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

« previous next »
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 7

Author Topic: Crux of the Pope Problem  (Read 7255 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline RomanTheo

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 327
  • Reputation: +164/-148
  • Gender: Male
Re: Crux of the Pope Problem
« Reply #15 on: April 29, 2018, 11:33:07 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Ladislaus on April 29, 2018, 11:12:06 AM
    Idiot, it is you R&R who claim that the Catholic Church has become transformed into the Conciliar Church.  It is we non-R&R who assert that the Conciliar Church is NOT the Catholic Church but a counterfeit.
    If an R&R adherent believes the visible, institutional Church - with its Pope, hierarchy and laity - which is numerically one with the Church at the time of Pius XI, transformed into a new Church called the Conciliar Church, they are professing a herersy.  
     
    If a sedevacantist (or whatever you call yourself) claims the visible, institutional Church -  lead by Pope Francis, the bishops in union with him, and the laity under them - which is numerically one and the same Church that existed at the time of Pius XII, is not the Catholic Church, but is a difference Church known as the Conciliar Church, you are professing the exact same heresy.
     
    The visible, institutional Church, consisting of the pope, bishops and laity, cannot be destroyed, neither by (1) going out of existence or (2) by being substantially transformed into a new entity.  
     
    So "don't tell me" that the institutional Church today is not the same Church that existed at the time of Pius XII, because that is heresy - far worse than error anything contained in Vatican II.  
    Logged
    Never trust; always verify.

    Offline RomanTheo

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 327
    • Reputation: +164/-148
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Crux of the Pope Problem
    « Reply #16 on: April 29, 2018, 11:45:40 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Ladislaus on April 29, 2018, 11:16:16 AM
    In that case, you are a schismatic if you are a Traditional Catholic who is not in subjection to Rome.  There's no reason for you, then, to break communion with the Catholic hierarchy.  Return to submission and go about the work of arguing in favor of the Traditional interpretation of Vatican II.
    I've never broken communion with Rome.  If you by your own admission have, it is you who are the schismatic.  And your schism is the result of your error that the Church under Francis is not the Catholic Church.  
    Logged
    Never trust; always verify.

    Offline Ladislaus

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 41865
    • Reputation: +23920/-4344
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Crux of the Pope Problem
    « Reply #17 on: April 29, 2018, 12:02:30 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: RomanTheo on April 29, 2018, 11:45:40 AM
    I've never broken communion with Rome.  If you by your own admission have, it is you who are the schismatic.  And your schism is the result of your error that the Church under Francis is not the Catholic Church.  

    Where (by that I mean with what group) do you attend Mass?
    Logged

    Offline RomanTheo

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 327
    • Reputation: +164/-148
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Crux of the Pope Problem
    « Reply #18 on: April 29, 2018, 12:44:29 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Ladislaus on April 29, 2018, 12:02:30 PM
    Where (by that I mean with what group) do you attend Mass?
    I attend Mass at more than one place, and I have always made a conscious effort to avoid belonging to a particular “group”.  In the current climate, doing so leads quickly to sectarianism, division and infighting.  One group becomes two, two become four, and each group fights with the other.  It is the classic divine and conquer that the devil uses so successfully.  Because of that, I won’t tell you anything about where I attend Mass, or what “groups” (there are three) offer mass at the locations I attend.  But I will end with this:  I have never regretted my conscious decision to refuse belonging to a certain group.  Can those who have attached themselves to a certain group say the same about their decision? 
    Logged
    Never trust; always verify.

    Offline Ladislaus

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 41865
    • Reputation: +23920/-4344
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Crux of the Pope Problem
    « Reply #19 on: April 29, 2018, 01:02:42 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!1
    • Quote from: RomanTheo on April 29, 2018, 12:44:29 PM
    I attend Mass at more than one place, and I have always made a conscious effort to avoid belonging to a particular “group”.  In the current climate, doing so leads quickly to sectarianism, division and infighting.  One group becomes two, two become four, and each group fights with the other.  It is the classic divine and conquer that the devil uses so successfully.  Because of that, I won’t tell you anything about where I attend Mass, or what “groups” (there are three) offer mass at the locations I attend.  But I will end with this:  I have never regretted my conscious decision to refuse belonging to a certain group.  Can those who have attached themselves to a certain group say the same about their decision?  

    Whatever.  If you do regularly attend SSPX Masses, however, you are most certainly a schismatic given your opinion about Vatican II, that it's inherently reconcilable with Tradition.
    Logged

    Offline Theosist

    • Newbie
    • *
    • Posts: 116
    • Reputation: +59/-171
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Crux of the Pope Problem
    « Reply #20 on: April 29, 2018, 02:29:13 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote
    This implies that the "Church" and the Catholic Church are two distinct things for one to be inside the other. 
    No, it doesn’t. A thing subsists in itself as its actus primus. That is Thomistic philosophy.

    It might imply that to you, but that implication is subjective, not logical.


    Logged

    Offline Theosist

    • Newbie
    • *
    • Posts: 116
    • Reputation: +59/-171
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Crux of the Pope Problem
    « Reply #21 on: April 29, 2018, 03:02:19 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote
    Since you are aware of Auctorem Fidei, you should definitely know that heretics use ambiguity to disguise heresy

    Of course, but truly ambiguous statements, which could be either true or false depending on how one wishes to interpret them, cannot be objectively teaching error. And that’s all that infallibility does, isn’t it? Prevent that from happening? 

    Take religious freedom: it is true that man has a right to religious freedom and to be free from being forced to act against his conscience, or prevented from acting according to it, privately or publicly, in religious matters - within due limits!

    Why? Because as the Church has always taught, true freedom consists in doing God’s will, and the right to religious freedom can be nothing other than the First Commandment itself. Everyone has the right to freely worship the Holy Trinity in spirit and in truth, and Catholics in particular. Similarly, nobody should infringe upon this, or acts in good conscience, within due limits - where infringing upon those who have a badly formed conscience may well be understood to be just such a limit. There is nothing in the text of Dignitatis Humanae that would condemn, say, the Albigensian Crusade or Catholic Integralism and a confessional state -  but even in the Middle Ages, Jєωs, e.g., were allowed their private worship. So why doesn’t the docuмent state these things as such? Because that was probably not the intention of those who drafted it - but that doesn’t concern infallibility, which is not inspiration to teach truth but prevention from teaching error. The whole thing should be thoroughly amended or just consigned to the flames, buts it’s failings - it’s the conciliar equivalent of the Godfather 3 following Trent and Vatican I - 
    do not necessarily imply promulgation of heresy.

    The heresies which are taught today on the basis of Vatican II we’re doing the rounds “in” the Church long before that council and would in all likelihood be “mainstream” even without it, just like the liturgical abuses and destruction of the mass were just further enabled by the Novus Ordo, but were sneaking in anyway.
    Logged

    Offline Theosist

    • Newbie
    • *
    • Posts: 116
    • Reputation: +59/-171
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Crux of the Pope Problem
    « Reply #22 on: April 29, 2018, 03:17:30 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • And I’m not a Thomist. I refer only to its terminology in passing because I know how many Trads have a fetish for Aristotelianism which raises his metaphysics and epistemology to the level of quasi-dogma of the Church.
    Logged

    Offline Theosist

    • Newbie
    • *
    • Posts: 116
    • Reputation: +59/-171
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Crux of the Pope Problem
    « Reply #23 on: April 29, 2018, 03:26:51 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • For the record, my position is none at all, but a continuum of doubtism between Sedeprivationism, Bennyvacantism, and FSSP-esque Continuity. I’m looking for answers, not pretending that I have them - but I don’t let it keep me awake at night or place me in possible material or - worse - formal schism with the Church and Papacy.
    Logged

    Offline roscoe

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 7610
    • Reputation: +617/-404
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Crux of the Pope Problem
    « Reply #24 on: April 29, 2018, 03:44:12 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: roscoe on April 28, 2018, 09:35:05 PM
    As a historian & not a theologian, there is really no need to explore the alleged possibility of an heretical pope. None of the v2 anti-popes can claim to be legally elected-- end of story.
    Having said that, isn't there a Bull from Paul IV that deposes any occupant of Peter's Chair who transforms into a public heretic? The Bull has never been rescinded & has been posted in the past.  :chef:
    Bull of Pope Paul IV is cuм Ex Apostolatus Officio

    www.dailycatholic.org/cuмexapo.htm

     :chef:
    Logged
    There Is No Such Thing As 'Sede Vacantism'...
    nor is there such thing as a 'Feeneyite' or 'Feeneyism'

    Offline RomanTheo

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 327
    • Reputation: +164/-148
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Crux of the Pope Problem
    « Reply #25 on: April 29, 2018, 04:10:43 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: An even Seven on April 29, 2018, 02:57:47 PM
    Citing Actus Primus/Secundus to justify this paragraph of Lumen Gentium is not valid. V2 obviously implied a distinction in entities not actualities. 


    In 2007 the CDF issued a clarification of the term, by saying “subsists” refer to the Catholic Church alone.  What the clarification essentially said is that subsists refers to diachronic (historical) subsistence, not a synchronic (multiple entity) subsistence. In other words, that the Catholic Church of the 20th century is the same as the Catholic Church of the first century, the one subsisting in the other.  It reads:
     
    “In number 8 of the Dogmatic Constitution Lumen gentium ‘subsistence’ means this perduring, historical continuity … the word ‘subsists’ can only be attributed to the Catholic Church alone precisely because it refers to the mark of unity that we profess…” (Responses To Some Questions Regarding Certain Aspects Of The Doctrine On The Church).
     
    That’s the official explanation of the term given by the Church and there’s nothing problematic about it. 
     
    My point is not to excuse the ambiguity or the wolves who use ambiguous terminology to deceive, but simply to show that an ambiguous statement is not the same as an erroneous or heretical statement.  That explains why Pope Pius VI (in Auctorem Fidei) did not say that one exposes an ambiguous statement by condemn the statement, as such, but rather “denounce the perverse meaning under which the error opposed to Catholic truth is camouflaged.”.  That’s how you do it.  
     
    If you had followed the teaching of Pius VI, you would not have fallen into the error of believing, and the additional error of rashly declaring, that Vatican II's teaching regarding “subsists” is heretical.  It is certainly not.  It is not even erroneous, just ambiguous.
     
    This is a perfect example of how the Modernists lead people into error in both directions. Some lose the faith and end by embracing the errors of the Left.  Others fall into error to the Right (usually do to ignorance of theological distinctions followed by rash conclusions) and end by believing that the indefectible Church defected, by supposedly doing what the infallible Church could not do.
    Logged
    Never trust; always verify.

    Offline RomanTheo

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 327
    • Reputation: +164/-148
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Crux of the Pope Problem
    « Reply #26 on: April 29, 2018, 04:55:44 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Ladislaus on April 29, 2018, 01:02:42 PM
    Whatever.  If you do regularly attend SSPX Masses, however, you are most certainly a schismatic given your opinion about Vatican II, that it's inherently reconcilable with Tradition.
    When did I say I believe everything in Vatican II is inherently reconcilable with Tradition?  I've striven to reconcile Dignitatis Humanae with Tradition by making every tortuous distinction I could, and I wasn't able to do so.  The general drift of the docuмent, when read in context, clearly appears to promote what the Church has condemned, and there is one sentence that I believe is not just ambiguous, but erroneous. 

    What's interesting is that Fr. Brian hαɾɾιson studied the acts of the council and discovered that that particular sentence was slipped into the docuмent at the last minute, without anyone being told about it.  The bishops had a copy of the docuмent with the change in it, but the person charged with explaining to the Fathers what had been changed failed to mention it.   The only way they would have known about the problematic sentence was by reading the entire docuмent themselves and spotting it.  Not likely, especially when you consider what Fr. Fenton wrote in his diary on the day the vote occurred.  Fenton was at the council at the time as the peritus for Cardinal Ottaviani.  In his diary entry, he explained that the Fathers were up against a deadline for approving the docuмent, and said everything was being rushed through.  Fenton compared the atmosphere to "the last days of Congress, when everything goes through without a moment’s halt."  If memory serves, it was the last vote needed to close the council.  

    When you combine the slight of hand that Fr. hαɾɾιson discovered, with the general atmosphere at the council at the time of the final vote, as explained by Fr. Fenton, it is not difficult to see how that erroneous sentence made it into the docuмent.  Such a thing could not happen with a definitive teaching, but it is possible when the Church explicitly avoids using its infallible teaching authority.
    Logged
    Never trust; always verify.

    Offline Ladislaus

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 41865
    • Reputation: +23920/-4344
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Crux of the Pope Problem
    « Reply #27 on: April 29, 2018, 05:24:59 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: RomanTheo on April 29, 2018, 04:55:44 PM
    When did I say I believe everything in Vatican II is inherently reconcilable with Tradition?  I've striven to reconcile Dignitatis Humanae with Tradition by making every tortuous distinction I could, and I wasn't able to do so.  The general drift of the docuмent, when read in context, clearly appears to promote what the Church has condemned, and there is one sentence that I believe is not just ambiguous, but erroneous.

    What's interesting is that Fr. Brian hαɾɾιson studied the acts of the council and discovered that that particular sentence was slipped into the docuмent at the last minute, without anyone being told about it.  The bishops had a copy of the docuмent with the change in it, but the person charged with explaining to the Fathers what had been changed failed to mention it.   The only way they would have known about the problematic sentence was by reading the entire docuмent themselves and spotting it.  Not likely, especially when you consider what Fr. Fenton wrote in his diary on the day the vote occurred.  Fenton was at the council at the time as the peritus for Cardinal Ottaviani.  In his diary entry, he explained that the Fathers were up against a deadline for approving the docuмent, and said everything was being rushed through.  Fenton compared the atmosphere to "the last days of Congress, when everything goes through without a moment’s halt."  If memory serves, it was the last vote needed to close the council.  

    When you combine the slight of hand that Fr. hαɾɾιson discovered, with the general atmosphere at the council at the time of the final vote, as explained by Fr. Fenton, it is not difficult to see how that erroneous sentence made it into the docuмent.  Such a thing could not happen with a definitive teaching, but it is possible when the Church explicitly avoids using its infallible teaching authority.

    Uhm, in your post, you said that you were only granting for the sake or argument that V2 was not reconcilable.

    Oh, so you're of the Michael Davies school where the entire error of Vatican II consists of a single sentence that may or may not have actually been officially approved by the Fathers.  Again, insufficient reason to be out of communion with the hierarchy.  You're a schismatic.

    You have no grounds to resist Vatican II but merely the modernist distortion thereof and one non-infallible sentence.  Insufficient justification.
    Logged

    Offline RomanTheo

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 327
    • Reputation: +164/-148
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Crux of the Pope Problem
    « Reply #28 on: April 29, 2018, 06:33:44 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Ladislaus on April 29, 2018, 05:24:59 PM
    Oh, so you're of the Michael Davies school where the entire error of Vatican II consists of a single sentence that may or may not have actually been officially approved by the Fathers.  
    Still trying to categorize me, I see.  You are revealing the state of your own soul.  And I never said I believe the sentence in DH is the only error in the council.  I gave it as an example of a statement I believe to be erroneous, for the purpose of showing that I do not believe everything in the council can be reconciled with tradition (which is what you accused me of having said). 
    Logged
    Never trust; always verify.

    Offline Pax Vobis

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 10305
    • Reputation: +6215/-1742
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Crux of the Pope Problem
    « Reply #29 on: April 29, 2018, 06:38:53 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Here’s what I don’t understand...Ladislaus, I get you’re playing devils advocate in some of these debates as you’ve admitted before and you’re attacking bad logic, etc.  And that is necessary.  

    However, in your taking “R&R” to the logical extreme, without admitting for any middle ground, and your resulting condemnation of it, the only conclusion left for you is sedevacantism (or some variant).  Yet, when asked of your opinion on sedevacantism, you are open to either Siri-ism or sedeprivationism, etc and your conclusion is one of probability.

    Your argument that R&R is ABSOLUTELY wrong and sedevacantism is PROBABLY right makes no sense.  If R&R is schism, then sedeprivationism (or some variant) MUST be right.  Yet you lack conviction of the logical conclusion.  Makes no sense.
    Logged
    Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 7
    « previous next »