Quote from: 2Vermont

I love how Stubborn likes to trot out the super ad hominem, "Cekadian!", whenever someone writes something he doesn't like.


 :roll-laugh1:

Well, look at you. You've been out of the NO for what, a whole year now? Or is it two whole years? Three? Five?

I remember you saying that reading Fr. Cekada's works eventually led you to SVism - which is a shame really. In many of his writings it is plain to see the remnants of his 10 years of NO priestly formation before he discovered tradition, and his UOM version is one of those remnants. My guess is that for those who've done their time in the NO, they more easily accept his version because some of the same remnants of the NO remain in them as well.

And I never really intended for it to be a super ad hominem, just an appropriate label.

Fr Cekada believes and teaches what the Church teaches:  that the UOM is infallible.  You, on the other hand, believe heresy:  that the UOM is fallible.

Of course, I'm sure you'll provide Church teaching to support your heretical view....in ...3...2....

THIS:

The NO Magisterium will answer to God for their crimes, but we cannot follow them in their crimes - at least not without risking going to hell.

The Magisterium is not automatically infallible. If they do not teach that which the Church has always taught, teach that which enjoys the Church's universal and constant consent, teach that which the Church has infallibly and solemnly decreed, they can err - as the post V2 Magisterium proves.

I keep thinking and thinking and asking myself: "Is it really necessary to be Sedevacantist? Is it going too far? We know in principles of self-defense that we should meet opposing force with an equal force or that which is necessary to survive. Is it NECESSARY to go this far?"

 Here's the problem: I would CEASE to be a Sedevacantist right now IF it could be demonstrated that there is some kind of severability clause between Magisterial teaching and Magisterial authority. There is certainly no reason to go OVERBOARD in our defense of the truth, we should try to tread carefully, prudently, and meet each difficulty with a well-thought out reaction.

 ...But there is no severability clause.

 Here is what I mean: SSPX and SV will agree that Vatican II and the New Mass are evil. SV's and perhaps the SSPX-MC/Williamson/Fr. Gregory Hesse would go so far as to say these things cannot come from the Church. That is, these are not authentic acts of the Church's magisterium, her teaching. This is not what she ACTUALLY teaches.

 Ok, but it is necessary to go further, because it is not enough to say: "There is a contradiction." We must specify the NATURE of the Contradiction, which is Schism (in regard to Novus Ordo rites, see Cardinal Torquemada here: www.traditio.com/tradlib/popelim.txt), and Heresy (Unitatis Redintegratio, Dignitatis Humanae, Gaudium et Spes and Lumen Gentium).

 Now, the SSPX-MC MAY agree, Fr. Gregory Hesse definitely agrees, and the SV's assert it.

 BUT, we can't just leave it here either, saying, "Vatican II was schismatic and heretical and not of the Church." Because if we don't explain ourselves, WE become heretics too, because, by all appearances Vatican II was an act of the Supreme Ordinary Magisterium of the Church (As Paul VI said). It gathered all the bishops, they taught doctrine, issued pastoral decrees, reviewed liturgy and went home. These decrees were then promulgated in 1965 by a man calling himself Pope and were implemented by all the bishops of the world. Clearly, this is an act of the Supreme Church Authority, the Pope and the bishops in union with him.

 SO now is the difficulty: We CANNOT simply say that Vatican II was non-Catholic. It was issued apparently by the Magisterial authority of the Church, which is the Authority of Christ reigning in his Church. SO we must find a disconnect, there must be some MEANS whereby the apparent Magisterial Teaching was separated from the Magisterial Office, rendering it inauthentic, ACTUALLY Non-Catholic. Otherwise, the Church has defected , is unstable, and Christ is a liar, because he would be the author of heresy and schism. These things cannot be, so faith tells us that somewhere in all this mess Between the Man claiming to be Pope and the decrees issued, something got switched off. But what and where?

 WHERE, Oh WHERE is the severability clause between Magisterial teaching and Magisterial authority?

 There are a few options, all of which can effectively kill the authenticity of the magisterial teaching coming from the magisterial authority:

 1. Griff Ruby's thesis: that Vatican II defined into existence an office that is decidedly NOT Papal that the Pope actively accepted and occupied, therefore tacitly resigning his Papacy. An interesting theory, but the problem is it is difficult to prove.

 2. Sede-Impedism: That the Papal claimants were impostors, invalidly elected. This implies that there is a true hierarchy in exile, so technically the See is not Vacant, but is actively occupied by an exiled Pope. Possible.

 3. Sedeprivationism: That, due to public heresy on his part, the Pope has lost his jurisdiction, yet retains a valid election he has yet to accept, being impeded by heresy. Possible.

 4. Sedevacantism: That due to Public Heresy, the Pope has fallen from his office and been effectively deposed by Christ. Possible.

 5. Impostor Theories: That the actual Popes were replaced by doppelgangers. Too conspiracy-theory.

 6. Self- Excommunication? In the Papal Coronation Oath taken by Roncalli and Paul VI, they both stated: "Accordingly, without exclusion, We subject to severest excommunication anyone -- be it Ourselves or be it another -- who would dare to undertake anything new in contradiction to this constituted evangelic Tradition and the purity of the orthodox Faith and the Christian religion, or would seek to change anything by his opposing efforts, or would agree with those who undertake such a blasphemous venture." Is self-Excommunication like this possible?

 7. Excessive Duress? Can Excessive Duress render null Magisterial acts? This is often the excuse given for Liberius signing a semi-arian formula. Even if Paul VI was under excessive duress, his successors have ratified his acts and implemented them universally. Are they ALL under duress? Although if they WERE it WOULD negate the magisterial weight of Vatican II and the New Mass, because the Bishops ALONE cannot promulgate Universal Magisterium, it must be in union with the Pope. But if the Pope is morally unavailable, it could nullify it all.

 8. Bishop Williamsons "Mentevacantism," Because they are a kind of heretic (Modernist) that completely destroys Catholic sensibilities, they really have no idea what they are doing...ergo they are not really heretics???


 Of all these plausible scenarios, the simplest explanation ought to be the correct one:

 Vatican II contains heresy and errors. The Novus Ordo is Objectively Schismatic. Paul VI signed off on them and promoted the Novus Ordo and the teaching of Vatican II. Therefore, as a Public Heretic, he was deposed by Jesus Christ, ipso facto, fell from the dignity of his see, and ceased to have jurisdiction over the faithful. Insofar as his "successors" have done the same, they have incurred the same penalty. Therefore, the simplest and most basic explanation for what has happened to the Church is: Sedevacantism/Sedeprivationism. We have no Pope because he abandoned his office through publically espousing heresy, as did all his successors.

 If there is a more FUNDAMENTAL disconnect, some kind of formality that is LACKING which I don't know about, which may render the Magisterial teaching invalid, I would accept it. But I don't know of any. Only perhaps Duress, which cannot be demonstrated universally, or even really particularly.

 Therefore, BECAUSE the Church is indefectible, and BECAUSE the Magisterium of the Church is the Authority of Christ and his reign in the Church, and BECAUSE it would be blasphemous to attribute to Christ heresy and schism and BECAUSE there is no means of disconnecting Magisterial teaching from Magisterial authority, in order to be innocent of blaspheming Christ, we must say:

 Sede Vacante. it is the only way to disconnect the Person claiming authority from the exercise of authority in the Name of Christ. Faith demands it in these circuмstances.

Quote from: Stubborn

Quote from: 2Vermont

I love how Stubborn likes to trot out the super ad hominem, "Cekadian!", whenever someone writes something he doesn't like.


 :roll-laugh1:

Well, look at you. You've been out of the NO for what, a whole year now? Or is it two whole years? Three? Five?

I remember you saying that reading Fr. Cekada's works eventually led you to SVism - which is a shame really. In many of his writings it is plain to see the remnants of his 10 years of NO priestly formation before he discovered tradition, and his UOM version is one of those remnants. My guess is that for those who've done their time in the NO, they more easily accept his version because some of the same remnants of the NO remain in them as well.

And I never really intended for it to be a super ad hominem, just an appropriate label.

Ladies and gentleman, here is the work of a real 19th century theologian explaining the UOM and how to apply it:

The Ordinary and Universal Magisterium

AD. Tanquerey, A Manual of Dogmatic Theology, transl. by Rev. Msgr. John J. Byrnes, Desclee, New York, 1959, pp. 176-182. All emphasis in the original.


Tract V, The Sources Of Revelation, Tradition, The Organs of Tradition.

B The Ordinary and Universal Magisterium of the Church.1


The ordinary and universal magisterium is that which is carried on daily through the continuous preaching of the Church among all peoples. It includes:

1. The preaching and proclamations of the Corporate Body of Bishops,
2. universal custom or practice associated with dogma,
3. the consensus or agreement of the Fathers and of the Theologians,
4. the common or general understanding of the faithful. 2

1. The Morally Unanimous Preaching (Teaching) of the Bishops

290 Bishops teach the flock entrusted and subject to them by means of catechisms, by synodal directives, mandates, and in public sermons. If it is evident from these docuмents that some doctrine is being set forth universally as an object of faith, then nothing else is required for this doctrine to be accepted de fide. Bishops spread throughout the world, but with the Roman Pontiff forming one Corporate Body, are infallible when declaring a teaching on faith or morals.

2. Practice of the Church Associated with Dogma

291 Among the customs and practices which have been closely joined to dogma we mention especially the public rites used in the solemn celebration of the sacrifice, or in the administration of the sacraments; also the formulas of prayers and various feasts or offices instituted by the Church; or sacred practices which have been associated with doctrine.

For a practice of the Church to become a criterion of faith there are two requirements:

a. that the practice be necessarily connected with the dogmatic truth; for in imposing a practice or custom, the Church by that very fact orders that dogmas connected with this practice must be adhered to;

b. that a custom of this kind be universal or approved at least tacitly by infallible authority; for only the universal Church enjoys infallibility. Therefore, a custom or practice of one particular Church produces only a probable argument for revealed truth. The Roman Liturgy, approved in a special manner by the Supreme Pontiffs, cannot contain errors in dogma. Historical mistakes can creep in, and, as a matter of fact, they have slipped into the legends in the Breviary, as the best critics admit. But this fact is easily understood because the special lessons of the Second Nocturns were written at a time when apocryphal works were being spread abroad. Nevertheless, these lessons should not be despised because many points contained in them are true and are suitable for fostering piety and goodness.

3. The Agreement of the Fathers and of the Theologians

a. The Authority of the Fathers

292 1. Who are the Fathers? The Fathers are those men, distinguished for their sanctity and their doctrine, who in the first centuries made the Church renowned by their writings, and who received full approbation from the Church, at least in an implicit manner. In order to recognize these men, we should look for four marks or signs: renowned and orthodox teaching, holiness of life, antiquity, and the approbation of the Church. Among the ecclesiastical writers some have been adorned with the title, Doctor of the Church, because they have surpassed others with their superior knowledge. Of these eight are the major Doctors of the Church, the others are called the minor Doctors.

293 2. Rules concerning the Authority of the Fathers.

a. Introductory notes. In order to make a study of the teaching of the Fathers, we must pay attention to the laws of historical criticism. We may consider the Fathers either as private doctors or as witnesses to the Church or to the faith.

1) They are regarded as private doctors when they reason and present their arguments in the manner of the philosophers, when they make use of analogies or comparisons, or propose their own opinion in such a way that they do not exclude the contrary opinion.

2) They speak as witnesses to the Church when they teach that a doctrine has been revealed, or has been accepted by the universal Church, or that a doctrine must be so held that it cannot be denied without the loss of faith or cannot be called into doubt. Similarly they speak as witnesses to the faith when they assert that a contrary opinion is heretical or opposed to the word of God.

If they speak as private doctors, their authority is only as great as is their knowledge or as is the force of their arguments; but if they speak as witnesses for the Church, they manifest not their own mind, but the faith of the infallible Church.

b. Rules to be followed:

1) The morally unanimous agreement of the Fathers declaring that a doctrine is de fide is a certain argument of divine Tradition. Three conditions are necessary that an argument be considered certain: that it relate to a doctrine pertaining to faith or morals; that the testimony be free of doubt, that it be firm and that the Fathers declare positively that the doctrine is a doctrine of the Church; that the agreement of the Fathers be not mathematically but morally unanimous. For in this way the faith or belief of the universal Church can be certainly known. With these conditions posited, it can be said that the Fathers record the teaching of the universal Church. But the Church is infallible in teaching Christ’s doctrine.

Further, in order that an argument may be regarded as completely certain, the moral unanimity of the Fathers of one age is required and is sufficient.3 The Church at all times is indefectible and so in no age can it be guilty of error.

2) The testimony of one Father or of many Fathers in matters of faith and of morals is a probable argument, the force of which increases as the number and authority of the Fathers increase.

3) When the Fathers disagree, then their authority offers no firm argument; rather it proves that the matter on hand has not been explicitly defined; for if a matter had been clearly defined, then the Fathers could not have defended the contrary opinion without being condemned by the Church as heretics. If the disagreement is manifest, we must confess that certain Fathers have erred: for as individuals they are fallible. But if their words are doubtful, they must be explained by referring to subject matter which is clearer. In every case their words must be treated with respect; we must not attribute error to them because they have had no knowledge of the more explicit definitions of a following age.

b. The Authority of Theologians

294 After the Patristic age Theologians arranged in logical order the doctrines contained in Scripture and in Tradition and they explained these doctrines with the help of philosophical reasoning. These theologians can be considered as witnesses to the faith or as private doctors. They should not be esteemed lightly no matter what the Protestants, Modernists or other adversaries alleged against them.

In regard to their authority the following rules should he admitted:

1. When theologians unanimously teach that something is not only true but also that it must be accepted in Catholic faith, such consensus on their part presents a certain argument;

2. If all proclaim some doctrine in regard to faith and morals as true or certain, it is rash to reject this doctrine;

3. If there is a division of opinion among the different schools, even if the theologians of one school hold their opinion as certain or as very close to faith, no obligation exists of accepting such an opinion.


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.


Notes:
1. VACANT, La magistére ordinaire de l’Eglise et ses organes.
2. We should note that the words: Fathers, theologians, and the faithful refer to the Church Hearing, not to the Church Teaching.
3. In this case the argument has force only for Catholics who admit the infallibility of the Church; but when the Fathers of different times and from different places agree on some dogma, then we have an apologetical argument for non-Catholics since it is evident from this argument that our faith is the same as the faith of the Apostles.
4. In the decree Lamentabili proposition 6a is condemned “The Church learning and the Church teaching collaborate in such a way in defining truths that it remains for the Church teaching only to sanction the Opinions of the Church learning”. D.B., 2006.

Here is a working method for you, from Tanquerey in 1894.

Or is that too MODERN???

This is all very well but where is this Ordinary and Universal Magisterium found today, 24 of November in the year of Our Lord 2015?. If there is no current Magisterium nor teaching authority, then where the sedevacantists are learning their Catholicism from? The Magisterium must always exist and is visible. To say otherwise is heresy.

Please provide real answers as if you actually understood the topic instead of cut & paste treaties.

Quote from: Cantarella

Quote from: Gregory I

Quote from: Stubborn

Quote from: 2Vermont

I love how Stubborn likes to trot out the super ad hominem, "Cekadian!", whenever someone writes something he doesn't like.


 :roll-laugh1:

Well, look at you. You've been out of the NO for what, a whole year now? Or is it two whole years? Three? Five?

I remember you saying that reading Fr. Cekada's works eventually led you to SVism - which is a shame really. In many of his writings it is plain to see the remnants of his 10 years of NO priestly formation before he discovered tradition, and his UOM version is one of those remnants. My guess is that for those who've done their time in the NO, they more easily accept his version because some of the same remnants of the NO remain in them as well.

And I never really intended for it to be a super ad hominem, just an appropriate label.

Ladies and gentleman, here is the work of a real 19th century theologian explaining the UOM and how to apply it:

The Ordinary and Universal Magisterium

AD. Tanquerey, A Manual of Dogmatic Theology, transl. by Rev. Msgr. John J. Byrnes, Desclee, New York, 1959, pp. 176-182. All emphasis in the original.


Tract V, The Sources Of Revelation, Tradition, The Organs of Tradition.

B The Ordinary and Universal Magisterium of the Church.1


The ordinary and universal magisterium is that which is carried on daily through the continuous preaching of the Church among all peoples. It includes:

1. The preaching and proclamations of the Corporate Body of Bishops,
2. universal custom or practice associated with dogma,
3. the consensus or agreement of the Fathers and of the Theologians,
4. the common or general understanding of the faithful. 2

1. The Morally Unanimous Preaching (Teaching) of the Bishops

290 Bishops teach the flock entrusted and subject to them by means of catechisms, by synodal directives, mandates, and in public sermons. If it is evident from these docuмents that some doctrine is being set forth universally as an object of faith, then nothing else is required for this doctrine to be accepted de fide. Bishops spread throughout the world, but with the Roman Pontiff forming one Corporate Body, are infallible when declaring a teaching on faith or morals.

2. Practice of the Church Associated with Dogma

291 Among the customs and practices which have been closely joined to dogma we mention especially the public rites used in the solemn celebration of the sacrifice, or in the administration of the sacraments; also the formulas of prayers and various feasts or offices instituted by the Church; or sacred practices which have been associated with doctrine.

For a practice of the Church to become a criterion of faith there are two requirements:

a. that the practice be necessarily connected with the dogmatic truth; for in imposing a practice or custom, the Church by that very fact orders that dogmas connected with this practice must be adhered to;

b. that a custom of this kind be universal or approved at least tacitly by infallible authority; for only the universal Church enjoys infallibility. Therefore, a custom or practice of one particular Church produces only a probable argument for revealed truth. The Roman Liturgy, approved in a special manner by the Supreme Pontiffs, cannot contain errors in dogma. Historical mistakes can creep in, and, as a matter of fact, they have slipped into the legends in the Breviary, as the best critics admit. But this fact is easily understood because the special lessons of the Second Nocturns were written at a time when apocryphal works were being spread abroad. Nevertheless, these lessons should not be despised because many points contained in them are true and are suitable for fostering piety and goodness.

3. The Agreement of the Fathers and of the Theologians

a. The Authority of the Fathers

292 1. Who are the Fathers? The Fathers are those men, distinguished for their sanctity and their doctrine, who in the first centuries made the Church renowned by their writings, and who received full approbation from the Church, at least in an implicit manner. In order to recognize these men, we should look for four marks or signs: renowned and orthodox teaching, holiness of life, antiquity, and the approbation of the Church. Among the ecclesiastical writers some have been adorned with the title, Doctor of the Church, because they have surpassed others with their superior knowledge. Of these eight are the major Doctors of the Church, the others are called the minor Doctors.

293 2. Rules concerning the Authority of the Fathers.

a. Introductory notes. In order to make a study of the teaching of the Fathers, we must pay attention to the laws of historical criticism. We may consider the Fathers either as private doctors or as witnesses to the Church or to the faith.

1) They are regarded as private doctors when they reason and present their arguments in the manner of the philosophers, when they make use of analogies or comparisons, or propose their own opinion in such a way that they do not exclude the contrary opinion.

2) They speak as witnesses to the Church when they teach that a doctrine has been revealed, or has been accepted by the universal Church, or that a doctrine must be so held that it cannot be denied without the loss of faith or cannot be called into doubt. Similarly they speak as witnesses to the faith when they assert that a contrary opinion is heretical or opposed to the word of God.

If they speak as private doctors, their authority is only as great as is their knowledge or as is the force of their arguments; but if they speak as witnesses for the Church, they manifest not their own mind, but the faith of the infallible Church.

b. Rules to be followed:

1) The morally unanimous agreement of the Fathers declaring that a doctrine is de fide is a certain argument of divine Tradition. Three conditions are necessary that an argument be considered certain: that it relate to a doctrine pertaining to faith or morals; that the testimony be free of doubt, that it be firm and that the Fathers declare positively that the doctrine is a doctrine of the Church; that the agreement of the Fathers be not mathematically but morally unanimous. For in this way the faith or belief of the universal Church can be certainly known. With these conditions posited, it can be said that the Fathers record the teaching of the universal Church. But the Church is infallible in teaching Christ’s doctrine.

Further, in order that an argument may be regarded as completely certain, the moral unanimity of the Fathers of one age is required and is sufficient.3 The Church at all times is indefectible and so in no age can it be guilty of error.

2) The testimony of one Father or of many Fathers in matters of faith and of morals is a probable argument, the force of which increases as the number and authority of the Fathers increase.

3) When the Fathers disagree, then their authority offers no firm argument; rather it proves that the matter on hand has not been explicitly defined; for if a matter had been clearly defined, then the Fathers could not have defended the contrary opinion without being condemned by the Church as heretics. If the disagreement is manifest, we must confess that certain Fathers have erred: for as individuals they are fallible. But if their words are doubtful, they must be explained by referring to subject matter which is clearer. In every case their words must be treated with respect; we must not attribute error to them because they have had no knowledge of the more explicit definitions of a following age.

b. The Authority of Theologians

294 After the Patristic age Theologians arranged in logical order the doctrines contained in Scripture and in Tradition and they explained these doctrines with the help of philosophical reasoning. These theologians can be considered as witnesses to the faith or as private doctors. They should not be esteemed lightly no matter what the Protestants, Modernists or other adversaries alleged against them.

In regard to their authority the following rules should he admitted:

1. When theologians unanimously teach that something is not only true but also that it must be accepted in Catholic faith, such consensus on their part presents a certain argument;

2. If all proclaim some doctrine in regard to faith and morals as true or certain, it is rash to reject this doctrine;

3. If there is a division of opinion among the different schools, even if the theologians of one school hold their opinion as certain or as very close to faith, no obligation exists of accepting such an opinion.


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.


Notes:
1. VACANT, La magistére ordinaire de l’Eglise et ses organes.
2. We should note that the words: Fathers, theologians, and the faithful refer to the Church Hearing, not to the Church Teaching.
3. In this case the argument has force only for Catholics who admit the infallibility of the Church; but when the Fathers of different times and from different places agree on some dogma, then we have an apologetical argument for non-Catholics since it is evident from this argument that our faith is the same as the faith of the Apostles.
4. In the decree Lamentabili proposition 6a is condemned “The Church learning and the Church teaching collaborate in such a way in defining truths that it remains for the Church teaching only to sanction the Opinions of the Church learning”. D.B., 2006.

Here is a working method for you, from Tanquerey in 1894.

Or is that too MODERN???

This is all very well but where is this Ordinary and Universal Magisterium found today, 24 of November of the year of Our Lord 2015?. If there is no current Magisterium nor teaching authority, then where the sedevacantists are learning their Catholicism from? The Magisterium must always exist and is visible. To say otherwise is heresy.

Where are any Catholics learning their Catholicism from?  Certainly not Francis and his cohorts.

The point was about the visibility and material continuity of the Magisterium pre / post Vatican II Council, which Ecclesia-Vacantism does not allow for, thanks to a supposed Episcopal mass apostasy; not the orthodoxy of Pope Francis you read in the Jєωιѕн media and Novus Ordo Watch.  

Right Here with our bishops.

Even if false hierarchs, while being in heresy, “will succeed in deceiving and enticing a certain number of ignorant ones and in gathering even a considerable number of followers, then they are outside the sacred walls of the Church just the same. But even if very few remain in Orthodoxy and piety, they are in the Church, and the authority and the protection of the ecclesiastical institution resides in them. And if they should suffer for true piety, then this will undoubtedly contribute to their eternal glory and salvation of their souls.”

St. Nicephorus the Confessor [ PG 100, 844D]

Care to reveal the identity of the Catholic Bishops currently holding the keys of the Magisterium during this prolonged inter--regnum? A lone self - proclaimed "bishop" in the wilderness does not count.

Quote from: Arvinger

Quote from: Stubborn

Quote from: Arvinger

Quote from: Stubborn

We refuse to obey popes and the magisterium because they want us to offend God.

I have never read a statement which would expose the absurdity of R&R position more clearly and forcefully than this one.

I'm pretty sure that's because you've been duped into embracing the Cekadian version of the "always automatically infallible  UOM".

This has nothing to do with infallibility, everything to do with indefectibility of the Church. If the Magisterium went astray so far to command you to directly offend God it means that Mother Church has defected. What you effectively promote (although I'm sure thats not what you intend to say) is denial of indefectibility of the Church. R&R supporters usually don't realize it and rather focus on the doctrine on infallibility, missing indefectibility.

Well, at least I have a Magisterium, as such, there is always hope that through the grace of God they could convert, regain their sanctity and do what they can to lead the Church out of this mess. That is why as Catholics, we are bound to pray for them daily.

So you have a Magisterium which consistently teaches grave error for last 50 years leading vast majority of the Church astray to offend God. If this is not defection of the Church, I don't know what is. R&R effectively denies Church's indefectibility.

The correct term for this is Ecclesia-Vacantism and is explained beautifully by Nishant right below. Since there is currently no solution to sedevacantism stricto sensu it irremediably leads the sedevacantist into a position of Ecclesia - Vacantism, which is manifestly heretical. Can a pious sedevacantist step in here and explain how exactly (if he is really willing to follow the end of his personal conclusions) can he NOT fall into the following heretical proposition?

Some sedevacantists (most prominently John Lane) reply to this argument by saying that an anti-Pope can validly appoint bishops on the basis of supplied jurisdiction for the good of the Church. But in general I agree, Apostolic Succession is the biggest problem of sedevacantism - where are the bishops with ordinary jurisdiction (succession of Holy Orders is not enough to maintain Apostolic Succession)? This is why sedeprivationism seems very probable to me, as it removes this obstacle, and it also avoids the errors of R&R.