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

Author Topic: Feb 2nd 2022, The Day RnR Admit Antipope Francis is Not in the Church?  (Read 15494 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Ladislaus

  • Supporter
Re: Feb 2nd 2022, The Day RnR Admit Antipope Francis is Not in the Church?
« Reply #80 on: February 05, 2022, 03:16:58 PM »
Probably worth mentioning Fr. Chazal's own words from an email:


This is from an email re: Canon 2264 and 209.

Yes, thank you.  I took extensive quotations directly from Father Chazal's video presentation about his position.  He clearly states that he grants that Bergoglio is a manifest heretic, that he has no authority on account of it, is impounded or in a suspended state, even if he happens to hold the visible office.

Offline Stubborn

  • Supporter
Re: Feb 2nd 2022, The Day RnR Admit Antipope Francis is Not in the Church?
« Reply #81 on: February 05, 2022, 03:47:36 PM »
They gave clear answers, as they have done every single time this debate starts up again.
What was the clear answer to the question? The question is: what is it exactly that sedes disagree with here below? I must have missed it so......

+ABL's explanation of the principle involved (which +ABL applied and also insisted his SSPX apply), always applies any way - regardless of the status of the pope.


Quote
Archbishop Lefebvre's 1983 Ridgefield Conference
"Principle: Only when the Faith is in question.

Only in this case. Not in other cases... only when the Faith is in question... and that is found in the Summa Theologica (II II Q.33, a.4, ad 2m): St. Thomas' answer is that we cannot resist to the authority; we must obey:

  • "Sciendum tamen est quod ubi immineret periculum fidei." Periculum fidei, i.e., the danger to our faith...
  • "etiam publice essent praelate a subditis arguendi.", i.e., the subject can be opposed to the authority if the Faith is in question ("periculum fidei");
  • "Unde et Paulus, qui erat subditus Petro, propter imminens periculum scandali circa fidem, Petrum publice arguit," i.e., St. Paul opposed St. Peter because it was a danger for the Faith (cf. Galatians 2:11).

That is the principle (of St. Thomas), and I cannot harbor another motive to resist the pope… it is very serious to be opposed to the pope, and to the Church. It is very serious, and if we think that we must do that, we must do it (resist the Holy Father) only to preserve our Faith, and not for any other motive.


We must now do an application of the principle...."
What exactly do you disagree with here?


Offline Stubborn

  • Supporter
Re: Feb 2nd 2022, The Day RnR Admit Antipope Francis is Not in the Church?
« Reply #82 on: February 05, 2022, 03:59:05 PM »
Vatican I:

Quote
For in the Apostolic See the Catholic religion has always been preserved unblemished, and sacred doctrine been held in honor. ... [T]his see of St. Peter always remains unblemished by any error, in accordance with the divine promise of our Lord and Saviour to the prince of his disciples...


If V2 and the NOM and the V2 papal claimants haven't "blemished" the Holy See with error, then there's no such thing.

This above is what Catholics have always believed, and which Archbishop Lefebvre himself restated.

It probably won't, but it might help if you understand that V1 was all about when the pope is infallible - it is that see of St. Peter that always remains unblemished in accordance with the divine promise, which, as V1 decrees a few paragraphs later is when the pope defines a doctrine ex cathedra.

Certainly +ABL and all Catholics still believe it, your expansion of papal infallibility keeps you from believing it.
 

Re: Feb 2nd 2022, The Day RnR Admit Antipope Francis is Not in the Church?
« Reply #83 on: February 05, 2022, 04:01:08 PM »
"The Redemption event brings salvation to all"
That doesn't say all are saved, though. The Redemption only makes it possible for everyone to save his soul.

Offline Stubborn

  • Supporter
Re: Feb 2nd 2022, The Day RnR Admit Antipope Francis is Not in the Church?
« Reply #84 on: February 05, 2022, 04:11:05 PM »
Just the opinions of some theologians:

Quote
Pope Pius XI, Divini Illius Magistri (#18), Dec. 31, 1929: “… God Himself made the Church a sharer in the divine magisterium and by His divine benefit unable to be mistaken.” ... “To this magisterium Christ the Lord imparted 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.

Pope Leo XIII, Caritatis Studium (#6) July 25, 1898: The Magisterium “could by no means commit itself to erroneous teaching.”

Pope Pius X, Editae Saepe (#8), May 26, 1910: “... only a miracle of that divine power could preserve the Church... from blemish in the holiness of Her doctrine...

Pope Pius XI, Quas Primas (#22), Dec. 11, 1925: “... the perfect and perpetual immunity of the Church from error and heresy.”

Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum (# 9), June 29, 1896: “The practice of the Church has always been the same, and that with the consenting judgment [i.e. consensus] of the holy fathers who certainly were accustomed to hold as having no part of Catholic communion and as banished from the Church whoever had departed in even the least way from the doctrine proposed by the authentic magisterium.”

Pope Gregory XVI, Mirari Vos (# 10), Aug. 15, 1832: “Therefore, it is obviously absurd and injurious to propose a certain ‘restoration and regeneration’ for her (the Church) as though necessary for her safety and growth, as if she could be considered subject to any failing health or dimming of mind or other misfortune.”

Pope Pius XI, Mortalium Animos (# 10), Jan. 6, 1928: “During the lapse of centuries, the mystical Spouse of Christ has never been contaminated, nor can she ever in the future be contaminated, as Cyprian bears witness: ‘The Bride of Christ cannot be made false to her Spouse: she is incorrupt and modest. She knows but one dwelling, she guards the sanctity of the nuptial chamber chastely and modestly.”

Pope Hadrian I, Second Council of Nicaea, 787: “… Christ our God, when He took for His Bride His Holy Catholic Church, having no blemish or wrinkle, promised he would guard her and assured his holy disciples saying, I am with you every day until the consummation of the world.”

Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, Session 9, March 23, 1440: “…the Spouse of Christ is uncontaminated and modest, knowing only one home, and she guards the sanctity of their marriage bed with chaste modesty.”


Many of these Popes, by the way, are the same one who condemned what would become the errors of Vatican II.  But, hey, if they were mistaken on this stuff above, maybe they were wrong about condeming those things as errors too.
Well, the quotes are certainly true, but does nothing to advance your sede position, nothing whatsoever. In fact, all the above quotes serve to prove that your sede position rejects what the Church teaches. I'm almost a bit surprised you don't get that or that other sedes have not spoken up and told you as much.

I'm also kinda surprised that you posted the Church's magisterium is always infallible as it shoots down your preaching that the Church "can make insignificant errors, but not errors that are harmful to the universal Church", and a number of times you've said that "the magisterium has gone off the rails" - both are explicitly against the above teachings of the Church you yourself posted above.