[Ladislaus]

Until you explain (with Church teaching) how no pope = defected Roman Church, all you are doing is blowing hot air and wasting everybody's time.

Yes, that's where the term sedevacantism comes from ... the period of interregnum between two popes.  During such interregna the Church does not defect.

[Ladislaus]

You incorrectly argue that just because the pope approves of the docuмents, then they're infallible to the same degree and a 'de fide' definition.  You argue that even if it's there's no solemn statements, it's still solemn because it's a council.  There's no way that makes sense.  If it were true, then any encyclical, papal bull or other prepared docuмent would have the same infallible characteristics.  But they don't.

I argue no such thing.  How many times now have I stated that not every statement in a Council is infallible?  But a Council is an extraordinary FORM of Magisterium.  Anything which a Pope would define as binding within a Council is automatically infallible because it's already an extraordinary FORM (i.e. some of the notes of infallibility automatically come along with it).

But, no, encyclicals do not by themselves have this characteristic; they are more ordinary by their nature.  There, something would have to be called out very clearly using solemn language in order for it to be discerned as infallible.

Nevertheless, you continue to skirt the concept that a corruption of faith in an Ecuмenical Council is tantamount to a defection of the Magisterium.  While there could be some minor mistake in various non-definition passages (narratives, examples, etc.) ... there cannot be a substantial corruption of Church doctrine present in such a Council as that would be tantamount to a defection of the Magisterium.

Clearly Vatican II is "defining" teaching about various subjects.  Only note left to discern is whether or not it's BINDING.  That would be necessary for strict infallibility.  But being binding and "obligation" is not required for being protected by indefectibility.  So, for instance, you falsely and gratuitously claimed that the New Mass doesn't violate disciplinary infallibility because it was not made obligatory.  While various persecuted Traditional Catholics might disagree with the assessment that it was not binding, nevertheless it's not necessary that it be binding.

If the Church were to promulgate and promote for use a rite of Mass that's harmful to faith, then the Church would have defected in her mission because its universal discipline would be leading people into sin and into displeasing God.  This is the angle that you can't seem to comprehend.

[Pax Vobis]

Clearly Vatican II is "defining" teaching about various subjects.  Only note left to discern is whether or not it's BINDING.  That would be necessary for strict infallibility.  But being binding and "obligation" is not required for being protected by indefectibility.

You treat indefectibility as if it's a backup to infallibility, when infallibility is not being used.  Which in effect, you are arguing that EVERY sentence at a council is protected from error.  If you say i'm being extreme, then I'll ask, 'how do you know which sentences are 'protected from error' and which ones aren't'?  No one can answer this.  So your view is not based on facts but your own interpretation of what indefectibility means.



What teaching is infallible?
A word or two under this head, summarizing what has been already explained in this and in other articles will suffice.
As regards matter, only doctrines of faith and morals, and facts so intimately connected with these as to require infallible determination, fall under the scope of infallible ecclesiastical teaching. These doctrines or facts need not necessarily be revealed; it is enough if the revealed deposit cannot be adequately and effectively guarded and explained, unless they are infallibly determined.

As to the organ of authority by which such doctrines or facts are determined, three possible organs exist. One of these, the magisterium ordinarium, is liable to be somewhat indefinite in its pronouncements and, as a consequence, practically ineffective as an organ. The other two, however, are adequately efficient organs, and when they definitively decide any question of faith or morals that may arise, no believer who pays due attention to Christ's promises can consistently refuse to assent with absolute and irrevocable certainty to their teaching.

But before being bound to give such an assent, the believer has a right to be certain that the teaching in question is definitive (since only definitive teaching is infallible); and the means by which the definitive intention, whether of a council or of the pope, may be recognized have been stated above. It need only be added here that not everything in a conciliar or papal pronouncement, in which some doctrine is defined, is to be treated as definitive and infallible. For example, in the lengthy Bull of Pius IX defining the Immaculate Conception the strictly definitive and infallible portion is comprised in a sentence or two; and the same is true in many cases in regard to conciliar decisions. The merely argumentative and justificatory statements embodied in definitive judgments, however true and authoritative they may be, are not covered by the guarantee of infallibility which attaches to the strictly definitive sentences — unless, indeed, their infallibility has been previously or subsequently established by an independent decision.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07790a.htm

[2Vermont]

I argue no such thing.  How many times now have I stated that not every statement in a Council is infallible?  But a Council is an extraordinary FORM of Magisterium.  Anything which a Pope would define as binding within a Council is automatically infallible because it's already an extraordinary FORM (i.e. some of the notes of infallibility automatically come along with it).

But, no, encyclicals do not by themselves have this characteristic; they are more ordinary by their nature.  There, something would have to be called out very clearly using solemn language in order for it to be discerned as infallible.

Nevertheless, you continue to skirt the concept that a corruption of faith in an Ecuмenical Council is tantamount to a defection of the Magisterium.  While there could be some minor mistake in various non-definition passages (narratives, examples, etc.) ... there cannot be a substantial corruption of Church doctrine present in such a Council as that would be tantamount to a defection of the Magisterium.

Clearly Vatican II is "defining" teaching about various subjects.  Only note left to discern is whether or not it's BINDING.  That would be necessary for strict infallibility.  But being binding and "obligation" is not required for being protected by indefectibility.  So, for instance, you falsely and gratuitously claimed that the New Mass doesn't violate disciplinary infallibility because it was not made obligatory.  While various persecuted Traditional Catholics might disagree with the assessment that it was not binding, nevertheless it's not necessary that it be binding.

If the Church were to promulgate and promote for use a rite of Mass that's harmful to faith, then the Church would have defected in her mission because its universal discipline would be leading people into sin and into displeasing God.  This is the angle that you can't seem to comprehend.

Can't or won't?

[Ladislaus]

You treat indefectibility as if it's a backup to infallibility, when infallibility is not being used.  Which in effect, you are arguing that EVERY sentence at a council is protected from error.

No, it's broader than strict infallibility.  It's the big picture view ... which you refuse to see because of your non-Catholic R&R brainwashing.

OK, what is this now, the 50th time, that I've had to state that not every sentence of a Council is protected from error?  But OVERALL there cannot be a substantial corruption of Church doctrine.  How hard is this to comprehend?

Again, please read Fenton about the distinction, would you?

It is, of course, possible that the Church might come to modify its stand on some detail of teaching presented as non-infallible matter in a papal encyclical. The nature of the auctoritas providentiae doctrinalis within the Church is such, however, that this fallibility extends to questions of relatively minute detail or of particular application. The body of doctrine on the rights and duties of labor, on the Church and State, or on any other subject treated extensively in a series of papal letters directed to and normative for the entire Church militant could not be radically or completely erroneous. The infallible security Christ wills that His disciples should enjoy within His Church is utterly incompatible with such a possibility.

See the distinction between things of relatively minute detail or particular application and the larger "body of doctrine" treated extensively.  Notice how strict obligation or binding isn't even necessary ... just that it be normative for the Church.  We have in Vatican II and the subsequent V2 encyclicals which reiterate it for 50 years, a substantial body of doctrine which R&R claim are "radically and completely erroneous".  And clearly the V2 doctrine has been normative for the "Church" for 50+ years now.

[Ladislaus]

Can't or won't?

Yes, at this point it's becoming obvious that it's the latter.

[Ladislaus]

Like a scene from mission impossible Pax Vobis pulls of his mask and it is:





 Sorry I have nothing to else to add.

I wouldn't rule it out.  He does in fact keep citing Vatican II "theologians".

[Jaynek]

Indeed. But sedes don't believe that we are in the period of an interregnum they believe the Holy Roman Church has defected - but of course they won't explicitly say that.

I am not a sedevacantist myself but I have enough respect for them that I try to understand and fairly present their views.  I wish you would do the same.  What do you expect to accomplish by saying SVs "believe the Holy Roman Church has defected"?  You clearly know that they deny believing that.  You think it is an implication of their beliefs, but you have not proven that.

[Jaynek]

SVs deny this:  [Indefectability quote]

Insisting that people believe something they do not believe is pointless.  

I suggest that you start with the assumption that you know nothing about sedevacantism and ask questions about it with a sincere desire to learn.  You need to understand it so well that you could present their side of the debate if you had to.  Then you will be ready to argue with them.

[trad123]

faithlessness cannot gain access

[Pax Vobis]

OK, what is this now, the 50th time, that I've had to state that not every sentence of a Council is protected from error?  But OVERALL there cannot be a substantial corruption of Church doctrine.  How hard is this to comprehend?

I get your argument but I don't buy it.  It sounds good high-level, but doesn't support all the facts, when you look at the details.  My theory isn't ironed either which is why I'm on here to debate and learn.  But I see we've reached an impasse as your theory rests on indefectibility, which is too general of an answer for me.  And, unfortunately, there's not too much commentary on the correlation between it and a council, other than Fenton.  But one source isn't good enough as I've posted quotes which disagreed with him.  So the jury's out.  

[Cantarella]

SVs deny this:

Faithlessness cannot gain access in Rome because the Faith of Peter cannot fail. That is the reason why. If the Faith of the Bishop of Rome happens to fail, then the only logical explanation we can deduce is that he was NOT the legitimate successor of St. Peter.

Our Lord specifically prayed for this intention.

[trad123]

are you even a Traditional Catholic?

You are putting the cart before the horse. The Roman Church is the one particular Church that all other Churches must submit to.
I'm a Roman Catholic.

https://www.cathinfo.com/crisis-in-the-church/archbishop-lefebvre-on-sedevacantism/msg113117/#msg113117

CathMomof7, to conclude that JP2 and B16(JP3) are not real popes is and has been a difficult position to embrace.

But many of us have made this conclusion because we see it as the only position that is consistently Catholic.

The men you discuss are modernist heretics and a heretic cannot be elected as a true successor of St. Peter.

It’s really that simple, it is that Catholic.

[2Vermont]

I never said that.

Sure you did, post 1389:

If they were not popes then that would also entail a defection of the Roman Church, the mother and mistress of all Churches.

[2Vermont]

Like a scene from mission impossible Pax Vobis pulls of his mask and it is:





 Sorry I have nothing to else to add.

I probably should know who this is, but I don't.  Who is it?