Author Topic: New book arguing against Sedevacantism (Read 81295 times)

Cantarella · « **Reply #320 on:** December 03, 2015, 11:25:48 AM »

Quote from: Gregory I

HOW will anyone on earth DETERMINE this man OUGHT to be deposed without making a prudential judgment of the FACT beforehand? It's impossible!

The Thesis of Cassiciacuм (known as Sedeprivationism) is very clear on this point: Although the materialiter Pope has lost authority due to the absence of intention towards the common good of he Church; it is not however the laity, who is responsible for admonishing, warning, and ultimately making the Pope resign; but the competent authority of the Church: namely cardinals and bishops. I think it is possible and quite necessary at this point for the laity to create enough Catholic resistance (within the Church, of course) that the Bishops responsible of this will be practically obliged to act.

Quote from: Fr. Bernard Lucien

In the present circuмstances, the occupant of the Apostolic See remains effectively a material pope. "In the present circuмstances" signifies: insofar as the persons who have in law a share in the Authority of the Church(residential Bishops, Cardinals, etc...) have not officially placed the occupant of the Apostolic See under the necessity of condemning the errors of Vatican II and its wake. If such a demand were to be made, it would enable us to add that:

- either the occupant of the Apostolic See would condemn
these errors in which case he would "ipso facto" become formally
Pope.

- or he would refuse, and then those responsible for
demanding that he condemn these errors could and would be obliged
to declare him deposed.

As neither event has come about, the occupant of the See remains materially pope: we have shown that, considering the theology of Apostolicity as applied to the Church as a human society, this conclusion imposes itself on us. We consider then that this conclusion can be considered as theologically certain.

Cantarella · « **Reply #321 on:** December 03, 2015, 11:35:41 AM »

This process is also exemplified by St. Bellarmine, who the sedevacantists are very fond of. In the case of a heretical Bishop teaching error to his flock he says:

Quote from: St. Bellarmine

"It is true that the people should discern the true prophet from the false, but not by any other rule than the following: Observe carefully if what he teaches is contrary to what his predecessors have said or that which is said by other pastors, ordinaries, and above all the Apostolic See and the principal Church; for it is commanded that the people should listen to their pastors: Luke X: He who listens to you listens to me; and Matt. XXIII, do that which they tell you to do. The people ought not to judge their pastors except when they introduce innovations or doctrines which are in disagreement with those of the other pastors."

"Moreover, it is necessary to observe that the people can clearly discriminate, by the rule that we have given, between true and false prophets. But for all that they cannot depose of a false pastor if he is a bishop and substitute another in his place. For the Lord and Apostle only commanded that false prophets not be listened to by the people; but not that the people should depose them. It has always been the practice of the Church to depose heretical bishops by councils of bishops or by an act of the sovereign pontiffs."

In this example, the Bishop teaching heresy has no longer any authority and the people should refuse to listen to him after applying the Principle of Non -Contradiction. However, if such a false pastor has not been as yet deposed by the Church, he must be done so by proper Authority according to the laws and customs of the Church. In the meantime, he continues to materially occupy his office.

RobS · « **Reply #322 on:** December 03, 2015, 11:39:57 AM »

Quote from: PaulFC

Quote from: RobS
You really need to read the book because you don’t have any idea what you are talking about. Van Noort is one of the authorities we cite, in the chapter you are referring to, who explains that the ordinary and universal Magisterium is infallible when it proposes definitively.

You make a distinction between defining and proposing, without realizing that they are not mutually exclusive: a doctrine can be proposed definitively or proposed in a way that is not definitive. The ordinary Magisterium is infallible when it proposes definitively. That is one of the conditions for the infallibility of the OUM.

The way that an infallible teaching of the OUM differs from an infallible teaching of the Extraordinary Magisterium, is the way in which the definitive proposal occurs (the way the condition is satisfied). If you read the chapter completely you will learn how this difference takes place. And you are not going to find it in the section of Van Noort that you quoted above. Van Noort has a section of the infallibility of the OUM. It is in that section that you will find out how the OUM proposes infallibly.

The book has over 1450 footnotes. Every argument in the book is backed up by multiple citations.

RobS,

I have posted questions for you earlier in this thread and waiting for your response.

One of these questions pertains to the ordinary magisterium. Paul VI openly stated that Vatican II was part of the ordinary magisterium, and as we know, he gave his full approval to the proceedings of the Council. Earlier in this thread I provided a large list of teachings from the Church showing the ordinary magisterium is always infallible. No exceptions. Waiting for your explanation on how this can be.

All of this is covered in the book. If you want all of the answers to your questions, simply read it. I didn't see your other post, but here is a very brief answer to the point you raised.

Some theologians (not all, but only some) make a speculative distinction between the ordinary magisterium and the authentic magisterium. They say the ordinary magisterium is infallible, whereas the authentic magisterium is not. This is a speculative distinction only.

The problem with this distinction on the practical level is how we are to know if a teaching is coming from the ordinary magisterium or the authentic magisterium? The reason this is a problem is because from our perspective - on the practical level - both appear identical. If you know how to distinguish between a teaching of the authentic magisterium and one coming from the ordinal magisterium, I am all ears.

This is why other theologians do not make this speculative distinction. Instead, they will simply say that the ordinary magisterium is infallible when it meets certain conditions, and it is not infallible when it does not.

Now, if you read the book you will see that Paul VI did not consider Vatican II to be infallible by virtue of the ordinary magisterium. One confirmation of this is that those teachings that have been proposed infallibly require the assent of faith, whereas those that have not been proposed infallibly only require a religious assent. At the close of Vatican II, Paul VI explicitly said that Vatican II is owed a religious assent. If everything in Vatican II was infallible, it would have required the assent of faith. Again, the book covers all of this is great detail and provides citations to back everything up.

RobS · « **Reply #323 on:** December 03, 2015, 11:45:45 AM »

Quote from: Bellator Dei

RobS,

You were asked a couple questions, that you never answered...

Quote from: Catholictrue
...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 provide the answers?

No, it does not have the approval of our local ordinary. Why not? Because we didn't ask for it.

McCork · « **Reply #324 on:** December 03, 2015, 11:46:27 AM »

Quote from: Cantarella

Quote from: Gregory I

HOW will anyone on earth DETERMINE this man OUGHT to be deposed without making a prudential judgment of the FACT beforehand? It's impossible!

The Thesis of Cassiciacuм (known as Sedeprivationism) is very clear on this point: Although the materialiter Pope has lost authority due to the absence of intention towards the common good of he Church; it is not however the laity, who is responsible for admonishing, warning, and ultimately making the Pope resign; but the competent authority of the Church: namely cardinals and bishops. I think it is possible and quite necessary at this point for the laity to create enough Catholic resistance (within the Church, of course) that the Bishops responsible of this will be practically obliged to act.

Actually, G1 is correct.

Bp. Michel Guerard, the very author of that thesis, made the moral judgment that JP2 was not a true pope. The moral judgment can be made by anyone, but only the Church can make the juridical judgment to force everyone to recognize it, and to make the way clear for a new election.