Author Topic: In Case You Miss It (Read 2913 times)

Caminus · « **Reply #1 on:** February 24, 2010, 02:23:33 PM »

Let me give you some perspective because it is obvious you are abusing Catholic doctrine like protestants. Here it is:

In the practical, concrete, everyday life of the Church, the Pope is FALLIBLE for the majority, if not the entirety of his pontificate, unless he chooses to engage the plenitude of his authority.

Do you understand this?

Raoul76 · « **Reply #2 on:** February 25, 2010, 12:17:54 AM »

Caminus said:

Quote

In the practical, concrete, everyday life of the Church, the Pope is FALLIBLE for the majority, if not the entirety of his pontificate, unless he chooses to engage the plenitude of his authority.

I read the Vatican Council One and it said that the Pope was only infallible when speaking ex cathedra. Yet I've heard the same Council quoted saying that whenever the Pope speaks on faith and morals he is also infallible.

What you're saying is that it is only dogma that the Pope is infallible when speaking ex cathedra, right? But it is theologically certain and therefore at least a dogma of the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium that his infallibility extends far beyond that, as it would have to -- how can you call the Pope the Divine Teaching Authority of the Church if he only teaches twice in two centuries? That is absurd.

Caminus, do you know of any other fifty year period of the Church where heresies and errors verily cascade forth from its encyclicals, or from an official Council convened by the Popes and bishops? Can you find even one single encyclical prior to Pius X that savors of error at all? The most I've ever been able to find are some maddeningly ambiguous statements from Innocent XI ( who studied with Jesuits ), but this is not even remotely like the ambiguity of Vatican II, nor does he ever step into blatant heresy and/or error.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #3 on:** February 25, 2010, 06:01:49 AM »

You touched upon one of my pet peeves, the sedevacantist misues use of the Papa Dubius Nullus Papa (Doubtful pope is no pope.) principle.

That does NOT mean if people doubt a pope he's no pope at all ontologically. It means that in the case of widespread doubts about the person of a pope, those who for all practical purposes regard him as no pope are absolved of schism. (e.g. St. Vincent Ferrer).

During the Great Schism, all the popes were "doubtful", but the true pope remained the true pope that entire time.

So it's a practical principle, not an ontological principle.

Lover of Truth · « **Reply #4 on:** February 25, 2010, 07:08:35 AM »

Quote from: Ladislaus

You touched upon one of my pet peeves, the sedevacantist misues use of the Papa Dubius Nullus Papa (Doubtful pope is no pope.) principle.

That does NOT mean if people doubt a pope he's no pope at all ontologically. It means that in the case of widespread doubts about the person of a pope, those who for all practical purposes regard him as no pope are absolved of schism. (e.g. St. Vincent Ferrer).

During the Great Schism, all the popes were "doubtful", but the true pope remained the true pope that entire time.

So it's a practical principle, not an ontological principle.

But it is a good rule of thumb for the laity to observe for their own safety. also during the GWS I have read that they all could have been no Pope.

This works for the Sacraments as well, if it is a doubtful Eucharist you are in danger of worshipping a wafer.

If it is a doubtful Pope you are in danger of being led astray by a heretic and damning your soul.

This is why whe should act as if a doubtful Pope is no Pope. But your objection, I believe is correct and very well stated.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #5 on:** February 25, 2010, 07:35:40 AM »

Ladislaus · « **Reply #6 on:** February 25, 2010, 07:43:21 AM »

Quote from: Lover of Truth

This is why whe should act as if a doubtful Pope is no Pope.

And, in point of fact, Traditional Catholics DO "act" as if the V2 popes are no popes. That's why I say we must go further than saying the priests and faithful MAY doubt them to saying that they SHOULD or even MUST doubt them. Otherwise, it can lead to a "schismatic" attitude.

We're in a situation of "Doubtful Pope". At the same time, we cannot elevate this doubt to the certainty required for deposition--and I've shown the serious theological problems (via the reductio ad absurdum argument, aka the "Pope Sifting" problem) with elevating our judgment on this matter above the Church's authority. To do so would be to make our own private judgment trump the Church's magisterium.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #7 on:** February 25, 2010, 07:47:46 AM »

Quote from: Caminus

Let me give you some perspective because it is obvious you are abusing Catholic doctrine like protestants. Here it is:

In the practical, concrete, everyday life of the Church, the Pope is FALLIBLE for the majority, if not the entirety of his pontificate, unless he chooses to engage the plenitude of his authority.

Do you understand this?

I agree that infallibility does not cover every single papal pronouncement or teaching, but at the same time promulgating the Novus Ordo and the almost pervasive pollution of their teaching with grave errors crosses a line.

Infallibility would be meaningless (vis-a-vis the Church's indefectibility) if a legitimate Pope could go THIS FAR off the deep end.

SJB · « **Reply #8 on:** February 25, 2010, 08:10:53 AM »

Quote from: Ladislaus

During the Great Schism, all the popes were "doubtful", but the true pope remained the true pope that entire time.

We don't really know that for certain. A doubtful pope or set of doubtful popes are not a visible head of the Church. Since the Church is defined as a visible assembly of men, the head must also be visible.

Caminus · « **Reply #9 on:** February 25, 2010, 08:54:20 AM »

Quote from: Ladislaus

Quote from: Caminus
Let me give you some perspective because it is obvious you are abusing Catholic doctrine like protestants. Here it is:

In the practical, concrete, everyday life of the Church, the Pope is FALLIBLE for the majority, if not the entirety of his pontificate, unless he chooses to engage the plenitude of his authority.

Do you understand this?

I agree that infallibility does not cover every single papal pronouncement or teaching, but at the same time promulgating the Novus Ordo and the almost pervasive pollution of their teaching with grave errors crosses a line.

Infallibility would be meaningless (vis-a-vis the Church's indefectibility) if a legitimate Pope could go THIS FAR off the deep end.

This amounts to special pleading and a complaint about how the pope ought to be infallible where and when he simply isn't. If he exercised the plenitude of his authority or was willingly faithful to tradition, then your complaint would have substance.

SJB · « **Reply #10 on:** February 25, 2010, 09:02:14 AM »

Quote from: Caminus

This amounts to special pleading and a complaint about how the pope ought to be infallible where and when he simply isn't. If he exercised the plenitude of his authority or was willingly faithful to tradition, then your complaint would have substance.

Please cite your source that explains infallibility the way you present it here.

The pope confirms his brethern in the Faith.

Quote

31 And the Lord said: Simon, Simon, behold Satan hath desired to have you, that he may sift you as wheat: 32 But I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not: and thou, being once converted, confirm thy brethren.

Caminus · « **Reply #11 on:** February 25, 2010, 09:12:32 AM »

Quote

I read the Vatican Council One and it said that the Pope was only infallible when speaking ex cathedra. Yet I've heard the same Council quoted saying that whenever the Pope speaks on faith and morals he is also infallible.

This is the rule, short of exercising the plenitude of his authority, he is liable to error. On the other hand, if he is willingly faithful to ancient doctrine and discipline, his acts are infallible as well, though not in themselves, but only insofar as they conform to similar repeated acts of the same magisterium which as a whole constitutes the infallible ordinary and universal magisterium and negatively the infallible discipline of the Church.

With regard to appeals to the extremity of the case at hand, it is immaterial since such an endeavor presupposes arbitrary limits on how much evil could find its way into the Church. I'm not prepared to set such limits lest I fall into error and force my subjective opinion onto the crisis. The sheer novelty the facts before us should automatically tell us that appeals to history are essentially useless.

Caminus · « **Reply #12 on:** February 25, 2010, 09:13:45 AM »

Quote

The pope confirms his brethern in the Faith.

I don't have to appeal to authority, I appeal to common sense. Does the pope retain his free will upon entering into his office?

SJB · « **Reply #13 on:** February 25, 2010, 09:44:42 AM »

Quote from: Caminus

Quote
I read the Vatican Council One and it said that the Pope was only infallible when speaking ex cathedra. Yet I've heard the same Council quoted saying that whenever the Pope speaks on faith and morals he is also infallible.

This is the rule, short of exercising the plenitude of his authority, he is liable to error. On the other hand, if he is willingly faithful to ancient doctrine and discipline, his acts are infallible as well, though not in themselves, but only insofar as they conform to similar repeated acts of the same magisterium which as a whole constitutes the infallible ordinary and universal magisterium and negatively the infallible discipline of the Church.

With regard to appeals to the extremity of the case at hand, it is immaterial since such an endeavor presupposes arbitrary limits on how much evil could find its way into the Church. I'm not prepared to set such limits lest I fall into error and force my subjective opinion onto the crisis. The sheer novelty the facts before us should automatically tell us that appeals to history are essentially useless.

Please cite your source for this.

SJB · « **Reply #14 on:** February 25, 2010, 09:49:57 AM »