Author Topic: ++Lefebvre and sedevacantism  (Read 6127 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline SeanJohnson

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4717
  • Reputation: +4134/-1447
  • Gender: Male
Re: ++Lefebvre and sedevacantism
« Reply #180 on: October 09, 2019, 04:43:32 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Who needs to look it up? Pope Pius X and XII said that "the man elected is instantly the true pope", I will take their word for it.

    I never saw that quote before, but universal acceptance means that the only ones who must be unanimous in accepting the elected pope as pope, are all of the cardinals.

    Whenever the Church refers to "Universal anything", it always includes the attribute of time - as in since the time of the Apostles, since the promulgation of the Gospel, as in always and everywhere, or always and by all the faithful. So whoever thinks it is an infallible sign of validity that the pope enjoys universal acceptance by the whole Church, they don't know what the H they're saying.      

    Have a pleasant evening.
    Can you think of s single cardinal or bishop who is disputing Francis’ papacy?
    Me either.
    Then how in the world could his papacy not be a dogmatic fact (Lad’s implicit position), when it is the ratification of cardinals and bishops that makes the papacy a dogmatic fact?
    And if a dogmatic fact, where the room to question or reject it??
    Romans 5:20 "But where sin increased, grace abounded all the more."

    -I retract any and all statements I have made that are incongruent with the True Faith, and apologize for ever having made them-

    Offline XavierSem

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1360
    • Reputation: +115/-190
    • Gender: Male
    • Immaculate Heart of Mary, May Your Triumph Come!
    Re: ++Lefebvre and sedevacantism
    « Reply #181 on: October 09, 2019, 04:43:39 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • In Ex Quo, Pope Benedict XIV teaches, "it suffices Us to be able to state that a commemoration of the supreme pontiff and prayers offered for him during the sacrifice of the Mass is considered, and really is, an affirmative indication which recognizes him as the head of the Church, the vicar of Christ, and the successor of blessed Peter, and is the profession of a mind and will which firmly espouses Catholic unity. This was rightly noticed by Christianus Lupus in his work on the Councils: “This commemoration is the chief and most glorious form of communion” (tome 4, p. 422, Brussels edition). This view is not merely approved by the authority of Ivo of Flaviniaca who writes: “Whosoever does not pronounce the name of the Apostolic one in the canon for whatever reason should realize that he is separated from the communion of the whole world” (Chronicle, p. 228); or by the authority of the famous Alcuin: “It is generally agreed that those who do not for any reason recall the memory of the Apostolic pontiff in the course of the sacred mysteries according to custom are, as the blessed Pelagius teaches, separated from the communion of the entire world” (de Divinis Officiis, bk. 1, chap. 12).

    ... Thus how can you believe that you are not separated from the communion of the whole world if you do not commemorate my name during the sacred mysteries, according to custom? For you see that the strength of the Apostolic See resides in me, despite my unworthiness, through episcopal succession at the present time” (Labbe, Conciliorum Collectione, vol. 5, col. 794f and 810)." From: https://www.papalencyclicals.net/ben14/b14exquo.htm

    Implicit in these statements is the understanding that (1) one who does not pronounce the name of the Pope recognized by the whole Church is separated from Her, and (2) a Pope recognized by the Church as having succeeded to St. Peter therefore truly has done so.

    Another example of Universal Acceptance of the Catholic Hierarchy in the teachings of the Roman Pontiffs and the Papal Magisterium comes from Munificentissimus Deus of Pope Ven. Pius XII, "But those whom "the Holy Spirit has placed as bishops to rule the Church of God"(4) gave an almost unanimous affirmative response to both these questions. This "outstanding agreement of the Catholic prelates and the faithful,"(5) affirming that the bodily Assumption of God's Mother into heaven can be defined as a dogma of faith, since it shows us the concordant teaching of the Church's ordinary doctrinal authority and the concordant faith of the Christian people which the same doctrinal authority sustains and directs, thus by itself and in an entirely certain and infallible way, manifests this privilege as a truth revealed by God ... Thus, from the universal agreement of the Church's ordinary teaching authority we have a certain and firm proof" http://w2.vatican.va/content/pius-xii/en/apost_constitutions/documents/hf_p-xii_apc_19501101_munificentissimus-deus.html

    Here, the Holy Father argues from the principle of the indefectibility of the OUM and the universal acceptance of the world's Bishops, to show that the Dogmatic Truth of the Assumption was already made manifest "in an entirely certain and infallible way" by the agreement of the OUM before the Holy Father proceeded to define that dogma by virtue of the Extraordinary Magisterium (Teaching Authority).
    Do make Acts of Consecration to the Twin Hearts, Spiritual Offerings of the Precious Blood of Jesus in Union with the Holy Mass, like in St. Gertrude's Chaplet, along with Spiritual Communions at least every hour. "Pray the Rosary every day to obtain Peace for the world." ~ Our Lady of the Rosary.


    Offline SeanJohnson

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 4717
    • Reputation: +4134/-1447
    • Gender: Male
    Re: ++Lefebvre and sedevacantism
    « Reply #182 on: October 09, 2019, 04:45:14 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0

  • Right, Hunter - I had that one in mind. He says the bishops’ recognition, but its a similar point - the connection of the acceptance by the hierarchy (including bishops and not just cardinals) of the election and papacy.

    I don’t believe we have a single cardinal elector doubting the papacy of a V2 pope. What about bishops who were (are) ordinaries? I don’t believe you can name any of them who doubted a V2 pope’s papacy either. Thuc maybe?

    And if it’s only one or two, what then?
    Agreed.
    There is clearly universal consent to the conciliar papacies, and hence they are dogmatic facts which cannot be challenged.
    Romans 5:20 "But where sin increased, grace abounded all the more."

    -I retract any and all statements I have made that are incongruent with the True Faith, and apologize for ever having made them-

    Offline SeanJohnson

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 4717
    • Reputation: +4134/-1447
    • Gender: Male
    Re: ++Lefebvre and sedevacantism
    « Reply #183 on: October 09, 2019, 04:49:14 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Agreed.
    There is clearly universal consent to the conciliar papacies, and hence they are dogmatic facts which cannot be challenged.
    What could change that is if there were a movement among the bishops which challenged him (per Alphonsus), such as Burke’s movement gaining steam.
    Incidentally, this demonstrates that a pope is not deposed without a declaration from the Church, since without a notable number of them disputing the legitimacy (ie., thereby removing the quality of dogmatic fact), the papacy would remain unquestionable dogmatic fact.
    Romans 5:20 "But where sin increased, grace abounded all the more."

    -I retract any and all statements I have made that are incongruent with the True Faith, and apologize for ever having made them-

    Offline DecemRationis

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 245
    • Reputation: +64/-6
    • Gender: Male
    Re: ++Lefebvre and sedevacantism
    « Reply #184 on: October 09, 2019, 04:53:13 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Agreed.
    There is clearly universal consent to the conciliar papacies, and hence they are dogmatic facts which cannot be challenged.
    :)

    Well, hold on. I agree that “universal acceptance” as a concept would be bottomed on the cardinals/bishops of the teaching Church accepting the pope, but I haven’t agreed to the “dogmatic fact” thing - going back to my point on Paul IV and Cum Ex.
    I believe in the Apostolic Catholic Church. I reject and denounce the malfeasant or “dysfunctional papal or episcopal Newchurch.” - Father Paul Trinchard


    Offline SeanJohnson

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 4717
    • Reputation: +4134/-1447
    • Gender: Male
    Re: ++Lefebvre and sedevacantism
    « Reply #185 on: October 09, 2019, 04:57:21 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • :)

    Well, hold on. I agree that “universal acceptance” as a concept would be bottomed on the cardinals/bishops of the teaching Church accepting the pope, but I haven’t agreed to the “dogmatic fact” thing - going back to my point on Paul IV and Cum Ex.
    Let’s put it this way:
    There has been 100.0% acceptance of the popes since V2 by the bishops.
    Every approved preconciliar writer on the subject assures us this ratification guarantees the legitimacy of the pope, and makes that recognition obligatory as dogmatic fact.
    Where’s the wiggle room?
    Romans 5:20 "But where sin increased, grace abounded all the more."

    -I retract any and all statements I have made that are incongruent with the True Faith, and apologize for ever having made them-

    Offline DecemRationis

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 245
    • Reputation: +64/-6
    • Gender: Male
    Re: ++Lefebvre and sedevacantism
    « Reply #186 on: October 09, 2019, 05:13:06 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Let’s put it this way:
    There has been 100.0% acceptance of the popes since V2 by the bishops.
    Every approved preconciliar writer on the subject assures us this ratification guarantees the legitimacy of the pope, and makes that recognition obligatory as dogmatic fact.
    Where’s the wiggle room?
    Sean,

    I’m questioning the “dogmatic fact” (de fide you say) part in light of the contrary view of Paul IV in Cum Ex. See my post #155 above. 

    More precisely, I’m agreeing that the fact would be established by the cardinal/bishop’s recognition. I am questioning the DOGMAtic part. 

    It’s nonsense to say that Francis is not pope de facto. - he is sitting in the chair, and was elected by the cardinals and is supported by the bishops. I do not say it is nonsense to reject him de jure, as the divine law (St. Robert etc.) indicates a heretic cannot be pope lawfully, but that divine law is not contradicted by a factual matter contrary to it (the materiall possession of the See).  
    I believe in the Apostolic Catholic Church. I reject and denounce the malfeasant or “dysfunctional papal or episcopal Newchurch.” - Father Paul Trinchard

    Offline ByzCat3000

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 670
    • Reputation: +128/-43
    • Gender: Male
    Re: ++Lefebvre and sedevacantism
    « Reply #187 on: October 09, 2019, 05:26:07 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Can you think of s single cardinal or bishop who is disputing Francis’ papacy?
    Me either.
    Then how in the world could his papacy not be a dogmatic fact (Lad’s implicit position), when it is the ratification of cardinals and bishops that makes the papacy a dogmatic fact?
    And if a dogmatic fact, where the room to question or reject it??
    “Or bishop”
    Clarence Kelly and Donald Sanborn certainly reject it.  there are other sede bishops out there.
    I’m guessing you meant bishops with ordinary jurisdiction but they wouldn’t be likely to keep such after openly questioning whether Francis is pope 


    Offline SeanJohnson

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 4717
    • Reputation: +4134/-1447
    • Gender: Male
    Re: ++Lefebvre and sedevacantism
    « Reply #188 on: October 09, 2019, 05:27:42 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Sean,

    I’m questioning the “dogmatic fact” (de fide you say) part in light of the contrary view of Paul IV in Cum Ex. See my post #155 above.

    More precisely, I’m agreeing that the fact would be established by the cardinal/bishop’s recognition. I am questioning the DOGMAtic part.

    It’s nonsense to say that Francis is not pope de facto. - he is sitting in the chair, and was elected by the cardinals and is supported by the bishops. I do not say it is nonsense to reject him de jure, as the divine law (St. Robert etc.) indicates a heretic cannot be pope lawfully, but that divine law is not contradicted by a factual matter contrary to it (the materiall possession of the See).  

    Billot seems to say that the universal recognition makes a de facto claimant a claimant de jure (see bold/underlined portion; legitimacy means legally, or de jure):

    Finally, whatever you still think about the possibility or impossibility of the aforementioned hypothesis [of a Pope heretic], at least one point must be considered absolutely incontrovertible and placed firmly above any doubt whatever: the adhesion of the universal Church will be always, in itself, an infallible sign of the legitimacy of a determined Pontiff, and therefore also of the existence of all the conditions required for legitimacy itself. It is not necessary to look far for the proof of this, but we find it immediately in the promise and infallible providence of Christ: “The gates of hell shall not prevail against it”, and “Behold I shall be with you all days”. For the adhesion of the Church to a false Pontiff would be the same as its adhesion to a false rule of faith, seeing that the Pope is the living rule of faith which the Church must follow and which in fact she always follows, as will become even more clear by what we shall say later. God can permit that at times a vacancy in the Apostolic See be prolonged for a long time. He can also permit that doubt arise about the legitimacy of this or that election. He cannot however permit that the whole Church accept as Pontiff him who is not so truly and legitimately. Therefore, from the moment in which the Pope is accepted by the Church and united to her as the head to the body, it is no longer permitted to raise doubts about a possible vice of election or a possible lack of any condition whatsoever necessary for legitimacy. For the aforementioned adhesion of the Church heals in the root all fault in the election and proves infallibly the existence of all the required conditions. Let this be said in passing against those who, trying to justify certain attempts at schism made in the time of Alexander VI, allege that its promoter broadcast that he had most certain proofs, which he would reveal to a General Council, of the heresy of Alexander. Putting aside here other reasons with which one could easily be able to refute such an opinion, it is enough to remember this: it is certain that when Savonarola was writing his letters to the Princes, all of Christendom adhered to Alexander VI and obeyed him as the true Pontiff. For this very reason, Alexander VI was not a false Pope, but a legitimate one. Therefore he was not a heretic at least in that sense in which the fact of being a heretic takes away one’s membership in the Church and in consequence deprives one, by the very nature of things, of the pontifical power and of any other ordinary jurisdiction.”
    Romans 5:20 "But where sin increased, grace abounded all the more."

    -I retract any and all statements I have made that are incongruent with the True Faith, and apologize for ever having made them-

    Offline XavierSem

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1360
    • Reputation: +115/-190
    • Gender: Male
    • Immaculate Heart of Mary, May Your Triumph Come!
    Re: ++Lefebvre and sedevacantism
    « Reply #189 on: October 09, 2019, 05:34:01 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • “Or bishop”
    Clarence Kelly and Donald Sanborn certainly reject it.  there are other sede bishops out there.
    I’m guessing you meant bishops with ordinary jurisdiction but they wouldn’t be likely to keep such after openly questioning whether Francis is pope
    Hi ByzCath. 61 year SVism's first problem is (1) it first of all leads to the fact that there is no Bishop with Ordinary Jurisdiction at all. You look at the same Bull Cum Ex cited by DR and this is very clear, "each and all of their words, deeds, actions and enactments, howsoever made, and anything whatsoever to which these may give rise, shall be without force and shall grant no stability whatsoever nor any right to anyone;". Therefore, if the Popes of 61 years were false Popes and heretics, all the Bishops they attempted to appoint were never Ordinaries and had no power, right, stability or office. 

    Secondly, yes (2) it is the Bishops with Ordinary Jurisdiction, and Ordinary Teaching Authority, both of which come from appointment to episcopal office by the Pope (that's just the way the Catholic Church works, and what the Roman Pontiff's Primacy of Jurisdiction means) who count. 

    There is no Bishop in office today appointed before 1958, when Pope Pius XII was Pope: http://www.catholic-hierarchy.org/bishop/sordb2.html The one Bishop who was appointed in 1958 is an Archbishop Emeritus and has resigned. At any rate, he would have recognized the Pope.

    So the question is, "are there any Bishops with Ordinary Jurisdiction (61 yr sede-ism already has to say no to just this part; proving it is wrong) who today reject Pope Francis as the Pope of the Roman Catholic Church"? If the answer is no, then, as Fr. Hunter says, "The Church is infallible when She declares what person holds the office of the Pope .... it is enough to say that if the Bishops agree in recognizing a certain man as Pope, they are certainly right, for otherwise the Body of the Bishops would be separated from their Head, and the divine Constitution of the Church would be ruined."

    Your thoughts?

    God bless.resi
    Do make Acts of Consecration to the Twin Hearts, Spiritual Offerings of the Precious Blood of Jesus in Union with the Holy Mass, like in St. Gertrude's Chaplet, along with Spiritual Communions at least every hour. "Pray the Rosary every day to obtain Peace for the world." ~ Our Lady of the Rosary.

    Offline DecemRationis

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 245
    • Reputation: +64/-6
    • Gender: Male
    Re: ++Lefebvre and sedevacantism
    « Reply #190 on: October 09, 2019, 05:48:32 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Billot seems to say that the universal recognition makes a de facto claimant a claimant de jure (see bold/underlined portion; legitimacy means legally, or de jure):

    Finally, whatever you still think about the possibility or impossibility of the aforementioned hypothesis [of a Pope heretic], at least one point must be considered absolutely incontrovertible and placed firmly above any doubt whatever: the adhesion of the universal Church will be always, in itself, an infallible sign of the legitimacy of a determined Pontiff, and therefore also of the existence of all the conditions required for legitimacy itself. It is not necessary to look far for the proof of this, but we find it immediately in the promise and infallible providence of Christ: “The gates of hell shall not prevail against it”, and “Behold I shall be with you all days”. For the adhesion of the Church to a false Pontiff would be the same as its adhesion to a false rule of faith, seeing that the Pope is the living rule of faith which the Church must follow and which in fact she always follows, as will become even more clear by what we shall say later. God can permit that at times a vacancy in the Apostolic See be prolonged for a long time. He can also permit that doubt arise about the legitimacy of this or that election. He cannot however permit that the whole Church accept as Pontiff him who is not so truly and legitimately. Therefore, from the moment in which the Pope is accepted by the Church and united to her as the head to the body, it is no longer permitted to raise doubts about a possible vice of election or a possible lack of any condition whatsoever necessary for legitimacy. For the aforementioned adhesion of the Church heals in the root all fault in the election and proves infallibly the existence of all the required conditions. Let this be said in passing against those who, trying to justify certain attempts at schism made in the time of Alexander VI, allege that its promoter broadcast that he had most certain proofs, which he would reveal to a General Council, of the heresy of Alexander. Putting aside here other reasons with which one could easily be able to refute such an opinion, it is enough to remember this: it is certain that when Savonarola was writing his letters to the Princes, all of Christendom adhered to Alexander VI and obeyed him as the true Pontiff. For this very reason, Alexander VI was not a false Pope, but a legitimate one. Therefore he was not a heretic at least in that sense in which the fact of being a heretic takes away one’s membership in the Church and in consequence deprives one, by the very nature of things, of the pontifical power and of any other ordinary jurisdiction.”
    Ok, that’s Cardinal Billot’s view. Paul IV would disagree, and I question it in light of that disagreement.  
    I believe in the Apostolic Catholic Church. I reject and denounce the malfeasant or “dysfunctional papal or episcopal Newchurch.” - Father Paul Trinchard


    Online hollingsworth

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 2463
    • Reputation: +2660/-330
    • Gender: Male
    Re: ++Lefebvre and sedevacantism
    « Reply #191 on: October 09, 2019, 09:14:06 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0

  • I started this topic, but am now sorry that I did. Because it has become yet another religious cat fight among three or four CI forum members, who think that the majority of other members are vitally interested in their lengthy arguments and dogmatic certitudes. Are they? Really? I’m not sure what motivates these people.
    Sean tries desperately to prove that V2 popes have been duly and fairly elected and accepted by the entire Episcopacy. Maybe so, maybe not.
    Who knows what his underlying motives really are. After all, SJ just published a book with a written introduction by +Williamson. H.E. holds to the view that all these popes were legitimately appointed. It wouldn’t look good if even the mildest fragrance of Svism might waft up from its pages. +W and the R&R could not in conscience support any such content. So, one can at least speculate, Sean feels that he has to double down on his anti-Svism in deference to the bishop. He’s got real skin in the game.. But I’ll not spend too much time trying to second guess him. Why the others go at it so fiercely hammer and tong, they’ll have to answer for themselves.
    Meanwhile, I repeat, ++Lefebvre was very close to going sede himself. I think that Francis would have finally pushed him over the edge, and into sede free fall.

    Offline SeanJohnson

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 4717
    • Reputation: +4134/-1447
    • Gender: Male
    Re: ++Lefebvre and sedevacantism
    « Reply #192 on: October 09, 2019, 09:53:39 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • I started this topic, but am now sorry that I did. Because it has become yet another religious cat fight among three or four CI forum members, who think that the majority of other members are vitally interested in their lengthy arguments and dogmatic certitudes. Are they? Really? I’m not sure what motivates these people.
    Sean tries desperately to prove that V2 popes have been duly and fairly elected and accepted by the entire Episcopacy. Maybe so, maybe not.
    Who knows what his underlying motives really are. After all, SJ just published a book with a written introduction by +Williamson. H.E. holds to the view that all these popes were legitimately appointed. It wouldn’t look good if even the mildest fragrance of Svism might waft up from its pages. +W and the R&R could not in conscience support any such content. So, one can at least speculate, Sean feels that he has to double down on his anti-Svism in deference to the bishop. He’s got real skin in the game.. But I’ll not spend too much time trying to second guess him. Why the others go at it so fiercely hammer and tong, they’ll have to answer for themselves.
    Meanwhile, I repeat, ++Lefebvre was very close to going sede himself. I think that Francis would have finally pushed him over the edge, and into sede free fall.

    Let me attempt to show you how stupid you sound:

    "I think this is secret Jewish code to other Talmudic members.  I suspect Howlingsworth is operating a Cathinfo secret Sanhedrin, and makes seemingly banal posts like this to direct his Jewish minions.  It has all the marks of Khaballah code.  Who knows how long he has been at this.  Well, I'm really bored.  Why can't people excite me?  But they need to post shorter posts, or I glaze over.  I think his hatred of posts without large pics comes from his hereditary poor Jewish eyesight (a punishment for him denying Christ).  Yes, we've been tracking you for some time, Howlingsworth, and your link to Francis' Judaising Judaic Jew-Jew council.  Where was I again?  Oh year: I'm bored.  And Lefebvre would see things my way.  Believe that.  I don't know if I'm 100% right, but I can really feel that I am at least 80% right.

    Sholom.  - Howlingsworth"
    Romans 5:20 "But where sin increased, grace abounded all the more."

    -I retract any and all statements I have made that are incongruent with the True Faith, and apologize for ever having made them-

    Offline ByzCat3000

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 670
    • Reputation: +128/-43
    • Gender: Male
    Re: ++Lefebvre and sedevacantism
    « Reply #193 on: October 09, 2019, 09:53:43 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Hi ByzCath. 61 year SVism's first problem is (1) it first of all leads to the fact that there is no Bishop with Ordinary Jurisdiction at all. You look at the same Bull Cum Ex cited by DR and this is very clear, "each and all of their words, deeds, actions and enactments, howsoever made, and anything whatsoever to which these may give rise, shall be without force and shall grant no stability whatsoever nor any right to anyone;". Therefore, if the Popes of 61 years were false Popes and heretics, all the Bishops they attempted to appoint were never Ordinaries and had no power, right, stability or office.

    Secondly, yes (2) it is the Bishops with Ordinary Jurisdiction, and Ordinary Teaching Authority, both of which come from appointment to episcopal office by the Pope (that's just the way the Catholic Church works, and what the Roman Pontiff's Primacy of Jurisdiction means) who count.

    There is no Bishop in office today appointed before 1958, when Pope Pius XII was Pope: http://www.catholic-hierarchy.org/bishop/sordb2.html The one Bishop who was appointed in 1958 is an Archbishop Emeritus and has resigned. At any rate, he would have recognized the Pope.

    So the question is, "are there any Bishops with Ordinary Jurisdiction (61 yr sede-ism already has to say no to just this part; proving it is wrong) who today reject Pope Francis as the Pope of the Roman Catholic Church"? If the answer is no, then, as Fr. Hunter says, "The Church is infallible when She declares what person holds the office of the Pope .... it is enough to say that if the Bishops agree in recognizing a certain man as Pope, they are certainly right, for otherwise the Body of the Bishops would be separated from their Head, and the divine Constitution of the Church would be ruined."

    Your thoughts?

    God bless.resi
    Its just confusing to me because those same bishops accept Vatican II.  So why can they all be wrong on the one but not the other?

    Offline SeanJohnson

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 4717
    • Reputation: +4134/-1447
    • Gender: Male
    Re: ++Lefebvre and sedevacantism
    « Reply #194 on: October 09, 2019, 09:56:37 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Its just confusing to me because those same bishops accept Vatican II.  So why can they all be wrong on the one but not the other?

    Because a pastoral, fallible, non-dogmatic council is not a dogmatic fact, while the identity of a universally accepted Pope is a dogmatic fact (about which there may be no disagreement):

    The faith obliges you to be a dogmatic sedeplenist (i.e., Catholic), unless you would also like to express your doubts about any other dogmas and dogmatic facts of the faith).

    Romans 5:20 "But where sin increased, grace abounded all the more."

    -I retract any and all statements I have made that are incongruent with the True Faith, and apologize for ever having made them-

     

    Sitemap 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16