Send CathInfo's owner Matthew a gift from his Amazon wish list:
https://www.amazon.com/hz/wishlist/ls/25M2B8RERL1UO

Author Topic: Cassiciacuм thesis vs Fr. Chazal's position  (Read 5300 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Emile

  • Supporter
  • ****
  • Posts: 2441
  • Reputation: +1877/-136
  • Gender: Male
Re: Cassiciacuм thesis vs Fr. Chazal's position
« Reply #45 on: December 21, 2023, 09:19:11 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • 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.

    Offline AnthonyPadua

    • Supporter
    • ****
    • Posts: 2213
    • Reputation: +1124/-229
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Cassiciacuм thesis vs Fr. Chazal's position
    « Reply #46 on: December 22, 2023, 03:49:29 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • 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.


    Offline Stubborn

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 14723
    • Reputation: +6061/-905
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Cassiciacuм thesis vs Fr. Chazal's position
    « Reply #47 on: December 22, 2023, 04:59:25 AM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
  • 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."
    "But Peter and the apostles answering, said: We ought to obey God, rather than men." - Acts 5:29

    The Highest Principle in the Church: "We are first of all under obedience to God, and only then under obedience to man" - Fr. Hesse

    Offline Stubborn

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 14723
    • Reputation: +6061/-905
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Cassiciacuм thesis vs Fr. Chazal's position
    « Reply #48 on: December 22, 2023, 05:02:23 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • 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.
    "But Peter and the apostles answering, said: We ought to obey God, rather than men." - Acts 5:29

    The Highest Principle in the Church: "We are first of all under obedience to God, and only then under obedience to man" - Fr. Hesse

    Offline Stubborn

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 14723
    • Reputation: +6061/-905
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Cassiciacuм thesis vs Fr. Chazal's position
    « Reply #49 on: December 22, 2023, 05:20:40 AM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
  • 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.
    "But Peter and the apostles answering, said: We ought to obey God, rather than men." - Acts 5:29

    The Highest Principle in the Church: "We are first of all under obedience to God, and only then under obedience to man" - Fr. Hesse


    Offline Ladislaus

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 46601
    • Reputation: +27458/-5070
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Cassiciacuм thesis vs Fr. Chazal's position
    « Reply #50 on: December 22, 2023, 07:22:55 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • 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.

    Offline Stubborn

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 14723
    • Reputation: +6061/-905
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Cassiciacuм thesis vs Fr. Chazal's position
    « Reply #51 on: December 22, 2023, 07:32:46 AM »
  • Thanks!2
  • No Thanks!1
  • 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."
    "But Peter and the apostles answering, said: We ought to obey God, rather than men." - Acts 5:29

    The Highest Principle in the Church: "We are first of all under obedience to God, and only then under obedience to man" - Fr. Hesse

    Offline Ladislaus

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 46601
    • Reputation: +27458/-5070
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Cassiciacuм thesis vs Fr. Chazal's position
    « Reply #52 on: December 22, 2023, 07:47:24 AM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
  • 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.






    Offline Stubborn

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 14723
    • Reputation: +6061/-905
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Cassiciacuм thesis vs Fr. Chazal's position
    « Reply #53 on: December 22, 2023, 07:57:42 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • 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.

    "But Peter and the apostles answering, said: We ought to obey God, rather than men." - Acts 5:29

    The Highest Principle in the Church: "We are first of all under obedience to God, and only then under obedience to man" - Fr. Hesse

    Offline Ladislaus

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 46601
    • Reputation: +27458/-5070
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Cassiciacuм thesis vs Fr. Chazal's position
    « Reply #54 on: December 22, 2023, 08:10:53 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • 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.

    Offline Stubborn

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 14723
    • Reputation: +6061/-905
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Cassiciacuм thesis vs Fr. Chazal's position
    « Reply #55 on: December 22, 2023, 08:23:01 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • 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.
    "But Peter and the apostles answering, said: We ought to obey God, rather than men." - Acts 5:29

    The Highest Principle in the Church: "We are first of all under obedience to God, and only then under obedience to man" - Fr. Hesse


    Offline Quo vadis Domine

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 4750
    • Reputation: +2896/-667
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Cassiciacuм thesis vs Fr. Chazal's position
    « Reply #56 on: December 22, 2023, 08:28:20 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • 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 
    For what doth it profit a man, if he gain the whole world, and suffer the loss of his own soul? Or what exchange shall a man give for his soul?

    Offline Stubborn

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 14723
    • Reputation: +6061/-905
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Cassiciacuм thesis vs Fr. Chazal's position
    « Reply #57 on: December 22, 2023, 08:38:21 AM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
  • 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.

    "But Peter and the apostles answering, said: We ought to obey God, rather than men." - Acts 5:29

    The Highest Principle in the Church: "We are first of all under obedience to God, and only then under obedience to man" - Fr. Hesse

    Offline Hank Igitur

    • Newbie
    • *
    • Posts: 75
    • Reputation: +47/-19
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Cassiciacuм thesis vs Fr. Chazal's position
    « Reply #58 on: December 22, 2023, 11:57:06 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • 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).

    Offline Catholic Knight

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 797
    • Reputation: +238/-79
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Cassiciacuм thesis vs Fr. Chazal's position
    « Reply #59 on: December 22, 2023, 12:51:28 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • 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.