Author Topic: New book arguing against Sedevacantism (Read 80861 times)

2Vermont · « **Reply #215 on:** November 29, 2015, 04:40:58 PM »

Quote from: Stubborn

Quote from: McCork
Quote from: Stubborn

First off, you have the same idea of what the UOM is that pretty much all SVs and trads have - namely, your UOM is comprised of a faceless, nameless, timeless and non-universal entity, it is an entity that you cannot define because your UOM is a mystery, something unknowable and changing all the time. It is a thing, something you reference when you need something to support your idea. So you are not helping 2Vermont, you will only add to the confusion that pretty much everyone has.

Okay, so you laid out what you think I believe. Now back to my first question pertaining to what YOU believe in regard to the quote I gave you from the Vatican Council of 1870.

You don't get it. I am not changing the subject for you - and obviously trying to force you to stay on subject is an exercise in futility, which only serves to actually prove that you cannot find any magisterial Church teachings that teach the UOM is always automatically infallible by virtue of them being a bishop or two, or a few saints, or all together or whatever.

Either do what I asked or feel free to start another thread on whatever subject it is that you want to further derail this thread to. I prefer you do what I asked first.

Oh stop. His question has everything to do with the current subject matter. You're just using your usual avoidance tactics. Answering his question won't help your cause and you know it.

Cantarella · « **Reply #216 on:** November 29, 2015, 04:46:50 PM »

Quote from: Vatican Council of 1870

"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 judgement or in its ordinary and universal teaching office, as divinely revealed truths which must be believed."

These quote states that the infallible teachings which Catholics owe Assentus Fidei, this is "Divine and Catholic Faith", are the ones that concern the Word of God or Divine Revelation (As explained before, Scripture and Tradition) independently of what organ of infallibility is used. These teachings are necessarily embodied in the two first levels of Magisterial teachings:

1. Infallible Dogmas: Truths taught as divinely revealed"-> These are truths contained directly in the Word of God and which the magisterium has affirmed to be divinely revealed. They are infallible and, to them the faithful owe the “obedience of faith” or “divine and Catholic faith.”.

2. Definitive Doctrines: Secondary Truths -> This is when the Magisterium proposes ‘in a definitive way’ truths concerning faith and morals, which, even if not divinely revealed, are nevertheless strictly and intimately connected with Revelation, these must be firmly accepted and held.

You step out of these two above and you are dealing with fallible teachings which Catholics owe obedience / religious or external assent to BUT are not necessarily to be believed with the same "Obedience of Faith” or “Divine and Catholic faith (assensus fidei) than the first two, which is what the Vatican I quote refers to, and that is why Religious Liberty or Ecuмenism will never be infallible dogmas or definite doctrines.

Stubborn · « **Reply #217 on:** November 29, 2015, 05:06:25 PM »

Quote from: 2Vermont

Quote from: Stubborn
Quote from: 2Vermont
Quote from: McCork
My suggestion to you 2Vermont is to refrain from answering until after Stubborn answers my question about the ordinary magisterium of the Vatican Council 1870. Then we will all know that he has no clue about the subject.

I was out all day yesterday and I see that others have chimed in. I will also be travelling all day so I doubt I will get back to this discussion until early tomorrow morning. It seems that there are much more qualified folks here anyway. In the end, I do not think that Stubborn will ever see his errors. As someone else said, if he believed in the OUM as he should, it would not help his belief in Feeneyism which also goes against the OUM.

Typical cop out. What errors will I never see? All you did is admit that you do not know what you are talking about and that doesn't matter - at the same time you agree with McCork who also does not know what he is talking about - but won't admit it because he has himself convinced that he does.

You posted the errors from PPXII on the Assumption that I wholly believe and demonstrated their meanings for you in great detail, so feel free to explain yourself - how is my belief in the UOM different from PPXII's which you yourself posted?

Actually, it's not a cop out. I think it's a recognition that you will NEVER change your mind because your Feeneyite heresy has blocked you from being able to see the Catholic truth that the UOM is always infallible. Pius XII does not support your view that the UOM can be fallible. He states:

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.

The Church's "concordant teaching of the Church's ordinary doctrinal authority" is the OUM. It includes EVERYTHING we must believe that has been taught since the beginning of the Church. He is saying quite clearly that the Assumption of Mary was already taught by the Church for centuries..in its OUM! Everything taught by the OUM is automatically without error....

.....as long as it is a "concordant teaching".[/b] (You left this part out.)

Quote from: 2Vermont

All of the bishops and pope at Vatican II (what you believe is the true OUM) contradicted things that were always condemned by the infallible OUM prior to Vatican II. How does the OUM contradict itself?

The Living Magisterium can contradict the UOM when the Living Magisterium's teachings are not concordant teachings. Which in a nutshell is what occurred at V2.

Quote from: 2Vermont

McCork does have an important question for you and you should answer it; that is, if you're not "copping out".

He is doing the copping out by not doing the same thing you did - but the difference is that he knows that he is as unable to produce a magisterial teaching to support your "the UOM is always infallible" idea - as I think you also know by now but will not admit it.

2Vermont · « **Reply #218 on:** November 29, 2015, 05:17:37 PM »

Quote from: Stubborn

Quote from: 2Vermont
Quote from: Stubborn
Quote from: 2Vermont
Quote from: McCork
My suggestion to you 2Vermont is to refrain from answering until after Stubborn answers my question about the ordinary magisterium of the Vatican Council 1870. Then we will all know that he has no clue about the subject.

I was out all day yesterday and I see that others have chimed in. I will also be travelling all day so I doubt I will get back to this discussion until early tomorrow morning. It seems that there are much more qualified folks here anyway. In the end, I do not think that Stubborn will ever see his errors. As someone else said, if he believed in the OUM as he should, it would not help his belief in Feeneyism which also goes against the OUM.

Typical cop out. What errors will I never see? All you did is admit that you do not know what you are talking about and that doesn't matter - at the same time you agree with McCork who also does not know what he is talking about - but won't admit it because he has himself convinced that he does.

You posted the errors from PPXII on the Assumption that I wholly believe and demonstrated their meanings for you in great detail, so feel free to explain yourself - how is my belief in the UOM different from PPXII's which you yourself posted?

Actually, it's not a cop out. I think it's a recognition that you will NEVER change your mind because your Feeneyite heresy has blocked you from being able to see the Catholic truth that the UOM is always infallible. Pius XII does not support your view that the UOM can be fallible. He states:

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.

The Church's "concordant teaching of the Church's ordinary doctrinal authority" is the OUM. It includes EVERYTHING we must believe that has been taught since the beginning of the Church. He is saying quite clearly that the Assumption of Mary was already taught by the Church for centuries..in its OUM! Everything taught by the OUM is automatically without error....
.....as long as it is a "concordant teaching".[/b] (You left this part out.)

Quote from: 2Vermont

All of the bishops and pope at Vatican II (what you believe is the true OUM) contradicted things that were always condemned by the infallible OUM prior to Vatican II. How does the OUM contradict itself?

The Living Magisterium can contradict the UOM when the Living Magisterium's teachings are not concordant teachings. Which in a nutshell is what occurred at V2.

Quote from: 2Vermont

McCork does have an important question for you and you should answer it; that is, if you're not "copping out".

He is doing the copping out by not doing the same thing you did - but the difference is that he knows that he is as unable to produce a magisterial teaching to support your "the UOM is always infallible" idea - as I think you also know by now but will not admit it.

I left nothing out. I am saying exactly that: the OUM is concordant...consistently agreed upon by the Church. The teachings up until Vatican II were concordant. Vatican II's so-called OUM contradicted those concordant teachings.

On the other hand, you seem to be saying that there are teachings in Vatican II that were not concordant prior to 1960. So tell me: what teachings in Vatican II are these? What teachings were neither consistently condemned nor consistently taught?

Gregory I · « **Reply #219 on:** November 29, 2015, 05:54:28 PM »

Quote from: Cantarella

Quote from: Vatican Council of 1870

"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 judgement or in its ordinary and universal teaching office, as divinely revealed truths which must be believed."

These quote states that the infallible teachings which Catholics owe Assentus Fidei, this is "Divine and Catholic Faith", are the ones that concern the Word of God or Divine Revelation (As explained before, Scripture and Tradition) independently of what organ of infallibility is used. These teachings are necessarily embodied in the two first levels of Magisterial teachings:

1. Infallible Dogmas: Truths taught as divinely revealed"-> These are truths contained directly in the Word of God and which the magisterium has affirmed to be divinely revealed. They are infallible and, to them the faithful owe the “obedience of faith” or “divine and Catholic faith.”.

2. Definitive Doctrines: Secondary Truths -> This is when the Magisterium proposes ‘in a definitive way’ truths concerning faith and morals, which, even if not divinely revealed, are nevertheless strictly and intimately connected with Revelation, these must be firmly accepted and held.

You step out of these two above and you are dealing with fallible teachings which Catholics owe obedience / religious or external assent to BUT are not necessarily to be believed with the same "Obedience of Faith” or “Divine and Catholic faith (assensus fidei) than the first two, which is what the Vatican I quote refers to, and that is why Religious Liberty or Ecuмenism will never be infallible dogmas or definite doctrines.

Related to this is an important question:

When considering the merely Authentic Non-Infallible magisterial teaching of the Pope and the individual bishops, we have to make an important distinction:

1. Does the authentic magisterium of a bishop have a LIMITED or UNLIMITED potential for error

2. For the Pope, same question.

I assert that the answer is different for each- for the episcopacy the potential for error is unlimited in their authentic magisterium. But for the Pope it is limited. No Pope, legitimately elected and validly exercising his ordinary authentic magisterium has ever erred so bad as to endanger souls. It couldn't be, because the authority of Christ and the Pope are a single authority exercised in the Church, to the degree where he who hears the Pope teach hears Christ.

Read all about it in Mystici Corporis Christi by Pope Pius XII.

But these past Papabiles HAVE taught grave error and heresy in their authentic magisterium which only goes to show that they are stripped of their jurisdiction and no longer have the divine assistance.