Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => Crisis in the Church => Topic started by: LeDeg on February 11, 2021, 03:03:33 PM
-
What is the real difference between Fr Chazal's position, which I think he refers to as sede-impede(?), and the Cassiciacuм thesis? Is there a practical one?
-
What is the real difference between Fr Chazal's position, which I think he refers to as sede-impede(?), and the Cassiciacuм thesis? Is there a practical one?
You will find it very ably described in his book, which contains two chapters refuting sedeprivationism, and reaffirming his classical R&R position.
-
You will find it very ably described in his book, which contains two chapters refuting sedeprivationism, and reaffirming his classical R&R position.
No, he most certainly does NOT hold the "classical" R&R position.
Classical R&R holds that the commands/teachings of the V2 popes must be obeyed on a case by case basis, and rejected if they are bad.
Fr. Chazal's position is that the V2 popes are "impounded" or "quarantined" and lack any authority, and Catholics should completely ignore them ... on account of their manifest heresy, but thy remain the "visible" head of the Church until they are removed by Church authority. So a visible head without authority = sedeprivationism in a nutshell.
These are two completely different things.
Fr. Chazal, despite his protests, unwittingly articulated a slight variant on sedeprivationism and the difference is very difficult to spot.
I wrote an extensive thread proving this by quoting him from an hour-long presentation on his position. I will try to dig it up.
He independently (to his credit) came to the same conclusions as the sedeprivationists, for the same reasons, but then he got cold feet when this was pointed out ... because he appears not to have known about sedeprivationism.
-
No, he most certainly does NOT hold the "classical" R&R position.
Classical R&R holds that the commands/teachings of the V2 popes must be obeyed on a case by case basis, and rejected if they are bad.
Fr. Chazal's position is that the V2 popes are "impounded" or "quarantined" and lack any authority, and Catholics should completely ignore them ... on account of their manifest heresy, but thy remain the "visible" head of the Church until they are removed by Church authority. So a visible head without authority = sedeprivationism in a nutshell.
These are two completely different things.
Fr. Chazal, despite his protests, unwittingly articulated a slight variant on sedeprivationism and the difference is very difficult to spot.
I wrote an extensive thread proving this by quoting him from an hour-long presentation on his position. I will try to dig it up.
He independently (to his credit) came to the same conclusions as the sedeprivationists, for the same reasons, but then he got cold feet when this was pointed out ... because he appears not to have known about sedeprivationism.
Hallucinogenic wishful thinking.
As I mentioned at the time, I told Fr. Chazal what you were saying about him, and he responded that he refuted the very theory you persist in attributing to him.
Somehow, this has/had no effect on you.
-
Hallucinogenic wishful thinking.
As I mentioned at the time, I told Fr. Chazal what you were saying about him, and he responded that he refuted the very theory you persist in attributing to him.
Somehow, this has/had no effect on you.
Please dispute my argument above based on your knowledge of Fr. Chazal’s position ... in particular my distinction between Fr. Chazal’s position and classical R&R. I do not find your gratuitous statements combined with ad hominems to be convincing.
I cited chapter and verse (minute and second) from his one hour video presentation. Did he later modify that position? On the video he’s absolutely clear that the V2 papal claimants have NO AUTHORITY whatsoever, which is a huge departure from classical R&R.
I was disappointed to find him reacting emotion against the sedevacantists. Here I had hoped that his position could open the door to thawing relations between the Resistance and the sedevacantists. But unfortunately Fr. remains entrenched in the highly unCatholic attitude of contempt for the sedevacantists instead of seeking to find common ground. I’m very disappointed in him.
I’m also disappointed with your continued substanceless ad hominem, the “hallucinogenic” this and “wishful thinking” that nonsense. Please add some substantive argument to this thread or else stop posting.
-
So, with regard to my distinction between classical R&R and Fr. Chazal’s position, which do you dispute, my characterization of classical R&R or my characterization of Fr. Chazal’s position?
Answer this and perhaps there might be room for a rational discussion.
-
No, he most certainly does NOT hold the "classical" R&R position.
Classical R&R holds that the commands/teachings of the V2 popes must be obeyed on a case by case basis, and rejected if they are bad.
This is the false idea you and many sedes love to spread, why? Who knows? Whatever is Fr. Chazal’s position I cannot say, but the truth is that the R&R position is simply that "we are first of all under obedience to God, and only then under obedience to man".(Fr. Hesse) This means we Catholics remain under obedience to the pope, but only so long as in obedience to the pope we do not offend God.
Since the conciliar popes have commanded nothing and taught next to nothing we can obey without offending God, all we *can* do is remain alert and watch for (albeit do not expect) a command / teaching we *can* obey and embrace - without offending God. This, in addition to praying daily for the pope, is what Catholics, faithful subjects of the pope, do. This is the classic R&R position in a nutshell and I wish you would bookmark it.
If anything, it is the various different branches of sedeisms which are based on a type of case by case basis in regards to when the pope is pope and when he is not, you are confusing the various different sede ideas with classic R&R.
-
sede-impede
I've seen it called sedeimpoundism:
SEDEPLENISM -- See is occupied simpliciter.
SEDEVACANTISM -- See is vacant simpliciter.
SEDEPRIVATIONISM -- See is occupied secundum quid and See is vacant secundum quid.
SEDEIMPOUNDISM -- See is occupied secundum quid and See is vacant secundum quid.
-
This is the false idea you and many sedes love to spread, why? Who knows? Whatever is Fr. Chazal’s position I cannot say...
He states it in his book and in recent videos. Francis is a heretic who must be avoided and he has no authority.
-
Thoughts in red.
This is the false idea you and many sedes love to spread, why? Who knows? Whatever is Fr. Chazal’s position I cannot say, but the truth is that the R&R position is simply that "we are first of all under obedience to God, and only then under obedience to man". "He who heareth you heareth me" - God speaks through men, you reject this (Fr. Hesse) This means we Catholics remain under obedience to the pope Obedient in theory but not in practice?, but only so long as in obedience to the pope we do not offend God. And who's the final authority on what offends God - you or the pope?
Since the conciliar popes have commanded nothing and taught next to nothing we can obey without offending God, all we *can* do is remain alert and watch for (albeit do not expect) a command / teaching we *can* obey and embrace - without offending God. And this command will be identified by me / Bp. Williamson / Menzingen / the man I put in the place of God. This, in addition to praying daily for the pope, is what Catholics, faithful oh so very faithful subjects oh give me a break of the pope, do. This is the classic R&R position in a nutshell and I wish you would bookmark it.
If anything, it is the various different branches of sedeisms which are based on a type of case by case basis in regards to when the pope is pope and when he is not, you are confusing the various different sede ideas with classic R&R.
Frankly, just an outrageous misrepresentation. You know very well that us Catholics only determine once whether a man is the pope and therefore to be obeyed and you have just admitted that you judge the Vicar of Christ's commands on a case by case basis.
Ladislaus tried to point out to you that Fr. Chazal says the pope is impounded, always, so all his commands are void, not just some of them that you feel like disobeying, so Fr. Chazal makes only one determination of credibility, just like us, as opposed to people like you who sift the Magisterium.
A very simple distinction which is not entering your mind only because you obviously don't want it to.
-
Ladislaus tried to point out to you that Fr. Chazal says the pope is impounded, always, so all his commands are void, not just some of them that you feel like disobeying, so Fr. Chazal makes only one determination of credibility, just like us, as opposed to people like you who sift the Magisterium.
A very simple distinction which is not entering your mind only because you obviously don't want it to.
Yes, yes, Lad has a plethora of sede titles he defines, but for most of us, sedeism boils down to just a few things really.
1) We cannot listen to anyone if they preach contrary to what the Church has always taught - it doesn't matter if St. Paul the Apostle, an angel from heaven, or the pope preaches it. Error is error no matter who preaches it. The popes' validity or invalidity is something that really, only sedes concern themselves with, the rest of us strive to persevere in the faith without adding that problem for no reason.
2) In the words of +ABL: "The truth is that the Pope, even though he is Pope, can err. Apart from cases where the Pope engages his infallibility, he can err. Today we see the Pope err and spread the error and even heresies. To denounce it is not a sign of sedevacantism, but of Catholicism." To paraphrase your own words, the sedes never make this very simple distinction, it is not entering their minds only because they obviously don't want it to.
I was going to refute your replies in red, but to what purpose?
-
At the end of the day, I don't care what position you take ... except if you claim that legitimate papal authority can corrupt the Magisterium and the Mass so badly that Catholics must refuse communion with and submission to him. Those of you who believe this are not Catholic but are a slight variant on Old Catholics, with some hints of Eastern Orthodoxy and Protestantism. Outside of these parameters, it matters little to me which of the "5 Opinions" you want to go with or how this situation happened, whether on account of Siri Theory (my personal belief), or due to manifest heresy, or defect of intention, or because Montini was blackmailed and not acting freely, or because Montini was drugged, kept in a dungeon, and replaced by a big-eared double. These are all theories and details, and are peripheral to the main problem. You can't throw the Holy Catholic Church under the bus, along with the repeated papal teaching that this cannot happen, along with the teaching of Vatican I that the Holy See cannot be stained or blemished by error, along with Our Lord's promises that the See of Peter will be the rock to which the Church will be unachored with unfailing faith, along with Trent's anathema against believing that the Church's Rites can be inducements to impiety, and the fact that no Catholic theologian has ever held that such a corruption of the Catholic Church is possible. You even throw Archbishop Lefebvre's affirmation of the same principle under the bus ... while mendaciously claiming that you're the "true heirs" of Archbishop Lefebvre.
-
Our Lord's promises that the See of Peter will be the rock to which the Church will be unachored with unfailing faith
:facepalm:
So, if the "pope" - remember, Fr. Chazal believes Francis is the "pope" - goes bad and spreads failing faith around like a farmer in late winter/early spring, you "impound" him, ignore his commands, his bad seed . . . I absolutely agree.
But good grief, man, do you not see what the need to "impound" a pope - again and again and again, Fr. Chazal says Francis is POPE - does to your assertion that the pope - vide Francis, per Fr. Chazal - is the "rock to which the Church will be anchored with unfailing faith"?
You're no idiot, you have to see the implications. But you simply avoid them.
The same problem confronts the sedeprivationist who has to divide matter from form, creating the monster of a pope with a body but no "soul," or a corrupt soul with a failed faith, even worse.
It'd be hysterical if it wasn't so tragic.
And the howls of "Old Catholic" or "Protestant" can't scare away the obvious contradiction: those cries are mere cover and a salve for your heart and emotion, and can't heal the wound in your sedeprivationist theory, or mind.
Stubborn's view is not only common sense, but it's Scriptural - God's sense.
Acts 4:19 - But Peter and John answering, said to them: If it be just in the sight of God, to hear you rather than God, judge ye.
Acts 5:29 - But Peter and the apostles answering, said: We ought to obey God, rather than men.
Galatians 1:8-9 - But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach a gospel to you besides that which we have preached to you, let him be anathema. As we said before, so now I say again: If any one preach to you a gospel, besides that which you have received, let him be anathema.
*and consider who the "we" is there, one of the original "he who hears you, hears me" guys
1 Cor. 7:23 - You are bought with a price; be not made the bondslaves of men.
Etc. Etc. Etc.
-
By the way, there's an incredible thread around here with some deep theological reflections on this issue:
https://www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/is-father-ringrose-dumping-the-r-r-crowd/
Many of the current members - Lad, Stubborn, Pax - were very engaged there, though strangely Lad's posts have disappeared from it. Very odd. :confused:
It has over 187,000 hits, and counting. For good reason.
A member named Drew should be paid particular attention to. It's worth the read.
-
At the end of the day, I don't care what position you take ... except if you claim that legitimate papal authority can corrupt the Magisterium and the Mass so badly that Catholics must refuse communion with and submission to him. Those of you who believe this are not Catholic but are a slight variant on Old Catholics, with some hints of Eastern Orthodoxy and Protestantism. Outside of these parameters, it matters little to me which of the "5 Opinions" you want to go with or how this situation happened, whether on account of Siri Theory (my personal belief), or due to manifest heresy, or defect of intention, or because Montini was blackmailed and not acting freely, or because Montini was drugged, kept in a dungeon, and replaced by a big-eared double. These are all theories and details, and are peripheral to the main problem. You can't throw the Holy Catholic Church under the bus, along with the repeated papal teaching that this cannot happen, along with the teaching of Vatican I that the Holy See cannot be stained or blemished by error, along with Our Lord's promises that the See of Peter will be the rock to which the Church will be unachored with unfailing faith, along with Trent's anathema against believing that the Church's Rites can be inducements to impiety, and the fact that no Catholic theologian has ever held that such a corruption of the Catholic Church is possible. You even throw Archbishop Lefebvre's affirmation of the same principle under the bus ... while mendaciously claiming that you're the "true heirs" of Archbishop Lefebvre.
You mention +ABL's affirmation of this same principle." What principle is that? He never affirmed your opinion at all. I've asked you before to provide evidence that +ABL held the same view as you, but you never provided it.
-
At the end of the day, I don't care what position you take ... except if you claim that legitimate papal authority can corrupt the Magisterium and the Mass so badly that Catholics must refuse communion with and submission to him. Those of you who believe this are not Catholic but are a slight variant on Old Catholics, with some hints of Eastern Orthodoxy and Protestantism.
Your glaring error here, Ladislaus, as always, is your misunderstanding of the Infallibility of the Magisterium, and your apparent unwillingness to read and comprehend Vatican I on this subject.
No legitimate papal authority has corrupted the Magisterium or the Mass - only illegitimate and non-infallible abuse of authority which has deceived Catholics taken in by a false obedience but was rightly rejected (resisted) by those who knew better. That doesn't give you the right to deny the authority, and Archbishop Lefebvre never did, which for you makes him an Old Catholic... strange logic indeed.
-
By the way, there's an incredible thread around here with some deep theological reflections on this issue:
https://www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/is-father-ringrose-dumping-the-r-r-crowd/
Many of the current members - Lad, Stubborn, Pax - were very engaged there, though strangely Lad's posts have disappeared from it. Very odd. :confused:
It has over 187,000 hits, and counting. For good reason.
A member named Drew should be paid particular attention to. It's worth the read.
Good tip Decem, a 76 page book for those who dare! I don't have the time, but I found one good quote from Drew:
Ladislaus believes that the Indefectibility of the Church means that the pope possesses a fallible infallibility in the exercise of his ordinary authentic magisterium; a sort of negative infallibility whereby he can never lead any of the faithful into error. The theory is called "infallible security" (which I have already provided a link) from an earlier exchange with Ladislaus. Actually this may prove to be the most common property of those who hold the pope as the rule of faith. Since he is preserved from all public error, he can be safely followed wherever he leads.
-
Galatians 1:8-9 - But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach a gospel to you besides that which we have preached to you, let him be anathema. As we said before, so now I say again: If any one preach to you a gospel, besides that which you have received, let him be anathema.
*and consider who the "we" is there, one of the original "he who hears you, hears me" guys
The verse actually supports sedevacantism, not resisting legitimate authority. Consider, can an angel preach contrary to the gospel? No. Obviously an apparent angel (a devil) and an apparent apostle (a heretical bishop who lost his office) are meant. This is also the only way to harmonize the verse with "he who heareth you heareth me", while your reading makes it contradictory.
-
What is the real difference between Fr Chazal's position, which I think he refers to as sede-impede(?), and the Cassiciacuм thesis? Is there a practical one?
Here is a direct quote from Fr Chazal's book "Contra Cekadam" (p.88), three consecutive points under the heading of "Common Sense", the last point specifically directed at the author of the Cassiciacuм thesis:
* When a wife separates from a seriously abusive husband, it does not mean the man is not her head still. When a father is separated from his family for some crime of his, his office as a father is impounded by the force of things, yet he remains the father of his children. (Fr Cyprian OSB).
* Imagine a previously good pope, falls into heresy pertinaciously and publicly, acting in its favour authoritatively and forcibly for a week or so. Seven days into that state, he realises his error and back tracks. Has he lost his office? Yes according to you, no according to us.
* What about if one beautiful morning the occupier of the seat wakes up and has full public contrition and recanting of his heresy? Does he instantly get 'repapized' from a latent material state of papacy, as Fr Guerard strangely argues, or do we need a new one? And if so, how do we get him without any Cardinals left?
From points 2 and 3 above, Fr Chazal clearly holds quite simply that there is no distinction between material and formal pope, he is either pope or he is not. The one who is destroying the Church, who is preaching heresy, and whom we are resisting, is truly and formally pope, not just a material pope.
-
Here is a direct quote from Fr Chazal's book "Contra Cekadam" (p.88), three consecutive points under the heading of "Common Sense", the last point specifically directed at the author of the Cassiciacuм thesis:
* When a wife separates from a seriously abusive husband, it does not mean the man is not her head still. When a father is separated from his family for some crime of his, his office as a father is impounded by the force of things, yet he remains the father of his children. (Fr Cyprian OSB).
* Imagine a previously good pope, falls into heresy pertinaciously and publicly, acting in its favour authoritatively and forcibly for a week or so. Seven days into that state, he realises his error and back tracks. Has he lost his office? Yes according to you, no according to us.
* What about if one beautiful morning the occupier of the seat wakes up and has full public contrition and recanting of his heresy? Does he instantly get 'repapized' from a latent material state of papacy, as Fr Guerard strangely argues, or do we need a new one? And if so, how do we get him without any Cardinals left?
From points 2 and 3 above, Fr Chazal clearly holds quite simply that there is no distinction between material and formal pope, he is either pope or he is not. The one who is destroying the Church, who is preaching heresy, and whom we are resisting, is truly and formally pope, not just a material pope.
I recall Fr Chazal has also on record in one of those Youtube videos said clearly that Francis has lost all authority due to his heresy and ought not to be obeyed as pope until he repents.
-
The pope question, as it were, is but a distraction/red herring.
The real problem is that -- regardless of who is or is not the legitimate head of the society that purports to be the Catholic Church -- a society that is supposed to be one, holy, catholic, and apostolic, the spotless Bride of Christ, without blemish and the single, solitary means of sanctification and salvation is, and has been for several decades, naught but a source of confusion, spiritual destruction, endless scandal, etc. Whether he is or is not legitimate, solving that issue doesn't alter the cold, hard, unspeakably-sad fact that what used to be Holy Mother Church has, to all appearances, become an absolutely shameless harlot leading millions to eternal misery.
Address that.
-
I recall Fr Chazal has also on record in one of those Youtube videos said clearly that Francis has lost all authority due to his heresy and ought not to be obeyed as pope until he repents.
I guess that's the idea of being 'impounded' as in the analogy given in the first point above. It's along the lines of St Robert Bellarmine's opinion that from the moment he begins to publicly preach heresy he can bind no one. I favour this idea myself, I think everything he does is so destructive of Faith and morals that we don't need to sift everything he says, rather, we need to stay well away because of the danger. My analogy is of a father going to live in a brothel and at the same time telling his family what to do. My response is: Dad, when you come back home to your wife and children and start behaving like you want to be our father again, then I will listen to you. And that, I believe, is the evolution in the R&R position that Ladislaus is referring to. In the early days of the crisis there was more a tendency to hope that we could demonstrate to the popes the good fruits of Tradition and hope they would then come back, crediting them with perhaps more Catholic intent than they deserved, listening when they said something Catholic, resisting what was evil. It became clear over time, however, that they were hell-bent on the Revolution and the destruction of Tradition, and that is when Archbishop Lefebvre made his position very clear that we could no longer trust them and must isolate ourselves from them in order to keep the Faith.
-
The verse actually supports sedevacantism, not resisting legitimate authority. Consider, can an angel preach contrary to the gospel? No. Obviously an apparent angel (a devil) and an apparent apostle (a heretical bishop who lost his office) are meant. This is also the only way to harmonize the verse with "he who heareth you heareth me", while your reading makes it contradictory.
You must misinterpret then contradict that Scripture in order to arrive at your conclusion. He says in no uncertain terms, "tho we or an angel from heaven..." Which is to say, error is error no matter who preaches it.
What that Scripture is teaching is very simply, truth before authority.
-
By the way, there's an incredible thread around here with some deep theological reflections on this issue:
https://www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/is-father-ringrose-dumping-the-r-r-crowd/
Many of the current members - Lad, Stubborn, Pax - were very engaged there, though strangely Lad's posts have disappeared from it. Very odd. :confused:
It has over 187,000 hits, and counting. For good reason.
A member named Drew should be paid particular attention to. It's worth the read.
Yes, I remember that thread, and although he never said, I believe Matthew deleted the majority of Lad's posts because they were inundated with many insults and errors, some of them were really, pretty far out. It must have taken Matthew many hours to go through and delete them.
-
Unless I missed it, I still don't see the clear difference between "Fr Chazal's" position and sedeprivationism (although I know Fr Chazal does not believe the same thing as say Bishop Sanborn). Is it just that the former believes Bergy remains pope and the latter does not? The posts here seem to be all over the place.
-
Unless I missed it, I still don't see the clear difference between "Fr Chazal's" position and sedeprivationism (although I know Fr Chazal does not believe the same thing as say Bishop Sanborn). Is it just that the former believes Bergy remains pope and the latter does not? The posts here seem to be all over the place.
Fr. Chazal holds that Jorge Bergoglio is a valid pope with all the papal powers. However, he cannot licitly exercise those papal powers. Bishop Sanborn holds that Jorge Bergoglio is not a valid pope.
-
Ladislaus believes that the Indefectibility of the Church means that the pope possesses a fallible infallibility in the exercise of his ordinary authentic magisterium; a sort of negative infallibility whereby he can never lead any of the faithful into error. The theory is called "infallible security" (which I have already provided a link) from an earlier exchange with Ladislaus. Actually this may prove to be the most common property of those who hold the pope as the rule of faith. Since he is preserved from all public error, he can be safely followed wherever he leads.
Nice try from "Drew" here to make this seem like it's something I made up. Drew's ramblings about how the Papal Magisterium is not the proximate rule of faith vs. "Tradition" are simply heretical. It's just a repackaging of the same nonsense the Prots tried in asserting that "Scripture" is the rule off faith ... ignoring the fact that it requires authentic / authoritative interpretation also by the Living Magisterium. Only difference between Drew and the Prots is that Drew holds that there are two sources of Revelation, Scripture and Tradition, whereas the Prots hold that there's only one.
That aside, see the bolded above where Drew attempts to make this seem like this is something "Ladislaus believes" ... as if I made this up out of thin air, when in point of fact it's THE fundamental and core belief of Catholicism, that the Papal Magisterium is the rock of the faith and the source of unity in faith, and as such inerrant. R&R have never, not once, produced a single pre-V2 theologian who holds that the Papal Magisterium and the Public Worship of the Church can become corrupt, harmful to souls, and lead souls to hell. That's because it flies in the face of the very foundation of the Church's claims to be the One True Church of Christ.
This dispute over the "5 Opinions" is a distraction, because every single one of them deals with the heresy of a Pope "as a private person" and exclude the possibility of error corrupting the Papal Magisterium.
Msgr. Fenton:
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.
See, R&R try to weasel out of basic Catholic principles by emphasizing the fact that a very limited amount of Papal Magisterium meets the notes of strict infallibility, and then extrapolate therefrom that the not-strictly-infallible 99% of Papal Magisterium could go completely corrupt without thereby compromising the indefectibility of the Church. Everything else outside the 1% of solemnly defined dogma is fair game.
What a ridiculous and decidedly non-Catholic caricature of the Catholic Church has been invented by R&R. Many of you are slouching toward Old Catholicism, and your beliefs differ from it in only a few details. I pointed out already how Decem at one point was almost verbatim regurgitating the Old Catholic "Declaration of Utrecht".
Now, unfortunately, to counter R&R's narrowing of the infallibility of the Papal Magisterium to the tiny percentage of solemnly-defined dogma, some SVs have gone to the opposite extreme of exaggerating the scope of what Msgr. Fenton calls "infallibility in the strict sense", to where some hold that even a book that has been given an imprimatur is effectively infallible. Others don't go quite as far, but still exaggerate the scope of those things that are strictly infallible.
But when you posit that the Church's Magisterium and Public Worship can become so corrupt that Catholics not only may but even must sever communion with and subjection to the putative Holy See in order to remain Catholic and to save their souls, that's clearly crossed the line into undermining the indefectibility of the Church, rendering the Church meaningless and useless ... nay, more than useless, a positive danger to souls. We'd be better off without such a Church, and the Protestants, Eastern Orthodox, and the Old Catholics were not that far off the mark.
We have the teaching of Vatican I that the Holy See cannot be blemished by error. If the V2 papal claimants have not "blemished" the Holy See with error, then there's no such thing. We have a veritable wall of papal teaching and the unanimous teaching of the Church Fathers upholding the same thing. We have every single pre-V2 Catholic theologian teaching the same thing, and R&R have not produced a single Catholic theologian who taught the principles of R&R. You'll find R&R's teaching only among Protestants, Eastern Orthodox, and Old Catholics. It should give Decem pause that he's the favorite poster of the Eastern Orthodox heretic John Pontrello.
We have Trent anathematizing the proposition that the Rites used by the Catholic Church could be inducements to impiety. We have a near-universal consensus of pre-V2 Catholic theologians supporting the disciplinary infallibility of the Church (which includes the Mass).
Oh, and, by the way, Archbishop Lefebvre also repeatedly upheld the principle that the Papacy is protected by the Holy Spirit and cannot be responsible for perpetrating this degree of destruction (also ignored by modern R&R). Those statements are also simply ignored and filtered out. +Lefebvre's only thing was that he couldn't come up with a definitive explanation for how this happened. He meandered around a number of possible theories or explanations, and concluded that SVism is possible, but deferred to the Church's judgment for definitively resolving the matter.
Those of you who continue to promote the notion that the Papal Magisterium and the Public Worship of the Church can become corrupt and harmful to souls, you're in grave danger of losing your faith and need to prayerfully reconsider. You've basically become a variety of Old Catholic.
-
Fr. Chazal holds that Jorge Bergoglio is a valid pope with all the papal powers. However, he cannot licitly exercise those papal powers. Bishop Sanborn holds that Jorge Bergoglio is not a valid pope.
If that's the case, then I don't see how a sedevacantist could get on board with Fr Chazal's position.
-
Lad:
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.
Note the last sentence: "Hence there can be no valid reason to discountenance even the non-infallible teaching authority of Christ’s vicar on earth."
This last sentence proves the rest of the quote. So exactly what does it prove then?
It proves that the rest of the quote is altogether wrong. Otherwise all trads are bound to renounce the true faith and embrace the new faith of the NO.
-
Nice try from "Drew" here to make this seem like it's something I made up. Drew's ramblings about how the Papal Magisterium is not the proximate rule of faith vs. "Tradition" are simply heretical. It's just a repackaging of the same nonsense the Prots tried in asserting that "Scripture" is the rule off faith ... ignoring the fact that it requires authentic / authoritative interpretation also by the Living Magisterium. Only difference between Drew and the Prots is that Drew holds that there are two sources of Revelation, Scripture and Tradition, whereas the Prots hold that there's only one.
That aside, see the bolded above where Drew attempts to make this seem like this is something "Ladislaus believes" ... as if I made this up out of thin air, when in point of fact it's THE fundamental and core belief of Catholicism, that the Papal Magisterium is the rock of the faith and the source of unity in faith, and as such inerrant. R&R have never, not once, produced a single pre-V2 theologian who holds that the Papal Magisterium and the Public Worship of the Church can become corrupt, harmful to souls, and lead souls to hell. That's because it flies in the face of the very foundation of the Church's claims to be the One True Church of Christ.
This dispute over the "5 Opinions" is a distraction, because every single one of them deals with the heresy of a Pope "as a private person" and exclude the possibility of error corrupting the Papal Magisterium.
Msgr. Fenton:
See, R&R try to weasel out of basic Catholic principles by emphasizing the fact that a very limited amount of Papal Magisterium meets the notes of strict infallibility, and then extrapolate therefrom that the not-strictly-infallible 99% of Papal Magisterium could go completely corrupt without thereby compromising the indefectibility of the Church. Everything else outside the 1% of solemnly defined dogma is fair game.
What a ridiculous and decidedly non-Catholic caricature of the Catholic Church has been invented by R&R. Many of you are slouching toward Old Catholicism, and your beliefs differ from it in only a few details. I pointed out already how Decem at one point was almost verbatim regurgitating the Old Catholic "Declaration of Utrecht".
Now, unfortunately, to counter R&R's narrowing of the infallibility of the Papal Magisterium to the tiny percentage of solemnly-defined dogma, some SVs have gone to the opposite extreme of exaggerating the scope of what Msgr. Fenton calls "infallibility in the strict sense", to where some hold that even a book that has been given an imprimatur is effectively infallible. Others don't go quite as far, but still exaggerate the scope of those things that are strictly infallible.
But when you posit that the Church's Magisterium and Public Worship can become so corrupt that Catholics not only may but even must sever communion with and subjection to the putative Holy See in order to remain Catholic and to save their souls, that's clearly crossed the line into undermining the indefectibility of the Church, rendering the Church meaningless and useless ... nay, more than useless, a positive danger to souls. We'd be better off without such a Church, and the Protestants, Eastern Orthodox, and the Old Catholics were not that far off the mark.
We have the teaching of Vatican I that the Holy See cannot be blemished by error. If the V2 papal claimants have not "blemished" the Holy See with error, then there's no such thing. We have a veritable wall of papal teaching and the unanimous teaching of the Church Fathers upholding the same thing. We have every single pre-V2 Catholic theologian teaching the same thing, and R&R have not produced a single Catholic theologian who taught the principles of R&R. You'll find R&R's teaching only among Protestants, Eastern Orthodox, and Old Catholics. It should give Decem pause that he's the favorite poster of the Eastern Orthodox heretic John Pontrello.
We have Trent anathematizing the proposition that the Rites used by the Catholic Church could be inducements to impiety. We have a near-universal consensus of pre-V2 Catholic theologians supporting the disciplinary infallibility of the Church (which includes the Mass).
Oh, and, by the way, Archbishop Lefebvre also repeatedly upheld the principle that the Papacy is protected by the Holy Spirit and cannot be responsible for perpetrating this degree of destruction (also ignored by modern R&R). Those statements are also simply ignored and filtered out. +Lefebvre's only thing was that he couldn't come up with a definitive explanation for how this happened. He meandered around a number of possible theories or explanations, and concluded that SVism is possible, but deferred to the Church's judgment for definitively resolving the matter.
Those of you who continue to promote the notion that the Papal Magisterium and the Public Worship of the Church can become corrupt and harmful to souls, you're in grave danger of losing your faith and need to prayerfully reconsider. You've basically become a variety of Old Catholic.
^^This is why his posts were deleted from that thread.
-
Fr. Chazal holds that Jorge Bergoglio is a valid pope with all the papal powers. However, he cannot licitly exercise those papal powers. Bishop Sanborn holds that Jorge Bergoglio is not a valid pope.
That's a gross oversimplification of both those positions. This notion of valid but illicit is misapplied by Father Chazal in order to side-step the fact that his original articulation of his position was nearly identical to sedeprivationism. When this was pointed out to him, he came up with this false valid but illicit distinction that is meaningless outside of the Sacraments.
-
If that's the case, then I don't see how a sedevacantist could get on board with Fr Chazal's position.
CatholicKnight misrepresents both Bishop Sanborn's and Father Chazal's positions, so I wouldn't rely on his distortion of those positions to make a judgment. He's dead set on defending Ratzinger as a real pope, so he has an agenda.
-
That's a gross oversimplification of both those positions. This notion of valid but illicit is misapplied by Father Chazal in order to side-step the fact that his original articulation of his position was nearly identical to sedeprivationism. When this was pointed out to him, he came up with this false valid but illicit distinction that is meaningless outside of the Sacraments.
I agree with you that Fr. Chazal's position doesn't make sense. The good thing, however, is that Fr. Chazal is willing to work with clerics, such as Archbishop Vigano, that hold the Jorge Bergoglio is not pope. You will not find that willingness with some other factions of the so-called Resistance.
-
This last sentence proves the rest of the quote. So exactly what does it prove then?
It proves that the rest of the quote is altogether wrong. Otherwise all trads are bound to renounce the true faith and embrace the new faith of the NO.
:facepalm: You continually beg the question that the NO is the Catholic Church and that the V2 Papal Claimants are Popes. You've had this pointed out to you myriad times but for some reason it doesn't register.
-
CatholicKnight misrepresents both Bishop Sanborn's and Father Chazal's positions, so I wouldn't rely on his distortion of those positions to make a judgment. He's dead set on defending Ratzinger as a real pope, so he has an agenda.
There is nothing I wrote about either position that is wrong.
-
I agree with you that Fr. Chazal's position doesn't make sense. The good thing, however, is that Fr. Chazal is willing to work with clerics, such as Archbishop Vigano, that hold the Jorge Bergoglio is not pope. You will not find that willingness with some other factions of the so-called Resistance.
We'll have to see how that plays out. It would appear that Bishop Williamson is willing to work with +Vigano, as are some of the others ... but then there are interesting developments coming out of the Brazilian group that makes me wonder.
-
There is nothing I wrote about either position that is wrong.
It's oversimplified, especially where you attribute the valid/licit distinction to Bishop Sanborn, since that doesn't figure into the CT at all. This distinction was invented by Father Chazal to side-step accusations that his position was identical to that of the sedeprivationists.
-
It's oversimplified, especially where you attribute the valid/licit distinction to Bishop Sanborn, since that doesn't figure into the CT at all. This distinction was invented by Father Chazal to side-step accusations that his position was identical to that of the sedeprivationists.
I did not intend to attribute the valid/licit distinction to Bishop Sanborn. I only meant to state that Bishop Sanborn does not accept Jorge Bergoglio as a valid pope whereas Fr. Chazal does.
-
I did not intend to attribute the valid/licit distinction to Bishop Sanborn. I only meant to state that Bishop Sanborn does not accept Jorge Bergoglio as a valid pope whereas Fr. Chazal does.
But Bishop Sanborn does accept Bergoglio as valid, in terms of having a valid election, as having a valid designation to office. Valid vs. Invalid is not the right distinction. Bergoglio is valid materially but not valid formally. So you can't say that he'd hold Bergoglio to be categorically invalid.
Frankly, Father Chazal's distinction between valid and licit authority makes no sense, and is something he added as an after-thought to his original articulation of the sede-impoundist position once people started to point out the striking similarities with sedeprivationism.
-
But Bishop Sanborn does accept Bergoglio as valid, in terms of having a valid election, as having a valid designation to office. Valid vs. Invalid is not the right distinction. Bergoglio is valid materially but not valid formally. So you can't say that he'd hold Bergoglio to be categorically invalid.
Frankly, Father Chazal's distinction between valid and licit authority makes no sense, and is something he added as an after-thought to his original articulation of the sede-impoundist position once people started to point out the striking similarities with sedeprivationism.
You are correct. Sorry. Perhaps I should have stated "true" pope instead of "valid" pope.
-
You are correct. Sorry. Perhaps I should have stated "true" pope instead of "valid" pope.
No need to be sorry. That's why we're discussing it, attempting to gain some clarity. Yes, Bishop Sanborn has used the word "true", i.e. that Bergoglio is not a "true" pope, but "true" is also a nebulous term and not helpful. There are too many words and distinctions here.
To me the key is that Father Chazal holds that Bergoglio is in some habitual state of lacking authority due to manifest heresy, whereas classic R&R hold that he has authority on a case by case basis. How does someone who habitually lacks licit authority have valid authority? That could only be a state of an authority that's somehow in pure potency ... but authority in pure potency is similar to the sedeprivationist thinking. It almost seems like Father Chazal's valid/licit distinction is a potency/act distinction.
Whenever liceity is used in other contexts, it refers to specific acts. So, for instance, Bergoglio has the authority to make some liturgical changes, but bad liturgical changes would be illicit (due to their being bad). But that's not what Father Chazal holds.
-
:facepalm: You continually beg the question that the NO is the Catholic Church and that the V2 Papal Claimants are Popes. You've had this pointed out to you myriad times but for some reason it doesn't register.
I'm not begging any question at all, you are. The plain fact you ignore, is if this teaching of Fr. Fenton's (not the Church's) is true, then all traditional Catholics are wrong and the novus ordo religion is the true religion. That's what you pretend is not starring you in the face.
-
Unless I missed it, I still don't see the clear difference between "Fr Chazal's" position and sedeprivationism...
Agreed. In his book and videos, Fr. Chazal states that Francis is a heretic and that he has no authority but he is a valid pope.
Bishop Sanborn agrees that Francis is a heretic and that he has no authority. But because of the heresy he can not be pope based on Church teaching (but is still tied legally to the institution of the Church).
It seems Fr. Chazal's big distinction is quite miniscule to say the least.
-
You must misinterpret then contradict that Scripture in order to arrive at your conclusion. He says in no uncertain terms, "tho we or an angel from heaven..." Which is to say, error is error no matter who preaches it.
What that Scripture is teaching is very simply, truth before authority.
My view is so obviously correct that I didn't need to check for commentaries but here they are for the benefit of good-willed people.
Jerome
This could be understood as a hyperbolic statement, not meaning that an apostle or an angel could preach otherwise than they had spoken…
Cornelius a Lapide
But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. Understand. If that can be done; for, as a matter of fact, it is impossible, for the angels are established as in bliss so in all truth. It is an hyperbole, like that in 1 Cor 13:i.: "Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels." S. Jerome quotes here a happy remark of Tertullian directed against Apelles and his virgin Philumena, which latter was filled by some perverse angel with an evil spirit, to the effect that this was an angel who, long before Apelles was born, was described as accursed by the Holy Spirit, speaking through, the Apostle. Such was the angel who taught Luther, and instructed Zwingli on the Eucharist, and about whom the latter writes, that he did not know whether it was black or white. But it is certain that it was a black angel, and that against it was directed the Apostle"s anathema, as against one introducing a new Gospel, a new faith, and new dogmas, contrary to the accepted creed...
Alexander of Alexandria
To these Arius and Achilles opposing themselves, and those who with them are the enemies of the truth, have been expelled from the Church, as being aliens from our holy doctrine, according to the blessed Paul, who says, "If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed; even though he feign himself an angel from heaven."
-
The pope question, as it were, is but a distraction/red herring.
The real problem is that -- regardless of who is or is not the legitimate head of the society that purports to be the Catholic Church -- a society that is supposed to be one, holy, catholic, and apostolic, the spotless Bride of Christ, without blemish and the single, solitary means of sanctification and salvation is, and has been for several decades, naught but a source of confusion, spiritual destruction, endless scandal, etc. Whether he is or is not legitimate, solving that issue doesn't alter the cold, hard, unspeakably-sad fact that what used to be Holy Mother Church has, to all appearances, become an absolutely shameless harlot leading millions to eternal misery.
Address that.
No one has done so. Until someone does, I shall periodically quote...myself. Godspeed.
-
The pope question, as it were, is but a distraction/red herring.
The real problem is that -- regardless of who is or is not the legitimate head of the society that purports to be the Catholic Church -- a society that is supposed to be one, holy, catholic, and apostolic, the spotless Bride of Christ, without blemish and the single, solitary means of sanctification and salvation is, and has been for several decades, naught but a source of confusion, spiritual destruction, endless scandal, etc. Whether he is or is not legitimate, solving that issue doesn't alter the cold, hard, unspeakably-sad fact that what used to be Holy Mother Church has, to all appearances, become an absolutely shameless harlot leading millions to eternal misery.
Address that.
(https://i.imgur.com/eQkwnMA.jpg)
-
Lad:
Note the last sentence: "Hence there can be no valid reason to discountenance even the non-infallible teaching authority of Christ’s vicar on earth."
This last sentence proves the rest of the quote. So exactly what does it prove then?
It proves that the rest of the quote is altogether wrong. Otherwise all trads are bound to renounce the true faith and embrace the new faith of the NO.
On the contrary this supports sedevacantism.
-
My view is so obviously correct that...
Good heavens man, did St. Paul say that we must believe the different Gospel depending upon who is preaching it?
No. He is telling us that no matter who preaches lies we are not to believe them. That's the message of that Scripture.
The fact is that, after you investigated St. Paul and you correctly discovered that he is indeed a true Apostle (yet is preaching lies), you would believe lies based on who preached it. This is altogether contrary to what he just said.
Next, you investigated the angel and *wrongfully* discovered that the angel was in fact a true angel, and you believed the different Gospel based strictly on your *wrong* belief that the devil was an angel. Because you wrongfully believed the devil was an angel, you believe the devil's lies as being truth based on who preached it. Again, altogether contrary to what he just said.
The pope is a true pope who preaches lies, St. Paul tells us we are not to believe him - because he preaches a different Gospel. That is his message to us in that Scripture. Very simple.
Sedes say he is not the pope because he preaches lies. Here I will simply avoid TLDR by quoting the last post of Digital Logos: "[sedeism] now entails an entire set of beliefs and practices set apart from the rest beyond merely not believing these Popes are legitimate."
-
No one has done so. Until someone does, I shall periodically quote...myself. Godspeed.
I was going to start a new thread on this, still might if time permits.
-
On the contrary this supports sedevacantism.
Not so. If the pope has an additional infallibility that divinely protects him from harming the Church, and that assures the obedient faithful can never find themselves displeasing to God, or of ever being spiritually harmed by obeying his disciplinary and doctrinal directives, then V2 and the NO are wholly good and Catholic - and all trads would be complete fools to remain trad - if this were true.
If what Fr. Fenton says is true, then there is no need whatsoever of the traditions of the Church, and in fact the traditions are to be despised and replaced with the new religion of V2 - per him (conciliar popes) who has divine protection from doing harm to the Church.
If what Fr. Fenton said is true, it would be altogether impossible for a pope to fall into the sin of heresy or heck, to preach even the slightest hint of error and heresy - impossible because he is divinely protected via his additional infallibility. Which is to say there is no possibility of him ever losing his office due to his being divinely protected.
The sedes must resort to the idea that the duly elected pope was replaced. And in order to go there entails a plethora of confusing beliefs.
-
On the contrary this supports sedevacantism.
Yes, it most certainly does … unless you think there’s nothing all that wrong with V2. Stubborn, however, constantly begs the question that the V2 papal claimants are popes and thus engages in circular reasoning. For some reason his brain can’t break out of this illogical cycle. It’s bizarre, really, and speaks to some psychological issue.
Basically, his brain can’t / won’t grasp what’s known as modo tollentis logical reasoning.
If A leads to B, then not B means not A. But since he refuses to let go of A, this doesn’t register.
-
Yes, it most certainly does … unless you think there’s nothing all that wrong with V2. Stubborn, however, constantly begs the question that the V2 papal claimants are popes and thus engages in circular reasoning. For some reason his brain can’t break out of this illogical cycle. It’s bizarre, really, and speaks to some psychological issue.
Basically, his brain can’t / won’t grasp what’s known as modo tollentis logical reasoning.
If A leads to B, then not B means not A. But since he refuses to let go of A, this doesn’t register.
The way the sede mind works continually amazes me.
If the pope cannot harm the Church, then there is no reason for sedeism - or tradition for that matter.
If you think the pope was replaced by a phony, you only think that in order to maintain your sede belief, a belief which: "entails an entire set of beliefs and practices set apart from the rest beyond merely not believing these Popes are legitimate."
-
The way the sede mind works continually amazes me.
If the pope cannot harm the Church, then there is no reason for sedeism - or tradition for that matter.
If you think the pope was replaced by a phony, you only think that in order to maintain your sede belief, a belief which: "entails an entire set of beliefs and practices set apart from the rest beyond merely not believing these Popes are legitimate."
Stubborn, the way your brain works (or, rather, does not work) is what's amazing.
I'm sure you can find a basic logic class online. I highly recommend it.
Given the MAJOR premise above from Msgr. Fenton that a Pope cannot teach substantial error to the Church, there are only two possibilities, outside of rejecting Fenton's premise altogether.
There are two basic logical forms, 1) modo ponentis (MP) and 2) modo tollentis (MT).
MP goes like this.
MAJOR: If A, then B.
MINOR: A.
CONCLUSION: B
MT goes like this.
MAJOR: If A, then B.
MINOR: NOT B.
CONCLUSION: NOT A
With regard to the issue at hand, the conservative Conciliars adopt the MP reasoning. SVs adopt the MT reasoning. Most R&R simply dey the MAJOR.
Let's try a simple example.
MP (modo ponentis)
MAJOR: If a polygon is a triangle, it has 3 sides.
MINOR: This polygon is a triangle.
CONCLUSION. This polygon has 3 sides.
MT (modo tollentis)
MAJOR: If a polygon is a triangle, it has 3 sides.
MINOR: This polygon has 4 sides.
CONCLUSION: This polygon is not a triangle.
MAJOR: Popes cannot teach grave error to the Church. [oversimplification of Fenton for brevity]
=
MAJOR: If someone is the Pope, he cannot teach grave error to the Church.
So, MP (adopted by conservative Conciliars).
MAJOR: If someone is the Pope, he cannot teach grave error to the Church.
MINOR: Paul VI was Pope.
CONCLUSION: Paul VI did not teach grave error to the Church.
So, MT (adopted by sedevacantists).
MAJOR: If someone is the Pope, he cannot teach grave error to the Church.
MINOR: Paul VI taught grave error to the Church.
CONCLUSION: Paul VI was not the pope.
In order to reject SVism, you have to either deny the Minor (as the Conciliars do), namely, that Paul VI taught grave error to the Church, or deny the Major (Fenton's position), which is what most R&R do. But if you accept both the MAJOR and the MINOR, the the conclusion necessarily follows that Paul VI was not the pope.
-
Stubborn, the way your brain works (or, rather, does not work) is what's amazing.
I'm sure you can find a basic logic class online. I highly recommend it.
Given the MAJOR premise above from Msgr. Fenton that a Pope cannot teach substantial error to the Church, there are only two possibilities, outside of rejecting Fenton's premise altogether.
There are two basic logical forms, 1) modo ponentis (MP) and 2) modo tollentis (MT).
MP goes like this.
MAJOR: If A, then B.
MINOR: A.
CONCLUSION: B
MT goes like this.
MAJOR: If A, then B.
MINOR: NOT B.
CONCLUSION: NOT A
With regard to the issue at hand, the conservative Conciliars adopt the MP reasoning. SVs adopt the MT reasoning. Most R&R simply dey the MAJOR.
Let's try a simple example.
MP (modo ponentis)
MAJOR: If a polygon is a triangle, it has 3 sides.
MINOR: This polygon is a triangle.
CONCLUSION. This polygon has 3 sides.
MT (modo tollentis)
MAJOR: If a polygon is a triangle, it has 3 sides.
MINOR: This polygon has 4 sides.
CONCLUSION: This polygon is not a triangle.
MAJOR: Popes cannot teach grave error to the Church. [oversimplification of Fenton for brevity]
=
MAJOR: If someone is the Pope, he cannot teach grave error to the Church.
So, MP (adopted by conservative Conciliars).
MAJOR: If someone is the Pope, he cannot teach grave error to the Church.
MINOR: Paul VI was Pope.
CONCLUSION: Paul VI did not teach grave error to the Church.
So, MT (adopted by sedevacantists).
MAJOR: If someone is the Pope, he cannot teach grave error to the Church.
MINOR: Paul VI taught grave error to the Church.
CONCLUSION: Paul VI was not the pope.
In order to reject SVism, you have to either deny the Minor (as the Conciliars do), namely, that Paul VI taught grave error to the Church, or deny the Major (Fenton's position), which is what most R&R do. But if you accept both the MAJOR and the MINOR, the the conclusion necessarily follows that Paul VI was not the pope.
This can easily be reduced to making the Major:
"Pope can teach error to the Church except when he defines a doctrine concerning faith and morals to be held by the whole Church."
Now go ahead and start there.
-
This can easily be reduced to making the Major:
"Pope can teach error to the Church except when he defines a doctrine concerning faith and morals to be held by the whole Church."
Now go ahead and start there.
Correct. You deny the MAJOR. But if you accept the MAJOR, then you have to either deny that V2 taught error to the Church or have to conclude that Paul VI was not the pope (as per the above examples).
What Msgr. Fenton was teaching precisely rejects your proposition above, and that's the entire point.
-
Correct. You deny the MAJOR. But if you accept the MAJOR, then you have to either deny that V2 taught error to the Church or have to conclude that Paul VI was not the pope (as per the above examples).
What Msgr. Fenton was teaching precisely rejects your proposition above, and that's the entire point.
I'm not the one who denies the Major, you are. I posted +ABL's quote echoing the Major (V1), so it's not I who denies the Major.
In accepting the Major, I accept that V2 and the conciliar popes have taught error to the Church, something Fr. Fenton teaches and also something you believe is impossible.
Now go ahead and start your syllogism there.
-
I'm not the one who denies the Major, you are. I posted +ABL's quote echoing the Major (V1), so it's not I who denies the Major.
In accepting the Major, I accept that V2 and the conciliar popes have taught error to the Church, something Fr. Fenton teaches and also something you believe is impossible.
Now go ahead and start your syllogism there.
I think you’re a wee bit confused. The major is that they *can’t* teach substantial error
-
I think you’re a wee bit confused. The major is that they *can’t* teach substantial error
I am not confused, nor do I take it upon myself to qualify the degree of error. I simply adhere to:
Infallible = teaches without the possibility of error.
Fallible = the possibility of error is always present.
-
Fr. Chazal's position of Sedeimpoundism is merely a different version of Sedeprivationism. If Fr. Chazal ever publicly stated that he was a dyed-in-the-wool Sedevacantist, then he would obviously lose a lot of parishioners (some of whom may even demand his resignation or transfer).
-
Fr. Chazal's position of Sedeimpoundism is merely a different version of Sedeprivationism. If Fr. Chazal ever publicly stated that he was a dyed-in-the-wool Sedevacantist, then he would obviously lose a lot of parishioners (some of whom may even demand his resignation or transfer).
Fr. Chazal accepts Jorge Bergoglio ontologically as pope whereas sedeprivationism does not. Therefore, they are substantially different. Your use of the term "version" makes it sound like the two are substantially the same. Please explain.
-
Fr. Chazal accepts Jorge Bergoglio ontologically as pope whereas sedeprivationism does not. Therefore, they are substantially different. Your use of the term "version" makes it sound like the two are substantially the same. Please explain.
Gladly. Both Fr. Chazal and the Sedeprivationists accept that there is a material pope occupying the throne. Thus, according to both of them, there is an ontological pope (i.e. a pope that currently exists). Fr. Chazal (a Sedeimpoundist) and Bp. Sanborn (a Sedeprivationist) both claim that this ontological pope's powers are "withheld" and "deprived" only Fr. Chazal uses the term "impound" while Bp. Sanborn uses the term "privation". If something is withheld from someone then that someone is deprived of the thing being withheld: both priests are saying the exact same thing, only they are using different words to convey the same message. Some may call these terms an "unnecessary word salad" that these learned clergy throw around for the purpose of either showing their parishioners just how very learned they really are (which is an example of intellectual pride) or attempting to hold onto as many parishioners as possible (which will become a significant issue once many parishioners learn just how inane both positions truly are.
-
And let's not forget the recent abhorrent practice of "weaponizing the sacraments" against the faithful which some of these Sedeprivationist clergy are still doing. When they refuse to give sacraments to the faithful laity, they are, in essence, playing pope. Only they won't call themselves "pope" but rather a different title such as "Superior General". What all this boils down to is the fact that all of this talk of Sedeimpoundism vs. Sedeprivationism is all just a big colossal nothing burger. It's mere verbal gymnastics that solves absolutely nothing.
-
The way the sede mind works continually amazes me.
If the pope cannot harm the Church, then there is no reason for sedeism - or tradition for that matter.
If you think the pope was replaced by a phony, you only think that in order to maintain your sede belief, a belief which: "entails an entire set of beliefs and practices set apart from the rest beyond merely not believing these Popes are legitimate."
I log in for the first time in two and a half years and you’re still spewing the same junk. Have you ever even bothered to research the Church’s teaching concerning her immunity from error?
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."
“If the living magisterium could be in any way false — an evident contradiction would follow, for then God would be the author of error.”
Pope Leo XIII
Satis Cognitum
St Leo IX, Terra Pax
The holy Church built upon a rock, that is Christ, and upon Peter or Cephas, the son of John who first was called Simon, because by the gates of Hell, that is, by the disputations of heretics which lead the vain to destruction, it would never be overcome?
The same Son declares that He obtained the effect of this promise from the Father by prayers, by saying to Peter: "Simon, Simon, behold Satan hath desired to have you, that he may sift you as wheat: But I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not: and thou, being once converted, confirm thy brethren." [Lk 22:31]. Therefore, will there be anyone so foolish as to dare to regard His prayer as in anyway vain whose being willing is being able?
Now it is plain on the surface, that those who limit the Church's infallibility to her definitions of faith, admit indeed her infallibility as " testis ;" and to some limited extent as "judex;" but that they deny infallibility to her altogether, in her capacity of "magistra." No such view, however, is so much as known to approved theologians. According to their unanimous teaching, the Church is infallible, not only in witnessing and in judging, but in practically guiding her children to salvation.
THE AUTHORITY of
DOCTRINAL DECISIONS
WHICH ARE NOT DEFINITIONS OF FAITH,
WILLIAM GEORGE WARD, D.Pr.
1866.
Has the Church in fact proved itself infallible?-It is a historical fact that the Catholic Church, from the twentieth century back to the first, has not once ceased to teach a doctrine on faith or morals previously held, and with the same interpreta-tion; the Church has proved itself infallible.
1. It is a historical fact that not one-Pope, whatever he was in his private life, has ever taught error.
"My Catholic Faith" (1954) by Bishop Louis LaRavoire Morrow
“No Pope has erred in matters of faith."
Source: "On the Apostolical and Infallible Authority of the Pope" (1869) by Fr F. X. Weninger, SJ.
“All the strength of the Church is in the Pope; all the foundations of our Faith are based on the successor of Peter.”
- Pope Saint Pius X
"In his capacity as head, do not all his members owe him the solemn promise of canonical obedience, which alone can maintain unity in the Church and avoid schisms in this mystical body founded by Christ our Lord?"
Pope Pius VI
Quod Aliquantum
Your false and heretical beliefs are anathema. Put aside your pride and believe all that the Holy Church of God has revealed.
-
You must misinterpret then contradict that Scripture in order to arrive at your conclusion. He says in no uncertain terms, "tho we or an angel from heaven..." Which is to say, error is error no matter who preaches it.
What that Scripture is teaching is very simply, truth before authority.
Hang it there, Stubborn, against the wise guys with their syllogisms and "knowledge falsely so called" (1 Tim. 6:20), blind to their contradictions. You're right, it's not that complicated.
2 Cor. 11:3 - But I fear lest, as the serpent seduced Eve by his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted, and fall from the simplicity that is in Christ.
One does not reject authority when one holds it bound to truth (Scripture and Tradition), but one can reject truth when one binds it to men and authority, as the times give it proof.
-
Hang it there, Stubborn, against the wise guys with their syllogisms and "knowledge falsely so called" (1 Tim. 6:20), blind to their contradictions. You're right, it's not that complicated.
I'm not going anywhere, as I said, the sede mind is a continual source of amazement to me, it's something that interests me.
-
I log in for the first time in two and a half years and you’re still spewing the same junk. Have you ever even bothered to research the Church’s teaching concerning her immunity from error?
Your false and heretical beliefs are anathema. Put aside your pride and believe all that the Holy Church of God has revealed.
Two downvotes for simply providing Magisterial teachings and exhorting a man to renounce his errors in light of the facts.
-
Two downvotes for simply providing Magisterial teachings and exhorting a man to renounce his errors in light of the facts.
I downvoted you for telling Stubborn to "put away his pride." Pride is not what's going on with Stubborn at all.
If you put away the "heresy, heresy, pants on fire" attitude, we can discuss it reasonably. I understand that that might be impossible because you believe Stubborn's (and my) view is heresy, and I respect that, if not the finger pointing.
-
Gladly. Both Fr. Chazal and the Sedeprivationists accept that there is a material pope occupying the throne. Thus, according to both of them, there is an ontological pope (i.e. a pope that currently exists). Fr. Chazal (a Sedeimpoundist) and Bp. Sanborn (a Sedeprivationist) both claim that this ontological pope's powers are "withheld" and "deprived" only Fr. Chazal uses the term "impound" while Bp. Sanborn uses the term "privation". If something is withheld from someone then that someone is deprived of the thing being withheld: both priests are saying the exact same thing, only they are using different words to convey the same message. Some may call these terms an "unnecessary word salad" that these learned clergy throw around for the purpose of either showing their parishioners just how very learned they really are (which is an example of intellectual pride) or attempting to hold onto as many parishioners as possible (which will become a significant issue once many parishioners learn just how inane both positions truly are.
By ontological I meant a man upon whom God has conferred the papal office. Fr. Chazal holds the God has conferred the papal office upon Jorge Bergoglio and is therefore a pope in act, whereas Bishop Sanborn holds that Jorge Bergoglio has the material aspect but not the formal aspect and is therefore a pope only in potency.
-
I log in for the first time in two and a half years and you’re still spewing the same junk. Have you ever even bothered to research the Church’s teaching concerning her immunity from error?
The pope is not the Church.
-
I'm not going anywhere, as I said, the sede mind is a continual source of amazement to me, it's something that interests me.
I wish you would stop writing things like this. You imply that we're freaks in need of scientific analysis in your lab.
-
The pope is not the Church.
You have made *yourself* the final arbiter on what is and what isn’t Catholic teaching.
Contrast what you said to this:
Venerable Pius IX: “I am the Church, I am tradition”!
Of course you will just ignore this as you are your own pope.
-
I wish you would stop writing things like this. You imply that we're freaks in need of scientific analysis in your lab.
Sorry 2V, that was not my intention.
-
You have made *yourself* the final arbiter on what is and what isn’t Catholic teaching.
Contrast what you said to this:
Venerable Pius IX: “I am the Church, I am tradition”!
Of course you will just ignore this as you are your own pope.
No, I do not make myself the final arbiter, nor have I learned my faith from any pope directly, anymore than you, who have lived your entire life without any pope at all.
I posted a Fr. Hesse video who addresses what PPIX said in your quote above. Also, PPIX and other popes taught Christ and the Church are one and the same - fyi.
-
Sorry 2V, that was not my intention.
Thank you. Maybe just re-word it in the future then, please.
-
The pope is not the Church.
The Pope is the supreme ruler and teacher of the Church.
The Catholic doctrine touching the Church as the rule of faith
The term Church, in this connection, can only denote the teaching Church, as is clear from the passages already quoted from the New Testament (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14530a.htm) and the Fathers. But the teaching Church may be regarded either as the whole body of the episcopate, whether scattered throughout the world or collected in an ecuмenical council (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04423f.htm), or it may be synonymous with the successor of St. Peter (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12260a.htm), the Vicar of Christ. Now the teaching Church is the Apostolic body continuing to the end of time (Matthew 28:19-20 (https://www.newadvent.org/bible/mat028.htm#vrs19)); but only one of the bishops (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02581b.htm), viz., the Bishop of Rome (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12260a.htm), is the successor of St. Peter (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12260a.htm); he alone can be regarded as the living Apostle and Vicar of Christ, and it is only by union with him that the rest of the episcopate can be said to possess the Apostolic character (Vatican Council (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15303a.htm), Sess. IV, Prooemium). Hence, unless they be united with the Vicar of Christ, it is futile to appeal to the episcopate in general as the rule of faith
-
The pope is not the Church.
Well, obviously, but at the same time Ubi Petrus, ibi Ecclesia.
-
The pope is not the Church.
Did you even read my message in response to your claim that “the Pope can harm the Church” to such a degree that we see today?
This is your reply after being thoroughly rebutted in response to such a grievous allegation you made with no evidence?
-
No, I do not make myself the final arbiter, nor have I learned my faith from any pope directly, anymore than you, who have lived your entire life without any pope at all.
I posted a Fr. Hesse video who addresses what PPIX said in your quote above. Also, PPIX and other popes taught Christ and the Church are one and the same - fyi.
“I posted a Fr. Hesse video…”
Nobody cares. It’s time to move on from Fr. Hesse. He’s been proven wrong time and time again.
The Magisterium is the rule of faith for Catholics, not a random recording of a Novus Ordo priest spewing errors with no support for his claims.
Defend your position with Magisterial teaching or pre-V2 theological discourses or stop.