Author Topic: New book arguing against Sedevacantism (Read 80658 times)

Clemens Maria · « **Reply #150 on:** November 27, 2015, 10:31:14 AM »

Quote from: PaulFC

I appreciate your input and I understand the argument. What I am saying is, the quotes from the Church on the subject clearly refer to a person that has not yet been officially declared a heretic, so Salza cannot possibly use the argument you are saying.

Never underestimate the ability of a lawyer to twist the meaning of words. Don't forget, Bill Clinton was a lawyer who seriously called into question the meaning of the word "is".

Cantarella · « **Reply #151 on:** November 27, 2015, 11:09:37 AM »

Quote from: PaulFC

The magisterium today consists of those bishops who have retained the teachings of the faith before Vatican II.

Its the same as in the days of the Arian heresy when the majority of the Church fell for the heresy. Those bishops that held to the true teaching of the Catholic Church, no matter how few they were, were the magisterium. This is why St Athanasius was quoted as saying:

Do you know who these Bishops are?

Christ Promised the visible magisterium to exist until the end of times. It is that visible Magisterium is supplies jurisdiction, so where is it?

From what you said, the possibility we may find some Bishops ("who have retained the teachings of the faith before Vatican II") in the current conciliar hierarchy is there. Yes?

Cantarella · « **Reply #152 on:** November 27, 2015, 11:31:40 AM »

Quote from: Clemens Maria

Quote from: Catholictrue
By the way, does your book have the approval of your local 'ordinary', from whom you claim one may not separate without a Church judgment? If not, why not? And if you say people cannot separate from the ‘hierarchy’ under Francis until an official judgment is made, why are you promoting and receiving endorsements from numerous priests who have separated from their ‘bishops’ and ‘ordinaries’ without a judgment? Can you not see the inconsistency (and outright hypocrisy) of such a position? In one breath you say that it’s absolutely forbidden to separate from one’s 'bishop' without a judgment, and then in the next you say: read it in a book endorsed by the head of a group (Bernard Fellay) who has been separated from his ‘bishops’ for decades, and by priests who are totally independent from their ‘bishops’, so much so that they teach one must not attend diocesan ‘services’!

Bravo! Don't expect a response on that one.

Catholictrue has a point here and that is the Achilles heel of arguing against sedevacantism from a SSPX R&R perspective. It is not simple disobedience which makes a schism, but disobedience in an issue that touches on the ecclesiastical unity of the Church (For instance, the illegitimate ordination of bishops whereby the Apostolic Succession is compromised)" Although every case of schism involves disobedience, only certain types of disobedience constitute schism.

Regarding the Pope's loss of office due to heresy, in Canon Law the Pope is not ultimately bound except by the Divine Law so most talk about ecclesiastical penalties and procedures in regards to heretics from the angle of Ecclesiastical Law are a huge waste of time. It is de fide that the Roman Pontiff can be judged by none in this world although he may be rebuked and corrected by the Church's competent authority.

Gregory I · « **Reply #153 on:** November 27, 2015, 11:57:47 AM »

Quote from: Cantarella

Quote from: PaulFC

The magisterium today consists of those bishops who have retained the teachings of the faith before Vatican II.

Its the same as in the days of the Arian heresy when the majority of the Church fell for the heresy. Those bishops that held to the true teaching of the Catholic Church, no matter how few they were, were the magisterium. This is why St Athanasius was quoted as saying:

Do you know who these Bishops are?

Christ Promised the visible magisterium to exist until the end of times. It is that visible Magisterium is supplies jurisdiction, so where is it?

From what you said, the possibility we may find some Bishops ("who have retained the teachings of the faith before Vatican II") in the current conciliar hierarchy is there. Yes?

NO, hang on, you are confusing two things here.

1. The Pope has TWO primacies in the Church:

a. Primacy of Doctrine-------->Infalliblity, Magisterium.
b. Primacy of Jurisdiction---------->freely exercise authority of governance over every Catholic.

Jurisdiction is the power to Govern, and is inherent in the office of the Papacy.

The Magisterium is the TEACHING authority inherent in the office.

The magisterium does not grant jurisdiction. It is the authority from Christ given to the Pope, and those in communion with him, to teach in the name of Christ.

The Power of Jurisdiction is the authority given by Christ to the papacy to Rule. No other bishop has Ordinary jurisdiction unless the Pope grants jurisdiction when he grants an apostolic mandate to all the bishops he establishes.

Now, if we take your logic strictly, Let us ask ourselves:

IN a 3 year interregnum, after the death of the Pope, What became of the apostolic mandates of all the bishops of the world? Even better, what of the apostolic mandates of those bishops, established by other bishops, during the interregnum? Did they govern their diocese' legitimately, or schismatically?

These are questions related to Jurisdiction.

Regarding the Church's magisterium, her authority to teach, I ALREADY told you this: The Ordinary Universal Magisterium is PASSIVLEY exercised when all the faithful taken together, hold as definitive matters of faith and morals. It is a preservative power.

AGAIN, Tanquerey, writing in 1894 explicitly says this:

Quote

4. The Common Understanding of the Faithful

295 Revealed doctrine can be discovered not only among the Pastors and other leaders who teach with the Pastors, but also among the faithful who with a common or general understanding profess a unanimous faith.

In order that this common understanding be a criterion of revelation, it must be:
a. certain and clear,
b. unanimous,
c. concerned with important matters of faith and of morals.

The fact that the general agreement of the faithful is then a criterion of revelation is proved:

a. From the indefectibility of the Church. We have already stated that the Church cannot fail. But the Church would be failing in essentials if she were a society of erring souls. Therefore.

b. From the Fathers. For example, St. Augustine, in refuting the Pelagians, proved the existence of original sin in little children and the need, therefore, of baptism for these, from the common understanding of the faithful. This he regarded as a very strong argument of faith.

296 Other pertinent notes on this subject are these:

a. This infallibility in believing is often-times called passive infallibility; it depends on active infallibility (in teaching) which should always direct it.

b. We should avoid the error of those who think that the Church teaching merely confirms the opinions of the Church learning.4 For the Church teaching must pass judgment on these opinions, approve them or condemn them, and in this way direct the faith of her subjects and turn them from error.

c. Therefore, the faithful in the Church are in no way the teachers, they do not define authoritatively, but they give their belief. The Teachers impart and define the truth which all believe. But God is able to employ the faithful to promote some devotion, for example, the devotion to the Sacred Heart of Jesus; but even in such an instance all proceeds under the authority of the Bishops — they alone are the authoritative judges and proclaimers of the faith.

The great IRONY, is that the Novus Ordo and Vatican II Church is PRECISELY:

Quote

But the Church would be failing in essentials if she were a society of erring souls.

The ENTIRETY of the Novus Ordo Church of Vatican II since Paul VI is a society of erring souls. The Catechism of the Catholic Church is proof positive, the RCIA experience is proof positive, the Homilies of deluded priests is proof positive, and the inanity and moral decrepancy of the bishops, to say nothing of their doctrinal deviation is proof positive!

Therefore, the Conciliar "Church" is a defective and defected Church.

Or is this more of the work of Christ, which you must admit if you subscribe to the Vatican II "Magisterium" which is the Rule of Christ in his Church?

PaulFC · « **Reply #154 on:** November 27, 2015, 12:18:28 PM »

Quote from: RobS

We address at length the erroneous claim that Vatican II should have been covered by the Church’s infallibility by virtue of the ordinary and universal Magisterium. And if you believe the term “Supreme Ordinary Magisterium” is equivalent to the “Ordinary and Universal Magisterium,” and that anything that comes from the “Supreme Ordinary Magisterium” (even when not proposed definitively) must necessarily be infallible, please cite your source.

In the book, you will find a citation affirming that the Supreme Magisterium is not, per se, infallible.

RobS,

Your view of the magisterium of the Church is entirely non-Catholic. The Catholic Church is unanimous in stating that the magisterium consists of ordinary teaching and solemn teaching, BOTH infallible. All sources state this, and I can provide many. But to keep it brief for now, let's look at the definition of Infallibility in "A Catholic Dictionary" (imprimatur, 1931-1957):

"This infallibility resides (A) in the pope personally and alone; (B) in an ecuмenical Council subject to papal confirmation (these infallibilities are distinct but correlative); (C) in the bishops of the Church, dispersed throughout the world, teaching definitively in union with the pope. This is not a different infallibility from (B) but is the ordinary exercise of a prerogative (hence called the "ordinary magisterium") which is manifested in a striking manner in an ecuмenical Council. This ordinary magisterium is exercised by pastoral letters, preaching, catechisms, the censorship of publications dealing with faith and morals, the reprobation of doctrines and books: it is thus in continuous function and embraces the whole deposit of faith."

The Catholic Encyclopedia, in the article "Science and the Church", under this section, "The Holders of the Teaching Office", explains it simply:
"The official activity of teaching may be exercised either in the ordinary, or daily, magisterium, or by occasional solemn decisions. The former goes on uninterruptedly; the latter are called forth in times of great danger, especially of growing heresies."

If there is one thing you should remember from this post, it is that the magisterium teaches in two ways; ordinary and solemn, both being infallible. All definitions state this.

Probably one of the most important quotes confirming this, which I'm sure you must have seen before, is from the First Vatican Council, where it states:
"All those things are to be believed by divine and Catholic faith which are contained in the written Word of God or in Tradition, and which are proposed by the Church, either in solemn judgment or in its ordinary and universal teaching office, as divinely revealed truths which must be believed."

If you think about this for a moment, this General Council could not have possibly solemnly mandated all of the faithful believe BOTH solemn and ordinary teaching from the Church if there were exceptions to their infallibility as you are claiming. This Council freely declared this because there are no exceptions to their infallibility.

Many other quotes can be given but this is a good start. It must be noted that there are many terms used by the Church referring to the Magisterium that mean the same thing. For example, you may see the solemn magisterium referred to as the extraordinary magisterium. The ordinary magisterium may be referred to as the universal ordinary magisterium, or the ordinary and universal magisterium, the ordinary teaching office, etc. etc. Using other words like "supreme" and other fancy words does not change the fact that the magisterium of the Church consists of ordinary and solemn teaching, both infallible at all times. If error is seen, the answer is that it is not part of the magisterium, since we know the Church cannot be the author of error. If you believe otherwise, please provide sources from the Church that are more authoritative.