Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => Crisis in the Church => Topic started by: Viva Cristo Rey on June 14, 2022, 05:51:51 AM
-
Pope Francis: There are many ‘restorers’ in the US who do not accept Vatican II
- (https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/251536/pope-francis-there-are-restorers-in-the-us-who-do-not-accept-vatican-ii#)
(https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/251536/pope-francis-there-are-restorers-in-the-us-who-do-not-accept-vatican-ii#) - (https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/251536/pope-francis-there-are-restorers-in-the-us-who-do-not-accept-vatican-ii#)
(https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/251536/pope-francis-there-are-restorers-in-the-us-who-do-not-accept-vatican-ii#) - (https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/251536/pope-francis-there-are-restorers-in-the-us-who-do-not-accept-vatican-ii#)
(https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/251536/pope-francis-there-are-restorers-in-the-us-who-do-not-accept-vatican-ii#) - (https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/251536/pope-francis-there-are-restorers-in-the-us-who-do-not-accept-vatican-ii#)
(https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/251536/pope-francis-there-are-restorers-in-the-us-who-do-not-accept-vatican-ii#) - (https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/251536/pope-francis-there-are-restorers-in-the-us-who-do-not-accept-vatican-ii#)
(https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/storage/image/sf05062022102412-00377.jpg?w=670&h=447)Pope Francis sat at the front of the congregation in St. Peter's Basilica on the Solemnity of Pentecost on June 5, 2022. | Vatican Media
(https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/storage/authors/DdWyHsKrTvNdmwJmoNsgiyQ1h51KWzEhIMZhX38W.png?w=48&h=48) (https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/author/416/hannah-brockhaus)
By Hannah Brockhaus (https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/author/416/hannah-brockhaus)
Vatican City, Jun 14, 2022 / 04:12 am
There are many “restorers” in the United States who do not accept the Second Vatican Council, Pope Francis said in an interview published on Tuesday.
Speaking to the editors of Jesuit journals, he criticized what he called “restorationism” in the Church, which he defined as the failure to accept Vatican II, the ecuмenical council held from 1962 to 1965.
He said (https://www.laciviltacattolica.com/pope-francis-in-conversation-european-jesuit-journals/): “Restorationism has come to gag the Council. The number of groups of ‘restorers’ — for example, in the United States there are many — is significant.”
“An Argentine bishop told me that he had been asked to administer a diocese that had fallen into the hands of these ‘restorers.’ They had never accepted the Council. There are ideas, behaviors that arise from a restorationism that basically did not accept the Council.”
“The problem is precisely this: in some contexts, the Council has not yet been accepted. It is also true that it takes a century for a Council to take root. We still have 40 years to make it take root, then!”
Pope Francis cited opposition to Vatican II (https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/248392/pope-francis-issues-restrictions-on-extraordinary-form-masses-in-new-motu-proprio)when he issued the motu proprio (https://press.vatican.va/content/salastampa/it/bollettino/pubblico/2021/07/16/0469/01014.html#ingM) Traditionis custodes in July 2021, limiting celebrations of the Traditional Latin Mass.
In a letter (https://press.vatican.va/content/salastampa/it/bollettino/pubblico/2021/07/16/0469/01015.html#ingL) to the world’s bishops, he said he was saddened that the celebration of the Traditional Latin Mass was “often characterized by a rejection not only of the liturgical reform, but of the Vatican Council II itself.”
To doubt the Council, he said, is “in the final analysis, to doubt the Holy Spirit himself who guides the Church.”
The pope’s conversation with editors, which also touched on the war in Ukraine (https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/251535/pope-francis-deplores-russia-s-monstrous-use-of-mercenaries-in-ukraine) and the German “Synodal Way,” was published in La Civiltà Cattolica on June 14 but was conducted on May 19.
-
I’m not feeling the love, bridge building and mercy from peasant slapping pedophile enabling Bergolio. When he worships false gods and goddesses, Vatican II is not from the Holy Spirit..
-
He’s not wrong that doubting the Council is tantamount to doubting that the Holy Spirit guides the Church ... if you believe that was a legitimate Council to begin with.
-
Get behind us , satan!
-
Yet another reference and foreshadowing to persecution of the true faith and the faithful.
-
”The problem is precisely this: in some contexts, the Council has not yet been accepted. It is also true that it takes a century for a Council to take root. We still have 40 years to make it take root, then!”
Total nonsense, and a tactic to Buffalo Catholics into thinking this council was like all the rest, and therefore the dissension is perfectly normal.
But according to that nonsense, there was worldwide chaos and rejection of Vatican I until the 1970’s (whereas the reality is that the very same period gave us some of our best popes, and was a heyday of Catholic growth, conversions, and doctrinal and liturgical unity).
-
He’s not wrong that doubting the Council is tantamount to doubting that the Holy Spirit guides the Church ... if you believe that was a legitimate Council to begin with.
If John XXIII and Paul VI were legitimate Popes, then one has to accept the Council as legitimate and "infallible." The language of both Antipopes and the docuмents themselves prove as much.
https://schismatic-home-aloner.com/vatican-ii-infallible/
https://novusordowatch.org/vatican-ii-infallible-john-daly/
https://novusordowatch.org/2021/08/paul6-vatican2-is-binding/
The only way out of such a conclusion is to either accept the fact that they are Antipopes, or, fall into heresy by holding to Gallicanism and denying what Vatican 1 taught about papal infallibility.
-
If John XXIII and Paul VI were legitimate Popes, then one has to accept the Council as legitimate and "infallible."
Nope.
Both John XXIII and Paul VI explicitly denied its infallibility.
Vatican II was a unique breed of cat, and unlike all other councils (just as the new canonizations use the same terminology as traditional ones, but what is being “canonized” is a new conception of “sanctity”).
-
Fr. Hesse argued (and I hold to this opinion) that the Second Vatican “Council” was not a true Council at all, since it lacked the formal definitions of actual Church Councils and the intentionality to define anything.
https://archive.org/details/FatherHesse/Fr.+Hesse+-+Why+Catholics+May+Doubt+Whether+Vatican+II+Was+a+Valid+Council+(Remastered).mp3 (https://archive.org/details/FatherHesse/Fr.+Hesse+-+Why+Catholics+May+Doubt+Whether+Vatican+II+Was+a+Valid+Council+(Remastered).mp3)
Moreover, the Francis’ condemnations should fall on deaf ears, especially considering this point: if traditional Catholics are really “Protestants” for not accepting Vatican II, then why is this condemnable according to V2 “theology”, which denies the dogma of EENS through and through?
-
He’s not wrong that doubting the Council is tantamount to doubting that the Holy Spirit guides the Church ... if you believe that was a legitimate Council to begin with.
But can one doubt the Council but still believe that the popes who convened, ran, and implemented the Council were true popes?
-
But can one doubt the Council but still believe that the popes who convened, ran, and implemented the Council were true popes?
Yes, when those same popes say the council did not engage infallibility.
-
Vigano:
I ask then: if you admit, dear Father Thomas – as a painful trial to which Providence is subjecting the Church in order to punish her for the faults of her most unworthy members and especially of her leaders – that the Pope himself is in a state of schism with the Church, to the point of being able to speak of an “internal papal schism”, why can you not accept that the same has happened for a solemn act like a Council, and that Vatican II was a case of “internal Magisterial schism”? If it is possible for this Pope to be “for all practical purposes schismatic” – and I would say also heretical – why could not that Council also have been so, despite the fact that both one and the other were instituted by Our Lord to confirm the brethren in Faith and Morals? I ask you, what prevents the Acts of Vatican II from deviating from the path of Tradition, when the Supreme Pastor himself can deny the teaching of his Predecessors? And if the persona Papae is in schism with the papacy, why could a council that wanted to be pastoral and abstained from promulgating dogmas not be able to contradict the other canonical councils, entering into a de factoschism with the Catholic Magisterium?
It’s true that this situation is a hapax, a case that in itself has never been seen in the history of the Church; but if this applies to the papacy – in a crescendo from Roncalli to Bergoglio – I do not see why it could not apply for Vatican II, which precisely thanks to the recent popes has set itself as an event in itself, and as such has been used by its proponents?
https://insidethevatican.com/news/newsflash/letter-21-monday-august-10-2020-again-the-council/
-
Great arguments from +Vigano.
Another point to ponder...which catholics is Francis talking about who won't accept V2?
1. All the indult communities accept V2 (FSSP, ICK, etc)
2. All the diocesan TLM priests/churches accept V2 (especially after Francis' docuмent TC, which re-emphasizes the acceptance of V2/new mass). This would include fake conservatives like Bishop Schneider, Cardinal Sarah, etc.
3. The new-sspx accepts "95%" of V2 (per +Fellay...but not everyone in the new-sspx agrees with him, thank goodness)
So what catholics are the "restorationists"? Who does Francis consider the true enemies of V2?
Answer: The sedevacantists of many different shades, or..."hardcore R&R", including people like +Chazal, +Williamson, and +Vigano who question Francis' orthodoxy.
The battle lines are becoming more clear, day by day.
-
Yes, when those same popes say the council did not engage infallibility.
This is actually not true. But even if it were, why should we believe the same people who gave us Vatican II in the first place?
-
This is actually not true. But even if it were, why should we believe the same people who gave us Vatican II in the first place?
Yes, it is true. And we don't have to take their word for it, because infallibility is a formula with rules that must be followed, just like a sacrament or canon law. If you don't follow the rules, then something isn't valid, or it's illegal or it's not-infallible. Infallibility is not some mysterious thing which only the pope knows how it works (that's contrary to the whole idea of catholicism, which is, that all members of the Faith believe, know and act the same). Infallibility is knowable, provable and can be tested. So when the V2 popes say that V2 was not-infallible and didn't define anything, they said so because it's true and (to those that know the rules) obvious.
-
This is actually not true. But even if it were, why should we believe the same people who gave us Vatican II in the first place?
Pope Paul VI made it clear in a public audience of January 12th, 1966 that the decrees of Vatican II were never stamped with the note of infallibility as he openly declared:
“There are those who ask what authority, what theological qualification, the Council intended to give to its teachings, knowing that it avoided issuing solemn dogmatic definitions backed by the Church's infallible teaching authority. The answer is known by those who remember the conciliar declaration of March 6, 1964, repeated on November 16, 1964. In view of the pastoral nature of the Council, it avoided proclaiming in an extraordinary manner any dogmas carrying the mark of infallibility.” (General Audience, December 1, 1966, published in the L'Osservatore Romano 1/21/1966)
-
Seems relevant so I will re-post this......
Snip taken from an interview with Fr. Wathen:
"....There has never been a general council until the Second Vatican Council which did not have the purpose of gathering in order to deliberate on doctrinal matters.
The Second Vatican Council was unique in that, from the very onset, pope John XXIII said that this would be a different kind of council. He coined an altogether new expression, he said "this is a Pastoral Council" (Pope Paul VI on Jan 12, 1966 said the same thing).
People need to understand that anything that this council pronounced that is a part of Catholic tradition and belief, is no less true and no less binding. They also need to understand that in calling itself a "Pastoral Council", the Council was telling the Catholic faithful that "our deliberations will not be mainly on the subject of what is Catholic doctrines, our deliberations will be mainly regarding how the Church will approach the people", and the council said that "we are going to begin to approach the people in a different style".
We have to say that rather remarkably, the Second Vatican Council was rather unconcerned about the sanctification of the people, the Second Vatican Council was mainly concerned with it's image, with how the people saw, or see the Church.
The second aspect of this matter is that the Church was going to present a new image to the non-Catholic world. It was going to make a totally different approach to the non-Catholics, the non-believers. No matter whether they were Protestants or Jєωs or Mohammedans, to non-believers the Church was going to present itself, not as an infallible body, but as an equal and the Church was going to present itself as being like them, searching for the truth.
This is a horrendous aspect and very often, since then, ecclesiastics, including the pope, have suggested that we Catholics are searching for the truth.
We're not searching for the truth at all - God has given us the truth, God has imposed the truth on us. And those who do not possess it, are bound under the pain of damnation to find it and to accept it.
We are in a totally different situation from those outside the Church. We have access to the truth, we know where it is, and we're bound by it - and any Catholic who does not know the truth should find someone who does know it and listen to him. And if there's any priest that doesn't know it, that priest should leave the priesthood. He has no business pretending himself as a priest if he does not know his Catholic theology.
The Church, since the Council, has been willing to discard everything that is recognizably Catholic, in order to fulfill this new preoccupation of presenting itself in a different fashion to the Catholic laypeople and to the non-Catholic world and for the sake of having a different image to the non-Catholic world, it has shown itself indifferent to the faith of the people so that the people are beside themselves with confusion. They no longer find anything recognizably Catholic, they don't know what to do in reaction. It is as if they simply no longer recognize their mother.
She has taken on a totally new makeup and garb and way of speaking, they don't recognize her, and in their heart of hearts they know this is a false image, and they are scandalized by it, but all those to whom they look for explanation assure them that they're not to be dismayed, that they're not to take scandal, not to take umbridge. It is the role of the traditionalists to say, don't listen to them, they are liars and deceivers, you have every reason to be scandalized by this new approach.....
....In order to present this totally new image to it's people and to the world, the conciliarists have been willing to discard everything - and that is not a careless statement. There is absolutely nothing they will not concede to fulfill this image, to carry it out. There is absolutely nothing, not a single doctrine will they not compromise, they will discard not only the Mass, they will discard any appearance, any external, and any morality in order not to be inconsistent with this self imposed obligation of being a true ecuмenical. Of being all things to all men, there is nothing that they will not discard, there is no damage they will not do, there is no fixture they will not destroy, there is nothing holy they will not trample, even the Body of Christ, there is nothing, absolutely nothing that they will not do in order to fulfill this self imposed image.
And they have said in order to give weight to their resolve that the Holy Spirit has guided them to it, this is false. The Holy Spirit has guided them to nothing of it, we have every reason to know what spirit it is that has guided them to this...."
-
Pope Paul VI made it clear in a public audience of January 12th, 1966 that the decrees of Vatican II were never stamped with the note of infallibility as he openly declared:
“There are those who ask what authority, what theological qualification, the Council intended to give to its teachings, knowing that it avoided issuing solemn dogmatic definitions backed by the Church's infallible teaching authority. The answer is known by those who remember the conciliar declaration of March 6, 1964, repeated on November 16, 1964. In view of the pastoral nature of the Council, it avoided proclaiming in an extraordinary manner any dogmas carrying the mark of infallibility.” (General Audience, December 1, 1966, published in the L'Osservatore Romano 1/21/1966)
Not infallible in an extraordinary,solemn manner, but according to the Supreme Ordinary Magisterium:
There are those who ask what is the authority, the theological qualification, that the Council wished to attribute to its teachings, knowing that it has avoided giving solemn dogmatic definitions, committing the infallibility of the ecclesiastical magisterium. And the answer is known to those who remember the conciliar declaration of March 6, 1964, repeated on November 16, 1964: given the pastoral character of the Council, it avoided pronouncing in an extraordinary way dogmas endowed with the note of infallibility; but it has nevertheless endowed its teachings with the authority of the supreme ordinary magisterium which ordinary and so clearly authentic magisterium must be accepted docilely and sincerely by all the faithful, according to the mind of the Council regarding the nature and purposes of the individual docuмents. - Paul VI, General Audience, January 12, 1966.
-
Yet again, the neo-Gallicans here deny proof when its right in their faces. No point in wasting my time on it anymore.
If John XXIII and Paul VI were legitimate Popes, then one has to accept the Council as legitimate and "infallible." The language of both Antipopes and the docuмents themselves prove as much.
https://schismatic-home-aloner.com/vatican-ii-infallible/
https://novusordowatch.org/vatican-ii-infallible-john-daly/
https://novusordowatch.org/2021/08/paul6-vatican2-is-binding/
The only way out of such a conclusion is to either accept the fact that they are Antipopes, or, fall into heresy by holding to Gallicanism and denying what Vatican 1 taught about papal infallibility.
-
Not infallible in an extraordinary,solemn manner, but according to the Supreme Ordinary Magisterium:
There are those who ask what is the authority, the theological qualification, that the Council wished to attribute to its teachings, knowing that it has avoided giving solemn dogmatic definitions, committing the infallibility of the ecclesiastical magisterium. And the answer is known to those who remember the conciliar declaration of March 6, 1964, repeated on November 16, 1964: given the pastoral character of the Council, it avoided pronouncing in an extraordinary way dogmas endowed with the note of infallibility; but it has nevertheless endowed its teachings with the authority of the supreme ordinary magisterium which ordinary and so clearly authentic magisterium must be accepted docilely and sincerely by all the faithful, according to the mind of the Council regarding the nature and purposes of the individual docuмents. - Paul VI, General Audience, January 12, 1966.
This is actually not true. But even if it were, why should we believe the same people who gave us Vatican II in the first place?
-
Yet again, the neo-Gallicans here deny proof when its right in their faces. No point in wasting my time on it anymore.
Yep...just check out the smart aleck response from SJ. They're objective schismatics.
-
but it has nevertheless endowed its teachings with the authority of the supreme ordinary magisterium which ordinary and so clearly authentic magisterium must be accepted docilely and sincerely by all the faithful, according to the mind of the Council regarding the nature and purposes of the individual docuмents. - Paul VI, General Audience, January 12, 1966.
Note the equivocation:
On the one hand, it is the “supreme ordinary magisterium” (whatever that is).
A few words later, that phrase is modified by calling it “authentic magisterium,” which is by definition not infallible:
http://archives.sspx.org/miscellaneous/infallible_magisterium.htm
Not infallible in an extraordinary,solemn manner, but according to the Supreme Ordinary Magisterium:
Finally, and also by definition, nothing can be part of the ordinary magisterium which lacks universality (both geographically and temporally).
To deny this is to suggest that novelty can be magisterial.
-
Yet again, the neo-Gallicans here deny proof when its right in their faces. No point in wasting my time on it anymore.
You mean like the proof you had of Cardinal Newman allegedly denying revelation ended with the death of the last apostle, per the Diamond bro’s (meaning what you frequently take for proof that s nothing of the sort)?
-
Yep...just check out the smart aleck response from SJ. They're objective schismatics.
Oh?
My comment may contain irony, since it turned your rebuttal against you, but it is also perfectly accurate: No Pope can claim infallible status through the ordinary magisterium for a novelty:
“Thus the truth that is taught must be proposed as already defined, or as what has always been believed or accepted in the Church, or attested by the unanimous and constant agreement of theologians as being a Catholic truth [which is therefore] strictly obligatory for all the faithful." ("Infaillibilite du Pape", DTC, vol. VII, col. 1705)”
https://sspx.org/en/clear-ideas-popes-infallible-magisterium
Obviously, teachings which fail this test can hardly lay claim to infallibility
PS: The article containing the quote is outstanding.
-
This is actually not true. But even if it were, why should we believe the same people who gave us Vatican II in the first place?
What's not true?
-
Oh?
My comment may contain irony, since it turned your rebuttal against you, but it is also perfectly accurate: No Pope can claim infallible status through the ordinary magisterium for a novelty:
“Thus the truth that is taught must be proposed as already defined, or as what has always been believed or accepted in the Church, or attested by the unanimous and constant agreement of theologians as being a Catholic truth [which is therefore] strictly obligatory for all the faithful." ("Infaillibilite du Pape", DTC, vol. VII, col. 1705)”
https://sspx.org/en/clear-ideas-popes-infallible-magisterium
Obviously, teachings which fail this test can hardly lay claim to infallibility
PS: The article containing the quote is outstanding.
Yep, no true pope in a true council of the Catholic Church.
-
Oh?
My comment may contain irony, since it turned your rebuttal against you, but it is also perfectly accurate: No Pope can claim infallible status through the ordinary magisterium for a novelty:
“Thus the truth that is taught must be proposed as already defined, or as what has always been believed or accepted in the Church, or attested by the unanimous and constant agreement of theologians as being a Catholic truth [which is therefore] strictly obligatory for all the faithful." ("Infaillibilite du Pape", DTC, vol. VII, col. 1705)”
https://sspx.org/en/clear-ideas-popes-infallible-magisterium
Obviously, teachings which fail this test can hardly lay claim to infallibility
PS: The article containing the quote is outstanding.
This may be the best definition of the Church's Magisterium that I've seen so far. Good find!
Not infallible in an extraordinary,solemn manner, but according to the Supreme Ordinary Magisterium:
There are those who ask what is the authority, the theological qualification, that the Council wished to attribute to its teachings, knowing that it has avoided giving solemn dogmatic definitions, committing the infallibility of the ecclesiastical magisterium. And the answer is known to those who remember the conciliar declaration of March 6, 1964, repeated on November 16, 1964: given the pastoral character of the Council, it avoided pronouncing in an extraordinary way dogmas endowed with the note of infallibility; but it has nevertheless endowed its teachings with the authority of the supreme ordinary magisterium which ordinary and so clearly authentic magisterium must be accepted docilely and sincerely by all the faithful, according to the mind of the Council regarding the nature and purposes of the individual docuмents. - Paul VI, General Audience, January 12, 1966.
First, note how the pope quotes himself in answer to what authority the Council wished to attribute to it's teachings.
Second, the lie here is that the Council's teachings are endowed with the authority of the (supreme?) ordinary magisterium. The Church's Ordinary Magisterium is, per Pope Pius IX, simply: "...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." - Tuas Libenter
He goes on to say it's teachings must be accepted according to the mind of the council, which is to say they should be accepted according to the mind of revolutionaries, not according to the mind of the Church.
It is well known that many of the Council's teachings are new, and some are even previously condemned by the Church, effectively proving that Pope Paul VI's words to be false. What we don't know and what we can never know in this world, is if he lied on purpose or if he actually believed that what he said was the truth.
-
Pope Francis: There are many ‘restorers’ in the US who do not accept Vatican II
- (https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/251536/pope-francis-there-are-restorers-in-the-us-who-do-not-accept-vatican-ii#)
(https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/251536/pope-francis-there-are-restorers-in-the-us-who-do-not-accept-vatican-ii#) - (https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/251536/pope-francis-there-are-restorers-in-the-us-who-do-not-accept-vatican-ii#)
(https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/251536/pope-francis-there-are-restorers-in-the-us-who-do-not-accept-vatican-ii#) - (https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/251536/pope-francis-there-are-restorers-in-the-us-who-do-not-accept-vatican-ii#)
(https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/251536/pope-francis-there-are-restorers-in-the-us-who-do-not-accept-vatican-ii#) - (https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/251536/pope-francis-there-are-restorers-in-the-us-who-do-not-accept-vatican-ii#)
(https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/251536/pope-francis-there-are-restorers-in-the-us-who-do-not-accept-vatican-ii#) - (https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/251536/pope-francis-there-are-restorers-in-the-us-who-do-not-accept-vatican-ii#)
(https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/storage/image/sf05062022102412-00377.jpg?w=670&h=447)Pope Francis sat at the front of the congregation in St. Peter's Basilica on the Solemnity of Pentecost on June 5, 2022. | Vatican Media
(https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/storage/authors/DdWyHsKrTvNdmwJmoNsgiyQ1h51KWzEhIMZhX38W.png?w=48&h=48) (https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/author/416/hannah-brockhaus)
By Hannah Brockhaus (https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/author/416/hannah-brockhaus)
Vatican City, Jun 14, 2022 / 04:12 am
There are many “restorers” in the United States who do not accept the Second Vatican Council, Pope Francis said in an interview published on Tuesday.
Speaking to the editors of Jesuit journals, he criticized what he called “restorationism” in the Church, which he defined as the failure to accept Vatican II, the ecuмenical council held from 1962 to 1965.
He said (https://www.laciviltacattolica.com/pope-francis-in-conversation-european-jesuit-journals/): “Restorationism has come to gag the Council. The number of groups of ‘restorers’ — for example, in the United States there are many — is significant.”
“An Argentine bishop told me that he had been asked to administer a diocese that had fallen into the hands of these ‘restorers.’ They had never accepted the Council. There are ideas, behaviors that arise from a restorationism that basically did not accept the Council.”
“The problem is precisely this: in some contexts, the Council has not yet been accepted. It is also true that it takes a century for a Council to take root. We still have 40 years to make it take root, then!”
Pope Francis cited opposition to Vatican II (https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/248392/pope-francis-issues-restrictions-on-extraordinary-form-masses-in-new-motu-proprio)when he issued the motu proprio (https://press.vatican.va/content/salastampa/it/bollettino/pubblico/2021/07/16/0469/01014.html#ingM) Traditionis custodes in July 2021, limiting celebrations of the Traditional Latin Mass.
In a letter (https://press.vatican.va/content/salastampa/it/bollettino/pubblico/2021/07/16/0469/01015.html#ingL) to the world’s bishops, he said he was saddened that the celebration of the Traditional Latin Mass was “often characterized by a rejection not only of the liturgical reform, but of the Vatican Council II itself.”
To doubt the Council, he said, is “in the final analysis, to doubt the Holy Spirit himself who guides the Church.”
The pope’s conversation with editors, which also touched on the war in Ukraine (https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/251535/pope-francis-deplores-russia-s-monstrous-use-of-mercenaries-in-ukraine) and the German “Synodal Way,” was published in La Civiltà Cattolica on June 14 but was conducted on May 19.
But Pope Francis is perpetuating a myth when he issued Traditionis custodes. Vatican II didn't ask for the Novus Ordo Missae. It was the product of Bugnini's Consilium after the Council.
-
Yet again, the neo-Gallicans here deny proof when its right in their faces. No point in wasting my time on it anymore.
[T]here are those who, under the pretext of a greater fidelity to the Church and the Magisterium, systematically refuse the teaching of the Council itself, its application and the reforms that stem from it, its gradual application by the Apostolic See and the Episcopal Conferences, under our authority, willed by Christ. Discredit is cast upon the authority of the Church in the name of a Tradition, to which respect is professed only materially and verbally. The faithful are drawn away from the bonds of obedience to the See of Peter and to their rightful Bishops; today’s authority is rejected in the name of yesterday’s. And the fact is all the more serious in that the opposition of which we are speaking is not only encouraged by some priests, but is led by a Prelate, Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, who nevertheless still has our respect.
It is so painful to take note of this; but how can we not see in such an attitude—whatever may be these people’s intentions—the placing of themselves outside obedience and communion with the Successor of Peter and therefore outside the Church?
For this, unfortunately, is the logical consequence, when, that is, it is held as preferable to disobey with the pretext of preserving one’s faith intact, and of working in one’s way for the preservation of the Catholic Church, while at the same time refusing to give her effective obedience. And this is said openly! It is even affirmed that the Second Vatican Council is not binding; that the faith would also be in danger because of the reforms and post-conciliar directives, that one has the duty to disobey in order to preserve certain traditions. What traditions? Is it for this group [=Lefebvrists], not the Pope, not the College of Bishops, not the Ecuмenical Council, to decide which among the innumerable traditions must be considered as the norm of faith? As you see, Venerable Brothers, such an attitude sets itself up as a judge of that divine will which placed Peter and his lawful Successors at the head of the Church to confirm the brethren in the faith, and to feed the universal flock (cf. Lk 22:32; Jn 21:15 ff.), and which established him as the guarantor and custodian of the deposit of faith.
And this is all the more serious, in particular, when division is introduced precisely where congregavit nos in unum Christi amor [the love of Christ has gathered us into one], in the Liturgy and the Eucharistic Sacrifice, by the refusing of obedience to the norms laid down in the liturgical sphere. It is in the name of Tradition that we ask all our sons and daughters, all the Catholic communities, to celebrate with dignity and fervor the renewed liturgy. The adoption of the new Ordo Missae [order of the Mass] is certainly not left to the free choice of priests or faithful. The instruction of 14 June 1971 has provided for, with the authorization of the Ordinary, the celebration of the Mass in the old form only by aged and infirm priests, who offer the divine Sacrifice sine popolo [without people attending]. The new Ordo was promulgated to take the place of the old, after mature deliberation, following upon the requests of the Second Vatican Council. In no different way did our holy Predecessor Pius V make obligatory the Missal reformed under his authority, following the Council of Tent.
With the same supreme authority that comes from Christ Jesus, we call for the same obedience to all the other liturgical, disciplinary and pastoral reforms which have matured in these years in the implementation of the Council decrees. Any initiative which tries to obstruct them cannot claim the prerogative of rendering a service to the Church; in fact it causes the Church serious damage.
Various times, directly and through our collaborators and other friendly persons, we have called the attention of Archbishop Lefebvre to the seriousness of his behaviour, the irregularity of his principal present initiatives, the inconsistency and often falsity of the doctrinal positions on which he bases this behaviour and these initiatives, and the damage that accrues to the entire Church because of them.
It is with profound sadness but with paternal hope that we once more turn to this confrère of ours, to his collaborators and to those who have let themselves be carried away by them. Oh, certainly, we believe that many of these faithful—at least in the beginning—were in good faith: we also understand their sentimental attachment to habitual forms of worship or of discipline that for a long time had been for them a spiritual support and in which they had found spiritual sustenance. But we are confident that they will reflect with serenity, without closed minds, and they will admit that they can find today the support and sustenance that they are seeking in the renewed forms that the Second Vatican Ecuмenical Council and we ourself have decreed as being necessary for the good of the Church, her progress in the modern world, and her unity. We therefore exhort yet once again all these brethren and sons and daughters of ours; we beseech them to become aware of the profound wounds that they otherwise cause to the Church, and we invite them again to reflect on Christ’s serious warnings about the unity of the Church (cf. Jn 17:21 ff) and on the obedience that is due to the lawful Pastor placed by him over the universal flock, as a sign of the obedience due to the Father and to the Son (cf. Lk 10:16). We await them with an open heart, with arms ready to embrace them; may they know how to rediscover in humility and edification, to the joy of the whole People of God, the way of unity and of love! - Paul VI, Allocution to the Consistory (https://novusordowatch.org/paul6-consistorial-address-19760524/), May 24, 1976
-
[T]here are those who, under the pretext of a greater fidelity to the Church and the Magisterium, systematically refuse the teaching of the Council itself, its application and the reforms that stem from it, its gradual application by the Apostolic See and the Episcopal Conferences, under our authority, willed by Christ. Discredit is cast upon the authority of the Church in the name of a Tradition, to which respect is professed only materially and verbally. The faithful are drawn away from the bonds of obedience to the See of Peter and to their rightful Bishops; today’s authority is rejected in the name of yesterday’s. And the fact is all the more serious in that the opposition of which we are speaking is not only encouraged by some priests, but is led by a Prelate, Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, who nevertheless still has our respect.
It is so painful to take note of this; but how can we not see in such an attitude—whatever may be these people’s intentions—the placing of themselves outside obedience and communion with the Successor of Peter and therefore outside the Church?
For this, unfortunately, is the logical consequence, when, that is, it is held as preferable to disobey with the pretext of preserving one’s faith intact, and of working in one’s way for the preservation of the Catholic Church, while at the same time refusing to give her effective obedience. And this is said openly! It is even affirmed that the Second Vatican Council is not binding; that the faith would also be in danger because of the reforms and post-conciliar directives, that one has the duty to disobey in order to preserve certain traditions. What traditions? Is it for this group [=Lefebvrists], not the Pope, not the College of Bishops, not the Ecuмenical Council, to decide which among the innumerable traditions must be considered as the norm of faith? As you see, Venerable Brothers, such an attitude sets itself up as a judge of that divine will which placed Peter and his lawful Successors at the head of the Church to confirm the brethren in the faith, and to feed the universal flock (cf. Lk 22:32; Jn 21:15 ff.), and which established him as the guarantor and custodian of the deposit of faith.
And this is all the more serious, in particular, when division is introduced precisely where congregavit nos in unum Christi amor [the love of Christ has gathered us into one], in the Liturgy and the Eucharistic Sacrifice, by the refusing of obedience to the norms laid down in the liturgical sphere. It is in the name of Tradition that we ask all our sons and daughters, all the Catholic communities, to celebrate with dignity and fervor the renewed liturgy. The adoption of the new Ordo Missae [order of the Mass] is certainly not left to the free choice of priests or faithful. The instruction of 14 June 1971 has provided for, with the authorization of the Ordinary, the celebration of the Mass in the old form only by aged and infirm priests, who offer the divine Sacrifice sine popolo [without people attending]. The new Ordo was promulgated to take the place of the old, after mature deliberation, following upon the requests of the Second Vatican Council. In no different way did our holy Predecessor Pius V make obligatory the Missal reformed under his authority, following the Council of Tent.
With the same supreme authority that comes from Christ Jesus, we call for the same obedience to all the other liturgical, disciplinary and pastoral reforms which have matured in these years in the implementation of the Council decrees. Any initiative which tries to obstruct them cannot claim the prerogative of rendering a service to the Church; in fact it causes the Church serious damage.
Various times, directly and through our collaborators and other friendly persons, we have called the attention of Archbishop Lefebvre to the seriousness of his behaviour, the irregularity of his principal present initiatives, the inconsistency and often falsity of the doctrinal positions on which he bases this behaviour and these initiatives, and the damage that accrues to the entire Church because of them.
It is with profound sadness but with paternal hope that we once more turn to this confrère of ours, to his collaborators and to those who have let themselves be carried away by them. Oh, certainly, we believe that many of these faithful—at least in the beginning—were in good faith: we also understand their sentimental attachment to habitual forms of worship or of discipline that for a long time had been for them a spiritual support and in which they had found spiritual sustenance. But we are confident that they will reflect with serenity, without closed minds, and they will admit that they can find today the support and sustenance that they are seeking in the renewed forms that the Second Vatican Ecuмenical Council and we ourself have decreed as being necessary for the good of the Church, her progress in the modern world, and her unity. We therefore exhort yet once again all these brethren and sons and daughters of ours; we beseech them to become aware of the profound wounds that they otherwise cause to the Church, and we invite them again to reflect on Christ’s serious warnings about the unity of the Church (cf. Jn 17:21 ff) and on the obedience that is due to the lawful Pastor placed by him over the universal flock, as a sign of the obedience due to the Father and to the Son (cf. Lk 10:16). We await them with an open heart, with arms ready to embrace them; may they know how to rediscover in humility and edification, to the joy of the whole People of God, the way of unity and of love! - Paul VI, Allocution to the Consistory (https://novusordowatch.org/paul6-consistorial-address-19760524/), May 24, 1976
I’m confused:
Earlier you said this man is not to be believed.
I then concurred, showing how blabbering like this one cannot make something non-magisterial magisterial.
Now you’re quoting the man you said was not to be believed as an authority, trying to bind us to accept novelties.
Help me understand what you’re doing here.
-
Pope Paul VI made it clear in a public audience of January 12th, 1966 that the decrees of Vatican II were never stamped with the note of infallibility as he openly declared:
“There are those who ask what authority, what theological qualification, the Council intended to give to its teachings, knowing that it avoided issuing solemn dogmatic definitions backed by the Church's infallible teaching authority. The answer is known by those who remember the conciliar declaration of March 6, 1964, repeated on November 16, 1964. In view of the pastoral nature of the Council, it avoided proclaiming in an extraordinary manner any dogmas carrying the mark of infallibility.” (General Audience, December 1, 1966, published in the L'Osservatore Romano 1/21/1966)
Paul VI, consistorial allocution of May 24, 1976:
"For this, unfortunately, is the logical consequence, when, that is, it is held as preferable to disobey with the pretext of preserving one’s faith intact, and of working in one’s way for the preservation of the Catholic Church, while at the same time refusing to give her effective obedience. And this is said openly! It is even affirmed that the Second Vatican Council is not binding; that the faith would also be in danger because of the reforms and post-conciliar directives, that one has the duty to disobey in order to preserve certain traditions. What traditions? Is it for this group [=Lefebvrists], not the Pope, not the College of Bishops, not the Ecuмenical Council, to decide which among the innumerable traditions must be considered as the norm of faith? As you see, Venerable Brothers, such an attitude sets itself up as a judge of that divine will which placed Peter and his lawful Successors at the head of the Church to confirm the brethren in the faith, and to feed the universal flock (cf. Lk 22:32; Jn 21:15 ff.), and which established him as the guarantor and custodian of the deposit of faith."
"And this is all the more serious, in particular, when division is introduced precisely where congregavit nos in unum Christi amor [the love of Christ has gathered us into one], in the Liturgy and the Eucharistic Sacrifice, by the refusing of obedience to the norms laid down in the liturgical sphere. It is in the name of Tradition that we ask all our sons and daughters, all the Catholic communities, to celebrate with dignity and fervor the renewed liturgy. The adoption of the new Ordo Missae [order of the Mass] is certainly not left to the free choice of priests or faithful. The instruction of 14 June 1971 has provided for, with the authorization of the Ordinary, the celebration of the Mass in the old form only by aged and infirm priests, who offer the divine Sacrifice sine popolo [without people attending]. The new Ordo was promulgated to take the place of the old, after mature deliberation, following upon the requests of the Second Vatican Council. In no different way did our holy Predecessor Pius V make obligatory the Missal reformed under his authority, following the Council of Trent."
"With the same supreme authority that comes from Christ Jesus, we call for the same obedience to all the other liturgical, disciplinary and pastoral reforms which have matured in these years in the implementation of the Council decrees. Any initiative which tries to obstruct them cannot claim the prerogative of rendering a service to the Church; in fact it causes the Church serious damage."
-
Paul VI, consistorial allocution of May 24, 1976:
"For this, unfortunately, is the logical consequence, when, that is, it is held as preferable to disobey with the pretext of preserving one’s faith intact, and of working in one’s way for the preservation of the Catholic Church, while at the same time refusing to give her effective obedience. And this is said openly! It is even affirmed that the Second Vatican Council is not binding; that the faith would also be in danger because of the reforms and post-conciliar directives, that one has the duty to disobey in order to preserve certain traditions. What traditions? Is it for this group [=Lefebvrists], not the Pope, not the College of Bishops, not the Ecuмenical Council, to decide which among the innumerable traditions must be considered as the norm of faith? As you see, Venerable Brothers, such an attitude sets itself up as a judge of that divine will which placed Peter and his lawful Successors at the head of the Church to confirm the brethren in the faith, and to feed the universal flock (cf. Lk 22:32; Jn 21:15 ff.), and which established him as the guarantor and custodian of the deposit of faith."
"And this is all the more serious, in particular, when division is introduced precisely where congregavit nos in unum Christi amor [the love of Christ has gathered us into one], in the Liturgy and the Eucharistic Sacrifice, by the refusing of obedience to the norms laid down in the liturgical sphere. It is in the name of Tradition that we ask all our sons and daughters, all the Catholic communities, to celebrate with dignity and fervor the renewed liturgy. The adoption of the new Ordo Missae [order of the Mass] is certainly not left to the free choice of priests or faithful. The instruction of 14 June 1971 has provided for, with the authorization of the Ordinary, the celebration of the Mass in the old form only by aged and infirm priests, who offer the divine Sacrifice sine popolo [without people attending]. The new Ordo was promulgated to take the place of the old, after mature deliberation, following upon the requests of the Second Vatican Council. In no different way did our holy Predecessor Pius V make obligatory the Missal reformed under his authority, following the Council of Trent."
"With the same supreme authority that comes from Christ Jesus, we call for the same obedience to all the other liturgical, disciplinary and pastoral reforms which have matured in these years in the implementation of the Council decrees. Any initiative which tries to obstruct them cannot claim the prerogative of rendering a service to the Church; in fact it causes the Church serious damage."
Can you succinctly summarize your point please?
-
Vatican II didn't ask for the Novus Ordo Missae. It was the product of Bugnini's Consilium after the Council.
Yes, V2 asked for a reform of the missal (which happened afterwards). Same with Trent asking for a codification of the missal (which happened afterwards...Quo Primum happened after Trent).
V2 didn't give all the gory details of what Bugnini had in mind for the new mass; it only mentioned that the liturgy needed to be "updated" for the "people's of God" and "greater unity" (i.e. meaningless, modernistic phrases).
-
Can you succinctly summarize your point please?
No. I will not hold your hand and summarize for you. Read it. It's pretty clear.
-
No. I will not hold your hand and summarize for you. Read it. It's pretty clear.
Go back and read my posts, which pre-empt it.
-
The adoption of the new Ordo Missae [order of the Mass] is certainly not left to the free choice of priests or faithful.
B.S. There is no law or papal directive (nor has there ever been any) that the new mass must be accepted, attended or said. +Benedict confirmed that Paul VI lied to us when his 2007 motu docuмent declared that "Quo Primum was never abrogated" and hence the Tridentine rite "was always allowed". The logical conclusion is that, since Quo Primum only allows the Tridentine rite, that the new mass is illegal and sinful.
The instruction of 14 June 1971 has provided for, with the authorization of the Ordinary, the celebration of the Mass in the old form only by aged and infirm priests, who offer the divine Sacrifice sine popolo [without people attending].
There is no penalty for ignoring this instruction, nor does this instruction REQUIRE anyone to follow it. This entire thing is a legal farce which has no legal force.
The new Ordo was promulgated to take the place of the old, after mature deliberation, following upon the requests of the Second Vatican Council. In no different way did our holy Predecessor Pius V make obligatory the Missal reformed under his authority, following the Council of Trent."
Yes, it is true that the new mass was supposed to take the place of the True Mass, but they did not (nor would God allow them) to do so by force, but only legal trickery, half-truths and lying implications. Pope St Pius V clearly laid out who had to abide by Quo Primum and who did not. Paul VI's new mass is not required, and no docuмent from new-rome has ever said it is.
"With the same supreme authority that comes from Christ Jesus, we call for the same obedience to all the other liturgical, disciplinary and pastoral reforms which have matured in these years in the implementation of the Council decrees. Any initiative which tries to obstruct them cannot claim the prerogative of rendering a service to the Church; in fact it causes the Church serious damage."
Word games. That's all this is. They declare that we must "obey" the reforms but when we ask "Where in the reform docuмents are the rules?" they cannot answer. They wrote purposefully ambiguous docuмents and then want to interpret and re-interpret these docuмents whenever the need arises. Sorry, that's not how canon law, nor liturgical rules work.
Oh...and 40 years later, +Benedict contradicted Paul VI on almost every point above. It's BS to the nth degree.
-
Go back and read my posts, which pre-empt it.
The quotes I put up of Paul VI are from 1976.
The tactic of disregarding VII because "it's not infallible" is straight out of a red sea pedestrian playbook.
-
The tactic of disregarding VII because "it's not infallible" is straight out of a red sea pedestrian playbook.
How so?
V2 being non-infallible (and it is) is not contrary to the idea of sedevacantism. The 2 are not mutually exclusive. The way I see it, recognizing that V2 is non-infallible is God's way of giving all "sides" of Traddieland (i.e. Sede vs R&R vs indult) a reason to reject modernism. God knew from all eternity that Trads would be split into these 3 camps (and He allowed it), so He provided a clear-cut answer to all camps, to see through the lies of Modernism and find the Truth. God does not love Sedes more than R&R or more than indult catholics...He wants ALL to come to the truth and save their souls. So He provided multiple ways for the Truth to be found, depending on your Trad type.
-
The quotes I put up of Paul VI are from 1976.
The tactic of disregarding VII because "it's not infallible" is straight out of a red sea pedestrian playbook.
Irrelevant:
Everyone who read The Rhine Flows Into the Tiber 50 years ago has known the revolutionaries stressed how nothing was infallible during the council to get their subversive measures passed, only to later change their tune once said measures were passed, and pretend they were infallible. (So the 1976 date really only highlights this maneuver).
Vatican II is no more binding than a Sunday sermon.
And it has already been explained that all doctrinal novelties are ipso facto relegated to the non-infallible magisterium. So Paul VI, Francis, and the rest of the conciliar popes can wail until they’re blue in the face about V2’s alleged infallibility, but if it ain’t got universality (geographical and temporal), it ain’t part of the magisterium, and it’s a brain boggler to read sedes pretending that novelty is magisterial.
Of course I really understand why they do: They sense their entire enterprise is shot if they acknowledge a level of magisterium merely authentic (ie., It destroys the mantra that if he is pope, you must obey, and also destroys the mantra that a pope cannot teach doctrinal error). What they don’t seem to realize is that by eliminating the authentic magisterium, thereby promoting all official papal teaching to the level of infallibility, they have just eliminated the need for distinguishing between the ordinary and extraordinary magisterium, since then everything would be infallible one way or the other.
-
B.S. There is no law or papal directive (nor has there ever been any) that the new mass must be accepted, attended or said. +Benedict confirmed that Paul VI lied to us when his 2007 motu docuмent declared that "Quo Primum was never abrogated" and hence the Tridentine rite "was always allowed". The logical conclusion is that, since Quo Primum only allows the Tridentine rite, that the new mass is illegal and sinful.
There is no penalty for ignoring this instruction, nor does this instruction REQUIRE anyone to follow it. This entire thing is a legal farce which has no legal force.
Yes, it is true that the new mass was supposed to take the place of the True Mass, but they did not (nor would God allow them) to do so by force, but only legal trickery, half-truths and lying implications. Pope St Pius V clearly laid out who had to abide by Quo Primum and who did not. Paul VI's new mass is not required, and no docuмent from new-rome has ever said it is.
Word games. That's all this is. They declare that we must "obey" the reforms but when we ask "Where in the reform docuмents are the rules?" they cannot answer. They wrote purposefully ambiguous docuмents and then want to interpret and re-interpret these docuмents whenever the need arises. Sorry, that's not how canon law, nor liturgical rules work.
Oh...and 40 years later, +Benedict contradicted Paul VI on almost every point above. It's BS to the nth degree.
Well said Pax.
This consistorial allocution of May 24, 1976, is where the true faithful, who for the most part were already 10 years into this mess, were forced to choose between truth / doctrine, and the requirement to obey the highest authority in the Church. Those who remained faithful rightly chose truth over a blind obedience.
The lethargic faithful, including priests, nuns, seminarians etc. simply did whatever the priest/bishop/pope said to do - and many of those folks were already over joyed with the new religion for 10 years or so.
No doubt the above allocution helped split more from the ranks of the faithful.
-
Of course I really understand why they do: They sense their entire enterprise is shot if they acknowledge a level of magisterium merely authentic (ie., It destroys the mantra that if he is pope, you must obey, and also destroys the mantra that a pope cannot teach doctrinal error).
I agree that many (not all) sedes think an authentic/ordinary/non-infallible magisterium destroys their position. But it doesn't. Admitting that there is a fallible magisterium only highlights a minor logical error of sedeism (i.e. the pope can't become a heretic, which is a debatable point). The fact that the magisterium can be fallible and infallible (depending on language used) actually STRENGTHENS the sede position overall. Because it proves that the V2 anti-popes are heretics because of their PERSONAL heresy and not because the Church has erred or defected.
So this whole V2 crisis does NOT tarnish the purity of Christ's Bride, nor Her holiness of doctrine, nor Her clarity of Truth. No, because The Church has not taught/required evil or error. The anti-popes (through devilish trickery and legal mind games) promoted, condoned, and allowed error but never required, commanded or officially taught such.
A very important distinction which answers the apparent contradictions of our day. Fr Chazal would agree with this. +Williamson would agree with this. Fr Wathen would agree with this. +ABL would agree with this. All current sedes should agree with this.
It occurs to me that what we are all arguing about for the last 50 years is the *best explanation* of the crisis. And since such a crisis has a spiritual mystery component to it (because it concerns the mystery of salvation and also of the doctrines of indefectibility/infallibility), no one besides the Church can ultimately adequately and completely explain it. So we wait for the perfect explanation. But in the meantime, we should all agree on the distinction (but we won't, haha).
-
Not infallible in an extraordinary,solemn manner, but according to the Supreme Ordinary Magisterium:
Finally, and also by definition, nothing can be part of the ordinary magisterium which lacks universality (both geographically and temporally).
To deny this is to suggest that novelty can be magisterial.
Sean,
Here is the problem: almost all of the authority post-Vatican I would disagree with you. This is the crux of the problem, and why you have Sedevacantists - because of a teaching contrary to the above which was dominant among all the theologians and the wise ones preceding Vatican II.
Here's a quote from a post quoting a John Daly article (which exemplifies this contrary teaching):
4. Other escapists, unwilling to falsify easily verifiable facts about the Council itself, have cheerfully altered Catholic doctrine instead. They claim in particular that the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium is infallible only when the teaching it proposes is not only taught by all the bishops at a given moment but can also be shown to have been taught by them over a very lengthy period. To justify this claim they appeal to the famous “Vincentian Canon” or touchstone of traditional doctrine: “What has always been believed, everywhere, and by all.” This requirement is also useful to those who deny the Church’s teaching that Baptism “in voto” (by desire) can suffice for justification and thus for salvation.
But the requirement is in fact heretical! The teaching of the 1870 Vatican Council on the subject is dogmatic and plain and any doubt of interpretation is resolved by reference to the conciliar discussions. The term “universal” implies universality in place, not in time. In technical terms, it is synchronic universality, not diachronic universality, which conditions the infallibility. What has been believed always and everywhere is infallibly true, but teaching may be infallibly true without having been explicitly believed always and everywhere. The present teaching of the Church’s supreme teaching authority, whether expressed in a solemn judgment or by ordinary acts, is necessarily infallible and thus quite incapable of bringing in false or new doctrine, though it may render explicit what has been hitherto implicit or make certain what has fallen into doubt. If flagrantly false doctrine is taught under conditions that ought to guarantee infallibility, it is not just the novelty that must be rejected, but the authority imposing it also, for legitimate authority cannot err in such cases and blatant error is therefore a sure proof of illegitimacy.
https://www.cathinfo.com/the-library/did-vatican-ii-teach-infallibly/msg372568/#msg372568
You're an "escapist" with your "temporal" universality requirement . . . actually, that would be an improvement if you were only that, since your "temporal" requirement is in fact "heretical." :laugh1:
This (the Daly view) is the "spirit of Vatican I" I referred to in a prior post. He says it's in the "conciliar discussions." I don't see it in what the Holy Ghost inspired in Vatican I, and this is the issue that needs to be revisited: does the Magisterium serve Tradition and what is handed down, protect and strengthen it, or does it, ipse dixit, simply say, "what we say is Tradition, shut up and obey."
The Daly view was a trap door to Vatican II. Or, you could say Vatican II was a monster the Sede theologians created . . . before they were "Sede."
-
I was just happy to see he finally admitted publicly that WE ARE MANY!!!
Previously we'd been relegated to some small group in backwater America.
-
Nope.
Both John XXIII and Paul VI explicitly denied its infallibility.
Vatican II was a unique breed of cat, and unlike all other councils (just as the new canonizations use the same terminology as traditional ones, but what is being “canonized” is a new conception of “sanctity”).
The new canonizations are infallible, if they were true popes. They fulfill the three conditions of Papal infallibility set forth at Vatican I. This is why obstinate adherance to R&R ultimately leads to a rejection of the Papacy.
In regard to your comment about John XXIII and Paul VI, that's completely irrelevant. It was proclaimed solemnly, whatever Paul VI said afterwards has no bearing on whether the Holy Ghost protected him from error in proclaiming something. Infallibility is granted by God to a true Pope when he proclaims doctrine in a certain manner. How could a quote from that man 10 years after the fact change what has already occured?
They also explicitly praised false religions, does that mean it's true? We all know the heretic Paul VI contradicted himself constantly, so it is ridiculous to use his contradictory statements on the weight of the authority of Vatican II to try and argue that is wasn't proclaimed in a solemn and infallible manner.
-
The new canonizations are infallible, if they were true popes. They fulfill the three conditions of Papal infallibility set forth at Vatican I. This is why obstinate adherance to R&R ultimately leads to a rejection of the Papacy.
Per V1, the pope is infallible when he defines a doctrine ex cathedra. The "three conditions" do not apply to papal infallibility per se, rather, the three conditions are explaining what "ex cathedra" means:
"We teach and define as a divinely revealed dogma that when the Roman pontiff speaks EX CATHEDRA, that is, when;
1. in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians,
2. in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority,
3. he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole Church."
It is precisely because there were no doctrines defined ex cathedra at V2 that we know Pope Paul VI's words are in fact absolutely true when he said (https://www.cathinfo.com/crisis-in-the-church/bergolio-says-there-many-restorers-in-usa-who-do-not-accept-vatican-ii/msg829481/#msg829481) right after the Council that the Council "avoided proclaiming in an extraordinary manner any dogmas carrying the mark of infallibility.”
FWIW, per V1, the conditions for papal infallibility excludes canonizations because although it can be argued that items #1 and #2 are present in canonizations, #3 is not, never has been, never can be - simply because canonizations are not doctrines. So your assertion that NO canonizations are entirely dependent upon the status of popes is erroneous per V1.
In regard to your comment about John XXIII and Paul VI, that's completely irrelevant. It was proclaimed solemnly, whatever Paul VI said afterwards has no bearing on whether the Holy Ghost protected him from error in proclaiming something. Infallibility is granted by God to a true Pope when he proclaims doctrine in a certain manner. How could a quote from that man 10 years after the fact change what has already occured?
To say "it was proclaimed solemnly" is altogether subjective and means nothing, the plain fact is that infallibility was not present at V2 because at least one of the three conditions were always, 1) absent at V2 and 2) the presiding pope himself admitted they were absent because 3) they were absent, making 4) his admission true that 5) the Council was fallible.
-
The quotes I put up of Paul VI are from 1976.
The tactic of disregarding VII because "it's not infallible" is straight out of a red sea pedestrian playbook.
"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." - Pope Pius IX Tuas Libenter
It is impossible to owe our submission to both, "all that has been handed down..." i.e. the Church's Universal Magisterium, and V2 because V2 teaches contrary to the Church's Universal Magisterium.
At the time, by their faith the pioneering trads knew this, which is why they chose to keep the true faith, rejecting the NO in the process. Mean while the lethargic faithful, in choosing obedience to authority over truth, chose to accept the contrary teachings of V2, rejecting the true faith in the process.
What V2 did was insist on the same obedience to error that the faithful always trustingly had toward truth. Which is to say the tactic that they used, is they used our obligation of obedience against us - and, as hind site proves - the majority fell for it.
-
I agree that many (not all) sedes think an authentic/ordinary/non-infallible magisterium destroys their position. But it doesn't. Admitting that there is a fallible magisterium only highlights a minor logical error of sedeism (i.e. the pope can't become a heretic, which is a debatable point). The fact that the magisterium can be fallible and infallible (depending on language used) actually STRENGTHENS the sede position overall. Because it proves that the V2 anti-popes are heretics because of their PERSONAL heresy and not because the Church has erred or defected.
So this whole V2 crisis does NOT tarnish the purity of Christ's Bride, nor Her holiness of doctrine, nor Her clarity of Truth. No, because The Church has not taught/required evil or error. The anti-popes (through devilish trickery and legal mind games) promoted, condoned, and allowed error but never required, commanded or officially taught such.
A very important distinction which answers the apparent contradictions of our day. Fr Chazal would agree with this. +Williamson would agree with this. Fr Wathen would agree with this. +ABL would agree with this. All current sedes should agree with this.
It occurs to me that what we are all arguing about for the last 50 years is the *best explanation* of the crisis. And since such a crisis has a spiritual mystery component to it (because it concerns the mystery of salvation and also of the doctrines of indefectibility/infallibility), no one besides the Church can ultimately adequately and completely explain it. So we wait for the perfect explanation. But in the meantime, we should all agree on the distinction (but we won't, haha).
Well put. I believe you hit on the nail what many people should focus on.
I as a private sede agree that (from what my poor brain can comprehend) Vatican II did not invoke the infallible teaching authority of the Church. I think everyone should be able to agree on that.
The part most people here seem to really disagree on is the definition and explanation of "ordinary teaching authority" of the Church and it's effect and authority in respect to us.
It is the difference between dogma and doctrine. A dogma is a solemnly proclaimed statement about a matter of Faith or Morals. A doctrine is a religious belief held by the Church which has never been officially proclaimed excathedra but which we a Catholics hold through the traditions and customs of the Church and the authority of Her hierarchy and ministers.
The issue which people really should be discussing then is whether a person is obliged to accept all doctrines of the Church that have not been declared ex cathedra as doctrine.
In my opinion it seems that until something has not been declared a dogma it is not "de fide" meaning that you would be considered outside the Church for not believing it because it is essential to the Faith. And we know that a pope cannot see in such matters. Saint Robert Bellarmine argued that even anti-popes never did.
Yet, doctrinal matters given through the normal ordinary teaching authority of the Church are something that all faithful Catholics should give assent to. For example, if one's bishop approved or disapproved of a book and gave it a "prohibitation" or "imprimatur" people should follow that. Could a bishop fail and ever be wrong, yes. And normally one would appeal to the Pope in such matters. The issue is that when the person standing in as Pope says and asks for such things we have only God to appeal to.
God save us!
-
"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." - Pope Pius IX Tuas Libenter
It is impossible to owe our submission to both, "all that has been handed down..." i.e. the Church's Universal Magisterium, and V2 because V2 teaches contrary to the Church's Universal Magisterium.
At the time, by their faith the pioneering trads knew this, which is why they chose to keep the true faith, rejecting the NO in the process. Mean while the lethargic faithful, in choosing obedience to authority over truth, chose to accept the contrary teachings of V2, rejecting the true faith in the process.
What V2 did was insist on the same obedience to error that the faithful always trustingly had toward truth. Which is to say the tactic that they used, is they used our obligation of obedience against us - and, as hind site proves - the majority fell for it.
Another heretic, or at least "heretical" statement (per John Daly in my prior post). Just like Sean Johnson. :laugh2:
Stubborn (and Sean), I say this tongue in cheek, not believing that of you myself.
-
Sean,
Here is the problem: almost all of the authority post-Vatican I would disagree with you. This is the crux of the problem, and why you have Sedevacantists - because of a teaching contrary to the above which was dominant among all the theologians and the wise ones preceding Vatican II.
Here's a quote from a post quoting a John Daly article (which exemplifies this contrary teaching):
You're an "escapist" with your "temporal" universality requirement . . . actually, that would be an improvement if you were only that, since your "temporal" requirement is in fact "heretical." :laugh1:
This (the Daly view) is the "spirit of Vatican I" I referred to in a prior post. He says it's in the "conciliar discussions." I don't see it in what the Holy Ghost inspired in Vatican I, and this is the issue that needs to be revisited: does the Magisterium serve Tradition and what is handed down, protect and strengthen it, or does it, ipse dixit, simply say, "what we say is Tradition, shut up and obey."
The Daly view was a trap door to Vatican II. Or, you could say Vatican II was a monster the Sede theologians created . . . before they were "Sede."
John Daly is an heretical idiot, if in order to protect and compel sedevacantism he finds it necessary to condemn the Vincentian Canon (ie., his tactic to eliminate a level of non-infallible ordinary magisterium, called the authentic magisterium).
John Daly is also an escapist to turn Vatican I against St. Vincent (the Council itself did no such thing), as proven by Labourdette and Nau writing about it, and receiving preconciliar, post-Vatican I imprimaturs.
-
It is the difference between dogma and doctrine. A dogma is a solemnly proclaimed statement about a matter of Faith or Morals. A doctrine is a religious belief held by the Church which has never been officially proclaimed excathedra but which we a Catholics hold through the traditions and customs of the Church and the authority of Her hierarchy and ministers.
To put it another way, a dogma is simply a doctrine, defined ex cathedra.
The issue which people really should be discussing then is whether a person is obliged to accept all doctrines of the Church that have not been declared ex cathedra as doctrine.
In my opinion it seems that until something has not been declared a dogma it is not "de fide" meaning that you would be considered outside the Church for not believing it because it is essential to the Faith. And we know that a pope cannot see in such matters. Saint Robert Bellarmine argued that even anti-popes never did.
Per Pope Pius IX quoted in my post above yours, we are obliged to accept all the doctrines of the Church whether or not they have been declared ex cathedra.
-
John Daly is an heretical idiot, if in order to protect and compel sedevacantism he finds it necessary to condemn the Vincentian Canon (ie., his tactic to eliminate a level of non-infallible ordinary magisterium, called the authentic magisterium).
John Daly is also an escapist to turn Vatican I against St. Vincent (the Council itself did no such thing), as proven by Labourdette and Nau writing about it, and receiving preconciliar, post-Vatican I imprimaturs.
Sean,
Do you have a link - or can you give a reference - to the teaching of Labourdette or Nau that "proves" your point?
Thanks,
DR
-
Sean,
Do you have a link - or can you give a reference - to the teaching of Labourdette or Nau that "proves" your point?
Thanks,
DR
There are several contained in this article, previously cited:
https://sspx.org/en/clear-ideas-popes-infallible-magisterium
These excerpts are taken from this pre-conciliar/post-Vatican I book:
(https://i.imgur.com/kqpRujm.jpg)
The short book is a collection of two essays: The first by Dom Paul Nau, OSB (1956), and the second on universality by Canon Rene Berthod.
A quote from the second (because not contained in the aforementioned cited article) will give you an idea of its argument:
”To summarize: the ordinary magisterium of the Church is infallible when it is truly universal (in space and in time), that is to say, when it is in conformity to and continuous with the teaching of Faith of the Church.”
This is in turn based on and consistent with the Vincentian Canon (although I see the NOW crowd has contrived -quite expectedly- means to dismiss it all.
-
NB: I got timed-out while posting the above, but wanted to clarify that Dom MAU’s essay was preconciliar, but Canon Bert God’s was 1980.
-
It is the difference between dogma and doctrine. A dogma is a solemnly proclaimed statement about a matter of Faith or Morals.
No. As Stubborn pointed out, the only difference between doctrine and dogma is the "how" it's taught. Doctrine is handed down, through the ages, based on Tradition. It is ALL Apostolic teaching, from EVERY truth Christ revealed to the Apostles. It is the essence of the Faith. It is what has been believed "everywhere, always and by all."
Dogma is when the Church clarifies, re-teaches, and authoritatively commands that a truth 1) has always been a doctrine, 2) is part of Tradition/Apostolic teaching, 3) and must be believed to be saved.
A doctrine is a religious belief held by the Church which has never been officially proclaimed excathedra but which we a Catholics hold through the traditions and customs of the Church and the authority of Her hierarchy and ministers.
True. But this is misleading because 95% of doctrines have not been taught ex-cathedra. All dogmas are doctrine (Apostolic truths) but not all doctrines have needed to be authoritatively taught as dogma (because they were always understood properly).
The issue which people really should be discussing then is whether a person is obliged to accept all doctrines of the Church that have not been declared ex cathedra as doctrine.
Yes, we absolutely must accept all doctrines of the Faith. Ex-cathedra statements are very minimal and unique.
The question is: What are the doctrines of the Faith that we must believe? Example: Must we believe that Our Lady is Mediatrix of All Graces? It's not been "defined" so it's optional, right?
No, this would not be an optional belief because Our Lady's role as Mediatrix of All Grace 1) has always been held, down through the ages, being implied as part of other doctrines about Her, 2) all throughout history, saints have declared repeatedly that Our Lady has a special and important role in our salvation, thus it is part of Tradition, 3) it is also part of Scripture when She is declared "full of grace", etc etc
One could write a book on such a topic. Such a belief has always been implicitly held through all the centuries so if the Church decides to make it EXPLICIT (i.e. using an ex-cathedra statement to declare a dogma), the Church would do so to 1) re-teach "that which has always been taught", 2) clarify that this Divine Truth is part of Tradition and Scripture, 3) stop an error or heresy from growing, in order to glorify Our Lady and make devotion to Her increase, for the salvation of souls.
In my opinion it seems that until something has not been declared a dogma it is not "de fide"
No, not true. 95% of our Faith has never, and will never, be declared dogma. 1) It would be impossible to define every truth 2) it's not necessary as most doctrines aren't questioned because they are so basic.
Yet, doctrinal matters given through the normal ordinary teaching authority of the Church are something that all faithful Catholics should give assent to. For example, if one's bishop approved or disapproved of a book and gave it a "prohibitation" or "imprimatur" people should follow that.
Well, these types of approvals are not really related to doctrine. An imprimatur means there isn't any MAJOR error in the book. It doesn't mean the book is perfect. And a bishop can never be infallible, only the pope. So an imprimatur can never be infallible.
-
NB: I got timed-out while posting the above, but wanted to clarify that Dom MAU’s essay was preconciliar, but Canon Bert God’s was 1980.
Sean,
Thanks. I might purchase that book.
However, let me note, and Lad has brought this up repeatedly, that the issue of whether the "authentic Magisterium" could err remains - we are dealing with indefectibility more so than infallibility. Lad often brings this up in response to some comments that I make on the subject, as if I don't get it - I absolutely do.
My point in referencing "infallibility" is because that is what Vatican I, the infallible Magisterium, talks about. To my knowledge, the "infallible" Magisterium has never opined about "indefectibility." So to argue that the Church is indefectible by referring to "defectible" teachings is circular in my view: you have to accept an a priori the concept of indefectibility to rely on Magisterial statements below the infallible as indefectible or free from error.
Also, when we are talking about an ecuмenical council such as Vatican II, are we really only talking about "authentic" Magisterium? Perhaps Vatican II is discussed in the book, but the "authentic" Magisterium distinction still presents issues regarding indefectibility, and to me doesn't obviate the problem of an ecuмenical council approved by the Pope being erroneous. And we are not only talking about error here, but even perhaps contradiction with prior Magisterium statements, which present an logical or epistemological dilemma that is dangerously lurking behind all these discussions.
Obviously one way to resolve (as to the ecuмenical council problem) it is by holding that there is nothing seriously erroneous or harmful to the faith in Vatican II, and that Magisterial statements that are in such only come post-Vatican II in "authentic" Magisterial statements of popes, organs of the Vatican such as the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith, etc. But then the problem of an "authentic" Magisterium contradicting prior "authentic" or even infallible Magisterial statements remains.
Which is why I say that the Conciliar Church experience requires a level of engagement with these issues that have been avoided, but I think won't go away: the prospect of an "authentic" Magisterium teaching not only falsely but even in contradiction to what the Magisterium has taught in the past.
To say the "authentic" Magisterium is not infallible evades that ultimate question and the consequences of it I think.
-
”To summarize: the ordinary magisterium of the Church is infallible when it is truly universal (in space and in time), that is to say, when it is in conformity to and continuous with the teaching of Faith of the Church.”
Exactly. Time is an important aspect of the magisterium because ALL catholic doctrine originates from the Apostles. There is no new doctrine. Christ taught the Apostles EVERYTHING that we must believe; the fullness of the Faith.
The Church's job is to re-teach, clarify and make explicit that which has been implicitly held from the beginning, when such implicit truths are attacked, ignored or challenged. The Church's tool to teach explicitly is called "papal infallibility". And that's why every council decree and ex-cathedra infallible statement explains that the doctrine they are defining is part of Scripture/Tradition. Because ALL catholic truths come from Christ. "There is nothing new under the sun."
-
Sean,
Thanks. I might purchase that book.
However, let me note, and Lad has brought this up repeatedly, that the issue of whether the "authentic Magisterium" could err remains - we are dealing with indefectibility more so than infallibility. Lad often brings this up in response to some comments that I make on the subject, as if I don't get it - I absolutely do.
My point in referencing "infallibility" is because that is what Vatican I, the infallible Magisterium, talks about. To my knowledge, the "infallible" Magisterium has never opined about "indefectibility." So to argue that the Church is indefectible by referring to "defectible" teachings is circular in my view: you have to accept an a priori the concept of indefectibility to rely on Magisterial statements below the infallible as indefectible or free from error.
Also, when we are talking about an ecuмenical council such as Vatican II, are we really only talking about "authentic" Magisterium? Perhaps Vatican II is discussed in the book, but the "authentic" Magisterium distinction still presents issues regarding indefectibility, and to me doesn't obviate the problem of an ecuмenical council approved by the Pope being erroneous. And we are not only talking about error here, but even perhaps contradiction with prior Magisterium statements, which present an logical or epistemological dilemma that is dangerously lurking behind all these discussions.
Obviously one way to resolve (as to the ecuмenical council problem) it is by holding that there is nothing seriously erroneous or harmful to the faith in Vatican II, and that Magisterial statements that are in such only come post-Vatican II in "authentic" Magisterial statements of popes, organs of the Vatican such as the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith, etc. But then the problem of an "authentic" Magisterium contradicting prior "authentic" or even infallible Magisterial statements remains.
Which is why I say that the Conciliar Church experience requires a level of engagement with these issues that have been avoided, but I think won't go away: the prospect of an "authentic" Magisterium teaching not only falsely but even in contradiction to what the Magisterium has taught in the past.
To say the "authentic" Magisterium is not infallible evades that ultimate question and the consequences of it I think.
And let me add that the Sede solution - the Conciliar "Magisterium" is not the Catholic Magisterium - with its recognition that the Catholic Church could be "usurped" by false shepherds stands on its ear, and makes a mockery of, the protections afforded the Church by the Holy Ghost, which, if they mean anything, are provided to do just that, i.e. prevent such an "usurpation," and to be a guarantee against it.
The Sede solution is a salve "on paper," a solution at the level of theory, that allows one to continue to hold to a formulation of a "the Ordinary Magisterium is indefectible" theory in the face of a reality that laughs it to scorn as I see it.
-
Sean,
Thanks. I might purchase that book.
However, let me note, and Lad has brought this up repeatedly, that the issue of whether the "authentic Magisterium" could err remains - we are dealing with indefectibility more so than infallibility. Lad often brings this up in response to some comments that I make on the subject, as if I don't get it - I absolutely do.
The "Authentic Magisterium" is simply the Church's Magisterium, which is simply "authoritative teachings" that are always infallible, as this post from Lad (https://www.cathinfo.com/crisis-in-the-church/feb-2nd-2022-the-day-rnr-admit-antipope-francis-is-not-in-the-church/msg806134/#msg806134) quoting from popes declares.
These teachings contained in Scripture and tradition are proposed by the Church (The Authority) as matters to be believed as divinely revealed. 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, parents, 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 of the Church's magisterium. As such, said teaching can contain error and as such, be harmful to the faithful.
The erroneous argument that usually arises is that the pope or pope and hierarchy *is* the magisterium, or, as Lad believes, what they teach become the magisterium, but this is altogether wrong as Sean has posted superb refutations on this.
Further, as such, the pope or pope and hierarchy are divinely protected from ever preaching error, which is to say the pope is always automatically infallibly safe to follow - which is the error taught by theologians of the past few centuries that the masses accept as though this error is a teaching of the Church.
-
To put it another way, a dogma is simply a doctrine, defined ex cathedra.
Per Pope Pius IX quoted in my post above yours, we are obliged to accept all the doctrines of the Church whether or not they have been declared ex cathedra.
Yes. Exactly! 😊
-
I reject Vatican II and other works of the devil.
-
No. As Stubborn pointed out, the only difference between doctrine and dogma is the "how" it's taught. Doctrine is handed down, through the ages, based on Tradition. It is ALL Apostolic teaching, from EVERY truth Christ revealed to the Apostles. It is the essence of the Faith. It is what has been believed "everywhere, always and by all."
Dogma is when the Church clarifies, re-teaches, and authoritatively commands that a truth 1) has always been a doctrine, 2) is part of Tradition/Apostolic teaching, 3) and must be believed to be saved.
True. But this is misleading because 95% of doctrines have not been taught ex-cathedra. All dogmas are doctrine (Apostolic truths) but not all doctrines have needed to be authoritatively taught as dogma (because they were always understood properly).
Yes, we absolutely must accept all doctrines of the Faith. Ex-cathedra statements are very minimal and unique.
The question is: What are the doctrines of the Faith that we must believe? Example: Must we believe that Our Lady is Mediatrix of All Graces? It's not been "defined" so it's optional, right?
No, this would not be an optional belief because Our Lady's role as Mediatrix of All Grace 1) has always been held, down through the ages, being implied as part of other doctrines about Her, 2) all throughout history, saints have declared repeatedly that Our Lady has a special and important role in our salvation, thus it is part of Tradition, 3) it is also part of Scripture when She is declared "full of grace", etc etc
One could write a book on such a topic. Such a belief has always been implicitly held through all the centuries so if the Church decides to make it EXPLICIT (i.e. using an ex-cathedra statement to declare a dogma), the Church would do so to 1) re-teach "that which has always been taught", 2) clarify that this Divine Truth is part of Tradition and Scripture, 3) stop an error or heresy from growing, in order to glorify Our Lady and make devotion to Her increase, for the salvation of souls.
No, not true. 95% of our Faith has never, and will never, be declared dogma. 1) It would be impossible to define every truth 2) it's not necessary as most doctrines aren't questioned because they are so basic.
Well, these types of approvals are not really related to doctrine. An imprimatur means there isn't any MAJOR error in the book. It doesn't mean the book is perfect. And a bishop can never be infallible, only the pope. So an imprimatur can never be infallible.
Sorry if I confused my meaning. I think I had a few typos and couldn't properly finish and I couldn't look over everything before I posted because the baby woke up and I suddenly had to run. 😅
I wasn't saying we don't have to listen or submit to doctrinal matters. I was trying to distinguish the difference between dogma, doctrine and discipline and explain that how even if something isn't "ex-cathedra" and isn't completely defined that we still are required to have "religious consent" to what the ordinary magesterium teaches.
From what I have seen this is the matter where "sedes" and "r&r" seem to disagree the most and really is the issue people should discuss. 😊
R&R agree that all "ex-cathedra" statements must be adhered to but they sometimes seem to toss out the "simple doctrine" and disciplines of the Church as also having to necessarily having to be adhered to by the faithful.
And the sedes believe that all dogma, doctrine, and discipline must be adhered to by the faithful and that the hierarchy as a universal body can not teach or promote anything harmful to the faithful.
I hope that makes sense now as to what I was trying to say? Sorry for the confusion. Maybe I should just read more and post less. 😝:fryingpan:
-
I reject Vatican II and other works of the devil.
Simple and sweet. 😊
-
Nope.
Yep.
Sean: Nope.
Ladislaus, DL, others: Yep.
:laugh1:
-
It's simply basic Catholic teaching that Ecuмenical Councils are protected by the Holy Spirit. You can quibble about whether every statement in a Council is infallible, but a Council cannot publish a bunch of Modernist garbage as Vatican II did that proceeded to wreck the Church.
It's practically dogma that EC-UMENICAL COUNCILS ARE GUIDED BY THE HOLY SPIRIT. As I mentioned, even a modern Ukrainian Catholic priest I know taught this from the pulpit. Holy Spirit does not wreck the Church.
To claim that a legitimate ecuмenical council can wreck the Church and pollute the Church's Magisterium is basically to blaspheme the Holy Spirit.
-
Both John XXIII and Paul VI explicitly denied its infallibility.
False. All they said was that it did not engage in any SOLEMN definition that met the notes of infallibility. This does not mean that it was capable of teaching grave error to the Church.
-
This argument isn't about infallibility in the strict sense, as defined by Vatican II. It's about the indefectibility of the Church.
R&R (as represented by SeanJohnson and a few others here on CI ... NOT Archbishop Lefebvre) basically blaspheme (and would have been burned at the stake on orders of a St. Robert Bellarmine), and they destroy the Catholic Church ... all to rescue Bergoglio.
If the Church founded by Our Lord Jesus is capable of ...
1) holding an Ecuмenical Council that has led the entire Church astray into Modernism
2) replaced the Catholic Mass with pile of rubbish with dubious validity and also blasphemous (replacing the Offertory with a тαℓмυdic table prayer)
3) taught garbage to the Church for >60 years now (where most of their Encyclicals aren't fit to be used for toilet paper)
4) canonized some of the greatest evil-doers in the history of the Church
5) has led sols to hell for >60 years,
then there's no use for a Church, then the Prots were right (while being wrong on the details), and the Old Catholic were right, and the Eastern Orthodox are right, and the promises of Our Lord meant nothing, and the Catholic Church would just be a pile of rubbish overall. Absit.
In short, we behold here in the Conciliar Church a brand new religion.
Never mind blaspheming the Holy Catholic Church, just to save Bergoglio.
-
It's simply basic Catholic teaching that Ecuмenical Councils are protected by the Holy Spirit. You can quibble about whether every statement in a Council is infallible, but a Council cannot publish a bunch of Modernist garbage as Vatican II did that proceeded to wreck the Church.
It's practically dogma that EC-UMENICAL COUNCILS ARE GUIDED BY THE HOLY SPIRIT. As I mentioned, even a modern Ukrainian Catholic priest I know taught this from the pulpit. Holy Spirit does not wreck the Church.
To claim that a legitimate ecuмenical council can wreck the Church and pollute the Church's Magisterium is basically to blaspheme the Holy Spirit.
I wonder where it is that you learned this. Do you understand that all of the conciliar popes and hierarchy are in 100% full agreement with you? - which explains why they are so adamant about the new religion, but pretty much makes you look crazy for being against the whole thing.
According to your reasoning and if this is in fact true, then V2 did not "publish a bunch of Modernist garbage" for the simple reason that it could not have.
-
I wonder where it is that you learned this. Do you understand that all of the conciliar popes and hierarchy are in 100% full agreement with you? - which explains why they are so adamant about the new religion, but pretty much makes you look crazy for being against the whole thing.
According to your reasoning and if this is in fact true, then V2 did not "publish a bunch of Modernist garbage" for the simple reason that it could not have.
Every Catholic Father, Doctor, pre-Vatican II theologian is "in 100% full agreement with [me]".
As for your second statement above, I've tried to get that nonsense out of your head a dozen times already. You beg the question that the Conciliar Church is the Catholic Church. No, an Ecuмenical Council did NOT "publish a bunch of Modernist garbage" ... because it was not a legitimate Ecuмenical Council. But for some reason, you can't break out of this mental rut you're in.
-
Never mind blaspheming the Holy Catholic Church, just to save Bergoglio.
Lad, Lad, Lad. We are not out to save the pope, it's you out to prove he is not the pope.
-
Every Catholic Father, Doctor, pre-Vatican II theologian is "in 100% full agreement with [me]".
As for your second statement above, I've tried to get that nonsense out of your head a dozen times already. You beg the question that the Conciliar Church is the Catholic Church. No, an Ecuмenical Council did NOT "publish a bunch of Modernist garbage" ... because it was not a legitimate Ecuмenical Council. But for some reason, you can't break out of this mental rut you're in.
No they are not in agreement with you.
The conciliar church is not the Catholic Church, I thought that was settled a long time ago.
Whatever you want to call V2, it was convened by a pope and included all Catholic bishops, and also some prots - and it most certainly "published a bunch of Modernist garbage."
-
This argument isn't about infallibility in the strict sense, as defined by Vatican II. It's about the indefectibility of the Church.
The Church has not been destroyed, nor will it be destroyed. Calm down.
Everything is in the hands of God, everything. Even with as big a mess as we're in and although it keeps getting worse and worse, through it all, there are still people converting to the true faith - that's the Church's indefectibility "in action" if you will, and this will continue until Christ comes again.
God allows this crisis for the same reason He permits us to be tempted, namely, for the sake of our purification, for the sake of our proving to Almighty God that we are worthy of Him as he permits our enemies to rule the Church on earth on earth for a little while, dividing out the faithful more and more.
-
It's simply basic Catholic teaching that Ecuмenical Councils are protected by the Holy Spirit.
This is a misleading generalization. A council isn't infallible, but the POPE WHO TEACHES at a council, is. The pope is the only person on earth who is *potentially* infallible.
If you argue that "the bishops" can be infallible (without the pope), then you slide into the errors of orthodoxy (committee approach to doctrine) or the modernist error of collegiality (the pope "needs" the bishops to agree with him).
Secondly, the other logical error is to say "All pre-V2 ecuмenical councils have been infallible, therefore all future ones will be as well." No, not true. These councils were infallible because (as explained by Vatican 1) they 1) intended to be infallible, 2) defined doctrine, 3) applicable to the whole church, 4) under pain of sin. V2 did not fulfill any of these conditions.
The ecuмenical councils were not infallible because they were "ecuмenical" but because they fulfilled the rules of infallibility. The ecuмenical aspect was just a correlation, but not a causation. The reason why an ecuмenical council is not necessary to proclaim doctrine is because infallibility is only promised to the pope, who can proclaim such in any number of ways, even outside of a council (i.e. the dogma of the Assumption was through a papal docuмent).
-
This is a misleading generalization. A council isn't infallible, but the POPE WHO TEACHES at a council, is. The pope is the only person on earth who is *potentially* infallible.
Well, obviously we're talking about a legitimate Ecuмenical Council which was approved by a pope (I think they don't always have to be convened by the pope, but approved by him at least).
There's nothing misleading about the statement that the Holy Spirit guides Ecuмenical Councils. This does not mean every sentence is infallible, but you're fixated on infallibility. What it does mean is that it prevents an Ecuмenical Council from being a garbage bin of bad doctrine.
You'd be forced to accept +Fellay's and +Schneider's characterization of V2 as being mostly Catholic ... and requiring a few amendments.
But this isn't just about the Council. Had there been no New Mass and all the other garbage that has come out of the Vatican, there would likely be no Traditional movement. You have new (non-Catholic) doctrine with new (non-Catholic) worship and new bogus canonizations that together form a completely new religion. It is not possible for a new religion to come from the authority of a legitimate pope. That would be tantamount to a defection of the Church.
It really is that simple.
-
Well, obviously we're talking about a legitimate Ecuмenical Council which was approved by a pope (I think they don't always have to be convened by the pope, but approved by him at least).
There's nothing misleading about the statement that the Holy Spirit guides Ecuмenical Councils. This does not mean every sentence is infallible, but you're fixated on infallibility. What it does mean is that it prevents an Ecuмenical Council from being a garbage bin of bad doctrine.
You'd be forced to accept +Fellay's and +Schneider's characterization of V2 as being mostly Catholic ... and requiring a few amendments.
But this isn't just about the Council. Had there been no New Mass and all the other garbage that has come out of the Vatican, there would likely be no Traditional movement. You have new (non-Catholic) doctrine with new (non-Catholic) worship and new bogus canonizations that together form a completely new religion. It is not possible for a new religion to come from the authority of a legitimate pope. That would be tantamount to a defection of the Church.
It really is that simple.
Exactly.
Catholic Encyclopedia:
All the arguments which go to prove the infallibility (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07790a.htm) of the Church (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03744a.htm) apply with their fullest force to the infallible (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07790a.htm) authority of general councils in union with the pope (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12260a.htm).
....
The infallibility (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07790a.htm) of the council is intrinsic, i.e. springs from its nature. Christ (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08374c.htm) promised to be in the midst of two or three of His disciples gathered together in His name; now an Ecuмenical council is, in fact or in law, a gathering of all Christ's (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08374c.htm) co-workers for the salvation (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13407a.htm) of man through true (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15073a.htm) faith (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05752c.htm) and holy conduct; He is therefore in their midst, fulfilling His promises and leading them into the truth (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15073a.htm) for which they are striving. His presence, by cementing the unity of the assembly into one body — His own mystical body — gives it the necessary (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10733a.htm) completeness, and makes up for any defect possibly arising from the physical absence of a certain number of bishops (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02581b.htm). The same presence strengthens the action of the pope (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12260a.htm), so that, as mouthpiece of the council, he can say in truth (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15073a.htm), "it has seemed good to the Holy Ghost and to us", and consequently can, and does, put the seal of infallibility (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07790a.htm) on the conciliar (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14388a.htm) decree (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04670a.htm) irrespective of his own personal infallibility (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07790a.htm#IIIB).
-
There's nothing misleading about the statement that the Holy Spirit guides Ecuмenical Councils. This does not mean every sentence is infallible, but you're fixated on infallibility. What it does mean is that it prevents an Ecuмenical Council from being a garbage bin of bad doctrine.
Again, this is a generalization without outlining the specifics, which leads to a faulty conclusion.
1. Can there be an ecuмenical council without the pope? No.
2. Can anyone besides a pope be infallible? No.
3. Can an ecuмenical council be infallible without the pope? No.
Conclusion - For a council to be ecuмenical, the pope has to be involved and approve it.
4. How does the Holy Ghost guide the church? By the pope's infallibility and Apostolic truths from Tradition and Scripture.
5. Is there any other way that the Holy Ghost can guide the Church? No, this is the only power the pope has for teaching.
6. Apart from Infaillibility, is there any other way for the pope to be protected from error? No.
Conclusion - A council cannot be infallible unless the pope uses infallibility.
7. Does a pope need an ecuмenical council to proclaim an infallible teaching? No, he can teach authoritatively apart from a council.
8. Can an ecuмenical council proclaim an infallible teaching without the pope? No, only the pope is infallible.
9. If all the bishops of the world agree on something, but the pope does not teach authoritatively, is such a thing infallible? Depends. Yes, if such a thing can be proven to be part of Scripture/Tradition (i.e. it has always been true).
Conclusion - Something is infallible if a) the pope teaches authoritatively or b) a non-authoritative truth is proven to be "always held" from Tradition/Scripture.
10. How does the Church teach authoritatively and error-free? The pope uses infallibility, either solemn or ordinary/universal.
11. What is ordinary/universal teaching? When the Church (bishops, cardinals, etc) reiterates a teaching from the past, which has been shown to be of Tradition/Scripture.
12. Outside of solemn/infallible teachings and Tradition/Scripture, is the Church protected from error? No because only these tools are from Christ.
Conclusion - If the Church does not teach using infallibility or Tradition/Scripture, then She isn't teaching authoritatively, thus She can err.
13. Can an ecuмenical council, without the pope engaging infallibility, be guided by the Holy Ghost? No.
14. Can an ecuмenical council, without the pope engaging infallibility, err? Yes.
15. Does indefectibility protect the Church from error? Indefectibility is an attribute, not a power. Infallibility is the power/means the pope uses to keep teachings indefectible.
Conclusion - The pope can err if he speaks non-authoritatively and on non-Tradition/Scripture ideas because such aren't protected by the Holy Ghost.
16. If the pope speaks non-authoritatively, is this part of Church teaching, doctrine, law? No.
17. If the pope speaks on matters non-Traditional or non-Scriptural, is this part of Church teaching, doctrine, law? No.
18. If the pope errs, because he does not teach authoritatively nor infallibly, does this affect the Church's indefectibility? No.
19. Do papal non-authoritative comments, homilies, writings, change Church doctrine? No.
Conclusion A - If the pope errs, this does not affect perennial Church doctrine, nor does it stain the purity of Church Teachings.
Conclusion B - A pope's error has no authority, therefore it is not official teaching, therefore it does not affect or negate the Church's indefectible nature.
20. Did the pope teach authoritatively and infallibly at V2? No.
21. Did the pope use V2 to re-teach previous defined doctrine or did he prove V2 is infallibly based on Tradition/Scripture? No.
22. Is V2 binding under pain of sin and taught as a necessity to be saved? No.
Conclusion A - V2 isn't official church teaching, therefore the pope can err, because he isn't protected by the Holy Ghost.
Conclusion B - Non-official, non-binding, non-salvific councils aren't required to be followed. They are purely optional and speculative theology.
Conclusion C - V2 is speculative theology and isn't protected from error, therefore the Church's indefectibility is not tarnished.
-
4. How does the Holy Ghost guide the church? By the pope's infallibility and Apostolic truths from Tradition and Scripture.
5. Is there any other way that the Holy Ghost can guide the Church? No, this is the only power the pope has for teaching.
6. Apart from Infaillibility, is there any other way for the pope to be protected from error? No.
Conclusion - A council cannot be infallible unless the pope uses infallibility.
4 is absolutely false and is nothing but your begging the question in favor of your conclusion. Your allegation (aka gratuitious assertion) that (apart from Scripture and Tradition), the Church is not guided by the Holy Spirit except in those of his judgements that meet the notes of infallibility ... is precisely what we're arguing about and you're simply begging the question. That's utterly ridiculous and at the very least savors of heresy. Perhaps 1% of the Magisterium in its entire history has met the notes of infallibility (that number is probably incredibly high). Your allegation that 99+% of the Magisterium can go corrupt and lead souls to hell is utter absurdity, and I would categorize it as at least implicitly heretical.
PS -- your conclusion doesn't follow at all from the 3 premises above it.
-
Pax, explain what your mental and spiritual malfunction is (and I'm serious in asking this) where it's more important for you to save and salvage Bergoglio than it is to defend the honor and the holiness of Holy Mother Church? You basically characterize her as a whore in order to save Bergoglio. Extending that metaphor, you're claiming that she's like a wife who flirts with other men, kisses them passionately, and even engages in sɛҳuąƖ foreplay, but if she doesn't actually engage in penetrative copulation, she's free from the charge of adultery. Your limiting the holiness of the Church to "infallibility in the strict sense" is absolutely the same as if you were characterizing this woman as not guilty of adultery simply because she didn't engage in the final act. Meanwhile, the Popes have characterized the Church and her Magisterium as being without stain or blemish. That's like calling the aforementioned woman above without stain or blemish. But, yeah, oh wait, when the popes taught these things about the Church and the Magisterium, they weren't protected by the Holy Spirit, so they could have been just full of it. In fact, why bother even reading the non-infallible Magisterium? It's a flip of the coin as to whether it's even correct. Just e-mail Pax and Stubborn, though, and they can tell you whether it's actually Traditional or not. You make fools of yourself, and ... what's worse ... your view of the Church can hardly be excused of being outright heretical. Only the confusion of these days absolves you from heresy.
-
your view of the Church can hardly be excused of being outright heretical. Only the confusion of these days absolves you from heresy.
I honestly don't really believe that anymore. There's limits to culpability here, especially once one takes it upon themselves to start promoting an obviously erroneous position that blasphemes Holy Mother Church... A "material heretic" is a Catholic in good faith who merely makes a mistake on Church dogma, but is open to correction. When you stray out of that position, the individual becomes culpable. This is what I've come to understand about why MHFM so openly refers to others has heretics. Language which the Church has traditionally used, yet has been usurped by more "ecuмenical" phrases like Modernist, pseudo-traditionalist, conservative, etc. out of human respect.
From the Popes and Magisterium (which some here think we can deny):
Pope St. Celestine I, Council of Ephesus, 431:
“… ALL HERETICS corrupt the true expressions of the Holy Spirit with their own evil minds and they draw down on their own heads an inextinguishable flame.”
Pope Innocent IV, First Council of Lyons, 1245:
“The civil law declares that those are to be regarded as heretics, and ought to be subject to the sentences issued against them, who even on slight evidence are found to have strayed from the judgment and path of the Catholic religion.”
Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum #13:
"can it be lawful for anyone to reject any one of those truths without by the very fact falling into heresy? without separating himself from the Church? – without repudiating in one sweeping act the whole of Christian teaching? For such is the nature of faith that nothing can be more absurd than to accept some things and reject others."
[...]
"he who dissents even in one point from divinely revealed truth absolutely rejects all faith, since he thereby refuses to honour God as the supreme truth and the formal motive of faith."
Canon 1325.2: "After the reception of baptism, if anyone, retaining the name Christian, pertinaciously denies or doubts something to be believed from the truth of divine and Catholic faith, [such a one is] a heretic;"
-
Your allegation (aka gratuitious assertion) that (apart from Scripture and Tradition), the Church is not guided by the Holy Spirit except in those of his judgements that meet the notes of infallibility ... is precisely what we're arguing about and you're simply begging the question.
Let me turn around my statement and re-phrase it into a question:
Is any (or has any) church doctrine, truth, dogma EVER been based on anything OTHER than Tradition/Scripture? No, because the Faith is based on Divine Truth, which can only come from these 2 areas.
Please point to one truth/doctrine that is outside of these categories.
That's utterly ridiculous and at the very least savors of heresy.
It's not heresy at all.
Perhaps 1% of the Magisterium in its entire history has met the notes of infallibility (that number is probably incredibly high).
You're speaking of the solemn/ex-cathedra magisterium being 1% of history. The rest of the Magisterium (which is still infallible) is based on Tradition/Scripture. You are minimizing the infallible nature of Tradition and "constant teachings" of the Church Fathers, Saints, Doctors, etc. This is "that which has always been taught" and makes up a large, large majority of the Faith (i.e. the simple catechism).
Your allegation that 99+% of the Magisterium can go corrupt and lead souls to hell is utter absurdity, and I would categorize it as at least implicitly heretical.
I've never said any such thing nor implied it. You just jump to this conclusion because a) you never engage in a rational debate, b) you won't be patient enough to listen to an explanation.
Using your %s just for the sake of argument, I would break it down as follows:
1% of Church doctrine = infallible, solemn pronouncements by the pope in ecuмenical councils and dogmatic decrees
50% of Church doctrine = infallible and clearly taught in Scripture, using a literal reading, as the Church commands.
49% of Church doctrine = non-solemn oral teachings from the Apostles, unanimously agreed on by the Church Fathers, preached and agreed on in every age by the saints, popes, doctors, bishops, etc. This would be called the ordinary & universal magisterium (truths believed "everywhere, always and by all"). This is all still infallible teaching.
One must distinguish between the Ordinary/CURRENT magisterium (i.e. current hierarchy of the day) vs the ordinary and universal magisterium (i.e. constant teaching of the Church since the beginning of time).
The ordinary/CURRENT magisterium/hierarchy can err if a) the pope doesn't teach solemnly, b) they don't teach "that which has always been taught".
So, yes, the CURRENT magisterium/hierarchy can totally err and lead souls to hell because Church doctrine is ETERNAL and not current. V2 modernists have been arguing for a "living magisterium" so they can claim that the CURRENT magisterium/hierarchy is infallible, but that's heresy. Outside of papal solemn decrees, The CURRENT magisterium/hierarchy is only infallible when it agrees with the universal/constant/eternal truths of Tradition/Scripture.
There is nothing in Church history that says the Current magisterium/hierarchy is protected from error if they teach outside the parameters of solemn infallibility, infallible Tradition or infallible Scripture. These are the ONLY parameters that Christ gave the Church to be safe.
-
Pax, explain what your mental and spiritual malfunction is (and I'm serious in asking this) where it's more important for you to save and salvage Bergoglio than it is to defend the honor and the holiness of Holy Mother Church?
Bergoglio's non-infallible errors/heresies/sins do not reflect on the holiness, indefectible nature or purity of the Church. That's the point. When Bergoglio isn't teaching authoritatively then he's simply a bishop who is using his fallible, human faculties to speak heretical, erroneous catholic words.
You basically characterize her as a whore in order to save Bergoglio.
Bergoglio has nothing to do with the V2 council which is what this thread is about. Bergoglio is a heretic, no doubt about that. V2 was still a fallible council; nothing about Bergoglio changes that.
I'm using church law, logic and common sense to show that even though God *seemingly* allowed V2 to proclaim error (but proclaiming something is not the same as a binding teaching), technically speaking, that is allowed by the Church's own rules because God only promised the Holy Ghost to protect the Church when She follows the rules that God laid out. If such rules aren't followed, then contradictions, errors and a crisis of Faith follow because the Modernists used "assumptions" of the laity to confuse them.
The laity "assumed" that V2 was like every other ecuмenical council. It wasn't.
The laity "assumed" they could trust V2 clerics. Most were orthodox, but the minority weren't and they controlled the voting.
The laity "assumed" that God would not allow evil clerics to promote ambiguous errors.
Etc, etc
But when you deep dive into the legal fine print of it all, you can see that what happened was *technically* allowed by God, mostly due to the laity of the time not being strong in their Faith, not standing up for Truth, not fighting for orthodoxy.
Extending that metaphor, you're claiming that she's like a wife who flirts with other men, kisses them passionately, and even engages in sɛҳuąƖ foreplay, but if she doesn't actually engage in penetrative copulation, she's free from the charge of adultery. Your limiting the holiness of the Church to "infallibility in the strict sense" is absolutely the same as if you were characterizing this woman as not guilty of adultery simply because she didn't engage in the final act.
The correct analogy would be that the wife did not do any of these things, but an imposter, dressed as the wife, did so and scandalized everyone. Our Lord never promised that the Church would be free from scandals or apparent contradictions or a crisis of Faith. Our Lord's own passion scandalized the Apostles (as He foretold) and His death was a *apparent* contradiction to His claim of being God, and it caused a crisis of Faith to most all. Our Lady at LaSallette said the Church would be "in eclipse" meaning hidden, but not gone. Meaning that darkness would *appear* to triumph, that error would *appear* to be taught, that doctrine would *appear* to change. But appearances or imposters do not change the truth. Scandals and contradictions do not sully the Church's holiness or purity. Just like an adulterous imposter does not make the wife guilty nor destroy the marriage.
Meanwhile, the Popes have characterized the Church and her Magisterium as being without stain or blemish.
There are fallible types of the magisterium, a fact you never admit.
That's like calling the aforementioned woman above without stain or blemish. But, yeah, oh wait, when the popes taught these things about the Church and the Magisterium, they weren't protected by the Holy Spirit, so they could have been just full of it.
The word "teach" is overused and generalized. V2 did not teach; it promoted, argued, persuaded. Strictly speaking, a Church teaching is a binding truth, which ALL must assent to, under pain of sin, to get to heaven. Such teachings apply to solemn pronouncements, but also Scripture and Tradition (which account for 99% of the Faith).
-
:incense: Well, he got that one right!
-
Yes, V2 asked for a reform of the missal (which happened afterwards). Same with Trent asking for a codification of the missal (which happened afterwards...Quo Primum happened after Trent).
V2 didn't give all the gory details of what Bugnini had in mind for the new mass; it only mentioned that the liturgy needed to be "updated" for the "people's of God" and "greater unity" (i.e. meaningless, modernistic phrases).
V2 also asked for the primacy of Gregorian chant and Latin, which obviously the Consilium didn't obey. So to be fair and strictly speaking, the product of Bugnini went against V2. I'm not defending V2, just trying to point out false generalizations and myths.
-
your view of the Church can hardly be excused of being outright heretical. Only the confusion of these days absolves you from heresy.
I honestly don't really believe that anymore. There's limits to culpability here, especially once one takes it upon themselves to start promoting an obviously erroneous position that blasphemes Holy Mother Church... A "material heretic" is a Catholic in good faith who merely makes a mistake on Church dogma, but is open to correction. When you stray out of that position, the individual becomes culpable. This is what I've come to understand about why MHFM so openly refers to others has heretics. Language which the Church has traditionally used, yet has been usurped by more "ecuмenical" phrases like Modernist, pseudo-traditionalist, conservative, etc. out of human respect.
Completely agree, well said.
The problem at hand is when the material heretic, i.e. "a Catholic in good faith who merely makes a mistake on Church dogma" is *not* open to correction. This is the situation we are in right now apparently, here in this current discussion - not to mention may other discussions here - no?
Presumably in good faith, the argument is that it is a de fide teaching of the Church that error *cannot* come out of an Ecuмenical Council of the Church, yet at the same time everyone admits that error *did in fact*, come out of an Ecuмenical Council of the Church. What is one to do with a conundrum such as this?
We cannot say this idea is a de fide teaching of the Church since the Church has never taught this in any of her Councils or Encyclicals - at least no one has ever produced said teaching - but we can say that to our knowledge, this protection from error that Ecuмenical Councils enjoy, is what the all of the faithful have believed always and everywhere, which is to say on that account, the belief itself is wholly Catholic, right and good. The question is, does this belief make the infallibility of Councils de fide? Or is this belief relatively new, ie only a few centuries old?
What is certain, is being comprised of the pope and all the bishops, V2 certainly meets the definition of being an Ecuмenical Council, yet from it came errors by the bucket full.
-
I honestly don't really believe that anymore. There's limits to culpability here, especially once one takes it upon themselves to start promoting an obviously erroneous position that blasphemes Holy Mother Church... A "material heretic" is a Catholic in good faith who merely makes a mistake on Church dogma, but is open to correction. When you stray out of that position, the individual becomes culpable. This is what I've come to understand about why MHFM so openly refers to others has heretics. Language which the Church has traditionally used, yet has been usurped by more "ecuмenical" phrases like Modernist, pseudo-traditionalist, conservative, etc. out of human respect.
Completely agree, well said.
The problem at hand is when the material heretic, i.e. "a Catholic in good faith who merely makes a mistake on Church dogma" is *not* open to correction. This is the situation we are in right now apparently, here in this current discussion - not to mention may other discussions here - no?
Presumably in good faith, the argument is that it is a de fide teaching of the Church that error *cannot* come out of an Ecuмenical Council of the Church, yet at the same time everyone admits that error *did in fact*, come out of an Ecuмenical Council of the Church. What is one to do with a conundrum such as this?
We cannot say this idea is a de fide teaching of the Church since the Church has never taught this in any of her Councils or Encyclicals - at least no one has ever produced said teaching - but we can say that to our knowledge, this protection from error that Ecuмenical Councils enjoy, is what the all of the faithful have believed always and everywhere, which is to say on that account, the belief itself is wholly Catholic, right and good. The question is, does this belief make the infallibility of Councils de fide? Or is this belief relatively new, ie only a few centuries old?
What is certain, is being comprised of the pope and all the bishops, V2 certainly meets the definition of being an Ecuмenical Council, yet from it came errors by the bucket full.
Exactly, especially the highlighted.
What to make of the conundrum?
The Lad crowd contends that Stubborn, Pax, Sean, me and others make Holy Church into a whore by having her produce the errors of the Conciliar Church: but they don't do that. They only do that if the Lad crowd's view of indefectibility and the authority of a Magisterium of a true pope and the bishops in union with him is the true one. Is it? Let's see.
Has it been defined? If so, we haven't seen, and still wait to see, it.
Have popes in encyclicals made statements supporting their view? They could be read that way, but you could read the statements in the way that Stubborn reads them, as referring to the true doctrine of the Church springing from Tradition and Scripture.
In any event, there is a definite inconsistency in the position of some on the indefectibility issue by relying on the statements of popes in encyclicals when they at the same time reject ordinary magisterial statements in catechisms - even universal catechisms approved by a pope, like the Catechism of Trent - that support the concept of a baptism of desire, which they maintain is an erroneous teaching having to do with a profound issue of the faith such as who may be justified with God.
If Lad's view (for example) is right on indefectibility, that would mean that the "ordinary magisterium" can be defectible and erroneous on such a profound matter of faith as justification, but it can't be on indefectibility - really? Is that a legitimate view?
Hello? Did Lad mention "cognitive dissonance" somewhere?
One might throw a species of their question back at them (those who hold Lad's view), and ask, what good is your indefectible ordinary Magisterium if it could err so gravely on a matter of faith as justification? Or one could howl like them about heresy or savoring of heresy for presuming that the OM could made such an error - like indeed Lover of Truth, for example, has.
Physicians, heal thyselves.
The Lad crowd accuses some of staining Holy Mother Church by saying its hierarchs, and even popes, may have departed from truth in teaching error, thereby making a mockery of the protections of the Holy Ghost, when they make the same mockery of the same protections by finding them capable of allowing the magisterium to be "usurped" and the very purpose of the protections - so that there would be a reliable institution man could rely on to communicate truth - totally undermined in the mass deception that is foisted on the world by an "impostor." A monster of a deception that was initially begotten by the cardinals of a Magisterium of a genuine pope, who selected them all, when they selected John XXIII.
And for those enamored of the Siri theory, you want us to believe that the Holy Ghost, after Siri's resignation, said effectively "the hell with the Church and the protections it is to afford God's people, Siri resigned, therefore let confusion and heresy and error thrive, millions in good faith believe that error is truth, etc. - I'm clear of it all."
I say you make a mockery worse than us, by suggesting that the Holy Ghost would allow such to happen, in effect, to simply protect your understanding of indefectibility.
Finally, at least Stubborn (and Pax) are consistent in rejecting both the bloated concept of indefectibility and the BOD of the theologians. Lad (DL?) shouts with the biggest voice against them, which is ironic since he has this big beam sticking out of his eye (rejecting the ordinary magisterium on BOD).
We can call each other heretics and heretics over and over. But, as Stubborn said, we have a "crux" that is worth discussing, and the answers which are suggested by the prevailing notions of indefectibilty and the ordinary magisterium's capabilities and capacities in its ordinary teaching which were in vogue prior to Vatican II don't adequately address the problem.
-
Presumably in good faith, the argument is that it is a de fide teaching of the Church that error *cannot* come out of an Ecuмenical Council of the Church, yet at the same time everyone admits that error *did in fact*, come out of an Ecuмenical Council of the Church. What is one to do with a conundrum such as this?
Vigano explains:
”Yet this postulate assumes that the text we are going to analyze is a specific act of the Magisterium, with its degree of authority clearly expressed in the canonical forms envisaged. And this is precisely where the deception lies, this is where the trap is set. For the Innovators maliciously managed to put the label “Sacrosanct Ecuмenical Council” on their ideological manifesto, just as, at a local level, the Jansenists who maneuvered the Synod of Pistoia had managed to cloak with authority their heretical theses, which were later condemned by Pius VI.[3] (https://onepeterfive.com/archbishop-vigano-is-vatican-ii-untouchable/#_ftn3)
On the one hand, Catholics look at the form of the Council and consider its acts to be an expression of the Magisterium. Consequently, they seek to read its substance, which is clearly ambiguous or even erroneous, in keeping with the analogy of faith, out of that love and veneration that all Catholics have towards Holy Mother Church. They cannot comprehend that the Pastors have been so naïve as to impose on them an adulteration of the Faith, but at the same time they understand the rupture with Tradition and try to explain this contradiction.
The modernist, on the other hand, looks at the substance of the revolutionary message he means to convey, and in order to endow it with an authoritativeness that it does not and should not have, he “magisterializes” it through the form of the Council, by having it published in the form of official acts. He knows well that he is forcing it, but he uses the authority of the Church – which under normal conditions he despises and rejects – to make it practically impossible to condemn those errors, which have been ratified by no less than the majority of the Synod Fathers. The instrumental use of authority for purposes opposed to those that legitimize it is a cunning ploy: on the one hand, it guarantees a sort of immunity, a “canonical shield” for doctrines that are heterodox or close to heresy; on the other hand, it allows sanctions to be imposed on those who denounce these deviations, by virtue of a formal respect for canonical norms.”
https://onepeterfive.com/archbishop-vigano-is-vatican-ii-untouchable/
-
Vigano explains....
HE explained it very well, thanks for this Sean!
-
The Lad crowd contends that Stubborn, Pax, Sean, me and others make Holy Church into a whore by having her produce the errors of the Conciliar Church: but they don't do that. They only do that if the Lad crowd's view of indefectibility and the authority of a Magisterium of a true pope and the bishops in union with him is the true one. Is it? Let's see.
This notion regarding the indefectibility and holiness of the Catholic Church are not something I concocted. As NOW pointed out, it's a view shared not only by SVs but also by conservative NOs (these two differ on the minor, i.e. whether V2 and the NOM are actually bad).
I could fill a 500-page book from the Popes, Fathers, Doctors, and pre-Vatican II theologians (even post-Vatican II "theologians") who all unanimously agree that overall the Magisterium is free from and unstained by error and cannot lead souls to hell, that it's infallibly SAFE even when it doesn't meet the strict notion of infallibility.
Msgr. Fenton wrote an entire article on the subject, and dare say that he's better qualified to know than the likes of "Stuborn, Pax, Sean, and [DecemRationis]".
You falsely (mendaciously?) characterize this as some kind of innovation, where in point of fact R&R is the innovation. But, then, it's not an innovation in the sense that this notion that the current living Magisterium can become corrupt and depart from the Deposit of Revelation is NEARLY IDENTICAL to the propositions of the Protestants that were anathematized at Trent. I'll take some time today or this weekend to find them. This is almost verbatim what the Prots claimed, that the Church had gone off the rails from the Revealed Religion ... the only difference being that they only believe in a single source of Revelation (Sacred Scripture) while the R&R Trads believe in two of them.
Your articulation of "R&R" labors under the anathemas of Trent. You lie when attempting to characterize our position as some kind of innovation.
PS -- Archbishop did NOT hold the same view of "R&R" that this crowd here holds. He clearly articulated the same thing I did, that the Holy Spirit guides the papacy and cannot be corrupted. At one point I transcribed here on CI a talk he gave. So then he wonders how all this could have happened. He mulls over some theories, such as that Paul VI was being drugged, etc. He rejected these as unlikely and then in the end stated that SVism is in fact possible. I also think one could argue that perhaps Montini was being blackmailed due to sodomy (not a scenario raised by the Archbishop). I actually don't care if someone wants to claim that Montini was replaced by a double. I'll accept any theory (even if I disagree) that doesn't jettison the sacred doctrine that the Catholic Church cannot ever become as corrupt as these R&R types claim it has. I'll find my transcription of the speech given by Archbishop Lefebvre and will present it. That's actually one of the things that persuaded Father Ronald Ringrose to become SV. Whenever one starts digging into Traditional teaching regarding the papacy and ecclesiology, one ends up either returning to the Conciliar Church or in SVism ... because the teaching of the Catholic Church regarding the matter is crystal clear. It's only this group of neo-R&R represented here by Decem, Stubborn, Pax, et al. who dare to promote this heretical teaching as Catholic truth.
-
Vigano explains:
”Yet this postulate assumes that the text we are going to analyze is a specific act of the Magisterium, with its degree of authority clearly expressed in the canonical forms envisaged. And this is precisely where the deception lies, this is where the trap is set. For the Innovators maliciously managed to put the label “Sacrosanct Ecuмenical Council” on their ideological manifesto, just as, at a local level, the Jansenists who maneuvered the Synod of Pistoia had managed to cloak with authority their heretical theses, which were later condemned by Pius VI.[3] (https://onepeterfive.com/archbishop-vigano-is-vatican-ii-untouchable/#_ftn3)
On the one hand, Catholics look at the form of the Council and consider its acts to be an expression of the Magisterium. Consequently, they seek to read its substance, which is clearly ambiguous or even erroneous, in keeping with the analogy of faith, out of that love and veneration that all Catholics have towards Holy Mother Church. They cannot comprehend that the Pastors have been so naïve as to impose on them an adulteration of the Faith, but at the same time they understand the rupture with Tradition and try to explain this contradiction.
The modernist, on the other hand, looks at the substance of the revolutionary message he means to convey, and in order to endow it with an authoritativeness that it does not and should not have, he “magisterializes” it through the form of the Council, by having it published in the form of official acts. He knows well that he is forcing it, but he uses the authority of the Church – which under normal conditions he despises and rejects – to make it practically impossible to condemn those errors, which have been ratified by no less than the majority of the Synod Fathers. The instrumental use of authority for purposes opposed to those that legitimize it is a cunning ploy: on the one hand, it guarantees a sort of immunity, a “canonical shield” for doctrines that are heterodox or close to heresy; on the other hand, it allows sanctions to be imposed on those who denounce these deviations, by virtue of a formal respect for canonical norms.”
https://onepeterfive.com/archbishop-vigano-is-vatican-ii-untouchable/
Vigano compares Vatican II to the Synod of Pistoia. Did both have the approbation of the sitting/present pope?
-
Your articulation of "R&R" labors under the anathemas of Trent. You lie when attempting to characterize our position as some kind of innovation.
Lad,
I question your reading skills. Contrary to your claim that I'm characterizing your position "as some kind of innovation," I said they were "the prevailing notions of indefectibilty and the ordinary magisterium's capabilities and capacities in its ordinary teaching which were in vogue prior to Vatican II." I did say that those views "don't adequately address the problem," but I'm clearly not claiming you're engaging in "innovation" when you defend a view "in vogue prior to Vatican II." Let me be clear for you: you didn't make up the view. The theologians post-Vatican I filled volumes up with it. As Stubborn noted, it doesn't address the "conundrum," and fails miserably.
As does the view that the Holy Ghost abandoned the Church after the conclave that ultimately selected John XXIII: you claim His protections failed the Church since, hey, Siri resigned, and "it's on them": let the world be deceived into error by the very institution established to prevent that - as long as that view of "indefectibililty" held by Lad and those theologians prior to Vatican II maintains its purity.
Some of us don't buy that, and have a better understanding, without rejecting the pope, Tradition, Scripture or the Catholic Church - just your view of the Church. Again, I grant that that view was in "vogue" prior to Vatican II . . . it's largely what helped get us here.
I see you totally fail to address my contention that you hold the same ordinary Magisterium that is incapable of teaching error to the universal church as to indefectibility somehow leading the world astray as to the possibilities of justification through baptism of desire.
That's a big inconsistency and a problem for your position.
DR
-
Vigano explains:
”Yet this postulate assumes that the text we are going to analyze is a specific act of the Magisterium, with its degree of authority clearly expressed in the canonical forms envisaged. And this is precisely where the deception lies, this is where the trap is set. For the Innovators maliciously managed to put the label “Sacrosanct Ecuмenical Council” on their ideological manifesto, just as, at a local level, the Jansenists who maneuvered the Synod of Pistoia had managed to cloak with authority their heretical theses, which were later condemned by Pius VI.[3] (https://onepeterfive.com/archbishop-vigano-is-vatican-ii-untouchable/#_ftn3)
On the one hand, Catholics look at the form of the Council and consider its acts to be an expression of the Magisterium. Consequently, they seek to read its substance, which is clearly ambiguous or even erroneous, in keeping with the analogy of faith, out of that love and veneration that all Catholics have towards Holy Mother Church. They cannot comprehend that the Pastors have been so naïve as to impose on them an adulteration of the Faith, but at the same time they understand the rupture with Tradition and try to explain this contradiction.
The modernist, on the other hand, looks at the substance of the revolutionary message he means to convey, and in order to endow it with an authoritativeness that it does not and should not have, he “magisterializes” it through the form of the Council, by having it published in the form of official acts. He knows well that he is forcing it, but he uses the authority of the Church – which under normal conditions he despises and rejects – to make it practically impossible to condemn those errors, which have been ratified by no less than the majority of the Synod Fathers. The instrumental use of authority for purposes opposed to those that legitimize it is a cunning ploy: on the one hand, it guarantees a sort of immunity, a “canonical shield” for doctrines that are heterodox or close to heresy; on the other hand, it allows sanctions to be imposed on those who denounce these deviations, by virtue of a formal respect for canonical norms.”
https://onepeterfive.com/archbishop-vigano-is-vatican-ii-untouchable/
Sean,
I agree with Vigano as to all of this. But he doesn't address what Stubborn called "the conundrum." Btw, nice touch, Stubborn; I'll start saying "the Conundrum" from now on.
Let him be as plain as Stubborn, you, Pax are. But he's not being as plain, while, yes, being accurate in his descriptions. He's skirting the Conundrum.
DR
-
Sean,
I agree with Vigano as to all of this. But he doesn't address what Stubborn called "the conundrum." Btw, nice touch, Stubborn; I'll start saying "the Conundrum" from now on.
Let him be as plain as Stubborn, you, Pax are. But he's not being as plain, while, yes, being accurate in his descriptions. He's skirting the Conundrum.
DR
DR-
Subsequent to this letter explaining his form/substance explanation of how a council could err, Vigano acknowledged the validity of V2 as an ecuмenical council.
By that, I presume he’s speaking of the form (ie., it’s ecuмenical because that’s what the revolutionaries called it, and used their authority to attempt to promulgate it).
But in acknowledging the form of a council, it does not follow that it has the substance of an ecuмenical council (ie., binding doctrinal teaching).
I agree with this, and consequently, for me, there is no conundrum.
2Vermont seems to be arguing that the form/substance construct is inadmissible, because if the pope is really the pope, then there can’t be any disharmony between the form and substance (unlike Pistoia).
My response to that argument is that regardless of the form/label applied to V2, if what is proposed there is novelty (ie., lacking in universality, temporal and geographical), then the substance is ipso facto not magisterial.
Thats why I argue that V2 is a new kind of council, to which the old rules do not apply, particularly since the popes deliberately withheld their full authority from its docuмents (knowing they were teaching novelty).
PS: This explanation would also apply to the new canonizations (the form is there, but the substance of what is being done supposes a new definition of “sanctity”).
-
Not infallible in an extraordinary,solemn manner, but according to the Supreme Ordinary Magisterium:
There are those who ask what is the authority, the theological qualification, that the Council wished to attribute to its teachings, knowing that it has avoided giving solemn dogmatic definitions, committing the infallibility of the ecclesiastical magisterium. And the answer is known to those who remember the conciliar declaration of March 6, 1964, repeated on November 16, 1964: given the pastoral character of the Council, it avoided pronouncing in an extraordinary way dogmas endowed with the note of infallibility; but it has nevertheless endowed its teachings with the authority of the supreme ordinary magisterium which ordinary and so clearly authentic magisterium must be accepted docilely and sincerely by all the faithful, according to the mind of the Council regarding the nature and purposes of the individual docuмents. - Paul VI, General Audience, January 12, 1966.
To doubt the Council, he (Pope Paul VI) said, is “in the final analysis, to doubt the Holy Spirit himself who guides the Church.”
I'll tell you where I am on Vatican II. Its like a theory in science. If you can find reason that falsifies it then it ceases to have any credibility. Now there are parts of Vatican II that are traditional, but they belong to other councils or popes, not Vatican II. What we must examine are other 'teachings' of Vatican II to test its ACCEPTABILITY. Now here is a statement issued by Gaudium et spes that convinced me as an obedient Catholic to reject their claims that the 'Holy Spirit' guided Vatican II.
‘… The humble and persevering investigator of the secrets of nature is being led, as it were, by the hand of God in spite of himself, for it is God, the conserver of all things, who made them what they are. We cannot but deplore certain attitudes (not unknown among Christians) deriving from a short-sighted view of the rightful autonomy of science; they have occasioned conflict and controversy and have misled many into opposing faith and science.’ --- Gaudium et spes, # 36.
Gaudium et spes no. 36, as agreed, was referenced with Fr Pio Paschini’s 1945 book Vita e Opere di Galileo Galilei, a work he refused to re-edit for the Pontifical Academy of Sciences right up to the time of his death in 1962. In 1979, a group of Italian scholars researching the history of this book using the author Paschini’s extensive correspondence on the matter, uncovered the reason why Rome censored the work. It turned out that while all agreed the book was factual, it was not considered ‘politically correct’ as far as the now pro-Galilean Rome was concerned. Paschini it seems; simply wrote down the Galileo case as it happened. The problem then was that once churchmen accepted Galileo was supposedly proven correct in his exegesis of Scripture by way of science, the Church just could not come out of recorded history in any way other than ‘guilty as charged.’ The last thing Rome wanted then was a book reminding the world of what occurred in 1616 and the Church’s condemnation of Galileo as suspected heretic in 1633. Paschini was asked to tone down certain aspects of his book. He was willing to do so in certain unimportant places but not with regard to its details as he read them from the archives. A year later, in 1946, the Holy Office told him his book was not going to be published and offered him money as compensation. Paschini was rightly devastated. He immediately shelved his book and returned to his career as before. Fr Pio Paschini died in 1962 never having re-edited his book. In his will he left his work to an assistant Fr Michele Maccarrone, a diocesan priest and medievalist who in 1963 tried to have it published once again even agreeing to its being re-edited first. The PAS, who wanted to publish the book back in 1945 in conjunction with Galileo’s death in 1642, were still interested, but this time to commemorate the four-hundredth anniversary of his birth in 1964. The Jesuit Fr Edmond Lamalle was assigned to make the changes, even meeting with the then Pope Paul VI who approved its publication as he had with the original unedited book back in 1945. On October 2, 1964, the book was finally published under the name of its original author Pio Paschini with not a mention that it had been re-edited, or rather altered, to the extent it was. ‘In Paschini’s work everything is said in the true light’ they claimed. But in truth this was a distorted version of Paschini’s book. Indeed, after reading and comparing the two scripts, one scholar described the book referenced in the docuмents of Vatican II as ‘intellectually dishonest if not simply a forgery.’ (Richard Blackwell: Cambridge Companion to Galileo, Cambridge Univ. Press, 1998, P.364.)
Now that was bad enough, but look at what #36 says:
This is an accusation, that the churchmen of the Council of Trent, Popes Paul V in 1616 and Urban VIII, in 1633, when defining, declaring and confirming that the Bible reveals God created an orbiting sun in a geocentric world, made a grievous error on a matter involving the interpretation of Divine Revelation, and were thus responsible for the ridicule of lies against the Church that ensued for centuries thereafter. For those not aware of it, the Bible's revelations were never proven wrong by science.
So, according to Gaudium et spes, those who promoted the heliocentric heresy were led by the hand of God. So, again, who were those who caused ‘conflict and controversy and have misled many into opposing faith and science?’ Well, that list could start with Moses; all the Fathers who unanimously believed the Bible meant what it said literally, that the sun and stars move around the Earth. Then there were the churchmen of Council of Trent (1545-1563) including those who wrote and promoted the 1566 Catechism of Trent, followed by those popes, Saint Bellarmine, and theologians of the Church in 1616, 1633, 1664 up to 1741. Finally, there was Fr Anfossi and others of the Holy Office of 1820 who defended Biblical geocentrism.
Let us remind ourselves of Trent’s ‘short-sighted views’ as Gaudium et Spes called it.
The words heaven and Earth include all things that the heavens and the Earth contain… He also gave to the sun its brilliancy, and to the moon and stars their beauty; and that they may be for signs, and for seasons, and for days and years. He [God] so ordered the celestial bodies in a certain and uniform course that nothing varies more than their continual revolution, while nothing is more fixed than their variety…. The Earth also God commanded to stand in the midst of the world, rooted in its own foundations (Psa. 103:5).’--- The Catechism of Trent:
The above 'teaching', gaudium et Spes #36. proved to me that no 'holy spirit' was present at Vatican Ii, only the spirit of Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ.
-
I could fill a 500-page book from the Popes, Fathers, Doctors, and pre-Vatican II theologians (even post-Vatican II "theologians") who all unanimously agree that overall the Magisterium is free from and unstained by error and cannot lead souls to hell, that it's infallibly SAFE even when it doesn't meet the strict notion of infallibility.
I agree with this. The problem is, how did they define "the magisterium" for most of history? Different than now. Because in the 1900s especially, the idea of the magisterium was expanded (probably with good intentions) but this is where the new definitions/levels lead to more problems and more necessary distinctions.
Before the 1900s, the Magisterium consisted of "authoritative teachings" (i.e. solemn and non-solemn...but still the key word is "authoritative").
After the 1900s, theologians started including all manner of things (sermons, letters, general encyclicals) into the fallible, non-authoritative, catch-all category of "ordinary magisterium". This has caused the most confusion.
V2 ramped up the idea of the generalized, catch-all "magisterium" to become some heretical, new-rome dictatorship where anything the pope/bishops say is beyond reproach.
Msgr. Fenton wrote an entire article on the subject, and dare say that he's better qualified to know than the likes of "Stuborn, Pax, Sean, and [DecemRationis]".
Firstly, it's Fenton's opinion only. Secondly, his arguments lead to the extreme-V2-era pope worship. Thirdly, even though his conclusions are dangerous and led to V2 extremism, he still admits that the "ordinary magisterium" (the newest category) is fallible and can err. Such a category was NOT supported by Saints/Doctors of the past because it didn't exist. Most of V2 era magisterial acts are of this level, so are fallible, a fact which you never admit nor distinguish.
When saints/popes/doctors of the past use the term "magisterium" they are referring to a TEACHING, which implies use of the following:
a. Authority
b. Obligation to obey
c. Punishment for not accepting
V2 never uses formal authority (but only implies a command, to cleverly skit the rules)
V2 never obliges anything under strict obedience (God would not permit it and also V2 does like to get into the weeds of canon law or morality)
V2 never obliges anything under pain of sin (God would not permit it and also V2 doesn't want to mention sin)
You falsely (mendaciously?) characterize this as some kind of innovation, where in point of fact R&R is the innovation. But, then, it's not an innovation in the sense that this notion that the current living Magisterium can become corrupt and depart from the Deposit of Revelation is NEARLY IDENTICAL to the propositions of the Protestants that were anathematized at Trent.
1. There's no such thing as a "living magisterium". That's V2 heresy. The magisterium is the constant, universal, teaching through the ages. It cannot change.
2. The magisterium is only in use when they attempt to teach authoritatively, because that's what the word means.
3. If a magisterium/hierarchy isn't teaching with any obligation for the laity to comply (i.e. a simple sunday sermon), then it's not part of the magisterium.
4. If the hierarchy acts, speaks, promotes errors using non-authoritative language (i.e. persuasion, ambiguities, arguments, etc) then it's not an authoritative teaching.
5. If the hierarchy uses non-authoritative language, then they can depart from the Deposit of Faith (become heretics) because non-magisterial acts aren't protected from error.
6. Protestants argued that the authoritative teachings of the Church could err. Totally different argument.
PS -- Archbishop did NOT hold the same view of "R&R" that this crowd here holds. He clearly articulated the same thing I did, that the Holy Spirit guides the papacy and cannot be corrupted.
The pope isn't guided if he doesn't want to be, and if he doesn't use the tools that Christ gave him to teach (solemn and non-solemn infallibility).
It's only this group of neo-R&R represented here by Decem, Stubborn, Pax, et al. who dare to promote this heretical teaching as Catholic truth.
I don't totally agree with Decem, for the record. I forget what we disagreed with but i'm not defending him 100%.
Lad, you're basically implying by your arguments that it is a dogma that the pope can't fall into heresy, which is not a dogma at all. Most sedes argue this but it's an opinion. If you open your mind up to the possibility that a pope can become a heretic, then the waters get much, much murkier and the distinctions between the infallible and fallible magisterium become much more important. As it is, your implied foundational argument is not full-proof and so your arguments are overly simplistic.
-
How did they define the Magisterium for most of history?
I don’t know, maybe you should read what the Popes themselves said about the Magisterium. And I will include all true Popes up to Pius XII here because I, unlike you, believe that their teaching on the Magisterium was consistent.
The only reason many of you are having trouble with this is because you're following blind guides, false teachers and the opinions of fallible theologians.
Pope Pius XI, Divini Illius Magistri (#18), Dec. 31, 1929: “… God Himself made the Church a sharer in the divine magisterium and by His divine benefit unable to be mistaken.”
LATIN: “… divini magisterii Ecclesiam fecit Deus ipse participem eamdemque divino eius beneficio falli nesciam.”
Pope Pius XI, Divini Illius Magistri (#16), Dec. 31, 1929: “To this magisterium Christ the Lord imparted immunity from error...”
LATIN: “Huic magisterio Christus Dominus erroris immunitatem impertivit...”
Pope Gregory XVI, Commissum Divinitus (# 4), May 17, 1835: “... the Church has, by its divine institution, the power of the magisterium to teach and define matters of faith and morals and to interpret the Holy Scriptures without danger of error.”
Pope Leo XIII, Caritatis Studium (#6) July 25, 1898: The Magisterium “could by no means commit itself to erroneous teaching.”
Pope Pius X, Editae Saepe (#8), May 26, 1910: “... only a miracle of that divine power could preserve the Church... from blemish in the holiness of Her doctrine...”
Pope Pius XI, Quas Primas (#22), Dec. 11, 1925: “... the perfect and perpetual immunity of the Church from error and heresy.”
Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum (# 9), June 29, 1896: “The practice of the Church has always been the same, and that with the consenting judgment [i.e. consensus] of the holy fathers who certainly were accustomed to hold as having no part of Catholic communion and as banished from the Church whoever had departed in even the least way from the doctrine proposed by the authentic magisterium.”
LATIN: "Idem semper Ecclesiae mos, idque sanctorum patrum consentiente iudicio: qui scilicet communionis catholicae expertem et ab Ecclesia extorrem habere consueverunt, quicuмque a doctrina authentico magisterio proposita vel minimum discessisset.”
Pope Gregory XVI, Mirari Vos (# 10), Aug. 15, 1832: “Therefore, it is obviously absurd and injurious to propose a certain ‘restoration and regeneration’ for her (the Church) as though necessary for her safety and growth, as if she could be considered subject to any failing health or dimming of mind or other misfortune.”
Pope Pius XI, Mortalium Animos (# 10), Jan. 6, 1928: “During the lapse of centuries, the mystical Spouse of Christ has never been contaminated, nor can she ever in the future be contaminated, as Cyprian bears witness: ‘The Bride of Christ cannot be made false to her Spouse: she is incorrupt and modest. She knows but one dwelling, she guards the sanctity of the nuptial chamber chastely and modestly.”
Pope Hadrian I, Second Council of Nicaea, 787: “… Christ our God, when He took for His Bride His Holy Catholic Church, having no blemish or wrinkle, promised he would guard her and assured his holy disciples saying, I am with you every day until the consummation of the world.”
Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, Session 9, March 23, 1440: “…the Spouse of Christ is uncontaminated and modest, knowing only one home, and she guards the sanctity of their marriage bed with chaste modesty.”
Pope St. Siricius, epistle (1) Directa ad decessorem, Feb. 10, 385: “And so He has wished the beauty of the Church, whose spouse He is, to radiate with the splendor of chastity, so that on the day of judgment, when He will have come again, He may be able to find her without spot or wrinkle [Eph. 5:27] as He instituted her through His apostle.”
Source: https://schismatic-home-aloner.com/the-magisterium/ (https://schismatic-home-aloner.com/the-magisterium/)
(So sue me)
-
To doubt the Council, he (Pope Paul VI) said, is “in the final analysis, to doubt the Holy Spirit himself who guides the Church.”
In principle, sadly, these V2 papal claimants are more Catholic than many of the modern R&R. This notion of the Holy Spirit guiding the Church has been the constant teaching of the Church, from the Fathers, Doctors, theologians, etc. Montini is right. Often the enemies of the faith know the principles of the faith better than Catholics.
-
I don’t know, maybe you should read what the Popes themselves said about the Magisterium. And I will include all true Popes up to Pius XII here because I, unlike you, believe that their teaching on the Magisterium was consistent.
The only reason many of you are having trouble with this is because you're following blind guides, false teachers and the opinions of fallible theologians.
We're not the ones following blind guides.
The quotes you posted are beautiful. They are one and all, talking about teachings, not the pope.
Pope Pius IX clearly articulated what the Magisterium is in Tuas Libenter: "...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."
-
I don't totally agree with Decem, for the record. I forget what we disagreed with but i'm not defending him 100%.
Don't worry too much about being identified with me, I'm sure the Lord won't hold it against you. :laugh2:
But tell me, Pax: who around here do you agree with on everything?
-
In principle, sadly, these V2 papal claimants are more Catholic than many of the modern R&R. This notion of the Holy Spirit guiding the Church has been the constant teaching of the Church, from the Fathers, Doctors, theologians, etc. Montini is right. Often the enemies of the faith know the principles of the faith better than Catholics.
What happened to your faith?
The Holy Ghost does guide the Church, always has, always will - the conciliar church is not the Catholic Church.
-
What happened to your faith?
The Holy Ghost does guide the Church, always has, always will - the conciliar church is not the Catholic Church.
Your brain it too wrecked to realize that YOU are the one who denies this, or, rather, the implications of this, i.e. that the Church cannot become converted into a wrecker of souls. Your heretical R&R position invariably leads to insanty.
-
Your brain it too wrecked to realize that YOU are the one who denies this, or, rather, the implications of this, i.e. that the Church cannot become converted into a wrecker of souls. Your heretical R&R position invariably leads to insanty.
Not so Lad, I would likely think like you, if like you, I viewed everything from behind or around an empty chair.
I just told you the Holy Ghost does and always will guide the Church - yet you say I deny it. You're the one with a sanity problem, not me.
-
DR-
Subsequent to this letter explaining his form/substance explanation of how a council could err, Vigano acknowledged the validity of V2 as an ecuмenical council.
By that, I presume he’s speaking of the form (ie., it’s ecuмenical because that’s what the revolutionaries called it, and used their authority to attempt to promulgate it).
But in acknowledging the form of a council, it does not follow that it has the substance of an ecuмenical council (ie., binding doctrinal teaching).
I agree with this, and consequently, for me, there is no conundrum.
Problem with this, Sean, is it doesn't confront the view of what I've called the Lad group - that a valid ecuмenical council couldn't teach error like V2. That view, which you and I disagree with, is opposed your view; it doesn't recognize a form/substance distinction. If it's valid, it's protected from error; so that view goes. It was the nearly unanimous view prior to the Council.
I know you cited one work of one (I believe) pre-Vatican II theologian, but I haven't read that, and the opposing authority is overwhelming. That (Lad's view) was the view of the theologians and manualists.
So, as I said, that view must be confronted head on as wrong, or else concede to the Sede argument. I can't concede to the Sede argument because a usurpation of the hierarchy to teach error and even heresy makes a mockery of the very protection of the Church that the Sedes say is afforded the Church: what good is it if such a usurpation could take place?
So, I disagree, and say the prevalent indefectibility view is wrong. I don't see another option if I were to remain honest and rational, and avoid contradiction. And I believe that Catholic truth is that - honest, free of contradiction, and rational.
I wish Vigano would confront the Conundrum, and not dance around it.
-
I don’t know, maybe you should read what the Popes themselves said about the Magisterium. And I will include all true Popes up to Pius XII here because I, unlike you, believe that their teaching on the Magisterium was consistent.
This begs the question because they didn't technically define what the Magisterium is. Unless you take the implied definition, due to their repeated use of the word "teaching". And what is a "teaching"? It is an authoritative, obligatory fact which all catholics must believe to be saved.
We know V2 (and arguably, 99% of their acts/words since 1960) have not risen to the level of formal teaching. Thus, V2 and post-V2 writings/sermons/docuмents etc are not part of the Magisterium (properly and Traditionally understood).
The V2 and post-V2 writings/sermons/docuмents etc would be part of the NEWER/MODERN level of "ordinary, fallible magisterium" which did not exist prior to the 1900s.
Pope Pius IX clearly articulated what the Magisterium is in Tuas Libenter: "...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."
This sums it up perfectly.
1. Did V2 claim to be "handed down" from Tradition? Parts yes, parts are also admitted to be novelties.
2. Did V2 claim to be "divinely revealed" by the teaching authority of the Church? Nope.
3. Did V2 claim to explain, clarify, define or teach anything as being "of the faith"? Nope.
Therefore V2 is not part of the Magisterium, as defined prior to the 1900s....which is the time period when Pius IX lived.
-
Don't worry too much about being identified with me, I'm sure the Lord won't hold it against you. (https://www.cathinfo.com/Smileys/classic/laugh2.gif)
No offense, man. I just hate when people lump everyone together; it confuses arguments.
But tell me, Pax: who around here do you agree with on everything?
Great point. Probably Croix...:laugh1:...j/k.
-
Pope Pius IX clearly articulated what the Magisterium is in Tuas Libenter: "...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."
It's a sign of his quasi-modernism, that the above definition rebukes +Fenton's explanations and slippery definitions concerning the Magisterium. It also totally condemns V2.
-
Bergolio mentions that America has a great number of anti-Vatican II-ites; the truth is Americans still have the 2nd Amendment and have a relative freedom to express their disgust with modernism, ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity, clown Masses, et alia. Imagine a man in China publishing the fact that he is disgusted with Vatican II and Bergolio. He would be in a prison camp before sundown!
-
It's a sign of his quasi-modernism, that the above definition rebukes +Fenton's explanations and slippery definitions concerning the Magisterium. It also totally condemns V2.
Yes, well said. The excellent papal quotes that DL posted and the great quotes posted by Sean agree 100% with PPIX's teaching as well.
-
Problem with this, Sean, is it doesn't confront the view of what I've called the Lad group - that a valid ecuмenical council couldn't teach error like V2. That view, which you and I disagree with, is opposed your view; it doesn't recognize a form/substance distinction. If it's valid, it's protected from error; so that view goes. It was the nearly unanimous view prior to the Council.
I know you cited one work of one (I believe) pre-Vatican II theologian, but I haven't read that, and the opposing authority is overwhelming. That (Lad's view) was the view of the theologians and manualists.
So, as I said, that view must be confronted head on as wrong, or else concede to the Sede argument. I can't concede to the Sede argument because a usurpation of the hierarchy to teach error and even heresy makes a mockery of the very protection of the Church that the Sedes say is afforded the Church: what good is it if such a usurpation could take place?
So, I disagree, and say the prevalent indefectibility view is wrong. I don't see another option if I were to remain honest and rational, and avoid contradiction. And I believe that Catholic truth is that - honest, free of contradiction, and rational.
I wish Vigano would confront the Conundrum, and not dance around it.
I understand what you are saying, but to the extent that you are accurately describing Lad’s position, I would say, as a sedeprivationist, he’s being inconsistent in his position:
They skirt the sedevacantist snare by positing a pope, but one without any actual authority or jurisdiction (ie., a pope materially, but not formally). In other words, a different kind of pope than any sort of pope described in the manuals, encyclicals, bulls, councils, or any magisterial teaching.
Vigano is saying pretty much the same thing regarding councils as Lad/SP’s are saying regarding the pope:
The form (materialiter) of an ecuмenical council is there, but the substance (formaliter) -traditional Catholic doctrine infallible via either the extra or ordinary magisterium- is missing:
Its a different kind of council in the same way SP’s posit a different and unheard of kind of pope.
-
Problem with this, Sean, is it doesn't confront the view of what I've called the Lad group - that a valid ecuмenical council couldn't teach error like V2. That view, which you and I disagree with, is opposed your view; it doesn't recognize a form/substance distinction.
Right. +Vigano's form/substance distinction is a good explanation.
If it's valid, it's protected from error; so that view goes. It was the nearly unanimous view prior to the Council.
The problem is a lack of definitions of terms. ALL ecuмenical councils of the past had a valid form (ecuмenical assembly) and doctrinal substance (doctrinal weight). So, logically, that's how an ecuмenical council was understood.
The modernists, using their phariasical legalism to the ultimate degree, came along and said, "Well...just because a council is ecuмenical, doesn't mean it HAS to define doctrine. Let's call an ecuмenical council together and create a new, non-doctrinal reason for doing so. We'll call it a "pastoral" council, yeah. People won't know what to do; it'll cause confusion, which is what we want. Confusion = caution = we have time to act before they figure out what we're doing."
This technicality is correct. There's nothing in canon law which requires an ecuмenical council to define doctrine. Just because it happened 19/19 times in history doesn't mean doctrine is an essential part of such a council. The Modernists exploited a loophole, as they always do.
I wish Vigano would confront the Conundrum, and not dance around it.
The condundrum is that people are assuming the "ecuмenical" aspect of the council is what makes it infallible. No, prior ecuмenical councils were only infallible because they defined doctrine. And thus, if you have an ecuмenical council which defines no doctrine, then it's not infallible.
-
In principle, sadly, these V2 papal claimants are more Catholic than many of the modern R&R. This notion of the Holy Spirit guiding the Church has been the constant teaching of the Church, from the Fathers, Doctors, theologians, etc. Montini is right. Often the enemies of the faith know the principles of the faith better than Catholics.
It's easier to fool others that way!
-
This notion of the Holy Spirit guiding the Church has been the constant teaching of the Church, from the Fathers, Doctors, theologians, etc. Montini is right.
It's a gross generalization that assumes many things, a) the orthodoxy of the pope/cardinals/bishops, b) a love of truth, God, and the Faith, and c) the will to spread the Gospel and save souls. It also assumes the obvious...that heretics didn't enter the Church to prepare for the antichrist.
The fact of the antichrist and how it could happen and what would God allow, has always been a mystery. The antichrist only rules for 3.5 years, with a public life before this of (guessing) 10-20 years. So, round that to 25 years that the antichrist is known and "working".
We all know that this 25 years is unlike ANY period in history, both of the world and of the Church. And for 2,000 years God has not allowed any similar events to occur, until the times of antichrist, which are unprecedented.
The point being, in the grand scheme of the Church, V2 has only been 60-70 years, which is a drop in the bucket of history. If we are leading up to the UTTERLY UNIQUE times of antichrist, how can anyone say "God wouldn't allow x, y or z"? Or, how can anyone say, "Well, this can't happen because it's never happened before?" We KNOW that the end times will be unique. We know that will be unprecedented. To compare our times with prior times is silly and naive.
-
We're not the ones following blind guides.
Give me a break. You literally follow men that will not at all stray from the teachings of Abp. Lefebvre, despite everything that has happened since his death. And then turn around and use the fallible opinions of theologians to support their position rather than the Magisterium or Papal teachings.
The quotes you posted are beautiful. They are one and all, talking about teachings, not the pope.
Pope Pius IX clearly articulated what the Magisterium is in Tuas Libenter: "...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."
You're right. They aren't talking about the Pope, they're talking about the infallibility of the Magisterium in response to what Pax was asking about a "definition" of what the Magisterium is.
Common-sense dictates, based upon the quotes I cited, that the Magisterium is synonymous with Tradition. Therefore, since many of you call yourselves "traditional Catholics" what Catholic Tradition can you follow other than the authentic Magisterium?
The Catholic Encyclopedia even equates Tradition with the living Magisterium:
https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15006b.htm (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15006b.htm)
Given that many of you seem to think that a manifest heretic can also be a valid Pope, and therefore part of the Church, you deny the Magisterial teachings of several Popes on that point:
Pope St. Celestine I, Council of Ephesus, 431:
“… ALL HERETICS corrupt the true expressions of the Holy Spirit with their own evil minds and they draw down on their own heads an inextinguishable flame.”
Pope Innocent IV, First Council of Lyons, 1245:
“The civil law declares that those are to be regarded as heretics, and ought to be subject to the sentences issued against them, who even on slight evidence are found to have strayed from the judgment and path of the Catholic religion.”
Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum #13:
"can it be lawful for anyone to reject any one of those truths without by the very fact falling into heresy? without separating himself from the Church? – without repudiating in one sweeping act the whole of Christian teaching? For such is the nature of faith that nothing can be more absurd than to accept some things and reject others."
[...]
"he who dissents even in one point from divinely revealed truth absolutely rejects all faith, since he thereby refuses to honour God as the supreme truth and the formal motive of faith."
Canon 1325.2: "After the reception of baptism, if anyone, retaining the name Christian, pertinaciously denies or doubts something to be believed from the truth of divine and Catholic faith, [such a one is] a heretic;"
Pope Paul IV, cuм ex Apostolatus Officio, #6:
6. In addition, if ever at any time it should appear that any Bishop (even one acting as an Archbishop, Patriarch or Primate), or any Cardinal of said Roman Church, even a Legate as previously stated, or even a Roman Pontiff prior to his promotion or elevation as Cardinal or Roman Pontiff, has deviated from the Catholic Faith or fallen into some heresy, then
his promotion or elevation, even if it be uncontested and carried out by the unanimous assent of all the Cardinals, shall be null, invalid, and void;
Pro-tip: Every. Single. Man claiming to be the Pope after Pius XII can be proven to have been a manifest heretic before their election, without even getting into the ipso-facto loss of office for manifest heresy after their election.
And to reiterate once more, there is no reading into these statements per Vatican I:
Ch. 4, 14. Hence, too,that meaning of the sacred dogmas is ever to be maintained which has once been declared by holy mother church, and there must never be any abandonment of this sense under the pretext or in the name of a more profound understanding.
-
It's a gross generalization that assumes many things, a) the orthodoxy of the pope/cardinals/bishops, b) a love of truth, God, and the Faith, and c) the will to spread the Gospel and save souls. It also assumes the obvious...that heretics didn't enter the Church to prepare for the antichrist.
Pax, when Lad talks about the Holy Ghost guiding the Church, Lad is talking about the Holy Ghost guiding the pope. The thinking goes something like this: "The pope is a heretic so the Church is no longer guided by the Holy Ghost," which is to say that both the Church and the Holy Ghost have defected.....and R&R is heretical and invariably leads to insanity.
Meanwhile the divine promise has never been broken and the Holy Ghost has never stopped guiding the Church.
-
Give me a break. You literally follow men that will not at all stray from the teachings of Abp. Lefebvre, despite everything that has happened since his death. And then turn around and use the fallible opinions of theologians to support their position rather than the Magisterium or Papal teachings.
You're right. They aren't talking about the Pope, they're talking about the infallibility of the Magisterium in response to what Pax was asking about a "definition" of what the Magisterium is.
I posted the definition of what the Magisterium is as explained by Pope Pius IX. How anyone can disagree with what he says is beyond me.
Pro-tip: Every. Single. Man claiming to be the Pope after Pius XII can be proven to have been a manifest heretic before their election.
No argument from me here. Certainly the popes since at least Pope St. Pius X knew what they were doing when they mandated that even heretic cardinals were to partake in the election - which means the mandate admits that even heretic cardinals could indeed be elected pope.....
"No Cardinal can in any way be excluded from the active and passive election of the Supreme Pontiff on the pretext or by reason of any excommunication, suspension, interdict, or other ecclesiastical impediment whatsoever; We, in fact, suspend these censures only for the effect of an election of this sort; they will remain in their own force in other circuмstances." - Pope St. Pius X, Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis
-
I posted the definition of what the Magisterium is as explained by Pope Pius IX. How anyone can disagree with what he says is beyond me.
Nor would I even think to disagree with it.
No argument from me here. Certainly the popes since at least Pope St. Pius X knew what they were doing when they mandated that even heretic cardinals were to partake in the election - which means the mandate admits that even heretic cardinals could indeed be elected pope.....
"No Cardinal can in any way be excluded from the active and passive election of the Supreme Pontiff on the pretext or by reason of any excommunication, suspension, interdict, or other ecclesiastical impediment whatsoever; We, in fact, suspend these censures only for the effect of an election of this sort; they will remain in their own force in other circuмstances." - Pope St. Pius X, Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis
The problem here being, if a heretic was elected, as decreed by Pope Paul IV, it would immediately be invalid anyway. Which is precisely what happened with John XXIII, Paul VI, John Paul I, John Paul II, Benedict XVI, and now Francis, the last of which isn't even a priest, let alone the Pope...
To quote again:
Pope Paul IV, cuм ex Apostolatus Officio, #6:
6. In addition, if ever at any time it should appear that any Bishop (even one acting as an Archbishop, Patriarch or Primate), or any Cardinal of said Roman Church, even a Legate as previously stated, or even a Roman Pontiff prior to his promotion or elevation as Cardinal or Roman Pontiff, has deviated from the Catholic Faith or fallen into some heresy, then his promotion or elevation, even if it be uncontested and carried out by the unanimous assent of all the Cardinals, shall be null, invalid, and void;
-
No argument from me here. Certainly the popes since at least Pope St. Pius X knew what they were doing when they mandated that even heretic cardinals were to partake in the election - which means the mandate admits that even heretic cardinals could indeed be elected pope.....
"No Cardinal can in any way be excluded from the active and passive election of the Supreme Pontiff on the pretext or by reason of any excommunication, suspension, interdict, or other ecclesiastical impediment whatsoever; We, in fact, suspend these censures only for the effect of an election of this sort; they will remain in their own force in other circuмstances." - Pope St. Pius X, Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis
No, Stubborn, this is not referring to "heretic cardinals", which don't exist. It is referring to Catholic cardinals who have incurred minor excommunication for some crime other than heresy, schism or apostasy. Individuals who have incurred minor excommunication are still members of the Church, unlike heretics. You believe a non-Catholic can be the head of the Church, meaning you don't believe the Church is one in Faith. Next time you sing "Unam, sanctam, catholicam" at a Sung Mass, think about what that really means. It does not mean the Church is some heretical sect made up of both Catholics and heretics. The Mystical Body of Christ professes One (unam) Faith.
Pope Innocent III, Eius exemplo, Dec. 18, 1208: “By the heart we believe and by the mouth we confess the one Church, not of heretics, but the Holy Roman, Catholic, and Apostolic Church outside of which we believe that no one is saved.”
Your fallacious objection was completely refuted long ago here: https://schismatic-home-aloner.com/cardinal-elects-excommunicated-pope/
Also: Pope Leo XIII, Testem Benevolentiae, Jan. 22, 1899: “Where Peter is, there is the Church.” You reject this, for you believe Francis is the head of the Conciliar Church, i.e. "Where Peter is, there is not the Church".
-
To quote again:
We’re you aware cuм Ex was abrogated (more than once)?
-
Your fallacious objection was completely refuted long ago here: https://schismatic-home-aloner.com/cardinal-elects-excommunicated-pope/
They won't read the refutation because it comes from MHFM. That much has already been made clear earlier in the thread when I posted clear refutations of the heretical R&R position (https://www.cathinfo.com/crisis-in-the-church/bergolio-says-there-many-restorers-in-usa-who-do-not-accept-vatican-ii/msg829466/#msg829466) on Vatican II by MFHM and NOW, and they were dismissed because of the source, rather than the arguments.
-
We’re you aware cuм Ex was abrogated (more than once)?
Are you going to provide a source or just make a statement?
-
They won't read the refutation because it comes from MHFM. That much has already been made clear earlier in the thread when I posted clear refutations of the heretical R&R position (https://www.cathinfo.com/crisis-in-the-church/bergolio-says-there-many-restorers-in-usa-who-do-not-accept-vatican-ii/msg829466/#msg829466) on Vatican II by MFHM and NOW, and they were dismissed because of the source, rather than the arguments.
If that's the case, then we are dealing with bad-willed heretics who receive not the love of the truth... they are no different to the liberals who will dismiss evidence against the vaccine because the source isn't from the mainstream media. In this case it's bad-willed false trads who only accept Eleison comments or the Angelus or Fr. Wathen's sermons as a valid source...
-
Are you going to provide a source or just make a statement?
Pius XII:
"None of the cardinals may in any way, or by pretext or reason of any excommunication, suspension, or interdict whatsoever, or of any other ecclesiastical impediment, be excluded from the active and passive election of the supreme pontiff. We hereby suspend such censures solely for the purposes of the said election; at other times they are to remain in vigor" (Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis, 34).
https://www.vatican.va/content/pius-xii/la/apost_constitutions/docuмents/hf_p-xii_apc_19451208_vacantis-apostolicae-sedis.html
-
Pius XII:
"None of the cardinals may in any way, or by pretext or reason of any excommunication, suspension, or interdict whatsoever, or of any other ecclesiastical impediment, be excluded from the active and passive election of the supreme pontiff. We hereby suspend such censures solely for the purposes of the said election; at other times they are to remain in vigor" (Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis, 34).
Already refuted.
See:
No, Stubborn, this is not referring to "heretic cardinals", which don't exist. It is referring to Catholic cardinals who have incurred minor excommunication for some crime other than heresy, schism or apostasy. Individuals who have incurred minor excommunication are still members of the Church, unlike heretics. You believe a non-Catholic can be the head of the Church, meaning you don't believe the Church is one in Faith. Next time you sing "Unam, sanctam, catholicam" at a Sung Mass, think about what that really means. It does not mean the Church is some heretical sect made up of both Catholics and heretics. The Mystical Body of Christ professes One (unam) Faith.
Pope Innocent III, Eius exemplo, Dec. 18, 1208: “By the heart we believe and by the mouth we confess the one Church, not of heretics, but the Holy Roman, Catholic, and Apostolic Church outside of which we believe that no one is saved.”
Your fallacious objection was completely refuted long ago here: https://schismatic-home-aloner.com/cardinal-elects-excommunicated-pope/
Also: Pope Leo XIII, Testem Benevolentiae, Jan. 22, 1899: “Where Peter is, there is the Church.” You reject this, for you believe Francis is the head of the Conciliar Church, i.e. "Where Peter is, there is not the Church".
Furthermore, cuм Ex is still in force
This effectively refutes the contention by certain Traditionalists that the provisions contained in cuм ex are not mentioned in the Code, hence they are abrogated under Can. 6§5 and have lost all force of law. On the contrary; with the exception of Can. 1325, the entire basis for the Code's treatment of heresy, apostasy and schism is firmly grounded on cuм ex. In addition, the Bull of Pope Paul IV, as well as that of Pope St. Pius V's Quo Primum, is further protected from any sort of abrogation by virtue of its makeup. according to Rev. Nicholas J. Neuberger, (Canon 6: The Relation of the Codex Juris Canonici to Preceding Legislation, Catholic University of America, 1927). Calling it an "oath," Rev. Neuberger comments on the phrase "hac immutabili et in perpetuum valitura constitutione" (roughly translated, "our constitution is to remain unchanged in perpetuity,") found in various papal docuмents. He states that while such a phrase does not curtail the power nor invalidate future acts of a (legitimate) successor of the Roman Pontiff, nevertheless "the legislator attaches an especial juridical sanction to laws which have such a clause appended. Pihring advances the theory that the laws of general councils are not abolished unless a derogatory clause is annexed next to the posterior enactment…If a prior law is bound up with an oath which reads into it immunity from abrogation, the law is not countermanded unless express mention is made to that effect. The reasons for this assertion are that the legislator is mindful of a law which has an oath attached and hence abrogation would be invalid."
Source attached
-
Pius XII:
"None of the cardinals may in any way, or by pretext or reason of any excommunication, suspension, or interdict whatsoever, or of any other ecclesiastical impediment, be excluded from the active and passive election of the supreme pontiff. We hereby suspend such censures solely for the purposes of the said election; at other times they are to remain in vigor" (Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis, 34).
https://www.vatican.va/content/pius-xii/la/apost_constitutions/docuмents/hf_p-xii_apc_19451208_vacantis-apostolicae-sedis.html
Wow, Sean, you really are blind! I just posted an article completely refuting that and you still go ahead and post it! This is referring to minor exommunications, which is why at the end it says "at other times they are to remain in vigor". No, cuм Ex has not been abrogated and is a matter of divine law and the Unity of the Mystical Body!
-
If that's the case, then we are dealing with bad-willed heretics who receive not the love of the truth... they are no different to the liberals who will dismiss evidence against the vaccine because the source isn't from the mainstream media. In this case it's bad-willed false trads who only accept Eleison comments or the Angelus or Fr. Wathen's sermons as a valid source...
Yeah, that's about the reality of it.
-
Wow, Sean, you really are blind! I just posted an article completely refuting that and you still go ahead and post it! This is referring to minor exommunications, which is why at the end it says "at other times they are to remain in vigor". No, cuм Ex has not been abrogated and is a matter of divine law and the Unity of the Mystical Body!
What a moron:
A disciplinary docuмent has been elevated to divine law (and is therefore irreformable)??
:facepalm:
How about I give you enough rope to hang yourself with, and ask you to cite the passage in VAS which says this provision only applies to “minor excommunications.”
:popcorn:
-
Already refuted.
See:
Furthermore, cuм Ex is still in force
Eh, you seem not to realize every docuмent you’re citing PRECEDES the abrogation of Pius XII.
Either you need to join Ibranyi, and move the dial back on the...ahem...”interregnum,” or you need to abandon this moronic argument.
-
How about I give you enough rope to hang yourself with, and ask you to cite the passage in VAS which says this provision only applies to “minor excommunications.”
:popcorn:
That is obvious, because it refers to cardinals (you must be a member of the Church to be a cardinal). It also states "or of any other ecclesiastical impediment", thus it cannot be referring to heresy, which is not merely an ecclesiastical impediment, but an impediment of divine law. It is just blatantly obvious to anyone of good-will that this is what he is referring to. For heretics that reject the unity of the Church and believe a manifest heretic can be it's head, they have to twist the meaning.
-
Eh, you seem not to realize every docuмent you’re citing PRECEDES the abrogation of Pius XII.
Either you need to join Ibranyi, and move the dial back on the...ahem...”interregnum,” or you need to abandon this moronic argument.
You didn't read the article that refutes your misuse of Vacantis, did you? Proving that you are as intellectually dishonest as I suspected you were. :facepalm:
Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis does not specifically express any intention to abrogate cuм ex. Suspension for an election does not mean abrogation. And even then, the principle remains that a heretic cannot hold any ecclesiastical office. So, the election of a heretic would still be invalid.
Since you want to skirt around cuм ex, here's another
Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum, #15:
No one, therefore, unless in communion with Peter can share in his authority, since it is absurd to imagine that he who is outside can command in the Church.
-
What a moron:
A disciplinary docuмent has been elevated to divine law (and is therefore irreformable)??
:facepalm:
I never said that, yet again you are reading into things! I said it is a matter of divine law, because the subject matter is just that. Heretics are not members of the Church by divine law, as the canonist Maroto states: “Heretics and schismatics are barred from the Supreme Pontificate by the divine law itself, because, although by divine law they are not considered incapable of participating in certain types of ecclesiastical jurisdiction, nevertheless, they must certainly be regarded as excluded from occupying the throne of the Apostolic See…”
So no, cuм ex is not merely disciplinary (which is something like the law to abstain on fridays), because it is predicated on the divine law that a heretic is not a member of the Church and therefore could not possibly be it's head.
-
You didn't read the article that refutes your misuse of Vacantis, did you? Proving that you are as intellectually dishonest as I suspected you were. :facepalm:
Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis does not specifically express any intention to abrogate cuм ex. Suspension for an election does not mean abrogation. And even then, the principle remains that a heretic cannot hold any ecclesiastical office. So, the election of a heretic would still be invalid.
Since you want to skirt around cuм ex, here's another
Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum, #15:
No one, therefore, unless in communion with Peter can share in his authority, since it is absurd to imagine that he who is outside can command in the Church.
And there you have it! According to Pope Leo XIII, the belief of Sean and Stubborn is absurd! I agree with Pope Leo XIII!
-
There's a difference between a) a Cardinal who believes heresy and b) an actual heretic Cardinal, as declared by canon law.
Furthermore, cuм Ex is still in force
If any part of it is still in force, it's quite a small part. Here's the thing, the election laws which Pius X and Pius XII enacted, to keep the conclave going, do not contradict cuм Ex at all. They are in perfect agreement.
cuм Ex says that the election of a heretic is null and void. Yes, from the spiritual standpoint of the papacy, that's exactly correct. The question is, would the pope-elect regain his status as pope, if he were to return to orthodoxy? Most of you assume no, but cuм Ex doesn't elaborate, so this important point is debatable.
Pius X and XII's law changes allow a heretic to vote/be elected...but right afterwards...ALL spiritual penalties (including excommunication) kick back in. Which gives the same effect as cuм Ex...the spiritual aspect of the papacy is null. But...this leaves more questions:
a) This elected heretic would be the temporal pope, because he was validly elected. He just has no spiritual authority.
b) Would he regain his full spiritual powers, if he converted? I would assume a strong "yes".
Either way, in a general sense, both laws have the same result: A pope with temporal/govt power, but with no spiritual authority. Popes Pius X and XII clearly wanted the election to be valid (in a temporal sense) because otherwise they would have said the whole ordeal is null. Instead, they clearly wanted the human side of the conclave to be valid (which popes have the power to "bind and loose" human rules) but they kept in place the spiritual penalties.
-
And even then, the principle remains that a heretic cannot hold any ecclesiastical office. So, the election of a heretic would still be invalid.
This is a gross generalization, as usual.
a) There are many different levels of heresy. Not all preclude one from holding office.
b) There are different aspects to an election and an office. Temporal and spiritual.
c) The church can change human/temporal rules/laws. This would affect your "principle".
Using the examples of Pope Pius X and XII...they DIRECTLY contradict your overly-general principle. So either a) they are both stupid or b) your understanding of the principle is faulty. I'd bet on the latter, especially considering that they were "guided by the Holy Ghost" and can't err, while you can.
It's amazing to me that some of you sedes will yell and scream "the Church cannot err" and the "pope is guided by the Holy Ghost" but when you read the plain english of Pius X and XII on the conclave, you try to say they were wrong or they can't contradict cuм Ex or some other silly explanation.
-
Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum, #15:
No one, therefore, unless in communion with Peter can share in his authority, since it is absurd to imagine that he who is outside can command in the Church.
And there you have it! According to Pope Leo XIII, the belief of Sean and Stubborn is absurd! I agree with Pope Leo XIII!
In case you weren’t aware, Leo XIII was writing well before Pius XII.
:facepalm:
-
In case you weren’t aware, Leo XIII was writing well before Pius XII.
(https://www.cathinfo.com/Smileys/classic/facepalm.gif)
Right. These guys are arguing backwards. :jester:
-
when you read the plain english of Pius X and XII on the conclave, you try to say they were wrong or they can't contradict cuм Ex or some other silly explanation.
When did me or DigitalLogos ever say Pope Pius XII was wrong or that he can't contradict cuм Ex? The point is, he didn't contradict it. He was not referring to heretics outside the Church. If you read the articles provided, you would get that.
In case you weren’t aware, Leo XIII was writing well before Pius XII.
:facepalm:
Irrelevant! The principle still holds true today, and Pope Pius XII never contradicted it, since he was referring to ecclesiastical impediments, not to impediments of divine law!
-
I never said that, yet again you are reading into things! I said it is a matter of divine law, because the subject matter is just that. Heretics are not members of the Church by divine law, as the canonist Maroto states: “Heretics and schismatics are barred from the Supreme Pontificate by the divine law itself, because, although by divine law they are not considered incapable of participating in certain types of ecclesiastical jurisdiction, nevertheless, they must certainly be regarded as excluded from occupying the throne of the Apostolic See…”
So no, cuм ex is not merely disciplinary (which is something like the law to abstain on fridays), because it is predicated on the divine law that a heretic is not a member of the Church and therefore could not possibly be it's head.
Would that be material heretics, or formal?
Would that be covert or public?
Declared?
Manifest?
You’d better go find Ibranyi, because the argument you’re making has Pius XII in “violation” of divine law.
:facepalm:
-
I'm going to keep saying it. Those of you who articulate R&R the way it's being done here on its thread [asserting that it's possible for the Catholic Magisterium and Catholic public worship to go corrupt, to become non-Catholic, and to lead souls to hell], you promote heresy and blaspheme Holy Mother Church. I'm not going to mince any words about your impious filth. You are enemies of the faith, not its defenders, and you are little better than Protestants, Old Catholics, and Eastern Orthodox.
You can keep quibbling about the limits of infallibility-in-the-strict sense or about papa haereticus ipso facto depositus this or ab ecclesia deponendus that, but I care little about that debate. Those are merely details that may offer explanations for HOW this happened. I care only about your grave error (heresy) and blasphemy.
-
When did me or DigitalLogos ever say Pope Pius XII was wrong or that he can't contradict cuм Ex? The point is, he didn't contradict it. He was not referring to heretics outside the Church. If you read the articles provided, you would get that.
Irrelevant! The principle still holds true today, and Pope Pius XII never contradicted it, since he was referring to ecclesiastical impediments, not to impediments of divine law!
“Impediments of divine law.”
:jester:
Now you’re openly making stuff up.
:facepalm:
-
Would that be material heretics, or formal?
Would that be covert or public?
Declared?
Manifest?
You’d better go find Ibranyi, because the argument you’re making has Pius XII in “violation” of divine law.
:facepalm:
Sean, you realize a "material heretic" is an erroneous term, right? A "material heretic" is not a heretic, they are an erring Catholic. When the Church refers to heretics, they are not talking about erring Catholics, they are talking about actual heretics. Your reference to Ibranyi is a pathetic ad hominem. I could more accurately say you better go and talk to Bergoglio, because you both believe non-Catholics can command inside the Church.
-
I honestly don't really believe that anymore. There's limits to culpability here, especially once one takes it upon themselves to start promoting an obviously erroneous position that blasphemes Holy Mother Church... A "material heretic" is a Catholic in good faith who merely makes a mistake on Church dogma, but is open to correction. When you stray out of that position, the individual becomes culpable. This is what I've come to understand about why MHFM so openly refers to others has heretics. Language which the Church has traditionally used, yet has been usurped by more "ecuмenical" phrases like Modernist, pseudo-traditionalist, conservative, etc. out of human respect.
From the Popes and Magisterium (which some here think we can deny):
Well, the problem is that I do believe that these scoundrels here would in fact submit to a genuine pope and would stand to be corrected by him. That's typically the litmus test for pertinacity in heresy. This crisis is confusing, and their brains are mangled into this twisted mess. There's no doubt some significant bad will here, and they do blaspheme Holy Mother Church and promote a heretical ecclesiology, so that is not to completely let them off the hook. But there's a monumental difference between that and pertinacious formal heresy. They've constructed for themselves this completely imaginary theological system they believe properly characterizes this crisis. They don't deny anything they know to be dogma, and likely wouldn't, but they're coming perilously close to not having anything that actually resembles the Catholic faith.
-
Before posting again, Sean, you still having retracted your grave slander against me on that other thread. You've been called out for this, and your arrogant refusal to retract your lies about me is very serious.
SeanJohnson:
Lad paints [St. Pius X] as a simoniac for using the term stipend
This is a blatant lie, made all the more serious about how grave an accusation it is, asserting that I impugned the virtue of this great saint.
-
Well, the problem is that I do believe that these scoundrels here would in fact submit to a genuine pope and would stand to be corrected by him. That's typically the litmus test for pertinacity in heresy. This crisis is confusing, and their brains are mangled into this twisted mess. There's no doubt some significant bad will here, and they do blaspheme Holy Mother Church and promote a heretical ecclesiology, so that is not to completely let them off the hook. But there's a monumental difference between that and pertinacious formal heresy. They've constructed for themselves this completely imaginary theological system they believe properly characterizes this crisis. They don't deny anything they know to be dogma, and likely wouldn't, but they're coming perilously close to not having anything that actually resembles the Catholic faith.
I'll go one further and say that they don't have the Catholic faith. And I say this because their entire position revolves around maintaining the erroneous position of Lefebvre, who only held the position that he did because things weren't as clear then as they are now. They're Lefebvrists, not Catholics. Which is why they won't admit any of the clear proof you can throw at them about heresy and the loss of office, or the indefectibility of the Church, because they don't have the faith. They will do everything possible to wriggle out of admitting that the See is vacant, up to the point of calling the Spotless Bride of Christ a whore, just so they have a name to pop into the Te Igitur at their Sunday Mass.
-
“Impediments of divine law.”
:jester:
Now you’re openly making stuff up.
:facepalm:
Do I need to quote the canonist Morato again? “Heretics and schismatics are barred from the Supreme Pontificate by the divine law itself, because, although by divine law they are not considered incapable of participating in certain types of ecclesiastical jurisdiction, nevertheless, they must certainly be regarded as excluded from occupying the throne of the Apostolic See…”
-
They won't read the refutation because it comes from MHFM. That much has already been made clear earlier in the thread when I posted clear refutations of the heretical R&R position (https://www.cathinfo.com/crisis-in-the-church/bergolio-says-there-many-restorers-in-usa-who-do-not-accept-vatican-ii/msg829466/#msg829466) on Vatican II by MFHM and NOW, and they were dismissed because of the source, rather than the arguments.
I read it, the whole refutation is based off the very first item, which is itself error.... "As we’ve already shown, it’s a dogma that 1) heretics are not members of the Church;"
-
We’re you aware cuм Ex was abrogated (more than once)?
Are you going to provide a source or just make a statement?
"We desire also that this docuмent of Ours be read in the presence of all in the first Congregations
usually held after the death of the Pontiff, as above (no. 12 a); again after entry into the
Conclave, as above (no. 51); likewise when anyone is raised to the dignity of the purple, after
having pledged a solemn oath to scrupulously preserve the things that have been decreed in the
present Constitution.
Notwithstanding any whatsoever Apostolic Constitutions and Orders to the contrary issued by
Our Predecessor Roman Pontiffs, which, to the extent it is necessary, We declare each and every
one to be abrogated, as above, and even other matters worthy of individual and special mention
and derogation.
Therefore, let it be permitted to no man to weaken this page of Our constitution, ordinance,
abrogation, commandment, binding order, warning, prohibition, precept, and will, or to go
against it by a rash undertaking. Moreover, if any one presumes to attempt this, let him know that
he will incur for it the anger of Almighty God and of the blessed Apostles Peter and Paul.
Given in Rome, at St. Peter’s, A.D. 1945, on the eighth day of December, on the feast of the
Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin Mary, in the seventh year of Our Pontificate." - Pope Pius XII, Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis
-
If that's the case, then we are dealing with bad-willed heretics who receive not the love of the truth... they are no different to the liberals who will dismiss evidence against the vaccine because the source isn't from the mainstream media. In this case it's bad-willed false trads who only accept Eleison comments or the Angelus or Fr. Wathen's sermons as a valid source...
Catholics who are bad willed heretics are guilty of mortal sin because they deny a dogma or dogmas. To be forgiven of this sin of heresy, the penitent must go to confession and receive absolution from the priest for this sin. Depending on the culpability and gravity of the sin, the nature of this sin makes this more unlikely to happen than with other mortal sins.
-
I'm going to keep saying it. Those of you who articulate R&R the way it's being done here on its thread [asserting that it's possible for the Catholic Magisterium and Catholic public worship to go corrupt, to become non-Catholic, and to lead souls to hell], you promote heresy and blaspheme Holy Mother Church. I'm not going to mince any words about your impious filth. You are enemies of the faith, not its defenders, and you are little better than Protestants, Old Catholics, and Eastern Orthodox.
You can keep quibbling about the limits of infallibility-in-the-strict sense or about papa haereticus ipso facto depositus this or ab ecclesia deponendus that, but I care little about that debate. Those are merely details that may offer explanations for HOW this happened. I care only about your grave error (heresy) and blasphemy.
Your definition of Magisterium is NO and not what the popes you quoted mean. It has been repeatedly explained to you and the other sedes, heck, Pax did an excellent post on this so you really have no excuse for your complete obtuseness.
Perhaps one day you will stop viewing the whole mess through the lenses of an empty chair, but unless or until that happens, your conundrum will remain.
-
Do I need to quote the canonist Morato again? “Heretics and schismatics are barred from the Supreme Pontificate by the divine law itself, because, although by divine law they are not considered incapable of participating in certain types of ecclesiastical jurisdiction, nevertheless, they must certainly be regarded as excluded from occupying the throne of the Apostolic See…”
Which Divine Law? Not one person has ever told us the Divine Law. Even Fr. Cekada could not tell us - can you?
-
I'll go one further and say that they don't have the Catholic faith. And I say this because their entire position revolves around maintaining the erroneous position of Lefebvre, who only held the position that he did because things weren't as clear then as they are now. They're Lefebvrists, not Catholics. Which is why they won't admit any of the clear proof you can throw at them about heresy and the loss of office, or the indefectibility of the Church, because they don't have the faith. They will do everything possible to wriggle out of admitting that the See is vacant, up to the point of calling the Spotless Bride of Christ a whore, just so they have a name to pop into the Te Igitur at their Sunday Mass.
Where's that Bingo card?
These folks have lost their sensus Catholicus.
-
I'll go one further and say that they don't have the Catholic faith. And I say this because their entire position revolves around maintaining the erroneous position of Lefebvre, who only held the position that he did because things weren't as clear then as they are now.
I disagree with your characterization of Archbishop Lefebvre's position. This particular articulation of R&R is decidedly NOT what Archbishop Lefebvre held. He disagrees with their major premise that the Catholic Church and the Papacy could become this corrupt. I'll find the speech he gave on that matter (I transcribed it from audio at one point here). +Lefebvre was open to sedevacantism and considered it a real possibility. He merely held back from openly declaring the See vacant out of deference to the Church's authority. That is in fact a legitimate criticism of SVism, that your average Aunt Helen Catholic is in no position to declare the See vacant, nor is a simple priest, and arguably even a single bishop. Archbishop Lefebvre kept saying that SVism is possible and could very well one day by "confirmed by the Church." So his reasoning was more along the lines of: "This is merely my personal opinion but I don't really have the authority to settle the matter." Archbishop Lefebvre repeatedly stated that the Conciliar Church lacks the Marks of the Holy Catholic Church, i.e. that it's a new religion, and that those marks were with the Traditional Catholics. That too is a point that this cadre of R&R deny.
Unfortunately, the hesitation of Archbishop Lefebvre did ultimately morph into this modern notion of R&R that is not recognizable as Catholic, but it's not a position that he himself held, despite the claims of these R&Rers themselves, always claiming that they are the true followers of +Lefebvre. They're not.
-
DL, see here:
https://www.cathinfo.com/crisis-in-the-church/sedevacantistsif-you-were-convinced-sede-ism-was-wrong-what-would-you-do-next/msg706856/#msg706856
Here's the most important quote that those who falsely claim to be followers of Archbishop Lefebvre deny, and it's my primary problem with them. Those who deny this promote heresy and blasphemy, but Archbishop Lefebvre did not deny this at all.
Archbishop Lefebvre:
ultimately I agree with you; it's not possible that the Pope, who is protected by the Holy Ghost, could do things like this. There we agree; it's not possible, it doesn't fit, this destruction of the Church ...
Whether someone believes that the Holy See was impeded (e.g. the Siri theorists, of whom I count myself as one), that it was vacant simpliciter, that it was vacant formally but materially occupied, that it was impounded (Fr. Chazal), or - heck - even that Montini was replaced by a double, an imposter (as we know Sister Lucy was), or drugged or not free because he was being blackmailed over sodomy ... I don't really care what theory one holds, as long as one does not deny the quote from Archbishop Lefebvre above. THAT is my problem, and I am so sick and tired of people claiming to be Catholics rejecting this dogmatic truth, and in reality being no better than Old Catholics ... and little better than Eastern Orthodox or even Protestants.
-
Here's the audio that I first hear when Father Ringrose posted it after having become SV.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RzvNrX-FTyk
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DqgcCujfQF0
-
DL, see here:
https://www.cathinfo.com/crisis-in-the-church/sedevacantistsif-you-were-convinced-sede-ism-was-wrong-what-would-you-do-next/msg706856/#msg706856
Here's the most important quote that those who falsely claim to be followers of Archbishop Lefebvre deny, and it's my primary problem with them. Those who deny this promote heresy and blasphemy, but Archbishop Lefebvre did not deny this at all.
Archbishop Lefebvre:
Whether someone believes that the Holy See was impeded (e.g. the Siri theorists, of whom I count myself as one), that it was vacant simpliciter, that it was vacant formally but materially occupied, that it was impounded (Fr. Chazal), or - heck - even that Montini was replaced by a double, an imposter (as we know Sister Lucy was), or drugged or not free because he was being blackmailed over sodomy ... I don't really care what theory one holds, as long as one does not deny the quote from Archbishop Lefebvre above. THAT is my problem, and I am so sick and tired of people claiming to be Catholics rejecting this dogmatic truth, and in reality being no better than Old Catholics ... and little better than Eastern Orthodox or even Protestants.
Yes, I've seen that, I've seen the quotes of Lefebvre that fit both R&R and Sedevacantism, which just shows that he simply did not have the proper evidence at that time to make a firm decision one way or the other. Therefore, he can be excused because of the limited information before him. But these Lefebvrists that have followed him do not have that same excuse because both Antipopes after JPII have repeated his apostasy and heresies.
As a side note, one glaring issue I see with Fr. Chazal's position is that it goes against Vatican I, denies papal infallibility and bifurcates the papacy, separating the Pope from his Supreme authority. These same problems come up with Cassiciacuм (material-formal thesis) as well. If he is the legitimate Pope, then he has the full power of his office, he cannot be "impounded" as John of St. Thomas (an R&R favorite) taught nor can the office be merely "materially" occupied, but not formally, because to have one is to have the other. But I digress.
-
"We desire also that this docuмent of Ours be read in the presence of all in the first Congregations
usually held after the death of the Pontiff, as above (no. 12 a); again after entry into the
Conclave, as above (no. 51); likewise when anyone is raised to the dignity of the purple, after
having pledged a solemn oath to scrupulously preserve the things that have been decreed in the
present Constitution.
Notwithstanding any whatsoever Apostolic Constitutions and Orders to the contrary issued by
Our Predecessor Roman Pontiffs, which, to the extent it is necessary, We declare each and every
one to be abrogated, as above, and even other matters worthy of individual and special mention
and derogation.
Therefore, let it be permitted to no man to weaken this page of Our constitution, ordinance,
abrogation, commandment, binding order, warning, prohibition, precept, and will, or to go
against it by a rash undertaking. Moreover, if any one presumes to attempt this, let him know that
he will incur for it the anger of Almighty God and of the blessed Apostles Peter and Paul.
Given in Rome, at St. Peter’s, A.D. 1945, on the eighth day of December, on the feast of the
Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin Mary, in the seventh year of Our Pontificate." - Pope Pius XII, Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis
Crickets. Loud, loud crickets.
-
As a side note, one glaring issue I see with Fr. Chazal's position is that it goes against Vatican I, denies papal infallibility and bifurcates the papacy, separating the Pope from his Supreme authority. These same problems come up with Cassiciacuм (material-formal thesis) as well. If he is the legitimate Pope, then he has the full power of his office, he cannot be "impounded" as John of St. Thomas (an R&R favorite) taught nor can the office be merely "materially" occupied, but not formally, because to have one is to have the other. But I digress.
I disagree. Distinctions between different aspects of the papal authority are not "bifurcations". That's not what Vatican I was talking about. It was talking about the error of distinguishing between the person of the pope and his papal authority.
This distinction of the material vs. formal aspects of the papal office can be found in St. Robert Bellarmine.
One good illustration is this. Let's say a layman were elected pope, and he accepts. He has the designation to office but he cannot exercise aspects of that office. Not being a cleric, he cannot have jurisdiction over the the Church (e.g. tell bishops, priests, and other clerics what to do). So the next day he's ordained to the priesthood. That then allows him to exercise certain aspects of the papal authority, such as making appointments or other decisions. But he's still not fully pope at that point, since one must be a BISHOP. Nor can he exercise TEACHING authority, which is the most crucial aspect of the papacy, because only bishops are part of the Ecclesia Docens (the teaching Church). Let's say this priest-pope refused to be consecrated a bishop. That would, according to theologians, constitute a tacit resignation from office, because the essence of the papacy requires being a bishop, and this would signal intent not to accept the papal office.
Papacy is absolutely unique in the Church. Bishops and priests all derive their authority from the pope. But the pope receives his authority directly from God. All the Church does is to DESIGNATE the person they have chosen to receive said authority, but their election does not formally imbue him with authority (whereas a papal appointment DOES imbue the bishops with their authority). So the election is the material aspect of the papacy, whereas the granting of authority in response to this election or designation by the Church is the FORMAL aspect of his authority. For bishops and lower, the two are inseparable. Bishops receive authority directly through their designation and selection by the Pope. But the papacy is the one office where the material aspect of election is clearly separate from the formal aspect of their receiving authority.
-
If he is the legitimate Pope, then he has the full power of his office ...
If he is the FORMALLY legitimate Pope, then he has the full power of office. Cf. my earlier distinction of the layman pope-elect. He's certainly the Pope (in one respect) as soon as he accepts. But until he's ordained and then consecrated, he cannot fully exercise the papal office. He could probably start exercising the material or temporal aspects of the office, such as making appointments, relieving others of duty, etc. But he cannot fully command and certainly cannot teach in the Church until he becomes a bishop, since episcopacy is essential to being the pope, the Bishop of Rome. So the elected layman would be pope in one respect but not pope (yet) in another.
In any case, I'm a strong believer in the Siri explanation for what happened.
But, as I said, at the end of the day, I don't really care about the details of the explanation, since it's all private judgment opinion. I only care about those who claim that a fully/formally legitimate pope (vs. a pope-elect) can destroy the Church by use of the papal authority, which is protected by the Holy Spirit. That's largely why I've stayed out of this debate. I don't really care that much about the particulars. Maybe Paul VI was replaced by a double. Who knows, after the stunt they pulled with Sister Lucy? Perhaps he wasn't acting freely but was compelled by blackmail (that would render his acts null and void, since they weren't HIS free acts). There are any number of explanations ... as Archbishop Lefebvre himself mused in that video. But we cannot deny the principle which the Archbishop affirmed ... which is that the Church and the Papacy are GUIDED BY THE HOLY SPIRIT and are incapable of destroying the Church in the manner that we have witnessed.
We CAN rest assured in the dogmatic certainty that no "Pope" and no "Ecuмenical Council" did these things, but that "an enemy hath done this." But the mistake is to elevate the EXPLANATIONS and the PARTICULARS and DETAILS about the who, how, what, where, etc. to the same level as this dogmatic certainty. Nor do we have to care about the details. All we have to care about is -- Is the Conciliar Church the Catholic Church or is it not? And Archbishop Lefebvre was clear and definitive that it is not, but left the resolution of these particulars and details to eventual resolution by the Church. WAY TOO MUCH ink has been spilled on SVism vs. SPims vs. SIism (sede-impoundism), etc. That's a theological debate and will not be resolved definitively until the Church has been restored (if then). Heck, I don't have NEARLY as much a problem with the conservative Novus Ordites who uphold this same principle of the Church's indefectibility. I consider them to be materially mistaken in judging V2 and the NOM compatible with Catholicism. That's a mistake, and a far less grave error than attributing this disaster to Holy Mother Church.
That's why I have characterized myself as a DOGMATIC INDEFECTIBILIST, since the indefectibility and the holiness of the Church are dogmatic certainties. One can argue about the strict limits of infallibility or the "5 opinions" about what the disposition is of a heretical pope, and on and on. Mistake is to conflate the non-dogmatic explanations with the core dogmatic concern, the indefectibility and holiness of the Catholic Church.
-
I havent read the whole thread but bits and pieces and just thought to add that Pope St. Fabian I was a layman that was elected Pope.
-
I disagree. Distinctions between different aspects of the papal authority are not "bifurcations". That's not what Vatican I was talking about. It was talking about the error of distinguishing between the person of the pope and his papal authority.
This distinction of the material vs. formal aspects of the papal office can be found in St. Robert Bellarmine.
One good illustration is this. Let's say a layman were elected pope, and he accepts. He has the designation to office but he cannot exercise aspects of that office. Not being a cleric, he cannot have jurisdiction over the the Church (e.g. tell bishops, priests, and other clerics what to do). So the next day he's ordained to the priesthood. That then allows him to exercise certain aspects of the papal authority, such as making appointments or other decisions. But he's still not fully pope at that point, since one must be a BISHOP. Nor can he exercise TEACHING authority, which is the most crucial aspect of the papacy, because only bishops are part of the Ecclesia Docens (the teaching Church). Let's say this priest-pope refused to be consecrated a bishop. That would, according to theologians, constitute a tacit resignation from office, because the essence of the papacy requires being a bishop, and this would signal intent not to accept the papal office.
Papacy is absolutely unique in the Church. Bishops and priests all derive their authority from the pope. But the pope receives his authority directly from God. All the Church does is to DESIGNATE the person they have chosen to receive said authority, but their election does not formally imbue him with authority (whereas a papal appointment DOES imbue the bishops with their authority). So the election is the material aspect of the papacy, whereas the granting of authority in response to this election or designation by the Church is the FORMAL aspect of his authority. For bishops and lower, the two are inseparable. Bishops receive authority directly through their designation and selection by the Pope. But the papacy is the one office where the material aspect of election is clearly separate from the formal aspect of their receiving authority.
Is it settled that bishops receives their jurisdiction from the pope and not God? Fr. Salverri didn't think it was settled:
This question was raised in the Councils of Trent and Vatican I, but it was not decided. Several authors with Victoria and Vazquez have held that the jurisdiction is given immediately by God to the individual Bishops; but generally Catholic authors with St. Thomas , St. Bonaventure, St. Robert Bellarmine and Suarez hold that jurisdiction is given to the bishops not immediately by God but mediated through the Roman Pontiff. Pius XII teaches this opinion positively in the Encyclical, Mystici Corporis, when he says: "But the Bishops so far as their own diocese is concerned . . . are not completely independent but are subject to the proper authority of the Roman Pontiff, although they enjoy ordinary power of jurisdiction received directly from the Sovereign Pontiff himself." We think that his opinion is to be preferred.
Father Joachim Salverri's Sacrae Theologiae Summa, Volume 1B, On the Church of Christ/On Holy Scripture. Section 374, Scholium 2, ("On the mediate or immediate origin from God of the jurisdiction of Bishops")
If the papacy is not unique in the sense you think it is, perhaps there are some deep ramifications of that.
One ramification is that Pius XXII, as pope, speaking directly on a point in an encyclical still didn't settle a matter. Consider that "ramification" of what Fr. Salverri said.
-
Crickets. Loud, loud crickets.
Of course! It's not that it just does not fit the sede narrative, it is against the narrative, so, crickets.
I expect crickets on this too....
Do I need to quote the canonist Morato again? “Heretics and schismatics are barred from the Supreme Pontificate by the divine law itself...
Which Divine Law?
Not one person has ever told us the Divine Law. Even Fr. Cekada could not tell us - can you?
-
I'm going to keep saying it. Those of you who articulate R&R the way it's being done here on its thread [asserting that it's possible for the Catholic Magisterium and Catholic public worship to go corrupt, to become non-Catholic, and to lead souls to hell], you promote heresy and blaspheme Holy Mother Church. I'm not going to mince any words about your impious filth. You are enemies of the faith, not its defenders, and you are little better than Protestants, Old Catholics, and Eastern Orthodox.
You can keep quibbling about the limits of infallibility-in-the-strict sense or about papa haereticus ipso facto depositus this or ab ecclesia deponendus that, but I care little about that debate. Those are merely details that may offer explanations for HOW this happened. I care only about your grave error (heresy) and blasphemy.
Yeah, yeah, yeah, keep bloviating about the R & R heretics around here who are "little better than Protestants." You, who, on the basis of his private judgment - you see folks, Lad's read the Latin and connected all the dots of Trent on justification, he's compared the prior Magisterial statements with his exacting scrutiny, so no matter what just about every catechism and church theologian since Trent has said on the subject - reject the ordinary Magisterium teaching on baptism of desire as error, now tell us that we're "heretics" for rejecting the view of just about every theologian who has spoken on the subject (sound familiar?) of the indefectibility of - not the Church, mind you - but the pope and the bishops in union with him, which they (and you), recognize not only as the legitimate leaders of the Church (as we do), but effectively the Church itself . . .
Take a hike already.
You have the Ordinary Magisterium teaching error on how a man can be justified with God . . . thus making Holy Mother Church into a lying fraud about salvation (but hey, I guess that's not a "whore," right?). As our esteemed member, Mithrandylan (a reasonable Sedevacantist), has observed on the issue of salvation/justification (and specifically BOD as it relates) and the possibility of the Church being wrong about that:
It doesn't meet the criteria for an ex cathedra teaching, no. But that doesn't necessarily mean its liable to any kind of error. Soteriological error is just about (if not actually) the worst kind of error imaginable, since it pertains directly to what is necessary for the salvation of souls, and the salvation of souls is THE telos of the Church.
https://www.cathinfo.com/baptism-of-desire-and-feeneyism/singulari-quidem-66223/msg806416/#msg806416
But hey, you claim the ordinary Magisterium is wrong about justification by BOD, committing one of the "worst kind of errors imaginable," in error (isn't theological error like this at least a defect, expert one on indefectibiity?), teaching falsely, without being "enemies of the faith" like Prots, but we are such, who challenge an ordinary Magisterial teaching (likewise not ex cathedra) about indefectibility - assuming you're right about the teaching, which Stubborn, Pax and Sean have challenged. And you do it with such panache. Amazing.
I've pointed out your inconsistency on a number of issues, and you often avoid them, or like Falstaff in a confrontation in I believe Henry IV Part 1, you'll pull your sword out for effect and wave it around before disappearing from the conversation.
For the second time in this thread I say, Physician, heal thyself.
Or go ahead, keep accusing some R & R of being heretics, making Holy Mother Church a whore, etc. And I'll keep reminding everyone of your hypocrisy, you great windbag - who has called people around here, a lot of good people, a lot worse than that, with much less justice.
Stick it in your ear, hypocrite.
-
:sleep:
I have theological opinions like everyone else, and I've never claimed that every act of the Magisterium is inerrant or infallible, and yet on the question of EENS I deny that BoD/BoB have every been definitively taught by the Magisterium.
What I'm saying is pretty straightforward, that the Holy Catholic Church cannot transform into a brand new religion, with a novel theological system rooted in subjectivism and Modernist thinking and cannot adopt for its public worship a Rite of Mass that is doubtfully valid and certainly harmful to souls. In short, if the Church were capable of transforming into an entity from which Catholics feel bound in conscience to separate because it had become so corrupt in its doctrine and public worship, that's tantamount to a defection of the Church, which is undoubtedly a heretical proposition.
As for BoD, I've repeatedly said that in its Thomistic/Bellarmine form it's not harmful to the faith, but only in its distorted form that undermines the necessity of Catholic faith for salvation.
So you're idiotically straw-manning my position.
-
I've pointed out your inconsistency on a number of issues, and you often avoid them ...
That's only a product of your weak mind, perhaps corrupted by your bad will in blaspheming the Church. What you claim are inconsistencies and contradictions are due to your inability to grasp distinctions, as demonstrated clearly above where you're incapable of understanding the difference between Thomistic/Bellarminite BoD (which I've always held to be a tenable opinion ... with which I simply disagree) and Pelagian BoD, which undermines EENS dogma. As for the Magisterium, I've called out some of the dogmatic SVs for exaggerating the scope of strict infallibility. But there's an enormous chasm between saying that not everything taught by the Magisterium is strictly infallible or irreformable and claiming that the Catholic Church has gone so corrupt that we are required by our Catholic conscience to have nothing to do with it.
-
That's only a product of your weak mind, perhaps corrupted by your bad will in blaspheming the Church. What you claim are inconsistencies and contradictions are due to your inability to grasp distinctions, as demonstrated clearly above where you're incapable of understanding the difference between Thomistic/Bellarminite BoD (which I've always held to be a tenable opinion ... with which I simply disagree) and Pelagian BoD, which undermines EENS dogma. As for the Magisterium, I've called out some of the dogmatic SVs for exaggerating the scope of strict infallibility. But there's an enormous chasm between saying that not everything taught by the Magisterium is strictly infallible or irreformable and claiming that the Catholic Church has gone so corrupt that we are required by our Catholic conscience to have nothing to do with it.
I thought you believed that it was necessary to receive the sacrament of baptism - note, receive the water of the sacrament, the actual sacrament itself - to be saved. Don't you? I'd love to her if it's otherwise; please clarify.
The Magisterium doesn't teach that, prominent examples being the Catechism of Trent and the Catechism of Pius X. Of course, I'll imagine you'll go down the road of either saying the Catechism of Trent or the Catechism of Pius X don't teach contrary to you about salvation, or attack the genuineness of the Pius X catechism. Which would, again, savor of hypocrisy if you did, since you attack Stubborn for his reading (contrary to most, as would be your reading of Trent and the Pius X catechism) of your papal quotes on indefectibility.
As noted in my quote of Mithrandylan about salvation being the "telos" of the Church, her failure (according to you) to teach accurately about a matter involving salvation - since you can't, per Lad (or please correct me), be saved without receipt of the sacrament - is hardly "harmless," don't you think? In any event, your quotes about "indefectibility" don't say anything about allowing "harmless" error - they say the Church is "spotless" in her teaching, etc. They say, free from error in her ordinary Magisterial teaching, period. So, nice try there. Anyway, this "error" about BOD and justification/salvation is not only a "spot" in her teachings, but quite a whopping error about who can be saved and how - if Lad, and not the Magisterium, is right - more like a bullseye with "defectible" in the center.
So please do enlighten us about your agreement vel non about the "harmless," indefectible error of the Magisterium regarding BOD: is it possible to be saved without actual physical receipt of the sacrament of baptism?
Btw, the Catechism of Pius X even talks about an "implicit BOD," well beyond your Thomistic/Bellarmine distinction. Indeed, I think St. Thomas even mentions the possibility of an implicit BOD. And we know where this "harmless" error has gone in the hands of the likes of even as distinguished a bishop like Archbishop Lefebvre, don't we? Your view of "indefectibility" certainly didn't prevent some of the greatest churchmen we have in this crisis - I can go on to Bishop Sanborn, etc., but we don't need to go down the list - from teaching really harmful stuff regarding baptism . . . I guess we could agree on that at least.
Your distinction between I guess what you would call one wheel off the rails and totally off the rails is not very convincing, since, again, the teaching on indefectibilty is no error in official Magisterial teaching, not no "harmful" error in official Magisterial teaching, on matters of theology, and this one, again (BOD), involves the "telos" of the Church. The predominant teaching, the overwhelming view on indefectibility which you cite and espouse, says no error in the teaching of the Gospel of Christ, not "can teach theological error regarding the Gospel, but it won't hurt you in the long run."
Nice try, though.
-
I read it, the whole refutation is based off the very first item, which is itself error.... "As we’ve already shown, it’s a dogma that 1) heretics are not members of the Church;"
How is this error? Do you believe heretics can be members of the Church?
-
I disagree.
Lad, do you not think Fr. Chazal's "impounded Pope" position is condemned in the following?
Pope Pius IX, Vatican I, 1870, Sess. 4, chap. 3, ex cathedra: If anyone thus speaks, that the Roman Pontiff has only the office of inspection or direction, but not the full and supreme power of jurisdiction over the universal Church, not only in things which pertain to faith and morals, but also in those which pertain to the discipline and government of the Church spread over the whole world; or, that he possesses only the more important parts, but not the whole plenitude of this supreme power; or that this power of his is not ordinary and immediate, or over the churches altogether and individually, and over the pastors and the faithful altogether and individually: let him be anathema.
-
I read it, the whole refutation is based off the very first item, which is itself error.... "As we’ve already shown, it’s a dogma that 1) heretics are not members of the Church;"
Your rejection of that point is heresy in itself. Proving you don't even know what you're talking about.
Pope Innocent IV, First Council of Lyons, 1245: “The civil law declares that those are to be regarded as heretics, and ought to be subject to the sentences issued against them, who even on slight evidence are found to have strayed from the judgment and path of the Catholic religion.”
Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum (# 3), June 29, 1896: “You are not to be looked upon as holding the true Catholic faith if you do not teach that the faith of Rome is to be held.”
(#9)
“The practice of the Church has always been the same, and that with the consenting judgment [i.e. consensus] of the holy fathers who certainly were accustomed to hold as having no part of Catholic communion and as banished from the Church whoever had departed in even the least way from the doctrine proposed by the authentic Magisterium.”
Pope Pius XII, Mystici Corporis Christi (# 23), June 29, 1943: “For not every offense, although it may be a grave evil, is such as by its very own nature [suapte natura] to sever a man from the Body of the Church [ab Ecclesiae Corpore], as does schism or heresy or apostasy.”
Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, Bull "Cantate Domino," 1441, ex cathedra: “It [the Holy Roman Church] condemns, rejects and anathematizes all thinking opposed and contrary things, and declares them to be aliens from the Body of Christ, which is the Church.”
Canon 1325.2: “After the reception of baptism, if anyone, retaining the name Christian, pertinaciously denies or doubts something to be believed from the truth of divine and Catholic faith, [such a one is] a heretic; if he completely turns away from the Christian faith, [such a one is] an apostate; if finally he refuses to be under the Supreme Pontiff or refuses communion with the members of the Church subject to him, he is a schismatic.”
-
The Magisterium doesn't teach that, prominent examples being the Catechism of Trent and the Catechism of Pius X.
Those catechisms are not the Magisterium! They are fallible docuмents and must be rejected in as much as the Magisterium teaches to the contrary (which it does on baptism). Here is what the Magisterium teaches on the sacrament of Baptism: Pope Paul III, The Council of Trent, Sess. 7, Can. 5 on the Sacrament of Baptism, ex cathedra: “If anyone says that baptism [the Sacrament] is optional, that is, not necessary for salvation (cf. Jn. 3:5): let him be anathema.”
-
How is this error? Do you believe heretics can be members of the Church?
I answered you in this post:
Catholics who are bad willed heretics are guilty of mortal sin because they deny a dogma or dogmas. To be forgiven of this sin of heresy, the penitent must go to confession and receive absolution from the priest for this sin. Depending on the culpability and gravity of the sin, the nature of this sin makes this more unlikely to happen than with other mortal sins.
-
I answered you in this post:
Heretics are already considered bad-willed because of their heresy. If you're stretching "material heresy" beyond merely error on the part of an otherwise good-willed Catholic, then you are just wrong.
Pope Innocent IV, First Council of Lyons, 1245:
“The civil law declares that those are to be regarded as heretics, and ought to be subject to the sentences issued against them, who even on slight evidence are found to have strayed from the judgment and path of the Catholic religion.”
-
Your rejection of that point is heresy in itself. Proving you don't even know what you're talking about.
Pope Innocent IV, First Council of Lyons, 1245: “The civil law declares that those are to be regarded as heretics, and ought to be subject to the sentences issued against them, who even on slight evidence are found to have strayed from the judgment and path of the Catholic religion.”
Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum (# 3), June 29, 1896: “You are not to be looked upon as holding the true Catholic faith if you do not teach that the faith of Rome is to be held.”
(#9)
“The practice of the Church has always been the same, and that with the consenting judgment [i.e. consensus] of the holy fathers who certainly were accustomed to hold as having no part of Catholic communion and as banished from the Church whoever had departed in even the least way from the doctrine proposed by the authentic Magisterium.”
Pope Pius XII, Mystici Corporis Christi (# 23), June 29, 1943: “For not every offense, although it may be a grave evil, is such as by its very own nature [suapte natura] to sever a man from the Body of the Church [ab Ecclesiae Corpore], as does schism or heresy or apostasy.”
Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, Bull "Cantate Domino," 1441, ex cathedra: “It [the Holy Roman Church] condemns, rejects and anathematizes all thinking opposed and contrary things, and declares them to be aliens from the Body of Christ, which is the Church.”
Canon 1325.2: “After the reception of baptism, if anyone, retaining the name Christian, pertinaciously denies or doubts something to be believed from the truth of divine and Catholic faith, [such a one is] a heretic; if he completely turns away from the Christian faith, [such a one is] an apostate; if finally he refuses to be under the Supreme Pontiff or refuses communion with the members of the Church subject to him, he is a schismatic.”
Sorry DL, it is you who do not know what you are talking about. As for me personally, I absolutely, completely and 100% agree, and submit too and with all the above teachings (except #9 Satis Cognitum, see below), and would have bolded the same text if I would have posted them.
Not sure where you got #9 Satis Cognitum from, that is a bad quote as it does appear that way in any version of Satis Cognitum that I can find - -did you get it from the Dimonds? They've always been notorious for purposely misquoting so as to suit their narrative.
I can only find this for #9: "The practice of the Church has always been the same, as is shown by the unanimous teaching of the Fathers, who were wont to hold as outside Catholic communion, and alien to the Church, whoever would recede in the least degree from any point of doctrine proposed by her authoritative Magisterium."
As for #3 Satis Cognitum, the pope(s) fully believes that he teaches the faith of Rome.
-
Sorry DL, it is you who do not know what you are talking about. As for me personally, I absolutely, completely and 100% agree, and submit too and with all the above teachings (except #9 Satis Cognitum, see below), and would have bolded the same text if I would have posted them.
Not sure where you got #9 Satis Cognitum from, that is a bad quote as it does appear that way in any version of Satis Cognitum that I can find - -did you get it from the Dimonds? They've always been notorious for purposely misquoting so as to suit their narrative.
I can only find this for #9: "The practice of the Church has always been the same, as is shown by the unanimous teaching of the Fathers, who were wont to hold as outside Catholic communion, and alien to the Church, whoever would recede in the least degree from any point of doctrine proposed by her authoritative Magisterium."
Your quote literally says the same thing as their quote. It doesn't mean anything different simply because they use "banished" instead of "alien". Both terms mean outside, foreign, not a part of. The fact that you're now sinking to criticizing a divergence in translation of both shows that you are trying to avoid the clear message: heretics are outside of the Church. They are not Catholics.
As for #3 Satis Cognitum, the pope(s) fully believes that he teaches the faith of Rome.
The so-called Pope's personal belief that he teaches the faith of Rome still doesn't change the objective fact of his heresies and apostasy. You're either less intelligent than you make yourself out to be, or, you know this and are of such a bad will that you don't care because it does not fit your heresy that heretics are part of the Church.
-
Heretics are already considered bad-willed because of their heresy. If you're stretching "material heresy" beyond merely error on the part of an otherwise good-willed Catholic, then you are just wrong.
Pope Innocent IV, First Council of Lyons, 1245:
“The civil law declares that those are to be regarded as heretics, and ought to be subject to the sentences issued against them, who even on slight evidence are found to have strayed from the judgment and path of the Catholic religion.”
Of course ALL those who who preach contrary to Catholic doctrine, regardless of who is doing the preaching are absolutely and certainly to be regarded as heretics - no sense arguing that point further since we all agree with this truth. Ok?
The issue is not who is a heretic because presumably, we all agree the that all of the conciliar popes were all heretics, including the current pope, pope Francis.
-
Your quote literally says the same thing as their quote. It doesn't mean anything different simply because they use "banished" instead of "alien". Both terms mean outside, foreign, not a part of. The fact that you're now sinking to criticizing a divergence in translation of both shows that you are trying to avoid the clear message: heretics are outside of the Church. They are not Catholics.
Where did you get that quote? That's the question.
-
Of course ALL those who who preach contrary to Catholic doctrine, regardless of who is doing the preaching are absolutely and certainly to be regarded as heretics - no sense arguing that point further since we all agree with this truth. Ok?
The issue is not who is a heretic because presumably, we all agree the that all of the conciliar popes were all heretics, including the current pope, pope Francis.
Yes, so tell me then, if Francis is a heretic, how can he hold ANY office IN the Church if he is outside the body?
How can he COMMAND in the Church if he is outside of it? (Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum)
Where did you get that quote? That's the question.
From MHFM, I'm drawing from the links I provided earlier in the thread. Again, just because they use a different translation (or even maybe translated it themselves) does not change the fact that they say the same exact thing.
-
The so-called Pope's personal belief that he teaches the faith of Rome still doesn't change the objective fact of his heresies and apostasy. You're either less intelligent than you make yourself out to be, or, you know this and are of such a bad will that you don't care because it does not fit your heresy that heretics are part of the Church.
You are wrong on both accounts. I will attempt to explain....
My presumption is that since you quoted Pope Pius XII, Mystici Corporis Christi (# 23), you agree that:
Heresy is a mortal sin.
We know that all mortal sin severs from the Church, i.e adultery, murder, pride, and so on - but as PPXII said, due to it's nature, none sever like the mortal sin of heresy, (and apostacy and schism). Pope Pius XII is talking about the nature of the sin. Obviously you will agree the nature of the sin of heresy makes this sin the worst or among the worst.
The Church always calls upon all of her children to confess their mortal sins, do penance and amend their life.
For the Catholic who has fallen into mortal sin, (in this case the mortal sin of heresy), like all Catholics, he can receive the Sacrament of Penance and his mortal sin of heresy will be forgiven. Certainly the Catholic who fell into the mortal sin of heresy is in a much more serious spiritual condition than the Catholic who is in the state of lesser mortal sin, but neither is in the woeful condition of those who are outside the Church for the simple fact that one who is not a Catholic cannot receive the Sacraments.
I completely realize this truth is contrary to what sedes think, and in order to maintain your deep seated belief, you will need to deny the above truth - so let's hear it.
edit to add....I will be back later, real life is calling.
-
You are wrong on both accounts. I will attempt to explain....
My presumption is that since you quoted Pope Pius XII, Mystici Corporis Christi (# 23), you agree that:
Heresy is a mortal sin.
We know that all mortal sin severs from the Church, i.e adultery, murder, pride, and so on - but as PPXII said, due to it's nature, none sever like the mortal sin of heresy, (and apostacy and schism). Pope Pius XII is talking about the nature of the sin. Obviously you will agree the nature of the sin of heresy makes this sin the worst or among the worst.
The Church always calls upon all of her children to confess their mortal sins, do penance and amend their life.
For the Catholic who has fallen into mortal sin, (in this case the mortal sin of heresy), like all Catholics, he can receive the Sacrament of Penance and his mortal sin of heresy will be forgiven. Certainly the Catholic who fell into the mortal sin of heresy is in a much more serious spiritual condition than the Catholic who is in the state of lesser mortal sin, but neither is in the woeful condition of those who are outside the Church for the simple fact that one who is not a Catholic cannot receive the Sacraments.
I completely realize this truth is contrary to what sedes think, and in order to maintain your deep seated belief, you will need to deny the above truth - so let's hear it.
edit to add....I will be back later, real life is calling.
Wow, I am utterly astounded at your attempt to skirt around the issue here. The problem is not that heretics cannot repent and go to confession, but pertinacious heretics (those without any repentance whatsoever, such as your "Popes") because they believe they are right (like yourself) remain firmly outside of the Church and lose all office and authority as has been shown thousands of times.
Your "Popes" remain pertinacious and therefore outside of the sheepfold, therefore, again, cannot command or possess any Catholic office.
By your explanation Lutherans, Calivinists, Methodists, Eastern "Orthodox" et all are Catholics because they can renounce their heresy and return to the Church. Which is literally what the Modernist heretics teach.
Your anti-logic also implies that schismatics and apostates, who have been baptized (as only the baptized can be heretics, apostates and schismatics), cannot repent and enter the Church as well. Your point doesn't make sense because you're being entirely dishonest and don't have the truth.
-
Stubborn twists Pius XII around to be saying the EXACT OPPOSITE of what he actually meant and then has the audacity to accuse the sedes of distorting it.
What Pius XII is saying is precisely that Heresy and Schism are NOT LIKE other mortal sin. Stubborn falsely alleges that "all mortal sin severs from the Church". That's a blatant lie and the opposite of what Pius XII was teaching. "Ordinary" (aka non-heresy/schism) mortal sin deprives the soul of life and makes the sinner a DEAD member of the Church, but he remains a member just the same. With Heresy and Schism, these sins, unlike the other mortal sins, DO sever from the BODY of the Church.
Dead members of the Church continue to be part of the body of the Church and therefore can exercise authority and jurisdiction. Non-members, such as those severed by heresy and schism, CANNOT exercise authority in the Church.
This is absolutely astonishing that Stubborn twists Pius XII into saying the exact opposite of what he was actually teaching.
Will his fellow R&R have the honesty to correct his malicious stupidity?
-
Wow, I am utterly astounded at your attempt to skirt around the issue here.
That's not doing it justice. He tries to warp Pius XII into saying the exact opposite of what he actually taught.
-
Manifest Heretics in the external forum are required to make an abjuration of heresy before they can be admitted back to the Sacraments. Those who commit heresy in the internal forum (e.g. occult heretics) can simply go to Confession. In terms of membership in the Church, there's a huge difference between a manifest heretic and an occult heretic. Occult heresy, as per St. Robert Bellarmine, does not sever from the Church, whereas manifest heresy does.
-
Wow, I am utterly astounded at your attempt to skirt around the issue here. The problem is not that heretics cannot repent and go to confession, but pertinacious heretics (those without any repentance whatsoever, such as your "Popes") because they believe they are right (like yourself) remain firmly outside of the Church and lose all office and authority as has been shown thousands of times.
Your "Popes" remain pertinacious and therefore outside of the sheepfold, therefore, again, cannot command or possess any Catholic office.
By your explanation Lutherans, Calivinists, Methodists, Eastern "Orthodox" et all are Catholics because they can renounce their heresy and return to the Church. Which is literally what the Modernist heretics teach.
No, I am not skirting around the issue, I am merely pointing out your errors, errors which you rely on to support your narrative.
First you said (https://www.cathinfo.com/crisis-in-the-church/bergolio-says-there-many-restorers-in-usa-who-do-not-accept-vatican-ii/msg830688/#msg830688) "heretics are outside of the Church. They are not Catholics." This is false as I just showed you - and apparently you now agree? - because now you just said above: "The problem is not that heretics cannot repent and go to confession..."
If they've never had the faith, then Lutherans, Calivinists, Methodists, Eastern "Orthodox" et all are *not* Catholics, so no, they are not permitted to go to confession because those heretics are outside of the Church.
So knowing that only Catholics can use the sacrament of confession, can Catholics guilty of the mortal sin of heresy and want to repent go to confession or not?
Your anti-logic also implies that schismatics and apostates, who have been baptized (as only the baptized can be heretics, apostates and schismatics), cannot repent and enter the Church as well. Your point doesn't make sense because you're being entirely dishonest and don't have the truth.
Again, you are off the mark. It is the Church's logic that says one who is Catholic - which of course means one who is baptized and believes all the Church teaches and believes in the Church - and who commits the mortal sins of heresy will be forgiven of those sins in the Sacrament of Penance if he wants to repent of those sins. Indeed, the Church urges all Catholics who fall into whatever mortal sin, including the sin of heresy, to get to confession because they must go to confession if they want to repent and be forgiven.
The problem is, as PPXII said, the nature of the sins of heresy. Due to the nature of this sin it will be very unlikely for the heretic to even think about seeking forgiveness.
This is just basic Catholic truth, if it does not make sense to you then the truth does not make sense to you.
-
Stubborn twists Pius XII around to be saying the EXACT OPPOSITE of what he actually meant and then has the audacity to accuse the sedes of distorting it.
What Pius XII is saying is precisely that Heresy and Schism are NOT LIKE other mortal sin. Stubborn falsely alleges that "all mortal sin severs from the Church". That's a blatant lie and the opposite of what Pius XII was teaching. "Ordinary" (aka non-heresy/schism) mortal sin deprives the soul of life and makes the sinner a DEAD member of the Church, but he remains a member just the same. With Heresy and Schism, these sins, unlike the other mortal sins, DO sever from the BODY of the Church.
Dead members of the Church continue to be part of the body of the Church and therefore can exercise authority and jurisdiction. Non-members, such as those severed by heresy and schism, CANNOT exercise authority in the Church.
This is absolutely astonishing that Stubborn twists Pius XII into saying the exact opposite of what he was actually teaching.
Will his fellow R&R have the honesty to correct his malicious stupidity?
You're just desperate to maintain a vacant chair. Same o same o.
You are making PPXII to say what he does not say - you have him saying: "For no other sin, however grave it may be, is such as of its own nature to sever a man from the Body of the Church, as does schism or heresy or apostasy."
But that is not what he said. He said "For not every sin, however grave it may be..." Now, you, the great wind bag, purport to be a knowledgeable brainiac, so the question (you will never answer) is - in context, what does "For not every sin" mean?
This is absolutely astonishing that Lad twists Pius XII into saying the exact opposite of what he was actually teaching.
If sedes ever make it past that sentence, in the next sentence the pope goes on to say:
"Men may lose charity and divine grace through sin, thus becoming incapable of supernatural merit, and yet not be deprived of all life if they hold fast to faith and Christian hope, and if, illumined from above, they are spurred on by the interior promptings of the Holy Spirit to salutary fear and are moved to prayer and penance for their sins."
Which is to say that although all sinners lose charity and grace, it is possible for them to be moved to payer and penance for their sins. Even though it is apparent that heretics do not "hold fast to faith and Christian hope", Pope Pius XII does not exclude heretics from being moved to prayer and penance - it is you who exclude heretics from any possibility of repentance.
-
No, I am not skirting around the issue, I am merely pointing out your errors, errors which you rely on to support your narrative.
First you said (https://www.cathinfo.com/crisis-in-the-church/bergolio-says-there-many-restorers-in-usa-who-do-not-accept-vatican-ii/msg830688/#msg830688) "heretics are outside of the Church. They are not Catholics." This is false as I just showed you - and apparently you now agree? - because now you just said above: "The problem is not that heretics cannot repent and go to confession..."
If they've never had the faith, then Lutherans, Calivinists, Methodists, Eastern "Orthodox" et all are *not* Catholics, so no, they are not permitted to go to confession because those heretics are outside of the Church.
So knowing that only Catholics can use the sacrament of confession, can Catholics guilty of the mortal sin of heresy and want to repent go to confession or not?
Again, you are off the mark. It is the Church's logic that says one who is Catholic - which of course means one who is baptized and believes all the Church teaches and believes in the Church - and who commits the mortal sins of heresy will be forgiven of those sins in the Sacrament of Penance if he wants to repent of those sins. Indeed, the Church urges all Catholics who fall into whatever mortal sin, including the sin of heresy, to get to confession because they must go to confession if they want to repent and be forgiven.
The problem is, as PPXII said, the nature of the sins of heresy. Due to the nature of this sin it will be very unlikely for the heretic to even think about seeking forgiveness.
This is just basic Catholic truth, if it does not make sense to you then the truth does not make sense to you.
:facepalm: Says the guy who is literally arguing that heretics are still inside the Church. To be inside the Church is to be Catholic, what I originally said still stands.
You need to go think a little more thoroughly about what you're saying
-
Manifest Heretics in the external forum are required to make an abjuration of heresy before they can be admitted back to the Sacraments. Those who commit heresy in the internal forum (e.g. occult heretics) can simply go to Confession. In terms of membership in the Church, there's a huge difference between a manifest heretic and an occult heretic. Occult heresy, as per St. Robert Bellarmine, does not sever from the Church, whereas manifest heresy does.
Another Ladism used in desperation to maintain a vacant chair.
The Abjuration of Heresy is used primarily for adult converts seeking to enter the Church prior to their baptism or conditional baptism. Otherwise, it is not a requirement - unless specifically required by the official censure itself, or the pope or bishop or confessor requires it. Look it up.
A public abjuration may (or may not) be the prudent thing to do, but it is not the law, nor is a public abjuration found anywhere in the sacrament of penance's formula for absolution.
-
:facepalm: Says the guy who is literally arguing that heretics are still inside the Church. To be inside the Church is to be Catholic, what I originally said still stands.
You need to go think a little more thoroughly about what you're saying
So knowing that only Catholics can use the sacrament of confession, can Catholics guilty of the mortal sin of heresy and want to repent go to confession or not?
This is not a trick question, it is actually a VERY basic question that any 8 year old Catholic could answer in the blink of an eye. But because you know that the answer is completely against the whole idea of sedeism, you will find it all but impossible to give the true and simple answer. And also, I would love to be proven wrong on this.
In case of replies, I'll be back in the morning.
-
So knowing that only Catholics can use the sacrament of confession, can Catholics guilty of the mortal sin of heresy and want to repent go to confession or not?
This is not a trick question, it is actually a VERY basic question that any 8 year old Catholic could answer in the blink of an eye. But because you know that the answer is completely against the whole idea of sedeism, you will find it all but impossible to give the true and simple answer. And also, I would love to be proven wrong on this.
In case of replies, I'll be back in the morning.
Heretics are outside of the Church until they repent (i.e. repudiate their errors and convert). I don't see how I ever said that wasn't the case. You're trying to twist my position into a contradiction where one doesn't exist.
You know you're wrong, that's why you're resorting to insulting my intelligence. Go right ahead. I'm not the one holding to a contradictory position here like the heretical and schismatic R&R position you hold.
-
You're just desperate to maintain a vacant chair.
No, I'm just capable of reading English. You're the one who butchers Pius XII to say the exact opposite of what he teaches ... in a desperate attempt to save your heretical brand of R&R. Heresy tends to do that ... wreak havoc on your rational faculties, which are clearly impaired.
-
Catholics who are bad willed heretics
When will you get it through your thick head that there is no such thing as a "Catholic heretic"? If a Catholic commits the sin of heresy, he ceases to be a Catholic and loses his membership in the Church!
Pope Innocent III, Eius exemplo, Dec. 18, 1208: “By the heart we believe and by the mouth we confess the one Church, not of heretics, but the Holy Roman, Catholic, and Apostolic Church outside of which we believe that no one is saved.”
You don't confess the one Church, not of heretics, therefore the logical conclusion is that you yourself are a heretic!
Pope Pius XII, Mystici Corporis Christi (# 22), June 29, 1943, addressed to the universal Church: “Actually only those are to be included as members of the Church who have received the laver of regeneration and profess the true faith…”
You hold that a manifest heretic can be a member of the Church!
If someone repents of their heresy, and accepts the Catholic Faith again, then they are once again a Catholic and can be absolved with the sacrament of Penance. They may even be justified before receiving the sacrament, through perfect contrition. That is not to say a heretic can receive the sacraments. If he renounces his heresy, then he is no longer a heretic. This is so basic that a five year old could grasp it. It shows how bad-will and obstinacy in error can completely blind someone's intellect.
-
When will you get it through your thick head that there is no such thing as a "Catholic heretic"? If a Catholic commits the sin of heresy, he ceases to be a Catholic and loses his membership in the Church!
To lose membership in the Church the heresy must be manifest. Occult sin of heresy does not exclude one from membership in the Church ... according to St. Robert Bellarmine.
I’ve long ago stopped arguing with Stubborn about this issue. His mind is so warped that the logic is too badly twisted and can’t be unraveled.
Among other things, he holds that the Magisterium is inerrant, but only because when there’s error it’s no longer Magisterium. So he turns the inerrancy of the Magisterium into a tautology. He defines Magisterium as only the Traditional teaching, so that the Magisterium is always Traditional. It’s mind-boggling in its insanity. So I’ve stopped wasting my time debating him. Heresy has warped his brain.
-
Heretics are outside of the Church until they repent (i.e. repudiate their errors and convert). I don't see how I ever said that wasn't the case. You're trying to twist my position into a contradiction where one doesn't exist.
You know you're wrong, that's why you're resorting to insulting my intelligence. Go right ahead. I'm not the one holding to a contradictory position here like the heretical and schismatic R&R position you hold.
I really was hoping that you would simply answer the question, instead, look ^^ what you reply with.
-
I’ve long ago stopped arguing with Stubborn about this issue. His mind is so warped that the logic is too badly twisted and can’t be unraveled.
Among other things, he holds that the Magisterium is inerrant, but only because when there’s error it’s no longer Magisterium. So he turns the inerrancy of the Magisterium into a tautology. He defines Magisterium as only the Traditional teaching, so that the Magisterium is always Traditional. It’s mind-boggling in its insanity. So I’ve stopped wasting my time debating him. Heresy has warped his brain.
This is so richly ironic, Lad.
Look, with a simple change from "Magisterium" to "Church/Magisterium" (but you could also leave it as Magisterium), and "inerrant" and "Traditional teaching" to "indefectible":
Among other things, he holds that the [Church/Magisterium] is [indefectible], but only because when there’s error it’s no longer [the Church/Magsiterium]. So he turns the [indefectibility] of the [Church/Magisterium] into a tautology. He defines [the Church/Magisterium] as only [indefectible (capable of inerrant teaching)], so that the [Church/Magisterium] is always [indefectible] It’s mind-boggling in its insanity. So I’ve stopped wasting my time debating him. Heresy has warped his brain.
Of course, unlike Stubborn, who places the Magisterium in the Revelation of God to the Church through Scripture and Tradition, which the pope is to teach and defend, you place the Magisterium in the pope and the bishops in union with him - for you they are the Church/Magisterium. So when they teach error to the world in their ordinary Magisterium, the Magisterium teaches error.
Let's paraphrase that a bit: you hold that John XXXIII (perhaps not him), Paul VI, JPII, Benedict XVI and Francis - all elected by the cardinals of the Church according to the laid down procedures of the Church -do not teach as the Magisterium despite their lawful elections because the Magisterium can't teach error its official, Magisterial capacity, and they do.
So, whenever a pope comes along who teaches error he can't be pope because, well, he teaches error, and popes can't teach error.
Did you say something about tautology, Lad?
I suggest investing in a big mirror and saying your morning prayers in front of it.
-
So Decem had adopted the same insane heretical stupidity as Stubborn ... where the Magisterium isn’t known a priori based on the authority of the teacher and his intent to teach, but rather discerned a posterior by people like Stubborn and Decem ... once they’ve determined that a particular teaching is in conformity with Tradition, effectively making themselves into the Magisterium. This is rich.
-
Absolutely unbelievable :facepalm:
DL, you’re right. These people have lost the faith. They’re manifest heretics outside the Church. We’re no longer talking about material heresy here, since this error uproots the Magisterium as the proximate rule of faith, replacing it with their private judgment. When heresy guts the formal motive of faith, it’s formal heresy.
-
When will you get it through your thick head that there is no such thing as a "Catholic heretic"? If a Catholic commits the sin of heresy, he ceases to be a Catholic and loses his membership in the Church!
Pope Innocent III, Eius exemplo, Dec. 18, 1208: “By the heart we believe and by the mouth we confess the one Church, not of heretics, but the Holy Roman, Catholic, and Apostolic Church outside of which we believe that no one is saved.”
You don't confess the one Church, not of heretics, therefore the logical conclusion is that you yourself are a heretic!
Pope Pius XII, Mystici Corporis Christi (# 22), June 29, 1943, addressed to the universal Church: “Actually only those are to be included as members of the Church who have received the laver of regeneration and profess the true faith…”
You hold that a manifest heretic can be a member of the Church!
If someone repents of their heresy, and accepts the Catholic Faith again, then they are once again a Catholic and can be absolved with the sacrament of Penance. They may even be justified before receiving the sacrament, through perfect contrition. That is not to say a heretic can receive the sacraments. If he renounces his heresy, then he is no longer a heretic. This is so basic that a five year old could grasp it. It shows how bad-will and obstinacy in error can completely blind someone's intellect.
I hold as a teaching of the Church that a Catholic who has fallen into mortal sin is exactly that, a Catholic who has fallen into mortal sin.
I hold as a teaching of the Church that heresy, schism and apostacy are mortal sins. You adulterate this teaching in order to maintain the sede narrative.
I hold as a teaching of the Church that a Catholic who has fallen into the mortal sin of adultery, or murder, or heresy and any/every other mortal sin is a Catholic in mortal sin. You deny this teaching in order to maintain the sede narrative.
I hold as a teaching of the Church that no matter which mortal sin a Catholic is guilty of, there is only one way to be certainly absolved from that mortal sin, namely, the sacrament of penance. You adulterate this teaching in order to maintain the sede narrative.
I hold as a teaching of the Church that one who is not a Catholic cannot receive the sacraments. You are afraid to agree with this teaching because doing so obliterates the sede narrative.
You attempt to circuмvent these last two by installing your own rules, that of first making an act of perfect contrition, as if perfect contrition is a given - when even the penitent does not know if he achieved perfect contrition.
This rule of yours is NO in that it denies the teaching of the Church that even should one make a perfect act of contrition and the sin is forgiven, that person must still confess their sin in their next Confession - precisely because the penitent does not know if he achieved perfect contrition. One who is not a Catholic cannot receive the sacrament of penance - even if they were able to achieve an act of perfect contrition before hand.
Note: I realize that this is an exercise in futility.
-
Absolutely unbelievable :facepalm:
DL, you’re right. These people have lost the faith. They’re manifest heretics outside the Church. We’re no longer talking about material heresy here, since this error uproots the Magisterium as the proximate rule of faith, replacing it with their private judgment. When heresy guts the formal motive of faith, it’s formal heresy.
You're just desperate to maintain a vacant chair. Same o same o.
You are making PPXII to say what he does not say - you have him saying: "For no other sin, however grave it may be, is such as of its own nature to sever a man from the Body of the Church, as does schism or heresy or apostasy."
But that is not what he said. He said "For not every sin, however grave it may be..." Now, you, the great wind bag, purport to be a knowledgeable brainiac, so the question (you will never answer) is - in context, what does "For not every sin" mean?
This is absolutely astonishing that Lad twists Pius XII into saying the exact opposite of what he was actually teaching.
-
This is so richly ironic, Lad.
Look, with a simple change from "Magisterium" to "Church/Magisterium" (but you could also leave it as Magisterium), and "inerrant" and "Traditional teaching" to "indefectible":
Of course, unlike Stubborn, who places the Magisterium in the Revelation of God to the Church through Scripture and Tradition, which the pope is to teach and defend, you place the Magisterium in the pope and the bishops in union with him - for you they are the Church/Magisterium. So when they teach error to the world in their ordinary Magisterium, the Magisterium teaches error.
Let's paraphrase that a bit: you hold that John XXXIII (perhaps not him), Paul VI, JPII, Benedict XVI and Francis - all elected by the cardinals of the Church according to the laid down procedures of the Church -do not teach as the Magisterium despite their lawful elections because the Magisterium can't teach error its official, Magisterial capacity, and they do.
So, whenever a pope comes along who teaches error he can't be pope because, well, he teaches error, and popes can't teach error.
Did you say something about tautology, Lad?
I suggest investing in a big mirror and saying your morning prayers in front of it.
Meh, let them keep running in circles within their conundrum. After all, if we looked at all theology through the lens of a vacant chair, we would think just like they do.
I think these words of Fr. Wathen as regards sedeism are accurate:
"...Its adherents are people who cannot think straight because they are anemic spirits. The disorder which the Conciliar Revolution has brought on the Church is too tragic a thing for them to bear psychologically, so that they have had to develop this subterfuge. Were it possible to communicate with them, we would say to these benighted souls: If you truly believe that the Church and the pope are infallible, why must you always be proving it? If the Church is indefectible, it will be so without any dialectic of yours. If these are the doctrines of the Church, the only One Who will prove them true is Christ the Lord..."
-
Stubborn, an ardent disciple of Father Wathen, to the point that he cites Father Wathen as if he were a Magisterial source, is adamant that the NOM is a great sacrilege, and yet attributes this great sacrilege to the Church. Do you have any earthly idea of what you're saying, claiming that the Catholic Church has promulgated a Rite of Mass for use as its official public worship that is sacrilegious? That goes even a step further than the proposition anathematized by Trent.
Of course, Father Wathen could in fact be just as Magisterial as any Catholic pope, for if his writing conforms with Tradition then it has the same authority as a papal encyclical which also happens to conform with Tradition.
-
Fallible opinions of clerics, like Fr. Wathen, do not override the pronouncements of a Pope or Council or the Magisterium. And looking for a deeper meaning in what the Church herself has dogmatically pronounced, such as heretics being OUTSIDE OF THE CHURCH, I quote for the umpteenth time, is a heresy against Vatican I Session 3, 4.14:
Hence, too,that meaning of the sacred dogmas is ever to be maintained which has once been declared by holy mother church, and there must never be any abandonment of this sense under the pretext or in the name of a more profound understanding.
Stubborn has already admitted that Francis and his predecessors are heretics, but since he KNOWS that this would mean they are illegitimate, he tries to twist and distort papal teachings and IGNORES dogmatic declarations on heretics so he has a butt in the Chair of Peter, even if it belongs to an apostate and heretic. You may refer to my previous post where I quoted several ex cathedra pronouncements on the perilous state of heretics.
I do not DESIRE for a vacancy of the See, as Stubborn and co. wrongly assert. I WANT there to be a Pope, but humility and obedience to Catholic teaching shows that these men simply CANNOT BE POPES. I accept reality and the truth and do not need to twist or distort Magisterial, Papal and Conciliar teachings to reach that conclusion.
Absolutely unbelievable :facepalm:
DL, you’re right. These people have lost the faith. They’re manifest heretics outside the Church. We’re no longer talking about material heresy here, since this error uproots the Magisterium as the proximate rule of faith, replacing it with their private judgment. When heresy guts the formal motive of faith, it’s formal heresy.
It is not that I am right, its just a recognition of what the Church teaches, that their position is schismatic with their purported "Pope" and that their means of reaching the position is overtly heretical.
"The declared enemies of God and His Church, heretics and schismatics, must be criticized as much as possible, as long as truth is not denied. It is a work of charity to shout: ‘Here is the wolf!’ when it enters the flock or anywhere else." -- Saint Francis de Sales
-
Stubborn, an ardent disciple of Father Wathen, to the point that he cites Father Wathen as if he were a Magisterial source, is adamant that the NOM is a great sacrilege, and yet attributes this great sacrilege to the Church. Do you have any earthly idea of what you're saying, claiming that the Catholic Church has promulgated a Rite of Mass for use as its official public worship that is sacrilegious? That goes even a step further than the proposition anathematized by Trent.
Of course, Father Wathen could in fact be just as Magisterial as any Catholic pope, for if his writing conforms with Tradition then it has the same authority as a papal encyclical which also happens to conform with Tradition.
Yes, I like Fr. Wathen a lot. While you were born and raised NO, he remained a faithful traditional Catholic priest through it all, up until his last breath.
All you ever do is flap your lips - do you even realize that? Not one time have you ever produced anything from the Church in support of your personal theology against the writings of the good Father.
Case in point your above post is like all your posts - you're a professional side tracker.
-
Fallible opinions of clerics, like Fr. Wathen, do not override the pronouncements of a Pope or Council or the Magisterium.
According to the position being advanced by Stubborn and now also Decem, barring a solemn definition, in theory, the works of Father Wathen and Papal Magisterium are of equal authority, since both only have authority in so far as they're in conformity with Tradition (as determined by Stubborn) ... which of course makes Stubborn the final authority. That's in theory. In point of fact, Father Wathen's works have greater authority than the post-v2 Magisterium because they're more in conformity with Tradition.
This is a joke, where teaching "authority" is not a priori but is a posteriori ... after it's approved by the discernment of Stubborn and Decem.
-
Fallible opinions of clerics, like Fr. Wathen, do not override the pronouncements of a Pope or Council or the Magisterium. And looking for a deeper meaning in what the Church herself has dogmatically pronounced, such as heretics being OUTSIDE OF THE CHURCH, I quote for the umpteenth time, is a heresy against Vatican I Session 3, 4.14:
Quote
Hence, too,that meaning of the sacred dogmas is ever to be maintained which has once been declared by holy mother church, and there must never be any abandonment of this sense under the pretext or in the name of a more profound understanding.
That the chair is vacant is a dogma now? Another dogmatic sede?
Sacred dogma:
"Furthermore, we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff." - Unam Sanctam Pope Boniface VIII 1302
-
According to the position being advanced by Stubborn and now also Decem, barring a solemn definition, in theory, the works of Father Wathen and Papal Magisterium are of equal authority, since both only have authority in so far as they're in conformity with Tradition (as determined by Stubborn) ... which of course makes Stubborn the final authority. That's in theory. In point of fact, Father Wathen's works have greater authority than the post-v2 Magisterium because they're more in conformity with Tradition.
This is a joke, where teaching "authority" is not a priori but is a posteriori ... after it's approved by the discernment of Stubborn and Decem.
Wind bag.
Fr. Wathen preaches the traditional Catholic faith, always using Scripture and Church teachings - unlike you.
-
That the chair is vacant is a dogma now? Another dogmatic sede?
Sacred dogma:
"Furthermore, we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff." - Unam Sanctam Pope Boniface VIII 1302
Twisting words once more. Sedevacantism comes from the acceptance of the reality of the situation based upon Catholic teachings. A heretic cannot be the Pope, nor can an apostate; you've already admitted that these "Popes" are heretics, and since there is no known claimant to the Chair, then the Chair must be empty or the Church has defected and the gates of hell have prevailed. Since the latter is absolutely impossible, then the See is vacant.
What does Pope Boniface's declaration have to do with this? All baptized are automatically subject to the Roman Pontiff. That doesn't prove that Francis and his predecessors are legitimate Pontiffs at all. And my position doesn't reject that dogma anyway because I would absolutely be subject to him if there were a Pope.
-
Case in point your above post is like all your posts - you're a professional side tracker.
Yes. Lad avoids the consequences of his position and its inconsistencies.
He says you reject the indefectible Magisterium by saying it could produce error in its ordinary Magisterium, but he says it produces error in its ordinary Magisterium. Yet when he does it, it's presumably not denying the indefectible, ordinary Magisterium:
https://www.cathinfo.com/crisis-in-the-church/bergolio-says-there-many-restorers-in-usa-who-do-not-accept-vatican-ii/msg830604/#msg830604
He accuses you of tautology, yet avoids the tautology of his own position, which presents the similar circular argument he accuses you of:
https://www.cathinfo.com/crisis-in-the-church/bergolio-says-there-many-restorers-in-usa-who-do-not-accept-vatican-ii/msg830825/#msg830825
He avoided the the first post (as is his wont when cornered), and avoided the tautology in the second by not addressing the point head on, but by simple claiming, in essence, "heresy."
We believe that Holy Mother Church is truth, and when she is speaking with the authority given to her to proclaim the Gospel, she is inerrant and to be trusted completely. Sometimes her teachers stray and teach contrary to Revelation, like the teachers under the Old Covenant before her (the Pharisees, who sat in "Moses seat" with legitimate authority, Mt. 23:2)), who, despite that legitimate authority, could teach things against the true Revelation of God by their erroneous teachings (Mt 15; Mk 7).
So Lad's view encompasses an indefectible Church that teaches erroneously where he says it can't, and his personal views abound in contradictions - claims of rejecting an inerrant ordinary Magisterium when he rejects it, claims of tautology when his views are tautological, etc.
Contradiction abounding, where it can't: where the Truth is.
We reject his contradictions, and believe that the Church is the true Church of Christ, and seek her as she truly is, and where asserts her true authority and invokes the charism of the Holy Ghost: when she defines and proclaims the Gospel of Christ.
-
According to the position being advanced by Stubborn and now also Decem, barring a solemn definition, in theory, the works of Father Wathen and Papal Magisterium are of equal authority, since both only have authority in so far as they're in conformity with Tradition (as determined by Stubborn) ... which of course makes Stubborn the final authority. That's in theory. In point of fact, Father Wathen's works have greater authority than the post-v2 Magisterium because they're more in conformity with Tradition.
This is a joke, where teaching "authority" is not a priori but is a posteriori ... after it's approved by the discernment of Stubborn and Decem.
Yes. The traditions of men cannot save, only the teachings of God in His Church (quoted from the translations on PapalEncyclicals.net in case some believe NOW and MHFM's motives are suspect):
Pope Benedict XIV, Apostolica (#6), June 26, 1749: "The Church’s judgment is preferable even to that of a Doctor renowned for his holiness and teaching."
Pope St. Pius X, Pascendi dominic gregis (#45), Sept. 8, 1907: "It goes without saying that 'if anything is met with among the scholastic doctors which may be regarded as something investigated with an excess of subtlety, or taught without sufficient consideration; anything which is not in keeping with the certain results of later times; anything, in short, which is altogether destitute of probability, We have no desire whatever to propose it for the imitation of present generations.'"
Pope Pius XII, Humani generis (#21), Aug. 12, 1950: "This deposit of faith our Divine Redeemer has given for authentic interpretation not to each of the faithful, not even to theologians, but only to the Teaching Authority of the Church."
-
Twisting words once more. Sedevacantism comes from the acceptance of the reality of the situation based upon Catholic teachings. A heretic cannot be the Pope, nor can an apostate; you've already admitted that these "Popes" are heretics, and since there is no known claimant to the Chair, then the Chair must be empty or the Church has defected and the gates of hell have prevailed. Since the latter is absolutely impossible, then the See is vacant.
You were already shown that the popes since at least Pius X made it a law that heretic cardinals were to partake in papal elections and on that account could be elected pope. This means you only base this assertion on only your opinion, not Catholic teaching. This truth will remain no matter how often you repeat the same error.
What does Pope Boniface's declaration have to do with this? All baptized are automatically subject to the Roman Pontiff. That doesn't prove that Francis and his predecessors are legitimate Pontiffs at all. And my position doesn't reject that dogma anyway because I would absolutely be subject to him if there were a Pope.
It is rather remarkable imo, how there is some over-riding mental block in sedes that make them fail to acknowledge the obvious fact that the bolded opinion / statement they all make, changes the meaning of sacred dogma to this:
"Furthermore, we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff unless you do not believe he is the pope."
You honestly do not see this as changing the meaning into something that means absolutely nothing at all?
-
Yes. Lad avoids the consequences of his position and its inconsistencies.
He says you reject the indefectible Magisterium by saying it could produce error in its ordinary Magisterium, but he says it produces error in its ordinary Magisterium. Yet when he does it, it's presumably not denying the indefectible, ordinary Magisterium:
https://www.cathinfo.com/crisis-in-the-church/bergolio-says-there-many-restorers-in-usa-who-do-not-accept-vatican-ii/msg830604/#msg830604
He accuses you of tautology, yet avoids the tautology of his own position, which presents the similar circular argument he accuses you of:
https://www.cathinfo.com/crisis-in-the-church/bergolio-says-there-many-restorers-in-usa-who-do-not-accept-vatican-ii/msg830825/#msg830825
He avoided the the first post (as is his wont when cornered), and avoided the tautology in the second by not addressing the point head on, but by simple claiming, in essence, "heresy."
We believe that Holy Mother Church is truth, and when she is speaking with the authority given to her to proclaim the Gospel, she is inerrant and to be trusted completely. Sometimes her teachers stray and teach contrary to Revelation, like the teachers under the Old Covenant before her (the Pharisees, who sat in "Moses seat" with legitimate authority, Mt. 23:2)), who, despite that legitimate authority, could teach things against the true Revelation of God by their erroneous teachings (Mt 15; Mk 7).
So Lad's view encompasses an indefectible Church that teaches erroneously where he says it can't, and his personal views abound in contradictions - claims of rejecting an inerrant ordinary Magisterium when he rejects it, claims of tautology when his views are tautological, etc.
Contradiction abounding, where it can't: where the Truth is.
We reject his contradictions, and believe that the Church is the true Church of Christ, and seek her as she truly is, and where asserts her true authority and invokes the charism of the Holy Ghost: when she defines and proclaims the Gospel of Christ.
Well said.
I do not hold much hope for Lad to "see the light", I think he has way too much NO still within him and needs to pray for humility as it seems to me that he has too much pride IMO. But I keep him and all the sedes in my daily prayers, we can all do that much.
Meanwhile I'm wondering, perhaps hoping, that DL will do some genuine searching for the truth, and stay away from sede sites for info that is often adulterated, twisted and used to promote sedeism.
If he does that, God will see to it that he will find that all the quotes he has posted from the popes (and more) are talking about heretics who have never been Catholic - those are the ones outside of the Church that the popes he quotes are talking about. Once he sees it this way and figures this out, then all he has to do is accept this for what it is to start to clear his head and start his journey back from sedeism.
That's my opinion anyway.
-
I do not hold much hope for Lad to "see the light", I think he has way too much NO still within him ...
:facepalm: upholding the indefectibility of the Church and holding that she cannot become corrupt in faith, morals, or public worship ... yeah, that's NO. You've pretty much crossed the line into insanity.
-
:facepalm: upholding the indefectibility of the Church and holding that she cannot become corrupt in faith, morals, or public worship ... yeah, that's NO. You've pretty much crossed the line into insanity.
You're upholding sedeism, not the Church's indefectibility.
Faith in God and His holy words promising the gates of hell will not prevail have thankfully taken any and all care of the Church's indefectibility away from us. Only those who have no faith in Christ's promise will make the Church's indefectibility their concern. If this is insanity to you, then just keep worrying about it and I hope you're enjoying your conundrum.
-
You were already shown that the popes since at least Pius X made it a law that heretic cardinals were to partake in papal elections and on that account could be elected pope. This means you only base this assertion on only your opinion, not Catholic teaching. This truth will remain no matter how often you repeat the same error.
I'm not the one twisting that to mean anything more than it says, unlike you with Pius XII. Even if a heretical cardinal were elected, that election would be null and void because they are heretics. Furthermore, this supposes that the Holy Ghost would ever permit such a thing to occur. Its insane, heretical, and blasphemous.
It is rather remarkable imo, how there is some over-riding mental block in sedes that make them fail to acknowledge the obvious fact that the bolded opinion / statement they all make, changes the meaning of sacred dogma to this:
"Furthermore, we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff unless you do not believe he is the pope."
You honestly do not see this as changing the meaning into something that means absolutely nothing at all?
Again, you're presupposing that Francis et al are legitimate Roman Pontiffs; yet you admit he, and the others, are heretics. I've provided the dogmatic teaching on how the Church views heretics and you keep pointing to some "clause" about heretical cardinals with the insistence that it must mean the Church, somehow, contradicted its previous teachings and now allows for heretics to hold legitimate Catholic office, including the papacy.
The reason you don't see this is because you hold to heretical teachings that have obscured the truth to allow for this contradiction of a heretic holding legitimate office. You've proven your pertinacity, and I have nothing more to say to you on the matter.
-
This is a useless discussion because Lad/DL (and others) refuse to define terms, and ignore the various degrees of such words: 'magisterium', 'heresy', 'infallibility'. Their use of these terms is so general that they can pick out any quote from 500s years ago and say it applies to the present situation. Such a waste of time and intellect.
For the record, I do probably agree with sedevacantism but...not for the reasons that Lad/DL argue. They seemed to have halted all examination of their theory and have no interest in redefining it nor improving it. I appreciate their logic, openness and integrity on many other topics, but on this one, they become emotional and defensive. They protect a viewpoint instead of being open to being wrong (even to a small degree).
-
Even if a heretical cardinal were elected, that election would be null and void because they are heretics.
Then please provide a logical explanation of why Pope St Pius X and Pius XII would make such a change? Were they stupid? Did they get bored and just want to change conclave rules? You're obviously implying the rule change had no purpose. St Pius X has been repeatedly quoted as saying he was surrounded by "wolves" in new-rome. He wrote many encyclicals on Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ and how they were the enemies of the Church. Don't you think his rule change had something to do with the infiltration that had already started? How do you explain it?
-
This is a useless discussion because Lad/DL (and others) refuse to define terms, and ignore the various degrees of such words: 'magisterium', 'heresy', 'infallibility'. Their use of these terms is so general that they can pick out any quote from 500s years ago and say it applies to the present situation. Such a waste of time and intellect.
So the Magisterial teachings of the Church, as well as the legitimate Popes and Councils are not eternal? They have time limits? Where does it state that?
None of you can properly answer the objections drawn from Church teachings so you resort to arguing semantics.
On that point, Stubborn defined the Magisterium for you pages back. If you have trouble with these terms, maybe you need to pay attention to what is being quoted. Many of the Papal teachings I've provided state what constitutes heresy. Vatican I provided definitions of infallibility. I shouldn't have to provide the definitions for you.
For the record, I do probably agree with sedevacantism but...not for the reasons that Lad/DL argue. They seemed to have halted all examination of their theory and have no interest in redefining it nor improving it. I appreciate their logic, openness and integrity on many other topics, but on this one, they become emotional and defensive. They protect a viewpoint instead of being open to being wrong (even to a small degree).
I've already stated that if it was proven that these men are legitimate Pontiffs, I would submit. Yet no one has shown how a heretic can hold a valid office in the Church outside of obscuring the papal teachings of Pius XII.
I also don't understand where the claims of emotionalism come from? You could only get that if you're reading into my words. Is it because I, rightly, call out the heresy that Stubborn and co. are preaching? Is heretic and schismatic an emotional slur now? I thought it was part of the ecclesiastical vernacular, but I guess its just subjective, emotional language rather than based in the objective teachings of the Church.
-
Then please provide a logical explanation of why Pope St Pius X and Pius XII would make such a change? Were they stupid? Did they get bored and just want to change conclave rules? You're obviously implying the rule change had no purpose. St Pius X has been repeatedly quoted as saying he was surrounded by "wolves" in new-rome. He wrote many encyclicals on Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ and how they were the enemies of the Church. Don't you think his rule change had something to do with the infiltration that had already started? How do you explain it?
augustineeens provided the following refutation of your misunderstanding of the teaching, and it was dismissed and ridiculed because it comes from MHFM.
https://schismatic-home-aloner.com/cardinal-elects-excommunicated-pope/
-
I'm not the one twisting that to mean anything more than it says, unlike you with Pius XII. Even if a heretical cardinal were elected, that election would be null and void because they are heretics. Furthermore, this supposes that the Holy Ghost would ever permit such a thing to occur. Its insane, heretical, and blasphemous.
Again, I showed you the proof, it is what the pope said, all you have is nothing but your own puny ideas.
Again, you're presupposing that Francis et al are legitimate Roman Pontiffs; yet you admit he, and the others, are heretics. I've provided the dogmatic teaching on how the Church views heretics and you keep pointing to some "clause" about heretical cardinals with the insistence that it must mean the Church, somehow, contradicted its previous teachings and now allows for heretics to hold legitimate Catholic office, including the papacy.
I provided the popes' legislation for the conclave - you are the one who refuses to accept what it says, not me. You refuse to accept what it says because it obliterates everything you think about Catholics in the state of the mortal sin of heresy.
The reason you don't see this is because you hold to heretical teachings that have obscured the truth to allow for this contradiction of a heretic holding legitimate office. You've proven your pertinacity, and I have nothing more to say to you on the matter.
What heretical teaching to I hold? Post it or retract it.
All I ask before you stomp off, all I ask is for you to answer the question:
So knowing that only Catholics can use the sacrament of confession, can Catholics guilty of the mortal sin of heresy and want to repent go to confession or not?
-
Right, no pope can lift a divine law impediment to being elected pope; they are merely lifting ecclesiastical impediments. So, for instance, a conclave could not elect Joel Osteen to the papacy, nor could they elect a woman. No amount of papal legislation can lift divine law impediments. Why can't Osteen be elected? Because he's outside the Church on account of heresy.
-
augustineeens provided the following refutation of your misunderstanding of the teaching, and it was dismissed and ridiculed because it comes from MHFM.
https://schismatic-home-aloner.com/cardinal-elects-excommunicated-pope/
Yes, that link starts out with the error that promotes sedeism, which is that heretics, without any distinction whatsoever, are not members of the Church. Have you ever seen this dogma, or are you just going to take the Dimond Fools' word for it.
That's right up there with heretical popes breaking Divine Law - - -but no one knows which Divine Law, do they now?
-
All I ask before you stomp off, all I ask is for you to answer the question:
So knowing that only Catholics can use the sacrament of confession, can Catholics heretics guilty of the mortal sin of heresy and want to repent go to confession or not?
Yes. I stated that already. And I never denied it actually.
What heretical teaching to I hold? Post it or retract it.
That heretics can hold office in the Church and that they are inside the Church. I don't need to repost the papal teachings on this.
And you're a schismatic because you profess Francis as Pope but do not hold communion with him outside of lip-service and the Te Igitur.
-
Yes. I stated that already. And I never denied it actually.
If yes, then you have got to admit that Catholics who fell into the state of the mortal sin of heresy are indeed Catholic. If you do not admit this, then you admit that the Church permits non-Catholics to use our sacraments.
There is no other alternative.
That heretics can hold office in the Church and that they are inside the Church. I don't need to repost the papal teachings on this.
And you're a schismatic because you profess Francis as Pope but do not hold communion with him outside of lip-service and the Te Igitur.
But you just said that you agree with the Church that Catholics who fall into heresy are Catholic because they can use the sacrament of penance to be absolved from their sin - I agree with this as well.
I hold Francis as a pope who preaches heresy, same as I would hold an angel from heaven to be an angel, even tho he preached a different Gospel. This makes me schismatic now?
-
Yes, that link starts out with the error that promotes sedeism, which is that heretics, without any distinction whatsoever, are not members of the Church. Have you ever seen this dogma, or are you just going to take the Dimond Fools' word for it.
That's right up there with heretical popes breaking Divine Law - - -but no one knows which Divine Law, do they now?
Council of Florence (1442: DS 1351): "It firmly believes, professes and preaches, that none who are outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jєωs and heretics and schismatics, can partake of eternal life, but they will go into eternal fire... unless before the end of life they will have been joined to it [the Church] and that the unity of the ecclesiastical body has such force that only for those who remain in it are the sacraments of the Church profitable for salvation;"
^Literally what I've been saying
To quote again:
St. Celestine I, Council of Ephesus, 431:
“… ALL HERETICS corrupt the true expressions of the Holy Spirit with their own evil minds and they draw down on their own heads an inextinguishable flame.”
Pope Innocent IV, First Council of Lyons, 1245:
“The civil law declares that those are to be regarded as heretics, and ought to be subject to the sentences issued against them, who even on slight evidence are found to have strayed from the judgment and path of the Catholic religion.”
Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum #13:
"can it be lawful for anyone to reject any one of those truths without by the very fact falling into heresy? without separating himself from the Church? – without repudiating in one sweeping act the whole of Christian teaching? For such is the nature of faith that nothing can be more absurd than to accept some things and reject others."
[...]
"he who dissents even in one point from divinely revealed truth absolutely rejects all faith, since he thereby refuses to honour God as the supreme truth and the formal motive of faith."
Canon 1325.2: "After the reception of baptism, if anyone, retaining the name Christian, pertinaciously denies or doubts something to be believed from the truth of divine and Catholic faith, [such a one is] a heretic;"
Pope Paul IV, cuм ex Apostolatus Officio, #6:
6. In addition, if ever at any time it should appear that any Bishop (even one acting as an Archbishop, Patriarch or Primate), or any Cardinal of said Roman Church, even a Legate as previously stated, or even a Roman Pontiff prior to his promotion or elevation as Cardinal or Roman Pontiff, has deviated from the Catholic Faith or fallen into some heresy, then
his promotion or elevation, even if it be uncontested and carried out by the unanimous assent of all the Cardinals, shall be null, invalid, and void;
-
If yes, then you have got to admit that Catholics who fell into the state of the mortal sin of heresy are indeed Catholic. If you do not admit this, then you admit that the Church permits non-Catholics to use our sacraments.
There is no other alternative.
But you just said that you agree with the Church that Catholics who fall into heresy are Catholic because they can use the sacrament of penance to be absolved from their sin - I agree with this as well.
I hold Francis as a pope who preaches heresy, same as I would hold an angel from heaven to be an angel, even tho he preached a different Gospel. This makes me schismatic now?
Are you nuts? Here is a quote from Pope Pius XII:
Pope Pius XII, Mystici Corporis Christi (# 23), June 29, 1943: “For not every sin, however grave it may be, is such as of its own nature to sever a man from the Body of the Church, as does schism or heresy or apostasy.”
If you do not admit this, then you admit that the Church permits non-Catholics to use our sacraments.
The Church "allows" pagans to receive water baptism, does that prove pagans are Catholics?
-
^Literally what I've been saying
I know you keep saying the same thing and posting beautiful Catholic and dogmatic teachings over and over, why keep quoting the same thing that there is no argument over?
Certainly heretics who have never been Catholic are outside of the Church, and all who die heretics regardless of whether they were Catholic or not will go to hell forever - that is not in dispute, never has been, never will be - this is what Florence is teaching and is in harmony with all of your other excellent quotes (except the ones I noted that are misquoted by MHFM).
Look, you said that you agree that Catholics, most notably popes, who've fallen into the sin of heresy can be absolved through the sacrament of penance. If you actually believe this truth, then you understand that the Church only permits the use of this sacrament to those who are members of the Church. Hence, Catholics who've fallen into the sin of heresy must be members of the Church who've fallen into the sin of heresy. It's really not complicated.
Heresy is a mortal sin, Catholics who've fallen into this mortal sin have got to get to the sacrament of confession asap - but the nature of this particular sin makes that more unlikely than with other mortal sins. So it's not that the Church has kicked them out, She hasn't, it's that they want nothing to do with her anymore - THAT is the nature of the sins of heresy, apostacy and schism, this is what PPXII is teaching in MC.
The sede narrative hinges on the error that Catholics who've fallen into the sin of heresy are banished from the Church, insisting that these heretics are not members of the Church - I keep saying if they were Catholic, then yes, they are indeed members of the Church who have fallen into the mortal sin of heresy and that it is the Church herself who urges them to get to confession and repent - which she only does to members of the Church.
-
Are you nuts? Here is a quote from Pope Pius XII:
Quote
Pope Pius XII, Mystici Corporis Christi (# 23), June 29, 1943: “For not every sin, however grave it may be, is such as of its own nature to sever a man from the Body of the Church, as does schism or heresy or apostasy.”
You're new here but, if you read back a few pages, you can read my rebuttal to Lad on this. In short, you read meanings into words which the words do not say, while failing to advert to what the words do say.
The Church "allows" pagans to receive water baptism, does that prove pagans are Catholics?
She forbids it, the Church makes it a mortal sin for those outside of the Church to use her sacraments, except baptism when death is imminent after eliciting an act of faith from the one dying. IOW, you want to use Her sacraments? then go through the motions and become a member of the Church. Period.
-
I hold as a teaching of the Church that a Catholic who has fallen into mortal sin is exactly that, a Catholic who has fallen into mortal sin.
I hold as a teaching of the Church that heresy, schism and apostacy are mortal sins. You adulterate this teaching in order to maintain the sede narrative.
Right... so you hold that a Catholic who becomes a heretic, is still a Catholic. So then you would logically have to conclude that Martin Luther remained a Catholic when he became a heretic, he's just a "Catholic in mortal sin" according to you, right? Clearly, you reject the Unity of the Church. It's a dogma that the Church is one in Faith. You reject that. You are not a Catholic.
-
I hold as a teaching of the Church that a Catholic who has fallen into the mortal sin of adultery, or murder, or heresy and any/every other mortal sin is a Catholic in mortal sin. You deny this teaching in order to maintain the sede narrative.
When has the Church ever taught that a heretic is a Catholic? You can't quote one source from the Magisterium. You just make it up as you go to fit your heretical ecclesiology.
Pope Pius XII, Mystici Corporis Christi (# 22), June 29, 1943, addressed to the universal Church: “Actually only those are to be included as members of the Church who have received the laver of regeneration and profess the true faith…”
Does Francis profess the true Faith? Did Martin Luther profess the true Faith? According to your deranged and heretical mind, they are simply "Catholics who have fallen into the mortal sin of heresy". No, you heretic, they do not profess the true Faith, they are outside the Church, they are not Catholic. You can't accept this basic truth, because you are of bad-will and on the road to hell.
-
Abjuration
https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01044d.htm
A denial, disavowal, or renunciation under oath. In common ecclesiastical language this term is restricted to the renunciation of heresy made by the penitent heretic on the occasion of his reconciliation with the Church. The Church has always demanded such renunciation, accompanied by appropriate penance.
Abjuration ► Sacrament of penance
-
Canon 731:
[. . .]
§ 2. It is forbidden that the Sacraments of the Church be ministered to heretics and schismatics, even if they ask for them and are in good faith, unless beforehand, rejecting their errors, they are reconciled with the Church.
AKA abjuration.
-
Abjuration
https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01044d.htm
Abjuration ► Sacrament of penance
In case someone tries to play smart penance in the non VII sect form includes release from excom etc
-
Canon 731:
AKA abjuration.
Yes, as an Anglican heretic I got abjured -> absolved when I was received. Probably Stubborn is cradle.
-
It's obvious that a Catholic that became a heretic, or a schismatic, or an apostate, which is to say they weren't Catholic anymore, if they abjure their error prior to the sacrament of penance, they become once more Catholic, albeit dead members, until the sacrament is received or if they manage to make a perfect act of contrition.
-
Is Stubborn going to remain so stubborn as to be pernicious?
-
In case someone tries to play smart penance in the non VII sect form includes release from excom etc
Get that, Stubborn? A heretic has to be reconciled with the Church, and be released from their excommunication (latae sententiae), before they even go to confession. Dead members who are in mortal sin do not need to do this, because they have never left the Church!
-
Manifest Heretics in the external forum are required to make an abjuration of heresy before they can be admitted back to the Sacraments. Those who commit heresy in the internal forum (e.g. occult heretics) can simply go to Confession. In terms of membership in the Church, there's a huge difference between a manifest heretic and an occult heretic. Occult heresy, as per St. Robert Bellarmine, does not sever from the Church, whereas manifest heresy does.
Right, I mentioned this yesterday (in bold). Those who commit the sin of heresy secretly are not required to abjure, as far as I know, as if ... let's say someone embraced a heretical notion in his mind only and never manifested it.
Manifest heresy severs from the body of the Church, and it requires a manifest retraction / abjuration of the same in order for membership in the Church to be visibly restored.
-
Right, I mentioned this yesterday (in bold). Those who commit the sin of heresy secretly are not required to abjure, as far as I know, as if ... let's say someone embraced a heretical notion in his mind only and never manifested it.
Manifest heresy severs from the body of the Church, and it requires a manifest retraction / abjuration of the same in order for membership in the Church to be visibly restored.
I would disagree.. the Magisterium teaches that heretics are not in the Church and has never made the exception for occult heretics. That also would destroy the Unity of the Church.
-
Right... so you hold that a Catholic who becomes a heretic, is still a Catholic. So then you would logically have to conclude that Martin Luther remained a Catholic when he became a heretic, he's just a "Catholic in mortal sin" according to you, right? Clearly, you reject the Unity of the Church. It's a dogma that the Church is one in Faith. You reject that. You are not a Catholic.
Have you figured out which of the Divine Laws is being broken by having a heretical pope yet? Or will you just keep ignoring the question?
"Thou art a priest forever according to the Order of Melchizedek." Ever heard of this?
Luther stood before God as a Catholic priest in the state of (as far as we know) mortal sin. The sin you refer to is a sin against the faith, i.e. the sin of heresy.
The character of the sacrament of baptism is just as indelible, just as ineradicable as that of Holy Orders. One who is not a Catholic cannot receive the Sacraments. The Catholic who has fallen into the sin of heresy can receive the Sacrament of Penance.
-
When has the Church ever taught that a heretic is a Catholic? You can't quote one source from the Magisterium. You just make it up as you go to fit your heretical ecclesiology.
Pope Pius XII, Mystici Corporis Christi (# 22), June 29, 1943, addressed to the universal Church: “Actually only those are to be included as members of the Church who have received the laver of regeneration and profess the true faith…”
Does Francis profess the true Faith? Did Martin Luther profess the true Faith? According to your deranged and heretical mind, they are simply "Catholics who have fallen into the mortal sin of heresy". No, you heretic, they do not profess the true Faith, they are outside the Church, they are not Catholic. You can't accept this basic truth, because you are of bad-will and on the road to hell.
Which of the Divine Laws is being broken by having a heretical pope?
-
Luther stood before God as a Catholic priest
Luther was a Catholic?! Wow! The fruit of heresy is insanity!
-
Which of the Divine Laws is being broken by having a heretical pope?
I presume what the canonist meant is that by Divine Law heretics are outside the Mystical Body, therefore the head of the Mystical Body could not be a non-member. The main point here is you think heretics are members of the Church. You reject one of the four marks of the Church, Unity. You need to read Satis Cognitum.
Do you realize that by calling Luther a "Catholic priest", you are saying he professes the true Faith?
-
Abjuration
https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01044d.htm
Quote
A denial, disavowal, or renunciation under oath. In common ecclesiastical language this term is restricted to the renunciation of heresy made by the penitent heretic on the occasion of his reconciliation with the Church. The Church has always demanded such renunciation, accompanied by appropriate penance.
Abjuration ► Sacrament of penance
https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07256b.htm
The order of proceeding in a reconciliation is: first, abjuration of heresy or profession of faith; second, conditional baptism (this is given only when the heretical baptism is doubtful); third, sacramental confession and conditional absolution.
I said: (https://www.cathinfo.com/crisis-in-the-church/bergolio-says-there-many-restorers-in-usa-who-do-not-accept-vatican-ii/msg830736/?topicseen#msg830736)
The Abjuration of Heresy is used primarily for adult converts seeking to enter the Church prior to their baptism or conditional baptism. Otherwise, it is not a requirement - unless specifically required by the official censure itself, or the pope or bishop or confessor requires it. Look it up.
A public abjuration may (or may not) be the prudent thing to do, but it is not the law, nor is a public abjuration found anywhere in the sacrament of penance's formula for absolution.
-
Canon 731:
[. . .]
§ 2. It is forbidden that the Sacraments of the Church be ministered to heretics and schismatics, even if they ask for them and are in good faith, unless beforehand, rejecting their errors, they are reconciled with the Church.
AKA abjuration.
This goes without saying.
-
Luther was a Catholic?! Wow! The fruit of heresy is insanity!
That's right, not just a Catholic, a Catholic priest no less!
I presume what the canonist meant is that by Divine Law heretics are outside the Mystical Body, therefore the head of the Mystical Body could not be a non-member. The main point here is you think heretics are members of the Church. You reject one of the four marks of the Church, Unity. You need to read Satis Cognitum.
Do you realize that by calling Luther a "Catholic priest", you are saying he professes the true Faith?
Divine Law is law given to us directly from God Himself hence the name, "Divine Law", no one else is Divine, only God. Think 10 commandments. Hopefully you will remember this from now on.
In calling Luther a Catholic Priest, I am not saying he professed the true faith - the man was an abominable heretic. What I am doing is stating a fact of faith in virtue of the indelible character that the sacrament of holy orders imprints on the soul of all priests - and only on the souls of all priests. Even now that character remains - and will forever remain, marking him as having been a Catholic priest forever, which only adds to his suffering.
This is something 6 year old Catholic children are taught as part of their catechism, not sure what there is about it you cannot accept.
-
I would disagree.. the Magisterium teaches that heretics are not in the Church and has never made the exception for occult heretics. That also would destroy the Unity of the Church.
No, that is not what the Magisterium teaches:
Trent's catechism: "Heretics and schismatics are excluded from the Church, because they have separated from her and belong to her only as deserters belong to the army from which they have deserted."
Although they belong to her only as deserters, the catechism says they still belong to her - in spite of their trying to get out of it.
Do you see where the magisterium teaches that heretics belong to her - and how they belong too her? I bolded it for you. If you see and understand this, then you will also see that the magisterium does not teach heretics are not in the Church - they still belong to her.
You need to remember that Christ established the Church to save all men, Our Lord knows that She is our only refuge and is eager to bring sinners into her fold so they can go to heaven, not banish the sinner so as to be sure they go straight to hell. Yet this latter is the attitude sedes consistently portray her as having.
"I say to you, that even so there shall be joy in heaven upon one sinner that doth penance, more than upon ninety-nine just who need not penance."
-
Even now that character remains - and will forever remain, marking him as having been a Catholic priest forever, which only adds to his suffering.
I want to add..... And if he is in heaven, this mark adds to the greater glory of God and the priest's heavenly joy - forever.
-
I would disagree.. the Magisterium teaches that heretics are not in the Church and has never made the exception for occult heretics. That also would destroy the Unity of the Church.
There is an interesting article that was posted here from Msgr. Fenton, where he discusses the question of whether an occult heretic is a member of the Church:
AER Fenton - - The Library - Catholic Info (cathinfo.com)
I (https://www.cathinfo.com/the-library/aer-fenton/)t is an open question, though the common opinion is that they are. Yet many eminent theologians oppose that, and, as shown by Msgr. Fenton's article, it was still an open question as late as 1950, and certainly hasn't been settled since.
-
There is an interesting article that was posted here from Msgr. Fenton, where he discusses the question of whether an occult heretic is a member of the Church:
AER Fenton - - The Library - Catholic Info (cathinfo.com)
I (https://www.cathinfo.com/the-library/aer-fenton/)t is an open question, though the common opinion is that they are. Yet many eminent theologians oppose that, and, as shown by Msgr. Fenton's article, it was still an open question as late as 1950, and certainly hasn't been settled since.
There's some history for minority opinions, and the opinion that occult heretics are outside the Church is in the extreme minority and has been all but abandoned. It's not tenable to hold that occult heretics are not members of the Church due to the nature of the Church being a visible society.
-
There's some history for minority opinions, and the opinion that occult heretics are outside the Church is in the extreme minority and has been all but abandoned. It's not tenable to hold that occult heretics are not members of the Church due to the nature of the Church being a visible society.
That it is not "tenable" is your opinion. As I said, and Msgr. Fenton's article demonstrates, it is still an open question. Or would one be a "heretic" according to Lad to hold it? :laugh1:
Msgr. Fenton notes of the contrary opinion - i.e., that occult heretic's are not members - that it is "still the unsubdued opposition to St. Robert's thesis." See page 216 (emphasis added).
Stubborn, you might like to read page 209, where the view of Cajetan and others that "all baptized persons" are "parts or members of the true Church," and "that the baptismal character constituted even a public apostate or heretic a genuine member of the Church," is mentioned. He does say that Cajetan's opinion did not survive the Counter-Reformation period. Page 213.
-
That it is not "tenable" is your opinion. As I said, and Msgr. Fenton's article demonstrates, it is still an open question. Or would one be a "heretic" according to Lad to hold it? :laugh1:
No, in St. Robert Bellarmine's opinion. I didn't say one was not permitted to hold it, just that it's not tenable due to Tridentine ecclesiology of the Church being a visible society.
-
Stubborn, you might like to read page 209, where the view of Cajetan and others that "all baptized persons" are "parts or members of the true Church," and "that the baptismal character constituted even a public apostate or heretic a genuine member of the Church," is mentioned. He does say that Cajetan's opinion did not survive the Counter-Reformation period. Page 213.
I've pointed this out to Stubborn before.
-
No, in St. Robert Bellarmine's opinion. I didn't say one was not permitted to hold it, just that it's not tenable due to Tridentine ecclesiology of the Church being a visible society.
Right. It's your opinion that St. Robert's opinion is the correct one.
This gets us somewhat closer to the topic under discussion, since it was also St. Robert's opinion (although some argue that) that a pope who is a manifest heretic is not a pop (although some dispute that). But has that been settled? If not . . . well, that's huge. And very pertinent to the issue, of course.
I know Fr. Kramer wrote a book about it in response to Sisco & Salza, which I have. I think he holds that the upshot of Vatican I indicates the matter has been settled. I'll go back and look. But, again, would that not be Fr. Kramer's opinion?
-
Right. It's your opinion that St. Robert's opinion is the correct one.
Yes, his opinion has plenty of weight and is rooted directly in Tridentine ecclesiology, where, in opposition to the Protestants, the Church is understood to be a visible society. And it's also the opinion of the vast majority of theologians directly leading up to Vatican II. That the contrary opinion is "unsubdued" simply means that it hasn't been officially condemned by the Church, not that it's a tenable opinion.
-
This gets us somewhat closer to the topic under discussion, since it was also St. Robert's opinion (although some argue that) that a pope who is a manifest heretic is not a pop (although some dispute that). But has that been settled? If not . . . well, that's huge. And very pertinent to the issue, of course.
Regardless, the (minority) opinion that occult heretics are NOT members of the Church doesn't really help the side that claim a heretic can remain the pope.
Only the abandoned Cajetan opinion tenaciously held by Father Wathen and therefore Stubborn that the baptismal character alone is required might help that position.
-
I've pointed this out to Stubborn before.
I would say that the fact that it is an "open question" means Cajetan's view is disfavored by theologians, etc., but not barred to a Catholic. What does "open" question mean? It means, you can only go with the theological views in vogue, despite churchmen, very distinguished like Cajetan, holding the view in the past?
One could argue that Pope Pius XII's formulation of "membership" bars the Cajetan view, but, as Feeneyites argue, it would also bar BOD, e.g. the formula recognizes only the baptized as "true members," which it certainly did not, since Pius XII talked about it and it was the teaching of the ordinary Magisterium and theologians. They could be, as Stubborn argues, false members, or dead members in need of penance/confession.
I'm neither advocating for Stubborn's view nor against it. One thing this crisis requires us to do, in my view, is think, and rethink. Under the prevailing views in 1950 regarding indefectibility, etc., would anyone have thought this Conciliar reality possible?
-
Regardless, the (minority) opinion that occult heretics are NOT members of the Church doesn't really help the side that claim a heretic can remain the pope.
Agreed.
-
Regardless, the (minority) opinion that occult heretics are NOT members of the Church doesn't really help the side that claim a heretic can remain the pope.
Only the abandoned Cajetan opinion tenaciously held by Father Wathen and therefore Stubborn that the baptismal character alone is required might help that position.
Let's look at an example you raise: the Augustinian view regarding non-baptized infants suffering minor "torments" in hell. What theologian opposed that view for hundreds, if not over a thousand, years before Limbo came along?
I wouldn't necessarily dismiss an old view on an "open" question.
-
There are lots of opinions regarding the status of a heretic pope. As I've said before, at the end of the day, I don't care about the issue since it won't be resolved by any of us here when it hasn't been completely settled by theologians.
What's at issue is whether the Holy Catholic Church can go corrupt in her doctrine and her public worship. That is not possible. How one wants to explain what happened in V2 outside of that will remain a disputed question. I personally hold to the Siri explanation, so the notion of a heretical pope or non-pope doesn't even figure in, since these guys were never legitimately elected in the first place (at least before Benedict XVI).
-
That it is not "tenable" is your opinion. As I said, and Msgr. Fenton's article demonstrates, it is still an open question. Or would one be a "heretic" according to Lad to hold it? :laugh1:
Msgr. Fenton notes of the contrary opinion - i.e., that occult heretic's are not members - that it is "still the unsubdued opposition to St. Robert's thesis." See page 216 (emphasis added).
Stubborn, you might like to read page 209, where the view of Cajetan and others that "all baptized persons" are "parts or members of the true Church," and "that the baptismal character constituted even a public apostate or heretic a genuine member of the Church," is mentioned. He does say that Cajetan's opinion did not survive the Counter-Reformation period. Page 213.
The first part, that says: "all baptized persons are parts or members of the true Church," is incomplete, therefore not the whole truth which results in being cause for confusion.
Very simply, baptized prot babies are members, but only until the age of reason. If they never become Catholic after the age of reason, then they remain outside of the Church unless or until they do become Catholic.
The bolded is only true if apostates / heretics had the Catholic faith before falling into the sin of heresy.
The distinction is, *having the Catholic faith*, because this is what makes one Catholic. To lose the faith by whatever means is itself a sin because to lose the faith is to not believe in the Church, which is Christ, see John 16:9 (" And when he is come, he will convict the world of sin, and of justice, and of judgment. [9]Of sin: because they believed not in me").
-
How about this case? It's a true story that happened recently.....
A traditional Catholic husband and wife (14 kids) who practiced the traditional faith for the last 50 years or so, apparently lost their ever loving minds and decided to "convert" to the Russian Orthodox church. Before RO priests and prelates, a ceremony was held where they took solemn vows renouncing their baptism and everything Catholic that disagreed with RO, then they were baptized and welcomed into the RO.
It was with only the best of intentions that these poor fools left the Church. They believe they've left the Church because that's what they did. They believe that they are now RO so they are no longer Catholic. Believing that they finally found the truth, they decided to purposely and certainly place themselves outside of the Church.
Now, while Holy Mother the Church teaches us to avoid these Apostate, schismatic heretics, *She* calls on them to return to the Church, that is, She calls on them to get to confession and amend their lives.
The process for this is so simple that all they need to do is to enter the confessional, just the same as they did regularly for the past 50 years. Not only *can* they do this, they must do it for their hope of salvation. This simple, beautiful option which can only be partaken of by Catholics, remains open to these Apostate, schismatic heretics for as long as they live because what they did was commit mortal sin - even though they had good intentions.
The nature of the sin they committed makes it unlikely that they will ever make use of the sacrament of penance and return to a life of faith within the Church, but as long as they live (which being in their upper 70s may not be much longer) there's hope because with God, all things are possible. Please pray for them.
-
The first part, that says: "all baptized persons are parts or members of the true Church," is incomplete, therefore not the whole truth which results in being cause for confusion.
Very simply, baptized prot babies are members, but only until the age of reason. If they never become Catholic after the age of reason, then they remain outside of the Church unless or until they do become Catholic.
The bolded is only true if apostates / heretics had the Catholic faith before falling into the sin of heresy.
The distinction is, *having the Catholic faith*, because this is what makes one Catholic. To lose the faith by whatever means is itself a sin because to lose the faith is to not believe in the Church, which is Christ, see John 16:9 (" And when he is come, he will convict the world of sin, and of justice, and of judgment. [9]Of sin: because they believed not in me").
So now you've made up your own position. Claiming that baptized Prot babies cease to be members of the Church contradicts the once-Catholic-always-Catholic-by-virtue-of-the-Baptismal-character position you've been promoting all this time.
-
The process for this is so simple that all they need to do is to enter the confessional, just the same as they did regularly for the past 50 years. Not only *can* they do this, they must do it for their hope of salvation. This simple, beautiful option which can only be partaken of by Catholics, remains open to these Apostate, schismatic heretics for as long as they live because what they did was commit mortal sin - even though they had good intentions.
If they formally communicated to the local ordinary of their rejection of the Catholic membership, they can't just simply walk into any confessional. They would need to formally be received by the bishop. Of course, outside of a state of emergency.
-
So now you've made up your own position. Claiming that baptized Prot babies cease to be members of the Church contradicts the once-Catholic-always-Catholic-by-virtue-of-the-Baptismal-character position you've been promoting all this time.
I posted what the Church has always taught. Please work on your reading comprehension, I did not claim that prot babies cease to be members of the Church.
Keep stretching tho, keep that chair empty at all costs.
-
I posted what the Church has always taught. Please work on your reading comprehension, I did not claim that prot babies cease to be members of the Church.
Keep stretching tho, keep that chair empty at all costs.
Church has always taught my foot. You made this up out of whole-cloth. You put a couple of heretofore-unknown conditions on membership by Baptism that was held by Cajetan.
-
If they formally communicated to the local ordinary of their rejection of the Catholic membership, they can't just simply walk into any confessional. They would need to formally be received by the bishop. Of course, outside of a state of emergency.
They were traditional Catholics, so they had no Ordinary, but if they did, they certainly would not communicate anything to him. And no, your requirement is that they need to be formally received by the bishop, that is not the Church's - as I have posted more than once in this thread already.
And yes, they can simply walk into any confessional the same as they did the previous 50 years. There is no other way for their sin to be certainly forgiven.
-
Church has always taught my foot. You made this up out of whole-cloth. You put a couple of heretofore-unknown conditions on membership by Baptism that was held by Cajetan.
Have you ever heard of the word "Convert?"
What do you suppose it means?
-
They were traditional Catholics, so they had no Ordinary, but if they did, they certainly would not communicate anything to him. And no, your requirement is that they need to be formally received by the bishop, that is not the Church's - as I have posted more than once in this thread already.
And yes, they can simply walk into any confessional the same as they did the previous 50 years. There is no other way for their sin to be certainly forgiven.
Since when does "traditional Catholic" = no Ordinary. Isn't that one of the "R's" in "Recognize and Resist" position?
Yes, Confession is necessary for forgiveness of sins. No one was arguing. In a strict sense, they will need to make a profession of Faith, certainly part of their penance. Doesn't necessarily have be public but once their former friends and acquaintances see them receiving communion, they might be scandalized and their conversion will eventually be made self-evident. And when you do make your rejection formal, this gets marked in your Baptismal records. So, I would think it would take another formal communication with your local ordinary to rectify the record. I know .....this a legalistic point of view and does not impact your membership of the Church.
-
Have you ever heard of the word "Convert?"
What do you suppose it means?
What are you babbling about? If someone needs to "convert" in addition to having the Baptismal character, that means that the Baptismal character doesn't suffice to retain membership in the Church as a consequence of heresy or schism.
-
Since when does "traditional Catholic" = no Ordinary. Isn't that one of the "R's" in "Recognize and Resist" position?
Yes, Confession is necessary for forgiveness of sins. No one was arguing. In a strict sense, they will need to make a profession of Faith, certainly part of their penance. Doesn't necessarily have be public but once their former friends and acquaintances see them receiving communion, they might be scandalized and their conversion will eventually be made self-evident. And when you do make your rejection formal, this gets marked in your Baptismal records. So, I would think it would take another formal communication with your local ordinary to rectify the record. I know .....this a legalistic point of view and does not impact your membership of the Church.
As I said: "...but if they did, they certainly would not communicate anything to him."
I am of the opinion that they've lost their minds in order to do what they did after all this time.
"R&R" is label that was coined by Fr. Cekada, so please feel free to make it mean whatever you wish. Not sure who coined "sedevacantist", which is derived from the Latin "sede vacante," which refers to the Chair of St. Peter when it is empty due to the death of a supreme pontiff, maybe it was coined by him as well.
The problem with this whole subject, is that the most simple, basic and elementary tenets and truths of the faith, which are fundamental the faith, are either not known, forgotten, ignored or scoffed at as tho heretical. That's the main problem in my opinion.
Meanwhile, the sedes attempt to invoke and rely on papal teachings which they read into only what they believe, along with the opinions of some of the Fathers and some of the learned theologians - and some of the modernist opinions of theologians, in their effort to support sedevacantism.
But as it has always been and always will be, all that is taught by the Church can be likened to one doctrine. Not only does it all mean one thing, but it is, as it were, a single cloth woven from the top so that there are no seams, there is a perfect unity.
Therefore, any opinions, ideas or teachings that in any way teach contrary to any one of it’s doctrines, any part of this holy deposit, violates it’s holiness, the truth of God, tearing the cloth - which is what happens whenever the most basic and fundamental tenets of the faith are scoffed at as tho heretical.
-
What are you babbling about? If someone needs to "convert" in addition to having the Baptismal character, that means that the Baptismal character doesn't suffice to retain membership in the Church as a consequence of heresy or schism.
I gather that you do not see any difference whatsoever between a Catholic who falls into the sin of heresy, and one who never had the Catholic faith being a heretic. Do I have that right?
-
Have you ever heard of the word "Convert?"
What do you suppose it means?
What I, or anyone else, supposes it means doesn't matter. What the Church teaches matters, and you've rejected that whole cloth by making up your own definition of the state of heretics and now you're trying to make up your own definition of conversion. This subterfuge to get your way is the mark of heresy The Council of Florence was clear, Pope Pius XII in Mystici Corporis was clear, as were all of the Papal and Magisterial teachings I've been quoting.
In all charity, you're a liar, a deceiver and a heretic.
-
From Denzinger (in case you want to try the whole "Dimondite" fallacy again):
Pope Innocent III, Eius exemplo, Dec. 18, 1208:
“By the heart we believe and by the mouth we confess the one Church, not of heretics,
but the Holy Roman, Catholic, and Apostolic Church outside of which we believe that no
one is saved.”
-
What I, or anyone else, supposes it means doesn't matter. What the Church teaches matters, and you've rejected that whole cloth by making up your own definition of the state of heretics and now you're trying to make up your own definition of conversion. This subterfuge to get your way is the mark of heresy The Council of Florence was clear, Pope Pius XII in Mystici Corporis was clear, as were all of the Papal and Magisterial teachings I've been quoting.
In all charity, you're a liar, a deceiver and a heretic.
What is it with sedes never answering the question? smh
From Denzinger (in case you want to try the whole "Dimondite" fallacy again):
Pope Innocent III, Eius exemplo, Dec. 18, 1208:
“By the heart we believe and by the mouth we confess the one Church, not of heretics,
but the Holy Roman, Catholic, and Apostolic Church outside of which we believe that no
one is saved.”6
Beautiful quote! Also, I would love to read the rest of Eius Exemplo but can't find it - do you have it?
Apparently you think a heretic pope makes the Catholic Church a Church of heretics. Got it.
-
Beautiful quote! Also, I would love to read the rest of Eius Exemplo but can't find it - do you have it?
Apparently you think a heretic pope makes the Catholic Church a Church of heretics. Got it.
Indeed it is beautiful, yet the discussion is not about the beauty of the quote but its truth that heretics are not part of the Church. They are outside of it. A truth which you obstinate deny.
Denzinger, Sources of Catholic Dogma, 13th ed., no. 423, pg. 167
https://u1lib.org/book/14465091/e4a377
-
Indeed it is beautiful, yet the discussion is not about the beauty of the quote but its truth that heretics are not part of the Church. They are outside of it. A truth which you obstinate deny.
Denzinger, Sources of Catholic Dogma, 13th ed., no. 423, pg. 167
https://u1lib.org/book/14465091/e4a377
Thanks.
Also, I was hoping to be wrong, but as it turns out I did know you would find it impossible to accept that only Catholics can use the sacrament of confession, therefore only Catholics guilty of the mortal sin of heresy and want to repent can go to confession. Sad day.
-
Thanks.
Also, I was hoping to be wrong, but as it turns out I did know you would find it impossible to accept that only Catholics can use the sacrament of confession, therefore only Catholics guilty of the mortal sin of heresy and want to repent can go to confession. Sad day.
Heretics are not Catholics until they abjure their errors. As three other people have told you. Get behind me Satan
-
Heretics are not Catholics until they abjure their errors. As three other people have told you. Get behind me Satan
See, the truth always comes out eventually.
Also, dozens of other sedes before those three other sedes said the same wrong thing. The Church is not a democracy, there really is no strength in numbers when it comes to error.
-
Heretics are not Catholics until they abjure their errors.
:facepalm: Correction: Formal heretics. Even MHFM admits there are different types of heresy.
-
:facepalm: Correction: Formal heretics. Even MHFM admits there are different types of heresy.
Depends on semantics. Many theologians don't consider material error to be "heresy" and would not classify those in material error as "heretics" at all. I read a big discussion on this in one scholastic theology manual.
-
Depends on semantics. Many theologians don't consider material error to be "heresy" and would not classify those in material error as "heretics" at all. I read a big discussion on this in one scholastic theology manual.
I don't consider it heresy either, and I made that clear already.
See, the truth always comes out eventually.
Also, dozens of other sedes before those three other sedes said the same wrong thing. The Church is not a democracy, there really is no strength in numbers when it comes to error.
What are you on about?
This:
Heretics are not Catholics until they abjure their errors. As three other people have told you. Get behind me Satan
Does not contradict this:
Council of Florence (1442: DS 1351): "It firmly believes, professes and preaches, that none who are outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jєωs and heretics and schismatics, can partake of eternal life, but they will go into eternal fire... unless before the end of life they will have been joined to it [the Church] and that the unity of the ecclesiastical body has such force that only for those who remain in it are the sacraments of the Church profitable for salvation;"
I never denied that heretics can convert and return to the Church. Not once. Admission of the sacraments being only accessible to Catholics doesn't contradict that either, as to abjure the error is to re-enter the fold as a dead member.
Antipope Francis, for example, has never done such and he remains outside the Church, therefore, he has no right to command in the Church nor can he be the Pope. Further, he was a manifest FORMAL heretic before his "election", so either way its impossible that he is the true Pope. The same goes for his predecessors after Pius XII.
-
I never denied that heretics can convert and return to the Church. Not once. Admission of the sacraments being only accessible to Catholics doesn't contradict that either, as to abjure the error is to re-enter the fold as a dead member.
Antipope Francis, for example, has never done such and he remains outside the Church, therefore, he has no right to command in the Church nor can he be the Pope. Further, he was a manifest FORMAL heretic before his "election", so either way its impossible that he is the true Pope. The same goes for his predecessors after Pius XII.
You play with words DL, being unclear was the giveaway.
To be forgiven does not require a prior public abjuration, period. The pope, of all people, is as free to walk into the confessional to be absolved as you and I are, as the trad couple I posted about are - were he to have the mind to, which he doesn't and, due to the nature of the sin likely never will - such is the nature of the sin of heresy.
OTOH, if the pope chose to make a public abjuration, and like you I think he certainly should, he could do it any time, but who is going to enforce it upon the pope even if it were required? The only one who could make him do it is the pope's confessor, but he is under no obligation to make him do it.
-
Many theologians don't consider material error to be "heresy" and would not classify those in material error as "heretics" at all.
My beef is not with theologians but with those on this site (and MHFM) who repeatedly generalize a complex topic such as heresy. They lump all manner of errors into one big bucket and call it 'heresy'. Then they build upon this faulty foundation the next step, which is to (personally) throw out any and all "heretics" from office, with not even so much as a hearing or a repudiation (which, by the way, is a canon law requirement and also taught by St Paul). They act as the canon lawyer, judge and jury...all the while, being simple laymen. It's ridiculous and beyond anything in church history.
-
They act as the canon lawyer, judge and jury...all the while, being simple laymen. It's ridiculous and beyond anything in church history.
I would say this is to be expected whenever the most basic fundamentals of the faith are ignored rather than applied.
-
Church History examples:
1. Martin Luther (one of the most famous and public heretics in all of history), even after nailing his 100 thesis to the door of a church, was not excommunicated until a OVER A YEAR later, after multiple talks, hearings, etc. Does this matter to some in our day? No. They can throw out any and all persons they deem necessary. No matter that they are simple laymen, monks, or priests, with no jurisdiction, no canon law training, and not one iota of ecclesiastical authority.
2. Those who correctly point out that Fr Feeney's excommunication was faulty (and therefore probably null), in that he requested a public hearing with rome officials (as is his right under canon law) but was ignored. Yet these same people don't blink an eye when it comes to deciding that this or that priest, bishop or pope is no longer in office, ignoring all pretenses of a trial, or canon laws, or any kind of procedure whatsoever.
It's shocking in its lack of common sense. It's a (sad) triumph of theory over reality, where "imaginary righteousness" takes precedent over the laws of justice.
-
Church History examples:
1. Martin Luther (one of the most famous and public heretics in all of history), even after nailing his 100 thesis to the door of a church, was not excommunicated until a OVER A YEAR later, after multiple talks, hearings, etc. Does this matter to some in our day? No. They can throw out any and all persons they deem necessary. No matter that they are simple laymen, monks, or priests, with no jurisdiction, no canon law training, and not one iota of ecclesiastical authority.
2. Those who correctly point out that Fr Feeney's excommunication was faulty (and therefore probably null), in that he requested a public hearing with rome officials (as is his right under canon law) but was ignored. Yet these same people don't blink an eye when it comes to deciding that this or that priest, bishop or pope is no longer in office, ignoring all pretenses of a trial, or canon laws, or any kind of procedure whatsoever.
It's shocking in its lack of common sense. It's a (sad) triumph of theory over reality, where "imaginary righteousness" takes precedent over the laws of justice.
Here's the thing that neither of you don't seem to be getting, and I apologize for the lack of clarity: I am operating on the principle elaborated by St. Robert Bellarmine in De Romano Pontifice, II, 30:
“… for men are not bound, or able to read hearts; but when they see that someone is a heretic by his external works, they judge him to be a heretic pure and simple, and condemn him as a heretic.”
A point which has been codified in the 1917 Code:
Canon 2200 § 2. Positing an external violation of the law, dolus [i.e. malice] in the external forum is presumed until the contrary is proven.
It is not a simple matter of the sin of heresy, as it is undeniable that heretics can become Catholics again and have a right to the Sacrament of penance. But a matter of the state they occupy which ipso-facto eliminates their exercise of office through excommunication:
Canon 2340 § 1. If anyone from an obdurate spirit stays for a year under the censure of excommunication, he is suspected of heresy.
§ 2. If a cleric stays for six months under the censure of suspension, he shall be gravely warned; and if, a month from the warning having passed, he has not withdrawn from contumacy, he shall be deprived of benefices and offices that he might have had in the Church.
The fact that these Antipopes have committed many heresies in the external forum, as Stubborn admitted that they are heretics, my presuming their loss of office follows on this fact because their obduracy has persisted for years. It is not a matter of waiting for a formal declaration, or canonical judgment. Once one is seen to be a heretic in the external forum, then it is acceptable to condemn him as such.
And given the Church teachings I have quoted previously, these men are firmly outside of the Church and cannot legitimately hold their offices.
-
And we furthermore cannot sit here and ignore the fact that these men have publicly defected from their offices, and therefore, are excommunicated automatically as heretics:
Canon 188: Any office becomes vacant upon the fact and without any declaration by tacit resignation recognized by the law itself if a cleric:
4.° Publicly defects from the Catholic faith;
A "defection" here would include any public act of heresy (a denial of Catholic dogma, not just simple good-willed error). Which we know every single one of these Antipopes post-Pius XII have done.
-
1. Martin Luther (one of the most famous and public heretics in all of history), even after nailing his 100 thesis to the door of a church, was not excommunicated until a OVER A YEAR later, after multiple talks, hearings, etc.
Just because his departure from the Church wasn't formalized until a year after he initially defected from the faith does not mean he was still a member of the Church (Siscoe & Salza are completely wrong). St. Robert Bellarmine cites Pope Celestine, who wrote of Nestorius (who was only formally condemned about 3 years after his defection), that he ceased to have any authority from the moment that he began to "preach" heresy ... and that all his acts had been null and void.
This distinction actually speaks nicely to sedeprivationism, where the man had lost all authority (formal) even if he wasn't formally excommunicated / removed from office until later (material).
-
This distinction actually speaks nicely to sedeprivationism, where the man had lost all authority (formal) even if he wasn't formally excommunicated / removed from office until later (material).
It would, if it we were talking about a valid Pope falling into heresy and then losing office. The problem I see is that these Antipopes were never valid material to begin with, being manifest heretics prior to "election", and therefore have no office to speak of. Essentially the whole "impounded Pope-elect" idea I've seen some sedeprivs propose, specifically for Roncalli, Montini, Luciani, and Wojtyla, being valid bishops elected by true Cardinals; albeit, again, without office because of their manifest heresy. Ratzinger and Bergoglio, being that one is a valid priest but not bishop, and the latter is neither; cannot, from what I infer here, be proposed to even be Pope-elects.
So, perhaps the sedeprivationist thesis may have been possible for a time, say, up until JPII died. But after that point, you find yourself simply with a sede vacante.
-
It would, if it we were talking about a valid Pope falling into heresy and then losing office. The problem I see is that these Antipopes were never valid material to begin with, being manifest heretics prior to "election", and therefore have no office to speak of. Essentially the whole "impounded Pope-elect" idea I've seen some sedeprivs propose, specifically for Roncalli, Montini, Luciani, and Wojtyla, being valid bishops elected by true Cardinals; albeit, again, without office because of their manifest heresy. Ratzinger and Bergoglio, being that one is a valid priest but not bishop, and the latter is neither; cannot, from what I infer here, be proposed to even be Pope-elects.
So, perhaps the sedeprivationist thesis may have been possible for a time, say, up until JPII died. But after that point, you find yourself simply with a sede vacante.
Well, I don't believe they were even materially valid due to the office being materially held by Cardinal Siri (Pope Gregory XVII) until his death in 1989.
But there's a clear reality to the material-formal distinction. Let's say the Siri thesis is not correct, these men would have had the Church's designation to the papacy ... which was never repudiated. Had they converted some time after their election, they would then have formally assumed the office. Heretics cannot formally assume or exercise office, but they can in fact be designated for office.
We have many heretical bishops even before Vatican II. Let's take Cardinal Cushing, for instance. Obvious manifest heretic. Due to the fact that he remained designated for office by Pius XII, he did in fact to some extent remain in office. He was able to still serve as a conduit for jurisdiction for the priests who were subject to him. He could appoint priests to be pastors. And so on.
-
... Vatican II is not from the Holy Spirit..
It would've been better if the that Council had been guided by Mumbly and the Cartoons, or that the that Council had never been born.
-
But there's a clear reality to the material-formal distinction. Let's say the Siri thesis is not correct, these men would have had the Church's designation to the papacy ... which was never repudiated. Had they converted some time after their election, they would then have formally assumed the office. Heretics cannot formally assume or exercise office, but they can in fact be designated for office.
Suppose that happened, and an Antipope repudiates his errors and converts; since it would necessitate them to publicly abjure their errors, given they were acting as the apparent Pontiff, would not a new conclave need to be called? His office was null and void, as was his election, in this case, with these Antipopes being manifest heretics preceding their "election", one would have to conclude that they were not, in-fact, selected by the Holy Ghost and therefore a new conclave would be necessary.
We have many heretical bishops even before Vatican II. Let's take Cardinal Cushing, for instance. Obvious manifest heretic. Due to the fact that he remained designated for office by Pius XII, he did in fact to some extent remain in office. He was able to still serve as a conduit for jurisdiction for the priests who were subject to him. He could appoint priests to be pastors. And so on.
Yes, but, wouldn't that be just a testimony to the nature of their office rather than the ability to command after becoming a manifest heretic? In the same way that Eastern "Orthodox" bishops can create priests illicitly, as they are heretics? And I could see, in Cushing's case, while the See of Boston is vacant because he is a manifest heretic, losing jurisdiction, the jurisdiction could still be supplied by means of, as you say, a "conduit" much like jurisdiction is supplied to SSPX priests in confession, when they do not possess any jurisdiction.
Yet, again, this is based upon the fact that Cushing was already the valid Archbishop of Boston, allowing him to remain the "conduit" of supplied jurisdiction in that See, kind of like how Bishops and Cardinals can still be appointed during a sede vacante of the Papacy; whereas, JPII, for example, was never validly the Bishop of Rome given he was a heretic beforehand, and would not have any possession of universal jurisdiction regardless, preventing him from even serving as a "conduit" for the appointment of Bishops, Cardinals, and priests by this means.
-
Yet, again, this is based upon the fact that Cushing was already the valid Archbishop of Boston, allowing him to remain the "conduit" of supplied jurisdiction in that See, kind of like how Bishops and Cardinals can still be appointed during a sede vacante of the Papacy; whereas, JPII, for example, was never validly the Bishop of Rome given he was a heretic beforehand, and would not have any possession of universal jurisdiction regardless, preventing him from even serving as a "conduit" for the appointment of Bishops, Cardinals, and priests by this means.
And, furthermore, in Cushing's case, given what Canon 2340.2 states above, it's likely that those appointments were also null since he had no jurisdiction to do so. Obviously the ordinations would be valid, but not their appointments. Albeit, you could argue that they were ratified as legitimate through their acceptance by the Holy Office...
-
Four Creeds, the Apostles', Nicene, Athanasian, and Tridentine, and traditional Latin Mass and Vigils or Matins and Hours of Office, etc., ... and that the Moon that God created goes from East to West around the Earth every day in about 24 hours and 54 minutes, which also proves that Galileo and Copernicus and Newtown were wrong, and that Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle were right, is all I need to know. and then Vatican II is obviously messed up with modernism and Freemasons and Jєωs.
Don't accept ʝʊdɛօ-Masonic controlled NASA's fake trips to the Moon and Mars and outer space, or the Feral Rezerve Bank and Wall Street Corporate Scam, or Vatican II, or the story that the Moon that goes the wrong way ... etc. ... and in the wrong time ... and that lying stories about the Moon should cost so much money.
-
https://www.papalencyclicals.net/pius12/p12mysti.htm
Mystici Corporis
The Mystical Body of Christ, the Church
Pope Pius XII - 1943
22. Actually only those are to be included as members of the Church who have been baptized and profess the true faith, and who have not been so unfortunate as to separate themselves from the unity of the Body, or been excluded by legitimate authority for grave faults committed. “For in one spirit” says the Apostle, “were we all baptized into one Body, whether Jєωs or Gentiles, whether bond or free.” 17 (https://www.papalencyclicals.net/pius12/p12mysti.htm#easy-footnote-bottom-17-357) As therefore in the true Christian community there is only one Body, one Spirit, one Lord, and one Baptism, so there can be only one faith. 18 (https://www.papalencyclicals.net/pius12/p12mysti.htm#easy-footnote-bottom-18-357) And therefore if a man refuse to hear the Church let him be considered — so the Lord commands — as a heathen and a publican. 19 (https://www.papalencyclicals.net/pius12/p12mysti.htm#easy-footnote-bottom-19-357) It follows that those are divided in faith or government cannot be living in the unity of such a Body, nor can they be living the life of its one Divine Spirit.
Dogmatic Theology: Volume II, Christ's Church, Van Noort
https://archive.org/details/vannoortvol2christschurch/page/n131/mode/2up
Page 241:
b. Public heretics (and a fortiori, apostates ) are not members of the Church. They are not members because they separate themselves from the unity of Catholic faith and from the external profession of that faith. Obviously, therefore, they lack one of the three factors—baptism, profession of the same faith, union with the hierarchy—pointed out by Pius XII as requisite for membership in the Church (see above, p. 238). The same pontiff has explicitly pointed out that, unlike other sins, heresy, schism, and apostasy automatically sever a man from the Church. For not every sin, however grave and enormous it be, is such as to sever a man automatically from the Body of the Church, as does schism or heresy or apostasy ”
By the term public heretics at this point we mean all who externally deny a truth (for example Marys Divine Maternity), or several truths of divine and Catholic faith, regardless of whether the one denying does so ignorantly and innocently (a merely material heretic), or wilfully and guiltily (a formal heretic). It is certain that public, formal heretics are severed from Church membership.
Sacrae Theologiae Summa, On the Church of Christ, On Holy Scripture, Joachim Salaverri
https://archive.org/details/salaverri-de-ecclesia/page/424/mode/2up
Page 424:
1) That formal and manifest heretics are not members of the body of the Church can well be said to be the unanimous opinion among Catholics.
Louis Card. Billot, Tractatus de Ecclesia Christi, I De credibilitate Ecclesiae et de intima ejus constitutione
https://archive.org/details/BillotDeEcclesiaChristiI/page/n145/mode/2up
Page 294:
English Translation:
the unity of the profession of faith, which is dependent on the visible authority of the living magisterium, is the essential property by which Christ wanted His Church to be adorned forever, it follows clearly that those cannot be part of the Church who profess differently from what its magisterium teaches. For then there would be a division in the profession of faith, and division is contradictory to unity. But notorious heretics are those who by their own admission do not follow the rule of the ecclesiastical magisterium. Therefore they have an obstacle that prevents them from being included in the Church, and even though they are signed with the baptismal character, they either have never been part of its visible body, or have ceased to be such from the time they publicly became heterodox after their baptism.
SSPX article: Eucharistic hospitality: an ecuмenical novelty
https://sspx.org/en/eucharistic-hospitality-ecuмenical-novelty
There are also souls who, though having been incorporated into the Church by baptism, break off from this Body and cease to be members of it. The bond of communion produced in them by baptism is broken by heresy, schism, or excommunication. Unlike the case of sinners who though dead remain attached to the Body, these souls cease completely from being members of the Church, and that is why they cannot licitly approach the sacrament of Holy Communion.
-
In calling Luther a Catholic Priest, I am not saying he professed the true faith - the man was an abominable heretic. What I am doing is stating a fact of faith in virtue of the indelible character that the sacrament of holy orders imprints on the soul of all priests - and only on the souls of all priests. Even now that character remains - and will forever remain, marking him as having been a Catholic priest forever, which only adds to his suffering.
This is something 6 year old Catholic children are taught as part of their catechism, not sure what there is about it you cannot accept.
Stop creating strawmen Stubborn, everyone here knows that Holy Orders leave an indelible mark upon the soul of a priest. There is an important distinction between a priest and a Catholic priest. A priest is anyone who has been validly ordained. A Catholic priest is a priest who also possesses the supernatural virtue of Faith, the Catholic Faith. Would you really refer to an Eastern "Orthodox" priest as a "Catholic priest", because they have valid orders? Come on, that's just absurd.
Think about this hypothetical scenario: you see an Eastern "Orthodox" priest walking down the street, and you turn to your 14 year-old son, and say to him "look, son, there is a Catholic priest"... your son looks in wonder and admiration. A few weeks later, on a Sunday, your son is walking down the street again, this time alone, and sees the same priest that his bad-willed heretic Daddy called a "Catholic priest", walking to the Church to say the "Divine Liturgy". He follows him there and takes part in the sacrilegious liturgy and receives Communion, after being deceived by his heretic Father into thinking it is "Catholic" (once a priest always a priest, right?), and therefore fine to participate in. This is just one potential scandal your abominable dishonesty could cause.
Objection: Martin Luther was at one point in time a professed Catholic monk, therefore he is different to an Eastern "Orthodox" priest, who has never professed the Catholic Faith.
Reply to Objection: When the Eastern "Orthodox" are baptized as infants, they are made members of the Catholic Church and receive the supernatural virtue of Faith through the sacrament of baptism. They are only excommunicated from the Church when they commit the sin of heresy or schism at a later age, at some point in time after they have obtained the use of reason. Therefore, they are former(!) Catholics, just the same as Martin Luther was.
-
Martin Luther was not a Catholic, and neither are you.
-
Martin Luther was not a Catholic, and neither are you.
^^This is what Pax wasted his time posting about in his last few excellent posts.
At any rate master, how would I become a Catholic? Vow that the Chair is Vacant, then make a public abjuration to that affect here on CI, then go to confession? :facepalm:
-
Reply to Objection: When the Eastern "Orthodox" are baptized as infants, they are made members of the Catholic Church and receive the supernatural virtue of Faith through the sacrament of baptism. They are only excommunicated from the Church when they commit the sin of heresy or schism at a later age, at some point in time after they have obtained the use of reason. Therefore, they are former(!) Catholics, just the same as Martin Luther was.
"Excommunicated from the Church?" Where did you get this phrase? Makes it sound like they are banished or expelled from the Church.
Excommunication, depending on the censure, basically means one may not partake in the sacraments or activities (if a priest, he cannot celebrate Mass, preach or administer the sacraments etc., or laymen cannot be an usher, sing in the choir, etc.) because they have committed a mortal sin to which is attached the censure of excommunication.
Excommunication is a censure primarily intended to be medicinal, a stern warning prompting the sinner to repent. These sinners still have all the obligations of a Catholic but none of the privileges - until they repent. But it is a censure due to mortal sin, not a banishment of the sinner from the Church.
-
But [excommunication] is a censure due to mortal sin, not a banishment of the sinner from the Church.
Garbage. Excommunication puts one outside the body of the Church, per St. Robert Bellarmine and pretty much everyone else. Being barred from the Sacraments IS in fact to be outside the Church. You make stuff up as it suits your half-deranged fantasy (and heretical ecclesiology). Try to read St. Robert Bellarmine and some other Catholic theologians from time to time instead of just making this stuff up out of thin air.
-
Martin Luther was not a Catholic, and neither are you.
Yeah, I've said this before and I say it again. Stubborn's beliefs bear no resemblance to Roman Catholicism. Again, to salvage and rescue Jorge Bergoglio, they're willing to butcher and effectively throw out all of Traditional Catholic ecclesiology.
-
^^This is what Pax wasted his time posting about in his last few excellent posts.
At any rate master, how would I become a Catholic? Vow that the Chair is Vacant, then make a public abjuration to that affect here on CI, then go to confession? :facepalm:
(https://c.tenor.com/ZFc20z8DItkAAAAM/facepalm-really.gif)
I see this is going nowhere.
"And whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear your words: going forth out of that house or city shake off the dust from your feet." [Matthew 10:14]
Garbage. Excommunication puts one outside the body of the Church, per St. Robert Bellarmine and pretty much everyone else. Being barred from the Sacraments IS in fact to be outside the Church. You make stuff up as it suits your half-deranged fantasy (and heretical ecclesiology). Try to read St. Robert Bellarmine and some other Catholic theologians from time to time instead of just making this stuff up out of thin air.
Ah, but you see Lad, it is us who don't have the truth here
-
Just because his departure from the Church wasn't formalized until a year after he initially defected from the faith does not mean he was still a member of the Church (Siscoe & Salza are completely wrong). St. Robert Bellarmine cites Pope Celestine, who wrote of Nestorius (who was only formally condemned about 3 years after his defection), that he ceased to have any authority from the moment that he began to "preach" heresy ... and that all his acts had been null and void.
The point is, the "formalizing" of his heresy serves a very necessary aspect to the process.
a. Until Martin Luther was interrogated about his errors, canon law (and charity) assumes he is materially wrong and not pernicious.
b. Example: Under questioning, Luther actually relented on a number of his 100 points. Which means, he was NOT pernicious on all 100 of them.
c. If it is found that a person is not pernicious but only materially wrong, then the "loss of office" does not happen at all.
d. Which means, that UNTIL a person is corrected/interrogated (i.e. a canon law process), then pernicious/obstinacy is unknown (in a temporal/govt sense). Only God knows the heart of a person, and if they are suspected of heresy, then St Bellarmine is correct that we treat them as such (i.e. meaning, we avoid/ignore them as a scandal and danger to the faith).
e. St Bellarmine does NOT mean that we can "treat them as heretic" by kicking them out of office without due process. This contradicts every legal foundation ever created.
f. In the case of Luther, he would've been suspended immediately for his 100 thesis and he would've lost any "spiritual" authority from that moment. But...his office/temporal authority (and his membership in the church) did not cease until AFTER an investigation/correction.
g. As St Paul teaches, those in error should be corrected twice, then afterwards, cast out.
h. The problem with many sedes is they fail to distinguish between spiritual penalities for heresy (which many times only God knows) and the process for determining temporal penalties. An investigation is necessary, by an authority, before any temporal penalties can exist. Or it's just an opinion. No layman can kick anyone out of office for any reason.
-
A "defection" here would include any public act of heresy (a denial of Catholic dogma, not just simple good-willed error).
Ok, then using your stupidly short-sighted definition, then Pius XII lost his office for a number of reasons:
1. condoning NFP
2. evolution
3. 1955 liberalization of the missal
4. Appointing a known mason (Bugnini) to change the liturgy.
5. Etc, etc
None of these things were a "good willed error". He's out. That means the dogma of the Assumption was never defined. It needs to be again.
Also, Pope Pius IX was a liberal in his first few years, before he woke up, so everything he did in 25+ years (including Vatican I and the dogma of the Immaculate Conception) is null.
-
e. St Bellarmine does NOT mean that we can "treat them as heretic" by kicking them out of office without due process. This contradicts every legal foundation ever created.
f. In the case of Luther, he would've been suspended immediately for his 100 thesis and he would've lost any "spiritual" authority from that moment. But...his office/temporal authority (and his membership in the church) did not cease until AFTER an investigation/correction.
g. As St Paul teaches, those in error should be corrected twice, then afterwards, cast out.
h. The problem with many sedes is they fail to distinguish between spiritual penalities for heresy (which many times only God knows) and the process for determining temporal penalties. An investigation is necessary, by an authority, before any temporal penalties can exist. Or it's just an opinion. No layman can kick anyone out of office for any reason.
This is why Pope St Piux X and XII changed the conclave laws. They knew that canon law outlines multiple spiritual penalities for heresy, which kick in immediately. They also knew that orthodox cardinals/bishops were far outnumbered and that Modernists held positions of power. Which means that the legal structure necessary to investigate/"clean house"/change the Modernists with heresy was impotent. Which means that these evil men would still retain temporal control of offices, per canon law, even if they were closeted (or even open) heretics. Because the Church is a visible organization which functions like a govt for temporal matters.
So they, knowing the future was dire, made the decision to keep the VISIBLE/Temporal structure of the Church intact (i.e. allow material heretics to vote) even if this means that a) spiritually speaking, the Church would be papally sedevacant for a long time (until God intervened), and probably 95% cardinal/bishop sedevacant globally
b) temporally speaking, the Church would be "ruled" by modernist heretics.
Not only is this situation the practical reality, but it's also the only temporal solution to the problem. Neither St Pius X nor XII could stop the infiltration; it had already happened (it's arguable that Pius XII was a cooperator, so he must be deemed an fellow infiltrator). St Pius X couldn't convert these heretics. And I don't think "cleaning house" is an effective solution either, because (in St Pius X's day) a) it had never been done, b) it would've caused total chaos, c) most modernists would've claimed to have been orthodox, so how do you prove heresy when the "deep church" (which was very active in the early 1900s) would effectively subvert your every move? I don't think people realize how infiltrated the Church was, in St Pius X's time. He often complained to his assistant of being "alone" (he meant, orthodox-wise).
So, the only solution is to prepare for the future situation that we are living in today. Where 99% of the Church is either a material heretic or mostly pernicious infiltrators. But how do you separate the two? How do you determine a) the cowardly unorthodox from b) the pernicious evildoers? Even if you knew, how do you replace them when the "deep church" is against you?
Similar to the Arian heresy, when 95% of the church hierarchy were heretics. The church still functioned temporally. But they all eventually re-converted and returned to orthodoxy. There was no mass "kicking heretics from office" and replacing them with orthodox bishops/cardinals. That didn't happen, nor is it a practical reality. Did they abjure their heresy before the church returned to normal? Absolutely. Did these heretic clergymen suffer spiritual penalties and lose spiritual authority? Sure, St Athanasius' life proves this. But did they also STILL KEEP their offices during a chaotic, unprecedented crisis? Yes.
The only solution is to "keep the Church going" from a temporal standpoint (i.e. keep the visible structure operating) even if spiritually speaking, it's been hallowed out by an enemy. And wait for God to resurrect His Bride, as only He can do.
-
Garbage. Excommunication puts one outside the body of the Church, per St. Robert Bellarmine and pretty much everyone else. Being barred from the Sacraments IS in fact to be outside the Church. You make stuff up as it suits your half-deranged fantasy (and heretical ecclesiology). Try to read St. Robert Bellarmine and some other Catholic theologians from time to time instead of just making this stuff up out of thin air.
Sede garbage.
Look it up in the Summa before flapping your lips.
-
Yeah, I've said this before and I say it again. Stubborn's beliefs bear no resemblance to Roman Catholicism. Again, to salvage and rescue Jorge Bergoglio, they're willing to butcher and effectively throw out all of Traditional Catholic ecclesiology.
Ahh, the anemic spirit of a sede.
"To salvage and rescue Jorge Bergoglio" is imprinted on your brain. Very Catholic. You need to purge the NO of your youth professor.
-
(https://c.tenor.com/ZFc20z8DItkAAAAM/facepalm-really.gif)
I see this is going nowhere.
"And whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear your words: going forth out of that house or city shake off the dust from your feet." [Matthew 10:14]
Ah, but you see Lad, it is us who don't have the truth here
No, you have the truth, but you reject it in order to "To salvage and rescue" a vacant chair.
Here is more truth I like from:
Commentary of the New [1917] Canon Law .....
1168. The faithful are in conscience obliged to profess their faith publicly whenever their silence, subterfuge, or manner of acting, imports an implicit denial of their faith, a contempt of religion, or an insult to God, or scandal to the neighbor.
A baptized Christian, who calls himself a Christian, yet obstinately denies or calls into doubt any of the truths to be
believed by Divine and Catholic faith, is a heretic;
If he abandons the Christian faith altogether he is called an apostate;
If, finally, he refuses to be subject to the Supreme Pontiff, or to have communication with the members of the Church subject to the Roman Pontiff, he is a schismatic.
The Catholics shall not enter into any dispute or conferences with non-Catholics, especially public ones, without permission of the Holy See, or, in urgent case, of the Ordinary. (Canon 1325.)
-
This is why the straight-sedevacantism of DL (and others) is theoretically nice-sounding but practically a dead-end. It offers no hope for the Church to resurrect Herself, using normal canonical means. It requires a miraculous event, which can't even be practically explained.
The quasi-sedevacantist theory (where the loss of temporal office does not occur when the infiltration is so bad that the canonical investigation of heresy is impossible) is the key to the Church fixing Herself. Call it sede-privationism, Fr Chazal's "spiritual impoundism", or a "more strict R&R than the new-sspx's indult version". Here's how it could work:
1. A valid priest with questionable episcopal orders, who is part of the mainstream "new-rome", but who recognizes the the errors of V2 is elected (let's say +Vigano).
2. This would be a valid, temporal election, as the conclave laws are both human and divine. The human/temporal laws would be fulfilled.
3. +Vigano openly abjures his prior heresies and declares a return to orthodoxy, condeming V2.
4. +Vigano askes to be conditionally consecrated under the old rite.
5. +Vigano is spiritually and temporally a valid pope.
6. The "clean up" process begins, with mass excommunications for all those who refuse the "oath against modernism". Some modernists would openly rebel while others would stay quiet and keep their "neo con" game going.
7. Step 2, find and exterminate the infiltrators who take "the oath". (I have no idea how this would happen but it's possible).
Straight-sedevantism offers no hope. The above is a realistic possibility, even in our dark times.
-
Ok, then using your stupidly short-sighted definition, then Pius XII lost his office for a number of reasons:
You call it "stupid", but then you yourself never provide definitions either. You keep asking for them and playing the semantics game. Sounds like an emotional reaction rather than a rational one.
1. condoning NFP<---fallible statement made in a speech rather than a universal address, not heresy, but error.
2. evolution<---the universal teaching in Humani Generis is not pro-evolution; statements made outside of his universal capacity, such as the address to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences where he refers to "billions of years", are, again, not heresy, but error.
3. 1955 liberalization of the missal<---well within his power to do, he did not touch the Canon. This is the same fallacious argument some use against St. Pius X for his changes.
4. Appointing a known mason (Bugnini) to change the liturgy.<---again, error. Poor judgment in his appointments does not constitue heresy. We all know Pius XII was a weak Pope. But still the Pope.
5. Etc, etc
None of these things were a "good willed error". He's out. That means the dogma of the Assumption was never defined. It needs to be again.
Also, Pope Pius IX was a liberal in his first few years, before he woke up, so everything he did in 25+ years (including Vatican I and the dogma of the Immaculate Conception) is null.
You're conflating the issue here to one of impeccability. The sedevacantist argument was never that Popes and prelates cannot make error, but that Popes cannot teach error in their universal capacity. Yet, we have examples of this in the encyclicals of John XXIII, the pronouncements of Vatican 2 ratified by Paul VI, and the legion of errors taught in universal capacity by subsequent Antipopes which prove these men are not Popes.
As for before they became Antipopes, we have examples of manifest heresy in their teachings, as I've been saying, which, by the principle cited of St. Robert Bellarmine, are to be taken as malicious heresy until proven otherwise. Yet, no evidence to the contrary has been shown. Rather, you keep arguing semantics.
-
You're conflating the issue here to one of impeccability. The sedevacantist argument was never that Popes and prelates cannot make error, but that Popes cannot teach error in their universal capacity.
1. There is not "one argument" of sede-ism. Some would totally disagree with you. The whole argument that "the Holy Ghost guides the pope" implies errors aren't possible.
2. Define "teach error in a universal capacity". What parameters must be fulfilled to reach this level of teaching?
As for before they became Antipopes, we have examples of manifest heresy in their teachings, as I've been saying, which, by the principle cited of St. Robert Bellarmine, are to be taken as malicious heresy until proven otherwise. Yet, no evidence to the contrary has been shown. Rather, you keep arguing semantics.
I'm not arguing against the spiritual penalities or loss of spiritual authority/office. I'm strictly arguing about the temporal office.
-
Holy Ghost guides the Papacy and the Church overall, substantially, and from the "big picture" perspective. This does not preclude various detail that would later be subject to reform. There's a difference between mistakes about details here or there and substantial corruption of doctrine and public worship, where they become downright harmful to souls, the former being possible, the latter impossible.
Unfortunately, some of the dogmatic SVs err on this point and over-extend infallibility in the strict sense to every detail (and some have even gone as far as to claim that anything that bears an imprimatur is effectively infallible and requires internal assent). On the other side, you have the R&R like this crew who think it's entirely possible for the Church to become substantially corrupt in her teaching and her public worship. Both of these extremes are incorrect, and they keep pushing each other to the further opposite extreme, as often happens when the balance is lost.
Msgr. Fenton describes the proper balance between the two (see in particular the last paragraph, which I highlight in bold):
Despite the comparative inadequacy of the treatment they give to the papal encyclicals, however, all the theological works dealing with this subject make it perfectly clear that all Catholics are bound seriously in conscience to accept the teaching contained in these docuмents with a true internal religious assent. It is the common teaching of the theologians who have written on this subject that the internal assent due to a great number of the doctrines proposed in the papal encyclicals is something distinct from and inferior to both the act of divine Catholic faith and the act most frequently designated as fides ecclesiastica. Most theologians hold that, while there is nothing to prevent an infallible definition of truth contained in or connected with the deposit of revelation in papal encyclicals, and while de facto it is quite probable that at least some infallible pronouncements have been made in this way, the Holy Father has not chosen to use the complete plenitude of his apostolic doctrinal authority in presenting most of the truths contained in his encyclical letters. Nevertheless they all insist that even in this portion of his ordinary magisterium the Holy Father has the right to demand, and actually has demanded, a definite and unswerving internal assent to his teaching from all Catholics.
...
It might be definitely understood, however, that the Catholic’s duty to accept the teachings conveyed in the encyclicals even when the Holy Father does not propose such teachings as a part of his infallible magisterium is not based merely upon the dicta of the theologians. The authority which imposes this obligation is that of the Roman Pontiff himself. To the Holy Father’s responsibility of caring for the sheep of Christ’s fold, there corresponds, on the part of the Church’s membership, the basic obligation of following his directions, in doctrinal as well as disciplinary matters. In this field, God has given the Holy Father a kind of infallibility distinct from the charism of doctrinal infallibility in the strict sense. He has so constructed and ordered the Church that those who follow the directives given to the entire kingdom of God on earth will never be brought into the position of ruining themselves spiritually through this obedience. Our Lord dwells within His Church in such a way that those who obey disciplinary and doctrinal directives of this society can never find themselves displeasing God through their adherence to the teachings and the commands given to the universal Church militant. Hence there can be no valid reason to discountenance even the non-infallible teaching authority of Christ’s vicar on earth.
...
It is, of course, possible that the Church might come to modify its stand on some detail of teaching presented as non-infallible matter in a papal encyclical. The nature of the auctoritas providentiae doctrinalis within the Church is such, however, that this fallibility extends to questions of relatively minute detail or of particular application. The body of doctrine on the rights and duties of labor, on the Church and State, or on any other subject treated extensively in a series of papal letters directed to and normative for the entire Church militant could not be radically or completely erroneous. The infallible security Christ wills that His disciples should enjoy within His Church is utterly incompatible with such a possibility.
-
Hey, Lad, while I see +Fenton's point (to a degree) he has as much authority as Fr Wathen or Fr Hesse (a canon lawyer), whom you brush aside as not part of the magisterium. If you're going to be consistent, then don't hold up +Fenton as some inerrant authority. His opinion is not gospel.
-
Hey, Lad, while I see +Fenton's point (to a degree) he has as much authority as Fr Wathen or Fr Hesse (a canon lawyer), whom you brush aside as not part of the magisterium. If you're going to be consistent, then don't hold up +Fenton as some inerrant authority. His opinion is not gospel.
The Point - May 1953 (https://fatherfeeney.wordpress.com/2009/08/22/the-point-may-1953/amp/)
"...Of these doctrinal dictators, the three outstanding are Father Francis J. Connell, C. Ss. R., Monsignor Joseph C. Fenton, and Monsignor Matthew Smith. These three priests have emerged from nowhere to set themselves up as the official and unquestioned American theologians. Not even the Pope is able to speak to American Catholics without their mediation. His pronouncements require their interpretations, which infallibly follow, in order to make them clear and to show what he was really trying to say.
The opinions and interpretations of Fathers Connell, Fenton, and Smith are disseminated by means of one journal, one university, and many newspapers. These are, respectively, The American Ecclesiastical Review, of which Fenton is the editor and Connell the associate editor; the Catholic University of America, at which Fenton was, and Connell is, Dean of the School of Theology; and the newspapers that print articles issued by the National Catholic Welfare Conference, of which Connell is the star performer, together with the Denver Register, of which Smith is the editor and featured columnist.
Properly speaking, Monsignor Smith is not a professional theologian at all, but only a journalist with a flair for theological dabbling. Connell and Fenton are really the original thinkers, issuing their proclamations from the nation’s capital. Smith is merely their parrot, the voice out of the West. His job is to see to it, by means of his newspaper, that American Catholics are informed of the opinions Connell and Fenton have decided they ought to have. However, he does his job so faithfully and so well — besides which he often adds bright touches and anecdotes of his own — that he deserves to rank with the other two.
Father Connell specializes in giving the “Catholic position” on the latest newspaper headlines. There is not a single curiosity or scandal that he fails to notice and to comment on for the edification of American Catholics. Typical of his unholy interests and faithless comments is the article he wrote last year during the “flying saucer” ruckus. Asking himself the question, how could men on other planets be redeemed, he casually elaborated a scheme of multiple Incarnations and reincarnations of the Persons of the Blessed Trinity, a scheme which turns Our Lady from Virgo Singularis into just one of the mothers of one of the Divine Persons who became man.
Monsignor Fenton likes to make it appear that he is terribly strong and intransigent on the matter of dogma, and that he is persecuted on account of this by those with more liberal ideas. However, as is plainly evident to any long-term reader of Fenton’s Ecclesiastical Review, there is no lasting difference between him and the liberals; he merely says what they say two years later.
In his interpretations of the doctrine “no salvation outside the Church,” his prize interpretations, Fenton lays down conditions for non-Catholic salvation that are so rigid and far-fetched that practically no one can meet them. (This is to show his “terrible strength.”) However, it does not bother him that those who want to go all out for getting non-Catholics into Heaven, do so using his reasons and his authority. All the liberals need is one little loophole, which Fenton gives. Through that loophole, the liberals are able, in their need, to squeeze every Protestant and Jєω in America.
The Faith is meant to be something clear and simple, which the Holy Father can teach us in innocent terms, and every man can and must know for his salvation and his happiness. But as long as Fathers Fenton, Connell and Smith are running the show, the Faith is going to be presented as something obscure and esoteric — something that can be known by no one but these priests, and those to whom it shall please them to reveal it.
BY FATHER FEENEY"
-
"Excommunicated from the Church?" Where did you get this phrase? Makes it sound like they are banished or expelled from the Church.
Excommunication, depending on the censure, basically means one may not partake in the sacraments or activities (if a priest, he cannot celebrate Mass, preach or administer the sacraments etc., or laymen cannot be an usher, sing in the choir, etc.) because they have committed a mortal sin to which is attached the censure of excommunication.
Excommunication is a censure primarily intended to be medicinal, a stern warning prompting the sinner to repent. These sinners still have all the obligations of a Catholic but none of the privileges - until they repent. But it is a censure due to mortal sin, not a banishment of the sinner from the Church.
That is from the Code of Canon Law! Canon 2314: § 1. All apostates from the Christian faith and each and every heretic or schismatic: Incur by that fact excommunication.
This is completely in line with the traditional teaching and practice of the Church, not to mention what was explicitly taught in Satis Cognitum.
-
That is from the Code of Canon Law! Canon 2314: § 1. All apostates from the Christian faith and each and every heretic or schismatic: Incur by that fact excommunication.
This is completely in line with the traditional teaching and practice of the Church, not to mention what was explicitly taught in Satis Cognitum.
Quoting canon law? By this definition, you are excommunicated.
From Commentary of the New [1917] Canon Law .....
1168. The faithful are in conscience obliged to profess their faith publicly whenever their silence, subterfuge, or manner of acting, imports an implicit denial of their faith, a contempt of religion, or an insult to God, or scandal to the neighbor.
A baptized Christian, who calls himself a Christian, yet obstinately denies or calls into doubt any of the truths to be
believed by Divine and Catholic faith, is a heretic;
If he abandons the Christian faith altogether he is called an apostate;
If, finally, he refuses to be subject to the Supreme Pontiff, or to have communication with the members of the Church subject to the Roman Pontiff, he is a schismatic.
The Catholics shall not enter into any dispute or conferences with non-Catholics, especially public ones, without permission of the Holy See, or, in urgent case, of the Ordinary. (Canon 1325.)
-
Quoting canon law? By this definition, you are excommunicated.
From Commentary of the New [1917] Canon Law .....
1168. The faithful are in conscience obliged to profess their faith publicly whenever their silence, subterfuge, or manner of acting, imports an implicit denial of their faith, a contempt of religion, or an insult to God, or scandal to the neighbor.
A baptized Christian, who calls himself a Christian, yet obstinately denies or calls into doubt any of the truths to be
believed by Divine and Catholic faith, is a heretic;
If he abandons the Christian faith altogether he is called an apostate;
If, finally, he refuses to be subject to the Supreme Pontiff, or to have communication with the members of the Church subject to the Roman Pontiff, he is a schismatic.
The Catholics shall not enter into any dispute or conferences with non-Catholics, especially public ones, without permission of the Holy See, or, in urgent case, of the Ordinary. (Canon 1325.)
How exactly does that Canon have any force of law if the hierarchy has defected and the See is Vacant? Who is there to enforce it? I also don't see how augustineeens is a heretic here, he hasn't denied any dogmas, unlike you (unity of the Church, that heretics are outside of the Church)
-
The Point - May 1953 (https://fatherfeeney.wordpress.com/2009/08/22/the-point-may-1953/amp/)
"..
Monsignor Fenton likes to make it appear that he is terribly strong and intransigent on the matter of dogma, and that he is persecuted on account of this by those with more liberal ideas. However, as is plainly evident to any long-term reader of Fenton’s Ecclesiastical Review, there is no lasting difference between him and the liberals; he merely says what they say two years later.
BY FATHER FEENEY"
That's very good, certainly worth remembering. Nice line.
-
Hey, Lad, while I see +Fenton's point (to a degree) he has as much authority as Fr Wathen or Fr Hesse (a canon lawyer), whom you brush aside as not part of the magisterium. If you're going to be consistent, then don't hold up +Fenton as some inerrant authority. His opinion is not gospel.
Nobody's holding him up as "gospel". On the other hand, you're dismissing him with an ad hominen. He was cited to dispel the straw man created earlier that the Church being guided by the Holy Spirit means there can be no errors or mistakes in the Magisterium.
Where the line is crossed is by claiming that the papal Magisterium can become so corrupt as to be conducive to the ruination of souls. That is the line that is drawn and that you guys cross into heresy-land.
-
If, finally, he refuses to be subject to the Supreme Pontiff, or to have communication with the members of the Church subject to the Roman Pontiff, he is a schismatic.
:facepalm: nobody's refusing subjections to the Supreme Pontiff, only to an Antipope. Of course, formally, you are the one in schism for claiming that it's permitted to refuse subjection to the Supreme Pontiff and to communicate with members of the Church (i.e. by refusing to attend the NOM). So once again you condemn yourself from your own mouth.
Besides that, the SVs have quoted myriad times from Canonist who state that one is not a schismatic if one refuses subjection based on well-founded doubts regarding their legitimacy.
-
:facepalm: nobody's refusing subjections to the Supreme Pontiff, only to an Antipope. Of course, formally, you are the one in schism for claiming that it's permitted to refuse subjection to the Supreme Pontiff and to communicate with members of the Church (i.e. by refusing to attend the NOM). So once again you condemn yourself from your own mouth.
Besides that, the SVs have quoted myriad times from Canonist who state that one is not a schismatic if one refuses subjection based on well-founded doubts regarding their legitimacy.
Ironic, given that Stubborn has been repeatedly quoting Pope Boniface VIII's dogmatic pronouncement on this point:
Pope Boniface VIII, Unam Sanctam, Nov. 18, 1302: “Furthermore, we declare, say, define and pronounce that it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff.”
How exactly is one subjecting themselves to the Roman Pontiff if they deny every doctrine he teaches to the universal church? If one were subject to Bergoglio as the Roman Pontiff, then they would have no reason to avoid the New Mass, in fact, given Traditionis Custodes, they would be defying his authority and are obligated to go to the New Mass.
If you truly believe that Jorge Bergoglio is a legitimate Roman Pontiff, then act like it and subject yourself to his authority like a good "Catholic." The R&R position fundamentally denies the dogmatic teaching of Vatican I:
Session 4, Chapter 3.9. So, then, if anyone says that the Roman pontiff has merely an office of supervision and guidance, and not the full and supreme power of jurisdiction over the whole church, and this not only in matters of faith and morals, but also in those which concern the discipline and government of the church dispersed throughout the whole world; or that he has only the principal part, but not the absolute fullness, of this supreme power; or that this power of his is not ordinary and immediate both over all and each of the churches and over all and each of the pastors and faithful:
let him be anathema.
-
How exactly does that Canon have any force of law if the hierarchy has defected and the See is Vacant? Who is there to enforce it? I also don't see how augustineeens is a heretic here, he hasn't denied any dogmas, unlike you (unity of the Church, that heretics are outside of the Church)
Yes, that's the fabricated loophole, the mantra: "the hierarchy has defected and the See is Vacant."
It's all fine and good to quote authoritative sources until it goes against the narrative.
-
:facepalm: nobody's refusing subjections to the Supreme Pontiff, only to an Antipope. Of course, formally, you are the one in schism for claiming that it's permitted to refuse subjection to the Supreme Pontiff and to communicate with members of the Church (i.e. by refusing to attend the NOM). So once again you condemn yourself from your own mouth.
Besides that, the SVs have quoted myriad times from Canonist who state that one is not a schismatic if one refuses subjection based on well-founded doubts regarding their legitimacy.
Oh brother :facepalm:
-
Ironic, given that Stubborn has been repeatedly quoting Pope Boniface VIII's dogmatic pronouncement on this point:
How exactly is one subjecting themselves to the Roman Pontiff if they deny every doctrine he teaches to the universal church?
We are first of all under obedience to God, and only then under obedience to man. This, the highest principle in the Church is how, exactly.
In this mess, this is the principle that faithful Catholics have remained faithful to since at least 1966 - and will never stop using. If the pope ever imposes or commands anything that we can submit to *and* remain faithful to God, not only will we do it, we must do it.
It's not the least bit complicated.
Sedes take note:
See how easy it is to actually answer a question with a clear answer?
Now it's your turn:
"Excommunicated from the Church" - Where did you get this phrase?
-
Ironic, given that Stubborn has been repeatedly quoting Pope Boniface VIII's dogmatic pronouncement on this point:
How exactly is one subjecting themselves to the Roman Pontiff if they deny every doctrine he teaches to the universal church? If one were subject to Bergoglio as the Roman Pontiff, then they would have no reason to avoid the New Mass, in fact, given Traditionis Custodes, they would be defying his authority and are obligated to go to the New Mass.
If you truly believe that Jorge Bergoglio is a legitimate Roman Pontiff, then act like it and subject yourself to his authority like a good "Catholic." The R&R position fundamentally denies the dogmatic teaching of Vatican I:
I wouldn't spent too much time arguing with Stubborn. I've done it in the past but learned from my mistake. He makes principles up out of thin air and dismisses all theological texts cited as the entirely unreliable theologians of the (at first just 20th -- and then later 19th and 20th) centuries. He contradicts himself on a regular basis, redefines well-known theological terms to suit his needs, and has absolutely no comprehension of distinctions. It's an exercise in futility. I've stopped debating him. It's pointless. Stubborn (as is the logical consequence of R&R) has become his own rule of faith and has invented his own religion.
-
I wouldn't spent too much time arguing with Stubborn. I've done it in the past but learned from my mistake. He makes principles up out of thin air and dismisses all theological texts cited as the entirely unreliable theologians of the (at first just 20th -- and then later 19th and 20th) centuries. He contradicts himself on a regular basis, redefines well-known theological terms to suit his needs, and has absolutely no comprehension of distinctions. It's an exercise in futility. I've stopped debating him. It's pointless. Stubborn (as is the logical consequence of R&R) has become his own rule of faith and has invented his own religion.
So a heretic, then. Got it.
-
I wouldn't spent too much time arguing with Stubborn. I've done it in the past but learned from my mistake. He makes principles up out of thin air and dismisses all theological texts cited as the entirely unreliable theologians of the (at first just 20th -- and then later 19th and 20th) centuries. He contradicts himself on a regular basis, redefines well-known theological terms to suit his needs, and has absolutely no comprehension of distinctions. It's an exercise in futility. I've stopped debating him. It's pointless. Stubborn (as is the logical consequence of R&R) has become his own rule of faith and has invented his own religion.
Hot air ^^
Yes, the highest principle in the Church to sedes necessarily registers as being made up. Aren't you special!
I guess we'll never know where the phrase: "Excommunicated from the Church" comes from.
-
Hot air ^^
Yes, the highest principle in the Church to sedes necessarily registers as being made up. Aren't you special!
I guess we'll never know where the phrase: "Excommunicated from the Church" comes from.
Your "highest principle," namely that Tradition is the proximate rule and interpreter of faith (something also promoted by that Drew character) is nothing more than a slight variation of Protestantism, the difference being that the Prots only have one source of Revelation (Scripture) and the Trad-Prots have two (Scripture and Tradition).
As with Scripture, the issue with Tradition is its interpretation and application, and there's only one authority permitted to interpret Tradition, the living Magisterium. As St. Thomas said, by rejecting the Magisterium as the proximate rule for interpretation, you effectively make yourself the rule. You replace the Magisterium with your own private judgment. If Stubborn decides something is Traditional, then it's Traditional. This effectively makes you your own doctrinal authority.
-
Your "highest principle," namely that Tradition is the proximate rule and interpreter of faith (something also promoted by that Drew character) is nothing more than a slight variation of Protestantism, the difference being that the Prots only have one source of Revelation (Scripture) and the Trad-Prots have two (Scripture and Tradition).
As with Scripture, the issue with Tradition is its interpretation and application, and there's only one authority permitted to interpret Tradition, the living Magisterium. As St. Thomas said, by rejecting the Magisterium as the proximate rule for interpretation, you effectively make yourself the rule. You replace the Magisterium with your own private judgment. If Stubborn decides something is Traditional, then it's Traditional. This effectively makes you your own doctrinal authority.
Sede reasoning^^
Go ahead and be obedient to man regardless of our requirement of obedience to God and see how that works out for you.
Not sure what it is you don't get, apparently this contradicts your brand of sedeism, but the Church's Magisterium is not the pope.
-
Go ahead and be obedient to man ...
:facepalm: You sound more like a Prot with every post.
-
:facepalm: You sound more like a Prot with every post.
No, you don't even believe that, you're just frustrated running in circles within your conundrum.
-
No, you don't even believe that ...
Not only do I believe that, I've demonstrated quite clearly why that's the case.
-
Not only do I believe that, I've demonstrated quite clearly why that's the case.
No, you don't believe it, the only thing you've clearly demonstrated is that you're stuck in a conundrum.
-
No, you don't believe it, the only thing you've clearly demonstrated is that you're stuck in a conundrum.
:facepalm: What "conundrum"?
-
As with Scripture, the issue with Tradition is its interpretation and application,
And we have over 1,900 years where Tradition has ALREADY been interpreted (by papal authority) and applied (by papal authority). When Stubborn says that "Tradition is the rule of Faith" he means PREVIOUS MAGISTERIAL AUTHORITATIVE TEACHINGS. In other words, there are 7 sacraments...this is known from Tradition because Scripture does not tell us the #. It's been confirmed from the earliest of Apostolic times that such is the case, and confirmed multiple times by many popes. Thus, this is infallible Tradition.
Why is this concept so hard for you to understand?
and there's only one authority permitted to interpret Tradition, the living Magisterium.
And such prior magisteriums of Church history have ALREADY decided the VAST majority of questions of our Faith. These previously decided truths become part of "Tradition".
As St. Thomas said, by rejecting the Magisterium as the proximate rule for interpretation, you effectively make yourself the rule.
That's not Stubborn's argument.
You replace the Magisterium with your own private judgment. If Stubborn decides something is Traditional, then it's Traditional. This effectively makes you your own doctrinal authority.
How many times has EENS been defined? 3x? Even after the first time, this doctrinal statement becomes part of "Tradition" because EENS has roots in Scripture and Apostolic Tradition. When the Church magisterially defines it again, as a revealed truth, as part of Scripture/Tradition then it becomes (to use a general term) "Traditional" because it is "of Tradition".
Tradition/Traditional simply means "has always been held" or "always taught". When the Church defined EENS, She is saying this is a Divine Truth, which is from Apostolic times (or further back, as part of Scripture). Thus, it is correct to say EENS is part of Tradition. Thus, it can never be changed. Thus, we can point to something novel and decide if it's right or wrong, because EENS has already been decided and is fixed.
-
:facepalm: What "conundrum"?
You have a few, one that stands out is your idea that the Church teaches popes are always infallibly safe to follow and cannot do harm to the Church - all the while while heretic popes do harm to the Church resulting in you promoting the idea that the chair is vacant instead of realizing the Church teaches no such thing. You have a few others stemming from this one, but to what end?
-
EENS is in fact a perfect example of the problem. Yes, there's EENS. But there are dozens of "interpretations" of EENS. It's not enough for there to be dogmatic definition. There must be ongoing interpretation and also the correction of mis-interpretations. In your vision, short of a new follow-on dogmatic definition, there's no reliable authority in the papal Magisterium to be the authoritative interpreter.
Some things have been decided by past papal Magisterium. But who cares? In your warping of the Catholic Magisterium, those papal interventions could have been wrong, and there's no reason they can't be criticized or reject short of when it was done by way of solemn pronouncement.
When Pius IX condemned religious liberty, he could have been wrong. Vatican II could have in fact been correcting Pius IX's mistake. You have absolutely no way of knowing.
-
You have a few, one that stands out is your idea that the Church teaches popes are always infallibly safe to follow and cannot do harm to the Church - all the while while heretic popes do harm to the Church resulting in you promoting the idea that the chair is vacant instead of realizing the Church teaches no such thing. You have a few others stemming from this one, but to what end?
You either idiotically misunderstand my position or are maliciously warping it.
-
EENS is in fact a perfect example of the problem. Yes, there's EENS. But there are dozens of "interpretations" of EENS.
The literal reading of a dogma, as the literal reading of the Bible, has always been the "general" rule on how the Church tells us to read such things.
It's not enough for there to be dogmatic definition.
For many dogmas, the definition suffices and no re-interpretation was necessary. For EENS, you're correct, the devil won't let that one go, so he keeps attacking it.
There must be ongoing interpretation and also the correction of mis-interpretations.
For EENS, yes, there must be on going interpretations ONLY because of ongoing attacks. Some dogmas were defined once and it's settled.
In your vision, short of a new follow-on dogmatic definition, there's no reliable authority in the papal Magisterium to be the authoritative interpreter.
Yes, the pope is the only authoritative interpreter. If the pope uses his magisterial authority to interpret, that is typically done using a dogmatic definition. The other way, is if a pope uses non-solemn dogmatic decrees to authoritatively re-teach something (i.e. when JPII re-taught that only men can be priests.)
But...if the pope uses neither of these 2 modes of authority, then his interpretation isn't authoritative, by definition. There is no such thing as a non-authoritative authority.
But honestly, I need an example from you to better understand.
Some things have been decided by past papal Magisterium. But who cares? In your warping of the Catholic Magisterium, those papal interventions could have been wrong, and there's no reason they can't be criticized or reject short of when it was done by way of solemn pronouncement.
I've never said this. You're misinterpreting my arguments.
When Pius IX condemned religious liberty, he could have been wrong. Vatican II could have in fact been correcting Pius IX's mistake. You have absolutely no way of knowing.
The point is, Pius IX's condemnation (while not solemn) is in line with previous papal condemnations. Thus, it's traditional. No one ever claimed Pius IX's actions were novel.
V2 is condemned on the simple basis that it's novel and contradicts previous popes.
-
You either idiotically misunderstand my position or are maliciously warping it.
You posted maybe a dozen times that it is, as I said: "Your belief that popes are always infallibly safe to follow and cannot do harm to the Church"......
Do you even read your own posts (https://www.cathinfo.com/crisis-in-the-church/universal-acceptance-of-a-pope/msg460462/?topicseen#msg460462)?
And yet you continue to ignore what Msgr. Fenton has to say about the authority of Papal Encyclicals.
In this field, God has given the Holy Father a kind of infallibility distinct from the charism of doctrinal infallibility in the strict sense. He has so constructed and ordered the Church that those who follow the directives given to the entire kingdom of God on earth will never be brought into the position of ruining themselves spiritually through this obedience. Our Lord dwells within His Church in such a way that those who obey disciplinary and doctrinal directives of this society can never find themselves displeasing God through their adherence to the teachings and the commands given to the universal Church militant. Hence there can be no valid reason to discountenance even the non-infallible teaching authority of Christ’s vicar on earth.
It is not I who idiotically misunderstand your position, your position is quite clear - it is you, your confused self who apparently misunderstands your own position.
-
And just like *that*, Ladislaus is gone. He runs away again. Whenever there is a civil discourse to try to explain the magisterium and Tradition, he avoids it like the plague. This about the 6th time this has happened in over 3 years. Why? One wonders...
After all, the anti-V2 movement was called "Traditional Catholic" for a reason - to use "Traditional" to mean "magisterial", "infallible", "already decided". There's something that Ladislaus doesn't like about this definition. I wish I knew. I consider him a good e-friend; I would be honored to meet him in person (as well as many other from this site). But I don't get why this topic is so sensitive. It's the key to understanding the current crisis.