[Ladislaus]

You imagine, as you said earlier, the Magisterium is both infallible and not infallible or as you said, "non-infallible magisterium", which is to say the Magisterium can teach both truth and error, then you accuse R&R of the novel term, "magisterium sifting". According to your idea of the Magisterium, how else are we expected to determine which is which without sifting?

If the Magisterium is as you say, then we ALL must sift the magisterium lest we submit to the non-infallible (read: error / non-binding) part of the Magisterium. We have no other choice, according to your idea of the Magisterium that is.

Then you toss in our duty to submit to the Magisterium and the Universal Discipline of the Church, which is to say we must submit to the whole Magisterium, both infallible (truth) and non-infallible (error / non-binding) Magisterium, yet you say to sift which is which, that is to say, to sift between the infallible (truth) and non-infallible (error / non-binding) magisterium is heresy. What you never do is tell us how else are we to know which is which without sifting? We cannot depend on the infallible part of the Magisterium to tell us because what we think is infallible may well be non-infallible - according to your idea.

As I said, you toss in our duty to submit to the Church's Universal Discipline which is derived from the Magisterium. Well, who is to say that today's Universal Discipline was not derived from the non-infallible (error) Magisterium? According to your understanding, it appears today's Universal Discipline is part of the non-infallible (error) Magisterium because obviously, today's Universal Discipline is riddled with errors and heresies - apparently you understand this because of that evil magisterium sifting, which you say is heresy.

Setting aside for now how this whole idea of yours obviously decimates the Church's indefectibility, this sufficiently sums up your confusion as regards R&R, Magisterium sifting, Magisterium, and Universal Discipline.

Well, that's actually progress for you.  Before you kept claiming that erroneous stuff was simply not part of the Magisterium.  Indeed, there are non-infallible things in the Magisterium.  But this isn't about nitpicking the limits of infallibility.  We're not talking about a couple of offhand comments in an Encyclical letter that can be respectfully questioned ... but rather about a wholesale corruption of the Magisterium and the replacement of Catholic truth with a new non-Catholic theological system.  R&R posits that the Magisterium has become so thoroughly corrupt, and the Church's Universal Discipline so defective, that Catholics cannot in good conscience go to that Mass or submit to the Magisterium without corrupting the faith.  So R&R lose the forest (of indefectibility) for the trees (of infallibility).  If Catholics have to reject the Magisterium and refuse to attend the Mass, if the Magisterium and Mass have become dangers to the faith, then the Magisterium and Universal Discipline of the Church would have defected.

On the one hand you have a number of dogmatic sedevacantists who exaggerate the scope of infallibility, right down to "negative infallibility" Nado who basically was on record saying that anything the Church has failed to condemn must be true, and others who claim that any minor book with an imprimatur from a local ordinary must be considered de fide for all intents and purposes.  On the other you have the R&R who claim that the Magisterium and Universal Discipline of the Church can lead souls to hell.  So the dogmatic sedes overreact to the R&R minimalization of infallibility (basically limiting it to solemn definitions) by exaggerating the scope of infallibility in the other direction.

[Ladislaus]

LOL ... 58 pages and counting on this thread.

[Cantarella]

Pax, please enlighten us in regards to how Liberius became a heretic, and tell us what council it was that deposed him...

Pope Pius IX disagrees with Pax. He noted in Quartus Supra that Liberius was falsely accused by the Arians and had refused to condemn Athanasius.

Exactly in this way did the Acacian schismatics act towards Our predecessor St. Gelasius. And previously the Arians falsely accused Liberius, also Our predecessor, to the Emperor Constantine, because Liberius refused to condemn St. Athanasius, Bishop of Alexandria, and refused to support their heresy. For as the same holy Pontiff Gelasius wrote to the Emperor Anastasius on this matter, “a frequent characteristic of sick people is to reproach the doctors who recall them to health by appropriate measures rather than agree to desist from and condemn their own harmful desires.”

[Pax Vobis]

Pax, please enlighten us in regards to how Liberius became a heretic, and tell us what council it was that deposed him...

Ask LastDays; this is his quote/example.  I don't know anything about Liberius' history; I was just pointing out the hypocrisy of using an example to support 'automatic deposition' when it refers to the clergy removing Liberius.  If the clergy removed Liberius then he wasn't 'ipso facto' deposed, was he?

[Meg]

According to a study by the late Michael Davies, Pope Liberius had supported St. Athanasius. But then Pope Liberius was kidnapped by the Arians and held in exile for two years. It is believed that the Arians threatened to kill him, after the two years, if he did not condemn St. Athanasius. So he did condemn St. Athanasius. Liberius was guilty of weakness under duress. He was not a heretic. He did not support the Arian heresy. 

[Meg]

The main reason why I started this thread is to show that sedevacantism is over-represented on the forum.  I think that this has been proven to be the case.

There are only two of us posting on the thread who believe in +ABL's sound stance on the issue. Nearly everyone else who has posted on the thread is some brand of sedevacantist.

[Cantarella]

According to a study by the late Michael Davies, Pope Liberius had supported St. Athanasius. But then Pope Liberius was kidnapped by the Arians and held in exile for two years. It is believed that the Arians threatened to kill him, after the two years, if he did not condemn St. Athanasius. So he did condemn St. Athanasius. Liberius was guilty of weakness under duress. He was not a heretic. He did not support the Arian heresy.

I think that the historical evidence that Popes do not really fall into heresy greatly outweighs the evidence otherwise.  

[Meg]

No, honey, R&R is heretical crap.  Sure, there are problems with sedevacantism but they pale in comparison.  Uhm, you have no idea what the term "dogmatic" sedevacantism means to suggest that this is a "milder" form of it.  Almost by definition, if it's "milder", then it's not exactly dogmatic anymore.  Just take your petulant emotionalism back to promoting Flat Earth theory.

So in consequence, you must believe also that +ABL was a heretic. You aren't any different than the dogmatic sedes. Dogmatic sedevacantist privationism. 

[Meg]

Your idea of R&R is completely screwed up.

As a matter of Catholic fact, submission to the Magisterium is wholly necessary and can never be harmful to people's faith, to reject the Magisterium is to lose the faith. This simple foundational truth is part of the faith and always will be.  

You imagine, as you said earlier, the Magisterium is both infallible and not infallible or as you said, "non-infallible magisterium", which is to say the Magisterium can teach both truth and error, then you accuse R&R of the novel term, "magisterium sifting". According to your idea of the Magisterium, how else are we expected to determine which is which without sifting?

If the Magisterium is as you say, then we ALL must sift the magisterium lest we submit to the non-infallible (read: error / non-binding) part of the Magisterium. We have no other choice, according to your idea of the Magisterium that is.

Then you toss in our duty to submit to the Magisterium and the Universal Discipline of the Church, which is to say we must submit to the whole Magisterium, both infallible (truth) and non-infallible (error / non-binding) Magisterium, yet you say to sift which is which, that is to say, to sift between the infallible (truth) and non-infallible (error / non-binding) magisterium is heresy. What you never do is tell us how else are we to know which is which without sifting? We cannot depend on the infallible part of the Magisterium to tell us because what we think is infallible may well be non-infallible - according to your idea.

As I said, you toss in our duty to submit to the Church's Universal Discipline which is derived from the Magisterium. Well, who is to say that today's Universal Discipline was not derived from the non-infallible (error) Magisterium? According to your understanding, it appears today's Universal Discipline is part of the non-infallible (error) Magisterium because obviously, today's Universal Discipline is riddled with errors and heresies - apparently you understand this because of that evil magisterium sifting, which you say is heresy.

Setting aside for now how this whole idea of yours obviously decimates the Church's indefectibility, this sufficiently sums up your confusion as regards R&R, Magisterium sifting, Magisterium, and Universal Discipline.

Well said. 

[Cantarella]

Pax, you have no clue what you're talking about...

You need to stop discussing the sede vacante topic and stick to the Friday dinner thread with Poche - you are way in over your head, man...  

 

[Cantarella]

The problem with sedeprivationism is not in that it distinguishes between the spiritual office and the temporal (dignity). The problem lies in the fact that a notorious heretic has no right to a material office, dignity, recognition etc. (as far as a Catholic is concerned). He is not to be considered a member of the Church (in any way). He is to be considered alien to the Church until (if and when) he proves his innocence. This is the teaching of the Church as expressed in the 1917 Code of Canon Law and by St. Robert Bellarmine (in the examples that I recently gave you).

Even Bellarmine acknowledges the need of some type of warning in dealing with heretics, as per St. Paul's teachings. Again, the heretical pope is deposed by that very fact FIRST, and THEN, he is dealt with by the Church.  

“The fourth opinion is that of Cajetan in his treatise on the authority of the Pope and of a Council, Ch. XX and XXI, where he teaches that a manifestly heretical pope is not deposed by that very fact, but can and should be deposed by the Church. In my opinion this cannot be defended, for first of all, the fact that a manifest heretic is by that very fact deposed is proven by means of authority and of reason. The authority is that of the blessed Paul who, in his Epistle to Titus, Chapter III, commands the faithful to avoid the heretic after two warnings, which is to say, after it is clear that he is pertinacious, and that above all he understands the excommunication and sentence of the judge. As Jerome says in this place: other sinners are excluded from the Church by the sentence of excommunication, while heretics separate themselves, and cut themselves off from the Body of Christ; but one cannot shun the pope as long as he remains pope. How, in effect, is it possible to avoid our head? How can we be separate from a member of our body that we are attached to?” (loc. cit. supra, Note 2).

"We cannot shun the pope as long as he remains pope". How R&R responds to that?

[Meg]

Fine, but in order to refuse submission to these popes, one has to at least formulate a positive doubt regarding their legitimacy ... as Father Chazal goes on to state.  Father Chazal holds that they have lost any and all formal authority.  Problem with standard R&R, and the reason why sedevacantists so violently (and rightly) reject it, is that they posit that legitimate popes can promulgate a harmful and defective universal discipline (Mass) and teach error to the Church in an order of magnitude where submission to the Magisterium can harm people's faith.  In other words, standard R&R posits that submission to the Church's Magisterium can be harmful to the faith and that it can be required of Catholics to categorically reject it.  In other words, the battle here is about the indefectibility of the Church and about our duty to submit to the Magisterium and Universal Discipline of the Church ... and not some quibble of opinions regarding what happens to a heretical pope.

No, the illegitimacy aspect does not have to be accepted. That's your opinion. Archbishop Lefebvre accepted them as legitimate. But of course you believe that the Archbishop was a heretic because he didn't hold them to be illegitimate. Is that right?

We do not follow the modernist popes in their error. They are not yet formal heretics. The Refutation of Sedevacantism (from the Dominicans of Avrille website) explains how the conciliar popes are not formal heretics, but I doubt that you will read it. You will likely say that it is emotional, even though it was written by priests. 

[Pax Vobis]

There are only two of us posting on the thread who believe in +ABL's sound stance on the issue.

R&R is like 'conservative'; it means something different to everyone.  +ABL's stance was very similar to Fr Chazal's - +ABL just didn't take the time to explain it, or use a fancy new term.  +ABL was the one who, after repeated dealings with new-rome, said that they must not 'make a deal' with new-rome until they convert.  He was already saying, indirectly, that the pope/new-rome was to be treated as if they are 'impounded'.  He said that 'new-rome does not have the faith'.  His actions, whereby he ordained new priests and bishops, further prove that he separated himself from rome's heresies, which is a main point of sedeprivationism.

The REAL problem has been +Fellay, who has corrupted +ABL's view and approach to new-rome and has continued to operate in the dangerous, gray area.  He has continued his progressive approach towards heresy and has continued to redefine everything +ABL stood and worked for.  +Fellay has given R&R a bad name and he has corrupted it's meaning, and therefore, it's only practical to discard this term and use a new one.

Fr Chazal is attempting to re-clarify, re-teach and return to ABL's original stance.  Many of his points were implicit in +ABL's original stance, but now that he has spent the time he can expand on +ABL's 'summary' ideals and give more complete and historical reasons.

[Meg]

Even Bellarmine acknowledges the need of some type of warning in dealing with heretics, as per St. Paul's teachings. Again, the heretical pope is deposed by that very fact FIRST, and THEN, he is dealt with by the Church.  

"We cannot shun the pope as long as he remains pope". How R&R responds to that?

What was +ABL's stand on the issue, Cantarella? After all, he personally met with the Pope. He stood up in defense of tradition at the Council, he confronted the Pope with the errors that the Council was proposing.

How many of you sedes have done anything even remotely having to do with dealing directly with the Pope, as +ABL did?

The Archbishop was not a sedevacantist, and he warned of the errors of sedevacantism, over an over again. 

Here is the excellent Refutation of Sedevacantism, posted on the Dominicans of Avrille website. It has quotes from Archbishop Lefebvre, and explains his stance on the issue:


http://www.dominicansavrille.us/refutation-of-sedevacantism/

[Pax Vobis]

The quote I posted was from you, man...not Lastdays.

Right.  I said Liberius was a heretic, because I was using LastDay's quote, which said the same thing.  I was analyzing his argument, not confirming my belief about this historical fact.
If you want to go back around page 30, you'll see that your sede-buddy, LastDays, said it first.

You never answered the question - are you a dogmatic sede?