Author Topic: ++Lefebvre and sedevacantism (Read 36929 times)

SeanJohnson · « **Reply #200 on:** October 10, 2019, 06:12:21 AM »

There really is no perplexity here:

1) Francis' papacy is a dogmatic fact, per the unanimous teaching of approved theologians, because it has been universally ratified by the bishops;

2) The pope is the rule of faith (whether he be St. Pius X or Francis);

3) But we resist him when he makes harmful commands.

The only practical difference is that in the case of St. Pius X, he never gave us cause to refuse, whereas in the case of Francis, he rarely gives us a teaching or command we can accept.

Resisting him to the face is merely a more frequent application of a principle in place since the time of Paul resisting Cephas (who at that time was already head of the Apostles even before our Lord made him Pope).

Or should Paul have disputed the legitimacy of Peter's leadership, rather than resisting a particular scandal?

DecemRationis · « **Reply #201 on:** October 10, 2019, 07:04:33 AM »

Quote from: Stubborn on October 10, 2019, 06:11:56 AM

The truth of the matter is that the idea of "universal" and/or "peaceful" acceptance being an infallible sign, is nothing more than the opinion of some theologians of the last 150 years or so. The sedes like to twist this opinion into a de fide teaching in order to fit it into their narrative, they do this as if the idea carries the authority of a teaching of the Church, that's what it's really all about.

There we’re getting to the heart of the matter: opinions of theologians and “teachings” of Magisterial authorities below the level of declaring what is of the deposit of faith (through either the extraordinary or universal, ordinary Magisterium) - while they are owed obedience and assent as the default and initial response in respect of their position, to what extent can they err when the deposit of faith, what must be believed to be saved, is not involved?

It is necessary for the sheep to also be mindful of the Gospel and the Tradition and not renounce their own responsibilities, and to have their own judgment. Galatians 1:8-9 (and 2 Thessalonians 2:15 etc.) is not just St. Paul (and the Holy Ghost) blowing smoke.

This is a critical area for examination by the Church with the full powers of its charism, and it now must be engaged in the wake of V2 . . . unless Christ is now marking the runway for His return.

Stubborn · « **Reply #202 on:** October 10, 2019, 08:03:19 AM »

Quote from: DecemRationis on October 10, 2019, 07:04:33 AM

There we’re getting to the heart of the matter: opinions of theologians and “teachings” of Magisterial authorities below the level of declaring what is of the deposit of faith (through either the extraordinary or universal, ordinary Magisterium) - while they are owed obedience and assent as the default and initial response in respect of their position, to what extent can they err when the deposit of faith, what must be believed to be saved, is not involved?

You can read in Tuas Libenter, what Pope Pius IX said about this.

He said that while we are bound in conscience to obey the dogmatic decrees of the Catholic Church, we are also to submit to, not only the Church's Universal Magisterium, but also her Ordinary Magisterium when the teaching is said to be divinely revealed:

"...this submission must also be extended to all that has been handed down as divinely revealed by the ordinary teaching authority of the entire Church spread over the whole world, and which, for this reason, Catholic theologians, with a universal and constant consent, regard as being of the faith [...] they must, besides, submit themselves, whether to doctrinal decisions stemming from pontifical congregations, or to points of doctrine which, with common and constant consent, are held in the Church as truths and as theological conclusions so certain that opposing opinions, though they may not be dubbed heretical, nonetheless, merit some other form of theological censure".

The "universal acceptance" opinion of some theologians from the last 150 years or so do not come close to meeting this criteria.

SeanJohnson · « **Reply #203 on:** October 10, 2019, 08:20:36 AM »

Quote from: Stubborn on October 10, 2019, 08:03:19 AM

You can read in Tuas Libenter, what Pope Pius IX said about this.

He said that while we are bound in conscience to obey the dogmatic decrees of the Catholic Church, we are also to submit to, not only the Church's Universal Magisterium, but also her Ordinary Magisterium when the teaching is said to be divinely revealed:

"...this submission must also be extended to all that has been handed down as divinely revealed by the ordinary teaching authority of the entire Church spread over the whole world, and which, for this reason, Catholic theologians, with a universal and constant consent, regard as being of the faith [...] they must, besides, submit themselves, whether to doctrinal decisions stemming from pontifical congregations, or to points of doctrine which, with common and constant consent, are held in the Church as truths and as theological conclusions so certain that opposing opinions, though they may not be dubbed heretical, nonetheless, merit some other form of theological censure".

The "universal acceptance" opinion of some theologians from the last 150 years or so do not come close to meeting this criteria.

Are you questioning the binding nature of dogmatic facts?

Ladislaus · « **Reply #204 on:** October 10, 2019, 08:58:45 AM »

Quote from: SeanJohnson on October 10, 2019, 06:12:21 AM

There really is no perplexity here:

1) Francis' papacy is a dogmatic fact, per the unanimous teaching of approved theologians, because it has been universally ratified by the bishops;

So, again you are saying that +Lefebvre and +Williamson are heretics.

CathInfo.com

Author Topic: ++Lefebvre and sedevacantism (Read 36929 times)

SeanJohnson

Re: ++Lefebvre and sedevacantism

DecemRationis

Re: ++Lefebvre and sedevacantism

Stubborn

Re: ++Lefebvre and sedevacantism

SeanJohnson

Re: ++Lefebvre and sedevacantism

Ladislaus

Re: ++Lefebvre and sedevacantism