Author Topic: Asking Sedevacantists: A Church without Popes Forever? (Read 2333 times)

Stubborn · « **Reply #75 on:** July 29, 2020, 02:04:40 PM »

Quote from: Ladislaus on July 29, 2020, 01:49:53 PM

Yes, God has, and this principle derives from the indefectibility of the Church's Magisterium.

No, God has not. You know not what you are talking about here. The pope is safeguarded from the possibility of error when he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals ex cathedra, this is what was defined at V1. This is the teaching of the Church, this is the papal infallibility we learned from V1, this is what we are bound to believe.

As V1 taught; among all the doctrines which we must believe, are those doctrines contained in the Church's Magisterium, some of which are defined ex cathedra, again, this teaching comes directly from V1. So to say "this principle derives from the indefectibility of the Church's Magisterium" only demonstrates a decided confusion in your thinking here.

Pax Vobis · « **Reply #76 on:** July 29, 2020, 02:27:41 PM »

Quote

"In this field, God has given the Holy Father a kind of infallibility distinct from the charism of doctrinal infallibility in the strict sense.

1. Pope speaks ex-cathedra (on faith and morals) = infallible.
2. Pope speaks authoritatively (on faith and morals) but not ex-cathedra = infallible.
3. Pope speaks authoritatively (but NOT on faith and morals) = not infallible because this is a governmental decision.
.
I think most catholics would agree with 1-3 above. Yet, Fenton goes further and teaches a #4.
.
4. Pope speaks non-authoritatively (on faith and morals) = infallible.
.
This #4 theory effectively makes ex-cathedra statements pointless because the pope is infallible regardless. This is ridiculous and as far as I can tell, Fenton is the only theologian who argues thus.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #77 on:** July 29, 2020, 02:39:42 PM »

Quote from: Pax Vobis on July 29, 2020, 02:27:41 PM

1. Pope speaks ex-cathedra (on faith and morals) = infallible.
2. Pope speaks authoritatively (on faith and morals) but not ex-cathedra = infallible.
3. Pope speaks authoritatively (but NOT on faith and morals) = not infallible because this is a governmental decision.
.
I think most catholics would agree with 1-3 above. Yet, Fenton goes further and teaches a #4.
.
4. Pope speaks non-authoritatively (on faith and morals) = infallible.
.
This #4 theory effectively makes ex-cathedra statements pointless because the pope is infallible regardless. This is ridiculous and as far as I can tell, Fenton is the only theologian who argues thus.

Catholic doctrine is not limited to what's been solemnly defined. If souls could lose their faith by assenting to the Magisterium, then the Magisterium would have defected. It's a simple correlative to the Church's overall indefectibility.

R&R claim that the Church's indefectibility lies solely in its material continuity, but the Church cannot defect in HER MISSION either.

From NewAdvent regarding the Church:

Quote

Among the prerogatives conferred on His Church by Christ is the gift of indefectibility. By this term is signified, not merely that the Church will persist to the end of time, but further, that it will preserve unimpaired its essential characteristics. The Church can never undergo any constitutional change which will make it, as a social organism, something different from what it was originally. It can never become corrupt in faith or in morals; nor can it ever lose the Apostolic hierarchy, or the sacraments through which Christ communicates grace to men. The gift of indefectibility is expressly promised to the Church by Christ, in the words in which He declares that the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. It is manifest that, could the storms which the Church encounters so shake it as to alter its essential characteristics and make it other than Christ intended it to be, the gates of hell, i.e. the powers of evil, would have prevailed. It is clear, too, that could the Church suffer substantial change, it would no longer be an instrument capable of accomplishing the work for which God called it in to being. He established it that it might be to all men the school of holiness. This it would cease to be if ever it could set up a false and corrupt moral standard.

Tell me with a straight face that the Conciliar Church is still essentially the Catholic Church, that is not become "corrupt in faith and morals" and has not "set up a false and corrupt moral standard".

Ladislaus · « **Reply #78 on:** July 29, 2020, 02:42:24 PM »

You posit a blasphemous caricature of the Church, whereby it's possible for the Church to become 99% corrupt, unreliable, and pernicious. This is all perfectly acceptable in your minds ... so long as that 1% of defined dogma is correct. Everything else is a free-for-all for you.

Those of you who think this way have all but lost the Catholic faith.

Pax Vobis · « **Reply #79 on:** July 29, 2020, 03:08:59 PM »

Fenton says that non-infallible “directives” are protected by a special “charism”. Ok, maybe.
.
The problem comes into play when you try to come up with a PRACTICAL EXAMPLE of this.
.
1. Name a time when the pope, in matters of faith and morals, directed/commanded (under pain of sin) a belief outside of an ex-cathedral statement. I can’t think of any.
.
1b. Isn’t what Fenton describing the use of the ordinary/infallibility of the pope? That is, when JPII reiterated that it is of Tradition that women can never be priests. That sounds like a non-ex-cathedral directive and it is certainly infallible.
.
2. The further problem is when one applies Fenton’s theory to V2, because 1) neither V2 nor the new mass were “directives” and 2) they have nothing to do with infallibility because neither were obligatory (ie thus, not directives).
.
So those claiming that this “special charism” applies to V2 (assuming Paul VI was a true pope) are wrong. Even if Paul VI was legitimate, V2 doesn’t fulfill what Fenton was describing.

Pax Vobis · « **Reply #80 on:** July 29, 2020, 03:15:28 PM »

Quote

You posit a blasphemous caricature of the Church, whereby it's possible for the Church to become 99% corrupt, unreliable, and pernicious.

99% of churchmen can become corrupt? Yes, it happened during Arianism and it’s happening now.
.
99% (or even 1%) of church doctrine/teaching to become corrupt? Has never happened and never will. This is the meaning of indefectibility, which applies to truth/doctrine, not men, and not clerics.
.
V2 is not part of the infallible magisterium (and it’s not part of Fenton’s special-non-infallible infallibility either), because the key part missing from V2 is it's not a “directive”.

Pax Vobis · « **Reply #81 on:** July 29, 2020, 03:32:17 PM »

Quote

He established it that it might be to all men the school of holiness. This it would cease to be if ever it could set up a false and corrupt moral standard.

V2 definitely tried to setup a false doctrinal standard, but even so, this new "pastoral approach to doctrine" wasn't obligatory and has been debated ever since the council ended. There are so many interpretations that there is no one, single standard.
.
However, even as corrupt as V2 was, it did not affect morals directly. So, I would say that it did not setup a corrupt moral standard, but morals were corrupted gradually from without (i.e. hollywood, pagan society) and had been since before V2.

Bataar · « **Reply #82 on:** July 29, 2020, 05:22:05 PM »

According to Vatican I, the church is also infallible when using her Universal Ordinary Magisterium. This may be what Fenton meant in his 4th option. If the pope, together with all of the bishops teach something, it is to be considered infallible. Take the idea of Guardian Angels for example. There is no Ex Cathedra doctrine stating that Guardian Angels exist and that we all have one, yet the church, in her universal ordinary magisterium teaches this and it would be heresy to deny it.

Struthio · « **Reply #83 on:** July 29, 2020, 10:01:15 PM »

Quote from: Stanley N on July 28, 2020, 09:59:45 PM

That's not what the question was about. Given that DH affirms a duty to follow the true religion, does DH say there's a right to worship idols?

Yes, DH affirms that there is a natural right to follow whichever religion one sees fit. And the state has to ensure that this natural right is guaranteed. Consequently, the conciliar sect went to threaten several Catholic countries to change their constitutions, and they did (e.g. M. Lefebvre reports about this, as can be found in at least one of his books).

It is true that DH also teaches that if you happen to have been so dim-witted to once adhere to the religion of the conciliar sect, you mustn't leave it. But all others don't enjoy this privilege. And it's a contradiction within one and the same decree,

Quote from: Stanley N on July 28, 2020, 09:59:45 PM

And again, the point of this discussion is not DH itself, but SVism.

Again? Well, so far, I just answer your questions and input, and I commented on DH only once. Not my fault to talk about DH.

Quote from: Stanley N on July 28, 2020, 09:59:45 PM

We come across what appears to be a contradiction in church docuмents (or Scripture). The Church fathers do often write or say things that can appear rather different than 20th century Catholicism, so this is not an exclusively V2 issue. What is a Catholic reaction? Perhaps wondering if context might be different? Perhaps humbly considering our understanding might be wrong? Perhaps it is a legitimate development of doctrine? Perhaps even suspending judgment? Yes, these seem like options for a Catholic. But being so certain that our understanding of an apparent dilemma is correct and the hierarchy is wrong, to the point of declaring that hierarchy no longer exists? Does that really seem like a Catholic response?

All your suggestions should be considered. And yes, there's also the possibility, that we witness the great apostasy, as prophesied in 2 Thess 2. Each of us has to make up his mind and draw his conclusions.

No, no, no, stop! There's one very bad suggestion: "Perhaps even suspending judgment?"

That's grave sin! The principal rule of natural law is: Do what's good and omit what's bad. And to follow that rule, you have to judge. If you suspend judgment, the devil already got you. There is a webpage on the net, where a Thomist university professor of philosophy and theology declared that he, given the robber council, stops to thinking further. He did realize that the robber council teaches heresy. Without realizing this, he wouldn't have to stop thinking. He is just a coward, kneeling in front of Antichrist.

Struthio · « **Reply #84 on:** July 29, 2020, 10:37:35 PM »

Quote from: Ladislaus on July 28, 2020, 03:45:48 PM

Quote from: Struthio
Well, just like you and me, the Old Catholics have an obligation to follow their conscience, whether erring or not.

Were you being serious with this comment or was this sarcastic?

That's serious. To follow one's conscience is to apply natural law, and is a moral duty for everyone.

"when erring reason proposes something as being commanded by God, then to scorn the dictate of reason is to scorn the commandment of God." (St. Thomas Aquinas)

Nishant Xavier · « **Reply #85 on:** July 29, 2020, 11:15:51 PM »

Quote from: Clemens Maria

We've gone over this several times before and you refuse to even recognize any of the arguments against your position. You are not sincerely seeking the truth. You are just pushing an agenda.

I recognized the two arguments and addressed them. We may not agree, but there it is. I have no "agenda" but the Catholic Faith, all that pertains to it, and only that which pertains to it. Of the about 20 articles I wrote for 1P5, all are on the Catholic Faith. Some are apologetic articles against Modernism, Protestantism and Orthodoxy. Some are devotional articles. This one was on SVism.

I know you think you have arguments showing all Ordinaries can defect. The issue is that it's contrary to Vatican I, and a statement in the Oath Against Modernism. How do you explain those two sources, Clemens Maria?

Quote

As for your implied claim that the entire hierarchy consists solely of the ordinaries, you should read The Dictionary of Dogmatic Theology by Pietro Parente because there you will find that the hierarchy also includes all clerics.

You need a statement like, "All Bishops with ordinary jurisdiction can defect, so long as some vagrant clerics without jurisdiction remain". Do you have anything like that? I don't think you'll find a statement to that effect.

Quote

And even the home-aloners have reasonable arguments for why they think that all clerics have defected as well. I don't agree with them but I don't think their position is completely without any reasonable basis.

The home aloners who make the jurisdiction argument are taking 60 year sedevacantism to its logical conclusion. They are pointing out there are no authorized sede Priests or authorized sede Bishops since there was no Pope to authorize them.

I'm not disagreeing with the conclusion of their argument. I'm disagreeing with the premise that led to that conclusion. If and only if there was no Pope, it's true that no one was authorized these last 60 years. Otherwise, it's not true at all.

Quote

You on the other hand have elevated your opinion to the level of dogma and that is completely unreasonable. I won't say that your arguments are completely unfounded but they are not certain so accusing others of heresy on these points is morally wrong.

Not so. I don't consider normal sedevacantism to be heretical. Nor even 5 or 10 year sedevacantism to be heretical. There are two things I do consider heretical, with good reasons from dogmatic sources: (1) Saying the entire hierarchy can defect (2) Saying an indefinite vacancy is possible. When someone claims something is heresy, he must show the dogma that it opposes. What dogma does (1) oppose? Aposotolicity. What dogma does (2) oppose? St. Peter's Perpetual Successors, defined at Vatican I.

Quote

On the other hand you refuse to accuse the Novus Ordo ordinaries (including Chaos Frank) who have not only denied word-for-word dogmas of the Church but have also given clear indications of their unholy motive for doing so.

I hold only the Ordinaries can pass judgment that the Pope has lost office, as also Fr. Suarez said. So what efforts are sedevacantists making to assemble the Ordinaries (or even non-Ordinaries if you insist) in a General Council to do so?

Nishant Xavier · « **Reply #86 on:** July 29, 2020, 11:27:27 PM »

Quote from: Ladislaus

No, by virtue of the appointment, they can formally exercise jurisidiction provided they have no impediment from doing so.

Is there a source for this? I can show you sources that Ordinary Jurisdiction only passes to Bishops through the Successor of St. Peter. I'm not disagreeing that for e.g. a Cardinal Burke or Cardinal Sarah really possesses authority. But I can hold so consistently since I hold the Pope who appointed them had authority. Thus, they received their authority through his authority, in my view. In your view? They received their authority through his non-authority?

The early sedevacantists argued those appointed by those who lacked authority themselves lacked authority. They took cuм Ex at its word here, and used that argument against +ABL.

Quote

Also, even in straight sedevacantism, it's demonstrated quite clearly that the bishops continue to exercise jurisdiction even during interregna. Theologians were also cited to the effect that jurisdiction could even derive from Antipopes due to color of title.

It's not about Bishops already appointed continuing to exercise jurisdiction. We all agree they can. It's about whether new Bishops can be appointed by heretics during interregna. Even if they could be appointed by Catholics, it still remains a truism, per Fr. Gueranger, that Catholics cannot have the Apostolic Mission transmitted them by heretics.

Here is the source, cited in the OP: "deﬁled by heresy; they became chairs of pestilence; and having corrupted the faith they received from Rome, they could not transmit to others the mission they themselves had forfeited"

Do you still hold that those who are defiled by heresy can transmit to others a mission they themselves have forfeited, after this?

Quote

You've been refuted on this point several times by the sedevacantists, but you simply ignore their arguments and keep re-stating yours.

Not at all. I take their arguments into account and answer/refute them. The same as I refuted Protestant arguments in an article on Purgatory. We may not agree, but there it is.

Quote

You're perfectly free to disagree with the thesis that there can be jurisdiction in the Church during an interregnum or that color of title suffices for the transmission of jurisdiction from Christ.

Color of title as applied to a Catholic, I agree. As applied to a heretic, no. Can the Patriarch of Constantinople appoint Bishops to offices of authority? No, because heretics cannot appoint Catholics to authority.

Quote

Jurisdiction in the Church comes from Christ, and the Pope is a conduit for it, and there's nothing that rules out that even a purely material pope could continue serving as a conduit for jurisdiction even when he cannot himself formally exercise it.

If he was a Catholic, it is defensible. To say a heretic can serve as a conduit for authority to be transmitted to Catholics is absurd.

Quote

Again, disagree with this, but for you to continue to assert that it's heretical is completely unwarranted.

I didn't say this was heresy. I only said two things were heresy (1) Ecclesia-Vacantism, or no hierarchy. (2) Indefinite SVism, or the idea that a vacancy can be extended forever unproblematically. Given your idea that a non-Catholic can serve as a conduit for jurisdiction to Catholic Bishops, is there any limit to a vacancy? Or is it possible in your view that a Papal Vacancy can last forever?

To me, saying a Papal Vacancy can last indefinitely is a direct and plain contradiction to St. Peter's Perpetual Successors Dogma. It reduces that Dogma to a meaningless formula. That's why God won't let a succession of non-Catholics last indefinitely.

Stubborn · « **Reply #87 on:** July 30, 2020, 05:32:35 AM »

Quote from: Bataar on July 29, 2020, 05:22:05 PM

According to Vatican I, the church is also infallible when using her Universal Ordinary Magisterium. This may be what Fenton meant in his 4th option.

This is actually wrong, in order to be correct means that we must be precise in this field. To be precise, V1 taught that all those things are to be believed which are contained in both the Church's Ordinary and Universal Magisterium.

Fr. Fenton's idea of some other infallibility is clearly novel, and if his idea is true, then the NO is the true Church and all trads are outside of it because by claiming that the conciliar popes (together with the hierarchy) have taught and do teach heresy to the whole world, we deny his idea. IOW, we are in direct contradiction to this idea of Fr. Fenton - whose same idea is shared by some of the other 19th/20th century theologians.

Quote

If the pope, together with all of the bishops teach something, it is to be considered infallible. Take the idea of Guardian Angels for example. There is no Ex Cathedra doctrine stating that Guardian Angels exist and that we all have one, yet the church, in her universal ordinary magisterium teaches this and it would be heresy to deny it.

You likely do not know it but you are preaching a NO doctrine (bolded), this doctrine is found only in Lumen Gentium 25.2 and is not a teaching of the Church. Again, if it were a true doctrine, then all trads are not members of the Catholic Church because we deny this NO "doctrine" by being trads.

The doctrine of the Guardian Angels is part of tradition, having been always and everywhere taught and believed by all of the faithful is one of those things contained in the Church's Universal Magisterium of which V1 speaks which, "by divine and Catholic faith" we are to believe, which is why we believe it - *if* we have the Catholic faith.

Always remember that in Church speak, the word "Universal" *always* includes the element of time, it's meaning is from the time of the Apostles until the end of time.

Stanley N · « **Reply #88 on:** July 30, 2020, 07:56:11 PM »

Quote from: Struthio on July 29, 2020, 10:01:15 PM

No, no, no, stop! There's one very bad suggestion: "Perhaps even suspending judgment?"

That's grave sin! The principal rule of natural law is: Do what's good and omit what's bad. And to follow that rule, you have to judge. If you suspend judgment, the devil already got you. There is a webpage on the net, where a Thomist university professor of philosophy and theology declared that he, given the robber council, stops to thinking further. He did realize that the robber council teaches heresy. Without realizing this, he wouldn't have to stop thinking. He is just a coward, kneeling in front of Antichrist.

Most heresiarchs would have benefitted from some suspending judgment.

Pax Vobis · « **Reply #89 on:** July 30, 2020, 09:26:07 PM »

Quote

You need a statement like, "All Bishops with ordinary jurisdiction can defect, so long as some vagrant clerics without jurisdiction remain". Do you have anything like that?

1. All V2 bishops with oridinary jurisdiction have not defected, +Vigano being a good example, and maybe others like +Schneider and +Sarah, to a smaller degree.
.
2. During Arianism, most clerics defected (I cannot say all, but I also cannot say that some didn't, as history does not concern itself with such details). What we know is that +Athanasius did not defect, even though he was stripped of ordinary jurisdiction, being the equivalent of a current "Trad bishop", such as +Williamson or +Sanborn, +Dolan, etc..
.

Quote

The home aloners who make the jurisdiction argument are taking 60 year sedevacantism to its logical conclusion. They are pointing out there are no authorized sede Priests or authorized sede Bishops since there was no Pope to authorize them.

And they are wrong, because canon law authorizes jurisdiction in emergency circuмstances, such as happened during china's communistic reign, when chinese bishops ordained/consecrated bishops for the preservation of the faith, unknown to Rome.
.

Quote

I'm not disagreeing with the conclusion of their argument. I'm disagreeing with the premise that led to that conclusion. If and only if there was no Pope, it's true that no one was authorized these last 60 years.

Pope or no pope, "home aloners" are wrong (just as you are) because you restrict canon law (i.e. church law) to papal authority. The Church is greater than the pope because Christ created the papacy. The pope exists to teach/govern the Church; the Church does is not restricted by a pope or a lack his leadership.
.

Quote

I can show you sources that Ordinary Jurisdiction only passes to Bishops through the Successor of St. Peter.

Canon Law = supplied jurisdiction for many cases.
.

Quote

To say a heretic can serve as a conduit for authority to be transmitted to Catholics is absurd.

Whether a heretical pope can or can't provide jurisdiction is irrelevant. Canon law allows for supplied jurisdiction, to those faithful who request the sacraments, either way.
.
There is such a thing as a materially heretic pope (not yet declared, not yet decided he is obstinate) who is not yet a formal heretic. So, in such cases, the church still continues to operate, whether or not the pope is a heretic or not.
.

Quote

I only said two things were heresy (1) Ecclesia-Vacantism, or no hierarchy. (2) Indefinite SVism, or the idea that a vacancy can be extended forever unproblematically.

1) As during Arianism, where was the hierarchy? It was in St Athanasius (excommunicated, with no ordinary jurisdiction) and others like him. He was not, legally, the hierarchy, so according to your definition, during Arianism, there was no hierarchy, bu the Church still survived.
.
2) No one says that SVism extends indefinitely. We just haven't seen the end of it. All signs, including many prophecies, point to a miraculous resurrection of the Church. Svism doesn't have to explain the full theory to be correct. Its principles are solid.

Author Topic: Asking Sedevacantists: A Church without Popes Forever? (Read 2333 times)

Stubborn

Re: Asking Sedevacantists: A Church without Popes Forever?

Pax Vobis

Re: Asking Sedevacantists: A Church without Popes Forever?

Ladislaus

Re: Asking Sedevacantists: A Church without Popes Forever?

Ladislaus

Re: Asking Sedevacantists: A Church without Popes Forever?

Pax Vobis

Re: Asking Sedevacantists: A Church without Popes Forever?

Pax Vobis

Re: Asking Sedevacantists: A Church without Popes Forever?

Pax Vobis

Re: Asking Sedevacantists: A Church without Popes Forever?

Bataar

Re: Asking Sedevacantists: A Church without Popes Forever?

Struthio

Re: Asking Sedevacantists: A Church without Popes Forever?

Struthio

Re: Asking Sedevacantists: A Church without Popes Forever?

Nishant Xavier

Re: Asking Sedevacantists: A Church without Popes Forever?

Nishant Xavier

Re: Asking Sedevacantists: A Church without Popes Forever?

Stubborn

Re: Asking Sedevacantists: A Church without Popes Forever?

Stanley N

Re: Asking Sedevacantists: A Church without Popes Forever?

Pax Vobis

Re: Asking Sedevacantists: A Church without Popes Forever?