catholic theologian has ever defined it as. Bishop Williamson would laugh you out of the room if you tried to propose this understanding of it to him. And then you have the temerity to accuse US of giving a "new meaning" to the term. All of your own R&R buddies would throw you overboard on this point. I've read SSPX articles discussing the difference between the infallible Magisterium and the "merely authentic" MAGISTERIUM.
I don't know whether to laugh or to cry ... but in either case, I'm going to my garage now to wrap duct tape around my head.
-
https://sspx.org/en/clear-ideas-popes-infallible-magisterium (https://sspx.org/en/clear-ideas-popes-infallible-magisterium)
The "Authentic Magisterium" cannot be so simply identified with the Ordinary Magisterium. In fact, the Ordinary Magisterium can be infallible and non-infallible, and it is only in this second case that it is called the "Authentic Magisterium."
Similarly, Salaverri, in his Sacrae Theologiae Summa (vol. I, 5th ed., Madrid, B.A.C.) distinguishes the following:
1. Extraordinary Infallible Papal Magisterium (no. 592 ff);
2. Ordinary Infallible Papal Magisterium (no. 645 ff);
3. Papal Magisterium that is mere authenticuм, that is, only "authentic" or "authorized" as regards the person himself, not as regards his infallibility (no. 659 ff).
Note, even the NON-INFALLIBLE Magisterium is still called "MAGISTERIUM". NO CATHOLIC THEOLOGIAN has ever defined this otherwise.
-
This is in fact a very good article --
https://sspx.org/en/clear-ideas-popes-infallible-magisterium (https://sspx.org/en/clear-ideas-popes-infallible-magisterium)
... except that they ignore the implications of THIS:
The infallible guarantee of divine assistance is not limited solely to the acts of the Solemn Magisterium; it also extends to the Ordinary Magisterium, although it does not cover and assure all the latter’s acts in the same way. (Fr. Labourdette, O.P., Revue Thomiste, 1950, p.38)
Thus, the assent due to the Ordinary Magisterium "can range from simple respect right up to a true act of faith."
First of all, find me a single adherent of R&R that even has "respect" for the teachings of Bergoglio :laugh1:
As the article goes on, the Pope by himself possesses the same degree of infallibility that God willed for the entire Church to possess.
Mgr. Fenton rightly concludes that this Magisterium as a whole simply cannot ever become substantially corrupt. But R&R hold that it can and that, therefore, the Magisterium can defect.
-
https://sspx.org/en/clear-ideas-popes-infallible-magisterium (https://sspx.org/en/clear-ideas-popes-infallible-magisterium)
Note, even the NON-INFALLIBLE Magisterium is still called "MAGISTERIUM". NO CATHOLIC THEOLOGIAN has ever defined this otherwise.
From the same article:
“The present crisis is at the level of what is presented as the simply "authentic" Magisterium, which, as Cardinal Siri reminds us, "does not of itself imply infallibility" (Renovatio, op.cit.). But are we really dealing with the "authentic" Magisterium?
The author of Iota Unum (http://sspx.org/en/media/books/iota-unum-study-changes-after-vatican-ii-2064) wrote:
Nowadays it is no longer the case that every word of the pope constitutes Magisterium. Now, very frequently, it is no more than the expression of views, ideas and considerations that are to be found disseminated throughout the Church,... and of doctrines that have spread and become dominant in much theology." (Eglise et Contre-Eglise au Concile Vatican II, Second Theological Congress of Si Si No No, Jan. 1996)”
-
From the same article:
“The present crisis is at the level of what is presented as the simply "authentic" Magisterium, which, as Cardinal Siri reminds us, "does not of itself imply infallibility" (Renovatio, op.cit.). But are we really dealing with the "authentic" Magisterium?
SeanJohnson, this is not what we're discussing at the moment. We're disputing Stubborn's definition of Magisterium ... which no theologian has ever held, and which no thinking proponent of R&R has ever held.
-
Again, this article does a very good job discussing the various distinctions regarding papal Magisterium.
But it's missing the forest for the trees. There'a broader higher-level infallibility of the overall Magisterium. As R&R defines things, 99% of the Magisterium (the non-infallible part) can be thoroughly corrupt and require rejection by the private judgment of Catholics. That, however, is tantamount to its defection.
Not to mention that no theologians would accept that the Universal Discipline of the Church, in particular, the Mass, can be harmful to souls and displeasing to God. That too would entail a defection of the Church.
Not to mention that the vast majority of theologians also hold canonizations to be infallible.
-
Please provide Church teaching that states that the authentic, ordinary, non-fallible magisterium does not have to be accepted by Catholics.
There is no such thing as the "ordinary, non-fallible (i.e. infallible)" magisterium. Just like the word "heretic" has at least 10 different adjectives attached to it (which developed over time, as theologians attempted to explain the various levels and degrees of heresy) so the word "magisterium" has many adjectives attached to it.
.
The use of the word long ago is typically the simple "magisterium", which denoted teaching authority present in ecuмenical councils. Then it came to be described as "solemn" (the pope defining a doctrine) vs "ordinary and universal" (the pope and/or bishops reiterating the teachings "that have always been taught" from Scripture/Tradition).
.
In the mid 1800s, it was further developed to call the "ordinary" magisterium to those acts of the pope which are ordinary in nature - interviews, sermons, writings, etc - in which is not attempting to teach using his apostolic authority or to bind the entire church on some matter of faith/morals.
.
The first use of the term "ordinary magisterium" was in the mid 1800s. Look it up. Previous to this, the magisterium is called "solemn" or "ordinary and universal". The use of the word "universal" is important when added to the term "ordinary" because it explains that a non-solemn, (i.e. non-dogmatic) decree by the Holy Father can only be authoritative IF...it is a universal teaching (i.e. it has been believed by catholics "everywhere, always, and by all") which means it agrees with Scripture and Apostolic Tradition.
.
Case 1
If a pope makes use of his SOLEMN MAGISTERIUM to define a doctrine, and he fulfills the 4 requirements for infallibility, even if the doctrine appears novel, WE HAVE NO CHOICE but to assent 100% of our faith in this dogma.
.
Case 2
If a pope makes use of his ORDINARY/UNIVERSAL magisterium to reiterate/re-teach a doctrine which is (in the current times) becoming unclear or under attack, he would be infallible in his teaching, if he shows how this doctrine has been "always taught" through the ages, and how it is in Scripture or Tradition. He could use his apostolic authority to command that we assent to this "universally held" belief of the Church from the time of 33AD til now. We would have to assent to this doctrine, same as in a SOLEMN doctrine.
.
Case 3
If a pope does not use his SOLEMN magisterium to define anything, and if he does not use his ORDINARY/UNIVERSAL magisterium to authoritatively teach that something is connected to Scripture/Apostolic Tradition, then his "teaching" is simply "ordinary" (to use the new, 1800s term). His teaching is NOT coming from papal authority at all. It is not binding, nor is it required for salvation, since his teaching is from his personal, human, fallible knowledge as a theologian or from his seminary studies or from his (presumably) experienced career as a priest and a cleric.
.
Case 4
In our V2 era, the modernists have invented the novelty of having councils/synods where docuмents are drawn up by committee and then voted on in a democratic process (after short "debates", which are skewed against those who are orthodox, and which only help those modernists heretics who want the docuмent "approved"). The process of "teaching" in this manner is anything but novel; it is anything but unique in all of Church history. The intent is not to "teach the faithful" but to "push an agenda". Any docuмents that the pope "approves" from these types of committees/synods/councils are not protected by the Holy Ghost, nor are they taught with Apostolic Authority, nor are they binding on all the faithful to accept for salvation. (And those committee members, rome officials, and even the pope NEVER CLAIM THAT THESE DOcuмENTS HAVE ANY SUCH AUTHORITY!) They can be critiqued, ignored and challenged to the nth degree, as they are not part of SOLEMN or UNIVERSAL teachings of the Faith. Same as Case #3 above.
-
You are ridiculous. YOU have redefined the term Magisterium to mean something that no Catholic theologian has ever defined it as. Bishop Williamson would laugh you out of the room if you tried to propose this understanding of it to him. And then you have the temerity to accuse US of giving a "new meaning" to the term. All of your own R&R buddies would throw you overboard on this point. I've read SSPX articles discussing the difference between the infallible Magisterium and the "merely authentic" MAGISTERIUM.
I don't know whether to laugh or to cry ... but in either case, I'm going to my garage now to wrap duct tape around my head.
You and your 19th/20th century theologians already, smh.
Pope Pius XI said the Church's Magisterium is always infallible. I agree with him.
You say the Magisterium has gone off the rails.
Bishop Williamson will certainly agree with Pope Pius XI and laugh YOU right out of the room.
Can we at least agree on that much?
-
SeanJohnson, this is not what we're discussing at the moment. We're disputing Stubborn's definition of Magisterium ... which no theologian has ever held, and which no thinking proponent of R&R has ever held.
Your idea gives new meaning to the word - as I already proved.
-
It is not possible even for the Ordinary Papal Magisterium to go as thoroughly corrupt as you claim that it can. It is not possible for a Pope to teach heretical doctrine to the Universal Church like Bergoglio did with Amoris Laetitia.
Only the "Ordinary and Universal" magisterium is protected from error. You are forgetting the "Universal" part, which denotes that the teaching is part of Scripture and/or Apostolic Tradition, and which the pope must show/prove that this is the case.
.
The simple "ordinary, non-universal" magisterium is a new term, since the mid-1800s. Such "teachings" (to use the term incorrectly and generally) are not infallible, not protected from error and have the same potential to err in a grave manner as Martin Luther's 99 thesis heresies. The pope, outside of infallibility, can turn heretic to the same or greater degree than ANY heretic in history. To say otherwise is a contradiction; it is to say that the pope is an oracle, or an automatic saint or a walking angelic spirit. That's nonsense.
.
Secondly, nowhere in AE did the pope "teach doctrine". Firstly, no is required to follow AE, or accept it. Even Cardinal Burke and those who wrote the "dubia" letter said that it's a Synod/committee docuмent with no doctrinal weight. If you think doctrine is involved, prove that we must accept AE. Show me the language.
.
Thirdly, nor did he "teach to the Universal Church". The pope didn't "authoritatively bind" the entire Church to accept AE under pain of sin or as a requirement for salvation. Therefore, he didn't teach the entire Church. Your use of these terms is just wrong.
While, certainly, not every detail in any Encyclical is guaranteed to be true, the teaching of blatant heresy is indeed a contradiction of Traditional teaching that the Magisterium is essentially free from error.
There has been no V2-era encyclical where heresy has been "taught" in the sense that the error is required/binding. If the pope gives a sermon (which is basically what an encyclical is - a letter to his fellow bishops) but does not refer to his APOSTOLIC authority, then he's not teaching as the pope, but only as the bishop of rome. The REQUREMENT for one to TEACH AUTHORITATIVELY is to COMMAND ASSENT. If there is no use of AUTHORITY, then there is no teaching. Then such communications are persuasive writings which we must "give assent" to, but are not free from error (even if major error).
.
If this Magisterium can teach heresy to the Universal Church that leads to the loss of souls (here condoning cohabitation), then the Magisterium has failed. The overall infallibility of the Magisterium precludes the teaching of heresy to the Universal Church.
This applies to the Ordinary & Universal Magisterium only. It doesn't apply to those things which are (since the mid 1800s) called simply the "ordinary magisterium". You are applying the wrong ideas to the wrong word.
-
But it's missing the forest for the trees. There'a broader higher-level infallibility of the overall Magisterium. As R&R defines things, 99% of the Magisterium (the non-infallible part) can be thoroughly corrupt and require rejection by the private judgment of Catholics. That, however, is tantamount to its defection.
Not to mention that no theologians would accept that the Universal Discipline of the Church, in particular, the Mass, can be harmful to souls and displeasing to God. That too would entail a defection of the Church.
Not to mention that the vast majority of theologians also hold canonizations to be infallible.
1) We know 99% of the churchmen will in fact defect (our Lord acknowledges this in scripture), but the 1% will constitute the Church, which will not have defected, but rather, simply be manifested in them.
Therefore, 99% defection of magisterial authority does not equal defection of the Church;
2) St. Alphonsus declares that Satan will triumph over the Mass, and it will be eradicated. But if a doctor of the Church could hold this opinion, and publish it without censure, it means the Church will not have defected, even if the Mass disappears.
That’s saying quite a bit more than that Rome can be displeasing to God.
So, if the former does not constitute defection, neither does the latter;
3) As regards (most of) the theologians agreeing on the infallibility of canonizations, all R&R would also agree THOSE canonizations were infallible.
The new “canonizations” are a whole different breed of cat, featuring a non-Catholic concept of “holiness and virtue,” a severely curtailed process, reduction of proven miracles, determinations made by diocesan bishops, with the Pope merely signing off (collegiality), etc.
Every reasonable Catholic would conclude these new canonizations doubtful, because they are not canonizations in the same sense as the infallible ones.
-
Ladislaus, typically I find that you are level-headed, fair and impartial in most things. But in the area of the magisterium, where I have posted numerous quotes/research in the past, you blatantly ignored all of the information. You either did this lazily, stubbornly and/or you have an agenda. On every other major topic, YOU are the one to insert NUMEROUS (and correct) distinctions and details to an otherwise overly-generic discussion. But on the this topic, you cling to generic definitions which make no sense and are wrong. It's truly weird. You need to pray about this.
-
Ladislaus, typically I find that you are level-headed, fair and impartial in most things. But in the area of the magisterium, where I have posted numerous quotes/research in the past, you blatantly ignored all of the information. You either did this lazily, stubbornly and/or you have an agenda. On every other major topic, YOU are the one to insert NUMEROUS (and correct) distinctions and details to an otherwise overly-generic discussion. But on the this topic, you cling to generic definitions which make no sense and are wrong. It's truly weird. You need to pray about this.
No, Pax, I think that it is you who need to do more praying about this question. In clinging with white knuckles to your R&R position, you promote a non-Catholic notion of the Church and the Magisterium. You would have been condemned as a heretic for the things you say during the vast majority of the Church's history. No Traditional definition of the Church's indefectibility would entertain a scenario where Catholics are required to reject the teachings of the Magisterium in order to remain faithful Catholics and to save their souls. No Traditional understanding of the Church's indefectibility would entertain a scenario where Catholics must refuse to accept a Mass promulgated by the Pope as displeasing to God and harmful to souls. You go on and on about how terrible the New Mass is .... Do you really think that it's possible for the Holy Catholic Church to promulgate and use a Rite of Mass which barely even resembles a Catholic Rite? By the way, that proposition has been explicitly condemned by the Church. In adopting these positions, you are seriously at risk of losing your faith.
At the end of the day, I could hardly care less if you follow Cajetan and hold that a heretical pope needs to be deposed in order to lose office. That's a disputed theological matter. But in claiming that these men still formally exercise legitimate papal authority, you imply a defectibility of the Church that is materially and objectively HERETICAL.
-
There is no such thing as the "ordinary, non-fallible (i.e. infallible)" magisterium. Just like the word "heretic" has at least 10 different adjectives attached to it (which developed over time, as theologians attempted to explain the various levels and degrees of heresy) so the word "magisterium" has many adjectives attached to it.
.
The use of the word long ago is typically the simple "magisterium", which denoted teaching authority present in ecuмenical councils. Then it came to be described as "solemn" (the pope defining a doctrine) vs "ordinary and universal" (the pope and/or bishops reiterating the teachings "that have always been taught" from Scripture/Tradition).
.
In the mid 1800s, it was further developed to call the "ordinary" magisterium to those acts of the pope which are ordinary in nature - interviews, sermons, writings, etc - in which is not attempting to teach using his apostolic authority or to bind the entire church on some matter of faith/morals.
.
The first use of the term "ordinary magisterium" was in the mid 1800s. Look it up. Previous to this, the magisterium is called "solemn" or "ordinary and universal". The use of the word "universal" is important when added to the term "ordinary" because it explains that a non-solemn, (i.e. non-dogmatic) decree by the Holy Father can only be authoritative IF...it is a universal teaching (i.e. it has been believed by catholics "everywhere, always, and by all") which means it agrees with Scripture and Apostolic Tradition.
.
Case 1
If a pope makes use of his SOLEMN MAGISTERIUM to define a doctrine, and he fulfills the 4 requirements for infallibility, even if the doctrine appears novel, WE HAVE NO CHOICE but to assent 100% of our faith in this dogma.
.
Case 2
If a pope makes use of his ORDINARY/UNIVERSAL magisterium to reiterate/re-teach a doctrine which is (in the current times) becoming unclear or under attack, he would be infallible in his teaching, if he shows how this doctrine has been "always taught" through the ages, and how it is in Scripture or Tradition. He could use his apostolic authority to command that we assent to this "universally held" belief of the Church from the time of 33AD til now. We would have to assent to this doctrine, same as in a SOLEMN doctrine.
.
Case 3
If a pope does not use his SOLEMN magisterium to define anything, and if he does not use his ORDINARY/UNIVERSAL magisterium to authoritatively teach that something is connected to Scripture/Apostolic Tradition, then his "teaching" is simply "ordinary" (to use the new, 1800s term). His teaching is NOT coming from papal authority at all. It is not binding, nor is it required for salvation, since his teaching is from his personal, human, fallible knowledge as a theologian or from his seminary studies or from his (presumably) experienced career as a priest and a cleric.
.
Case 4
In our V2 era, the modernists have invented the novelty of having councils/synods where docuмents are drawn up by committee and then voted on in a democratic process (after short "debates", which are skewed against those who are orthodox, and which only help those modernists heretics who want the docuмent "approved"). The process of "teaching" in this manner is anything but novel; it is anything but unique in all of Church history. The intent is not to "teach the faithful" but to "push an agenda". Any docuмents that the pope "approves" from these types of committees/synods/councils are not protected by the Holy Ghost, nor are they taught with Apostolic Authority, nor are they binding on all the faithful to accept for salvation. (And those committee members, rome officials, and even the pope NEVER CLAIM THAT THESE DOcuмENTS HAVE ANY SUCH AUTHORITY!) They can be critiqued, ignored and challenged to the nth degree, as they are not part of SOLEMN or UNIVERSAL teachings of the Faith. Same as Case #3 above.
I meant non infallible. Please revisit.
-
No, Pax, I think that it is you who need to do more praying about this question. In clinging with white knuckles to your R&R position, you promote a non-Catholic notion of the Church and the Magisterium.
My understanding of the magisterium, and its MULTIPLE DIFFERENT LEVELS of authority, are based on writings of theologians and Church history.
.
I'm not an R&R person; as we've discussed a 100x, i'm probably a sede-privationist. I'm just saying that this "argument" which sedes use to attack R&R is incoherent. There are plenty of other reasons to say why the V2 popes aren't popes. This isn't one of them that carries water.
You would have been condemned as a heretic for the things you say during the vast majority of the Church's history. No Traditional definition of the Church's indefectibility would entertain a scenario where Catholics are required to reject the teachings of the Magisterium in order to remain faithful Catholics and to save their souls.
More generalities from you. V2 is not a "teaching" that we must "reject" because we don't have to accept it to begin with. You can't "reject" an optional statement; you just ignore it (because you can). Something which isn't required is not a teaching. This is just basic logic.
No Traditional understanding of the Church's indefectibility would entertain a scenario where Catholics must refuse to accept a Mass promulgated by the Pope as displeasing to God and harmful to souls.
Paul VI himself never required anyone to accept his mass. THERE IS NO LAW WHICH REQUIRES WE ATTEND/ACCEPT THE NEW MASS. Your entire argument is insane and a fantasy.
You go on and on about how terrible the New Mass is .... Do you really think that it's possible for the Holy Catholic Church to promulgate and use a Rite of Mass which barely even resembles a Catholic Rite? By the way, that proposition has been explicitly condemned by the Church. In adopting these positions, you are seriously at risk of losing your faith.
Your incorrect use of the word "promulgate" is your error. You falsely assume that all laws have the same authority. You falsely assume that to promulgate something means it's required. You falsely assume that a legal act is necessarily perfect, and unambiguous, and without problems or contradictions.
At the end of the day, I could hardly care less if you follow Cajetan and hold that a heretical pope needs to be deposed in order to lose office. That's a disputed theological matter. But in claiming that these men still formally exercise legitimate papal authority, you imply a defectibility of the Church that is materially and objectively HERETICAL.
If you would calm down, take a deep breath and take off the "R&R hatred" glasses, you would realize that I'm saying that V2, the AE Synod, and 99.999% (if not all) of the acts of the hierarchy from the 1960s til present ARE NOT EXERCISES OF LEGIMATE PAPAL AUTHORITY, but only exercise of EPISCOPAL AUTHORITY. To exercise PAPAL authority, the pope would have to TEACH APOSTOLICALLY, to BIND the ENTIRE Church, to act in a COMMANDING matter (on faith/morals). This hasn't happened in decades.
.
You want to argue that it hasn't happened because they don't have such authority. I'm arguing it hasn't happened because they PURPOSEFULLY did not use such authority. The reasons are immaterial. It is reality that such authority has not been used. Therefore, any and all errors which proceed from new-rome are not protected from error, whether because the magisterium doesn't exist (the argument from sedevacantism) or because the magisterium is impaired (sede-privationism view) or because it simply hasn't been used for modernists hold such spiritual power in contempt (the R&R view). I simply hold, on this issue alone, that the evidence points towards the R&R view (although the sede-privationist view could be correct too). Practically, it makes no difference.
-
There is no such thing as the "ordinary, non-fallible (i.e. infallible)" magisterium.
https://sspx.org/en/clear-ideas-popes-infallible-magisterium (https://sspx.org/en/clear-ideas-popes-infallible-magisterium)
I guess you didn't look at this article. See bolded in quotation below.
The "Authentic Magisterium" cannot be so simply identified with the Ordinary Magisterium. In fact, the Ordinary Magisterium can be infallible and non-infallible, and it is only in this second case that it is called the "Authentic Magisterium."
Similarly, Salaverri, in his Sacrae Theologiae Summa (vol. I, 5th ed., Madrid, B.A.C.) distinguishes the following:
1. Extraordinary Infallible Papal Magisterium (no. 592 ff);
2. Ordinary Infallible Papal Magisterium (no. 645 ff);
3. Papal Magisterium that is mere authenticuм, that is, only "authentic" or "authorized" as regards the person himself, not as regards his infallibility (no. 659 ff).
-
Again, for the 1,000x, the use of the term "ordinary magisterium" is muddied after the 1800s. The ordinary magisterium can NEVER be infallible UNLESS it is also UNIVERSAL (i.e. shown to be consistent with Scripture/Tradition). When it is NOT shown to be "always taught" or it does not use Apostolic Authority to command assent, then it is merely ordinary.
.
The fact that the article you posted only has 3 levels, shows that the "universal" aspect is implied. If you go back to pre-1900s theologians, the use of the word "ordinary" is always attached to the "universal" ideal.
.
I would also like to point out, Ladislaus, that YOU are the one who has never admitted the fact that the merely ordinary magisterium can err. You use "ordinary magisterium" in such a general sense that it's meaningless. You have repeatedly said such idiotic things as "the magisterium can never fail". Well, the answer is "yes and no. It depends."
.
I'm glad you have FINALLY figured out that there are different levels of authority. That the Ordinary Magisterium CAN err (the limit of which has never been defined, so it's open for interpretation).
.
99.999% of post-V2 hierarchical acts/teachings have been of the "ordinary non-infallible, authentic" type. Or you can call it the "papal magisterium" which is authentically from the pope as a private theologian.
-
Again, for the 1,000x, the use of the term "ordinary magisterium" is muddied after the 1800s. The ordinary magisterium can NEVER be infallible UNLESS it is also UNIVERSAL (i.e. shown to be consistent with Scripture/Tradition).
Nothing has been muddied ... except in the minds of R&R. You made the statement that there's no such thing as an infallible ordinary Magisterium. That is patently false. If you want to argue over the conditions for when the Ordinary Magisterium is infallible, that's fine. But your statement is patently untrue.
-
I would also like to point out, Ladislaus, that YOU are the one who has never admitted the fact that the merely ordinary magisterium can err.
This statement is absolutely FALSE. I've repeatedly stated there there can be error in the ordinary Magisterium. What I hold is that it cannot become substantially corrupt and unreliable. I even cited the SSPX article as showing a good balance between the extreme positions. You've lost total credibility with this statement. You evidently have me confused with some of the more radical dogmatic sedevacantists.
We are not talking about an isolated error in a particular Papal Encyclical here. We're talking about the establishment of a new religion ... with its new subjectivist ecclesiology and morality, and its non-Catholic worship.
-
I'm glad you have FINALLY figured out that there are different levels of authority.
What are you talking about? I have ALWAYS acknowledge that there are different levels of authority. Your allegation is preposterous. I have openly criticized the dogmatic sedevacantists who do this very thing, effectively reduce everything to infallible Magisterium. I think you have some filter on your brain that prevents you from actually comprehending what I'm talking about.
-
You're huffing and puffing about the existence of a non-infallible Magisterium. I have never denied this, ever. So I have no idea what phantom you're boxing against.
What I hold is that Magisterium and Universal Discipline of the Church cannot become substantially corrupt. How many times do I have to repeat this?
For whatever reason, God can conceivably allow a relatively small error into the Ordinary Magisterium, but he will never allow it to become substantially unreliable and corrupt, harmful to souls, as it has been for 60+ years now.
-
You made the statement that there's no such thing as an infallible ordinary Magisterium. That is patently false.
No it’s not false. It depends how you define the word “ordinary” as it relates to all the other levels involved. If you use the term pre 1800s, it’s different than its use now. Context matters.
-
What I hold is that it cannot become substantially corrupt and unreliable.
And where is the evidence to back this up? From Fenton? That’s his opinion. Where is the long-standing, consensus that “fallible” means “can err, but not in a major way”? There’s no consensus for this theory at all, except in the V2 era of the 1900s.
-
Papal Magisterium that is mere authenticuм, that is, only "authentic" or "authorized" as regards the person himself,
Ladislaus, can the pope’s personal, authentic, fallible magisterium gravely err? Like err in heresy? Why or why not?
-
Please define “Universal Discipline”. You throw this term around all the time and you have avoided defining it, when asked, over 5x on numerous threads. You owe us all an explanation on what you mean.
What I hold is that Magisterium and Universal Discipline of the Church cannot become substantially corrupt.
Ok, I absolutely disagree. Probably because we are using different terms. But even if we’re using the same terms, you have never proven the above and I’m tired of you calling people heretics for disagreeing with you. Mostly because you use sloppy language. The statement you wrote above, is clearly ambiguous and leads to confusion.
.
What you should say, to be clear: 1) the magisterium can err, in its ordinary exercise, but...you don’t feel that God would allow it to err in a grave manner.
.
—ok, fine. That’s your opinion.
.
2) the Universal Discipline of the Church is different from the ordinary magisterium because teaching authority is different from liturgical/govt authority.
.
— really these are 2 separate issues that shouldn’t even be combined in the same thought. Infallibility has nothing to do with disciplines.
.
3) Define “substantially corrupt”. Is this an opinion? If so, then why do you call others “heretics” for disagreeing with you?
.
+Bellarmine argues both for and against the idea of a heretic pope. To say the ordinary, fallible, papal magisterium can be “substantially corrupted” is not a heresy.
.
V2 is part of the ordinary, fallible, papal magisterium.
-
I'm glad you have FINALLY figured out that there are different levels of authority. That the Ordinary Magisterium CAN err (the limit of which has never been defined, so it's open for interpretation).
Only Stubborn has ever posited that the everything in the magisterium is infallible(he says the ordinary magisterium isn't actually part of the magisterium, a view you'll see supported just about nowhere). Ladislaus has never claimed such.
-
Ok, I absolutely disagree. Probably because we are using different terms. But even if we’re using the same terms, you have never proven the above and I’m tired of you calling people heretics for disagreeing with you. Mostly because you use sloppy language. The statement you wrote above, is clearly ambiguous and leads to confusion.
You just stated that you disagree with the proposition that the Church's Magisterium and Universal Discipline can never become substantially corrupt. Sir, that is in fact heresy. There are now two ways about that. You have just denied the indefectibility of the Church's Magisterium.
-
Oh there you go again. I asked you to define “Universal Discipline” and you’ve dodged that question for the 5+ time now over the last year. I have no idea what you mean when you say that, so you can’t assume I’m using the term the same way as you.
.
And yes, the “magisterium” can become corrupt (if we’re talking about the pope’s “personal, authentic, fallible” type). If we’re talking about the solemn or ordinary/universal, then yes, my statement would be wrong. But you didn’t specify. You simply said “the magisterium cannot be corrupted”. See the problem? See why your imprecise language causes problems?
.
I’ve also pointed this out to you multiple times in multiple threads. You just ignore it and don’t reply. Again, this has happened 5+ times in the last year or so.
.
It’s actually one of the few times anyone can ever get you to stop posting. Why is that, Ladislaus? What gives?
-
We are not talking about an isolated error in a particular Papal Encyclical here. We're talking about the establishment of a new religion ... with its new subjectivist ecclesiology and morality, and its non-Catholic worship.
I think this is a bit hairy because many of the R + R, and even some non R + Rs such as yourself would conclude that it is possible to attend the Novus Ordo, accept some kind of "hermeneutic of continuty", and still be inside the Church, not be a heretic, and have the possibility of saving one's soul.
I tend to think to deny this without being a Sede would be pretty absurd. While I don't claim to be an expert, I can't square the Fr. Wathen kind of R + R. If the Conciliar Church is not in *any* sense the Catholic Church, if Novus Ordo Catholics are not in *any* sense real Catholics, if it is *damnable* to accept the conciliar saints as real saints, it seems to logically follow that the *Pope* of said religion would also not be the *Pope* of the Catholic Church.
On the other hand if you view it more like a Venn Diagram, R + R would make more sense, I think.
-
Only Stubborn has ever posited that the everything in the magisterium is infallible(he says the ordinary magisterium isn't actually part of the magisterium, a view you'll see supported just about nowhere). Ladislaus has never claimed such.
I never said the OM isn't actually part of the magisterium - where did you get that from please? I would like to have the opportunity to correct myself if that's what I said.
I disagree with Pax re: the OM is fallible. I agree with the Church, as taught by popes that the Church's Magisterium is unable to be mistaken and has immunity from error, and also with V1's infallible teaching that we are bound to believe all those truths contained in her Ordinary Magisterium and in her Universal Magisterium.
Who among us here accepts the idea that V1 would bind us to believe all those truths contained in her OM, if there could ever be even a spec of error within it? Well, Ladislaus and his theologians are believers of that error, and Ladislaus has bound himself to it.
I disagree with Ladislaus who claims the Church's Magisterium has gone off the rails because his idea here, diametrically opposes the very purpose of the Church's Magisterium.
Lad's idea is likened to starting off stealing a penny, before long your robbing banks. If the OM can have a tiny, insignificant error here and there, eventually that error will grow into the Church's own destruction - which is impossible, but has already happened if the Magisterium has gone off the rails as he constantly insists.
-
Oh there you go again. I asked you to define “Universal Discipline” and you’ve dodged that question for the 5+ time now over the last year. I have no idea what you mean when you say that, so you can’t assume I’m using the term the same way as you.
Add that 5+ times to the +dozen or so times I asked him the same question. Seems plain that, like the Church's Magisterium, he has no idea what Universal Discipline means, but it sounds good.
-
I think this is a bit hairy because many of the R + R, and even some non R + Rs such as yourself would conclude that it is possible to attend the Novus Ordo, accept some kind of "hermeneutic of continuty", and still be inside the Church, not be a heretic, and have the possibility of saving one's soul.
I tend to think to deny this without being a Sede would be pretty absurd. While I don't claim to be an expert, I can't square the Fr. Wathen kind of R + R. If the Conciliar Church is not in *any* sense the Catholic Church, if Novus Ordo Catholics are not in *any* sense real Catholics, if it is *damnable* to accept the conciliar saints as real saints, it seems to logically follow that the *Pope* of said religion would also not be the *Pope* of the Catholic Church.
On the other hand if you view it more like a Venn Diagram, R + R would make more sense, I think.
"The reader is implored to believe that as it is in the spirit of Christian charity that we have been compelled to proclaim the
Catholic Church to be the sole and exclusive instrument of salvation for men on earth, it is in the same spirit that we assert the major thesis of this third part, viz., the Conciliar Church is not the Catholic Church, though it is within it, like a fifth column. Hence, no one who maintains membership within it can be saved. We say that we speak thus with genuine charity, because true charity seeks to inform one's neighbor what he must do for his salvation, and when he is in danger of losing it". - Fr. Wathen, Who Shall Ascend?
-
+Bellarmine's opinion is not infallible. We all have an opinion. The argument that "it's never happened before" is weak.
-
I never said the OM isn't actually part of the magisterium - where did you get that from please? I would like to have the opportunity to correct myself if that's what I said.
I disagree with Pax re: the OM is fallible. I agree with the Church, as taught by popes that the Church's Magisterium is unable to be mistaken and has immunity from error, and also with V1's infallible teaching that we are bound to believe all those truths contained in her Ordinary Magisterium and in her Universal Magisterium.
Who among us here accepts the idea that V1 would bind us to believe all those truths contained in her OM, if there could ever be even a spec of error within it? Well, Ladislaus and his theologians are believers of that error, and Ladislaus has bound himself to it.
I disagree with Ladislaus who claims the Church's Magisterium has gone off the rails because his idea here, diametrically opposes the very purpose of the Church's Magisterium.
Lad's idea is likened to starting off stealing a penny, before long your robbing banks. If the OM can have a tiny, insignificant error here and there, eventually that error will grow into the Church's own destruction - which is impossible, but has already happened if the Magisterium has gone off the rails as he constantly insists.
The "Authentic Magisterium" cannot be so simply identified with the Ordinary Magisterium. In fact, the Ordinary Magisterium can be infallible and non-infallible, and it is only in this second case that it is called the "Authentic Magisterium."
Similarly, Salaverri, in his Sacrae Theologiae Summa (vol. I, 5th ed., Madrid, B.A.C.) distinguishes the following:
1. Extraordinary Infallible Papal Magisterium (no. 592 ff);
2. Ordinary Infallible Papal Magisterium (no. 645 ff);
3. Papal Magisterium that is mere authenticuм, that is, only "authentic" or "authorized" as regards the person himself, not as regards his infallibility (no. 659 ff).
I was referring to the SSPX distinction Ladislaus linked. You reject that what they'd refer to as the non-infallible part of the Ordinary Magisterium is not in fact part of the Magisterium, as you hold that only infallible teachings can be part of it.
-
Add that 5+ times to the +dozen or so times I asked him the same question. Seems plain that, like the Church's Magisterium, he has no idea what Universal Discipline means, but it sounds good.
Agree, Stubborn.
.
----Can the Church's Magisterium and Universal Discipline ever become substantially corrupt?
.
Ladislaus' question above is a "gotcha" question, sorta like asking, "Do you believe that all sinners go to hell?"
.
Answer: Well, yes and no. It depends what you mean by "sinners". Yes, to those that die in mortal sin. No, for those who die in venial sin.
.
I don't think that Ladislaus is trying to trick people, or play games, but the language in his oft-quoted question/response is WAY TOO IMPRECISE. It really makes no sense. And then if you add the further problem that there are different levels of the magisterium, some of which can become corrupted (i.e. they are fallible) and some which cannot, the imprecision has a double effect of just being wrong.
.
Would really like to know how Ladislaus defines "Universal Discipline". Guess we'll never know...
-
I disagree with Pax re: the OM is fallible. I agree with the Church, as taught by popes that the Church's Magisterium is unable to be mistaken and has immunity from error, and also with V1's infallible teaching that we are bound to believe all those truths contained in her Ordinary Magisterium and in her Universal Magisterium.
Stubborn, your problem is you are using 1 set of definitions for the magisterium - the older definitions. Post Vatican 1, there have been all kinds of developments where theologians have dissected and distinguished the various parts of the "ordinary magisterium".
.
Honestly, it's very complicated. As an example: If we are strictly talking about the pope's SOLEMN infallible definition of the Assumption, I could link to you various theologians who instead of using the word "solemn" call it "extraordinary" or "supreme" or "infallibly sacred" (and there may be others). See the problem? So many different terms. And when one is talking about the "ordinary magisterium", you can multiply the # of terms by 20.
.
So when you read old papal docuмents which refer to the "ordinary magisterium" vs newer papal docuмents vs newer theological articles, good luck with figuring out exactly what they are talking about. Good luck trying to compare past usages vs current usages. It's too complex for me. I'm sure theologians have learned all the history so they know what the prior meanings are referring to. I do not.
-
(https://www.cathinfo.com/crisis-in-the-church/a-serious-issue-with-the-rr-position/msg683178/#msg683178)
Quote from: Ladislaus on Yesterday at 02:00:31 PM (https://www.cathinfo.com/crisis-in-the-church/a-serious-issue-with-the-rr-position/msg683178/#msg683178)
We are not talking about an isolated error in a particular Papal Encyclical here. We're talking about the establishment of a new religion ... with its new subjectivist ecclesiology and morality, and its non-Catholic worship.
I think this is a bit hairy because many of the R + R, and even some non R + Rs such as yourself would conclude that it is possible to attend the Novus Ordo, accept some kind of "hermeneutic of continuty", and still be inside the Church, not be a heretic, and have the possibility of saving one's soul.
I tend to think to deny this without being a Sede would be pretty absurd. While I don't claim to be an expert, I can't square the Fr. Wathen kind of R + R. If the Conciliar Church is not in *any* sense the Catholic Church, if Novus Ordo Catholics are not in *any* sense real Catholics, if it is *damnable* to accept the conciliar saints as real saints, it seems to logically follow that the *Pope* of said religion would also not be the *Pope* of the Catholic Church.
On the other hand if you view it more like a Venn Diagram, R + R would make more sense, I think.
I think this is sound. It is essentially saying that a “Novus Ordo Catholic,” who has a different religion than the true and only true religion, the Catholic religion, can be saved because of his possession of the essential faith necessary for salvation (whatever that is), and that his errors can be excused because arrived at or taken with good faith and invincible ignorance. Isn’t it saying that one can be “inside” the Church while being “outside” at the same time? If “invincible ignorance” can work for an NOC, why couldn’t it also work for an Orthodox, or a Prot? How “necessary” is belief in the truths of the faith beyond the Trinity, the Incarnation, and the redemptive/salvific work of Christ in the Passion and Resurrection? Is there only one other necessary truth beyond these essentials - a belief in the Roman Catholic Church as the true Church, accepting its hierarchical structure and authority? That would then put NOC Catholics in a different class the Orthos and the Prots.
This point (the possible salvation of a NOC in his “different religion”) seems to open up an opportunity for some clarity if pursued, not only as to the crisis but the nature of the Church, etc. Not sure if we are up to that opportunity - nay, that would be a miracle in light of the greater minds than ours that have thought on it - but the question opens up the avenue. Maybe that’s one of the “virtues” presented by the crisis in the Church.
-
I think this is a bit hairy because many of the R + R, and even some non R + Rs such as yourself would conclude that it is possible to attend the Novus Ordo, accept some kind of "hermeneutic of continuty", and still be inside the Church, not be a heretic, and have the possibility of saving one's soul.
I tend to think to deny this without being a Sede would be pretty absurd. While I don't claim to be an expert, I can't square the Fr. Wathen kind of R + R. If the Conciliar Church is not in *any* sense the Catholic Church, if Novus Ordo Catholics are not in *any* sense real Catholics, if it is *damnable* to accept the conciliar saints as real saints, it seems to logically follow that the *Pope* of said religion would also not be the *Pope* of the Catholic Church.
On the other hand if you view it more like a Venn Diagram, R + R would make more sense, I think.
I think this is sound. It is essentially saying that a “Novus Ordo Catholic,” who has a different religion than the true and only true religion, the Catholic religion, can be saved because of his possession of the essential faith necessary for salvation (whatever that is), and that his errors can be excused because arrived at or taken with good faith and invincible ignorance. Isn’t it saying that one can be “inside” the Church while being “outside” at the same time? If “invincible ignorance” can work for an NOC, why couldn’t it also work for an Orthodox, or a Prot? How “necessary” is belief in the truths of the faith beyond the Trinity, the Incarnation, and the redemptive/salvific work of Christ in the Passion and Resurrection? Is there only one other necessary truth beyond these essentials - a belief in the Roman Catholic Church as the true Church, accepting its hierarchical structure and authority? That would then put NOC Catholics in a different class the Orthos and the Prots.
This point (the possible salvation of a NOC in his “different religion”) seems to open up an opportunity for some clarity if pursued, not only as to the crisis but the nature of the Church, etc. Not sure if we are up to that opportunity - nay, that would be a miracle in light of the greater minds than ours that have thought on it - but the question opens up the avenue. Maybe that’s one of the “virtues” presented by the crisis in the Church.
An obvious answer would be that the NOC is not of a “different religion” or Church. Which would help us, again, understand what the “essentials” are.
-
Stubborn, your problem is you are using 1 set of definitions for the magisterium - the older definitions. Post Vatican 1, there have been all kinds of developments where theologians have dissected and distinguished the various parts of the "ordinary magisterium".
.
Honestly, it's very complicated. As an example: If we are strictly talking about the pope's SOLEMN infallible definition of the Assumption, I could link to you various theologians who instead of using the word "solemn" call it "extraordinary" or "supreme" or "infallibly sacred" (and there may be others). See the problem? So many different terms. And when one is talking about the "ordinary magisterium", you can multiply the # of terms by 20.
.
So when you read old papal docuмents which refer to the "ordinary magisterium" vs newer papal docuмents vs newer theological articles, good luck with figuring out exactly what they are talking about. Good luck trying to compare past usages vs current usages. It's too complex for me. I'm sure theologians have learned all the history so they know what the prior meanings are referring to. I do not.
I agree that it can certainly be very complicated when distinctions are used, most often indiscriminately, but it really isn't when you simply go with what Pope Pius XI (and others) said *without* distinction, namely, that the Church's Magisterium is unable to be mistaken and has immunity from error. V1 even named the OM as being among the others, i.e. Scripture, tradition etc., as containing all those things Catholics are to believe.
IMO, it all boils down to this: It is truth that matters, it is the truth that binds us and the source of truth on earth is the Church which is Christ, the Church's Magisterium contains only truth - but this truth is rejected as being a ridiculous proposition because it is inherently contrary to the whole sede mentality.
Depending on the sede, they equate the pope or pope and hierarchy to the Magisterium, or that the pope or pope and hierarchy *is* the magisterium, or that the pope or pope and hierarchy is supposed to be the Magisterium, or that whatever the pope or pope and hierarchy teaches becomes the Magisterium - and I think that there is probably a few other options I can't remember at the moment. Add to that confusion the constant indiscriminate use of the various distinctions, and you will always end up with a Magisterium that has gone off the rails.
-
It is, of course, hypothetically possible that some error enter into the Ordinary Non-Infallible Papal Magisterium. That is why it's called non-infallible. I agree that many of the dogmatic sedevacantists effectively expand infallibility to include all papal Magisterium. I have always complained about that. Also, as a corollary, the sedevacantists compress the so-called theological notes, leading them to call things heresy that are, for instance, merely theological errors. While the former (heresy) excludes from the Church, the later does not, strictly speaking. So, for instance, religious liberty is often denounced as heresy. It is not heresy in the strict sense. It's a grave error, but not heresy. On this I agree with the criticism by R&R made against sedevacantism ... always have.
So, then, we have to admit the hypothetical possibility of there being some error in the Ordinary Non-Infallible Papal Magisterium.
But it has always been the teaching of the Church that the Magisterium is, overall, guided by the Holy Spirit. It has always been the teaching of the Church that, overall, the Magisterium is substantially free from error and a reliable guide to salvation. So when does the AMOUNT and QUALITY of the error in the Magisterium undermine and contradict these principles? When would the Magisterium essentially defect?
When we feel that we must refuse submission to the hierarchy and have to separate ourselves from communion with them on account of their Magisterium (and their form of worship), it's clearly gone too far. If you say that we MUST reject this Magisterium as a whole (and not just one or two minor points with which you respectfully disagree and which you challenge through the appropriate channels), in order to please God and to save our souls, then HOW ON EARTH is that not a defection of the Magisterium? When you say that adherence to this Magisterium endangers our souls, then that is the very definition of the Magisterium having defected. In this regard, the approach of Bishop Fellay is indeed more Catholic than the Resistance position. +Fellay is saying, "We accept it as a whole, but we disagree with a certain number of points. We wish to remain in submission and in communion, while respectfully disagreeing with some things." I simply cannot fault Bishop Fellay in this regard ... GIVEN HIS PREMISE that the V2 papal claimants have been legitimate.
But ...
We are not talking about one or two minor points, but, rather, a BRAND NEW THEOLOGICAL SYSTEM rooted in subjectivism. Even those points of doctrine which still happen to be true, they are standing on a foundation of sand. In other words, they are materially still correct, but are formally wrong. Just like a heretic can HAPPEN to hold a correct doctrine, but then the doctrine is not correctly held ... i.e. is not held in the right context and based on the proper formal motive of faith. Even the things that they believe that happen to be right, they are not rightly believed. And, in conjunction with this new system, there's a new form of worship that is alien to Catholic worship. So this is where the Resistance is right and +Fellay is wrong. It is simply NOT the case that we disagree with the Novus Ordo on a few points of doctrine but are otherwise "on the same page". So, while +Fellay's PRINCIPLES are correct, in terms of his understanding of the Magisterium, +Fellay's analysis of the Vatican II "problem" is completely wrong and grossly understates matters. You see, based on his principles, he HAS to engage in this reductionism. Otherwise, the only option, based on his principles, would be to head inexorably toward sedevacantism.
This tension between
1) THEOLOGICAL PRINCIPLES regarding the role of the Magisterium and its overall protection by the Holy Spirit and
2) UNDERSTANDING/ANALYSIS of the Vatican II "problem"
is what has resulted in the various divisions.
I agree with +Fellay on #1 but disagree with him on #2. I agree with the Resistance on #2 but disagree with them on #1. So those of use who agree with +Fellay on #1 and the Resistance on #2 must in fact lean towards the sedevacantist hypothesis. There's simply no getting around it.
-
Typical response from Pax Vobis... Bellarmine? Pfft...
I've never claimed that Saint Robert Bellarmine was infallible, Pax. His "opinion" on the Roman Pontiff is held in high regard, as his writings and opinions on the Roman Pontiff were used at Vatican I "to the greatest possible extent".
I'd say it's pretty safe to embrace his opinions on the Pope.
But here's the thing with St. Robert, he bases his opinion on #2, that up to his time, no Pontiff has been a heretic or could be proven to be a heretic. That is the basis of his opinion. For #1, St. Robert does not even guarantee that Divine Providence will certainly prevent a heretic pope, rather, he is saying the only thing that might prevent such a thing would include the Divine Providence - but even that is wholly dependent upon whether or not God should decide to do so.
St. Robert says: "How, I ask, will a heretical Pope confirm the brethren in faith and always preach the true faith?..."
He obviously never foresaw this crisis where the true faith is confirmed in the brethren via tradition, faithful bishops and past popes. It seems that he never considered that - and who would have ever foresaw this crisis?
-
His "opinion" on the Roman Pontiff is held in high regard, as his writings and opinions on the Roman Pontiff were used at Vatican I "to the greatest possible extent".
His personal opinion is different from his theological/career opinion. Personally, he said a heretic pope was unlikely. This was obviously NOT his theological/career opinion, since he wrote at length on how the Church would handle a heretical pope. Someone who is convinced 100% that situation A wouldn't happen, logically wouldn't waste their time arguing the details of situation A. For example, I know beyond a shadow of a doubt that God will eventually grant the Church a good pope and things will come back to normal. I would NEVER waste my time writing voluminous articles on what would happen if the Church was never restored. Get the point? +Bellarmine did not preclude the possibility of a heretic pope.
-
V1 even named the OM as being among the others, i.e. Scripture, tradition etc., as containing all those things Catholics are to believe.
Stubborn, you're begging the question, which is at the heart of the debate. What, pray tell, is considered the OM? What is included in it? When it is used? etc. Unless people agree on these aspects, you quoting V1 is meaningless.
-
Can the following members please explain what you mean by "Magisterium"? I have a feeling that each of you have a different "meaning" of the term...
Great question, Bellator. I really don't have a (complete) answer because every article I read about it, different theologians use different terms, with slightly different definitions. Some break it out into 3 levels; some 4; some 3.5. It's the most crazy thing I've ever seen. It seems that post Vatican 1, theologians went nuts trying to explain the non-solemn areas where a pope could be infallible. In the process of trying to explain and make distinctions, everyone created their own system of explanation. It's above my pay grade since I don't have the time to research.
-
Can the following members please explain what you mean by "Magisterium"? I have a feeling that each of you have a different "meaning" of the term...
Pax Vobis
Ladislaus
Stubborn
The Church's Magisterium are all those things contained in Scripture and tradition and are proposed by the Church (The Authority) as matters to be believed. These things we learn because they are taught to us either by her solemn judgement (ex cathedra definitions / Extraordinary Magisterium), the day to day teachings of her Catholic hierarchy, including her Catholic clergy, nuns, etc. (Ordinary Magisterium), or are those things the Church has taught always and everywhere (Universal Magisterium).
Simple, no? If the pope or hierarchy teach something *not* found in Scripture and tradition, then it is not a magisterial teaching, that is, it is not a teaching contained in the Church's magisterium and may contain error. As such, because said teaching can contain error, it could be harmful to the faithful.
-
I agree with you, and I don't necessarily believe that anyone "foresaw" what has unfolded over the last 60 years or so. But, it seems the "heretic pope" issue was brought up at Vatican I:
I agree with your quote, but the part where he says that a council of bishops could depose him for heresy can never happen, for at least a few reasons.
1) Who will pronounce the judgement that he is now subject to them?
2) If a councils of bishops could do that to him, there would be nothing to stop them from doing that to good popes - which would make bishops the pope's superiors, which would make popes subject to the bishops.
-
Pope Pius II's Bull, Excrabilis (http://www.todayscatholicworld.com/execrabilis.htm) seems should come into play to some degree.
Although the Bull looks to be more about the pope condemning the having of a council without the pope in order to skirt or change his judgements, the idea that a council comprised of only bishops is in and of itself looked upon as being a corrupt and despicable, "and all the ecclesiastical discipline and hierarchical order are confounded".
-
2) If a councils of bishops could do that to him, there would be nothing to stop them from doing that to good popes - which would make bishops the pope's superiors, which would make popes subject to the bishops.
False. This is based on the same principles behind "Universal Acceptance", or its corollary. Call it "Universal Rejection". Or call it God's divine providence over the Church and guiding the Church. Do you not believe in that? If the Church universally rejects a Pope as a non-Catholic, then Church cannot be mistaken ... by virtue of the infallibility of the Ecclesia Credens. This isn't a natural process like the Democrats falsely impeaching Trump just because they don't like him. There's only ONE circuмstance in which the Church can reject a Pope ... if he's a non-Catholic and has ceased to be a member of the Church. If it were not the case that the man is a heretic and a non-Catholic, you have to believe that there would be a substantial number of Catholics remaining who would insist that he is still the pope, and that would compromise the Universal Rejection. Only these one or two theologians who hold the "heretical pope is not and cannot be deposed" position do not completely disagree with you. You continue to cling to that particular position, which was held by perhaps one or two theologians at the most and has been universally abandoned. You really need to stop clinging to these conclusions that you arrive with your own personal judgment, often using tortured logic, and at least lend some ear to theologians. You have a nasty habit of dismissing with a wave of your hand any theologian that doesn't agree with your own personal lights ... and that is an incredibly dangerous mindset.
Stubborn > Bellarmine
Stubborn > Cajetan
Stubborn > John of St. Thomas
Stubbonr > 99.9% of all Catholic theologians
If you have ANY humility left, you should realize that this is problematic.
-
Pope Pius II's Bull, Excrabilis (http://www.todayscatholicworld.com/execrabilis.htm)seems should come into play to some degree.
Although the Bull looks to be more about the pope condemning the having of a council without the pope in order to skirt or change his judgements, the idea that a council comprised of only bishops is in and of itself looked upon as being a corrupt and despicable, "and all the ecclesiastical discipline and hierarchical order are confounded".
Stubborn, your mentality is that of a Protestant. Just as the Prots take isolated quotes out of context regarding the Bible and interpret it according to their lights, you do the same thing with Tradition. You snip passages here and there from Tradition, interpret them as it suits you, and come up with your own theology. There's no difference that way between you and Protestants, just that Protestants admit of only one source of Revelation while you acknowledge a second.
-
Stubborn, your mentality is that of a Protestant. Just as the Prots take isolated quotes out of context regarding the Bible and interpret it according to their lights, you do the same thing with Tradition. You snip passages here and there from Tradition, interpret them as it suits you, and come up with your own theology. There's no difference that way between you and Protestants, just that Protestants admit of only one source of Revelation while you acknowledge a second.
Look you brainwashed nitwit, just once, answer a question instead of inserting your liberal ideas....
1) Who will pronounce the judgement that he is now subject to them?
-
False. This is based on the same principles behind "Universal Acceptance", or its corollary. Call it "Universal Rejection". Or call it God's divine providence over the Church and guiding the Church. Do you not believe in that?
Just answer the question - keep the ridiculous drama to yourself.
What guarantee is in place which prevents a council of bishops from deposing a good pope?
I believe in Divine Providence and certainly it is still guiding the Church - has never nor will that ever change in this world.
-
Just answer the question - keep the ridiculous drama to yourself.
What guarantee is in place which prevents a council of bishops from deposing a good pope?
I believe in Divine Providence and certainly it is still guiding the Church - has never nor will that ever change in this world.
Are you stupid, man? I JUST answered that question. It's the Infallibility of the Ecclesia Credens and Divine Providence over the Church. You cannot believe in God's Providence over the Church if you think such a thing is possible. Dude, every time you post, the less I think that you actually have the Catholic faith.
-
Look you brainwashed nitwit, just once, answer a question instead of inserting your liberal ideas....
1) Who will pronounce the judgement that he is now subject to them?
When a General Council determines that a man is not a Catholic and therefore not the Pope, this is a judgment of fact, a so-called discretionary judgment. It is nothing more than the clarification of a Universal Rejection by the Church.
Again,
Stubborn > Bellarmine
Stubborn > Cajetan
Stubborn > John of St. Thomas
and, ultimately
Stubborn < Martin Luther
-
I'm not R&R, but RPWR. But the thing here is, Sedes need Jurisdictional Bishops (Jurisdiction is the Power to Judge) to pass judgment. And the sedes don't have them anymore, now 62 years on. The best the Sedes can hope for is to gather the remaining Roman Clergy. Better do that quickly while you still have time, as the remaining Roman Clergy incardinated by Pope Ven. Pius XII and prior Popes will soon die out too. It is inevitable. R&R has serious problems. SVISM has even more serious problems. The solution must be a third traditional alternative, which I've called PPPIV (Pope Paul was a Prisoner in the Vatican) for the explanation and RPWR (Recognize, Pray, Work, Restore) for the Solution. The Final Solution, which will come from God in due time, and will be hastened if we do RPWR well, is of course the good and holy Pope who has been promised to us and whom Catholic Prophesy alternately calls Angelic Pontiff or Angelic Pastor. Also, a Pope will never be a formal heretic in actual fact; that's only a theory or hypothesis.
But he can fall into error, and therefore be rebuked respectfully by his inferiors, the Bishops. When he corrects himself, the day is saved.
-
The question was also raised by a Cardinal, “What is to be done with the Pope if he becomes a heretic?” It was answered that there has never been such a case; the Council of Bishops could depose him for heresy,
Since he answered the question, that means he thinks it's possible for there to be a heretic pope.
-
but the part where he says that a council of bishops could depose him for heresy can never happen,
Yes, it absolutely can happen. No one is arguing that the process is clear or easy to follow, but there have been many, many theologians (including +Bellarmine) who say that Bishops could declare a pope a heretic.
-
Cardinal Billot: "I said under the supposition of the hypothesis. But the fact that the hypothesis itself is a mere hypothesis, never reducible to an act, appears far more probable, according to Luke 22:32: But I have prayed for thee, that thy faith not fail; and thou being once converted, confirm thy brethren. For the voice of all Tradition says we must understand this verse to refer to Peter and his successors in perpetuity ...
For Innocent had said earlier: “If I were not made firm in the faith, how could I strengthen others in the faith? That is what is recognized as pertaining especially to my office, as the Lord witnesses: I have prayed for thee, Peter, that thy faith not fail; and thou being once converted, confirm thy brethren. He prayed and He brought it to pass, since He was heard in all things out of reverence for Him ... For Innocent had said earlier: “If I were not made firm in the faith, how could I strengthen others in the faith? That is what is recognized as pertaining especially to my office, as the Lord witnesses: I have prayed for thee, Peter, that thy faith not fail; and thou being once converted, confirm thy brethren. He prayed and He brought it to pass, since He was heard in all things out of reverence for Him...
But whatever you finally think about the possibility or impossibility of the aforementioned hypothesis, at least one point must be maintained as completely unshaken and firmly placed beyond all doubt: the adherence alone of the universal Church will always be of itself an infallible sign of the legitimacy of the person of the Pontiff, and, what is more, even of the existence of all the conditions requisite for legitimacy itself ... He cannot permit the entire Church to receive someone as pontiff who is not a true and legitimate [pope]. Therefore, from the time he has been accepted and joined to the Church as the head to the body, we cannot further consider the question of a possible mistake in the election or of a [possible] deficiency of any condition whatsoever necessary for legitimacy, because the aforementioned adherence of the Church radically heals the mistake in the election and infallibly indicates the existence of all requisite conditions.
And let this be an incidental remark against those who want to join in giving a respectable appearance to the undoubted schismatic efforts made in the time of Alexander VI ... It is certainly well known that in the time in which Savanarola was writing his letters to princes, all Christendom adhered to and obeyed Alexander as the true pontiff. Therefore, by that fact, Alexander was not a false pontiff. Therefore he was not a heretic, at least he was not in the heretical state that, in removing the essential element of membership in the Church, as a consequence of its very nature strips [a man] of pontifical power or of any other ordinary jurisdiction whatsoever."
-
Who will pronounce the judgement that he is now subject to them?
Stubborn, after the numerous, numerous threads we've had about +Bellarmine, where his quotes (and others) have been pasted and pasted a hundred times over, I'm surprised you're asking this question. But i'll explain, in a nutshell. Please don't ask me to defend it, or debate it. There are plenty of other threads which go over that already. This is a theory but here it is:
.
1. The pope (let's call him "francis") says all manner of heretical things.
2. The Cardinals ask him for clarification and send him a formal inquiry related to his quasi-heresies (let's call the inquiry the "dubia letter").
3. The pope eventually responds that he believes heretical things.
4. The Cardinals ask him again, as a 2nd rebuke, per St Paul's guidance in Scripture.
5. The pope gets angry and doubles-down on his errors.
6. The Cardinals issue a formal statement saying the pope is a formal, public, manifest, pernicious heretic. This is signed by all kinds of theologians, committees, and esteemed roman officials of the govt.
7. The Cardinals also explain that per canon law, and per +Bellarmine's (and many other theologians') writings, since the pope is a formal/pernicious heretic, he is "by that fact" (i.e. ipso facto) excommunicated from the Church and also loses his status as the pope and as a Catholic immediately.
8. Cardinals elect a new pope.
.
What guarantee is in place which prevents a council of bishops from deposing a good pope?
We've had periods in Church history where there were 2 popes, 3 popes and no popes. We've had groups of Cardinals argue against one another, excommunicate one another, and elect their own parallel successors. In the end, God always straightened things out.
-
the adherence alone of the universal Church will always be of itself an infallible sign of the legitimacy of the person of the Pontiff, and, what is more, even of the existence of all the conditions requisite for legitimacy itself
You just keep posting the same stuff over and over again. Everyone acknowledges the PRINCIPLE of "universal adherence". We dispute the FACT of "universal adherence" vis-a-vis the V2 papal claimants. As for a sanatio in radice of an illegitimate election, I do not buy it. One of the sedevacantist posters here cited the historical example of a legitimate pope who was hauled off and imprisoned; then another was elected in his place and received "universal adherence". I do not believe that the subsequent universal adherence could effectively depose the legitimately-reigning pope. There's a very fine line between this and conceding that the Church can in fact depose popes.
-
Cardinal Billot: "I said under the supposition of the hypothesis. But the fact that the hypothesis itself is a mere hypothesis, never reducible to an act, appears far more probable,
"Probable" is the key word. Cardinal Billot wouldn't have answered the question, if the possibility was 0%. Ergo, it is possible for a pope to be a heretic.
-
Are you stupid, man? I JUST answered that question. It's the Infallibility of the Ecclesia Credens and Divine Providence over the Church. You cannot believe in God's Providence over the Church if you think such a thing is possible. Dude, every time you post, the less I think that you actually have the Catholic faith.
You are really in terrible shape Lad.
The Divine Providence is actively guiding the Catholic Church now as it always has been and always will be. The pope is not the Church. I know you can't accept that, but that's the way it is.
-
Stubborn, after the numerous, numerous threads we've had about +Bellarmine, where his quotes (and others) have been pasted and pasted a hundred times over, I'm surprised you're asking this question. But i'll explain, in a nutshell. Please don't ask me to defend it, or debate it. There are plenty of other threads which go over that already.
I for one am completely done responding to Stubborn. He's just wasting everyone's time. He promotes positions that ABSOLUTELY NO ONE on ANY SIDE of the issues holds, dismisses the nearly-unanimous theological opinion he doesn't like or understand on any topic ... on a whim, and just employs circular reasoning and begging of the question. When both R&R and sedevacantists and sedeprivationists and sededoubtists all have to spent paragraphs combating his errors, it's absolutely a pointless waste of time. Really the closest thing he has to a rule of faith, apart from his own private judgment, is Father Wathen.
-
When a General Council determines that a man is not a Catholic and therefore not the Pope, this is a judgment of fact, a so-called discretionary judgment. It is nothing more than the clarification of a Universal Rejection by the Church.
A General Council without a pope? Yep, sounds like something you'd preach, as long as the pope gets deposed, that's your main objective.
-
.We've had periods in Church history where there were 2 popes, 3 popes and no popes. We've had groups of Cardinals argue against one another, excommunicate one another, and elect their own parallel successors. In the end, God always straightened things out.
Yes, in the end, God will. That answer does not suffice for Lad.
-
No, everyone doesn't acknowledge it, Ladislaus. There are people here who deny it. But that wasn't the main point there. There are 3 issues (1) Without Jurisdictional Bishops, it's already Check and Mate for 62 year SVism. You cannot pronounce judgment and so you have nowhere to go. (2) It is extremely unlikely even one single Pope will ever be a heretic, let alone 6 successive uncontested Papal candidates. (3) Third, you may claim you accept universal adherence in principle, but deny its application; yet the AER in 1965 applied it to the Pope. That means you're mistaken at least about those Popes Pope John XXIII and Pope Paul VI not having universal adherence.
And Pax Vobis, yes, Cardinal Billot says, more probable, because some are of the other opinion. But ask yourself this: Can the prayer of Jesus Christ ever fail? An analogy is the Prayer of Jesus Christ Our Lord for the Unity of His Church in the Great High Priestly Prayer in John 17; now, we know that prayer cannot fail, and never failed, and the Unity of the Catholic Church is the result of that prayer. Similarly, the prayer of Jesus Christ, that St. Peter and his Successors not fail in the Faith, cannot fail, for the same reason; but faith does not fail if a man falls into error without pertinacity, for he remains a Catholic. But faith does most certainly fail if a man sins against the faith mortally and becomes a formal heretic - he loses the infused virtue of supernatural faith. And that is what will not happen.
Otherwise, the Lord failed in His Prayer, and that is not possible.
-
I for one am completely done responding to Stubborn. He's just wasting everyone's time. He promotes positions that ABSOLUTELY NO ONE on ANY SIDE of the issues holds, dismisses the nearly-unanimous theological opinion he doesn't like or understand on any topic ... on a whim, and just employs circular reasoning and begging of the question. When both R&R and sedevacantists and sedeprivationists and sededoubtists all have to spent paragraphs combating his errors, it's absolutely a pointless waste of time. Really the closest thing he has to a rule of faith, apart from his own private judgment, is Father Wathen.
Good, go away you brainwashed genius, and quit spreading your NO theology with your sedewhateverisms all over these forums. Oh and Dogma is my rule of faith, the pope is yours.
-
(1) Without Jurisdictional Bishops, it's already Check and Mate for 62 year SVism. You cannot pronounce judgment and so you have nowhere to go.
We've had entire threads on the subject, and I have no desire to go back into it. Apart from the fact that in my position, we do not lack jurisdictional bishops, I agree with the sedevacantists who argued that actual jurisdiction is not required to resolve this kind of situation. I found their argument and their citations to be convincing.
-
(2) It is extremely unlikely even one single Pope will ever be a heretic, let alone 6 successive uncontested Papal candidates.
This begs the question of whether these men were popes in the first place.
-
(3) Third, you may claim you accept universal adherence in principle, but deny its application; yet the AER in 1965 applied it to the Pope. That means you're mistaken at least about those Popes Pope John XXIII and Pope Paul VI not having universal adherence.
What I don't believe in is the notion that a universal adherence can provide a sanatio in radice to an illegitimate papal election. I refer to the historical example cited by some of the sedevacantists. I believe that Siri was elected, was forced to resign under duress, and that the subsequent elections were therefore illegitimate.
-
This begs the question of whether these men were popes in the first place.
No, it doesn't.
-
(2) It is extremely unlikely even one single Pope will ever be a heretic,
:jester: Oh, Xavier. If you don't think +Francis is a heretic (at the very least, he's an absolute material heretic), then I question the orthodoxy of your entire catholic education.
.
-
.We've had periods in Church history where there were 2 popes, 3 popes and no popes. We've had groups of Cardinals argue against one another, excommunicate one another, and elect their own parallel successors. In the end, God always straightened things out.
Stubborn, my point is that yes, it could happen that a bunch of crazy Cardinals would "depose" a good, holy pope (or attempt to depose him, since it wouldn't be morally or canonically valid). One could argue that similar things have happened in the past. It's impossible to have the historically factual situation where there were 3 popes, without 2 of them having been "deposed" in some manner.
-
:jester: Oh, Xavier. If you don't think +Francis is a heretic (at the very least, he's an absolute material heretic), then I question the orthodoxy of your entire catholic education.
.
There's no doubt but that Amoris Laetitia is heretical.
-
There's no doubt but that Amoris Laetitia is heretical.
I haven't read the whole thing, so maybe I should, but I'm just wondering, why?
From what I understand he doesn't deny the objective sinfulness of adultery, only argues that some couples could subjectively be at a level of venial guilt. This seems *scandalous* to me if its used as a pretense to give them communion, but how is it heretical? What dogma does it deny?
To be clear, I'm not saying I couldn't be missing something here, I just don't see it.
I also do think Amoris Laetitia was a disaster.
-
Stubborn, my point is that yes, it could happen that a bunch of crazy Cardinals would "depose" a good, holy pope (or attempt to depose him, since it wouldn't be morally or canonically valid). One could argue that similar things have happened in the past. It's impossible to have the historically factual situation where there were 3 popes, without 2 of them having been "deposed" in some manner.
I agree that's exactly the risk of what would happen, but for whatever reason Lad insists Divine Providence will prevent that from happening - makes me wonder why God's Providence didn't prevent the pope from being a heretic in the first place.
But I believe it is because there is no divine guarantee that a good pope would not be deposed, that such a council never has nor ever will happen. The only way to justify such a council at all, is born from sheer desperation to depose a pope no matter what. The idea rings of our current political situation with the democrat crooks trying to impeach the president. Two totally different things I know, but the same idea applies.
-
The only way to justify such a council at all, is born from sheer desperation to depose a pope no matter what.
The hundreds of theologians who have debated this issue for centuries were not doing so out of "desperation", but were applying principles of canon law and church govt to reality. You act like the deposition of a heretical pope is a new idea. ?? It's been around for 500+ years.
-
XavierSem, if you actually read what sedes are saying about the crisis, it isn't one or 2 points of doctrine on which we traditionalists disagree with the Conciliar Church (Ladislaus just explained this earlier today in this thread). The problem is that the Conciliar Church is a new religion. A new foundation (Lumen Gentium), new orders (1968), new Mass (1969) as well as the other sacraments, new doctrines, new Divine Liturgy, new laws (1983), etc. And JP2 characterized the result (silent apostasy) and P6 as well (smoke entered the Church). If you are not resisting, you are not Catholic, period. And if you are resisting, it should be clear that the level of resistance necessary precludes any notion that the Conciliar hierarchy is the hierarchy of the Catholic Church. If there was just a disagreement over a couple of points of doctrine, there would be no traditional Catholics vs. conservative Catholics vs liberal Catholics. We'd all just be Catholics. You can't expect to convert sedes over to Conciliarism based on some perceived technical difficulties in the theology. Why don't you spend some time trying to prove that George Bergoglio isn't a heretic? Where's your conviction?
-
The hundreds of theologians who have debated this issue for centuries were not doing so out of "desperation", but were applying principles of canon law and church govt to reality. You act like the deposition of a heretical pope is a new idea. ?? It's been around for 500+ years.
I suppose I can't prove this, but I think they had in mind a situation where the Pope is like "I'm not Catholic anymore, I'm a Lutheran." And then the Cardinals are just like "OK, you've automatically lost his office, let's elect something else.
-
The hundreds of theologians who have debated this issue for centuries were not doing so out of "desperation", but were applying principles of canon law and church govt to reality. You act like the deposition of a heretical pope is a new idea. ?? It's been around for 500+ years.
It's probably been around longer than that, but there's a reason it's never been done.
-
It's probably been around longer than that, but there's a reason it's never been done.
Uhh, because no pope until our days has approached any serious level of heresy.
-
I suppose I can't prove this, but I think they had in mind a situation where the Pope is like "I'm not Catholic anymore, I'm a Lutheran." And then the Cardinals are just like "OK, you've automatically lost his office, let's elect something else.
Sure, that would be an obvious case where no rebukes are required. It's a simple formal notice that the pope has "left the building". It's even in canon law that one loses his office when he indirectly leaves the Faith.
.
What St Bellarmine and others (including the current Cardinal Burke et al) are speaking of, is the difficult, weasel heretic who won't admit he hates doctrine. This is one who is a "wolf in sheep's clothing" whom St Paul says must be rebuked twice and then anathematized if they hold to their error.
.
There's no need for a rebuke process or for the Cardinals to debate the status of a pope who has already left the Faith. Makes no sense.
-
Sure, that would be an obvious case where no rebukes are required. It's a simple formal notice that the pope has "left the building". It's even in canon law that one loses his office when he indirectly leaves the Faith.
.
What St Bellarmine and others (including the current Cardinal Burke et al) are speaking of, is the difficult, weasel heretic who won't admit he hates doctrine. This is one who is a "wolf in sheep's clothing" whom St Paul says must be rebuked twice and then anathematized if they hold to their error.
.
There's no need for a rebuke process or for the Cardinals to debate the status of a pope who has already left the Faith. Makes no sense.
I meant to finish my thought, but didn't. I see your point. I'd agree that could happen to. I could see them imaginging that. But even there, the idea is that the Cardinals will rebuke the heretic pope. I don't think Bellarmine could've imagined all the cardinals going along with him, and some random laypeople deciding on their own authority that there's no see.
-
I don't think Bellarmine could've imagined all the cardinals going along with him, and some random laypeople deciding on their own authority that there's no see.
There's a LOT of stuff going on today that Bellarmine could never have imagined in his worst nightmares.
Just imagine for a minute taking a saint like him, or St. Pius X, or St. John Vianney, or St. Alphonsus, or any great saint, transporting him through time, and plopping him down inside the celebration of a Novus Ordo clown Mass. Then tell them it's a Catholic Mass. Could you even begin to imagine their reaction to that? Would they recognize this Conciliar establishment of today as being the Catholic Church? You don't need to be a theologian with two or three doctorates to recognize that this is a new religion and not the Catholic Church. And God did that by design. What God has hidden from the wise, He reveals to the simple. God did not allow one or two minor pernicious heresies to be imposed on the faithful by stealth. No, He made it clear that what we have here is something completely different from the Catholic Church.
-
Uhh, because no pope until our days has approached any serious level of heresy.
According to Fr. Hesse, and also +ABL, there have been a number of heretical popes throughout the history of the Church. As for the gravity of heresy I don't know - but a heretical pope is a heretical pope - no?
-
There's no doubt but that Amoris Laetitia is heretical.
I got a downthumb from someone who believes that it's OK for people to divorce, remarry, and commit adultery. Reveal yourself, coward.
-
I got a downthumb from someone who believes that it's OK for people to divorce, remarry, and commit adultery. Reveal yourself, coward.
Since I know I questioned you on this, I want to make clear that it wasn't me.
And I literally just now gave that post an upthumb.
-
Since I know I questioned you on this, I want to make clear that it wasn't me.
And I literally just now gave that post an upthumb.
Thank you. Just to make myself clear, I don't really care about the thumbs ... either way. I am just astonished that anyone here would defend AL, and I would like an explanation to go along with the downthumb. WHY exactly is AL not heretical? We even had a Novus Ordo group of Cardinals say as much ... although carefully avoiding the dreaded H word.
-
Thank you. Just to make myself clear, I don't really care about the thumbs ... either way. I am just astonished that anyone here would defend AL, and I would like an explanation to go along with the downthumb. WHY exactly is AL not heretical? We even had a Novus Ordo group of Cardinals say as much ... although carefully avoiding the dreaded H word.
I question whether its heretical because I'm not sure what dogma it denies. I acknowledge I could be missing something. I think its *scandalous* to allow people who are objectively engaging in grave matter activity. Is it *possible* that someone, due to sufficient knowledge and information, could lack the culpability needed for the sin to be subjectively mortal? I don't know, I don't know what the pre Vatican II theologians said about that, it seems like it theoretically could be possible but kind of unlikely. And it seems scandalous to start a precedent of "because there MIGHT be some factor that only God knows that makes the soul less culpable than we think, therefore we are going to start giving them communion."
As a recent convert from Protestantism, I know there's a ton of confusion among people. Plenty of Protestants believe that divorce and remarriage is allowed in certain cases (usually the "innocent party" in the case of an adultery.) And also I know a lot of them don't know whether an illicit "second marriage" is in fact invalid.
Is it HERETICAL to speculate that perhaps some of those people who recently convert out of such circuмstances might not be fully culpable right away, especially in cases of bad catechesis?
To be clear I disagree with AL because I think its absolutely scandalous to lay down this kind of precedent, but I'm not sure it actually denies a dogma or is heretical.
Also I know you specifically know there are something like 11 different theological notes. Are we sure heresy is the right one here?
Any thoughts?
-
WHY exactly is AL not heretical? We even had a Novus Ordo group of Cardinals say as much ...
I think we’d all be surprised at the lack of orthodoxy or lack of reading comprehension of most Catholics, including those on this site. The dumbing down of the western world almost surpasses the liberalization of Catholicity.
-
I question whether its heretical because I'm not sure what dogma it denies.
You should read Cardinal Burke’s “dubia letter” as it explains all the major problems of AL. (Note: this is only one of the few times I will EVER advise someone to read a docuмent from new-rome....unless it’s to help cure insomnia).
-
I question whether its heretical because I'm not sure what dogma it denies.
.
I believe it either denies the dogma that 1) adultery is a mortal sin, or 2) someone in mortal sin can receive Holy Communion.
-
Is it HERETICAL to speculate that perhaps some of those people who recently convert out of such circuмstances might not be fully culpable right away, especially in cases of bad catechesis?
AL wasn't about someone who just so happened to be ignorant about the Church's teaching, but about someone who is living objectively in a state of sin working it out with their confessor whether they could approach the Sacraments while continuing on in sɛҳuąƖ relations with someone who is not their spouse. This contradicts the entire 2,000 year history of Church teaching on this subject going back to Sacred Scripture. It is heretical. Remember, the Church can teach dogmatically about either faith OR morals.
-
No, everyone doesn't acknowledge it, Ladislaus. There are people here who deny it. But that wasn't the main point there. There are 3 issues (1) Without Jurisdictional Bishops, it's already Check and Mate for 62 year SVism. You cannot pronounce judgment and so you have nowhere to go. (2) It is extremely unlikely even one single Pope will ever be a heretic, let alone 6 successive uncontested Papal candidates. (3) Third, you may claim you accept universal adherence in principle, but deny its application; yet the AER in 1965 applied it to the Pope. That means you're mistaken at least about those Popes Pope John XXIII and Pope Paul VI not having universal adherence.
.
A future true pope could condemn Bergoglio as a heretic and appoint bishops to fill all the sees currently vacant. Since Bergoglio is not a pope, he is not impeding the see of Peter (sorry Ladislaus). And we do not need jurisdictional bishops to elect a pope. In fact, Cajetan even discussed what the Church would do if all the jurisdictional bishops were unable to elect a pope, which implies that such a thing is not theoretically impossible. His answer was that the election of the pope would devolve to the whole Church.
.
(2) It is extremely unlikely even one single Pope will ever be a heretic, let alone 6 successive uncontested Papal candidates.
.
Um, are you trying to argue that Bergoglio is not a heretic? I'm a little confused where you're going with this.
.
(3) Third, you may claim you accept universal adherence in principle, but deny its application; yet the AER in 1965 applied it to the Pope. That means you're mistaken at least about those Popes Pope John XXIII and Pope Paul VI not having universal adherence.
.
There are a lot of intriguing historical questions that will have to be addressed about the late 1950's and into the 60's, probably by ancestors of ours breathing through gas masks in nuclear bunkers reading by the light of kerosene lamps and eating canned rations ... at least that's how I foresee the world looking like by the time the world has a pope again. In any case, yes, many SV's think John 23 was a true pope, based on the universal acceptance argument and the fact that there doesn't seem to be convincing, irrefutable proof that he taught heresy. The question of Paul VI is a profound mystery; possibly the most profound mystery to occur in 2,000 years. Was he a true pope when he was elected? Did he fall from office by espousing heresy? Despite so many theologians thinking this impossible? Did the whole Church truly accept him as pope, and does this prove he was at least initially a true pope? I don't have good answers for these questions, but since it's clear he promoted heresy in Vatican 2, that means at least he wasn't pope during much of his tenure.
.
But Paul VI is dead and gone. We have Francis now, and that should be our concern. And it is clear that he does not profess the Catholic Faith, and also that he is not universally and peacefully accepted as pope by people who truly believe in the Catholic Faith, including some people on this forum..
.
EDIT: shortened original quote from XavSem
-
.
I believe it either denies the dogma that 1) adultery is a mortal sin, or 2) someone in mortal sin can receive Holy Communion.
It's #1. Bergoglio is basically saying it's not a mortal sin ... or, rather, not always a mortal sin. ByzCat brought up the objection of ignorance. But this isn't about the simple act of divorcing and remarrying. It's about whether or not, consulting with a priest, they can BOTH continue on in their illicit sɛҳuąƖ relations AND receive Holy Communion. It's about the Church condoning their CONTINUING and PERSISTING in the behavior, not about the moral culpability of a particular action (which could in fact be excused by ignorance). See, the Church has always made certain allowances for a couple (after the fact) to remain living together in order to raise their children after the fact, but that was always on the conditions of 1) NO MORE sɛҳuąƖ RELATIONS or near occasion of sin in that regard and 2) NO SCANDAL (perhaps nobody really knows of the previous marriage).
-
AL wasn't about someone who just so happened to be ignorant about the Church's teaching, but about someone who is living objectively in a state of sin working it out with their confessor whether they could approach the Sacraments while continuing on in sɛҳuąƖ relations with someone who is not their spouse. This contradicts the entire 2,000 year history of Church teaching on this subject going back to Sacred Scripture. It is heretical. Remember, the Church can teach dogmatically about either faith OR morals.
Again, I haven't read the docuмent, so maybe I'm way off base here.
Maybe Francis is considering the following.
Man A and Woman B are brand new converts from Protestantism. Man A had a previous marriage to Woman A. Woman A committed adultery with Man C. Man A (based on the Protestant theology of when divorce and remarriage is allowed) divorces her and marries Woman B. Then the two of them are converting to Catholicism. While they're in RCIA (or whatever) the priest informs them of the fact that divorce and remarriage isn't allowed. The man has trouble accepting this because as far as he knows Woman B is in fact his wife, they've been together for years, and he can't fathom separating from her, he technically knows the Church says he has to but he doesn't really for the life of him understand how, etc.
From what I understand Amoris Laetitia is saying objectively he's in sin, but since he presumably doesn't yet understand fully (even though he technically knows the Church teaches this, he doesn't understand why, etc.) he may be in venial sin, the Confessor can make a judgment that he is in fact in venial sin, and thus commune him. Is that correct?
My gut reaction is to think this is scandalous, and that the judgment that he's only in venial sin is very likely to be wrong, but I'm not sure how its actual heresy, as it would be in the case where if for instance the Pope said these adulterous relationships aren't even objectively grave matter. That is, unless you don't think subjective factors could *ever* reduce the gravity of a sin that is objectively grave to being subjectively not mortal, in which case that would make sense to say its heretical, but I've seen even trads say that such a thing is possible. Again, I don't think they should be given communion, and I think to do so is scandalous, I'm just not sure if its an actual heresy.
-
But how can this not be mortal sin AFTER the person comes to know that it is? Sure, these two Protestants may not have committed grave sin AT THE TIME that they initially divorced and remarried, and may not have been committing grave sin in having relations thereafter ... UNTIL they came to know that it is in fact grave sin. From that moment on, what could possibly excuse them from grave sin?
Francis says that they can discern whether or not they truly mean well, somehow, even while continuing to commit grave sin. So some kind of subjective disposition apparently can trump the obvious fact that they know it's grave sin and continue to do it. Even John Paul II explicitly condemned this thinking. Burke et al. in fact ask whether or not the teaching of John Paul II on this matter still stands.
John Paul II definitely held the line in terms of morality. What he did, however, was to introduce subjectivism into the doctrinal realm. So long as someone SINCERELY believes that what he believes is true, then that subjective disposition can in fact be supernatural faith. Now, Francis takes this subjectivism into the realm of moral theology by claiming that if people are SINCERE (somehow) in having adulterous relations, then they do not commit grave sin. So the recurring theme here with Vatican II is SUBJECTIVISM ... as +Williamson regularly points out.
-
But how can this not be mortal sin AFTER the person comes to know that it is? Sure, these two Protestants may not have committed grave sin AT THE TIME that they initially divorced and remarried, and may not have been committing grave sin in having relations thereafter ... UNTIL they came to know that it is in fact grave sin. From that moment on, what could possibly excuse them from grave sin?
Francis says that they can discern whether or not they truly mean well, somehow, even while continuing to commit grave sin. So some kind of subjective disposition apparently can trump the obvious fact that they know it's grave sin and continue to do it. Even John Paul II explicitly condemned this thinking. Burke et al. in fact ask whether or not the teaching of John Paul II on this matter still stands.
John Paul II definitely held the line in terms of morality. What he did, however, was to introduce subjectivism into the doctrinal realm. So long as someone SINCERELY believes that what he believes is true, then that subjective disposition can in fact be supernatural faith. Now, Francis takes this subjectivism into the realm of moral theology by claiming that if people are SINCERE (somehow) in having adulterous relations, then they do not commit grave sin. So the recurring theme here with Vatican II is SUBJECTIVISM ... as +Williamson regularly points out.
I guess I was wondering if it was theoretically possible (even if unlikely) that something like extreme emotional blocks, lack of comprehension of the reasoning behind the Church's teaching, etc. could theoretically drop the culpability to the level where it might be venial. I grant that this is kind of a stretch, and I really don't think its good reason to allow people to take communion, like if God really knows a person is in such a state than God can act accordingly, but I wasn't sure if speculation along such lines would actually be heretical.
-
I guess I was wondering if it was theoretically possible (even if unlikely) that something like extreme emotional blocks, lack of comprehension of the reasoning behind the Church's teaching, etc. could theoretically drop the culpability to the level where it might be venial. I grant that this is kind of a stretch, and I really don't think its good reason to allow people to take communion, like if God really knows a person is in such a state than God can act accordingly, but I wasn't sure if speculation along such lines would actually be heretical.
It is typically said that three components are required for (subjective) mortal sin: grave matter, sufficient reflection, and consent of the will. The grave matter component is objective. Persons living in adultery in the way of spouses are in an objective state of grave sin. The subjective mortal sin and objective grave matter are different. That might still hold in the modern Church even after Amoris Laetitia[%].
Traditionally, the Church went by the objective matter in the external forum. Thus, someone who committed ѕυιcιdє was not buried in a church cemetery or with a church funeral, even though it could be argued that a successful ѕυιcιdє suggests psychological or other blocks to reflection or consent that might subjectively reduce the gravity of the sin.
In many areas - not just this one - the modern Church tends to make the situation in the external forum depend on the "totality of the circuмstances" or some such, which ends up blurring the subjective and the objective.
%. A statement of Pope Emeritus Benedict could be viewed as an answer to the Burke et al dubia concerning Amoris Laetitia. Not saying I agree with that.
https://www.thecatholicthing.org/2019/05/11/the-dubia-were-answered/
-
It is typically said that three components are required for (subjective) mortal sin: grave matter, sufficient reflection, and consent of the will. The grave matter component is objective. Persons living in adultery in the way of spouses are in an objective state of grave sin. The subjective mortal sin and objective grave matter are different. That might still hold in the modern Church even after Amoris Laetitia[%].
Traditionally, the Church went by the objective matter in the external forum. Thus, someone who committed ѕυιcιdє was not buried in a church cemetery or with a church funeral, even though it could be argued that a successful ѕυιcιdє suggests psychological or other blocks to reflection or consent that might subjectively reduce the gravity of the sin.
In many areas - not just this one - the modern Church tends to make the situation in the external forum depend on the "totality of the circuмstances" or some such, which ends up blurring the subjective and the objective.
%. A statement of Pope Emeritus Benedict could be viewed as an answer to the Burke et al dubia concerning Amoris Laetitia. Not saying I agree with that.
https://www.thecatholicthing.org/2019/05/11/the-dubia-were-answered/
OK so basically this was my argument. Given that, I agree with you, the Church *should* act based on the external forum, and thus it is *wrong* for them to try to act based on the subjective, it is *scandalous*. But I'm not sure its actually *heretical*, as it would be if, for instance, AL was to say its not a grave sin at all.
-
OK so basically this was my argument. Given that, I agree with you, the Church *should* act based on the external forum, and thus it is *wrong* for them to try to act based on the subjective, it is *scandalous*. But I'm not sure its actually *heretical*, as it would be if, for instance, AL was to say its not a grave sin at all.
I'm not ignoring this. I just don't have time to go through this thing in complete detail.
Perhaps you can start here:
http://www.docuмentcloud.org/docuмents/5983408-Open-Letter-to-the-Bishops-of-the-Catholic.html (http://www.docuмentcloud.org/docuмents/5983408-Open-Letter-to-the-Bishops-of-the-Catholic.html)
You haven't read the docuмent, but it's not talking about the internal forum per se, since the internal forum is not knowable except by God (it is not known even to a Confessor). Not even the person himself knows the truth about the internal forum. So everything here refers to the fact that under certain circuмstances in the external forum, adultery may not be sinful. What it's saying is that an individual's CONSCIENCE, no matter how ill formed, can trump the divine law and the teaching of the Church. There's no question of mere ignorance of fact in PERSISTING in the sinful activity despite the teaching of the Church. That is the entire point of the "discernment" discussed by Francis, to come up with rationalizations why, DESPITE the Church's teaching, their continuation in objective sin could be justified.
-
it is *scandalous*. But I'm not sure its actually *heretical*
Byzcat3000, it's written in Modernist language, just like V2. They skirted the line of heresy, as usual, and (arguably) didn't cross it. However, the docuмent is still GRAVELY wrong and GRAVELY sinful. What does it matter if one goes to hell as a heretic or simply as a catholic in mortal sin? The practical result is the same - the loss of Faith, the increase of immorality and the greater offense to God's laws (all of which are the Modernist's goals, because they are satan's henchmen, so they hate all things good - the Church, the faithful and God Himself). Let's not get lost in the theological trees and miss the forest of evil this will lead to.
-
Thank you. Just to make myself clear, I don't really care about the thumbs ... either way. I am just astonished that anyone here would defend AL, and I would like an explanation to go along with the downthumb. WHY exactly is AL not heretical? We even had a Novus Ordo group of Cardinals say as much ... although carefully avoiding the dreaded H word.
If someone pertinaciously adheres to what is contained in this docuмent, knowing full well that it contradicts authentic Catholic teaching (frankly it’s hard for me to believe that even a half witted person couldn’t) that person is simply NOT a Catholic. They do not profess the True Faith and are not a member of the Mystical Body of Christ.
Anyone who gave you a thumbs down is suspect.
-
The Magisterium is AUTHENTIC and it is UNIVERSAL
The Magisterium can be utilized in an EXTRAORDINARY manner or in an ORDINARY manner
The Magisterium is infallible and unable to be mistaken
Ok, that is the strict definition which used to be used pre-1850s. Using this criteria then, an encyclical like "Deus Caritas Est" from +Benedict would NOT be part of the magisterium because 1) he didn't teach anything authoritatively using his Apostolic authority, nor did he bind anyone to believe anything. All he did was give a personal, theological opinion.
.
Since Vatican 1 defined infallibility, there has been a growing trend among theologians to expand the use of the term 'magisterium' to include all things coming forth from rome. This new understanding means that such personal, theological opinions of the pope are now part of the "ordinary" magisterium, but aren't infallible, just fallible opinions.
.
It's a highly evolving area of theology because it has never been adequately explained. The dawn of the defining of infallibilty at V1, only increased the questions as to what and when is the ordinary magisterium infallible. Thus, there are all manner of explanations and terms used since then.
-
Byzcat3000, it's written in Modernist language, just like V2. They skirted the line of heresy, as usual, and (arguably) didn't cross it. However, the docuмent is still GRAVELY wrong and GRAVELY sinful. What does it matter if one goes to hell as a heretic or simply as a catholic in mortal sin? The practical result is the same - the loss of Faith, the increase of immorality and the greater offense to God's laws (all of which are the Modernist's goals, because they are satan's henchmen, so they hate all things good - the Church, the faithful and God Himself). Let's not get lost in the theological trees and miss the forest of evil this will lead to.
I don't accept it, and I agree its really dangerous, but my issue is its just another instance where Sedevacantists need to prove their point. If it can't even be proven that AL is *definitely* material *heresy* (leaving aside the grave sinfulness which I agree with), then it can't be used to prove that Francis "must be a heretic and must not be the Pope." Or such things. Because other scandalous things that aren't actually heresy (or schism or apostasy) can be mortal sins but not necessarily severing a man from the Church outright.
-
I was under the assumption that the Magisterium is the "teaching authority" of the Church. All those things contained in Scripture and tradition are the sacred Deposit of Faith - in which the Magisterium has divine authority to teach, guard, and defend.
As far as I know, the Popes don't refer to any "levels" of authority "within" the Magisterium (per Pax's sources).
This is the way I understand it:
The Magisterium is AUTHENTIC and it is UNIVERSAL
The Magisterium can be utilized in an EXTRAORDINARY manner or in an ORDINARY manner
The Magisterium is infallible and unable to be mistaken
That's all there is to it...per the Popes.
I can't really tell if we're in agreement or not...
I think we are mostly, perhaps fully in agreement. Dissect this please.....
I was trying to think of examples, and the best example I can think of is simply to take V1, which was headed by Pope Pius IX, and compare that with Tuas Libenter, which was authored by the same pope 7 years earlier. I noted the time span to show, that which the pope decreed at V1, is what the Church always believed. These quotes are in regards to all those things Catholics are bound to believe.......
Tuas Libenter (https://www.cathinfo.com/the-library/tuas-libenter/):
"Even when it is only a question of the submission owed to divine faith, this cannot be limited merely to points defined by the express decrees of the Ecuмenical Councils, or of the Roman Pontiffs and of this Apostolic See; this submission must also be extended to all that has been handed down as divinely revealed by the ordinary teaching authority of the entire Church spread over the whole world, and which, for this reason, Catholic theologians, with a universal and constant consent, regard as being of the faith".
V1 tells us (https://www.papalencyclicals.net/Councils/ecuм20.htm): "Wherefore, by divine and catholic faith all those things are to be believed which are contained in the word of God as found in scripture and tradition, and which are proposed by the church as matters to be believed as divinely revealed, whether by her solemn judgment or in her ordinary and universal magisterium".
The two teachings are both saying the exact same thing. V1 tells us we are to believe all those things contained in her magisterium, TL tells us we are to believe "all that has been handed down..." ergo, all those things in the magisterium = "all that has been handed down..." "All those things handed down" are all those things that the Church has always taught.
This agrees with your other quotes on the magisterium being always infallible and explains why. This also explains why saying "the magisterium has gone off the rails" is altogether wrong, perhaps blasphemous.
So when we say "the magisterium teaches X", or "X is a teaching of the magisterium", what we are talking about, are teachings that the Church has always taught, i.e. "all that has been handed down..."
-
I don't accept it, and I agree its really dangerous, but my issue is its just another instance where Sedevacantists need to prove their point. If it can't even be proven that AL is *definitely* material *heresy* (leaving aside the grave sinfulness which I agree with), then it can't be used to prove that Francis "must be a heretic and must not be the Pope." Or such things. Because other scandalous things that aren't actually heresy (or schism or apostasy) can be mortal sins but not necessarily severing a man from the Church outright.
Have you read the link I posted from the Novus Ordo group that clearly details all of Francis' heresies? It details the accusation with many citations of Catholic dogma.
https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/prominent-clergy-scholars-accuse-pope-francis-of-heresy-in-open-letter (https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/prominent-clergy-scholars-accuse-pope-francis-of-heresy-in-open-letter)
https://www.docuмentcloud.org/docuмents/5983408-Open-Letter-to-the-Bishops-of-the-Catholic.html (https://www.docuмentcloud.org/docuмents/5983408-Open-Letter-to-the-Bishops-of-the-Catholic.html)
This has even more credibility since it comes from, of all places, a Novus Ordo group of theologians (and others) ... and not from the "sedevacantists".
You just keep saying that it's not heresy while admittedly not knowing what Francis actually wrote or said. If Francis is not a heretic, then there never has been a heretic in the history of the Church.
-
Have you read the link I posted from the Novus Ordo group that clearly details all of Francis' heresies? It details the accusation with many citations of Catholic dogma.
https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/prominent-clergy-scholars-accuse-pope-francis-of-heresy-in-open-letter (https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/prominent-clergy-scholars-accuse-pope-francis-of-heresy-in-open-letter)
https://www.docuмentcloud.org/docuмents/5983408-Open-Letter-to-the-Bishops-of-the-Catholic.html (https://www.docuмentcloud.org/docuмents/5983408-Open-Letter-to-the-Bishops-of-the-Catholic.html)
This has even more credibility since it comes from, of all places, a Novus Ordo group of theologians (and others) ... and not from the "sedevacantists".
You just keep saying that it's not heresy while admittedly not knowing what Francis actually wrote or said. If Francis is not a heretic, then there never has been a heretic in the history of the Church.
No I haven't yet, but I was answering the question of "why it matters" whether its technically heresy or not.
-
Byzcat, you're the only one saying it's not heresy, yet you've not read either the "dubia" letter or the critique provided by Ladislaus. Before you defend something, you should know its contents.
-
Byzcat, you're the only one saying it's not heresy, yet you've not read either the "dubia" letter or the critique provided by Ladislaus. Before you defend something, you should know its contents.
I didn't say it wasn't heresy. I was questioning whether it was heresy. That said I'll read those before I reply again.