Unfortunately LD, it is not I who is interpreting dogma, I'm the one reading what is written as it is written
The problem Stubborn is that you don't
actually read what is written. I will clearly point out that you do not read what is written. Let's start with the first dogma that you frequently use from the First Vatican Council...Therefore,
- if anyone says that it is not by the institution of Christ the lord himself (that is to say, by divine law) that blessed Peter should have perpetual successors in the primacy over the whole church; or that
let him be anathema.
- the Roman pontiff is not the successor of blessed Peter in this primacy:
Here you like to substitute the word "should
" with "will
". Nice slight of hand (but it doesn't work with me). Also, I believe that the Roman Pontiff is the successor of blessed Peter in the primacy, I just don't believe the conciliar clowns are/were Roman Pontiffs. So it is evident here that you are the one misreading and misusing the dogma. Now lets move on to another dogma that you frequently misread and misuse...Furthermore, we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff. (Pope Boniface VII - Unam Sanctam)
This is another dogma that you misread and misuse. Sedevacantists agree that every human creature must be subject to the Roman Pontiff. Conciliar "clownpope" heretics are not Roman Pontiffs, however. Therefore you misuse this dogma. Secondly you misread it. For when confronted with the reality that YOU DO NOT SUBJECT YOURSELF
to the clown that you believe is a true Pope, you say "I submit in true
obedience, not false
obedience". It obvious then Stubborn you are a hypocrite
for accusing Cardinal Manning and others for adding to the dogma and extending it. For the above dogma says NOTHING
obedience. It says plainly that one must be subject to the Roman Pontiff. Period.
Now we will see that Cardinal Manning and others do not misread the dogma from the First Vatican Council regarding the Infallibility of the Roman Pontiff. Let's take a look at the dogma, shall we...we teach and define as a divinely revealed dogma that
Therefore, such definitions of the Roman pontiff are of themselves, and not by the consent of the church, irreformable.
- when the Roman pontiff speaks EX CATHEDRA,
- that is, when,
- (1) in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians,
- (2) in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority,
- (3) he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole Church,
- he possesses,
- by the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter,
- that infallibility which the divine Redeemer willed His Church to enjoy in defining doctrine concerning faith or morals.
The dogma in defining when the Roman Pontiff speaks ex Cathedra, plainly states that he must be exercising his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians. It does not give any specific wording that must precede the exercise. In other words, he must be addressing the whole Church officially. Number 2 just states that it is "in virtue of"
his apostolic authority. This does not mean the Roman Pontiff must explicitly say in the teaching that he is using his apostolic authority (although sometimes the Roman Pontiff does this). "In virtue of", just means by the apostolic authority that is inherent in the office he resides in. Number 3 just says that he must be defining doctrine concerning faith and morals. Again, it doesn't say that the Roman Pontiff must explicitly say he is defining a doctrine to be held by the whole Church (although again - sometimes he does this). It is enough that he teaches definitively concerning faith and morals. He cannot merely give his opinion, and his teaching must address the whole Church (not just a part of the Church).
So it is quite evident that it is you who is not reading the dogmas as they are written.