Has anyone ever written a scholarly refutation of sedevacantism?

Quote

Has anyone ever written a scholarly refutation of sedevacantism?

I have, in French. It is very easy. Sedevacantism is even more heretic than R&R...

1° A pope accepted by the whole Church cannot be an antipope.
2° John XXIII and Paul VI were accepted by the whole Church.
3° Therefore they cannot be antipopes.


1° Christ promised to St. Peter that he had prayed so that his faith should not fail.
2° Obviously, this prerogative was transmited to all his successors.
3° Therefore John XXIII and Paul VI cannot have become antipopes after their election.

You see, refuting sedevacantism is simple...
The above-mentioned reasons also show the impossibility of sedeprivationism, namely the thesis of Bishop Guérard des Lauriers.

You like discussions, but you dislike the truth.

Quote from: Stubborn

Quote from: 2Vermont

Quote from: Stubborn

Quote from: 2Vermont

Again, where is the Church teaching that the Ordinary Universal Magisterium is ever fallible..under any circuмstances?

I tell you what 2V, since you are so sure of your Cekadian inspired belief, why don't you just show your knowledge on this subject and actually contribute something useful, like produce a teaching or lesson from the Church - either papal, solemn or magisterial - which accurately reflects your belief as regards the infallibility of the UOM.

After producing either papal, solemn or magisterial teachings, then feel free to post theological explanations of those teachings if you need to.

Pope Pius XII refers to the OUM here as part of his declaration on the Assumption of Mary.  The infallible teaching of the Assumption was always taught and believed as part of the infallible OUM:

But those whom "the Holy Spirit has placed as bishops to rule the Church of God" gave an almost unanimous affirmative response to both these questions. This "outstanding agreement of the Catholic prelates and the faithful," 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 and contained in that divine deposit which Christ has delivered to his Spouse to be guarded faithfully and to be taught infallibly.

Note the following criteria as dictated by PPXII in the above part of your quote:

1) The reason PPXII gives as grounds to define this dogma, is because Our Lady's Assumption into heaven was "an almost unanimous" and "concordant teaching" of  "Catholic prelates and faithful" - which means it's been taught by virtually all the Catholic hierarchy since the time of the Apostles. This is the criteria right here. This is it.

"Almost unanimous" means what it says.

What "almost unanimous" does *not* mean, is 'one or more of bishops, theologians, saints, Canon Law, or Catechisms', these things comprise the Cekadian OUM and his OUM are always automatically infallible - otherwise they loose their offices ipso facto.  

2) PPXII confirms that due to #1 above itself, the Assumption was already dogma even before he defined it and because of #1, we can be certain that the Assumption is a revealed truth, contained in the deposit of faith.

Quote from: Pope Pius XII

 Certainly this teaching authority of the Church, not by any merely human effort but under the protection of the Spirit of Truth, and therefore absolutely without error, carries out the commission entrusted to it, that of preserving the revealed truths pure and entire throughout every age, in such a way that it presents them undefiled, adding nothing to them and taking nothing away from them. For, as the Vatican Council teaches, "the Holy Spirit was not promised to the successors of Peter in such a way that, by his revelation, they might manifest new doctrine, but so that, by his assistance, they might guard as sacred and might faithfully propose the revelation delivered through the apostles, or the deposit of faith."Thus, from the universal agreement of the Church's ordinary teaching authority we have a certain and firm proof, demonstrating that the Blessed Virgin Mary's bodily Assumption into heaven- which surely no faculty of the human mind could know by its own natural powers, as far as the heavenly glorification of the virginal body of the loving Mother of God is concerned-is a truth that has been revealed by God and consequently something that must be firmly and faithfully believed by all children of the Church. For, as the Vatican Council asserts, "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."

Note that the Holy Ghost is specifically *not* promised to manifest new doctrine, which is what V2's Novus Ordo is, a new doctrine.


The Holy Ghost *is* promised "so that, by his assistance, they might guard as sacred and might faithfully propose the revelation delivered through the apostles, or the deposit of faith." Which is to say that if the teachings have not been unanimously taught since the time of the apostles, which means that if the teachings are not from the deposit of faith, protection from error by the Holy Ghost is not promised.

"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."

We are not and never were and never will be bound to believe the NO because it is not contained in Scripture or tradition, nor has it ever been proposed by the Church either solemnly or in it's OUM as divinely revealed truths which must be believed.

Rather, the NO was perpetrated and forced upon the lethargic faithful population who for many decades were taught to believe that no matter what came out of Rome, it was always automatically infallible, which is what Fr. Cekada was taught, which is why he teaches such a thing which he in turn uses to confuse the masses and to promulgate SVism.

No V2 is not "new doctrine"; it is contradiction of "old doctrine".

  You are still suggesting that what was always taught by the Church was not protected by the Holy Ghost.  In addition, you are suggesting that what you recognize as the OUM has promulgated error in its universal teachings throughout the world since V2.

Quote from: 2Vermont

Quote from: Stubborn

Quote from: 2Vermont

Quote from: Stubborn

Quote from: 2Vermont

Again, where is the Church teaching that the Ordinary Universal Magisterium is ever fallible..under any circuмstances?

I tell you what 2V, since you are so sure of your Cekadian inspired belief, why don't you just show your knowledge on this subject and actually contribute something useful, like produce a teaching or lesson from the Church - either papal, solemn or magisterial - which accurately reflects your belief as regards the infallibility of the UOM.

After producing either papal, solemn or magisterial teachings, then feel free to post theological explanations of those teachings if you need to.

Pope Pius XII refers to the OUM here as part of his declaration on the Assumption of Mary.  The infallible teaching of the Assumption was always taught and believed as part of the infallible OUM:

But those whom "the Holy Spirit has placed as bishops to rule the Church of God" gave an almost unanimous affirmative response to both these questions. This "outstanding agreement of the Catholic prelates and the faithful," 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 and contained in that divine deposit which Christ has delivered to his Spouse to be guarded faithfully and to be taught infallibly.

Note the following criteria as dictated by PPXII in the above part of your quote:

1) The reason PPXII gives as grounds to define this dogma, is because Our Lady's Assumption into heaven was "an almost unanimous" and "concordant teaching" of  "Catholic prelates and faithful" - which means it's been taught by virtually all the Catholic hierarchy since the time of the Apostles. This is the criteria right here. This is it.

"Almost unanimous" means what it says.

What "almost unanimous" does *not* mean, is 'one or more of bishops, theologians, saints, Canon Law, or Catechisms', these things comprise the Cekadian OUM and his OUM are always automatically infallible - otherwise they loose their offices ipso facto.  

2) PPXII confirms that due to #1 above itself, the Assumption was already dogma even before he defined it and because of #1, we can be certain that the Assumption is a revealed truth, contained in the deposit of faith.

Quote from: Pope Pius XII

 Certainly this teaching authority of the Church, not by any merely human effort but under the protection of the Spirit of Truth, and therefore absolutely without error, carries out the commission entrusted to it, that of preserving the revealed truths pure and entire throughout every age, in such a way that it presents them undefiled, adding nothing to them and taking nothing away from them. For, as the Vatican Council teaches, "the Holy Spirit was not promised to the successors of Peter in such a way that, by his revelation, they might manifest new doctrine, but so that, by his assistance, they might guard as sacred and might faithfully propose the revelation delivered through the apostles, or the deposit of faith."Thus, from the universal agreement of the Church's ordinary teaching authority we have a certain and firm proof, demonstrating that the Blessed Virgin Mary's bodily Assumption into heaven- which surely no faculty of the human mind could know by its own natural powers, as far as the heavenly glorification of the virginal body of the loving Mother of God is concerned-is a truth that has been revealed by God and consequently something that must be firmly and faithfully believed by all children of the Church. For, as the Vatican Council asserts, "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."

Note that the Holy Ghost is specifically *not* promised to manifest new doctrine, which is what V2's Novus Ordo is, a new doctrine.


The Holy Ghost *is* promised "so that, by his assistance, they might guard as sacred and might faithfully propose the revelation delivered through the apostles, or the deposit of faith." Which is to say that if the teachings have not been unanimously taught since the time of the apostles, which means that if the teachings are not from the deposit of faith, protection from error by the Holy Ghost is not promised.

"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."

We are not and never were and never will be bound to believe the NO because it is not contained in Scripture or tradition, nor has it ever been proposed by the Church either solemnly or in it's OUM as divinely revealed truths which must be believed.

Rather, the NO was perpetrated and forced upon the lethargic faithful population who for many decades were taught to believe that no matter what came out of Rome, it was always automatically infallible, which is what Fr. Cekada was taught, which is why he teaches such a thing which he in turn uses to confuse the masses and to promulgate SVism.

No V2 is not "new doctrine"; it is contradiction of "old doctrine".

The Novus Ordo is the "New" Order, in many things yes, it contradicts the "Old Order", regardless, the Holy Ghost was not promised to protect new doctrines or contradicting doctrines. This criteria alone proves protection from error by the Holy Ghost was not present at V2. It does not prove the pope and the Living OUM were not the pope and Living OUM.

 

Quote from: 2Vermont

  You are still suggesting that what was always taught by the Church was not protected by the Holy Ghost.  In addition, you are suggesting that what you recognize as the OUM has promulgated error in its universal teachings throughout the world since V2.

You are stuck on the OUM being infallible no matter what, again, this is not what the Church teaches about the OUM at all, as your own quote from PPXII *clearly* demonstrates.

If the Living OUM teach anything that is not of the deposit of faith, has not been unanimously *always* taught by Catholic Prelates from the time of the apostles or that does not enjoy the common and constant consent aka "an almost unanimous" and "concordant teaching" of  "Catholic prelates and faithful", then it simply will not be infallible because those teachings will not enjoy protection from error by the Holy Ghost. Conversely, when the Living OUM teach according to the criteria, that is how we know those teachings are infallible, not only do we know those teachings are infallible, per PPXII, we can be absolutely certain they are infallible - it is those criteria which is our "certain and firm proof" of infallibility.

Pope Paul VI said nothing in V2 was infallible, but even if he never said anything  - the reason we know V2 was fallible is because what they taught was new, consisted of no Divinely revealed truths, was not "an almost unanimous" and "concordant teaching" of  "Catholic prelates and faithful" - which are required for the Holy Ghost's protection from error.

Instead, the Council brought forth new teachings which did not enjoy "an almost unanimous" and "concordant teaching" of  "Catholic prelates and faithful". IOW, the criteria for infallibility was never met nor was the attempt ever made by the Council to be infallible. Without protection from the Holy Ghost, there is nothing to stop the Living OUM from preaching and promulgating error - nothing at all. Please correct me here if you disagree.

SVs all think an ecuмenical council is infallible by default, well guess what, so did the almost the rest of the world, which is how we got into this mess in the first place - and most people still think like that because they do not understand what infallibility is or how it applies - but you know now because I just explained it to you and you just posted a prime example from PPXII.  

Per V1, PPXII, PPIX, Pope Leo XIII and every other magisterial docuмent that there is, for the Living, permanent OUM, the criteria for infallibility must be met even in an ecuмenical council if it's teachings are to enjoy the protection from the Holy Ghost - when these criteria are not met, then the Living OUM can indeed teach error and in fact did so at V2 - and still are. Again, without protection from the Holy Ghost, there is nothing to stop the Living OUM from teaching error. Again, if I am wrong, please correct me.

Those criteria necessary for protection from the Holy Ghost are not an "automatic" just because they hold an ecuмenical council, if that were the case, which is what SVs think the case always is, then we'd all have a legitimate reason to be SV, but that is not how it works - and you will NEVER EVER find ANY magisterial docuмents teaching any such a thing because the dogmatic teaching you posted from PPXII and V1 both teach the same thing and both are infallible - so YOU MUST BELIEVE THEM.    

Quote from: McCork

Quote from: Stubborn

Quote from: 2Vermont

Quote from: Stubborn

Quote from: 2Vermont

Quote from: Stubborn

Quote from: 2Vermont

Again, where is the Church teaching that the Ordinary Universal Magisterium is ever fallible..under any circuмstances?

I tell you what 2V, since you are so sure of your Cekadian inspired belief, why don't you just show your knowledge on this subject and actually contribute something useful, like produce a teaching or lesson from the Church - either papal, solemn or magisterial - which accurately reflects your belief as regards the infallibility of the UOM.

After producing either papal, solemn or magisterial teachings, then feel free to post theological explanations of those teachings if you need to.

Pope Pius XII refers to the OUM here as part of his declaration on the Assumption of Mary.  The infallible teaching of the Assumption was always taught and believed as part of the infallible OUM:

But those whom "the Holy Spirit has placed as bishops to rule the Church of God" gave an almost unanimous affirmative response to both these questions. This "outstanding agreement of the Catholic prelates and the faithful," 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 and contained in that divine deposit which Christ has delivered to his Spouse to be guarded faithfully and to be taught infallibly.

Note the following criteria as dictated by PPXII in the above part of your quote:

1) The reason PPXII gives as grounds to define this dogma, is because Our Lady's Assumption into heaven was "an almost unanimous" and "concordant teaching" of  "Catholic prelates and faithful" - which means it's been taught by virtually all the Catholic hierarchy since the time of the Apostles. This is the criteria right here. This is it.

"Almost unanimous" means what it says.

What "almost unanimous" does *not* mean, is 'one or more of bishops, theologians, saints, Canon Law, or Catechisms', these things comprise the Cekadian OUM and his OUM are always automatically infallible - otherwise they loose their offices ipso facto.  

2) PPXII confirms that due to #1 above itself, the Assumption was already dogma even before he defined it and because of #1, we can be certain that the Assumption is a revealed truth, contained in the deposit of faith.

Quote from: Pope Pius XII

 Certainly this teaching authority of the Church, not by any merely human effort but under the protection of the Spirit of Truth, and therefore absolutely without error, carries out the commission entrusted to it, that of preserving the revealed truths pure and entire throughout every age, in such a way that it presents them undefiled, adding nothing to them and taking nothing away from them. For, as the Vatican Council teaches, "the Holy Spirit was not promised to the successors of Peter in such a way that, by his revelation, they might manifest new doctrine, but so that, by his assistance, they might guard as sacred and might faithfully propose the revelation delivered through the apostles, or the deposit of faith."Thus, from the universal agreement of the Church's ordinary teaching authority we have a certain and firm proof, demonstrating that the Blessed Virgin Mary's bodily Assumption into heaven- which surely no faculty of the human mind could know by its own natural powers, as far as the heavenly glorification of the virginal body of the loving Mother of God is concerned-is a truth that has been revealed by God and consequently something that must be firmly and faithfully believed by all children of the Church. For, as the Vatican Council asserts, "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."

Note that the Holy Ghost is specifically *not* promised to manifest new doctrine, which is what V2's Novus Ordo is, a new doctrine.


The Holy Ghost *is* promised "so that, by his assistance, they might guard as sacred and might faithfully propose the revelation delivered through the apostles, or the deposit of faith." Which is to say that if the teachings have not been unanimously taught since the time of the apostles, which means that if the teachings are not from the deposit of faith, protection from error by the Holy Ghost is not promised.

"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."

We are not and never were and never will be bound to believe the NO because it is not contained in Scripture or tradition, nor has it ever been proposed by the Church either solemnly or in it's OUM as divinely revealed truths which must be believed.

Rather, the NO was perpetrated and forced upon the lethargic faithful population who for many decades were taught to believe that no matter what came out of Rome, it was always automatically infallible, which is what Fr. Cekada was taught, which is why he teaches such a thing which he in turn uses to confuse the masses and to promulgate SVism.

No V2 is not "new doctrine"; it is contradiction of "old doctrine".

The Novus Ordo is the "New" Order, in many things yes, it contradicts the "Old Order", regardless, the Holy Ghost was not promised to protect new doctrines or contradicting doctrines. This criteria alone proves protection from error by the Holy Ghost was not present at V2. It does not prove the pope and the Living OUM were not the pope and Living OUM.

 

Quote from: 2Vermont

  You are still suggesting that what was always taught by the Church was not protected by the Holy Ghost.  In addition, you are suggesting that what you recognize as the OUM has promulgated error in its universal teachings throughout the world since V2.

You are stuck on the OUM being infallible no matter what, again, this is not what the Church teaches about the OUM at all, as your own quote from PPXII *clearly* demonstrates.

If the Living OUM teach anything that is not of the deposit of faith, has not been unanimously *always* taught by Catholic Prelates from the time of the apostles or that does not enjoy the common and constant consent aka "an almost unanimous" and "concordant teaching" of  "Catholic prelates and faithful", then it simply will not be infallible because those teachings will not enjoy protection from error by the Holy Ghost. Conversely, when the Living OUM teach according to the criteria, that is how we know those teachings are infallible, not only do we know those teachings are infallible, per PPXII, we can be absolutely certain they are infallible - it is those criteria which is our "certain and firm proof" of infallibility.

Pope Paul VI said nothing in V2 was infallible, but even if he never said anything  - the reason we know V2 was fallible is because what they taught was new, consisted of no Divinely revealed truths, was not "an almost unanimous" and "concordant teaching" of  "Catholic prelates and faithful" - which are required for the Holy Ghost's protection from error.

Instead, the Council brought forth new teachings which did not enjoy "an almost unanimous" and "concordant teaching" of  "Catholic prelates and faithful". IOW, the criteria for infallibility was never met nor was the attempt ever made by the Council to be infallible. Without protection from the Holy Ghost, there is nothing to stop the Living OUM from preaching and promulgating error - nothing at all. Please correct me here if you disagree.

SVs all think an ecuмenical council is infallible by default, well guess what, so did the almost the rest of the world, which is how we got into this mess in the first place - and most people still think like that because they do not understand what infallibility is or how it applies - but you know now because I just explained it to you and you just posted a prime example from PPXII.  

Per V1, PPXII, PPIX, Pope Leo XIII and every other magisterial docuмent that there is, for the Living, permanent OUM, the criteria for infallibility must be met even in an ecuмenical council if it's teachings are to enjoy the protection from the Holy Ghost - when these criteria are not met, then the Living OUM can indeed teach error and in fact did so at V2 - and still are. Again, without protection from the Holy Ghost, there is nothing to stop the Living OUM from teaching error. Again, if I am wrong, please correct me.

Those criteria necessary for protection from the Holy Ghost are not an "automatic" just because they hold an ecuмenical council, if that were the case, which is what SVs think the case always is, then we'd all have a legitimate reason to be SV, but that is not how it works - and you will NEVER EVER find ANY magisterial docuмents teaching any such a thing because the dogmatic teaching you posted from PPXII and V1 both teach the same thing and both are infallible - so YOU MUST BELIEVE THEM.    

After all this, I have to ask you a question about what the Vatican Council of 1870 taught us:

"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."

Tell us, Your Stubborness, what doctrines you believe with "divine and Catholic faith" which were NOT taught by the solemn magisterium. Please list them to show us that you understand the quote.

You may be blind as well as ignorant, but I can see just fine and know well enough to know better than to argue with what appears to be to me, immaturity.

So Corkie, I'll ask you the same thing.......... since you are so sure of your Cekadian inspired belief, why don't you just show your knowledge on this subject and actually contribute something useful, like produce a teaching or lesson from the Church - either papal, solemn or magisterial - which accurately reflects your belief as regards the infallibility of the UOM.

After producing either papal, solemn or magisterial teachings, then feel free to post theological explanations of those teachings if you need to.

2Vermont came up with an excellent example, one I never thought of but it turned out to be an outstanding example.

So as long as you are chiming in on this subject, let's strive to keep this on the same subject and please do as I asked above.