Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => Crisis in the Church => Topic started by: cathman7 on November 23, 2015, 08:03:16 PM
-
I post this for informational purposes only. I may get this book. It is being published by STAS Editions, the publishing arm of the SSPX seminary in the US.
http://www.trueorfalsepope.com/
TRUE OR FALSE POPE?
Refuting Sedevacantism and Other Modern Errors
By John Salza and Robert Siscoe, 700 pages
Foreword by His Excellency, Bishop Bernard Fellay
Sneak Peak (http://trueorfalsepope.com/True%20or%20False%20Pope%20-%20Sneak%20Peak.pdf)
TABLE OF CONTENTS AND PREFACE
True or False Pope? is the most thoroughly researched, detailed and systematic refutation of Sedevacantism that exists. In this 700 page tome, John Salza and Robert Siscoe present material from Popes, ecuмenical councils and Doctors of the Church that you will never find on a Sedevacantist website. Quoting directly from today’s leading Sedevacantist apologists, Salza and Siscoe reveal how Sedevacantists have distorted the teachings of their favorite Popes and theologians, especially St. Robert Bellarmine, and how they even contradict each other. The book also reveals the many unfortunate tactics used by Sedevacantists in an effort to “prove” their case, that is, to defend what is indefensible.
The authors begin by demonstrating that Sedevacantism logically results in a heretical denial of the attributes (visibility, indefectibility, infallibility) and marks (especially apostolicity) of the Catholic Church. After explaining the bonds that unite man to the true Church, the authors explain the distinction between heresy and lesser errors, and how the sin of heresy alone does not sever one from the Church. The authors then go on to provide the most detailed analysis in print of what the Church does in the case of a heretical Pope, based upon the teachings of all the classical theologians who addressed the topic. After a very important explanation of the scope of infallibility (papal, conciliar, disciplinary, New Mass, canonizations), the authors tackle and refute the Sedevacantist arguments against the new rites of episcopal consecration and ordination. The authors conclude by affirming the Recognize & Resist position of Traditional Catholics, and expose in great detail the bitter fruits of Sedevacantism.
This groundbreaking work proves the Sedevacantist thesis is an overreaction to the crisis in the Church, akin to the reflexive “faith” of Protestantism. This explains why Sedevacantists are divided into many competing factions and sects that even condemn each other, and some of these sects have also elected their own “Popes.” The book also underscores that the Church is currently suffering a mystical Passion similar to that of Our Lord Jesus Christ. Like those who lost faith in Christ during His Passion, Sedevacantists have lost faith in the Church, His Mystical Body. And, in doing so, they have become among her most bitter persecutors. No matter what one’s perspective is on the crisis of the Church, anyone who reads this book will conclude in no uncertain terms that Sedevacantism – one of the great modern errors of our times – far from being a “solution” to the crisis, cannot be held or defended in good faith by any true Catholic.
-
I count 7 fallacies in this preview, not to mention red herrings and ad hominem. Doesn't bode well. The opening alone is easily refutable.
Pity, 'twould be nice to encounter fresh material...
-
TRUE OR FALSE POPE?
Refuting Sedevacantism and Other Modern Errors
By John Salza and Robert Siscoe, 700 pages
Foreword by His Excellency, Bishop Bernard Fellay
Sneak Peak
TABLE OF CONTENTS AND PREFACE
True or False Pope? is the most thoroughly researched, detailed and systematic refutation of Sedevacantism that exists. In this 700 page tome, John Salza and Robert Siscoe present material from Popes, ecuмenical councils and Doctors of the Church that you will never find on a Sedevacantist website.
Doubtful.
Quoting directly from today’s leading Sedevacantist apologists, Salza and Siscoe reveal how Sedevacantists have distorted the teachings of their favorite Popes and theologians, especially St. Robert Bellarmine, and how they even contradict each other. The book also reveals the many unfortunate tactics used by Sedevacantists in an effort to “prove” their case, that is, to defend what is indefensible.
Well what does St. Robert Bellarmine SAY?
:popcorn:
"The fourth opinion is that of Cajetan, for whom (de auctor. papae et con., cap. 20 et 21) the manifestly heretical Pope is not “ipso facto” deposed, but can and must be deposed by the Church. To my judgment, this opinion cannot be defended. For, in the first place, it is proven with arguments from authority and from reason that the manifest heretic is “ipso facto” deposed. The argument from authority is based on St. Paul (Titus, c. 3), who orders that the heretic be avoided after two warnings, that is, after showing himself to be manifestly obstinate — which means before any excommunication or judicial sentence. And this is what St. Jerome writes, adding that the other sinners are excluded from the Church by sentence of excommunication, but the heretics exile themselves and separate themselves by their own act from the body of Christ. Now, a Pope who remains Pope cannot be avoided, for how could we be required to avoid our own head? How can we separate ourselves from a member united to us? This principle is most certain. The non-Christian cannot in any way be Pope, as Cajetan himself admits (ib. c. 26). The reason for this is that he cannot be head of what he is not a member; now he who is not a Christian is not a member of the Church, and a manifest heretic is not a Christian, as is clearly taught by St. Cyprian (lib. 4, epist. 2), St. Athanasius (Scr. 2 cont. Arian.), St. Augustine (lib. de great. Christ. cap. 20), St. Jerome (contra Lucifer.) and others; therefore the manifest heretic cannot be Pope. To this Cajetan responds (in Apol. pro tract. praedicto cap. 25 et in ipso tract. cap. 22) that the heretic is not a Christian “simpliciter” [i.e. without qualification, or absolutely], but is one “secundum quid” [i.e. in a qualified or relative sense]. For, granted that two things constitute the Christian — the faith and the [baptismal] character — the heretic, having lost the faith, is still in some way united to the Church and is capable of jurisdiction; therefore, he is also Pope, but ought to be removed, since he is disposed, with ultimate disposition, to cease to be Pope: as the man who is still not dead but is “in extremis” [at the point of death]. Against this: in the first place, if the heretic remained, “in actu” [actually], united to the Church in virtue of the character, he would never be able to be cut or separated from her “in actu,” for the character is indelible. But there is no one who denies that some people may be separated “in actu” from the Church. Therefore, the character does not make the heretic be “in actu” in the Church, but is only a sign that he was in the Church and that he must return to her. Analogously, when a sheep wanders lost in the mountains, the mark impressed on it does not make it be in the fold, but indicates from which fold it had fled and to which fold it ought to be brought back. This truth has a confirmation in St. Thomas who says (Summ. Theol. III, q. 8, a. 3) that those who do not have the faith are not united “in actu” to Christ, but only potentially — and St. Thomas here refers to the internal union, and not to the external which is produced by the confession of faith and visible signs. Therefore, as the character is something internal, and not external, according to St. Thomas the character alone does not unite a man, “in actu,” to Christ. Further against the argument of Cajetan: either faith is a disposition necessary “simpliciter” for someone to be Pope, or it is only necessary for someone to be a good Pope [“ad bene esse,” to exist well, to be good, as opposed to simply existing]. In the first hypothesis, in case this disposition be eliminated by the contrary disposition, which is heresy, the Pope immediately ceases to be Pope: for the form cannot maintain itself without the necessary dispositions. In the second hypothesis, the Pope cannot be deposed by reason of heresy, for otherwise he would also have to be deposed for ignorance, immorality, and other similar causes, which impede the knowledge, the morality, and the other dispositions necessary for him to be a good Pope (“ad bene esse papae”). In addition to this, Cajetan recognises (tract. praed., ca. 26) that the Pope cannot be deposed for the lack of dispositions necessary, not “simpliciter,” but only “ad bene esse.” To this, Cajetan responds that faith is a disposition necessary “simpliciter,” but partial, and not total; and that, therefore, even if his faith disappears he can still continue being Pope, by reason of the other part of the disposition, the character, which still endures. Against this argument: either the total disposition, constituted by the character and by faith, is necessary “simpliciter,” or it is not, the partial disposition then being sufficient. In the first hypothesis, the faith disappearing there no longer remains the disposition “simpliciter” necessary, for the disposition “simpliciter” necessary was the total, and the total no longer exists. In the second hypothesis, the faith is only necessary “ad bene esse,” and therefore its absence does not justify the deposition of the Pope. In addition to this, what finds itself in the ultimate disposition to death, immediately thereafter ceases to exist, without the intervention of any other external force, as is obvious; therefore, also the Pope heretic ceases to be Pope by himself, without any deposition. Finally, the Holy Fathers teach unanimously not only that heretics are outside of the Church, but also that they are “ipso facto” deprived of all ecclesiastical jurisdiction and dignity. St. Cyprian (lib. 2, epist. 6) says: “We affirm that absolutely no heretic or schismatic has any power or right”; and he also teaches (lib. 2, epist. 1) that the heretics who return to the Church must be received as laymen, even though they have been formerly priests or bishops in the Church. St. Optatus (lib. 1 cont. Parmen.) teaches that heretics and schismatics cannot have the keys of the kingdom of heaven, nor bind nor loose. St. Ambrose (lib. 1 de poenit., ca. 2), St. Augustine (in Enchir., cap 65), St. Jerome (lib. cont. Lucifer.) teach the same. Pope St. Celestine I (epist. ad Jo. Antioch., which appears in Conc. Ephes., tom. I, cap. 19) wrote: “It is evident that he [who has been excommunicated by Nestorius] has remained and remains in communion with us, and that we do not consider destituted [i.e. deprived of office, by judgment of Nestorius], anyone who has been excommunicated or deprived of his charge, either episcopal or clerical, by Bishop Nestorius or by the others who followed him, after they commenced preaching heresy. For he who had already shown himself as deserving to be excommunicated, could not excommunicate anyone by his sentence.” And in a letter to the clergy of Constantinople, Pope St. Celestine I says: “The authority of Our Apostolic See has determined that the bishop, cleric, or simple Christian who had been deposed or excommunicated by Nestorius or his followers, after the latter began to preach heresy shall not be considered deposed or excommunicated. For he who had defected from the faith with such preachings, cannot depose or remove anyone whatsoever.” St. Nicholas I (epist. ad Michael) repeats and confirms the same. Finally, St. Thomas also teaches (S. Theol., II-II, q. 39, a. 3) that schismatics immediately lose all jurisdiction, and that anything they try to do on the basis of any jurisdiction will be null. There is no basis for that which some respond to this: that these Fathers based themselves on ancient law, while nowadays, by decree of the Council of Constance, they alone lose their jurisdiction who are excommunicated by name or who assault clerics. This argument, I say, has no value at all, for those Fathers, in affirming that heretics lose jurisdiction, did not cite any human law, which furthermore perhaps did not exist in relation to the matter, but argued on the basis of the very nature of heresy. The Council of Constance only deals with the excommunicated, that is, those who have lost jurisdiction by sentence of the Church, while heretics already before being excommunicated are outside the Church and deprived of all jurisdiction. For they have already been condemned by their own sentence, as the Apostle teaches (Tit. 3:10-11), that is, they have been cut off from the body of the Church without excommunication, as St. Jerome affirms. Besides that, the second affirmation of Cajetan, that the Pope heretic can be truly and authoritatively deposed by the Church, is no less false than the first. For if the Church deposes the Pope against his will it is certainly above the Pope; however, Cajetan himself defends, in the same treatise, the contrary of this. Cajetan responds that the Church, in deposing the Pope, does not have authority over the Pope, but only over the link that unites the person to the pontificate. In the same way that the Church in uniting the pontificate to such a person, is not, because of this, above the Pontiff, so also the Church can separate the pontificate from such a person in case of heresy, without saying that it is above the Pope. But contrary to this it must be observed in the first place that, from the fact that the Pope deposes bishops, it is deduced that the Pope is above all the bishops, though the Pope on deposing a bishop does not destroy the episcopal jurisdiction, but only separates it from that person. In the second place, to depose anyone from the pontificate against the will of the deposed, is without doubt punishing him; however, to punish is proper to a superior or to a judge. In the third place, given that according to Cajetan and the other Thomists, in reality the whole and the parts taken as a whole are the same thing, he who has authority over the parts taken as a whole, being able to separate them one from another, has also authority over the whole itself which is constituted by those parts. The example of the electors, who have the power to designate a certain person for the pontificate, without however having power over the Pope, given by Cajetan, is also destitute of value. For when something is being made, the action is exercised over the matter of the future thing, and not over the composite, which does not yet exist, but when a thing is destroyed, the action is exercised over the composite, as becomes patent on consideration of the things of nature. Therefore, on creating the Pontiff, the cardinals do not exercise their authority over the Pontiff for he does not yet exist, but over the matter, that is, over the person who by the election becomes disposed to receive the pontificate from God. But if they deposed the Pontiff, they would necessarily exercise authority over the composite, that is, over the person endowed with the pontifical power, that is, over the Pontiff. Therefore, the true opinion is the fifth, according to which the Pope who is manifestly a heretic ceases by himself to be Pope and head, in the same way as he ceases to be a Christian and a member of the body of the Church; and for this reason he can be judged and punished by the Church. This is the opinion of all the ancient Fathers, who teach that manifest heretics immediately lose all jurisdiction, and outstandingly that of St. Cyprian (lib. 4, epist. 2) who speaks as follows of Novatian, who was Pope [i.e. antipope] in the schism which occurred during the pontificate of St. Cornelius: “He would not be able to retain the episcopate [i.e. of Rome], and, if he was made bishop before, he separated himself from the body of those who were, like him, bishops, and from the unity of the Church.” According to what St. Cyprian affirms in this passage, even had Novatian been the true and legitimate Pope, he would have automatically fallen from the pontificate, if he separated himself from the Church. This is the opinion of great recent doctors, as John Driedo (lib. 4 de Script. et dogmat. Eccles., cap. 2, par. 2, sent. 2), who teaches that only they separate themselves from the Church who are expelled, like the excommunicated, and those who depart by themselves from her or oppose her, as heretics and schismatics. And in his seventh affirmation, he maintains that in those who turn away from the Church, there remains absolutely no spiritual power over those who are in the Church. Melchior Cano says the same (lib. 4 de loc., cap. 2), teaching that heretics are neither parts nor members of the Church, and that it cannot even be conceived that anyone could be head and Pope, without being member and part (cap. ult. ad argument. 12). And he teaches in the same place, in plain words, that occult heretics are still of the Church, they are parts and members, and that therefore the Pope who is an occult heretic is still Pope. This is also the opinion of the other authors whom we cite in book I De Ecclesia. The foundation of this argument is that the manifest heretic is not in any way a member of the Church, that is, neither spiritually nor corporally, which signifies that he is not such by internal union nor by external union. For even bad Catholics [i.e. who are not heretics] are united and are members, spiritually by faith, corporally by confession of faith and by participation in the visible sacraments; the occult heretics are united and are members although only by external union; on the contrary, the good catechumens belong to the Church only by an internal union, not by the external; but manifest heretics do not pertain in any manner, as we have already proved."
See more at: http://www.cmri.org/02-bellarmine-roman-pontiff.html#sthash.WwmzYSLU.dpuf
Is THAT enough context?????????
The authors begin by demonstrating that Sedevacantism logically results in a heretical denial of the attributes (visibility, indefectibility, infallibility) and marks (especially apostolicity) of the Catholic Church.
Lol. That is funny. Last I checked there are bishops, priests and deacons which are the elements of the Visible institutional Church. Even if none had Jurisdiction, the ability to obtain it remains in the Church, because she possesses the Papacy in potential and could in theory elect a Pope for herself who would grant her bishops jurisdiction.
The only ones who admit the Church is defectible are the RnR legal bar who are willing to assert that the heresies of Vatican II are the work of the Church's Magisterium, and therefore ultimately of Christ, which is blasphemous.
After explaining the bonds that unite man to the true Church, the authors explain the distinction between heresy and lesser errors, and how the sin of heresy alone does not sever one from the Church.
Ah, very conniving, because they are CORRECT, BUT they are making a smoke screen. They will argue: "Suppose a person gets in an argument with another person and in that argument says something heretical and refuses to retract it. Is he severed from the Church???"
No, he is not, because he is a SECRET heretic. He is subjectively guilty of the sin of heresy, but his excommunication is not ipso facto because it is not PUBLIC and MANIFEST. However, PUBLIC heretics fall from their office and lose jurisdiction ipso facto, as Bellarmine says above.
The authors then go on to provide the most detailed analysis in print of what the Church does in the case of a heretical Pope, based upon the teachings of all the classical theologians who addressed the topic.
What the Church chooses to DO to a manifestly Heretical Pope is quite distinct from the reality of Divine Law which states that a Public Heretic loses his office. What are being confused here are two things: Divine Law, and the appropriate application of canon law. Apples and oranges.
After a very important explanation of the scope of infallibility (papal, conciliar, disciplinary, New Mass, canonizations), the authors tackle and refute the Sedevacantist arguments against the new rites of episcopal consecration and ordination.
The authors conclude by affirming the Recognize & Resist position of Traditional Catholics, and expose in great detail the bitter fruits of Sedevacantism.
I can't wait. lol.
This groundbreaking work proves the Sedevacantist thesis is an overreaction to the crisis in the Church, akin to the reflexive “faith” of Protestantism. This explains why Sedevacantists are divided into many competing factions and sects that even condemn each other, and some of these sects have also elected their own “Popes.”
Those would actually be CONCLAVISTS, not Sedevacantists. Is it any surprise that when the shepherd is struck the sheep will scatter?
The book also underscores that the Church is currently suffering a mystical Passion similar to that of Our Lord Jesus Christ. Like those who lost faith in Christ during His Passion, Sedevacantists have lost faith in the Church, His Mystical Body.
That's not true, they just claim the Novus Ordo isn't it. The Traditionalists are.
And, in doing so, they have become among her most bitter persecutors. No matter what one’s perspective is on the crisis of the Church, anyone who reads this book will conclude in no uncertain terms that Sedevacantism – one of the great modern errors of our times – far from being a “solution” to the crisis, cannot be held or defended in good faith by any true Catholic.
Then you will have to explain how St. Vincent Ferrer became a sedevacantist. He realized Pope Benedict XIII of Avignon was not willing to lay down his papacy in order to restore order in the Church and resolve the great western schism. So, to his face, he said that since Benedict XIII was unwilling to heal the Church, he had become schismatic. He therefore declared the Papal throne vacant, to his face, and refused to recognize the claimants of Rome or Pisa until the council of Constance elected Pope Martin V.
SO, yeah...
-
700 pages?!?!
-
All I can say is that based on the numerous previously published articles against sedevacantism by these two gentlemen, there is about a zero percent chance that this book will actually have any intellectual value at all.
The previously published screed against sedevacantism, Sedevacantims: A False Solution to a Real Problem, was an merely an exercise of erecting straw men and mowing them down. The book largely refuted a definition of sedevacantism that virtually no one accepts.
The two authors of this book have published a number of articles in which they act as lawyers generally act. They aren't seeking the truth, they are seeking only to prove their pre-conceived notions. They conspicuously leave out anything that tends to be harmful to their cause while at the same time touting as authorities theologians who were discredited by St. Robert Bellarmine and others.
As I've said before, Bergoglio could come out to the balcony of St. Peter's Basilica and declare that there is only one God and Muhammad is his prophet and the likes of John Salza and Robert Siscoe would commend him for calling Muslims to the Church.
-
700 pages?!?!
My thoughts, exactly.
700 pages of what? These 2 gentlemen have been refuted many times over.
By far, the best refutations of Siscoe and Salza are done by the Dimond Brothers. I highly recommend the articles on their website to anyone looking for a very thorough and point-by-point refutation of their work.
The best refutation I have seen is
http://novusordowatch.org/the_chair_is_still_empty.htm
This is done in a more scholarly and grown-up way than the way the siblings deal with things. It is also a rather captivating and entertaining read.
-
These lawyers do theology as a hobby. They come to a conclusion first and then cook up whatever fits their conclusion. Truth is irrelevant, perception is all that matters. Belittle, object and make fun of the relevant facts and then idolize their guilty defendant, the apostate heretic as pope. I wonder why a 32nd degree Mason has not be killed for exposing masonry. Perhaps because he is doing their dirty work.
-
These lawyers do theology as a hobby. They come to a conclusion first and then cook up whatever fits their conclusion. Truth is irrelevant, perception is all that matters. Belittle, object and make fun of the relevant facts and then idolize their guilty defendant, the apostate heretic as pope. I wonder why a 32nd degree Mason has not be killed for exposing masonry. Perhaps because he is doing their dirty work.
Unfortunately, it seems that this is how the legal system (at least in the United States) works and this is how lawyers seem to think.
-
The dimond siblings do appear to be telling the truth in the following link as they are able to back the accusations up with evidence:
http://www.SchismError.com/catholicchurch/john-salza/#.VlR28k2FOnp
He certainly appears to posture and grandstand for appearance sake using dishonest tactics.
-
They aren't seeking the truth, they are seeking only to prove their pre-conceived notions. They conspicuously leave out anything that tends to be harmful to their cause while at the same time touting as authorities theologians who were discredited by St. Robert Bellarmine and others.
I'm afraid that both sides do this and I'm very tired of it. Yes, there are some arguments against SVism, but there are just as many if not more against R&Rism. I'm sick of the whole thing. These guys are clearly just trying to serve their agenda.
-
I wonder if this book will argue against sedevacantism en toto (asserting that V2 Popes must be valid), or rather against taking sedevacantist position while recognizing that it is possible that the Chair of Peter is vacant. If the former, it is another example of R&R failure, if the latter, it might be valuable and I have no problem with it.
It is interesting that John Salza, co-author of this book, has written this article:
http://www.scripturecatholic.com/feature-articles/Catholic%20Tradition/Feature%20-%20Archbishop%20Lefebvre%20and%20Sedevacantism.pdf
...in which he argues, that it is possible that the Chair is vacant (quoting Archbishop Levebvre who also considered that possibility), but Catholics should wait for judgment of the Church. If he now jumps to arguing that Vatican II claimants are for sure valid he will be inconsistent.
-
This is all I need to know about Salza; this discredits everything else he's ever going to say.
By withdrawing submission from the Holy Father and the faithful in communion with him, Sedevacantists are schismatic and hence automatically excommunicated from the Church under both Divine and ecclesiastical law (canon 1325, par. 2).
R&R withdraws from submission to and communion with the Holy Father, not SVism. If SVs happen to be wrong, theirs would be only a material schism due to the judgment that x, y, and z are not actually legitimate Holy Fathers (a material error similar to the mistake of St. Vincent Ferrer). Canonists agree that one does not become schismatic if the refusal of submission comes from well-founded doubts regarding the person of the Pope. On the other hand, R&R professes the legitimacy of these V2 papal claimants and yet they refuse submission to and communion with them. They do this not simply as an act of disobedience but due to a profound rejection of their Magisterium and the Church's Universal Discipline. If R&R are right about these being legitimate popes, then they are formal schismatics. Heck, even if they're wrong, their position is formally schismatic. God will likely have mercy on them due to the confusion of the times, but their position entails formal schism, while the SV position at most entails material schism.
-
I wonder if this book will argue against sedevacantism en toto (asserting that V2 Popes must be valid), or rather against taking sedevacantist position while recognizing that it is possible that the Chair of Peter is vacant. If the former, it is another example of R&R failure, if the latter, it might be valuable and I have no problem with it.
It is interesting that John Salza, co-author of this book, has written this article:
http://www.scripturecatholic.com/feature-articles/Catholic%20Tradition/Feature%20-%20Archbishop%20Lefebvre%20and%20Sedevacantism.pdf
...in which he argues, that it is possible that the Chair is vacant (quoting Archbishop Levebvre who also considered that possibility), but Catholics should wait for judgment of the Church. If he now jumps to arguing that Vatican II claimants are for sure valid he will be inconsistent.
I think this book could be a lot more authoritative if it was not published precisely by the SSPX. Arguing against Sedevacantism from a SSPX R&R position is a failure.
-
If bishop Fellay puts his forward on this, I back away!
-
Yes, this:
Canonists agree that one does not become schismatic if the refusal of submission comes from well-founded doubts regarding the person of the Pope.
-
If bishop Fellay puts his forward on this, I back away!
Lawyers find witnesses. Let me find everyone that agrees with me and bring up what increases their credibility, the more witnesses I bring that will state what I want them to the more innocent my guilty client will look. Witness take the stand. Profession. Priest. How many years did you study at the seminary? Do you believe Francis is Pope? Why? Next. Profession please. People as you have just witnessed I have brought the testimony of many educated people who come to the sound conclusion that Francis is Pope. To deny this would be absurd. Let the defense rest.
-
This is all I need to know about Salza; this discredits everything else he's ever going to say.
By withdrawing submission from the Holy Father and the faithful in communion with him, Sedevacantists are schismatic and hence automatically excommunicated from the Church under both Divine and ecclesiastical law (canon 1325, par. 2).
R&R withdraws from submission to and communion with the Holy Father, not SVism. If SVs happen to be wrong, theirs would be only a material schism due to the judgment that x, y, and z are not actually legitimate Holy Fathers (a material error similar to the mistake of St. Vincent Ferrer). Canonists agree that one does not become schismatic if the refusal of submission comes from well-founded doubts regarding the person of the Pope. On the other hand, R&R professes the legitimacy of these V2 papal claimants and yet they refuse submission to and communion with them. They do this not simply as an act of disobedience but due to a profound rejection of their Magisterium and the Church's Universal Discipline. If R&R are right about these being legitimate popes, then they are formal schismatics. Heck, even if they're wrong, their position is formally schismatic. God will likely have mercy on them due to the confusion of the times, but their position entails formal schism, while the SV position at most entails material schism.
Another good point Laudislaus is that Sedevacantists are implicitly submitted to a traditional Catholic Pope, the exact same as when St Vincent Ferrer proclaimed Benedict XIII schismatic and the see of Peter Vacant. He didn't recognize the Roman and Pisan Popes. Yet in the end he submitted to Martin V and worked miracles in the meantime.
But RnR HAVE a pope and they ignore him and refuse to get with his program.
-
But RnR HAVE a pope and they ignore him and refuse to get with his program.
I can see scenarios where "Faith is greater than obedience" might apply, in the case of positive commands that might be harmful. But what R&R posits is that the Magisterium can go so badly off the rails that it would justify a categorical lack of submission to the Holy See, that the Universal Discipline of the Church can be harmful to souls and displeasing to God. There's just nothing Catholic about that. We're not talking about some minor misstatement in a docuмent here or there that can be respectfully disputed through the appropriate channels and with all due respect to the Magisterium as a whole, but about a substantially corrupt body of false doctrine. We don't have to nitpick about infallibility in the strict sense.
-
Wow....
The endorsements are incredible
Quote:
“The most devastating prosecution of the Sedevacantist thesis in print."
-CHRISTOPHER FERRARA, J.D.
President, American Catholic Lawyers Association
Of course, Ferrara is another lawyer who pretends to be an expert in theology.
Quote:
“This book by John Salza and Robert Siscoe is the most detailed and scholarly rebuttal of Sedevacantism yet to appear."
-FR. BRIAN hαɾɾιsON, O.S.
Emeritus Professor of Theology Pontifical Catholic University of Puerto
Setting the bar quite high, eh?
Quote:
“The most comprehensive, exhaustively docuмented, well-reasoned critique of Sedevacantism to date."
-JOHN VENNARI
Editor, Catholic Family News
Wow...the bar is set even higher by Mr. Vennari - can it get any higher?
Quote:
“...Sedevacantism poses a real danger because it offers an apparent solution to a real problem. It does so at the expense of fidelity to the perennial Magisterium of the Church."
-BRIAN MCCALL, J.D.
Associate Dean of Academics,
University of Oklahoma College of Law
It does so at the expense of fidelity to the Magisterium? Really, Brian? And the R&R position doesn't? What a joke...
Quote:
“I read every page of this book with great interest. It is a thorough treatment of the questions raised by Sedevacantism, grounded in solid Catholic theology, on the Fathers, Doctors and Popes."
-FR. FRANÇOIS LAISNEY
Former U.S. District Superior,
Society of St. Pius X
Grounded in solid Catholic theology? If Father Laisney truly believes this, I am at a loss for words...
Quote:
“This is the most thoroughly researched and articulately presented book of its kind. Whether you are a Sedevacantist, or researching the movement, this book is irreplaceable. Brilliant!”
-TIM STAPLES
Director of Apologetics and Evangelization
Catholic Answers
Whether you are a sedevacantist, or researching the movement, the book is irreplaceable?
Thanks, Tim from Catholic Answers.
Quote:
“This book serves notice to the occupiers of the Catholic Church: Traditional Catholics are not going anywhere. We’ll stay and we’ll fight until all of “our buildings” are in the hands of Catholics once again.”
-MICHAEL MATT
Editor, The Remnant newspaper
Of course, Mike - it's all about the buildings! Let's not pay any attention to the manifest heresy coming from Rome.
Quote:
“...we have a modern dynamic-duo in John Salza and Robert Siscoe...not only to deal with Sedevacantism, but the whole ultra-right mentality that consistently overreacts to their counterparts on the right and left.
-ROBERT SUNGENIS, Ph.D.
Catholic Apologetics International
Sedevacantism = Ultra-right wing mentality?
Quote:
“True or False Pope? is simply luminous. ...Serving as a sort of North Star, the book indicates the true path of fidelity to the Church during these disorienting times."
-FR. STEVEN REUTER
Professor, Natural Law Ethics
St. Thomas Aquinas Seminary, Winona
Simply luminous - I thought Vennari and Father(?) hαɾɾιson set the bar high... Luminous? Serving as a North Star??
Quote:
“Salza and Siscoe did not leave a single stone face down in their seek and destroy mission, lopping off head after head of that hydra which tries in every which way to prove that the Church has no head.
Let the reader, then, take up this book, expecting to find within its pages a refutation of every Sedevacantist argument that has ever been put forward..."
-FR. PAUL ROBINSON
Professor of Dogmatic Theology
Holy Cross Seminary, Australia
Lopping off head after head.... A refutation of EVERY sedevacantist argument ever put forward...
Where do these people come from? This is absolute dogmatic sedeplenism at it finest. The bar has been set about as high as it can go, in regards to this luminous masterpiece - unbelievable, but not shocking.
The above are the potential witnesses to be called before the people in the hope of exonerating the guilty. Here is our conclusion, no need for authentic evidence backed by sound sources. None of the witnesses would be saying such things if it were not true right. Right?
-
Wow....
The endorsements are incredible
Quote:
“The most devastating prosecution of the Sedevacantist thesis in print."
-CHRISTOPHER FERRARA, J.D.
President, American Catholic Lawyers Association
Of course, Ferrara is another lawyer who pretends to be an expert in theology.
Quote:
“This book by John Salza and Robert Siscoe is the most detailed and scholarly rebuttal of Sedevacantism yet to appear."
-FR. BRIAN hαɾɾιsON, O.S.
Emeritus Professor of Theology Pontifical Catholic University of Puerto
Setting the bar quite high, eh?
Quote:
“The most comprehensive, exhaustively docuмented, well-reasoned critique of Sedevacantism to date."
-JOHN VENNARI
Editor, Catholic Family News
Wow...the bar is set even higher by Mr. Vennari - can it get any higher?
Quote:
“...Sedevacantism poses a real danger because it offers an apparent solution to a real problem. It does so at the expense of fidelity to the perennial Magisterium of the Church."
-BRIAN MCCALL, J.D.
Associate Dean of Academics,
University of Oklahoma College of Law
It does so at the expense of fidelity to the Magisterium? Really, Brian? And the R&R position doesn't? What a joke...
Quote:
“I read every page of this book with great interest. It is a thorough treatment of the questions raised by Sedevacantism, grounded in solid Catholic theology, on the Fathers, Doctors and Popes."
-FR. FRANÇOIS LAISNEY
Former U.S. District Superior,
Society of St. Pius X
Grounded in solid Catholic theology? If Father Laisney truly believes this, I am at a loss for words...
Quote:
“This is the most thoroughly researched and articulately presented book of its kind. Whether you are a Sedevacantist, or researching the movement, this book is irreplaceable. Brilliant!”
-TIM STAPLES
Director of Apologetics and Evangelization
Catholic Answers
Whether you are a sedevacantist, or researching the movement, the book is irreplaceable?
Thanks, Tim from Catholic Answers.
Quote:
“This book serves notice to the occupiers of the Catholic Church: Traditional Catholics are not going anywhere. We’ll stay and we’ll fight until all of “our buildings” are in the hands of Catholics once again.”
-MICHAEL MATT
Editor, The Remnant newspaper
Of course, Mike - it's all about the buildings! Let's not pay any attention to the manifest heresy coming from Rome.
Quote:
“...we have a modern dynamic-duo in John Salza and Robert Siscoe...not only to deal with Sedevacantism, but the whole ultra-right mentality that consistently overreacts to their counterparts on the right and left.
-ROBERT SUNGENIS, Ph.D.
Catholic Apologetics International
Sedevacantism = Ultra-right wing mentality?
Quote:
“True or False Pope? is simply luminous. ...Serving as a sort of North Star, the book indicates the true path of fidelity to the Church during these disorienting times."
-FR. STEVEN REUTER
Professor, Natural Law Ethics
St. Thomas Aquinas Seminary, Winona
Simply luminous - I thought Vennari and Father(?) hαɾɾιson set the bar high... Luminous? Serving as a North Star??
Quote:
“Salza and Siscoe did not leave a single stone face down in their seek and destroy mission, lopping off head after head of that hydra which tries in every which way to prove that the Church has no head.
Let the reader, then, take up this book, expecting to find within its pages a refutation of every Sedevacantist argument that has ever been put forward..."
-FR. PAUL ROBINSON
Professor of Dogmatic Theology
Holy Cross Seminary, Australia
Lopping off head after head.... A refutation of EVERY sedevacantist argument ever put forward...
Where do these people come from? This is absolute dogmatic sedeplenism at it finest. The bar has been set about as high as it can go, in regards to this luminous masterpiece - unbelievable, but not shocking.
The above are the potential witnesses to be called before the people in the hope of exonerating the guilty. Here is our conclusion, no need for authentic evidence backed by sound sources. None of the witnesses would be saying such things if it were not true right. Right?
-
Meanwhile....back at the ranch.....
-
Pray the Rosary in Latin this
will help calm anyone's nerves.
Spend time in adoration chapel
then the Eucharist will knock the
temptations out clearer. Many forget
do many even realize or know if you
were baptized in the old rite or not?
I know i was and was told of it as
a little boy. How many on here know
whether or not and if they need to
have the old rite applied to them !
-
In the essence of thee O'Lord God, how I have sinned,
I know that I am always unworthy, yet thou put the grace
of thy son Jesus upon me. How many times thou telleth me
that i must turn the other cheek, not look at others as
though i am superior and most of all, to think i am better
in any way, shape, or form. Were i to be judged on how i
treat others how horrible would be my consequences for all
my actions. I can see that if i were to be judged before
thee after my death, i would be in a despicable condition.
O how sad may i be that i could be so cruel, and not see
the good path thou had set before me in my lifetime. I can
bet many a time i thought others may of been beneath me ,
others had no right to their voice and let alone not give
me what i demanded. Yet thy son Jesus forgives as many a
time as i ask.
-
How can we ever show our gratitude with the
grace of thee O God, with the Holy Ghost in Sanctifying
Grace, Thy life energy with in our being. This is far more
than i should ever be given, and receive. May I be able to
show the love, charity, and compassion to those in need,to
those who can change from their sinful passions and be able
to live a life fully in thy honor. Let not their past be the
judgement, let it be as many times as thou wish and amplify.
Never let us go, linger around us O' Jesus forever and ever.
Instill all the Angelic harmony and peace as true Christians
ought. Give to the lost at least a final chance to make right.
This way none can say they did not have the opportunity to be
able to get to Heaven. Let paradise be our goal today !
-
This is all I need to know about Salza; this discredits everything else he's ever going to say.
By withdrawing submission from the Holy Father and the faithful in communion with him, Sedevacantists are schismatic and hence automatically excommunicated from the Church under both Divine and ecclesiastical law (canon 1325, par. 2).
R&R withdraws from submission to and communion with the Holy Father, not SVism.
This is not the whole truth.
If / when the pope commands something Catholic, I would submit, I would think everyone would. To date, nothing the conciliar popes have said or done have been binding on anyone. At worst, we can be rightfully accused of being disobedient, but that is not to say we will not submit to him.
If SVs happen to be wrong, theirs would be only a material schism due to the judgment that x, y, and z are not actually legitimate Holy Fathers (a material error similar to the mistake of St. Vincent Ferrer).
The problem with this statement is, it is not a matter of "if SVs happen to be wrong" - there is no "happen to be wrong" when it comes to this because Sedevacantists must prove they are right and know they are right *before* they choose to decide to embrace SVism, but it is as impossible to prove they are right as it is impossible to prove that all NO consecrations are invalid.
You cannot embrace SVism and figure well, if I happen to be wrong, I'll only be in material schism. We all have the responsibility to find out positively first, not last - because if wrong or if mistaken, we are separating ourselves from the Church and that is schism - period.
Canonists agree that one does not become schismatic if the refusal of submission comes from well-founded doubts regarding the person of the Pope.
Well founded doubts means one can be 100% wrong, and if one seeks the truth of the matter, they should attain at least enough knowledge one way or the other to get off that dangerous middle ground they have firmly planted themselves on.
On the other hand, R&R professes the legitimacy of these V2 papal claimants and yet they refuse submission to and communion with them. They do this not simply as an act of disobedience but due to a profound rejection of their Magisterium and the Church's Universal Discipline. If R&R are right about these being legitimate popes, then they are formal schismatics. Heck, even if they're wrong, their position is formally schismatic. God will likely have mercy on them due to the confusion of the times, but their position entails formal schism, while the SV position at most entails material schism.
This thinking is altogether wrong. We refuse to obey popes and the magisterium because they want us to offend God. The pope is the shepherd, the magisterium are sheep, the sheep do not lead the shepherd. If the pope is wrong, the magisterium is wrong - that simple. You say we should follow them into the pit - but they are blind, we are not blind - so we do not follow them into the pit. That is being disobedient for the sake of not walking into the pit. But you make it seem like we should follow them into the pit just because they are legitimate. I'll say it again - this thinking is altogether wrong.
-
Four legs good. Two legs b-a-a-a-a-d!
Thank you, Stubborn, for your incisive and perceptive analysis.
-
This is not the whole truth.
Sure it is. You go to Mass, Confession, the other Sacraments, etc. with a group that has no canonical standing in the Church and refuses submission to the Holy See. Just because you would choose to do some things that the NO hierarchy tells you to doesn't put you into canonical submission.
-
This thinking is altogether wrong. We refuse to obey popes and the magisterium because they want us to offend God.
The Vicar of Christ and the Teaching Authority of the Catholic Church want you to offend God.....
No comment.
I'll comment. To state that submission to the Magisterium could cause someone to offend God is absolutely heretical.
-
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.
-
If / when the pope commands something Catholic, I would submit, I would think everyone would.
Fr Chazal says that all actions and commands of Francis must be ignored, whether they are Catholic or not. Sede-doubtism and sedeprivationism really seem to be the best positions in this crisis.
-
This thinking is altogether wrong. We refuse to obey popes and the magisterium because they want us to offend God.
The Vicar of Christ and the Teaching Authority of the Catholic Church want you to offend God.....
No comment.
Yes, that is what they want. They want all things NO, and all things NO offend God. They are modernists and despise all things traditional - which offends God. And on and on etc. ad nausem.
The pope is the shepherd, the magisterium are sheep, the sheep do not lead the shepherd. If the pope is wrong, the magisterium is wrong - that simple.
What does this mean Stubborn? The Magisterium are the sheep?
The pope is the supreme, the "one shepherd", all under him are his sheep, this includes the magisterium. To us the magisterium are shepherds, but to the pope they are his sheep. He leads them, they do not lead him. The shepherd leads the sheep, the sheep do not lead the shepherd.
This is the way Christ built His Church in that as all were subject to St. Peter - including the Apostles, so all, including the magisterium are subject to the one shepherd, the pope.
-
This is not the whole truth.
Sure it is. You go to Mass, Confession, the other Sacraments, etc. with a group that has no canonical standing in the Church and refuses submission to the Holy See. Just because you would choose to do some things that the NO hierarchy tells you to doesn't put you into canonical submission.
No it is not the whole truth because in your first post, you did not say "canonical submission," you said "submission". We are bound to have personal submission to the pope, we are not bound to split hairs with personal canonical submission (whatever that is) or personal fallible theological submission or whatever. He is not God.
-
This thinking is altogether wrong. We refuse to obey popes and the magisterium because they want us to offend God.
The Vicar of Christ and the Teaching Authority of the Catholic Church want you to offend God.....
No comment.
I'll comment. To state that submission to the Magisterium could cause someone to offend God is absolutely heretical.
Again, they are not God. 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.
-
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".
-
I love how Stubborn likes to trot out the super ad hominem, "Cekadian!", whenever someone writes something he doesn't like.
:roll-laugh1:
-
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".
Stubborn, we established this. It's the teaching of Tanquerey, Canon Smith and Pope Leo IX.
Have you decided that you disagree with Tanquerey's 1894 "Dogmatic Theology"? Or do you disagree with Denzinger?
-
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".
Stubborn, we established this. It's the teaching of Tanquerey, Canon Smith and Pope Leo IX.
Have you decided that you disagree with Tanquerey's 1894 "Dogmatic Theology"? Or do you disagree with Denzinger?
Yes, Stubborn. I am still waiting for you to provide proof from Vatican I that the UOM is fallible.
-
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.
-
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".
Stubborn, we established this. It's the teaching of Tanquerey, Canon Smith and Pope Leo IX.
Have you decided that you disagree with Tanquerey's 1894 "Dogmatic Theology"? Or do you disagree with Denzinger?
Yes, Stubborn. I am still waiting for you to provide proof from Vatican I that the UOM is fallible.
I already did that so now you need to look it up yourself, it's right in there, but first you'd need to accept dogmatic decrees as the supreme infallible authority, as the final word - and that they are to be understood as declared. Until you can do that, there really is no need for you to even bother.
-
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".
Stubborn, we established this. It's the teaching of Tanquerey, Canon Smith and Pope Leo IX.
Have you decided that you disagree with Tanquerey's 1894 "Dogmatic Theology"? Or do you disagree with Denzinger?
If that's the case then they disagree with Blessed Pope Pius IX.
-
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???
-
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.
1) Who are all the theologians that unanimously teach the NO must be accepted?
2) Rash to reject? So it's not heresy?
3) Self explanatory.
-
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.
-
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.
With SVism there is no hope because they all defected and lost their offices so it's just a matter of time before the Church is gone - this is denial of indefectibility of the Church.
If these two Doctrines [Infallibility and indefectibility] be true, then whatever the popes [and Magisterium] have said or done, whatever they ever say or do, will not be a violation of the Church' s attribute of infallibility.
And no matter what anyone does, whether from within or without, he will not succeed in destroying the Church. The enemies of Christ's Church do not believe this, which explains why they will never cease to try.
-
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".
Stubborn, we established this. It's the teaching of Tanquerey, Canon Smith and Pope Leo IX.
Have you decided that you disagree with Tanquerey's 1894 "Dogmatic Theology"? Or do you disagree with Denzinger?
Yes, Stubborn. I am still waiting for you to provide proof from Vatican I that the UOM is fallible.
I already did that so now you need to look it up yourself, it's right in there, but first you'd need to accept dogmatic decrees as the supreme infallible authority, as the final word - and that they are to be understood as declared. Until you can do that, there really is no need for you to even bother.
Um, no you did not. All you did was provide a link to all of Vatican I. If you are going to assert that Vatican I teaches that the UOM is fallible, you have to do more than that. As in provide exact quotes saying as much. Given it is so clear that this is what Vatican I teaches and it is you who asserts that this is what it teaches, YOU should be able to provide that easily and quickly.
-
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....
-
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.
With SVism there is no hope because they all defected and lost their offices so it's just a matter of time before the Church is gone - this is denial of indefectibility of the Church.
If these two Doctrines [Infallibility and indefectibility] be true, then whatever the popes [and Magisterium] have said or done, whatever they ever say or do, will not be a violation of the Church' s attribute of infallibility.
And no matter what anyone does, whether from within or without, he will not succeed in destroying the Church. The enemies of Christ's Church do not believe this, which explains why they will never cease to try.
Yes, Stubborn, you have a "magisterium". Hey, they aren't Catholic and they can teach you error, but you can call them the "magisterium". Glad that makes you feel better.
-
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.
-
With SVism there is no hope because they all defected and lost their offices so it's just a matter of time before the Church is gone - this is denial of indefectibility of the Church.
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?
It is the idea that the entire Episcopate, the ecclesia docens, has ceased to exist. This thesis [henceforth ecclesia-vacantism for brevity's sake] is manifestly heretical, because it is a word for word denial of the dogma of the Church's Apostolicity. It is heretical and Protestant to say or think that the Catholic Church can cease to be Apostolic. If someone who holds this thesis furthermore says Catholics cannot err in good faith or become heretics when they do, I accuse that person of being a manifest heretic, for holding to this heresy.
The First Vatican Council speaks of "that ordinary and immediate power of episcopal jurisdiction, by which bishops, who have succeeded to the place of the Apostles" showing that Apostolic succession requires bishops with ordinary jurisdiction, bishops who have succeeded to episcopal sees.
The dogma on Apostolic succession is also taught in the Council in these words, "just as he sent Apostles ... in like manner it was his will that in his Church there should be shepherds and teachers until the end of time." This statement clearly says that the Catholic Church will never fail to have shepherds and teachers in succession to the Apostles. It immediately continues to speak of "episcopal office," showing shepherds and teachers are bishops who have office and jurisdiction. Pastores et doctores in the Council also always refers to those who exercise an office, and therefore jurisdiction, for example, the Council says of the Pope, "in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians." The ecclesia docens is a technical term to refer to the hierarchical Episcopate, bishops appointed to episcopal office. You claim the ecclesia docens can cease to exist. That is a manifestly heretical and soul-damning error.
Commenting on the Code, Woywod wrote, "The bishops are the successors of the Apostles and are placed by Divine law over the individual Churches, which they govern with ordinary authority under the authority of the Roman Pontiff." Cardinal Manning, a leading Vatican I Council Father wrote, "Even though a number of bishops should fall away, as in the Arian and Nestorian heresies, yet the Episcopate could never fall away ... How many soever, as individuals, should err and fall away from the truth, the Episcopate would remain." explaining that "The Ecclesia docens would cease to exist; but this is impossible, and without heresy cannot be supposed." The same is taught in the Catholic Encyclopedia, by +Gueranger, +Hermann and practically all theologians.
-
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.
-
I see all of the "the UOM is fallible" gang is all here.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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]
-
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.
-
It isn't clear, that's the trouble. That's why the Church is referred to as "eclipsed" by blessed Anne Catherine Emmerich.
It's not like this hasn't happened before. During the Arian Crisis the Catholic Bishops would go int Arian dioceses and consecrate bishops.
We wait for the resolution, holding fast to past magisterial teaching, from which no living magisterium can depart.
The fact is that any so-called "magisterium" that can defect from the faith by officially promulgating the heresies of Vatican II is not worth having, because you must necessarily attribute such teaching to Christ, who reigns in his Church through the Exercize of the magisterium.
That's just the nature of the eclipse.
-
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.
-
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. If this is not defection of the Church, I don't know what is. R&R effectively denies Church's indefectibility.
The Paramagisterium
http://catholicism.org/ad-rem-no-238.html
The Catholic Church is infallible. Her infallibility is supremely invested in the Roman Pontiff, but is also exercised by the college of bishops, when they universally teach the same doctrine with and under the pope.
Not only books, but libraries of books have been written to explain the truths expressed in those two sentences, there being myriad complexities surrounding an issue that is, at its heart, quite simple.
One undeniable hallmark of Catholic dogma has always been its clarity. The Church, as a good teacher, does not guide her children in halting speech. She is not vague or ambiguous. Indeed, to teach infallibly and thus bind the faithful under pain of grievous sin would absolutely require clarity. Since it is manifestly contrary to reason for a teacher to demand assent of the intellect to something ambiguous or vague, how can Christ’s faithful be bound in conscience to believe something ephemeral or given to a multiplicity of contrary interpretations?
The infallible magisterium of the Catholic Church is limited in its exercise, clearly recognizable when invoked, and serious in its expression. But these marks of Catholicity are all but lost in our day when a “paramagisterium” operates seemingly to supplant the authentic magisterium of the Church.
-
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.
-
Has anyone ever written a scholarly refutation of sedevacantism?
-
THE ROCK
(LA ROCCIA)
By: Joseph Cardinal Siri
From “Il Dovere Dell’Ortodossia”
Page 6 in Il Dovere Dell’Ortodossia
and originally published in RENOVATIO II (1967), fasc. 2, pp. 183-184
Red bold print added for emphasis.
In The Gospel of Matthew (16,18) the “roccia” (rock), is not only a person, but also an “istituzione” (institution).
The Church founded by Christ on that “roccia” (rock) – Peter, appears clearly (in the aforementioned cited Gospel) acquiring solidity, stability, indefectibility.
The bond between the firmness of the “rock” – Peter – and the firmness of the Church appears totally beyond discussion, that one cannot make any undue inference, qualifying that same Church like “roccia” (the rock).
Here we speak of that rock. As Christ wants it.
That placed, there are many important considerations to be made.
The Church provides security because it is the “roccia” (rock), not thick, and not sand. It deals with a significance that goes beyond the material sense of the metaphor: in fact the rocks of the earth crumble in time, due to the effects of the elements. This “roccia” (rock) will never crumble, nor flake, given that its solidity is guaranteed in the text of Matthew until the end of time. The “rock” remains and no one will scratch it, implicated as she is in a divine undertaking. But on occasion some men may take from others the vision of the rock. Other things may be made to seem like the rock, other things that may appear to all as such. The distinction is a profound one, even if the errors of these men are capable of veiling the reality (truth), they cannot destroy it. The question, easy for all, that presents itself is one of the visibility of the rock. If then situations should occur, that took from certain men the visibility of the “roccia” (rock) in the Church, the consequences would be grave. Those that convert to the Church, convert because they are convinced that they have found the “roccia” (rock), not doubt, hesitation, contradiction or doctrinal anarchy. One converts when one knows that ones hope is not futile. Taking away the visibility of the “roccia” (rock): what happens?
It is necessary that the “roccia” (rock) remains visible in her unity and her invulnerability.
Maybe it is best that we emerge from the metaphor for a moment. Here are the elements from which the Church can be in her significance, full and pure, considered the “roccia” (rock).She has for her head and divine guarantor Jesus Christ. He has assigned to her the four distinctive marks mentioned in the Nicene Creed
It (the Church) has legitimate and secure sacramental efficacy.
It has ability to reconcile, a distinction that cannot be disregarded (or omitted) between the truth acquired with certainty and hypothesis, opinion, the always free search. In total because in her (the Church) operates an Infallible Magisterium.
The infallible Magisterium is tied to the hierarchical structure of the Church. It is for this reason that he who does not see the hierarchy, does not see the “roccia” (rock). He loses and does not acquire easily the security.
-
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.
Yes, Bishop Guérard des Lauriers created his thesis on material / formal succession, because he knew that sedevacantism stricto sensu was an evident unsolvable heresy. I am not SSPX R&R either and do not justify breaking communion with Rome over a supposed defection of the Magisterium; so I do not argue from that angle; but there are some problems with the sedeprivationist position as well. It is not that easy.
Perhaps Ladislaus can offer some light here: first, only material succession (without formal apostolic succession) is no different than schismatic succession (what the Eastern Orthodox have: material apostolic succession alone; but nor formal). For true apostolic succession to occur, both material and formal succession must exist. Another problem is that it seems to also posit a defection of the Magisterium and thus compromise the indefectibility of the Roman and Universal Church. Again, what happened with the True Church of Christ in Vatican II Council?, either not a substantial changed occurred (only seemed to have occurred) or the True Church of Christ defected. This is true for both SV and SSPX. I do not believe in the radical division pre/post Vatican II as if the Church had collapsed over night (both SV and SSPX share the radical historical rupture view) but in the continuity of religion where heresies and schisms must actually exist so the Elect can merit by combating them and to distinguish them from the reprobate.
-
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.
Yes, Bishop Guérard des Lauriers created his thesis on material / formal succession, because he knew that sedevacantism stricto sensu was an evident unsolvable heresy. I am not SSPX R&R either and do not justify breaking communion with Rome over a supposed defection of the Magisterium; so I do not argue from that angle; but there are some problems with the sedeprivationist position as well. It is not that easy.
Perhaps Ladislaus can offer some light here: first, only material succession (without formal apostolic succession) is no different than schismatic succession (what the Eastern Orthodox have: material apostolic succession alone; but nor formal). For true apostolic succession to occur, both material and formal succession must exist. Another problem is that it seems to also posit a defection of the Magisterium and thus compromise the indefectibility of the Roman and Universal Church. Again, what happened with the True Church of Christ in Vatican II Council?, either not a substantial changed occurred (only seemed to have occurred) or the True Church of Christ defected. This is true for both SV and SSPX. I do not believe in the radical division pre/post Vatican II as if the Church had collapsed over night (both SV and SSPX share the radical historical rupture view) but in the continuity of religion where heresies and schisms must actually exist so the Elect can merit by combating them and to distinguish them from the reprobate.
I am sorry Cantarella. Perhaps I have been rude to you in the past, I apologize if that was the case.
I would like to try and answer your question directly and honestly.
The main issue you raise, which is no small issue, is that the Magisterium of the Church cannot defect.
I agree with this. It cannot defect, and it has not defected.
Now, I will do my best to explain why I believe this is the case.
1. The Church's Magisterium is the teaching authority she has from Christ. The commission to "Go and teach all nations." And "He who hears you hears me."
2. It is for THIS reason that the heresies and innovations and schismatic new rites we see and abhor cannot be acts of the Church's Magisterial Teaching.
3. But because the Magisterial Teaching is directly connected to the Magisterial Office, if the teaching is defective, the office is defective, for the office cannot produce false teaching. To assert otherwise is to assert that Christ is responsible for heresy, blasphemy and schism. It would be to say that Christ had wrought it.
that this is so, we can turn to Pope Pius XII:
In Humani Generis he says:
"Nor must it be thought that what is expounded in Encyclical Letters does not of itself demand consent, since in writing such Letters the Popes do not exercise the supreme power of their Teaching Authority. For these matters are taught with the ordinary teaching authority, of which it is true to say: "He who heareth you, heareth me";[3] and generally what is expounded and inculcated in Encyclical Letters already for other reasons appertains to Catholic doctrine. But if the Supreme Pontiffs in their official docuмents purposely pass judgment on a matter up to that time under dispute, it is obvious that that matter, according to the mind and will of the Pontiffs, cannot be any longer considered a question open to discussion among theologians."
So the Pope clearly teaches that the authentic Magisterium of the Church is an exercise of the authority of Christ. It is in fact the case that when we hear the Pope Teaching in an Encyclical, we hear the voice of Christ.
But error is not imputable to Christ, therefore, as I said above, etc. It is also for this reason that the Non-Infallible Magisterium has only a LIMITED capacity for error. It cannot err so badly as to lead souls into spiritual disaster. Because it is an act of Christ's own authority, which is not mocked.
Now, you make this contention:
Via Nishant:
"It is the idea that the entire Episcopate, the ecclesia docens, has ceased to exist. This thesis [henceforth ecclesia-vacantism for brevity's sake] is manifestly heretical, because it is a word for word denial of the dogma of the Church's Apostolicity. It is heretical and Protestant to say or think that the Catholic Church can cease to be Apostolic. If someone who holds this thesis furthermore says Catholics cannot err in good faith or become heretics when they do, I accuse that person of being a manifest heretic, for holding to this heresy."
and you said:
"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."
Now, there is a clear error here, though it is implicit, and it is on two counts:
1. What is implied is that if the overwhelming majority of bishops of the world defect, the Church's Magisterium defects. This is not true, because the Magisterium of the Church does not fundamentally lie with the bishops, but with the Pope. This can be seen in that their authentic and ordinary magisterium can only be exercised if they are united to HIM, and that the Ordinary Universal Magisterium can only exist if united to the POPE. Therefore, the body of bishops is not strictly necessary for the Magisterial authority of the Church, what is Necessary is the Pope.
2. No Sedevacantist claims the entire episcopacy is defunct. For example, even Fr. Cekada would admit all the Eastern Catholic Bishops have Apostolic Succession. In addition, we have several Bishops that have valid apostolic Succession, namely the Thuc Bishops and the Lefebvre Bishops, and Mendez Bishops, Kelly and Santay (Interesting Fact, Archbishop Thuc was granted a Motu Proprio by Pius XI to consecrate Bishops with what was basically Patriarchal power. He didn't need Rome to approve the consecrations, so to say he consecrated without mandate is not exactly true ). So nobody in their right mind is claiming apostolic succession has died out, that would be impossible, because then the Papacy would be literally defunct.
Since we know the Pope is the source of all Magisterial Authority, that leads to an interesting question: Can the Church exercise her Magisterial Authority during an interregnum? If there is no Pope for several years, as was the case twice in the Middle ages, what happens to the Church's teaching authority? Apparently, there can be no Ordinary Universal Magisterium, because the bishops cannot exercise it in unity with the Pope, because there is none.
This is what Msgr Charles Journet says in his "Church of the Incarnate Word":
https://www.ewtn.com/library/THEOLOGY/chwordin3.htm
“We must not think of the Church, when the Pope is dead, as possessing the papal power in act, in a state of diffusion, so that she herself can delegate it to the next Pope in whom it will be re-condensed and made definite. When the Pope dies the Church is widowed, and, in respect of the visible universal jurisdiction, she is truly acephalous. But she is not acephalous as are the schismatic churches, nor like a body on the way to decomposition. Christ directs her from heaven ... But, though slowed down, the pulse of life has not left the Church; she possesses the power of the Papacy in potency, in the sense that Christ, who has willed her always to depend on a visible pastor, has given her power to designate the man to whom He will Himself commit the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven, as once He committed them to Peter.
— “During a vacancy of the Apostolic See, neither the Church nor the Council can contravene the provisions already laid down to determine the valid mode of election (Cardinal Cajetan, O.P., in De Comparata, cap.xiii, no. 202). However, in case of permission (for example if the Pope has provided nothing against it), or in case of ambiguity (for example, if it is unknown who the true Cardinals are or who the true Pope is, as was the case at the time of the Great Schism), the power 'of applying the Papacy to such and such a person’ devolves on the universal Church, the Church of God.”
When the Church has no Pope, she is widowed. She is headless in a sense, but not ultimately. Christ himself directs her from heaven. AND she posses the Power to delegate a man to the Papacy, which she possesses potentially. And if that Bishop is delegated by the Church as Pope, he can rightly order Jurisdictional issues and ratify all that was done irregularly and through supplied jurisdiction.
After that, the Church's Ordinary Universal Magisterium will be up and running.
BUT, there is also another option as to what happens to the Church's Magisterium, and it is suggested by Tanquerey:
http://www.catholicapologetics.info/modernproblems/vatican2/magisterium.htm
"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.
Regarding Point 4 he says:
"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."
SO, to be clear here, I am not saying the Laity can displace the Bishops as teachers when there is no Pope. I am saying that, in a prolonged interregnum, when the Authentic Ordinary Magisterium does not seem able to be exercised, the Entirety of the Church still retains her infallibility in matters of faith and morals, not in regard to TEACHING, but in regard to PRESERVING.
This is necessary, in order for the Church not to fail.
Let us suppose there WAS a prolonged interregnum where the number of bishops was reduced to a small number widely dispersed throughout the world:
In order for the Church as SUCH in this state not to defect, the Faith of ALL the members in TOTO is to be considered a criterion of revelation that is passively infallible. This is the weakened state of the Church Msgr Journet talks about above, where she is widowed, but still directed by Christ.
Now the question may arise, "But can the Church REALLY be so long without a Pope?"
Well the theologians think it is possible.
In 1882 a book was published in England called The Relations of the Church to Society — Theological Essays, comprising 29 essays by Fr. Edmund James O’Reilly S.J., one of the leading theologians of his time.
This is what he wrote in one of his essays:
“We may here stop to inquire what is to be said of the position, at that time, of the three claimants, and their rights with regard to the Papacy. In the first place, there was all through, from the death of Gregory XI in 1378, a Pope — with the exception, of course, of the intervals between deaths and elections to fill up the vacancies thereby created. There was, I say, at every given time a Pope, really invested with the dignity of Vicar of Christ and Head of the Church, whatever opinions might exist among many as to his genuineness; not that an interregnum covering the whole period would have been impossible or inconsistent with the promises of Christ, for this is by no means manifest, but that, as a matter of fact, there was not such an interregnum.”
He goes on to say:
“The great schism of the West suggests to me a reflection which I take the liberty of expressing here. If this schism had not occurred, the hypothesis of such a thing happening would appear to many chimerical. They would say it could not be; God would not permit the Church to come into so unhappy a situation. Heresies might spring up and spread and last painfully long, through the fault and to the perdition of their authors and abettors, to the great distress too of the faithful, increased by actual persecution in many places where the heretics were dominant. But that the true Church should remain between thirty and forty years without a thoroughly ascertained Head, and representative of Christ on earth, this would not be. Yet it has been; and we have no guarantee that it will not be again, though we may fervently hope otherwise. What I would infer is, that we must not be too ready to pronounce on what God may permit. We know with absolute certainty that He will fulfil His promises; not allow anything to occur at variance with them; that He will sustain His Church and enable her to triumph over all enemies and difficulties; that He will give to each of the faithful those graces which are needed for each one’s service of Him and attainment of salvation, as He did during the great schism we have been considering, and in all the sufferings and trials which the Church has passed through from the beginning. We may also trust He will do a great deal more than what He has bound Himself to by His promises. We may look forward with a cheering probability to exemption for the future from some of the troubles and misfortunes that have befallen in the past. But we, or our successors in future generations of Christians, shall perhaps see stranger evils than have yet been experienced, even before the immediate approach of that great winding up of all things on earth that will precede the day of judgment. I am not setting up for a prophet, nor pretending to see unhappy wonders, of which I have no knowledge whatever. All I mean to convey is that contingencies regarding the Church, not excluded by the Divine promises, cannot be regarded as practically impossible, just because they would be terrible and distressing in a very high degree.”
SO, to sum up Cantarella:
Even if the Church were reduced to a handful of laity and bishops, all operating on supplied jurisdiction, she would not cease to exist.
1. She possesses the Papacy potentially. She could designate a Bishop to take the office who would then restore ordinary jurisdiction and Positive teaching authority.
2. It is indeed possible to go for a very long time without knowing where the true Pope is. During this time, the Church herself supplies jurisdiction to those bishops who take emergency action for the salvation of souls.
3. She retains her Ordinary Universal Magisterium PASSIVELY through the common faith of all the bishops and the faithful, which faith, even without a Pontiff, cannot fail. For Christ himself directs her from heaven.
It is precisely for THESE reasons that the idea of heresy on the part of the Sedevacantists is untenable, because the theologians indicate to us that we can survive this.
-
But error is not imputable to Christ, therefore, as I said above, etc. It is also for this reason that the Non-Infallible Magisterium has only a LIMITED capacity for error. It cannot err so badly as to lead souls into spiritual disaster.
-> The "spiritual disaster" does not come from the errors of Vatican 2, but from the new mass. Most of the faithful have no idea about the real meaning of religious freedom and collegiality, they do not care about that.
I must add that the heresy of Bishop Guérard des Lauriers and collegiality are rather similar, because the thesis of Bishop Guérard des L. denies the infallibility of the papal election; and how could the papacy be a divine institution if the election is fallible?
-
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.
And what do you have? No Magisterium at all for the last 50 years. Presumably you and the other SVs - and me and the other trads - have all kept the faith in that time - how is that possible without a pope or Magisterium? How much longer do you say that the Church can survive without a pope or magisterium?
It is SVism that eliminates the Magisterium, this in and of itself is what effectively denies Church's indefectibility. If SVs actually believed in the indefectibility of the Church, then they would understand that;
If these two Doctrines [Infallibility and indefectibility] be true, then whatever the popes [and Magisterium] have said or done, whatever they ever say or do, will not be a violation of the Church' s attribute of infallibility.
And no matter what anyone does, whether from within or without, he will not succeed in destroying the Church. The enemies of Christ's Church do not believe this, which explains why they will never cease to try.
-
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....
2Vermont,
Fr. Cekada earned a Bachelor's Degree in Novus Ordo Theology using Novus Ordo curriculum from a Novus Ordo Seminary, then he was a Novus Ordo Monk for two years. He had 10 years of Novus Ordo theological, philosophical training, formation and indoctrination before entering the SSPX Seminary in Econe, 2 years later he was ordained a priest by +ABL, 8 years later he was kicked out of the SSPX. Not surprising, +Sanborn, +Dolan, +Kelly all had similar formations, all got kicked out of the SSPX and I wouldn't be surprised if the others that were kicked out at that time all shared the same NO indoctrination.
So when you say Fr. Cekada teaches what the Church teaches, consider, at least consider that his NO formation reflects much of what he teaches, which, like all things NO, is in fact at least confused and always partially corrupted.
This is why the Cekadian version of the UOM consists a confused group of people, sometimes consisting of some or all the Bishops, sometimes a few saints or theologians, basically his UOM consists of whoever is necessary to prove a point at any given time - but one thing the Cekadian UOM never includes is the pope (which is convenient for a SV), even though the pope is the head of the UOM, the other thing his UOM confuses is Universal. The "Universal" in the Cekadian UOM, is an ambiguous number that can mean whatever anyone chooses it to mean - but one thing is certain, it does not actually mean "universal".
As if you do not know, these are tell tale signs of Novus Ordo teaching, teachings where there are no absolutes, everything is open to interpretation - just like his version of the UOM, which is the NO version of the UOM that he was taught in his NO curriculum at his NO seminary - which you and so many people fall for as being a Church teaching.
-
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.
You believe that Francis and the rest of the post Vatican II hierarchy represent such visibility and continuity....and yet it does not. You say the Catholic Church is the Vatican II Church. If it is, you need to answer the same question you pose to the rest of us : where are Catholics learning Catholicism from within that church?
-
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....
2Vermont,
Fr. Cekada earned a Bachelor's Degree in Novus Ordo Theology using Novus Ordo curriculum from a Novus Ordo Seminary, then he was a Novus Ordo Monk for two years. He had 10 years of Novus Ordo theological, philosophical training, formation and indoctrination before entering the SSPX Seminary in Econe, 2 years later he was ordained a priest by +ABL, 8 years later he was kicked out of the SSPX. Not surprising, +Sanborn, +Dolan, +Kelly all had similar formations, all got kicked out of the SSPX and I wouldn't be surprised if the others that were kicked out at that time all shared the same NO indoctrination.
So when you say Fr. Cekada teaches what the Church teaches, consider, at least consider that his NO formation reflects much of what he teaches, which, like all things NO, is in fact at least confused and always partially corrupted.
This is why the Cekadian version of the UOM consists a confused group of people, sometimes consisting of some or all the Bishops, sometimes a few saints or theologians, basically his UOM consists of whoever is necessary to prove a point at any given time - but one thing the Cekadian UOM never includes is the pope (which is convenient for a SV), even though the pope is the head of the UOM, the other thing his UOM confuses is Universal. The "Universal" in the Cekadian UOM, is an ambiguous number that can mean whatever anyone chooses it to mean - but one thing is certain, it does not actually mean "universal".
As if you do not know, these are tell tale signs of Novus Ordo teaching, teachings where there are no absolutes, everything is open to interpretation - just like his version of the UOM, which is the NO version of the UOM that he was taught in his NO curriculum at his NO seminary - which you and so many people fall for as being a Church teaching.
As predicted, still no Church teaching that the OUM is fallible.
-
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.
And what do you have? No Magisterium at all for the last 50 years. Presumably you and the other SVs - and me and the other trads - have all kept the faith in that time - how is that possible without a pope or Magisterium? How much longer do you say that the Church can survive without a pope or magisterium?
It is SVism that eliminates the Magisterium, this in and of itself is what effectively denies Church's indefectibility. If SVs actually believed in the indefectibility of the Church, then they would understand that;
If these two Doctrines [Infallibility and indefectibility] be true, then whatever the popes [and Magisterium] have said or done, whatever they ever say or do, will not be a violation of the Church' s attribute of infallibility.
And no matter what anyone does, whether from within or without, he will not succeed in destroying the Church. The enemies of Christ's Church do not believe this, which explains why they will never cease to try.
"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.
Regarding Point 4 he says:
"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."
-
Not all SVs are also EVs. Sedeprivationism solves that problem quite nicely, thank you very much.
But, you know, what's the point of having a visible/material continuity when any formal/Magisterial continuity has been completely severed? You R&R are obsessed with the material continuity. Who cares if there's material continuity when the only purpose these people serve is to undermine the Traditional Magisterium of the Church? It would be better of if their material continuity would be severed entirely than to have them there polluting the faith. You see a major problem with "indefectibility" regarding visible/material continuity but somehow have blinders on and think it's perfectly OK for the Magisterium and Universal Discipline of the Church to defect, so long as someone has his large posterior planted in the chair. What else is the point even of the material continuity except that Our Lord guaranteed this to safeguard the Church and the faith?
-
Not all SVs are also EVs. Sedeprivationism solves that problem quite nicely, thank you very much.
But, you know, what's the point of having a visible/material continuity when any formal/Magisterial continuity has been completely severed? You R&R are obsessed with the material continuity. Who cares if there's material continuity when the only purpose these people serve is to undermine the Traditional Magisterium of the Church? It would be better of if their material continuity would be severed entirely than to have them there polluting the faith. You see a major problem with "indefectibility" regarding visible/material continuity but somehow have blinders on and think it's perfectly OK for the Magisterium and Universal Discipline of the Church to defect, so long as someone has his large posterior planted in the chair. What else is the point even of the material continuity except that Our Lord guaranteed this to safeguard the Church and the faith?
Thank you for stating this Ladislaus. I don't think any of us have claimed to be "EV"'s, so I'm unsure why the change in direction.
-
Not all SVs are also EVs. Sedeprivationism solves that problem quite nicely, thank you very much.
But, you know, what's the point of having a visible/material continuity when any formal/Magisterial continuity has been completely severed? You R&R are obsessed with the material continuity. Who cares if there's material continuity when the only purpose these people serve is to undermine the Traditional Magisterium of the Church? It would be better of if their material continuity would be severed entirely than to have them there polluting the faith. You see a major problem with "indefectibility" regarding visible/material continuity but somehow have blinders on and think it's perfectly OK for the Magisterium and Universal Discipline of the Church to defect, so long as someone has his large posterior planted in the chair. What else is the point even of the material continuity except that Our Lord guaranteed this to safeguard the Church and the faith?
Thank you for stating this Ladislaus. I don't think any of us have claimed to be "EV"'s, so I'm unsure why the change in direction.
Nishant even put forward the caveat that not all SVs are EVs. I do believe that as time goes on it's difficult to avoid the potential difficulties of an un-nuanced SVism leading towards a practical or effective EVism. Some of the dogmatic SVs are in fact EVs. But that's one of the reasons why I find the sedeprivationist thesis so appealing; it completely solves this difficulty.
-
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.
The Magisterium is infallible, as taught by the Church. I have no clue as to the "Cekadian" version you keep talking about, but I am certain when it comes from the popes.
The practice of the Church has always been the same, as is shown by the unanimous teaching of the Fathers, who were wont to hold as outside Catholic communion, and alien to the Church, whoever would recede in the least degree from any point of doctrine proposed by her authoritative Magisterium.
Christ instituted in the Church a living, authoritative and permanent Magisterium, which by His own power He strengthened, by the Spirit of truth He taught, and by miracles confirmed. He willed and ordered, under the gravest penalties, that its teachings should be received as if they were His own.
To this magisterium, Christ the Lord imparted immunity from error...
...God Himself made the Church a sharer in the divine magisterium and by His divine benefit unable to be mistaken.
The Magisterium cannot err and is unable to be mistaken.
The Magisterium does not introduce new and novel ideas to the faithful. On the contrary, it's only purpose is to guard, protect, and pass on to the faithful the Sacred Deposit of Faith.
Lets examine your quote from Pope Leo XIII:
"Christ instituted in the Church a living, authoritative and permanent Magisterium."
Where do the SVs claim the permanent magisterium is? I agree with Pope Leo, those in office hold them legitimately. SVs maintain they all lost their offices due to their heresies which effectively rejects the teaching that the Living Magisterium is permanent - so this quote from pope Leo is against SVs.
"He willed and ordered, under the gravest penalties, that its teachings should be received as if they were His own......(this is where you ended your quote. - in order for it to make sense and to make my point, I am adding this next sentence).......
As often, therefore, as it is declared on the authority of this teaching that this or that is contained in the deposit of divine revelation, it must be believed by every one as true."
Please note that nothing which came from V2 is declared to be contained in the deposit of divine revelation. This declaration that Pope Leo XIII speaks of is a necessary criteria in order for Catholics to be bound to the teaching. When that criteria is not met, it is not binding, it is not infallible and we are not bound to believe it.
And the quotes from Pope Pius XI and from every other pre-conciliar pope will agree so there is really no sense to debate from this angle.
It is as I've been saying - The Church does not teach SVism, only SVs teach SVism.
-
That the sede vacantist position is seen as a greater evil than the Novus Ordo Mass and sacraments is a good sign. It means the devil is putting a great deal of effort into stamping it out. That makes me think that at the very least it is a safe haven for those who wish to retain the Catholic faith and thereby save their souls.
How many books has the SSPX published on the new rite of episcopal consecration? One? Or rather one ARTICLE? Wow, so the SV position is a greater threat than the possible invalidity of the Conciliar church's orders. Yeah, that makes a lot of sense...NOT!
Isn't it amazing how +Lefebvre held open the possibility that the SV position could be the correct one and yet his successor is now endorsing the idea that the SV position is a heresy? I guess for many traditionalists, the Conciliar church with all its errors and heresies is preferable to the SV position.
-
Where do the SVs claim the permanent magisterium is? I agree with Pope Leo, those in office hold them legitimately. SVs maintain they all lost their offices due to their heresies which effectively rejects the teaching that the Living Magisterium is permanent - so this quote from pope Leo is against SVs.
Do we not have nearly 2000 years of teachings from the Catholic Church? Isn't this what you base your faith off of? You claim the conciliar church isn't Catholic, where do you get your beliefs from? Certainly not an anti-Catholic false church.
Certainly, you would agree that since the conciliar church is not Catholic, it cannot consist of a Catholic teaching authority...
The Church is permanent, Stubborn, is it not? What of the traditional bishops? Are they not true successors of the Apostles?
Please note that nothing which came from V2 is declared to be contained in the deposit of divine revelation. This declaration that Pope Leo XIII speaks of is a necessary criteria in order for Catholics to be bound to the teaching. When that criteria is not met, it is not binding, it is not infallible and we are not bound to believe it.
I don't disagree with anything in your statement above.
:applause:
-
Where do the SVs claim the permanent magisterium is? I agree with Pope Leo, those in office hold them legitimately. SVs maintain they all lost their offices due to their heresies which effectively rejects the teaching that the Living Magisterium is permanent - so this quote from pope Leo is against SVs.
Do we not have nearly 2000 years of teachings from the Catholic Church? Isn't this what you base your faith off of? You claim the conciliar church isn't Catholic, where do you get your beliefs from? Certainly not an anti-Catholic false church.
Yes, we have 2000 years of teachings and yes, that is where we all base our faith off of. The conciliar church does not base it's faith off the 2000 years of teachings. The conciliar church is not the Catholic Church, all anyone need do is compare it to that which it replaced to prove this to be true.
Certainly, you would agree that since the conciliar church is not Catholic, it cannot consist of a Catholic teaching authority...
The Church is permanent, Stubborn, is it not? What of the traditional bishops? Are they not true successors of the Apostles?
It would be a long explanation explaining how we arrive at the conclusion and it would involve posting some +20 pages and formatting them for posting which takes time, which I will do if you want, but for now I will only quote Fr. Wathen's conclusion, but today's NO hierarchy is indeed the living, authoritative and permanent magisterium of which Pope Leo XIII speaks.
.....Contrary to such reasoning, it is within the Conciliar Establishment that one finds the historical and structural continuity of the True Church; even though they are serving Satan, those who hold ecclesiastical offices hold them legitimately. Those who say otherwise have not proved that, because these men are apostates from the Faith, they cannot be considered to hold any offices. "One who is no longer a Catholic," they say, "cannot possibly hold an office within the Church, nor exercise legitimate authority." No, even though these individuals have incurred the censures of the Church's law for heresy, apostasy, the desecration of the churches, the violation of the Sacraments, for these and similar crimes, they continue to be the legitimate authorities of the Church. And since they do hold these offices, others who seek to interpose themselves into authority over the Catholic faithful, commit schismatical acts in doing so, and themselves incur the penalties of the Code [of Canon Law].
-
That the sede vacantist position is seen as a greater evil than the Novus Ordo Mass and sacraments is a good sign. It means the devil is putting a great deal of effort into stamping it out. That makes me think that at the very least it is a safe haven for those who wish to retain the Catholic faith and thereby save their souls.
How many books has the SSPX published on the new rite of episcopal consecration? One? Or rather one ARTICLE? Wow, so the SV position is a greater threat than the possible invalidity of the Conciliar church's orders. Yeah, that makes a lot of sense...NOT!
Isn't it amazing how +Lefebvre held open the possibility that the SV position could be the correct one and yet his successor is now endorsing the idea that the SV position is a heresy? I guess for many traditionalists, the Conciliar church with all its errors and heresies is preferable to the SV position.
"Anything-but-SV" ism
-
Perhaps Ladislaus can offer some light here: first, only material succession (without formal apostolic succession) is no different than schismatic succession (what the Eastern Orthodox have: material apostolic succession alone; but nor formal). For true apostolic succession to occur, both material and formal succession must exist. Another problem is that it seems to also posit a defection of the Magisterium and thus compromise the indefectibility of the Roman and Universal Church. Again, what happened with the True Church of Christ in Vatican II Council?, either not a substantial changed occurred (only seemed to have occurred) or the True Church of Christ defected. This is true for both SV and SSPX. I do not believe in the radical division pre/post Vatican II as if the Church had collapsed over night (both SV and SSPX share the radical historical rupture view) but in the continuity of religion where heresies and schisms must actually exist so the Elect can merit by combating them and to distinguish them from the reprobate.
I would like a sedeprivationist to address these concerns and explain the position in regards to:
1. Mark of Apostolicity (material & formal apostolic sucession)
2. Indefectibility of the Church in Vatican II Council
-
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.
Yes, Bishop Guérard des Lauriers created his thesis on material / formal succession, because he knew that sedevacantism stricto sensu was an evident unsolvable heresy. I am not SSPX R&R either and do not justify breaking communion with Rome over a supposed defection of the Magisterium; so I do not argue from that angle; but there are some problems with the sedeprivationist position as well. It is not that easy.
Perhaps Ladislaus can offer some light here: first, only material succession (without formal apostolic succession) is no different than schismatic succession (what the Eastern Orthodox have: material apostolic succession alone; but nor formal). For true apostolic succession to occur, both material and formal succession must exist. Another problem is that it seems to also posit a defection of the Magisterium and thus compromise the indefectibility of the Roman and Universal Church. Again, what happened with the True Church of Christ in Vatican II Council?, either not a substantial changed occurred (only seemed to have occurred) or the True Church of Christ defected. This is true for both SV and SSPX. I do not believe in the radical division pre/post Vatican II as if the Church had collapsed over night (both SV and SSPX share the radical historical rupture view) but in the continuity of religion where heresies and schisms must actually exist so the Elect can merit by combating them and to distinguish them from the reprobate.
I am sorry Cantarella. Perhaps I have been rude to you in the past, I apologize if that was the case.
I would like to try and answer your question directly and honestly.
The main issue you raise, which is no small issue, is that the Magisterium of the Church cannot defect.
I agree with this. It cannot defect, and it has not defected.
Now, I will do my best to explain why I believe this is the case.
1. The Church's Magisterium is the teaching authority she has from Christ. The commission to "Go and teach all nations." And "He who hears you hears me."
2. It is for THIS reason that the heresies and innovations and schismatic new rites we see and abhor cannot be acts of the Church's Magisterial Teaching.
3. But because the Magisterial Teaching is directly connected to the Magisterial Office, if the teaching is defective, the office is defective, for the office cannot produce false teaching. To assert otherwise is to assert that Christ is responsible for heresy, blasphemy and schism. It would be to say that Christ had wrought it.
that this is so, we can turn to Pope Pius XII:
In Humani Generis he says:
"Nor must it be thought that what is expounded in Encyclical Letters does not of itself demand consent, since in writing such Letters the Popes do not exercise the supreme power of their Teaching Authority. For these matters are taught with the ordinary teaching authority, of which it is true to say: "He who heareth you, heareth me";[3] and generally what is expounded and inculcated in Encyclical Letters already for other reasons appertains to Catholic doctrine. But if the Supreme Pontiffs in their official docuмents purposely pass judgment on a matter up to that time under dispute, it is obvious that that matter, according to the mind and will of the Pontiffs, cannot be any longer considered a question open to discussion among theologians."
So the Pope clearly teaches that the authentic Magisterium of the Church is an exercise of the authority of Christ. It is in fact the case that when we hear the Pope Teaching in an Encyclical, we hear the voice of Christ.
But error is not imputable to Christ, therefore, as I said above, etc. It is also for this reason that the Non-Infallible Magisterium has only a LIMITED capacity for error. It cannot err so badly as to lead souls into spiritual disaster. Because it is an act of Christ's own authority, which is not mocked.
Now, you make this contention:
Via Nishant:
"It is the idea that the entire Episcopate, the ecclesia docens, has ceased to exist. This thesis [henceforth ecclesia-vacantism for brevity's sake] is manifestly heretical, because it is a word for word denial of the dogma of the Church's Apostolicity. It is heretical and Protestant to say or think that the Catholic Church can cease to be Apostolic. If someone who holds this thesis furthermore says Catholics cannot err in good faith or become heretics when they do, I accuse that person of being a manifest heretic, for holding to this heresy."
and you said:
"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."
Now, there is a clear error here, though it is implicit, and it is on two counts:
1. What is implied is that if the overwhelming majority of bishops of the world defect, the Church's Magisterium defects. This is not true, because the Magisterium of the Church does not fundamentally lie with the bishops, but with the Pope. This can be seen in that their authentic and ordinary magisterium can only be exercised if they are united to HIM, and that the Ordinary Universal Magisterium can only exist if united to the POPE. Therefore, the body of bishops is not strictly necessary for the Magisterial authority of the Church, what is Necessary is the Pope.
2. No Sedevacantist claims the entire episcopacy is defunct. For example, even Fr. Cekada would admit all the Eastern Catholic Bishops have Apostolic Succession. In addition, we have several Bishops that have valid apostolic Succession, namely the Thuc Bishops and the Lefebvre Bishops, and Mendez Bishops, Kelly and Santay (Interesting Fact, Archbishop Thuc was granted a Motu Proprio by Pius XI to consecrate Bishops with what was basically Patriarchal power. He didn't need Rome to approve the consecrations, so to say he consecrated without mandate is not exactly true ). So nobody in their right mind is claiming apostolic succession has died out, that would be impossible, because then the Papacy would be literally defunct.
Since we know the Pope is the source of all Magisterial Authority, that leads to an interesting question: Can the Church exercise her Magisterial Authority during an interregnum? If there is no Pope for several years, as was the case twice in the Middle ages, what happens to the Church's teaching authority? Apparently, there can be no Ordinary Universal Magisterium, because the bishops cannot exercise it in unity with the Pope, because there is none.
This is what Msgr Charles Journet says in his "Church of the Incarnate Word":
https://www.ewtn.com/library/THEOLOGY/chwordin3.htm
“We must not think of the Church, when the Pope is dead, as possessing the papal power in act, in a state of diffusion, so that she herself can delegate it to the next Pope in whom it will be re-condensed and made definite. When the Pope dies the Church is widowed, and, in respect of the visible universal jurisdiction, she is truly acephalous. But she is not acephalous as are the schismatic churches, nor like a body on the way to decomposition. Christ directs her from heaven ... But, though slowed down, the pulse of life has not left the Church; she possesses the power of the Papacy in potency, in the sense that Christ, who has willed her always to depend on a visible pastor, has given her power to designate the man to whom He will Himself commit the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven, as once He committed them to Peter.
— “During a vacancy of the Apostolic See, neither the Church nor the Council can contravene the provisions already laid down to determine the valid mode of election (Cardinal Cajetan, O.P., in De Comparata, cap.xiii, no. 202). However, in case of permission (for example if the Pope has provided nothing against it), or in case of ambiguity (for example, if it is unknown who the true Cardinals are or who the true Pope is, as was the case at the time of the Great Schism), the power 'of applying the Papacy to such and such a person’ devolves on the universal Church, the Church of God.”
When the Church has no Pope, she is widowed. She is headless in a sense, but not ultimately. Christ himself directs her from heaven. AND she posses the Power to delegate a man to the Papacy, which she possesses potentially. And if that Bishop is delegated by the Church as Pope, he can rightly order Jurisdictional issues and ratify all that was done irregularly and through supplied jurisdiction.
After that, the Church's Ordinary Universal Magisterium will be up and running.
BUT, there is also another option as to what happens to the Church's Magisterium, and it is suggested by Tanquerey:
http://www.catholicapologetics.info/modernproblems/vatican2/magisterium.htm
"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.
Regarding Point 4 he says:
"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."
SO, to be clear here, I am not saying the Laity can displace the Bishops as teachers when there is no Pope. I am saying that, in a prolonged interregnum, when the Authentic Ordinary Magisterium does not seem able to be exercised, the Entirety of the Church still retains her infallibility in matters of faith and morals, not in regard to TEACHING, but in regard to PRESERVING.
This is necessary, in order for the Church not to fail.
Let us suppose there WAS a prolonged interregnum where the number of bishops was reduced to a small number widely dispersed throughout the world:
In order for the Church as SUCH in this state not to defect, the Faith of ALL the members in TOTO is to be considered a criterion of revelation that is passively infallible. This is the weakened state of the Church Msgr Journet talks about above, where she is widowed, but still directed by Christ.
Now the question may arise, "But can the Church REALLY be so long without a Pope?"
Well the theologians think it is possible.
In 1882 a book was published in England called The Relations of the Church to Society — Theological Essays, comprising 29 essays by Fr. Edmund James O’Reilly S.J., one of the leading theologians of his time.
This is what he wrote in one of his essays:
“We may here stop to inquire what is to be said of the position, at that time, of the three claimants, and their rights with regard to the Papacy. In the first place, there was all through, from the death of Gregory XI in 1378, a Pope — with the exception, of course, of the intervals between deaths and elections to fill up the vacancies thereby created. There was, I say, at every given time a Pope, really invested with the dignity of Vicar of Christ and Head of the Church, whatever opinions might exist among many as to his genuineness; not that an interregnum covering the whole period would have been impossible or inconsistent with the promises of Christ, for this is by no means manifest, but that, as a matter of fact, there was not such an interregnum.”
He goes on to say:
“The great schism of the West suggests to me a reflection which I take the liberty of expressing here. If this schism had not occurred, the hypothesis of such a thing happening would appear to many chimerical. They would say it could not be; God would not permit the Church to come into so unhappy a situation. Heresies might spring up and spread and last painfully long, through the fault and to the perdition of their authors and abettors, to the great distress too of the faithful, increased by actual persecution in many places where the heretics were dominant. But that the true Church should remain between thirty and forty years without a thoroughly ascertained Head, and representative of Christ on earth, this would not be. Yet it has been; and we have no guarantee that it will not be again, though we may fervently hope otherwise. What I would infer is, that we must not be too ready to pronounce on what God may permit. We know with absolute certainty that He will fulfil His promises; not allow anything to occur at variance with them; that He will sustain His Church and enable her to triumph over all enemies and difficulties; that He will give to each of the faithful those graces which are needed for each one’s service of Him and attainment of salvation, as He did during the great schism we have been considering, and in all the sufferings and trials which the Church has passed through from the beginning. We may also trust He will do a great deal more than what He has bound Himself to by His promises. We may look forward with a cheering probability to exemption for the future from some of the troubles and misfortunes that have befallen in the past. But we, or our successors in future generations of Christians, shall perhaps see stranger evils than have yet been experienced, even before the immediate approach of that great winding up of all things on earth that will precede the day of judgment. I am not setting up for a prophet, nor pretending to see unhappy wonders, of which I have no knowledge whatever. All I mean to convey is that contingencies regarding the Church, not excluded by the Divine promises, cannot be regarded as practically impossible, just because they would be terrible and distressing in a very high degree.”
SO, to sum up Cantarella:
Even if the Church were reduced to a handful of laity and bishops, all operating on supplied jurisdiction, she would not cease to exist.
1. She possesses the Papacy potentially. She could designate a Bishop to take the office who would then restore ordinary jurisdiction and Positive teaching authority.
2. It is indeed possible to go for a very long time without knowing where the true Pope is. During this time, the Church herself supplies jurisdiction to those bishops who take emergency action for the salvation of souls.
3. She retains her Ordinary Universal Magisterium PASSIVELY through the common faith of all the bishops and the faithful, which faith, even without a Pontiff, cannot fail. For Christ himself directs her from heaven.
It is precisely for THESE reasons that the idea of heresy on the part of the Sedevacantists is untenable, because the theologians indicate to us that we can survive this.
-
For true apostolic succession to occur, both material and formal succession must exist.
As you obviously know, Cantarella, there doesn't always actually have to be an ACTUAL Pope. As many SVs have repeatedly pointed out, there have been many lengthy periods of sedevacante in the past. And there's no definition for how many years it would take before the Apostolic Succession would cease. So R&R needs to define under what conditions it would actually cease. Usually when R&R throw this argument out there it's done in such a way as to imply that there must be an absolutely-continuous succession of popes, not even one instant in which there isn't one. That's a completely specious argument and it holds no water whatsoever. Even during times of sedevacante the papacy continues to exist at least in potency ... if not in act. In essence, it would have to get so bad that there would be no way any longer for the Church to get an ACTUAL pope.
So because it's clearly not related to time, Nishant formulated the ecclesiavacantist critique.
In the context of sedeprivationism, however, this problem completely goes away. Even a material pope can make appointments and exercise the other material aspects of the jurisdiction. So, for instance, if a heretical pope (materially but not formally pope) were to appoint a Bishop to a specific See, if that Bishop had no other impediments to formally exercise the office, he could indeed formally exercise the office.
-
TRUE OR FALSE POPE?
Refuting Sedevacantism and Other Modern Errors
By John Salza and Robert Siscoe, 700 pages
Foreword by His Excellency, Bishop Bernard Fellay
Sneak Peak
TABLE OF CONTENTS AND PREFACE
True or False Pope? is the most thoroughly researched, detailed and systematic refutation of Sedevacantism that exists. In this 700 page tome, John Salza and Robert Siscoe present material from Popes, ecuмenical councils and Doctors of the Church that you will never find on a Sedevacantist website.
Doubtful.
Quoting directly from today’s leading Sedevacantist apologists, Salza and Siscoe reveal how Sedevacantists have distorted the teachings of their favorite Popes and theologians, especially St. Robert Bellarmine, and how they even contradict each other. The book also reveals the many unfortunate tactics used by Sedevacantists in an effort to “prove” their case, that is, to defend what is indefensible.
Well what does St. Robert Bellarmine SAY?
:popcorn:
"The fourth opinion is that of Cajetan, for whom (de auctor. papae et con., cap. 20 et 21) the manifestly heretical Pope is not “ipso facto” deposed, but can and must be deposed by the Church. To my judgment, this opinion cannot be defended. For, in the first place, it is proven with arguments from authority and from reason that the manifest heretic is “ipso facto” deposed. The argument from authority is based on St. Paul (Titus, c. 3), who orders that the heretic be avoided after two warnings, that is, after showing himself to be manifestly obstinate — which means before any excommunication or judicial sentence. And this is what St. Jerome writes, adding that the other sinners are excluded from the Church by sentence of excommunication, but the heretics exile themselves and separate themselves by their own act from the body of Christ. Now, a Pope who remains Pope cannot be avoided, for how could we be required to avoid our own head? How can we separate ourselves from a member united to us? This principle is most certain. The non-Christian cannot in any way be Pope, as Cajetan himself admits (ib. c. 26). The reason for this is that he cannot be head of what he is not a member; now he who is not a Christian is not a member of the Church, and a manifest heretic is not a Christian, as is clearly taught by St. Cyprian (lib. 4, epist. 2), St. Athanasius (Scr. 2 cont. Arian.), St. Augustine (lib. de great. Christ. cap. 20), St. Jerome (contra Lucifer.) and others; therefore the manifest heretic cannot be Pope. To this Cajetan responds (in Apol. pro tract. praedicto cap. 25 et in ipso tract. cap. 22) that the heretic is not a Christian “simpliciter” [i.e. without qualification, or absolutely], but is one “secundum quid” [i.e. in a qualified or relative sense]. For, granted that two things constitute the Christian — the faith and the [baptismal] character — the heretic, having lost the faith, is still in some way united to the Church and is capable of jurisdiction; therefore, he is also Pope, but ought to be removed, since he is disposed, with ultimate disposition, to cease to be Pope: as the man who is still not dead but is “in extremis” [at the point of death]. Against this: in the first place, if the heretic remained, “in actu” [actually], united to the Church in virtue of the character, he would never be able to be cut or separated from her “in actu,” for the character is indelible. But there is no one who denies that some people may be separated “in actu” from the Church. Therefore, the character does not make the heretic be “in actu” in the Church, but is only a sign that he was in the Church and that he must return to her. Analogously, when a sheep wanders lost in the mountains, the mark impressed on it does not make it be in the fold, but indicates from which fold it had fled and to which fold it ought to be brought back. This truth has a confirmation in St. Thomas who says (Summ. Theol. III, q. 8, a. 3) that those who do not have the faith are not united “in actu” to Christ, but only potentially — and St. Thomas here refers to the internal union, and not to the external which is produced by the confession of faith and visible signs. Therefore, as the character is something internal, and not external, according to St. Thomas the character alone does not unite a man, “in actu,” to Christ. Further against the argument of Cajetan: either faith is a disposition necessary “simpliciter” for someone to be Pope, or it is only necessary for someone to be a good Pope [“ad bene esse,” to exist well, to be good, as opposed to simply existing]. In the first hypothesis, in case this disposition be eliminated by the contrary disposition, which is heresy, the Pope immediately ceases to be Pope: for the form cannot maintain itself without the necessary dispositions. In the second hypothesis, the Pope cannot be deposed by reason of heresy, for otherwise he would also have to be deposed for ignorance, immorality, and other similar causes, which impede the knowledge, the morality, and the other dispositions necessary for him to be a good Pope (“ad bene esse papae”). In addition to this, Cajetan recognises (tract. praed., ca. 26) that the Pope cannot be deposed for the lack of dispositions necessary, not “simpliciter,” but only “ad bene esse.” To this, Cajetan responds that faith is a disposition necessary “simpliciter,” but partial, and not total; and that, therefore, even if his faith disappears he can still continue being Pope, by reason of the other part of the disposition, the character, which still endures. Against this argument: either the total disposition, constituted by the character and by faith, is necessary “simpliciter,” or it is not, the partial disposition then being sufficient. In the first hypothesis, the faith disappearing there no longer remains the disposition “simpliciter” necessary, for the disposition “simpliciter” necessary was the total, and the total no longer exists. In the second hypothesis, the faith is only necessary “ad bene esse,” and therefore its absence does not justify the deposition of the Pope. In addition to this, what finds itself in the ultimate disposition to death, immediately thereafter ceases to exist, without the intervention of any other external force, as is obvious; therefore, also the Pope heretic ceases to be Pope by himself, without any deposition. Finally, the Holy Fathers teach unanimously not only that heretics are outside of the Church, but also that they are “ipso facto” deprived of all ecclesiastical jurisdiction and dignity. St. Cyprian (lib. 2, epist. 6) says: “We affirm that absolutely no heretic or schismatic has any power or right”; and he also teaches (lib. 2, epist. 1) that the heretics who return to the Church must be received as laymen, even though they have been formerly priests or bishops in the Church. St. Optatus (lib. 1 cont. Parmen.) teaches that heretics and schismatics cannot have the keys of the kingdom of heaven, nor bind nor loose. St. Ambrose (lib. 1 de poenit., ca. 2), St. Augustine (in Enchir., cap 65), St. Jerome (lib. cont. Lucifer.) teach the same. Pope St. Celestine I (epist. ad Jo. Antioch., which appears in Conc. Ephes., tom. I, cap. 19) wrote: “It is evident that he [who has been excommunicated by Nestorius] has remained and remains in communion with us, and that we do not consider destituted [i.e. deprived of office, by judgment of Nestorius], anyone who has been excommunicated or deprived of his charge, either episcopal or clerical, by Bishop Nestorius or by the others who followed him, after they commenced preaching heresy. For he who had already shown himself as deserving to be excommunicated, could not excommunicate anyone by his sentence.” And in a letter to the clergy of Constantinople, Pope St. Celestine I says: “The authority of Our Apostolic See has determined that the bishop, cleric, or simple Christian who had been deposed or excommunicated by Nestorius or his followers, after the latter began to preach heresy shall not be considered deposed or excommunicated. For he who had defected from the faith with such preachings, cannot depose or remove anyone whatsoever.” St. Nicholas I (epist. ad Michael) repeats and confirms the same. Finally, St. Thomas also teaches (S. Theol., II-II, q. 39, a. 3) that schismatics immediately lose all jurisdiction, and that anything they try to do on the basis of any jurisdiction will be null. There is no basis for that which some respond to this: that these Fathers based themselves on ancient law, while nowadays, by decree of the Council of Constance, they alone lose their jurisdiction who are excommunicated by name or who assault clerics. This argument, I say, has no value at all, for those Fathers, in affirming that heretics lose jurisdiction, did not cite any human law, which furthermore perhaps did not exist in relation to the matter, but argued on the basis of the very nature of heresy. The Council of Constance only deals with the excommunicated, that is, those who have lost jurisdiction by sentence of the Church, while heretics already before being excommunicated are outside the Church and deprived of all jurisdiction. For they have already been condemned by their own sentence, as the Apostle teaches (Tit. 3:10-11), that is, they have been cut off from the body of the Church without excommunication, as St. Jerome affirms. Besides that, the second affirmation of Cajetan, that the Pope heretic can be truly and authoritatively deposed by the Church, is no less false than the first. For if the Church deposes the Pope against his will it is certainly above the Pope; however, Cajetan himself defends, in the same treatise, the contrary of this. Cajetan responds that the Church, in deposing the Pope, does not have authority over the Pope, but only over the link that unites the person to the pontificate. In the same way that the Church in uniting the pontificate to such a person, is not, because of this, above the Pontiff, so also the Church can separate the pontificate from such a person in case of heresy, without saying that it is above the Pope. But contrary to this it must be observed in the first place that, from the fact that the Pope deposes bishops, it is deduced that the Pope is above all the bishops, though the Pope on deposing a bishop does not destroy the episcopal jurisdiction, but only separates it from that person. In the second place, to depose anyone from the pontificate against the will of the deposed, is without doubt punishing him; however, to punish is proper to a superior or to a judge. In the third place, given that according to Cajetan and the other Thomists, in reality the whole and the parts taken as a whole are the same thing, he who has authority over the parts taken as a whole, being able to separate them one from another, has also authority over the whole itself which is constituted by those parts. The example of the electors, who have the power to designate a certain person for the pontificate, without however having power over the Pope, given by Cajetan, is also destitute of value. For when something is being made, the action is exercised over the matter of the future thing, and not over the composite, which does not yet exist, but when a thing is destroyed, the action is exercised over the composite, as becomes patent on consideration of the things of nature. Therefore, on creating the Pontiff, the cardinals do not exercise their authority over the Pontiff for he does not yet exist, but over the matter, that is, over the person who by the election becomes disposed to receive the pontificate from God. But if they deposed the Pontiff, they would necessarily exercise authority over the composite, that is, over the person endowed with the pontifical power, that is, over the Pontiff. Therefore, the true opinion is the fifth, according to which the Pope who is manifestly a heretic ceases by himself to be Pope and head, in the same way as he ceases to be a Christian and a member of the body of the Church; and for this reason he can be judged and punished by the Church. This is the opinion of all the ancient Fathers, who teach that manifest heretics immediately lose all jurisdiction, and outstandingly that of St. Cyprian (lib. 4, epist. 2) who speaks as follows of Novatian, who was Pope [i.e. antipope] in the schism which occurred during the pontificate of St. Cornelius: “He would not be able to retain the episcopate [i.e. of Rome], and, if he was made bishop before, he separated himself from the body of those who were, like him, bishops, and from the unity of the Church.” According to what St. Cyprian affirms in this passage, even had Novatian been the true and legitimate Pope, he would have automatically fallen from the pontificate, if he separated himself from the Church. This is the opinion of great recent doctors, as John Driedo (lib. 4 de Script. et dogmat. Eccles., cap. 2, par. 2, sent. 2), who teaches that only they separate themselves from the Church who are expelled, like the excommunicated, and those who depart by themselves from her or oppose her, as heretics and schismatics. And in his seventh affirmation, he maintains that in those who turn away from the Church, there remains absolutely no spiritual power over those who are in the Church. Melchior Cano says the same (lib. 4 de loc., cap. 2), teaching that heretics are neither parts nor members of the Church, and that it cannot even be conceived that anyone could be head and Pope, without being member and part (cap. ult. ad argument. 12). And he teaches in the same place, in plain words, that occult heretics are still of the Church, they are parts and members, and that therefore the Pope who is an occult heretic is still Pope. This is also the opinion of the other authors whom we cite in book I De Ecclesia. The foundation of this argument is that the manifest heretic is not in any way a member of the Church, that is, neither spiritually nor corporally, which signifies that he is not such by internal union nor by external union. For even bad Catholics [i.e. who are not heretics] are united and are members, spiritually by faith, corporally by confession of faith and by participation in the visible sacraments; the occult heretics are united and are members although only by external union; on the contrary, the good catechumens belong to the Church only by an internal union, not by the external; but manifest heretics do not pertain in any manner, as we have already proved."
See more at: http://www.cmri.org/02-bellarmine-roman-pontiff.html#sthash.WwmzYSLU.dpuf
Is THAT enough context?????????
The authors begin by demonstrating that Sedevacantism logically results in a heretical denial of the attributes (visibility, indefectibility, infallibility) and marks (especially apostolicity) of the Catholic Church.
Lol. That is funny. Last I checked there are bishops, priests and deacons which are the elements of the Visible institutional Church. Even if none had Jurisdiction, the ability to obtain it remains in the Church, because she possesses the Papacy in potential and could in theory elect a Pope for herself who would grant her bishops jurisdiction.
The only ones who admit the Church is defectible are the RnR legal bar who are willing to assert that the heresies of Vatican II are the work of the Church's Magisterium, and therefore ultimately of Christ, which is blasphemous.
After explaining the bonds that unite man to the true Church, the authors explain the distinction between heresy and lesser errors, and how the sin of heresy alone does not sever one from the Church.
Ah, very conniving, because they are CORRECT, BUT they are making a smoke screen. They will argue: "Suppose a person gets in an argument with another person and in that argument says something heretical and refuses to retract it. Is he severed from the Church???"
No, he is not, because he is a SECRET heretic. He is subjectively guilty of the sin of heresy, but his excommunication is not ipso facto because it is not PUBLIC and MANIFEST. However, PUBLIC heretics fall from their office and lose jurisdiction ipso facto, as Bellarmine says above.
The authors then go on to provide the most detailed analysis in print of what the Church does in the case of a heretical Pope, based upon the teachings of all the classical theologians who addressed the topic.
What the Church chooses to DO to a manifestly Heretical Pope is quite distinct from the reality of Divine Law which states that a Public Heretic loses his office. What are being confused here are two things: Divine Law, and the appropriate application of canon law. Apples and oranges.
After a very important explanation of the scope of infallibility (papal, conciliar, disciplinary, New Mass, canonizations), the authors tackle and refute the Sedevacantist arguments against the new rites of episcopal consecration and ordination.
The authors conclude by affirming the Recognize & Resist position of Traditional Catholics, and expose in great detail the bitter fruits of Sedevacantism.
I can't wait. lol.
This groundbreaking work proves the Sedevacantist thesis is an overreaction to the crisis in the Church, akin to the reflexive “faith” of Protestantism. This explains why Sedevacantists are divided into many competing factions and sects that even condemn each other, and some of these sects have also elected their own “Popes.”
Those would actually be CONCLAVISTS, not Sedevacantists. Is it any surprise that when the shepherd is struck the sheep will scatter?
The book also underscores that the Church is currently suffering a mystical Passion similar to that of Our Lord Jesus Christ. Like those who lost faith in Christ during His Passion, Sedevacantists have lost faith in the Church, His Mystical Body.
That's not true, they just claim the Novus Ordo isn't it. The Traditionalists are.
And, in doing so, they have become among her most bitter persecutors. No matter what one’s perspective is on the crisis of the Church, anyone who reads this book will conclude in no uncertain terms that Sedevacantism – one of the great modern errors of our times – far from being a “solution” to the crisis, cannot be held or defended in good faith by any true Catholic.
Then you will have to explain how St. Vincent Ferrer became a sedevacantist. He realized Pope Benedict XIII of Avignon was not willing to lay down his papacy in order to restore order in the Church and resolve the great western schism. So, to his face, he said that since Benedict XIII was unwilling to heal the Church, he had become schismatic. He therefore declared the Papal throne vacant, to his face, and refused to recognize the claimants of Rome or Pisa until the council of Constance elected Pope Martin V.
SO, yeah...
-
TRUE OR FALSE POPE?
Refuting Sedevacantism and Other Modern Errors
By John Salza and Robert Siscoe, 700 pages
Foreword by His Excellency, Bishop Bernard Fellay
Sneak Peak
TABLE OF CONTENTS AND PREFACE
True or False Pope? is the most thoroughly researched, detailed and systematic refutation of Sedevacantism that exists. In this 700 page tome, John Salza and Robert Siscoe present material from Popes, ecuмenical councils and Doctors of the Church that you will never find on a Sedevacantist website.
Doubtful.
Well, the book will remove those doubts for you. Stay tuned.
Quoting directly from today’s leading Sedevacantist apologists, Salza and Siscoe reveal how Sedevacantists have distorted the teachings of their favorite Popes and theologians, especially St. Robert Bellarmine, and how they even contradict each other. The book also reveals the many unfortunate tactics used by Sedevacantists in an effort to “prove” their case, that is, to defend what is indefensible.
Well what does St. Robert Bellarmine SAY?
:popcorn:
"The fourth opinion is that of Cajetan, for whom (de auctor. papae et con., cap. 20 et 21) the manifestly heretical Pope is not “ipso facto” deposed, but can and must be deposed by the Church. To my judgment, this opinion cannot be defended. For, in the first place, it is proven with arguments from authority and from reason that the manifest heretic is “ipso facto” deposed. The argument from authority is based on St. Paul (Titus, c. 3), who orders that the heretic be avoided after two warnings, that is, after showing himself to be manifestly obstinate — which means before any excommunication or judicial sentence. And this is what St. Jerome writes, adding that the other sinners are excluded from the Church by sentence of excommunication, but the heretics exile themselves and separate themselves by their own act from the body of Christ. Now, a Pope who remains Pope cannot be avoided, for how could we be required to avoid our own head? How can we separate ourselves from a member united to us? This principle is most certain. The non-Christian cannot in any way be Pope, as Cajetan himself admits (ib. c. 26). The reason for this is that he cannot be head of what he is not a member; now he who is not a Christian is not a member of the Church, and a manifest heretic is not a Christian, as is clearly taught by St. Cyprian (lib. 4, epist. 2), St. Athanasius (Scr. 2 cont. Arian.), St. Augustine (lib. de great. Christ. cap. 20), St. Jerome (contra Lucifer.) and others; therefore the manifest heretic cannot be Pope. To this Cajetan responds (in Apol. pro tract. praedicto cap. 25 et in ipso tract. cap. 22) that the heretic is not a Christian “simpliciter” [i.e. without qualification, or absolutely], but is one “secundum quid” [i.e. in a qualified or relative sense]. For, granted that two things constitute the Christian — the faith and the [baptismal] character — the heretic, having lost the faith, is still in some way united to the Church and is capable of jurisdiction; therefore, he is also Pope, but ought to be removed, since he is disposed, with ultimate disposition, to cease to be Pope: as the man who is still not dead but is “in extremis” [at the point of death]. Against this: in the first place, if the heretic remained, “in actu” [actually], united to the Church in virtue of the character, he would never be able to be cut or separated from her “in actu,” for the character is indelible. But there is no one who denies that some people may be separated “in actu” from the Church. Therefore, the character does not make the heretic be “in actu” in the Church, but is only a sign that he was in the Church and that he must return to her. Analogously, when a sheep wanders lost in the mountains, the mark impressed on it does not make it be in the fold, but indicates from which fold it had fled and to which fold it ought to be brought back. This truth has a confirmation in St. Thomas who says (Summ. Theol. III, q. 8, a. 3) that those who do not have the faith are not united “in actu” to Christ, but only potentially — and St. Thomas here refers to the internal union, and not to the external which is produced by the confession of faith and visible signs. Therefore, as the character is something internal, and not external, according to St. Thomas the character alone does not unite a man, “in actu,” to Christ. Further against the argument of Cajetan: either faith is a disposition necessary “simpliciter” for someone to be Pope, or it is only necessary for someone to be a good Pope [“ad bene esse,” to exist well, to be good, as opposed to simply existing]. In the first hypothesis, in case this disposition be eliminated by the contrary disposition, which is heresy, the Pope immediately ceases to be Pope: for the form cannot maintain itself without the necessary dispositions. In the second hypothesis, the Pope cannot be deposed by reason of heresy, for otherwise he would also have to be deposed for ignorance, immorality, and other similar causes, which impede the knowledge, the morality, and the other dispositions necessary for him to be a good Pope (“ad bene esse papae”). In addition to this, Cajetan recognises (tract. praed., ca. 26) that the Pope cannot be deposed for the lack of dispositions necessary, not “simpliciter,” but only “ad bene esse.” To this, Cajetan responds that faith is a disposition necessary “simpliciter,” but partial, and not total; and that, therefore, even if his faith disappears he can still continue being Pope, by reason of the other part of the disposition, the character, which still endures. Against this argument: either the total disposition, constituted by the character and by faith, is necessary “simpliciter,” or it is not, the partial disposition then being sufficient. In the first hypothesis, the faith disappearing there no longer remains the disposition “simpliciter” necessary, for the disposition “simpliciter” necessary was the total, and the total no longer exists. In the second hypothesis, the faith is only necessary “ad bene esse,” and therefore its absence does not justify the deposition of the Pope. In addition to this, what finds itself in the ultimate disposition to death, immediately thereafter ceases to exist, without the intervention of any other external force, as is obvious; therefore, also the Pope heretic ceases to be Pope by himself, without any deposition. Finally, the Holy Fathers teach unanimously not only that heretics are outside of the Church, but also that they are “ipso facto” deprived of all ecclesiastical jurisdiction and dignity. St. Cyprian (lib. 2, epist. 6) says: “We affirm that absolutely no heretic or schismatic has any power or right”; and he also teaches (lib. 2, epist. 1) that the heretics who return to the Church must be received as laymen, even though they have been formerly priests or bishops in the Church. St. Optatus (lib. 1 cont. Parmen.) teaches that heretics and schismatics cannot have the keys of the kingdom of heaven, nor bind nor loose. St. Ambrose (lib. 1 de poenit., ca. 2), St. Augustine (in Enchir., cap 65), St. Jerome (lib. cont. Lucifer.) teach the same. Pope St. Celestine I (epist. ad Jo. Antioch., which appears in Conc. Ephes., tom. I, cap. 19) wrote: “It is evident that he [who has been excommunicated by Nestorius] has remained and remains in communion with us, and that we do not consider destituted [i.e. deprived of office, by judgment of Nestorius], anyone who has been excommunicated or deprived of his charge, either episcopal or clerical, by Bishop Nestorius or by the others who followed him, after they commenced preaching heresy. For he who had already shown himself as deserving to be excommunicated, could not excommunicate anyone by his sentence.” And in a letter to the clergy of Constantinople, Pope St. Celestine I says: “The authority of Our Apostolic See has determined that the bishop, cleric, or simple Christian who had been deposed or excommunicated by Nestorius or his followers, after the latter began to preach heresy shall not be considered deposed or excommunicated. For he who had defected from the faith with such preachings, cannot depose or remove anyone whatsoever.” St. Nicholas I (epist. ad Michael) repeats and confirms the same. Finally, St. Thomas also teaches (S. Theol., II-II, q. 39, a. 3) that schismatics immediately lose all jurisdiction, and that anything they try to do on the basis of any jurisdiction will be null. There is no basis for that which some respond to this: that these Fathers based themselves on ancient law, while nowadays, by decree of the Council of Constance, they alone lose their jurisdiction who are excommunicated by name or who assault clerics. This argument, I say, has no value at all, for those Fathers, in affirming that heretics lose jurisdiction, did not cite any human law, which furthermore perhaps did not exist in relation to the matter, but argued on the basis of the very nature of heresy. The Council of Constance only deals with the excommunicated, that is, those who have lost jurisdiction by sentence of the Church, while heretics already before being excommunicated are outside the Church and deprived of all jurisdiction. For they have already been condemned by their own sentence, as the Apostle teaches (Tit. 3:10-11), that is, they have been cut off from the body of the Church without excommunication, as St. Jerome affirms. Besides that, the second affirmation of Cajetan, that the Pope heretic can be truly and authoritatively deposed by the Church, is no less false than the first. For if the Church deposes the Pope against his will it is certainly above the Pope; however, Cajetan himself defends, in the same treatise, the contrary of this. Cajetan responds that the Church, in deposing the Pope, does not have authority over the Pope, but only over the link that unites the person to the pontificate. In the same way that the Church in uniting the pontificate to such a person, is not, because of this, above the Pontiff, so also the Church can separate the pontificate from such a person in case of heresy, without saying that it is above the Pope. But contrary to this it must be observed in the first place that, from the fact that the Pope deposes bishops, it is deduced that the Pope is above all the bishops, though the Pope on deposing a bishop does not destroy the episcopal jurisdiction, but only separates it from that person. In the second place, to depose anyone from the pontificate against the will of the deposed, is without doubt punishing him; however, to punish is proper to a superior or to a judge. In the third place, given that according to Cajetan and the other Thomists, in reality the whole and the parts taken as a whole are the same thing, he who has authority over the parts taken as a whole, being able to separate them one from another, has also authority over the whole itself which is constituted by those parts. The example of the electors, who have the power to designate a certain person for the pontificate, without however having power over the Pope, given by Cajetan, is also destitute of value. For when something is being made, the action is exercised over the matter of the future thing, and not over the composite, which does not yet exist, but when a thing is destroyed, the action is exercised over the composite, as becomes patent on consideration of the things of nature. Therefore, on creating the Pontiff, the cardinals do not exercise their authority over the Pontiff for he does not yet exist, but over the matter, that is, over the person who by the election becomes disposed to receive the pontificate from God. But if they deposed the Pontiff, they would necessarily exercise authority over the composite, that is, over the person endowed with the pontifical power, that is, over the Pontiff. Therefore, the true opinion is the fifth, according to which the Pope who is manifestly a heretic ceases by himself to be Pope and head, in the same way as he ceases to be a Christian and a member of the body of the Church; and for this reason he can be judged and punished by the Church. This is the opinion of all the ancient Fathers, who teach that manifest heretics immediately lose all jurisdiction, and outstandingly that of St. Cyprian (lib. 4, epist. 2) who speaks as follows of Novatian, who was Pope [i.e. antipope] in the schism which occurred during the pontificate of St. Cornelius: “He would not be able to retain the episcopate [i.e. of Rome], and, if he was made bishop before, he separated himself from the body of those who were, like him, bishops, and from the unity of the Church.” According to what St. Cyprian affirms in this passage, even had Novatian been the true and legitimate Pope, he would have automatically fallen from the pontificate, if he separated himself from the Church. This is the opinion of great recent doctors, as John Driedo (lib. 4 de Script. et dogmat. Eccles., cap. 2, par. 2, sent. 2), who teaches that only they separate themselves from the Church who are expelled, like the excommunicated, and those who depart by themselves from her or oppose her, as heretics and schismatics. And in his seventh affirmation, he maintains that in those who turn away from the Church, there remains absolutely no spiritual power over those who are in the Church. Melchior Cano says the same (lib. 4 de loc., cap. 2), teaching that heretics are neither parts nor members of the Church, and that it cannot even be conceived that anyone could be head and Pope, without being member and part (cap. ult. ad argument. 12). And he teaches in the same place, in plain words, that occult heretics are still of the Church, they are parts and members, and that therefore the Pope who is an occult heretic is still Pope. This is also the opinion of the other authors whom we cite in book I De Ecclesia. The foundation of this argument is that the manifest heretic is not in any way a member of the Church, that is, neither spiritually nor corporally, which signifies that he is not such by internal union nor by external union. For even bad Catholics [i.e. who are not heretics] are united and are members, spiritually by faith, corporally by confession of faith and by participation in the visible sacraments; the occult heretics are united and are members although only by external union; on the contrary, the good catechumens belong to the Church only by an internal union, not by the external; but manifest heretics do not pertain in any manner, as we have already proved."
See more at: http://www.cmri.org/02-bellarmine-roman-pontiff.html#sthash.WwmzYSLU.dpuf
Is THAT enough context?????????
How impressive. You've cut and pasted from Bellarmine. As our book shows, Sedevacantists are very proficient at the cut and paste technique. Unfortunately, most of their scholarship does not go beyond it.
The authors begin by demonstrating that Sedevacantism logically results in a heretical denial of the attributes (visibility, indefectibility, infallibility) and marks (especially apostolicity) of the Catholic Church.
Lol. That is funny. Last I checked there are bishops, priests and deacons which are the elements of the Visible institutional Church. Even if none had Jurisdiction, the ability to obtain it remains in the Church, because she possesses the Papacy in potential and could in theory elect a Pope for herself who would grant her bishops jurisdiction.
Really? If all jurisdiction comes from the Pope but we haven't had a Pope since 1958, then where is the jurisdiction? There is a distinction between having jurisdiction and "the ability to obtain it" which means jurisdiction doesn't exist. This sedevacantist's statement proves too much for him.
The only ones who admit the Church is defectible are the RnR legal bar who are willing to assert that the heresies of Vatican II are the work of the Church's Magisterium, and therefore ultimately of Christ, which is blasphemous.
The Sedevacantist error of Monolithic Infallibility strikes again. Of course, because the Sedevacantist understanding of infallibility is erroneous, the Sedevacantist thesis is erroneous, as our book shows in spades.
After explaining the bonds that unite man to the true Church, the authors explain the distinction between heresy and lesser errors, and how the sin of heresy alone does not sever one from the Church.
Ah, very conniving, because they are CORRECT, BUT they are making a smoke screen. They will argue: "Suppose a person gets in an argument with another person and in that argument says something heretical and refuses to retract it. Is he severed from the Church???"
No, he is not, because he is a SECRET heretic. He is subjectively guilty of the sin of heresy, but his excommunication is not ipso facto because it is not PUBLIC and MANIFEST. However, PUBLIC heretics fall from their office and lose jurisdiction ipso facto, as Bellarmine says above.
This Sedevacantist is quite confused. First, he obviously isn't aware that such a person is an occult excommunicate, if in fact he is subjectively guilty of heresy, but this is a judgment of the internal forum. Second, those guilty of the crime of heresy lose their office, but only after the Church establishes the crime. This Sedevacantist, in typical fashion, fails to understand that Bellarmine was giving his opinion about what happens to the heretic AFTER the Church judges the crime. Bellarmine certainly was not teaching that clerics lose their office automatically based on the private judgment of individual Catholics.
The authors then go on to provide the most detailed analysis in print of what the Church does in the case of a heretical Pope, based upon the teachings of all the classical theologians who addressed the topic.
What the Church chooses to DO to a manifestly Heretical Pope is quite distinct from the reality of Divine Law which states that a Public Heretic loses his office. What are being confused here are two things: Divine Law, and the appropriate application of canon law. Apples and oranges.
No, it is the Sedevacantist who has confused the issue. Heretics do not lose their office for the "sin of heresy under Divine law" since sin is a matter of the internal forum and Divine law does not bar a heretic from holding office in the Church, so long as he is tolerated by the Church. This is the teaching of Pope Alexander III and many other theologians, which you will never find on a Sedevacantist website.
After a very important explanation of the scope of infallibility (papal, conciliar, disciplinary, New Mass, canonizations), the authors tackle and refute the Sedevacantist arguments against the new rites of episcopal consecration and ordination.
The authors conclude by affirming the Recognize & Resist position of Traditional Catholics, and expose in great detail the bitter fruits of Sedevacantism.
I can't wait. lol.
You can "lol" all you wish, but we can assure you that your laughter will be turned into tears.
This groundbreaking work proves the Sedevacantist thesis is an overreaction to the crisis in the Church, akin to the reflexive “faith” of Protestantism. This explains why Sedevacantists are divided into many competing factions and sects that even condemn each other, and some of these sects have also elected their own “Popes.”
Those would actually be CONCLAVISTS, not Sedevacantists. Is it any surprise that when the shepherd is struck the sheep will scatter?
They are Sedevacantists who have elected their own "Popes." But whether you wish to call them Sedevacantists or Conclavists, it doesn't matter. They are both guilty of the error of private judgment by usurpation, condemned by the Fourth Council of Constantinople.
The book also underscores that the Church is currently suffering a mystical Passion similar to that of Our Lord Jesus Christ. Like those who lost faith in Christ during His Passion, Sedevacantists have lost faith in the Church, His Mystical Body.
That's not true, they just claim the Novus Ordo isn't it. The Traditionalists are.
You bet it's true. Sedevacantists have lost faith in the Church because they refuse to recognize the suffering Church, and they can't point to a Church which has the three attributes and four marks of Christ's Church.
And, in doing so, they have become among her most bitter persecutors. No matter what one’s perspective is on the crisis of the Church, anyone who reads this book will conclude in no uncertain terms that Sedevacantism – one of the great modern errors of our times – far from being a “solution” to the crisis, cannot be held or defended in good faith by any true Catholic.
Then you will have to explain how St. Vincent Ferrer became a sedevacantist. He realized Pope Benedict XIII of Avignon was not willing to lay down his papacy in order to restore order in the Church and resolve the great western schism. So, to his face, he said that since Benedict XIII was unwilling to heal the Church, he had become schismatic. He therefore declared the Papal throne vacant, to his face, and refused to recognize the claimants of Rome or Pisa until the council of Constance elected Pope Martin V.
This shows how ignorant this Sedevacantist is. St. Vincent Ferrer was not a Sedevacantist because there was no universal and peaceful acceptance of a Pope during the Western Schism. This Sedevacantist has a lot to learn. Be assured that our book will help him.
SO, yeah...
-
Get ready to RUMBLE!
Things just got real....lol.
:popcorn:
-
Salza says SVs are good at cutting and pasting. That is one of the best refutations of Bellarmine that I have seen.
-
Salza says SVs are good at cutting and pasting. That is one of the best refutations of Bellarmine that I have seen.
Heh. Whether he's here to actually debate and prove SV's wrong or he's here just to promote his book remains to be seen.
Oh wait, those two things are actually the same thing.
-
test
-
How impressive. You've cut and pasted from Bellarmine. As our book shows, Sedevacantists are
very proficient at the cut and paste technique. Unfortunately, most of their scholarship does not go beyond it.
Yes, you see, we would prefer to rely on those who have come before us...not innovating and such. :rolleyes:
Mr Salza,
With all due respect to your legal practice, your attempt, and such a lengthy attempt, at refuting Sedevacantism is
really more telling of what the Society is concerned about than you personally. It is a fact that the Society has had a steady trickle of priests
which have been leaving her and embracing the Sedevacantist position over the years.
Now, if you want to be real, let's please be real, gentleman to gentleman:
1. Sedevacantism when it is properly defended is a theological position, necessarily held, the attempted refutation of which can only lead to personal heresy.
2. There are many who call themselves sedevacantists who attempt to argue from the particulars of historical circuмstances surrounding each pope.
I.E. on this date he said this in an encyclical, etc. This is completely unnecessary to maintain the Sedevacantist position.
The Sedevacantist position, properly explained, is based on Dogmatic Fact and tight logic:
Sequence 1-
Syllogism 1:
1. The Church is indefectible. (Dogma)
2. But Vatican II has defected through proclaiming heresy. (Fact)
3. Therefore the Authority proclaiming it is illegitimate. (Necessary Conclusion)
Syllogism 2:
1. The Authority Promulgating Vatican II is Not Catholic
2. But Paul VI promulgated Vatican II.
3. Therefore Paul VI is not Catholic.
Syllogism 3:
1. Paul Vi is not Catholic.
2. Only a Catholic can be Pope
3. Therefore Paul VI is not Pope.
ERGO:
1. Therefore, Since Vatican II is Not Catholic,
2. and the Church is indefectible,
3. Paul Vi cannot be Pope.
Sequence 2, examining the Syllogisms of Sequence 1
Syllogism 1:
1. That the Church is indefectible means that she will always retain her outward Visible structure, even if offices
fall vacant for some time. In addition, she will always be able to at least passively exercise the Universal
Ordinary Magisterium in the preservation of that Truth (See Tanquerey's Dogmatic Theology on the Ordinary Universal Magisterium).
The theologians readily admit the Church can exist without her head for in fact many years. She retains her monarchical
structure, and, although widowed and Acephalous, the pulse of life lasts within her and Christ guides her from Heaven.
This is how she at least passively retains her Ordinary Universal Magisterium.
2. The Fact of Vatican II having defected from the faith is something I don't believe you will have any trouble admitting
Mr. Salza. We all know that Vatican II clearly proclaimed heresies and embraced that which was previously condemned.
But because Vatican II was Ostensibly an act of at LEAST the Universal Ordinary Magisterium, which Paul VI called the
Supreme Ordinary Magisterium, and which he at others times called "Extraordinary," if you accept that he was a legitimate Pope, COMPELS your assent of Divine Faith.
You Must admit that the CONTENT of Vatican II is infallible. For it has been Promulgated by a Pope,
Accepted by all the Bishops, preached and acted upon, has been placed in Catechisms and has been made the Ordinary Universal teaching of all the Church.
As Tanquerey ("Dogmatic Theology" 1894) says:
"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.
Now, Mr. Salza it is manifest that in order for you to be consistent with your position of
accepting these men as Popes, you must accept their authority. More specifically, you must accept their
encyclicals, their public preaching, and their acts of promulgation. You must accept their catechisms,
their liturgical rites, and their observances, for Christ cannot lie when he said,
"He who hears you hears me."
You are therefore compelled to accept them on pain of heresy, for if you, admitting them to be Popes,
fail to accept their promulgated teachings, you admit that the Papal Office and the Ordinary Universal
Magisterium can be in error, and therefore promote that which is harmful to the faithful.
But this is blasphemous. For that would be to attribute error and heresy and sacrilege to authority of Christ himself.
As Pope Pius XII says in Humani Generis:
"Nor must it be thought that what is expounded in Encyclical Letters does not of itself demand
consent, since in writing such Letters the Popes do not exercise the supreme power of their Teaching Authority.
[b]For these matters are taught with the ordinary teaching authority, of which it is true to say:
"He who heareth you, heareth me";[[/b]3] and generally what is expounded and inculcated in Encyclical Letters
already for other reasons appertains to Catholic doctrine. But if the Supreme Pontiffs in their official docuмents
purposely pass judgment on a matter up to that time under dispute, it is obvious that that matter, according to the
mind and will of the Pontiffs, cannot be any longer considered a question open to discussion among theologians."
The Ordinary and Non-Infallible Papal magisterium is itself an act of the authority of Christ.
Therefore Mr. Salza, you must embrace the Novus Ordo. You have no choice, because it is wrought by Christ.
It is a doing of the Church and you are presumably a loyal son of the Church and cannot reject that which is
ordinarily and universally proclaimed, the content of which is contained in her Catechism, and proclaimed at her Council, Vatican II.
3. But we know the above CANNOT be true Mr. Salza, don't we? We KNOW that Christ cannot contradict himself.
We KNOW that His Church cannot defect by teaching falsehood.
It is therefore NECESSARY and of FAITH to admit that this apparent teaching of Vatican II is simply inauthentic.
It does not proceed from the Church, it does not have Christ for its author, and it is demonstrably false, erroneous, heretical.
It is for this reason that whatever Authority promulgated Vatican II cannot have been legitimate Catholic Authority,
because Legitimate Catholic Authority CANNOT promulgate error.
Therefore, Paul VI and his successors, insofar as they imitate him and promulgate the same, cannot be Popes.
The alternative is to attribute heresy and error to Christ which is blasphemy.
Now, to examine the remainder:
1. Paul VI was not Catholic. This is a necessary conclusion arrived at from Syllogism 1, that the
Legitimate authority in the Church cannot promulgate error. But Paul VI promulgated error and advocated heresy, therefore he was not Catholic and Publically heretical.
2. The theologians clearly teach Public Heretics cannot be head of the Church:
Marato — Institutions Juris Canonici, 1921 “Heretics and schismatics are barred from the
Supreme Pontificate by the Divine Law itself, because, although by divine law they are not considered
incapable of participating in a certain type of ecclesiastical jurisdiction, nevertheless, they must certainly
be regarded as excluded from occupying the throne of the Apostolic See, which is the infallible teacher of the
truth of the faith and the center of ecclesiastical unity.”
St. Robert Bellarmine said: “A Pope who is a manifest heretic automatically ceases to be Pope and head, just as
he ceases automatically to be a Christian and a member of the Church. Wherefore, he can be judged and punished by the Church.
This is the teaching of all the ancient Fathers who teach that manifest heretics immediately lose all jurisdiction.”
St. Alphonsus, Bishop and Doctor of the Church, said: “If ever a Pope, as a private person, should fall into heresy,
he should at once fall from the Pontificate. If, however, God were to permit a pope to become a notorious and contumacious heretic,
he would by such fact cease to be pope, and the apostolic chair would be vacant.”
St. Antoninus said: “In the case in which the Pope would become a heretic, he would find himself, by that very fact
alone and without any other sentence, separated from the Church. A head separated from a body cannot, as long as it remains separated, be head of the same body from which it was cut off.”
Now, I can feel you telling yourself "FORMAL HERETICS! ONLY FORMAL HERETICS CAN FALL FROM THE PAPACY!"
Not so Joe:
Van Noort, taking his cue from Pope Pius XII explicitly teaches to the contrary:
"Dogmatic Theology Volume II: Christ's Church, Van Noort, p. 241-242
b. Public heretics (and a fortiori, apostates) are not members of the Church. They are not members because they separate themselves from
the unity of Catholic faith and from the external profession of that faith. Obviously, therefore, they lack one of three factors—baptism,
profession of the same faith, union with the hierarchy—pointed out by Pius XII as requisite for membership in the Church. The same
pontiff has explicitly pointed out that, unlike other sins, heresy, schism, and apostasy automatically sever a man from the Church.
"For not every sin, however grave and enormous it be, is such as to sever a man automatically from the Body of the Church, as does
schism or heresy or apostasy" (MCC 30; italics ours).
By the term public heretics at this point we mean all who externally deny a truth (for example Mary's Divine Maternity), or
several truths of divine and Catholic faith, regardless of whether the one denying does so ignorantly and innocently (a merely material heretic), or willfully and guiltily (a formal heretic). It is certain that public, formal heretics are severed from the Church membership. It is the more common opinion that public, material heretics are likewise excluded from membership. Theological reasoning for this opinion is quite strong: if public material heretics remained members of the Church, the visibility and unity of Christ's Church would perish. If these purely material heretics were considered members of the Catholic Church in the strict sense of the term, how would one ever locate the "Catholic Church"? How would the Church be one body? How would it profess one faith? Where would be its visibility? Where its unity? For these and other reasons we find it difficult to see any intrinsic probability to the opinion which would allow for public heretics, in good faith, remaining members of the Church.
3. Conclusion:
The indefectibility of the Church demands that Paul VI not be Catholic. Therefore he cannot be Pope, as Public Heretics,
whether material or formal, cannot be members of the Church, or the visibility of the Church is destroyed.
If you claim otherwise, you must admit, by virtue of the PLAINLY EXERCISED Universal and Ordinary Magisterium, that
CHRIST is the Author of our Chaos. That he has actively willed this for His Church and providentially provided for it
through the magisterial offices he has established.
This is BLASPHEMY.
It is therefore a NECESSARY THEOLOGICAL CONCLUSION:
Sede Vacante.
Unless you have discovered a severability clause between Magisterial Teaching and Magisterial Office...
-
Not all SVs are also EVs.
The most common reasoning among sedevacantists is that the Pope lost pontificate due to heresy because a heretic places himself outside the Church and a heretic cannot be Pope.
Are all conciliar Bishops heretics? If not, which ones are not? I want to know their identities. If so, when did they commit heresy: by signing Vatican II docuмents, by universally accepting a heretic as a Pontiff, by committing mass apostasy, when was the precise moment they all became heretics? Per sede logic, they did at some point, (they do not agree when), thus placing themselves outside the Church and leaving their offices vacant, as happens with the Pope.
Every Bishop signed the Vatican II Council docuмents, including Archbishop Lefevbre.
-
The main issue you raise, which is no small issue, is that the Magisterium of the Church cannot defect.
No, the main issue I raised was the mark of Apostolicity of the True Church of Christ (both material & Formal Apostolic Succession)
-
Not all SVs are also EVs.
The most common reasoning among sedevacantists is that the Pope lost pontificate due to heresy because a heretic places himself outside the Church and a heretic cannot be Pope.
Are all conciliar Bishops heretics? If not, which ones are not? I want to know their identities. If so, when did they commit heresy: by signing Vatican II docuмents, by universally accepting a heretic as a Pontiff, by committing mass apostasy, when was the precise moment they all became heretics? Per sede logic, they did at some point, (they do not agree when), thus placing themselves outside the Church and leaving their offices vacant, as happens with the Pope.
Every Bishop signed the Vatican II Council docuмents, including Archbishop Lefevbre.
Actually Bishop de Castro Mayer dos not sign one and neither did Archbishop Arrigo Pintonello.
No Sedevacantist I know of holds to mass episcopal defection, but a gradual falling away.
-
For true apostolic succession to occur, both material and formal succession must exist.
As you obviously know, Cantarella, there doesn't always actually have to be an ACTUAL Pope. As many SVs have repeatedly pointed out, there have been many lengthy periods of sedevacante in the past. And there's no definition for how many years it would take before the Apostolic Succession would cease. So R&R needs to define under what conditions it would actually cease. Usually when R&R throw this argument out there it's done in such a way as to imply that there must be an absolutely-continuous succession of popes, not even one instant in which there isn't one. That's a completely specious argument and it holds no water whatsoever. Even during times of sedevacante the papacy continues to exist at least in potency ... if not in act. In essence, it would have to get so bad that there would be no way any longer for the Church to get an ACTUAL pope.
So because it's clearly not related to time, Nishant formulated the ecclesiavacantist critique.
In the context of sedeprivationism, however, this problem completely goes away. Even a material pope can make appointments and exercise the other material aspects of the jurisdiction. So, for instance, if a heretical pope (materially but not formally pope) were to appoint a Bishop to a specific See, if that Bishop had no other impediments to formally exercise the office, he could indeed formally exercise the office.
How Sedeprivationism resolves the problem of the Magisterium's perceived defection in Vatican II Council, compared to the SSPX R&R?
The True Church of Christ was true up to Vatican II Council but then it defected?
-
For true apostolic succession to occur, both material and formal succession must exist.
As you obviously know, Cantarella, there doesn't always actually have to be an ACTUAL Pope. As many SVs have repeatedly pointed out, there have been many lengthy periods of sedevacante in the past. And there's no definition for how many years it would take before the Apostolic Succession would cease. So R&R needs to define under what conditions it would actually cease. Usually when R&R throw this argument out there it's done in such a way as to imply that there must be an absolutely-continuous succession of popes, not even one instant in which there isn't one. That's a completely specious argument and it holds no water whatsoever. Even during times of sedevacante the papacy continues to exist at least in potency ... if not in act. In essence, it would have to get so bad that there would be no way any longer for the Church to get an ACTUAL pope.
So because it's clearly not related to time, Nishant formulated the ecclesiavacantist critique.
In the context of sedeprivationism, however, this problem completely goes away. Even a material pope can make appointments and exercise the other material aspects of the jurisdiction. So, for instance, if a heretical pope (materially but not formally pope) were to appoint a Bishop to a specific See, if that Bishop had no other impediments to formally exercise the office, he could indeed formally exercise the office.
How Sedeprivationism resolves the problem of the Magisterium's perceived defection in Vatican II Council, compared to the SSPX R&R?
The True Church of Christ was true up to Vatican II Council but then it defected?
No, it simply was
Reduced to the Traditionalists.
-
John Salza:
I have reviewed a number of your claims, in addition to responses to them. I have determined that your position is false and contradictory. It’s been docuмented that you repeatedly switch your position on the primary issues. For example, sometimes you say that people cannot consider a person who says he's Catholic to be a heretic without an official Church process or judgment, but other times you say they can. Are public figures who support abortion (such as Joe Biden) to be considered Catholics or heretics according to you, yes or no? If you say no, that would contradict basically everything you are currently arguing on this issue. If you say yes, that would really speak for itself and show you are in communion with the most notorious of heretics – and that, according to you, a person could believe in literally anything and must be considered Catholic, as long as he claims to be Catholic and hasn’t gone through an official condemnatory process.
Also, do you agree with your endorser and colleague, Chris Ferrara, who has proclaimed “Cardinal” Walter Kasper a heretic? Kasper hasn’t been declared a heretic or gone through an official process. So, according to you, Kasper would have to be considered Catholic and not a heretic, right? But even your endorser contradicts such a ridiculous conclusion, and proclaims Kasper (without any declaration) to be a heretic based on his clear contradiction of magisterial teachings.
Also, according to you, are Catholics supposed to recognize the execrable Blase Cupich as the leader of the Catholic Church in Chicago, with whom they should be united in faith and government? Should Catholics recognize and be under the German “bishops”, who endorse divorce and “remarriage” and even sodomy? These considerations, besides many others, show that your position is a theological travesty.
-
[ONE OF THE QUESTIONS I POSED HAS BEEN SLIGHTLY RE-WORDED SO THAT IT'S MORE CLEAR]
John Salza:
I have reviewed a number of your claims, in addition to responses to them. I have determined that your position is false and contradictory. It’s been docuмented that you repeatedly switch your position on the primary issues. For example, sometimes you say that people cannot consider a person who says he's Catholic to be a heretic without an official Church process or judgment, but other times you say they can. Are public figures who support abortion (such as Joe Biden) to be considered Catholics or heretics according to you? If you say heretics, that would contradict basically everything you are currently arguing on this issue. If you say Catholics, that would really speak for itself and show you profess communion with the most notorious of heretics – and that, according to you, a person could believe in literally anything and must be considered Catholic and in the communion of the Church, as long as he claims to be Catholic and hasn’t gone through an official condemnatory process.
Also, do you agree with your endorser and colleague, Chris Ferrara, who has proclaimed “Cardinal” Walter Kasper a heretic? Kasper hasn’t been declared a heretic or gone through an official process. According to you, Kasper would have to be considered Catholic and not a heretic, right? But even your endorser contradicts such a ridiculous conclusion, and proclaims Kasper (without any declaration) to be a heretic based on his clear contradiction of magisterial teachings.
Also, according to you, are Catholics supposed to recognize the execrable Blase Cupich as the leader of the Catholic Church in Chicago, with whom they should be united in faith and government? Should Catholics recognize and be under the German “bishops”, who endorse divorce and “remarriage” and even sodomy? These considerations, besides many others, show that your position is a theological travesty.
-
I tried to clarify who is saying what. I didn't edit anything out except the final sentence - ("So yeah...").
TRUE OR FALSE POPE?
Refuting Sedevacantism and Other Modern Errors
By John Salza and Robert Siscoe, 700 pages
Foreword by His Excellency, Bishop Bernard Fellay
Sneak Peak
TABLE OF CONTENTS AND PREFACE
True or False Pope? is the most thoroughly researched, detailed and systematic refutation of Sedevacantism that exists. In this 700 page tome, John Salza and Robert Siscoe present material from Popes, ecuмenical councils and Doctors of the Church that you will never find on a Sedevacantist website.
Doubtful.
Well, the book will remove those doubts for you. Stay tuned.
Quoting directly from today’s leading Sedevacantist apologists, Salza and Siscoe reveal how Sedevacantists have distorted the teachings of their favorite Popes and theologians, especially St. Robert Bellarmine, and how they even contradict each other. The book also reveals the many unfortunate tactics used by Sedevacantists in an effort to “prove” their case, that is, to defend what is indefensible.
Well what does St. Robert Bellarmine SAY?
:popcorn:
"The fourth opinion is that of Cajetan, for whom (de auctor. papae et con., cap. 20 et 21) the manifestly heretical Pope is not “ipso facto” deposed, but can and must be deposed by the Church. To my judgment, this opinion cannot be defended. For, in the first place, it is proven with arguments from authority and from reason that the manifest heretic is “ipso facto” deposed. The argument from authority is based on St. Paul (Titus, c. 3), who orders that the heretic be avoided after two warnings, that is, after showing himself to be manifestly obstinate — which means before any excommunication or judicial sentence. And this is what St. Jerome writes, adding that the other sinners are excluded from the Church by sentence of excommunication, but the heretics exile themselves and separate themselves by their own act from the body of Christ. Now, a Pope who remains Pope cannot be avoided, for how could we be required to avoid our own head? How can we separate ourselves from a member united to us? This principle is most certain. The non-Christian cannot in any way be Pope, as Cajetan himself admits (ib. c. 26). The reason for this is that he cannot be head of what he is not a member; now he who is not a Christian is not a member of the Church, and a manifest heretic is not a Christian, as is clearly taught by St. Cyprian (lib. 4, epist. 2), St. Athanasius (Scr. 2 cont. Arian.), St. Augustine (lib. de great. Christ. cap. 20), St. Jerome (contra Lucifer.) and others; therefore the manifest heretic cannot be Pope. To this Cajetan responds (in Apol. pro tract. praedicto cap. 25 et in ipso tract. cap. 22) that the heretic is not a Christian “simpliciter” [i.e. without qualification, or absolutely], but is one “secundum quid” [i.e. in a qualified or relative sense]. For, granted that two things constitute the Christian — the faith and the [baptismal] character — the heretic, having lost the faith, is still in some way united to the Church and is capable of jurisdiction; therefore, he is also Pope, but ought to be removed, since he is disposed, with ultimate disposition, to cease to be Pope: as the man who is still not dead but is “in extremis” [at the point of death]. Against this: in the first place, if the heretic remained, “in actu” [actually], united to the Church in virtue of the character, he would never be able to be cut or separated from her “in actu,” for the character is indelible. But there is no one who denies that some people may be separated “in actu” from the Church. Therefore, the character does not make the heretic be “in actu” in the Church, but is only a sign that he was in the Church and that he must return to her. Analogously, when a sheep wanders lost in the mountains, the mark impressed on it does not make it be in the fold, but indicates from which fold it had fled and to which fold it ought to be brought back. This truth has a confirmation in St. Thomas who says (Summ. Theol. III, q. 8, a. 3) that those who do not have the faith are not united “in actu” to Christ, but only potentially — and St. Thomas here refers to the internal union, and not to the external which is produced by the confession of faith and visible signs. Therefore, as the character is something internal, and not external, according to St. Thomas the character alone does not unite a man, “in actu,” to Christ. Further against the argument of Cajetan: either faith is a disposition necessary “simpliciter” for someone to be Pope, or it is only necessary for someone to be a good Pope [“ad bene esse,” to exist well, to be good, as opposed to simply existing]. In the first hypothesis, in case this disposition be eliminated by the contrary disposition, which is heresy, the Pope immediately ceases to be Pope: for the form cannot maintain itself without the necessary dispositions. In the second hypothesis, the Pope cannot be deposed by reason of heresy, for otherwise he would also have to be deposed for ignorance, immorality, and other similar causes, which impede the knowledge, the morality, and the other dispositions necessary for him to be a good Pope (“ad bene esse papae”). In addition to this, Cajetan recognises (tract. praed., ca. 26) that the Pope cannot be deposed for the lack of dispositions necessary, not “simpliciter,” but only “ad bene esse.” To this, Cajetan responds that faith is a disposition necessary “simpliciter,” but partial, and not total; and that, therefore, even if his faith disappears he can still continue being Pope, by reason of the other part of the disposition, the character, which still endures. Against this argument: either the total disposition, constituted by the character and by faith, is necessary “simpliciter,” or it is not, the partial disposition then being sufficient. In the first hypothesis, the faith disappearing there no longer remains the disposition “simpliciter” necessary, for the disposition “simpliciter” necessary was the total, and the total no longer exists. In the second hypothesis, the faith is only necessary “ad bene esse,” and therefore its absence does not justify the deposition of the Pope. In addition to this, what finds itself in the ultimate disposition to death, immediately thereafter ceases to exist, without the intervention of any other external force, as is obvious; therefore, also the Pope heretic ceases to be Pope by himself, without any deposition. Finally, the Holy Fathers teach unanimously not only that heretics are outside of the Church, but also that they are “ipso facto” deprived of all ecclesiastical jurisdiction and dignity. St. Cyprian (lib. 2, epist. 6) says: “We affirm that absolutely no heretic or schismatic has any power or right”; and he also teaches (lib. 2, epist. 1) that the heretics who return to the Church must be received as laymen, even though they have been formerly priests or bishops in the Church. St. Optatus (lib. 1 cont. Parmen.) teaches that heretics and schismatics cannot have the keys of the kingdom of heaven, nor bind nor loose. St. Ambrose (lib. 1 de poenit., ca. 2), St. Augustine (in Enchir., cap 65), St. Jerome (lib. cont. Lucifer.) teach the same. Pope St. Celestine I (epist. ad Jo. Antioch., which appears in Conc. Ephes., tom. I, cap. 19) wrote: “It is evident that he [who has been excommunicated by Nestorius] has remained and remains in communion with us, and that we do not consider destituted [i.e. deprived of office, by judgment of Nestorius], anyone who has been excommunicated or deprived of his charge, either episcopal or clerical, by Bishop Nestorius or by the others who followed him, after they commenced preaching heresy. For he who had already shown himself as deserving to be excommunicated, could not excommunicate anyone by his sentence.” And in a letter to the clergy of Constantinople, Pope St. Celestine I says: “The authority of Our Apostolic See has determined that the bishop, cleric, or simple Christian who had been deposed or excommunicated by Nestorius or his followers, after the latter began to preach heresy shall not be considered deposed or excommunicated. For he who had defected from the faith with such preachings, cannot depose or remove anyone whatsoever.” St. Nicholas I (epist. ad Michael) repeats and confirms the same. Finally, St. Thomas also teaches (S. Theol., II-II, q. 39, a. 3) that schismatics immediately lose all jurisdiction, and that anything they try to do on the basis of any jurisdiction will be null. There is no basis for that which some respond to this: that these Fathers based themselves on ancient law, while nowadays, by decree of the Council of Constance, they alone lose their jurisdiction who are excommunicated by name or who assault clerics. This argument, I say, has no value at all, for those Fathers, in affirming that heretics lose jurisdiction, did not cite any human law, which furthermore perhaps did not exist in relation to the matter, but argued on the basis of the very nature of heresy. The Council of Constance only deals with the excommunicated, that is, those who have lost jurisdiction by sentence of the Church, while heretics already before being excommunicated are outside the Church and deprived of all jurisdiction. For they have already been condemned by their own sentence, as the Apostle teaches (Tit. 3:10-11), that is, they have been cut off from the body of the Church without excommunication, as St. Jerome affirms. Besides that, the second affirmation of Cajetan, that the Pope heretic can be truly and authoritatively deposed by the Church, is no less false than the first. For if the Church deposes the Pope against his will it is certainly above the Pope; however, Cajetan himself defends, in the same treatise, the contrary of this. Cajetan responds that the Church, in deposing the Pope, does not have authority over the Pope, but only over the link that unites the person to the pontificate. In the same way that the Church in uniting the pontificate to such a person, is not, because of this, above the Pontiff, so also the Church can separate the pontificate from such a person in case of heresy, without saying that it is above the Pope. But contrary to this it must be observed in the first place that, from the fact that the Pope deposes bishops, it is deduced that the Pope is above all the bishops, though the Pope on deposing a bishop does not destroy the episcopal jurisdiction, but only separates it from that person. In the second place, to depose anyone from the pontificate against the will of the deposed, is without doubt punishing him; however, to punish is proper to a superior or to a judge. In the third place, given that according to Cajetan and the other Thomists, in reality the whole and the parts taken as a whole are the same thing, he who has authority over the parts taken as a whole, being able to separate them one from another, has also authority over the whole itself which is constituted by those parts. The example of the electors, who have the power to designate a certain person for the pontificate, without however having power over the Pope, given by Cajetan, is also destitute of value. For when something is being made, the action is exercised over the matter of the future thing, and not over the composite, which does not yet exist, but when a thing is destroyed, the action is exercised over the composite, as becomes patent on consideration of the things of nature. Therefore, on creating the Pontiff, the cardinals do not exercise their authority over the Pontiff for he does not yet exist, but over the matter, that is, over the person who by the election becomes disposed to receive the pontificate from God. But if they deposed the Pontiff, they would necessarily exercise authority over the composite, that is, over the person endowed with the pontifical power, that is, over the Pontiff. Therefore, the true opinion is the fifth, according to which the Pope who is manifestly a heretic ceases by himself to be Pope and head, in the same way as he ceases to be a Christian and a member of the body of the Church; and for this reason he can be judged and punished by the Church. This is the opinion of all the ancient Fathers, who teach that manifest heretics immediately lose all jurisdiction, and outstandingly that of St. Cyprian (lib. 4, epist. 2) who speaks as follows of Novatian, who was Pope [i.e. antipope] in the schism which occurred during the pontificate of St. Cornelius: “He would not be able to retain the episcopate [i.e. of Rome], and, if he was made bishop before, he separated himself from the body of those who were, like him, bishops, and from the unity of the Church.” According to what St. Cyprian affirms in this passage, even had Novatian been the true and legitimate Pope, he would have automatically fallen from the pontificate, if he separated himself from the Church. This is the opinion of great recent doctors, as John Driedo (lib. 4 de Script. et dogmat. Eccles., cap. 2, par. 2, sent. 2), who teaches that only they separate themselves from the Church who are expelled, like the excommunicated, and those who depart by themselves from her or oppose her, as heretics and schismatics. And in his seventh affirmation, he maintains that in those who turn away from the Church, there remains absolutely no spiritual power over those who are in the Church. Melchior Cano says the same (lib. 4 de loc., cap. 2), teaching that heretics are neither parts nor members of the Church, and that it cannot even be conceived that anyone could be head and Pope, without being member and part (cap. ult. ad argument. 12). And he teaches in the same place, in plain words, that occult heretics are still of the Church, they are parts and members, and that therefore the Pope who is an occult heretic is still Pope. This is also the opinion of the other authors whom we cite in book I De Ecclesia. The foundation of this argument is that the manifest heretic is not in any way a member of the Church, that is, neither spiritually nor corporally, which signifies that he is not such by internal union nor by external union. For even bad Catholics [i.e. who are not heretics] are united and are members, spiritually by faith, corporally by confession of faith and by participation in the visible sacraments; the occult heretics are united and are members although only by external union; on the contrary, the good catechumens belong to the Church only by an internal union, not by the external; but manifest heretics do not pertain in any manner, as we have already proved."
See more at: http://www.cmri.org/02-bellarmine-roman-pontiff.html#sthash.WwmzYSLU.dpuf
Is THAT enough context?????????
How impressive. You've cut and pasted from Bellarmine. As our book shows, Sedevacantists are very proficient at the cut and paste technique. Unfortunately, most of their scholarship does not go beyond it.
The authors begin by demonstrating that Sedevacantism logically results in a heretical denial of the attributes (visibility, indefectibility, infallibility) and marks (especially apostolicity) of the Catholic Church.
Lol. That is funny. Last I checked there are bishops, priests and deacons which are the elements of the Visible institutional Church. Even if none had Jurisdiction, the ability to obtain it remains in the Church, because she possesses the Papacy in potential and could in theory elect a Pope for herself who would grant her bishops jurisdiction.
Really? If all jurisdiction comes from the Pope but we haven't had a Pope since 1958, then where is the jurisdiction? There is a distinction between having jurisdiction and "the ability to obtain it" which means jurisdiction doesn't exist. This sedevacantist's statement proves too much for him.
The only ones who admit the Church is defectible are the RnR legal bar who are willing to assert that the heresies of Vatican II are the work of the Church's Magisterium, and therefore ultimately of Christ, which is blasphemous.
The Sedevacantist error of Monolithic Infallibility strikes again. Of course, because the Sedevacantist understanding of infallibility is erroneous, the Sedevacantist thesis is erroneous, as our book shows in spades.
After explaining the bonds that unite man to the true Church, the authors explain the distinction between heresy and lesser errors, and how the sin of heresy alone does not sever one from the Church.
Ah, very conniving, because they are CORRECT, BUT they are making a smoke screen. They will argue: "Suppose a person gets in an argument with another person and in that argument says something heretical and refuses to retract it. Is he severed from the Church???"
No, he is not, because he is a SECRET heretic. He is subjectively guilty of the sin of heresy, but his excommunication is not ipso facto because it is not PUBLIC and MANIFEST. However, PUBLIC heretics fall from their office and lose jurisdiction ipso facto, as Bellarmine says above.
This Sedevacantist is quite confused. First, he obviously isn't aware that such a person is an occult excommunicate, if in fact he is subjectively guilty of heresy, but this is a judgment of the internal forum. Second, those guilty of the crime of heresy lose their office, but only after the Church establishes the crime. This Sedevacantist, in typical fashion, fails to understand that Bellarmine was giving his opinion about what happens to the heretic AFTER the Church judges the crime. Bellarmine certainly was not teaching that clerics lose their office automatically based on the private judgment of individual Catholics.
The authors then go on to provide the most detailed analysis in print of what the Church does in the case of a heretical Pope, based upon the teachings of all the classical theologians who addressed the topic.
What the Church chooses to DO to a manifestly Heretical Pope is quite distinct from the reality of Divine Law which states that a Public Heretic loses his office. What are being confused here are two things: Divine Law, and the appropriate application of canon law. Apples and oranges.
No, it is the Sedevacantist who has confused the issue. Heretics do not lose their office for the "sin of heresy under Divine law" since sin is a matter of the internal forum and Divine law does not bar a heretic from holding office in the Church, so long as he is tolerated by the Church. This is the teaching of Pope Alexander III and many other theologians, which you will never find on a Sedevacantist website.
After a very important explanation of the scope of infallibility (papal, conciliar, disciplinary, New Mass, canonizations), the authors tackle and refute the Sedevacantist arguments against the new rites of episcopal consecration and ordination.
The authors conclude by affirming the Recognize & Resist position of Traditional Catholics, and expose in great detail the bitter fruits of Sedevacantism.
I can't wait. lol.
You can "lol" all you wish, but we can assure you that your laughter will be turned into tears.
This groundbreaking work proves the Sedevacantist thesis is an overreaction to the crisis in the Church, akin to the reflexive “faith” of Protestantism. This explains why Sedevacantists are divided into many competing factions and sects that even condemn each other, and some of these sects have also elected their own “Popes.”
Those would actually be CONCLAVISTS, not Sedevacantists. Is it any surprise that when the shepherd is struck the sheep will scatter?
They are Sedevacantists who have elected their own "Popes." But whether you wish to call them Sedevacantists or Conclavists, it doesn't matter. They are both guilty of the error of private judgment by usurpation, condemned by the Fourth Council of Constantinople.
The book also underscores that the Church is currently suffering a mystical Passion similar to that of Our Lord Jesus Christ. Like those who lost faith in Christ during His Passion, Sedevacantists have lost faith in the Church, His Mystical Body.
That's not true, they just claim the Novus Ordo isn't it. The Traditionalists are.
You bet it's true. Sedevacantists have lost faith in the Church because they refuse to recognize the suffering Church, and they can't point to a Church which has the three attributes and four marks of Christ's Church.
And, in doing so, they have become among her most bitter persecutors. No matter what one’s perspective is on the crisis of the Church, anyone who reads this book will conclude in no uncertain terms that Sedevacantism – one of the great modern errors of our times – far from being a “solution” to the crisis, cannot be held or defended in good faith by any true Catholic.
Then you will have to explain how St. Vincent Ferrer became a sedevacantist. He realized Pope Benedict XIII of Avignon was not willing to lay down his papacy in order to restore order in the Church and resolve the great western schism. So, to his face, he said that since Benedict XIII was unwilling to heal the Church, he had become schismatic. He therefore declared the Papal throne vacant, to his face, and refused to recognize the claimants of Rome or Pisa until the council of Constance elected Pope Martin V.
This shows how ignorant this Sedevacantist is. St. Vincent Ferrer was not a Sedevacantist because there was no universal and peaceful acceptance of a Pope during the Western Schism. This Sedevacantist has a lot to learn. Be assured that our book will help him.
-
Is that really John Salza?
-
Not all SVs are also EVs.
The most common reasoning among sedevacantists is that the Pope lost pontificate due to heresy because a heretic places himself outside the Church and a heretic cannot be Pope.
Are all conciliar Bishops heretics? If not, which ones are not? I want to know their identities. If so, when did they commit heresy: by signing Vatican II docuмents, by universally accepting a heretic as a Pontiff, by committing mass apostasy, when was the precise moment they all became heretics? Per sede logic, they did at some point, (they do not agree when), thus placing themselves outside the Church and leaving their offices vacant, as happens with the Pope.
Every Bishop signed the Vatican II Council docuмents, including Archbishop Lefevbre.
Actually Bishop de Castro Mayer dos not sign one and neither did Archbishop Arrigo Pintonello.
Castro De Mayor was never a sedevacantist though, as he evidently recognizes Paul VI as his Pope, Vicar, Holy Father...in his letter on the Novus Ordo Missae in 1969 (posted below), and after 4 years after Vatican II Council, he himself was in communion.
Bishop de Castro Mayer letter on Novus Ordo Missae
http://sspx.org/en/bishop-de-castro-mayer-letter-novus-ordo-missae
-
No Sedevacantist I know of holds to mass episcopal defection, but a gradual falling away.
The parameters are very vague then, to speak with certainty of the existence of a complete newchurch, formally and materially, different from the old "truechurch" of Christ as if they were two distinct entities. If the parameters of establishing presumed heresy as the reason for loss of office are not explicit, but vague, and no one knows when exactly this happens, then the possibility of some conciliar Bishops NOT being heretics, thus being inside the Church, and therefore, retaining their offices is there, right? .
This fact alone means continuity, not rupture.
-
Not all SVs are also EVs.
The most common reasoning among sedevacantists is that the Pope lost pontificate due to heresy because a heretic places himself outside the Church and a heretic cannot be Pope.
Are all conciliar Bishops heretics? If not, which ones are not? I want to know their identities. If so, when did they commit heresy: by signing Vatican II docuмents, by universally accepting a heretic as a Pontiff, by committing mass apostasy, when was the precise moment they all became heretics? Per sede logic, they did at some point, (they do not agree when), thus placing themselves outside the Church and leaving their offices vacant, as happens with the Pope.
Every Bishop signed the Vatican II Council docuмents, including Archbishop Lefevbre.
Actually Bishop de Castro Mayer dos not sign one and neither did Archbishop Arrigo Pintonello.
Castro De Mayor was never a sedevacantist though, as he evidently recognizes Paul VI as his Pope, Vicar, Holy Father...in his letter on the Novus Ordo Missae in 1969 (posted below), and after 4 years after Vatican II Council, he himself was in communion.
Bishop de Castro Mayer letter on Novus Ordo Missae
http://sspx.org/en/bishop-de-castro-mayer-letter-novus-ordo-missae
Actually he was a Sedevacantist, but privately.
On the other hand he had a tendency towards sedevacantism, as when he would say of John Paul II, ‘Whoever does not belong to the body of the Church cannot be its head’.
“Archbishop Lefebvre was aware of this twofold tendency in Bishop de Castro Mayer, which is why he would say concerning the bishop’s legalism, ‘Bishop de Castro Mayer must understand that today we have to “go illegal”, if necessary’ (a remark to be understood, obviously, in the present context), and concerning his sedevacantism, Archbishop Lefebvre said, ‘Were it not for me, Bishop de Castro Mayer would be sedevacan-tist, but in order not to separate from us, he holds back from sedevacantism’.
“I think the Archbishop was right. There were in Bishop de Castro Mayer the two tendencies of legal-ism and sedevacantism."
http://www.leofec.com/bishop-williamson/275.html
-
Not all SVs are also EVs.
The most common reasoning among sedevacantists is that the Pope lost pontificate due to heresy because a heretic places himself outside the Church and a heretic cannot be Pope.
Are all conciliar Bishops heretics? If not, which ones are not? I want to know their identities. If so, when did they commit heresy: by signing Vatican II docuмents, by universally accepting a heretic as a Pontiff, by committing mass apostasy, when was the precise moment they all became heretics? Per sede logic, they did at some point, (they do not agree when), thus placing themselves outside the Church and leaving their offices vacant, as happens with the Pope.
Every Bishop signed the Vatican II Council docuмents, including Archbishop Lefevbre.
Actually Bishop de Castro Mayer dos not sign one and neither did Archbishop Arrigo Pintonello.
Castro De Mayor was never a sedevacantist though, as he evidently recognizes Paul VI as his Pope, Vicar, Holy Father...in his letter on the Novus Ordo Missae in 1969 (posted below), and after 4 years after Vatican II Council, he himself was in communion.
Bishop de Castro Mayer letter on Novus Ordo Missae
http://sspx.org/en/bishop-de-castro-mayer-letter-novus-ordo-missae
Actually he was a Sedevacantist, but privately.
Well, publicly he was not which is what matters to us, and his approach was far different from the one you see in the average sedevacantist in 2015. At the most, Bishop Mayer speculated that the Council was suspect of heresy. He understood the appropriate distinctions and ecclesiastical procedures. Here are extracts from a talk he gave in São Paulo, Brazil, to an auditorium of TFP members about the New Mass and Vatican II Council.
From the exchange of opinions between Bishop Castro Mayer and Prof. Corrêa de Oliveira:
Prof. Plinio - Your Excellency spoke about the ambiguity of the Council, and I spoke of those ambiguities making up a system of thinking. Let me elaborate on this point so that Your Excellency may tell me whether it is right or wrong. I believe that by putting all these ambiguities together, what emerges is a wrong doctrine, a false doctrine. These are not, therefore, accidental ambiguities due to the inaccuracy of the writers. Even when the ambiguities are contradictory, there is a common thread that weaves them together. I used the expression “the suspicion of heresy.”
It is good to point out to those here [in the auditorium] who are accustomed to the language and implications of civil law, that when a person is suspected of a crime in civil law, he is supposed innocent until proven guilty. Thus, even when he is suspected of a crime, he is to be treated as innocent. This is not the case with the suspicion of heresy in Canon Law. To be suspected of heresy is a crime in itself. Therefore, when such a situation presents itself, when an individual author writes ambiguous things representing an erroneous system of thinking, he objectively acts wrongly and commits a crime. It is not licit for him to do this.
Applying this to the Council, we cannot go so far as to say: “The Council has these many ambiguities, therefore it is heretical.” But we can say: “It is in an irregular situation according to Canon Law.” It seems that the Council’s systematic ambiguity goes against the teaching mission of the Church.
Is this position correct?
Bishop Mayer - If the study of the Council would prove that a systematic ambiguity was used always toward the same end, a suspicion [of heresy] could be held over the authors of the Council. For this suspicion to constitute a crime, it should be confirmed by the authors. If they do not confirm the suspicion, they are not subject to the canonical punishment.
Prof. Plinio - Do they incur crime, but are not subject to penalty?
Bishop Mayer - According to the Canon Law when they incur crime, the penalty applies. If they are not subject to the penalty it is because they did not incur crime.
Prof. Plinio - I understand. You are right.
Bishop Mayer - Absolutely speaking, unless a clear charge is made against a person, he is exempt from punishment. He may be subject to an inquiry regarding the orthodoxy of his thinking. But he will still have the chance to publicly defend himself and say that he understood this or that thesis in such and such way [that is not against the Faith].
Prof. Plinio - I wonder whether for the good of the Church the solution for this situation would be for a group of Bishops and the faithful who see an ensemble of systematic ambiguities in the Council docuмents to take a public position exposing their perplexity and asking for an explanation. I am not sure to whom this should be directed - John Paul II, the ensemble of the conciliar fathers, the Council itself - I don’t know.
Bishop Mayer - I don’t know either. Perhaps one could direct it straight to the Pope and to the commission in charge of interpreting the Council.
-
Not all SVs are also EVs.
The most common reasoning among sedevacantists is that the Pope lost pontificate due to heresy because a heretic places himself outside the Church and a heretic cannot be Pope.
Are all conciliar Bishops heretics? If not, which ones are not? I want to know their identities. If so, when did they commit heresy: by signing Vatican II docuмents, by universally accepting a heretic as a Pontiff, by committing mass apostasy, when was the precise moment they all became heretics? Per sede logic, they did at some point, (they do not agree when), thus placing themselves outside the Church and leaving their offices vacant, as happens with the Pope.
Every Bishop signed the Vatican II Council docuмents, including Archbishop Lefevbre.
Actually Bishop de Castro Mayer dos not sign one and neither did Archbishop Arrigo Pintonello.
Castro De Mayor was never a sedevacantist though, as he evidently recognizes Paul VI as his Pope, Vicar, Holy Father...in his letter on the Novus Ordo Missae in 1969 (posted below), and after 4 years after Vatican II Council, he himself was in communion.
Bishop de Castro Mayer letter on Novus Ordo Missae
http://sspx.org/en/bishop-de-castro-mayer-letter-novus-ordo-missae
Actually he was a Sedevacantist, but privately.
Well, publicly he was not which is what matters to us, and his approach was far different from the one you see in the average sedevacantist in 2015. At the most, Bishop Mayer speculated that the Council was suspect of heresy. He understood the appropriate distinctions and ecclesiastical procedures. Here are extracts from a talk he gave in São Paulo, Brazil, to an auditorium of TFP members about the New Mass and Vatican II Council.
From the exchange of opinions between Bishop Castro Mayer and Prof. Corrêa de Oliveira:
Prof. Plinio - Your Excellency spoke about the ambiguity of the Council, and I spoke of those ambiguities making up a system of thinking. Let me elaborate on this point so that Your Excellency may tell me whether it is right or wrong. I believe that by putting all these ambiguities together, what emerges is a wrong doctrine, a false doctrine. These are not, therefore, accidental ambiguities due to the inaccuracy of the writers. Even when the ambiguities are contradictory, there is a common thread that weaves them together. I used the expression “the suspicion of heresy.”
It is good to point out to those here [in the auditorium] who are accustomed to the language and implications of civil law, that when a person is suspected of a crime in civil law, he is supposed innocent until proven guilty. Thus, even when he is suspected of a crime, he is to be treated as innocent. This is not the case with the suspicion of heresy in Canon Law. To be suspected of heresy is a crime in itself. Therefore, when such a situation presents itself, when an individual author writes ambiguous things representing an erroneous system of thinking, he objectively acts wrongly and commits a crime. It is not licit for him to do this.
Applying this to the Council, we cannot go so far as to say: “The Council has these many ambiguities, therefore it is heretical.” But we can say: “It is in an irregular situation according to Canon Law.” It seems that the Council’s systematic ambiguity goes against the teaching mission of the Church.
Is this position correct?
Bishop Mayer - If the study of the Council would prove that a systematic ambiguity was used always toward the same end, a suspicion [of heresy] could be held over the authors of the Council. For this suspicion to constitute a crime, it should be confirmed by the authors. If they do not confirm the suspicion, they are not subject to the canonical punishment.
Prof. Plinio - Do they incur crime, but are not subject to penalty?
Bishop Mayer - According to the Canon Law when they incur crime, the penalty applies. If they are not subject to the penalty it is because they did not incur crime.
Prof. Plinio - I understand. You are right.
Bishop Mayer - Absolutely speaking, unless a clear charge is made against a person, he is exempt from punishment. He may be subject to an inquiry regarding the orthodoxy of his thinking. But he will still have the chance to publicly defend himself and say that he understood this or that thesis in such and such way [that is not against the Faith].
Prof. Plinio - I wonder whether for the good of the Church the solution for this situation would be for a group of Bishops and the faithful who see an ensemble of systematic ambiguities in the Council docuмents to take a public position exposing their perplexity and asking for an explanation. I am not sure to whom this should be directed - John Paul II, the ensemble of the conciliar fathers, the Council itself - I don’t know.
Bishop Mayer - I don’t know either. Perhaps one could direct it straight to the Pope and to the commission in charge of interpreting the Council.
Bishop Sanborn talks about Sedeprivationism here http://www.mostholytrinityseminary.org/Explanation%20of%20the%20Thesis.pdf and explains the theological reasons for it. It is quite good, because it take into account the difference between what the Church does legally, and the spiritual reality.
Sedeprivationism is ACTUALLY called the Cassiciacuм or Material/Formal thesis.
For example, Luther was a Public heretic in 1517 and objectively did not exist as a Catholic any longer, formally. But he was not excommunicated until 1521. He was therefore no longer either a material or formal Catholic.
I like what he says about Novus Ordo Catholics:
"Their legal status as Catholics is confirmed by the fact that all traditional priests admit them to the practice of the traditional Faith without any lifting of excommunication, and without any public or formal abjuration of error. "
-
Is that really John Salza?
Good point. Time will tell.
-
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....
2Vermont,
Fr. Cekada earned a Bachelor's Degree in Novus Ordo Theology using Novus Ordo curriculum from a Novus Ordo Seminary, then he was a Novus Ordo Monk for two years. He had 10 years of Novus Ordo theological, philosophical training, formation and indoctrination before entering the SSPX Seminary in Econe, 2 years later he was ordained a priest by +ABL, 8 years later he was kicked out of the SSPX. Not surprising, +Sanborn, +Dolan, +Kelly all had similar formations, all got kicked out of the SSPX and I wouldn't be surprised if the others that were kicked out at that time all shared the same NO indoctrination.
So when you say Fr. Cekada teaches what the Church teaches, consider, at least consider that his NO formation reflects much of what he teaches, which, like all things NO, is in fact at least confused and always partially corrupted.
This is why the Cekadian version of the UOM consists a confused group of people, sometimes consisting of some or all the Bishops, sometimes a few saints or theologians, basically his UOM consists of whoever is necessary to prove a point at any given time - but one thing the Cekadian UOM never includes is the pope (which is convenient for a SV), even though the pope is the head of the UOM, the other thing his UOM confuses is Universal. The "Universal" in the Cekadian UOM, is an ambiguous number that can mean whatever anyone chooses it to mean - but one thing is certain, it does not actually mean "universal".
As if you do not know, these are tell tale signs of Novus Ordo teaching, teachings where there are no absolutes, everything is open to interpretation - just like his version of the UOM, which is the NO version of the UOM that he was taught in his NO curriculum at his NO seminary - which you and so many people fall for as being a Church teaching.
As predicted, still no Church teaching that the OUM is fallible.
And you will not find any papal teachings that teach the UOM is fallible - at least I haven't. You will however find teachings of when the UOM *is* infallible, I gave you a link for that.
I already told you you need to look it up on your own. I gave you the link so you have no reasonable excuse not to. But as I said, first you'd need to accept dogmatic decrees as the supreme infallible authority, as the final word - and that they are to be understood as declared. This is a must. Until you can do that, there really is no need for you to even bother. There really isn't.
Just think 2Vermont, you could walk into virtually any NO seminary today and for the next 6 or 8 years, you could study and learn from the exact same NO books that Fr. Cekada learned from.
Do you wish you could do such a thing so as to gain the same education and garner the same knowledge as him? If you were able to do such a thing, you could earn the same Bachelor's Degree in NO Theology as him as well - now isn't that something to strive for if you were willing and able? Perhaps you might wish you had those same NO Theology books at home so you could simply study from them at your convenience.
Well, that's the reality of the situation, you could do exactly that if you had the gumption. His preachings about SVism, UOM / infallibility and etc. are laced with those things he learned during his NO formation - so no matter what you actually choose to embrace about SVism/UOM/infallibility and etc., understand where is preachinings get their roots from.
One example to show that the Cekadian version of papal infallibility and UOM infallibility comes from his NO formation is to note that Cekadian version consists of the errors spread by the living UOM, while saying the UOM is automatically infallible - therefore they are not the UOM. That's right up there with the NO trumpeting that because V2 was the new springtime, they are rebuilding the Church by closing 80% of the churches.
The point is, it's all Novus Ordo theology, it's all a part of the plan devised by the modernists to destroy the Church from within. It is how they were able to take over the Churches, destroy the altars, replace the Mass and etc. - all because everyone, including Fr. Cekada initially at least, was duped into accepting the changes because "the pope/bishop/priest/UOM/etc. cannot err so it must be ok".
-
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....
2Vermont,
Fr. Cekada earned a Bachelor's Degree in Novus Ordo Theology using Novus Ordo curriculum from a Novus Ordo Seminary, then he was a Novus Ordo Monk for two years. He had 10 years of Novus Ordo theological, philosophical training, formation and indoctrination before entering the SSPX Seminary in Econe, 2 years later he was ordained a priest by +ABL, 8 years later he was kicked out of the SSPX. Not surprising, +Sanborn, +Dolan, +Kelly all had similar formations, all got kicked out of the SSPX and I wouldn't be surprised if the others that were kicked out at that time all shared the same NO indoctrination.
So when you say Fr. Cekada teaches what the Church teaches, consider, at least consider that his NO formation reflects much of what he teaches, which, like all things NO, is in fact at least confused and always partially corrupted.
This is why the Cekadian version of the UOM consists a confused group of people, sometimes consisting of some or all the Bishops, sometimes a few saints or theologians, basically his UOM consists of whoever is necessary to prove a point at any given time - but one thing the Cekadian UOM never includes is the pope (which is convenient for a SV), even though the pope is the head of the UOM, the other thing his UOM confuses is Universal. The "Universal" in the Cekadian UOM, is an ambiguous number that can mean whatever anyone chooses it to mean - but one thing is certain, it does not actually mean "universal".
As if you do not know, these are tell tale signs of Novus Ordo teaching, teachings where there are no absolutes, everything is open to interpretation - just like his version of the UOM, which is the NO version of the UOM that he was taught in his NO curriculum at his NO seminary - which you and so many people fall for as being a Church teaching.
As predicted, still no Church teaching that the OUM is fallible.
And you will not find any papal teachings that teach the UOM is fallible - at least I haven't. You will however find teachings of when the UOM *is* infallible, I gave you a link for that.
I already told you you need to look it up on your own. I gave you the link so you have no reasonable excuse not to. But as I said, first you'd need to accept dogmatic decrees as the supreme infallible authority, as the final word - and that they are to be understood as declared. This is a must. Until you can do that, there really is no need for you to even bother. There really isn't.
Just think 2Vermont, you could walk into virtually any NO seminary today and for the next 6 or 8 years, you could study and learn from the exact same NO books that Fr. Cekada learned from.
Do you wish you could do such a thing so as to gain the same education and garner the same knowledge as him? If you were able to do such a thing, you could earn the same Bachelor's Degree in NO Theology as him as well - now isn't that something to strive for if you were willing and able? Perhaps you might wish you had those same NO Theology books at home so you could simply study from them at your convenience.
Well, that's the reality of the situation, you could do exactly that if you had the gumption. His preachings about SVism, UOM / infallibility and etc. are laced with those things he learned during his NO formation - so no matter what you actually choose to embrace about SVism/UOM/infallibility and etc., understand where is preachinings get their roots from.
One example to show that the Cekadian version of papal infallibility and UOM infallibility comes from his NO formation is to note that Cekadian version consists of the errors spread by the living UOM, while saying the UOM is automatically infallible - therefore they are not the UOM. That's right up there with the NO trumpeting that because V2 was the new springtime, they are rebuilding the Church by closing 80% of the churches.
The point is, it's all Novus Ordo theology, it's all a part of the plan devised by the modernists to destroy the Church from within. It is how they were able to take over the Churches, destroy the altars, replace the Mass and etc. - all because everyone, including Fr. Cekada initially at least, was duped into accepting the changes because "the pope/bishop/priest/UOM/etc. cannot err so it must be ok".
Gee, Stubborn, if you are stating that the OUM can be fallible under *any* circuмstances, then you have to be able to find Church teaching to support that. Thanks for admitting that there is no such teaching. The Church has never taught that it is fallible because, well, it never is fallible.
You need to come to terms with that fact. If you are claiming that the Vatican II hierarchy is the authentic OUM, then you need to explain how it has promulgated error in its teaching to the Faithful, both in Vatican II and in its subsequent teachings throughout the world to include its Code of Canon Law and its Catechism.
-
Syllogism 1:
1. The Church is indefectible. (Dogma)
2. But Vatican II has defected through proclaiming heresy. (Fact)
3. Therefore the Authority proclaiming it is illegitimate. (Necessary Conclusion)
The follow revised syllogism is what your syllogism necessarily entails:
1. The Church is indefectible. (Dogma)
2. But at Vatican II the Church defected by proclaiming heresy.
3. Therefore, the indefectible Church defected. (Necessary Conclusion)
Comment: It is not possible for the Bishops of the world to defect at a council. This would be contrary to the attribute of indefectibility. If the Church’s legitimate hierarchy met in Rome in 1962, and then defected sometime over the next three years during the council, it would mean that the Church’s hierarchy defected; you cannot simply claim that the hierarchy morphed into a New Church and it is the New Church that defected. By adding the additional step that the legitimate hierarchy morphed into a New Church, and that the New Church defected, would not avoid the same conclusion that the legitimate hierarchy defected.
The defect in your syllogism is in the minor premise. Since Vatican II defined no dogmas, it did not violate infallibility, nor did it defect, as you claim. If it would have violated infallibility, the gates of hell would have prevailed against the Church, and, consequently, Christ would have failed in his promises.
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. The citation in question also states that teachings of the Supreme Magisterium can be resisted when there is sufficient reason to conclude that it is contrary to what the Church teaches.
Syllogism 2:
1. The Authority Promulgating Vatican II is Not Catholic
2. But Paul VI promulgated Vatican II.
3. Therefore Paul VI is not Catholic.
Your major is nothing but an assertion of your own. Explain why the authority promulgating Vatican II is not Catholic? If you say because it violated infallibility, you are mistaken; if you say (as you imply in your post) that it is impossible for authority to promulgate error, you are confusing authority with infallibility, and teaching what the Church herself has never taught. Please cite a source saying that authority in the Church is always infallible and can never err. In the book you will find plenty of citations showings that authority is not, per se, infallible. The former is habitual while the latter is not. Infallibility is only habitual in the sense that it will always remain in the Church; not in the sense that the charism is active everything authority is exercised.
Your minor is correct, Paul VI promulgated Vatican II.
Your conclusion is based on your faulty major, which is due to 1) an erroneous notion of infallibility, and 2) equating infallibility with authority.
Syllogism 3:
1. Paul VI is not Catholic.
2. Only a Catholic can be Pope
3. Therefore Paul VI is not Pope.
Your major that Paul VI is (was) not a Catholic is an assertion that was not shared by the bishops of the Church at the time. Paul VI was a member of the Church in good standing when he was elected and when he ratified Vatican II. This means that your private judgment that he was not Catholic is contrary to the Church’s public judgment. Without question, Paul VI was not a public heretic according to the Church’s judgment at the time.
Furthermore, Paul VI was accepted peacefully and universally by the Church, which is an infallible sign of his legitimacy. If you deny that Paul VI was the pope, you are forced to deny the theologically certain opinion (dogmatic fact) which holds that a pope who is peacefully and universally recognized as pope is, in fact a true pope.
The errors implicit in all of your syllogisms are explained at great length in the book.
-
What you are saying is perfectly true, RobS, and we have explained it to them a hundred times, but they simply do not want to accept that they are wrong.
However, there is a difference between the situation of John XXIII and Paul VI in one hand, and Luciani and his successors in another hand. The latter have not been peacefully accepted by the Church, since the turmoil of the new mass already existed when they were elected.
Where can we buy the book of John Salza?
-
You Must admit that the CONTENT of Vatican II is infallible. For it has been Promulgated by a Pope, accepted by all the Bishops, preached and acted upon, has been placed in Catechisms and has been made the Ordinary Universal teaching of all the Church.
Gregory I,
I’ll answer for John. The ordinary and universal Magisterium (OUM) is an organ of infallibility, but there are conditions for the infallibility of the OUM, just as there are conditions for infallibility of the Pope. If you find out what the conditions for the infallibility of the OUM are, you will know at once that Vatican II did not meet them (at least not one of them). And don’t look for these conditions in the article written by John Daly, because you won’t find them there. It is precisely because Mr. Daly doesn’t know the conditions that he mistakenly believes Vatican II should have been infallible by the OUM. We address the conditions for the infallibility of the OUM in chapter 14. You can read the first two pages of chapter 14 here. http://trueorfalsepope.com/True%20or%20False%20Pope%20-%20Sneak%20Peak.pdf
-
What you are saying is perfectly true, RobS, and we have explained it to them a hundred times, but they simply do not want to accept that they are wrong.
However, there is a difference between the situation of John XXIII and Paul VI in one hand, and Luciani and his successors in another hand. The latter have not been peacefully accepted by the Church, since the turmoil of the new mass already existed when they were elected.
Where can we buy the book of John Salza?
We will be taking pre-orders next week; the official release will be a few weeks later. Here is a link to where it can be ordered: http://www.trueorfalsepope.com/
-
However, PUBLIC heretics fall from their office and lose jurisdiction ipso facto, as Bellarmine says above.
Gregory I,
Was Bellarmine referring to a public heretic (a “manifest heretic”) according to the authoritative judgment of the Church, or according to the private judgment of individual Catholics, which is contrary to the judgment of the Church? If you believe Bellarmine meant that a prelate loses his office if a Catholic in the street personally believes he is a manifest heretic, while the Church herself continues to recognize him as a member of the Church in good standing, please provide a citation to support your assertion.
-
Going back to the fact that the book is seven hundred pages:
I can't see any reason that this should be the case. There simply isn't enough material to refute, such that it would require so lengthy a work. So, what I'm anticipating:
An excessive amount of time, effort, and resources spent refuting certain sedevacantist personalities and certain unique views held by these sedevacantists. Examples would include:
-The Dimond Brothers
-Saint Gertrude's & Most Holy Trinity Seminary
-Home aloners
-Conclavists
Each of these groups has unique views on at least a particular issue. So, time will be spent "showing" that sedevacantism leads (logically) to certain errors: perhaps (e.g.) Feeneyism, sectarianism, "non-una cuмism," deprivation of sacraments, schism, cults, and a general lack of charity.
Of course, even taken collectively, these sedevacantist "types" and their particular pet issues still make up an insignificant numerical minority. None of the above-mentioned errors are part of sedevacantism as such, nor are they required sub-conclusions of sedevacantism.
Sedevacantism is a very simple thesis: the men who have claimed the papacy since Vatican II, at least starting with Paul VI and no later than 1965, are not popes of the Catholic Church. That is what sedevacantism is, and that's what a refutation of it should seek to disprove.
Other methods which will likely pad page count:
-Careful construction of strawmen followed utter demolition. This was already mentioned in part earlier in this post.
-Excessive extrapolation and stretching application of half a dozen quotes from early twentieth-century theologians.
-Personal and unfounded conclusions and anecdotes (such as, "St. Robert Bellarmine never imagined our situation today when he wrote as he did").
-Lots and lots and lots of focus on canon law, which is only a supporting premise to the sedevacantist thesis. Concomitant to this, (though possibly deserving of its own hash-mark) he will argue that "the Church's law" forbids Catholics from "judging the pope" and essentially say, at least at some point, that sedevacantism "may" be true, but we cannot hold the thesis because the Church forbids it. (Just in case anyone was wondering, the Church has never forbidden her children from assenting to reality).
-A "history" of sedevacantism (which I don't find objectionable as such).
So, when all's said and done, I suspect that this will merely be an index/encyclopedia of all "arguments" against sedevacantism to date. There will be no new arguments, no new information. The seven hundred pages will be a conglomeration of different strawmen, non-sequiturs, and muddying of waters.
One final thought: if I held the R&R position, I wouldn't be particularly excited about this book. Indult traditionalists tend to inadvertently refute R&R when they argue against sedevacantism. Their understanding of the papacy's nature is typically pretty sound, and a big part of their refutations against sedevacantism relies on "proving" that the Vatican II popes haven't "actually" taught any error. Of course, this is doing violence on reality but its really at the heart of their argument-- if it wasn't, they couldn't take two steps.
-
However, PUBLIC heretics fall from their office and lose jurisdiction ipso facto, as Bellarmine says above.
Gregory I,
Was Bellarmine referring to a public heretic (a “manifest heretic”) according to the authoritative judgment of the Church, or according to the private judgment of individual Catholics, which is contrary to the judgment of the Church? If you believe Bellarmine meant that a prelate loses his office if a Catholic in the street personally believes he is a manifest heretic, while the Church herself continues to recognize him as a member of the Church in good standing, please provide a citation to support your assertion.
Funny, Mr. Siscoe. I think you've somehow incorporated at least three of the angles I've just mentioned in one paragraph.
-
And you will not find any papal teachings that teach the UOM is fallible - at least I haven't. You will however find teachings of when the UOM *is* infallible, I gave you a link for that.
I already told you you need to look it up on your own. I gave you the link so you have no reasonable excuse not to. But as I said, first you'd need to accept dogmatic decrees as the supreme infallible authority, as the final word - and that they are to be understood as declared. This is a must. Until you can do that, there really is no need for you to even bother. There really isn't.
Just think 2Vermont, you could walk into virtually any NO seminary today and for the next 6 or 8 years, you could study and learn from the exact same NO books that Fr. Cekada learned from.
Do you wish you could do such a thing so as to gain the same education and garner the same knowledge as him? If you were able to do such a thing, you could earn the same Bachelor's Degree in NO Theology as him as well - now isn't that something to strive for if you were willing and able? Perhaps you might wish you had those same NO Theology books at home so you could simply study from them at your convenience.
Well, that's the reality of the situation, you could do exactly that if you had the gumption. His preachings about SVism, UOM / infallibility and etc. are laced with those things he learned during his NO formation - so no matter what you actually choose to embrace about SVism/UOM/infallibility and etc., understand where is preachinings get their roots from.
One example to show that the Cekadian version of papal infallibility and UOM infallibility comes from his NO formation is to note that Cekadian version consists of the errors spread by the living UOM, while saying the UOM is automatically infallible - therefore they are not the UOM. That's right up there with the NO trumpeting that because V2 was the new springtime, they are rebuilding the Church by closing 80% of the churches.
The point is, it's all Novus Ordo theology, it's all a part of the plan devised by the modernists to destroy the Church from within. It is how they were able to take over the Churches, destroy the altars, replace the Mass and etc. - all because everyone, including Fr. Cekada initially at least, was duped into accepting the changes because "the pope/bishop/priest/UOM/etc. cannot err so it must be ok".
Gee, Stubborn, if you are stating that the OUM can be fallible under *any* circuмstances, then you have to be able to find Church teaching to support that. Thanks for admitting that there is no such teaching. The Church has never taught that it is fallible because, well, it never is fallible.
You need to come to terms with that fact. If you are claiming that the Vatican II hierarchy is the authentic OUM, then you need to explain how it has promulgated error in its teaching to the Faithful, both in Vatican II and in its subsequent teachings throughout the world to include its Code of Canon Law and its Catechism.
You either do not read what I have written, which is what I suspect, or purposely make false accusations in your efforts to hang on to your error.
I hope that this 700 page book coming out will be worth the time for you to read because if it is, it will probably take you reading all 700 pages to unscramble your novus ordo thinking during your years of novus ordo formation.
Until then, perhaps you could concentrate on accepting dogmatic decrees as the supreme infallible authority, as the final word - and that they are to be understood as declared. Again, this is a must.
-
You Must admit that the CONTENT of Vatican II is infallible. For it has been Promulgated by a Pope, accepted by all the Bishops, preached and acted upon, has been placed in Catechisms and has been made the Ordinary Universal teaching of all the Church.
Gregory I,
I’ll answer for John. The ordinary and universal Magisterium (OUM) is an organ of infallibility, but there are conditions for the infallibility of the OUM, just as there are conditions for infallibility of the Pope. If you find out what the conditions for the infallibility of the OUM are, you will know at once that Vatican II did not meet them (at least not one of them). And don’t look for these conditions in the article written by John Daly, because you won’t find them there. It is precisely because Mr. Daly doesn’t know the conditions that he mistakenly believes Vatican II should have been infallible by the OUM. We address the conditions for the infallibility of the OUM in chapter 14. You can read the first two pages of chapter 14 here. http://trueorfalsepope.com/True%20or%20False%20Pope%20-%20Sneak%20Peak.pdf
The problem is that the SVs not only believe the living UOM is automatically infallible no matter what they do and say, they believe this to be the case always and everywhere.............except in the case of V2, at V2, "the infallible UOM taught error, which can only mean they were not the UOM" - - - if that is not NO confused thinking then nothing is.
For Svs, there are no conditions or criteria to be met except one - the only condition is for them (SVs are not ever really sure exactly who "them" even is) to all, or most of them, or perhaps a majority of them or at least some of them to teach the same thing.
-
Going back to the fact that the book is seven hundred pages:
I can't see any reason that this should be the case. There simply isn't enough material to refute, such that it would require so lengthy a work.
The book addresses more than just Sedevacantism, but in order to sufficiently address all of the arguments presented in defense of Sedevacantism, it requires a lot of material.
This is because most of the arguments presented by Sedevacantists are rooted in ignorance of theology, which then leads to false conclusion. For example, John Daly's ignorance of the conditions required for a teaching to be infallible by virtue of the ordinary and universal magisterium. Due to the extend of ignorance, and the legions of false conclusion and errors of the Sedevacantists apologists, it was necessary to cover the theology thoroughly. This was the only way to sufficiently refute the errors used to defend Sedevacantism.
-
However, PUBLIC heretics fall from their office and lose jurisdiction ipso facto, as Bellarmine says above.
Gregory I,
Was Bellarmine referring to a public heretic (a “manifest heretic”) according to the authoritative judgment of the Church, or according to the private judgment of individual Catholics, which is contrary to the judgment of the Church? If you believe Bellarmine meant that a prelate loses his office if a Catholic in the street personally believes he is a manifest heretic, while the Church herself continues to recognize him as a member of the Church in good standing, please provide a citation to support your assertion.
Funny, Mr. Siscoe. I think you've somehow incorporated at least three of the angles I've just mentioned in one paragraph.
There are indeed many angles used to defend Sedevacantism. It was necessary to address all of them, even if that seems to bother you personally.
The Sedevacantists are similar to Protestants in the sense that when you answer one argument, they shift gears to another; then, when you answer that one they move on to yet another argument, eventually returning to the first. That is why it was necessary to address all of them all in one place.
But it is understandable why a Sedevacantists would not like having all of their argument addressed and answered in one place. How will they shift from one argument to the next when they are all refuted? So your annoyance over this is not a surprise.
-
However, PUBLIC heretics fall from their office and lose jurisdiction ipso facto, as Bellarmine says above.
Gregory I,
Was Bellarmine referring to a public heretic (a “manifest heretic”) according to the authoritative judgment of the Church, or according to the private judgment of individual Catholics, which is contrary to the judgment of the Church? If you believe Bellarmine meant that a prelate loses his office if a Catholic in the street personally believes he is a manifest heretic, while the Church herself continues to recognize him as a member of the Church in good standing, please provide a citation to support your assertion.
Funny, Mr. Siscoe. I think you've somehow incorporated at least three of the angles I've just mentioned in one paragraph.
There are indeed many angles used to defend Sedevacantism. It was necessary to address all of them, even if that seems to bother you personally.
The Sedevacantists are similar to Protestants in the sense that when you answer one argument, they shift gears to another; then, when you answer that one they move on to yet another argument, eventually returning to the first. That is why it was necessary to address all of them all in one place.
But it is understandable why a Sedevacantists would not like having all of their argument addressed and answered in one place. How will they shift from one argument to the next when they are all refuted? So your annoyance over this is not a surprise.
Does it address the Cassiciacuм Thesis?
-
Mr Salza,
With all due respect to your legal practice, your attempt, and such a lengthy attempt, at refuting Sedevacantism is
really more telling of what the Society is concerned about than you personally. It is a fact that the Society has had a steady trickle of priests
which have been leaving her and embracing the Sedevacantist position over the years.
Now, if you want to be real, let's please be real, gentleman to gentleman:
1. Sedevacantism when it is properly defended is a theological position, necessarily held, the attempted refutation of which can only lead to personal heresy.
2. There are many who call themselves sedevacantists who attempt to argue from the particulars of historical circuмstances surrounding each pope.
I.E. on this date he said this in an encyclical, etc. This is completely unnecessary to maintain the Sedevacantist position.
The Sedevacantist position, properly explained, is based on Dogmatic Fact and tight logic:
Sequence 1-
Syllogism 1:
1. The Church is indefectible. (Dogma)
2. But Vatican II has defected through proclaiming heresy. (Fact)
3. Therefore the Authority proclaiming it is illegitimate. (Necessary Conclusion)
Syllogism 2:
1. The Authority Promulgating Vatican II is Not Catholic
2. But Paul VI promulgated Vatican II.
3. Therefore Paul VI is not Catholic.
Syllogism 3:
1. Paul Vi is not Catholic.
2. Only a Catholic can be Pope
3. Therefore Paul VI is not Pope.
ERGO:
1. Therefore, Since Vatican II is Not Catholic,
2. and the Church is indefectible,
3. Paul Vi cannot be Pope.
Sequence 2, examining the Syllogisms of Sequence 1
Syllogism 1:
1. That the Church is indefectible means that she will always retain her outward Visible structure, even if offices
fall vacant for some time. In addition, she will always be able to at least passively exercise the Universal
Ordinary Magisterium in the preservation of that Truth (See Tanquerey's Dogmatic Theology on the Ordinary Universal Magisterium).
The theologians readily admit the Church can exist without her head for in fact many years. She retains her monarchical
structure, and, although widowed and Acephalous, the pulse of life lasts within her and Christ guides her from Heaven.
This is how she at least passively retains her Ordinary Universal Magisterium.
2. The Fact of Vatican II having defected from the faith is something I don't believe you will have any trouble admitting
Mr. Salza. We all know that Vatican II clearly proclaimed heresies and embraced that which was previously condemned.
But because Vatican II was Ostensibly an act of at LEAST the Universal Ordinary Magisterium, which Paul VI called the
Supreme Ordinary Magisterium, and which he at others times called "Extraordinary," if you accept that he was a legitimate Pope, COMPELS your assent of Divine Faith.
You Must admit that the CONTENT of Vatican II is infallible. For it has been Promulgated by a Pope,
Accepted by all the Bishops, preached and acted upon, has been placed in Catechisms and has been made the Ordinary Universal teaching of all the Church.
As Tanquerey ("Dogmatic Theology" 1894) says:
"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.
Now, Mr. Salza it is manifest that in order for you to be consistent with your position of
accepting these men as Popes, you must accept their authority. More specifically, you must accept their
encyclicals, their public preaching, and their acts of promulgation. You must accept their catechisms,
their liturgical rites, and their observances, for Christ cannot lie when he said,
"He who hears you hears me."
You are therefore compelled to accept them on pain of heresy, for if you, admitting them to be Popes,
fail to accept their promulgated teachings, you admit that the Papal Office and the Ordinary Universal
Magisterium can be in error, and therefore promote that which is harmful to the faithful.
But this is blasphemous. For that would be to attribute error and heresy and sacrilege to authority of Christ himself.
As Pope Pius XII says in Humani Generis:
"Nor must it be thought that what is expounded in Encyclical Letters does not of itself demand
consent, since in writing such Letters the Popes do not exercise the supreme power of their Teaching Authority.
For these matters are taught with the ordinary teaching authority, of which it is true to say:
"He who heareth you, heareth me";[3] and generally what is expounded and inculcated in Encyclical Letters
already for other reasons appertains to Catholic doctrine. But if the Supreme Pontiffs in their official docuмents
purposely pass judgment on a matter up to that time under dispute, it is obvious that that matter, according to the
mind and will of the Pontiffs, cannot be any longer considered a question open to discussion among theologians."
The Ordinary and Non-Infallible Papal magisterium is itself an act of the authority of Christ.
Therefore Mr. Salza, you must embrace the Novus Ordo. You have no choice, because it is wrought by Christ.
It is a doing of the Church and you are presumably a loyal son of the Church and cannot reject that which is
ordinarily and universally proclaimed, the content of which is contained in her Catechism, and proclaimed at her Council, Vatican II.
3. But we know the above CANNOT be true Mr. Salza, don't we? We KNOW that Christ cannot contradict himself.
We KNOW that His Church cannot defect by teaching falsehood.
It is therefore NECESSARY and of FAITH to admit that this apparent teaching of Vatican II is simply inauthentic.
It does not proceed from the Church, it does not have Christ for its author, and it is demonstrably false, erroneous, heretical.
It is for this reason that whatever Authority promulgated Vatican II cannot have been legitimate Catholic Authority,
because Legitimate Catholic Authority CANNOT promulgate error.
Therefore, Paul VI and his successors, insofar as they imitate him and promulgate the same, cannot be Popes.
The alternative is to attribute heresy and error to Christ which is blasphemy.
Now, to examine the remainder:
1. Paul VI was not Catholic. This is a necessary conclusion arrived at from Syllogism 1, that the
Legitimate authority in the Church cannot promulgate error. But Paul VI promulgated error and advocated heresy, therefore he was not Catholic and Publically heretical.
2. The theologians clearly teach Public Heretics cannot be head of the Church:
Marato — Institutions Juris Canonici, 1921 “Heretics and schismatics are barred from the
Supreme Pontificate by the Divine Law itself, because, although by divine law they are not considered
incapable of participating in a certain type of ecclesiastical jurisdiction, nevertheless, they must certainly
be regarded as excluded from occupying the throne of the Apostolic See, which is the infallible teacher of the
truth of the faith and the center of ecclesiastical unity.”
St. Robert Bellarmine said: “A Pope who is a manifest heretic automatically ceases to be Pope and head, just as
he ceases automatically to be a Christian and a member of the Church. Wherefore, he can be judged and punished by the Church.
This is the teaching of all the ancient Fathers who teach that manifest heretics immediately lose all jurisdiction.”
St. Alphonsus, Bishop and Doctor of the Church, said: “If ever a Pope, as a private person, should fall into heresy,
he should at once fall from the Pontificate. If, however, God were to permit a pope to become a notorious and contumacious heretic,
he would by such fact cease to be pope, and the apostolic chair would be vacant.”
St. Antoninus said: “In the case in which the Pope would become a heretic, he would find himself, by that very fact
alone and without any other sentence, separated from the Church. A head separated from a body cannot, as long as it remains separated, be head of the same body from which it was cut off.”
Now, I can feel you telling yourself "FORMAL HERETICS! ONLY FORMAL HERETICS CAN FALL FROM THE PAPACY!"
Not so Joe:
Van Noort, taking his cue from Pope Pius XII explicitly teaches to the contrary:
"Dogmatic Theology Volume II: Christ's Church, Van Noort, p. 241-242
b. Public heretics (and a fortiori, apostates) are not members of the Church. They are not members because they separate themselves from
the unity of Catholic faith and from the external profession of that faith. Obviously, therefore, they lack one of three factors—baptism,
profession of the same faith, union with the hierarchy—pointed out by Pius XII as requisite for membership in the Church. The same
pontiff has explicitly pointed out that, unlike other sins, heresy, schism, and apostasy automatically sever a man from the Church.
"For not every sin, however grave and enormous it be, is such as to sever a man automatically from the Body of the Church, as does
schism or heresy or apostasy" (MCC 30; italics ours).
By the term public heretics at this point we mean all who externally deny a truth (for example Mary's Divine Maternity), or
several truths of divine and Catholic faith, regardless of whether the one denying does so ignorantly and innocently (a merely material heretic), or willfully and guiltily (a formal heretic). It is certain that public, formal heretics are severed from the Church membership. It is the more common opinion that public, material heretics are likewise excluded from membership. Theological reasoning for this opinion is quite strong: if public material heretics remained members of the Church, the visibility and unity of Christ's Church would perish. If these purely material heretics were considered members of the Catholic Church in the strict sense of the term, how would one ever locate the "Catholic Church"? How would the Church be one body? How would it profess one faith? Where would be its visibility? Where its unity? For these and other reasons we find it difficult to see any intrinsic probability to the opinion which would allow for public heretics, in good faith, remaining members of the Church.
3. Conclusion:
The indefectibility of the Church demands that Paul VI not be Catholic. Therefore he cannot be Pope, as Public Heretics,
whether material or formal, cannot be members of the Church, or the visibility of the Church is destroyed.
If you claim otherwise, you must admit, by virtue of the PLAINLY EXERCISED Universal and Ordinary Magisterium, that
CHRIST is the Author of our Chaos. That he has actively willed this for His Church and providentially provided for it
through the magisterial offices he has established.
This is BLASPHEMY.
It is therefore a NECESSARY THEOLOGICAL CONCLUSION:
Sede Vacante.
Unless you have discovered a severability clause between Magisterial Teaching and Magisterial Office...
-
John Salza:
I have reviewed a number of your claims, in addition to responses to them. I have determined that your position is false and contradictory. It’s been docuмented that you repeatedly switch your position on the primary issues. For example, sometimes you say that people cannot consider a person who says he's Catholic to be a heretic without an official Church process or judgment, but other times you say they can. Are public figures who support abortion (such as Joe Biden) to be considered Catholics or heretics according to you? If you say heretics, that would contradict basically everything you are currently arguing on this issue. If you say Catholics, that would really speak for itself and show you profess communion with the most notorious of heretics – and that, according to you, a person could believe in literally anything and must be considered Catholic and in the communion of the Church, as long as he claims to be Catholic and hasn’t gone through an official condemnatory process.
Also, do you agree with your endorser and colleague, Chris Ferrara, who has proclaimed “Cardinal” Walter Kasper a heretic? Kasper hasn’t been declared a heretic or gone through an official process. According to you, Kasper would have to be considered Catholic and not a heretic, right? But even your endorser contradicts such a ridiculous conclusion, and proclaims Kasper (without any declaration) to be a heretic based on his clear contradiction of magisterial teachings.
Also, according to you, are Catholics supposed to recognize the execrable Blase Cupich as the leader of the Catholic Church in Chicago, with whom they should be united in faith and government? Should Catholics recognize and be under the German “bishops”, who endorse divorce and “remarriage” and even sodomy? These considerations, besides many others, show that your position is a theological travesty.
There is a difference between a private judgment and the public judgment of the Church. A person may privately judge that a particular prelate is a heretic, but if this private judgment is not reflected by the public judgment of the Church, it has no bearing whatsoever on their ecclesiastical status.
So, I’m sure John will agree that if he has referred to a certain prelate as a heretic, it was a private judgment, and not intended to represent the public judgment of the Church. As St. Thomas teaches, and as John knows, a public judgment can only come from public authority.
We see this in the case of Nestorius who began to publicly preach heresy in 428. His fellow patriarch, St. Cyril of Aledandria, who is now a doctor of the Church, refused to issue a public judgment, but instead appealed to the Pope to do so. St. Cyril was well aware that Nestorius was teaching heresy and even sent him private letters in an attempt to bring him back to the correct doctrine, but he would not go further than that. These events are recorded in Lux Veritatis, by Blessed Pope Pius XI. Here is what Pius XI wrote:
Pope Pius XI: “These evil dogmas [of Nestorius], which were not taught now covertly and obscurely by a private individual, but were openly and plainly proclaimed by the Bishop of the Constantinopolitan See himself, caused a very great disturbance of the minds of men, more especially in the Eastern Church. And among the opponents of the Nestorian heresy, some of whom were found in the capital city of the Eastern Empire, the foremost place was undoubtedly taken by that most holy man, the champion of Catholic integrity, Cyril, Patriarch of Alexandria. For as he was most zealous in his care of his own sons and likewise in that of erring brethren, he had no sooner heard of the perverse opinion of the Bishop of Constantinople than he strenuously defended the orthodox faith in the presence of his own flock, and also addressed letters to Nestorius and endeavoured in the manner of a brother to lead him back to the rule of Catholic truth.
But when the hardened pertinacity of Nestorius had frustrated this charitable attempt, Cyril, who understood and strenuously maintained the authority of the Roman Church, would not himself take further steps, or pass sentence in such a very grave matter, until he had first appealed to the Apostolic See and had ascertained its decision. Accordingly, he addressed most dutiful letters to ‘the most blessed Father [Pope] Celestine, beloved of God,’ wherein among other things he writes as follows: ‘The ancient custom of the Churches admonishes us that matters of this kind should be communicated to Your Holiness. . . ‘ (Mansi, l.c. IV. 1011.) ‘But we do not openly and publicly forsake his Communion (i.e. Nestorius’) before indicating these things to your piety. Vouchsafe, therefore, to prescribe what you feel in this matter so that it may be clearly known to us whether we must communicate with him or whether we should freely declare to him that no one can communicate with one who cherishes and preaches suchlike erroneous doctrine. Furthermore, the mind of Your Integrity and your judgment on this matter should be clearly set forth in letters to the Bishops of Macedonia, who are most pious and devoted to God, and likewise to the Prelates of all the East.’ (Mansi, l.c. IV. 1015.)”
Here we see the response to a Patriarch, Saint, and future doctor of the Church when faced with a prelate who publicly deviated from the rule of Faith. He did not declare, based on his own authority (which was significant), that Nestorius had lost his office ipso facto by Divine law, without the judgment of the Church. Instead, he warned him of his error and attempted to bring him back to the Faith. When that was fruitless, he continued to remain in communion with him and appealed to the pope to render the necessary judgment. Nestorius was deposed for heresy three years later, at which time he became a public heretic according to the Church’s judgment.
-
However, PUBLIC heretics fall from their office and lose jurisdiction ipso facto, as Bellarmine says above.
Gregory I,
Was Bellarmine referring to a public heretic (a “manifest heretic”) according to the authoritative judgment of the Church, or according to the private judgment of individual Catholics, which is contrary to the judgment of the Church? If you believe Bellarmine meant that a prelate loses his office if a Catholic in the street personally believes he is a manifest heretic, while the Church herself continues to recognize him as a member of the Church in good standing, please provide a citation to support your assertion.
Funny, Mr. Siscoe. I think you've somehow incorporated at least three of the angles I've just mentioned in one paragraph.
There are indeed many angles used to defend Sedevacantism. It was necessary to address all of them, even if that seems to bother you personally.
The Sedevacantists are similar to Protestants in the sense that when you answer one argument, they shift gears to another; then, when you answer that one they move on to yet another argument, eventually returning to the first. That is why it was necessary to address all of them all in one place.
But it is understandable why a Sedevacantists would not like having all of their argument addressed and answered in one place. How will they shift from one argument to the next when they are all refuted? So your annoyance over this is not a surprise.
Does it address the Cassiciacuм Thesis?
Yes.
-
Here we see the response to a Patriarch, Saint, and future doctor of the Church when faced with a prelate who publicly deviated from the rule of Faith. He did not declare, based on his own authority (which was significant), that Nestorius had lost his office ipso facto by Divine law, without the judgment of the Church. Instead, he warned him of his error and attempted to bring him back to the Faith. When that was fruitless, he continued to remain in communion with him and appealed to the pope to render the necessary judgment. Nestorius was deposed for heresy three years later, at which time he became a public heretic according to the Church’s judgment.
And yet we have St Hypatius doing that very thing:
"When Saint Hypatius understood what opinions Nestorius held, immediately, in the Church of the Apostles, he erased his name from the diptychs, so that it should no longer be pronounced at the Oblation. [This was before Nestorius’ condemnation by the Third Ecuмenical Council.] “When Bishop Eulalius learned of this, he was anxious about the outcome of the affair. And seeing that it had been noised abroad, Nestorius also ordered him to reprimand Hypatius. For Nestorius was still powerful in the city. Bishop Eulalius spoke thus to Hypatius: Why have you erased his name without understanding what the consequences would be? Saint Hypatius replied: From the time that I learned that he said unrighteous things about the Lord, I have no longer been in communion with him and I do not commemorate his name; for he is not a bishop. Then the bishop, in anger, said: Be off with you! Make amends for what you have done, for I shall take measures against you. Saint Hypatius replied: Do as you wish. As for me, I have decided to suffer anything, and it is with this in mind that I have done this.”
From the Life of Saint Hypatius (Sources Chretiennes, No.177, pp. 210-214)
And we have St Vincent Ferrer declaring Benedict XIII to have lost his see through schism to his face, and he then declared the apostolic see vacant, refusing to recognize the Roman and Pisan claimants pending the council of Constance.
One sided history won't fly mr siscoe
-
And you will not find any papal teachings that teach the UOM is fallible - at least I haven't. You will however find teachings of when the UOM *is* infallible, I gave you a link for that.
I already told you you need to look it up on your own. I gave you the link so you have no reasonable excuse not to. But as I said, first you'd need to accept dogmatic decrees as the supreme infallible authority, as the final word - and that they are to be understood as declared. This is a must. Until you can do that, there really is no need for you to even bother. There really isn't.
Just think 2Vermont, you could walk into virtually any NO seminary today and for the next 6 or 8 years, you could study and learn from the exact same NO books that Fr. Cekada learned from.
Do you wish you could do such a thing so as to gain the same education and garner the same knowledge as him? If you were able to do such a thing, you could earn the same Bachelor's Degree in NO Theology as him as well - now isn't that something to strive for if you were willing and able? Perhaps you might wish you had those same NO Theology books at home so you could simply study from them at your convenience.
Well, that's the reality of the situation, you could do exactly that if you had the gumption. His preachings about SVism, UOM / infallibility and etc. are laced with those things he learned during his NO formation - so no matter what you actually choose to embrace about SVism/UOM/infallibility and etc., understand where is preachinings get their roots from.
One example to show that the Cekadian version of papal infallibility and UOM infallibility comes from his NO formation is to note that Cekadian version consists of the errors spread by the living UOM, while saying the UOM is automatically infallible - therefore they are not the UOM. That's right up there with the NO trumpeting that because V2 was the new springtime, they are rebuilding the Church by closing 80% of the churches.
The point is, it's all Novus Ordo theology, it's all a part of the plan devised by the modernists to destroy the Church from within. It is how they were able to take over the Churches, destroy the altars, replace the Mass and etc. - all because everyone, including Fr. Cekada initially at least, was duped into accepting the changes because "the pope/bishop/priest/UOM/etc. cannot err so it must be ok".
Gee, Stubborn, if you are stating that the OUM can be fallible under *any* circuмstances, then you have to be able to find Church teaching to support that. Thanks for admitting that there is no such teaching. The Church has never taught that it is fallible because, well, it never is fallible.
You need to come to terms with that fact. If you are claiming that the Vatican II hierarchy is the authentic OUM, then you need to explain how it has promulgated error in its teaching to the Faithful, both in Vatican II and in its subsequent teachings throughout the world to include its Code of Canon Law and its Catechism.
You either do not read what I have written, which is what I suspect, or purposely make false accusations in your efforts to hang on to your error.
I hope that this 700 page book coming out will be worth the time for you to read because if it is, it will probably take you reading all 700 pages to unscramble your novus ordo thinking during your years of novus ordo formation.
Until then, perhaps you could concentrate on accepting dogmatic decrees as the supreme infallible authority, as the final word - and that they are to be understood as declared. Again, this is a must.
Again, where is the Church teaching that the Ordinary Universal Magisterium is ever fallible..under any circuмstances?
-
Here we see the response to a Patriarch, Saint, and future doctor of the Church when faced with a prelate who publicly deviated from the rule of Faith. He did not declare, based on his own authority (which was significant), that Nestorius had lost his office ipso facto by Divine law, without the judgment of the Church. Instead, he warned him of his error and attempted to bring him back to the Faith. When that was fruitless, he continued to remain in communion with him and appealed to the pope to render the necessary judgment. Nestorius was deposed for heresy three years later, at which time he became a public heretic according to the Church’s judgment.
And yet we have St Hypatius doing that very thing:
"When Saint Hypatius understood what opinions Nestorius held, immediately, in the Church of the Apostles, he erased his name from the diptychs, so that it should no longer be pronounced at the Oblation. [This was before Nestorius’ condemnation by the Third Ecuмenical Council.] “When Bishop Eulalius learned of this, he was anxious about the outcome of the affair. And seeing that it had been noised abroad, Nestorius also ordered him to reprimand Hypatius. For Nestorius was still powerful in the city. Bishop Eulalius spoke thus to Hypatius: Why have you erased his name without understanding what the consequences would be? Saint Hypatius replied: From the time that I learned that he said unrighteous things about the Lord, I have no longer been in communion with him and I do not commemorate his name; for he is not a bishop. Then the bishop, in anger, said: Be off with you! Make amends for what you have done, for I shall take measures against you. Saint Hypatius replied: Do as you wish. As for me, I have decided to suffer anything, and it is with this in mind that I have done this.”
From the Life of Saint Hypatius (Sources Chretiennes, No.177, pp. 210-214)
But this was before the Fourth Council of Constantinople confirmed the position of St. Cyril and attached an excommunication to any layman who would separate from his Patriarch before the Church has rendered a judgment.
“As divine scripture clearly proclaims, ‘Do not find fault before you investigate, and understand first and then find fault.’ And does our law judge a person without first giving him a hearing and learning what he does? Consequently this holy and universal synod justly and fittingly declares and lays down that no lay person or monk or cleric should separate himself from communion with his own patriarch before a careful inquiry and judgment in synod. (…) If anyone shall be found defying this holy synod, he is to be debarred from all priestly functions and status if he is a bishop or cleric; if a monk or lay person, he must be excluded from all communion and meetings of the church [i.e. excommunicated] until he is converted by repentance and reconciled” (Canon 10).
Those who separated from Nestorius before a judgment of the Church could have been excused in their day; those who separate from their Patriarch today, before the Church has rendered a judgment, cannot. In light of the above teaching of the Council, how do you justify following the example of those who did what the council later condemned, rather than the example a saint and doctor of the Church who did the contrary? That would be similar to rejecting the dogma of the Immaculate Conception and defending your actions by appealing to the writing of St. Thomas.
-
And we have St Vincent Ferrer declaring Benedict XIII to have lost his see through schism to his face, and he then declared the apostolic see vacant, refusing to recognize the Roman and Pisan claimants pending the council of Constance.
Please cite your source confirming that St. Vincent Ferrer declared that Benedict XIII (who he mistakenly believed to be pope) lost his office for schism. Not a quote saying he was withdrawing from obedience from him, but a quote saying he believed he lost his office.
-
To Rob. Siscoe:
My question was whether, according to your current position (for your position, as well as Salza’s, frequently changes), "Cardinal" Kasper, Blase Kupich, pro-abortion public figures, etc. are to be considered Catholics or heretics. Presumably answering for Salza as well, you replied:
"There is a difference between a private judgment and the public judgment of the Church. A person may privately judge that a particular prelate is a heretic, but if this private judgment is not reflected by the public judgment of the Church, it has no bearing whatsoever on their ecclesiastical status."
Although you were understandably reluctant to explicitly say 'yes' in answer to the question (because it illustrates how bankrupt your position is), your answer means 'yes.' Therefore, the position of Salza and Siscoe (and that of your book) is that Blase Cupich is a Catholic bishop with authority over Catholics in Chicago, and that Catholics must hold communion with him in faith and government. Your position is that Walter Kasper is not a heretic, but a Catholic, and that Catholics must profess communion with him. Your position is that Catholics must hold communion with pro-abortion public figures who say they’re Catholic, with every kind of unbeliever at every Novus Ordo parish (many of whom openly deny the inspiration of Scripture, Church councils, the Papacy, Papal Infallibility, the Eucharist, etc.). They are not heretics, but ALL OF THEM ARE CATHOLICS, according to you. The absurdity and falsity of such a position speaks for itself. It is opposed to the entire history of Catholic teaching on the understanding of the effects of departing from the magisterial teaching of the Church: that is, automatic separation and expulsion from Christ's Church by divine law.
You have tragically failed to see the distinction between the effects and meaning of heresy in DIVINE LAW and the effects and meaning of heresy in ECCLESIASTICAL LAW. The procedures instituted in ecclesiastical law are not required by divine law to recognize heretics. The process, judgment, etc. are not necessary by divine law to recognize a heretic. According to divine law, a person must simply be obstinate against established magisterial teaching to be a heretic. You see everything in terms of ecclesiastical law, to the point that you conflate it with divine law. You just don't get it, as refutations of your work have clearly demonstrated, and you have fallen into massive errors and absurdities as a result (see the aforementioned example about Kasper, etc.). By failing to see this point – i.e. by equating ecclesiastical law processes that are instituted to declare heresy in normal times and which have additional effects, which are NOT necessary by divine law to simply recognize and reject manifest heretics – you have fallen into the position that those who publicly deny Christ are to be considered in the unity of the Church, since they claim to be Catholic and haven’t been declared heretics. That actually equates the external profession of a false faith with the true Church’s external profession of the true faith. By saying that Catholics need to profess communion with people who publicly reject Catholic truth (such as Walter Kasper, pro-abortion public figures, etc.), you have denied the unity of faith in the Church. Just because you put such nonsense into a book doesn’t change the fact that it’s nonsense.
As your answer shows, your position is that everyone in the world who professes to be Catholic must be considered a Catholic, no matter what he or she believes, as long as that person has not been declared a heretic (which is virtually no one). That is an astounding error. Anyone with a Catholic sense should be able to recognize that fact.
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’!
-
To Rob. Siscoe:
My question was whether, according to your current position (for your position, as well as Salza’s, frequently changes), "Cardinal" Kasper, Blase Kupich, pro-abortion public figures, etc. are to be considered Catholics or heretics. Presumably answering for Salza as well, you replied:
"There is a difference between a private judgment and the public judgment of the Church. A person may privately judge that a particular prelate is a heretic, but if this private judgment is not reflected by the public judgment of the Church, it has no bearing whatsoever on their ecclesiastical status."
Although you were understandably reluctant to explicitly say 'yes' in answer to the question (because it illustrates how bankrupt your position is), your answer means 'yes.' Therefore, the position of Salza and Siscoe (and that of your book) is that Blase Cupich is a Catholic bishop with authority over Catholics in Chicago, and that Catholics must hold communion with him in faith and government. Your position is that Walter Kasper is not a heretic, but a Catholic, and that Catholics must profess communion with him. Your position is that Catholics must hold communion with pro-abortion public figures who say they’re Catholic, with every kind of unbeliever at every Novus Ordo parish (many of whom openly deny the inspiration of Scripture, Church councils, the Papacy, Papal Infallibility, the Eucharist, etc.). They are not heretics, but ALL OF THEM ARE CATHOLICS, according to you. The absurdity and falsity of such a position speaks for itself. It is opposed to the entire history of Catholic teaching on the understanding of the effects of departing from the magisterial teaching of the Church: that is, automatic separation and expulsion from Christ's Church by divine law.
All of the prelates you mentioned are members of the Church according to the Church's judgment. Those in positions of authority possess authority until they are removed by the proper authorities. Continued below...
-
You have tragically failed to see the distinction between the effects and meaning of heresy in DIVINE LAW and the effects and meaning of heresy in ECCLESIASTICAL LAW. The procedures instituted in ecclesiastical law are not required by divine law to recognize heretics. The process, judgment, etc. are not necessary by divine law to recognize a heretic. According to divine law, a person must simply be obstinate against established magisterial teaching to be a heretic. You see everything in terms of ecclesiastical law, to the point that you conflate it with divine law.
You've obviously been reading the erroneous arguments of Fr. Cekada. These are addressed at length and refuted in the book. Its too much to get into here. But if you read the book, you will see repeated examples of those who have unfortunately placed your trust in misquoting authorities, and purposefully eliminating doctrinal points (removing entire sections and cutting sentences short) that contradict their position. Their argument might look convincing to some, until you add back the part that they removed.
In fact, one Sedevacantist Bishop removed multiple sections containing a doctrinal point and didn't even provide an ellipses. He simply removed the part that undermined his argument, and spliced the paragraphs and sentences together. It is very difficult to conclude that this was an honest error. And it is even more difficult to conclude that it was an honest error when the other Sedevacantists priests always remove the same doctrinal point.
But the only way you will know what is removed is by looking up the source and having it translated. Most never bother doing that. Instead, they fall for the argument hook, line and sinker.
-
Mr Siscoe,
I do see your point, and I agree we need to be careful, but just consider the theology:
The Magisterium is the Authority of Christ.
Vatican II Purports to be Magisterium.
Therefore, if the Pope's are valid, Vatican II becomes an act of Christ.
That is blasphemous.
Can you provide for a severability clause between magisterial authority and magisterial teaching? And where would it be?
-
TO ROB. SISCOE:
You replied by confirming that you believe all of those people who notoriously promote heresies and deny Catholic teaching publicly (such as Kasper) to be members of the Church, since they have not been officially removed. According to the same principle, you consider all the people at Novus Ordo parishes who even favor women ‘priests’, gαy 'marriage', etc. to be members of the Church, since they have not been declared heretics or officially separated. Your position has been reduced to its absurdity.
You then erect a straw man, perhaps to shift the focus away from these considerations, by referencing Cekada. I did not reference him or base my comments on him. Rather, I pointed out that the procedures instituted in ecclesiastical law are not required by divine law to recognize heretics. That’s a fact. Your response indicates that you don’t agree and that you don’t understand. That means that you actually think that one must always be declared a heretic by a Church authority and in ecclesiastical law to be considered a heretic. That is utter nonsense (as the examples listed above about women 'priests', etc. illustrate). It shows how flawed and warped your understanding of these matters are.
You also, at least so far, did not respond to whether your book is approved by your ‘ordinary’ and, if not, why not? Also, why do you feature endorsements from independent priests and from an independent bishop, as if that means something, when your book’s thesis is that it’s forbidden under pain of condemnation to separate from the the visible social unit without a declaration.
-
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.
-
Yeah, I can do whatever I want as long as I RECOGNIZE the pope. It's like magic. I can reject all his commands and teaching, second guess all his decisions, doubt his authority to promulgate laws and canonize saints. But if I recognize him, I'm not guilty of schism or heresy. And all I have to do to recognize him is say his name after "una cuм" in the canon and maybe post his picture in the vestibule of my chapel. Yeah, that's the ticket!
-
Bravo!
We simply cannot attribute Vatican II to the authority of Christ, but of necessity we must if we acknowledge these men as Popes. It is a theological impossibility.
-
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.
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:
"Thus, the more violently they try to occupy the places of worship, the more they separate themselves from the Church. They claim that they represent the Church; but in reality, they are the ones who are expelling themselves from it and going astray. Even if Catholics faithful to Tradition are reduced to a handful, they are the ones who are the true Church of Jesus Christ."
-
Second, those guilty of the crime of heresy lose their office, but only after the Church establishes the crime.
John,
What you have stated here is absolutely false, and there are many quotes from the Church that confirm otherwise. Here are a few of them that confirm loss of office is AUTOMATIC in the case of heresy, and the Church teaches this occurs BEFORE the Church establishes the crime. Notice especially the underlined parts. Please explain why all of these Church sources teach exactly the opposite of what you are going around preaching:
"In the case in which the pope would become a heretic, he would find himself, by that fact alone and without any other sentence, separated from the Church." Summa Theologica, cited in Actes de Vatican I. V. Frond pub. St. Antoninus (†1459)
“The Pope should not flatter himself about his power nor should he rashly glory in his honor and high estate, because the less he is judged by man, the more he is judged by God. Still the less can the Roman Pontiff glory because he can be judged by men, or rather, can be shown to be already judged, if for example he should wither away into heresy; because he who does not believe is already judged..." Pope Innocent III
"...a pope who is a manifest heretic by that fact ceases to be pope and head, just as he by that fact ceases to be a Christian and a member of the body of the Church; wherefore he can be judged and punished by the Church. This is the judgement of all the early fathers, who teach that manifest heretics immediately lose all jurisdiction." St. Robert Bellarmine, "On the Roman Pontiff"
"If God permitted a pope to be notoriously heretical and contumacious, he would then cease to be pope, and the Apostolic Chair would be vacant." St. Alphonsus de Liguori, "The Truths of the Faith"
"A heretical pope necessarily ceases to be head of the Church, for by his heresy he is no longer a member thereof; in the event of his still claiming the Roman see, a General Council, improperly so called because without the pope, could remove him. But this is not deposition, since by his own act is no longer pope." A Catholic Dictionary, Deposition
"The councils of Constance and Basle, and Gallican theologians, hold that a council may depose a pope...(2) /ob fidem/ (on account of his faith or rather want of faith, i.e. heresy). In point of fact however, heresy is the only legitimate ground. For a heretical pope has ceased to be a member of the Church, and cannot, therefore, be its head." Catholic Encyclopedia, 1913. [Vol. IV p.435] Councils
"The question was also raised by a Cardinal, “What is to be done with the Pope if he becomes a heretic?” It was answered that there has never been such a case; the Council of Bishops could depose him for heresy, for from the moment he becomes a heretic he is not the head or even a member of the Church. The Church would not be, for a moment, obliged to listen to him when he begins to teach a doctrine the Church knows to be a false doctrine, and he would cease to be Pope, being deposed by God Himself." (Abp. John B. Purcell, quoted in Rev. James J. McGovern, Life and Life Work of Pope Leo XIII [Chicago, IL: Allied Printing, 1903], p. 241; imprimatur by Abp. James Quigley of Chicago.)
-
"The question was also raised by a Cardinal, “What is to be done with the Pope if he becomes a heretic?” It was answered that there has never been such a case; the Council of Bishops could depose him for heresy, for from the moment he becomes a heretic he is not the head or even a member of the Church. The Church would not be, for a moment, obliged to listen to him when he begins to teach a doctrine the Church knows to be a false doctrine, and he would cease to be Pope, being deposed by God Himself." (Abp. John B. Purcell, quoted in Rev. James J. McGovern, Life and Life Work of Pope Leo XIII [Chicago, IL: Allied Printing, 1903], p. 241; imprimatur by Abp. James Quigley of Chicago.)
Here is a photocopy of the page from the book.
Very important text, because the council fathers spoke plainly.
-
You gotta love Fr. Cekada's wit, if not his personality...
Mr. Ferrara and Mr. Salza have the same opinion-
"Mr. Ferrara advocates essentially the same position as the Society of St. Pius X, Fr. Nicholas Gruner, and countless others: You claim to "recognize" Paul VI, John Paul I, John Paul II and Benedict XVI as true popes. At the same time YOU decide which papal teachings, laws, sacramental rites, or commands are good, and which you'll reject, resist or publicly denounce.
Under this system, a pope no longer possesses the supreme authority to "bind and loose" on earth. A New Jersey lawyer, the Superior General of SSPX, the CEO of the Fatima Industry, the editor of Catholic Family News, or, generally, any traditional Catholic whatsoever, does the final review for him.
The New Mass? A sacrilege, intrinsically evil, or the pope didn't promulgate it correctly anyway. Ecuмenism? No thanks, the pope's wrong. Consecration of Russia to Immaculate Heart? The pope didn't do it right. Excommunicated or suspended? Invalid, no matter what the pope and his curia say. Consecrate bishops against the popes explicit will? Necessity lets me do it. And so on.
Who needs to visit the Throne of Peter? You give the final thumbs-up or -down from your easy chair.
The pope speaks. You decide!
This system makes a mockery of the Catholic teaching that the pope possesses not only a "Primacy of honor" (framed photos in the vestibules of wildcat traditionalist chapels, say) but also "supreme and full power of jurisdiction over the universal Church, both in matters of faith and morals, as well as in those things that pertain to the discipline and rule of the Church spread throughout the world," a power that is "ordinary and immediate over each and every church, as well as over each and every pastor and member of the faithful, independent of any human authority." (Vatican I, Dogmatic Constitution De Ecclesia Christi, DZ 1827; Canon 218.)"
Does your book have the Nihil Obstat of your local bishop Mr. Salza? Mr. Siscoe? An imprimatur?
-
Paul,
What you need to understand is that, in response to most of those quotes on how heretics are expelled 'by that very fact' or 'without a declaration,' etc., Salza and Siscoe would respond by arguing this: none of those people are even heretics until the Church declares them to be, and that AFTER the Church declares/determines them to be heretics, THEN they lose their membership in the Church and their offices ipso facto. In other words, according to Salza and Siscoe, people have to be declared heretics to lose their offices and Church membership ipso facto and 'without a declaration'! Sounds stupid and contradictory, doesn't it? Yes, that's because it is. In essence, every time you read the words 'without a declaration' or 'by that very fact' or 'ipso facto' in a quote, Salza and Siscoe re-interpret and change the meaning to be the following: 'without a declaration' only applies after a declaration. That is truly, really, actually what they are arguing. It's absurd. They've literally made up a totally new teaching on heresy, according to which 'ipso facto,' 'without a declaration,' 'by that very fact', etc. only take effect after a declaration. They are teaching heresy and lies - period. The quotes from Bellarmine, Antoninus, etc. speak for themselves. People can understand their obvious meaning without any commentary, but Salza and Siscoe have to write pages and pages about those quotes to re-interpret and change their clear meaning to 'only after a declaration has happened' (which is precisely the opposite of what the quotes actually teach).
When you reduce their novelties to their absurd conclusions, such as the fact that they regard notorious proponents of women 'priests,' etc. to be Catholic based on their false principles, you really see the heresy behind what they are saying. They are blind men leading the blind. The fact that SSPX priests endorse such nonsense and lies shows that they are simply interested in giving support to basically any work that attacks the sedevacantist position, and that their theological standards are nil.
-
St Robert Bellarmine, De Romano Pontifice, lib. IV, c. 9, no. 15:
“Then two years later came the lapse of Liberius, of which we have spoken above. Then indeed the Roman clergy, stripping Liberius of his pontifical dignity, went over to Felix, whom they knew [then] to be a Catholic. From that time, Felix began to be the true Pontiff. For although Liberius was not a heretic, nevertheless he was considered one, on account of the peace he made with the Arians, and by that presumption the pontificate could rightly [merito] be taken from him: for men are not bound, or able to read hearts; but when they see that someone is a heretic by his external works, they judge him to be a heretic pure and simple [simpliciter], and condemn him as a heretic.”
-
Paul,
What you need to understand is that, in response to most of those quotes on how heretics are expelled 'by that very fact' or 'without a declaration,' etc., Salza and Siscoe would respond by arguing this: none of those people are even heretics until the Church declares them to be, and that AFTER the Church declares/determines them to be heretics, THEN they lose their membership in the Church and their offices ipso facto. In other words, according to Salza and Siscoe, people have to be declared heretics to lose their offices and Church membership ipso facto and 'without a declaration'! Sounds stupid and contradictory, doesn't it? Yes, that's because it is. In essence, every time you read the words 'without a declaration' or 'by that very fact' or 'ipso facto' in a quote, Salza and Siscoe re-interpret and change the meaning to be the following: 'without a declaration' only applies after a declaration. That is truly, really, actually what they are arguing. It's absurd. They've literally made up a totally new teaching on heresy, according to which 'ipso facto,' 'without a declaration,' 'by that very fact', etc. only take effect after a declaration. They are teaching heresy and lies - period. The quotes from Bellarmine, Antoninus, etc. speak for themselves. People can understand their obvious meaning without any commentary, but Salza and Siscoe have to write pages and pages about those quotes to re-interpret and change their clear meaning to 'only after a declaration has happened' (which is precisely the opposite of what the quotes actually teach).
When you reduce their novelties to their absurd conclusions, such as the fact that they regard notorious proponents of women 'priests,' etc. to be Catholic based on their false principles, you really see the heresy behind what they are saying. They are blind men leading the blind. The fact that SSPX priests endorse such nonsense and lies shows that they are simply interested in giving support to basically any work that attacks the sedevacantist position, and that their theological standards are nil.
The quotes I just posted are very clearly written. What you are saying they would argue makes no sense to me. Let's hear from John Salza himself.
-
Paul, what I have written is correct. I agree that the quotes on ipso facto loss of membership and office for heresy are clear, and that Salza and Siscoe's assertions are false and absurd. But you don't understand their argument. You don't realize that Salza and Siscoe don't believe that anyone can be considered 'a heretic' until he is declared to be one. Permit me to illustrate the difference with the following quotes, for instance:
"In the case in which the pope would become a heretic, he would find himself, by that fact alone and without any other sentence, separated from the Church." Summa Theologica, cited in Actes de Vatican I. V. Frond pub. St. Antoninus (†1459)
"...a pope who is a manifest heretic by that fact ceases to be pope and head, just as he by that fact ceases to be a Christian and a member of the body of the Church; wherefore he can be judged and punished by the Church. This is the judgement of all the early fathers, who teach that manifest heretics immediately lose all jurisdiction." St. Robert Bellarmine, "On the Roman Pontiff".
A Catholic recognizes that these quotes teach that people who manifestly deny the faith are AUTOMATICALLY expelled from the Church WITHOUT the need for a declaration by a Church authority. But Salza and Siscoe don't believe that anyone is an actual 'heretic' or a 'manifest heretic' UNTIL HE IS DECLARED TO BE A HERETIC by a Church authority. So, for them: every reference to 'HERETIC' OR 'MANIFEST HERETIC' = A PERSON DECLARED TO BE SUCH.
Therefore, the reference to 'a heretic' (in the quote from Antoninus) and the reference to ('a manifest heretic') in the quote from Bellarmine, to Salza and Siscoe actually means 'a person declared to be a heretic’ (i.e. officially warned, etc.) So, their position is that one must be declared a heretic to lose his office ipso facto or without any declaration. That is their position, and that's what they claim Bellarmine, etc. are teaching. Yes, it’s false. Yes, it’s stupid. Yes, it's absurd. Yes, it makes no sense. Yes, it's a contradiction. But that is their position: that one must be declared a heretic to lose his office ipso facto. What I wrote before is correct. I will re-quote what I wrote:
---
Paul,
What you need to realize is that, in response to most of those quotes on how heretics are expelled by that very fact or "without a declaration," etc., Salza and Siscoe would respond by arguing this: none of those people are even heretics until the Church declares them to be, and that AFTER the Church declares them to be heretics, then they lose their membership in the Church and their offices ipso facto. In other words, according to Salza and Siscoe, people have to be declared heretics to lose their offices and Church membership ipso facto and "without a declaration"! Sounds stupid and contradictory, doesn't it? Yes, that's because it is. In essence, every time you read 'without a declaration' or 'by that very fact' or 'ipso facto' in a quote, Salza and Siscoe re-interpret and change the meaning to be the following: "without a declaration" applies only after a declaration. That is really, truly, actually what they are saying. It's absurd. They've literally made up a totally new teaching on heresy, according to which "ipso facto," "without a declaration," "by that very fact", etc. only take effect only after a declaration. They are teaching heresy and lies - period. The quotes from Bellarmine, Antoninus, etc. speak for themselves. People can understand their meaning without any commentary, but Salza and Siscoe have to write pages and pages about those quotes to re-interpret and change their clear meaning to "after a declaration".
When you reduce their novelties to their absurd conclusions, such as the fact that they regard notorious proponents of women 'priests,' etc. to be Catholic based on their false principles, you really see the heresy behind what they are saying. They are blind men leading the blind. The fact that SSPX priests endorse such nonsense shows that they are simply interested in giving support to basically any work that attacks the sedevacantist position, and that their theological standards are nil.
-
If a Pope who has become a heretic mends his ways before the declaratory sentence, he recovers ipso facto his pontifical authority without any new election of the Cardinals or other legal formality.
— Objection: «If, as we have said, the Pope by the very fact that he has become a heretic loses his pontifical dignity and remains outside the Church, then it is not possible for him to go back into office, at least not in the sense of becoming Pope again, because such a return would have the force of a new election, in which case a council would be attributing to itself a right that belongs to the Cardinals, namely the right of electing, and this —according to Rosellus— is not something that can be done legitimately.
Answer: In the present case, according to the interpretation of ecclesiastical law, the right of election returns to the Cardinals only after a declaratory sentence of the crime, because the penalties imposed by the law itself cannot be executed without such a sentence… And it has not been shown that such a declaration should be pronounced in virtue of any existing law. But rather the opposite is true when the Pope mends his ways, as we demonstrated before. Thus, no harm is done to the Cardinals, since they receive back in a revocable manner the right of choosing another Pontiff, on condition that the heretical Pope be unrepentant and unwilling to mends his ways. It should be of no wonder if a reintegration of this type takes place without any legal solemnity, because, if a person loses ecclesiastical dignity by committing a crime—and this happens by a simple internal effect of the law (nudo juris mysterio fit)— by the same token, once the crime goes away by reason of the amendment, the thing goes back to its original state— also by a simple internal effect of the law.
Cardinal John Jerome of Albano, Tractatus de Potestate Papae, 1543.
Note, a Pope who is a heretic, BEFORE any declaratory sentence, and therefore before any trial against him, were to REPENT of his heresy, RECOVERS his Pontifical authority! Which means he can formally lose it before a trial.
This is possible because this entire scenario here is making the distinction between divine law and canon law. According to Divine Law, the heretical Pope has lost his office, it is taken away by Christ. And in terms of canon law this takes place by a "simple internal effect of the law". This means that there is no declaration necessary for him to have truly, in the eyes of God, ceased to have Papal jurisdiction.
Nevertheless, there OUGHT to be, for the good of the Church, a canonical declaration AGAINST him, to legally and canonically sever him from the Material Office he holds.
BUT if he REPENTS BEFORE that declaration, then the Cardinals would not have to hold a second election.
This is the proper understanding of that which takes place according to divine law, and that which takes place according to canon law. They are different from one another.
-
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.
-
TO ROB. SISCOE:
You replied by confirming that you believe all of those people who notoriously promote heresies and deny Catholic teaching publicly (such as Kasper) to be members of the Church, since they have not been officially removed. According to the same principle, you consider all the people at Novus Ordo parishes who even favor women ‘priests’, gαy 'marriage', etc. to be members of the Church, since they have not been declared heretics or officially separated. Your position has been reduced to its absurdity.
You then erect a straw man, perhaps to shift the focus away from these considerations, by referencing Cekada. I did not reference him or base my comments on him. Rather, I pointed out that the procedures instituted in ecclesiastical law are not required by divine law to recognize heretics. That’s a fact. Your response indicates that you don’t agree and that you don’t understand. That means that you actually think that one must always be declared a heretic by a Church authority and in ecclesiastical law to be considered a heretic. That is utter nonsense (as the examples listed above about women 'priests', etc. illustrate). It shows how flawed and warped your understanding of these matters are.
You also, at least so far, did not respond to whether your book is approved by your ‘ordinary’ and, if not, why not? Also, why do you feature endorsements from independent priests and from an independent bishop, as if that means something, when your book’s thesis is that it’s forbidden under pain of condemnation to separate from the the visible social unit without a declaration.
This appears to be the anti-sedevacantist go-to when they can't answer a question.
-
My, my.... We have Siscoe and Salza on the forum?
I sure hope you guys stick around instead of just peddling around and trying to sell your ridiculously long book of already refuted arguments.
As of now, 100% of their posts have been on this one topic as they tag-team to defend and promote their book. I guess Siscoe had to join because Salza couldn't figure out the quote feature. In any event, when this topic dies down, I doubt we'll ever hear of them again...until the next book comes out.
-
My, my.... We have Siscoe and Salza on the forum?
I sure hope you guys stick around instead of just peddling around and trying to sell your ridiculously long book of already refuted arguments.
As of now, 100% of their posts have been on this one topic as they tag-team to defend and promote their book. I guess Siscoe had to join because Salza couldn't figure out the quote feature. In any event, when this topic dies down, I doubt we'll ever hear of them again...until the next book comes out.
:roll-laugh1: Literally LOL'ed on that one.
-
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"[4] gave an almost unanimous affirmative response to both these questions. This "outstanding agreement of the Catholic prelates and the faithful,"[5] 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.[6] Certainly this teaching authority of the Church, not by any merely human effort but under the protection of the Spirit of Truth,[7] 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."[8] 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."[9]
-
Paul,
What you need to understand is that, in response to most of those quotes on how heretics are expelled 'by that very fact' or 'without a declaration,' etc., Salza and Siscoe would respond by arguing this: none of those people are even heretics until the Church declares them to be, and that AFTER the Church declares/determines them to be heretics, THEN they lose their membership in the Church and their offices ipso facto. In other words, according to Salza and Siscoe, people have to be declared heretics to lose their offices and Church membership ipso facto and 'without a declaration'! Sounds stupid and contradictory, doesn't it? Yes, that's because it is. In essence, every time you read the words 'without a declaration' or 'by that very fact' or 'ipso facto' in a quote, Salza and Siscoe re-interpret and change the meaning to be the following: 'without a declaration' only applies after a declaration. That is truly, really, actually what they are arguing. It's absurd. They've literally made up a totally new teaching on heresy, according to which 'ipso facto,' 'without a declaration,' 'by that very fact', etc. only take effect after a declaration. They are teaching heresy and lies - period. The quotes from Bellarmine, Antoninus, etc. speak for themselves. People can understand their obvious meaning without any commentary, but Salza and Siscoe have to write pages and pages about those quotes to re-interpret and change their clear meaning to 'only after a declaration has happened' (which is precisely the opposite of what the quotes actually teach).
When you reduce their novelties to their absurd conclusions, such as the fact that they regard notorious proponents of women 'priests,' etc. to be Catholic based on their false principles, you really see the heresy behind what they are saying. They are blind men leading the blind. The fact that SSPX priests endorse such nonsense and lies shows that they are simply interested in giving support to basically any work that attacks the sedevacantist position, and that their theological standards are nil.
This is to be expected from lawyers. They typically first determine what outcome they want to achieve and then they leave no stone unturned in their efforts to bend the interpretation of every statement and law and even reality (if possible) to achieve that result. It works well in an adversarial system but in theology it stinks. It is no way to arrive at the truth.
-
Excerpt from the book True or False Pope?:
Sedevacantists Admit of Their Own Evil Fruits
Right off the bat, what is most telling, is that Sedevacantists themselves admit that their movement is plagued by evil and bitter fruits. This fact is so pervasive that it is conceded and complained
about even by the most public defenders of the sect. For example, a recent article appeared in the Sedevacantist publication Reign of Mary in which the author, Sedevacantist Mario Derksen, explained that the reason some do not embrace the Sedevacantist position is due to the rotten fruits found among its members. He wrote: “All too often we hear from people seeking to be traditional Catholics that what keeps them from becoming Sedevacantists is the problem of ‘disunity’ among them. From disputes about which Holy Week rites to follow, to contemporary bioethical problems, to the question of whether one may ever assist at non-Sedevacantist Masses, the disagreements among those who do not recognize the papal claimants after Pope Pius XII as legitimate seem too numerous or too daunting for many people’s comfort.”
Mr. Derksen’s explanation is that these divisions are due to the fact that there is not a Pope. He said, “the absence of a Pope means that the principle of unity is temporarily prevented from bringing about the unity of the flock on those matters about which we currently legitimately dispute and disagree.” Derksen’s explanation, however, does not correspond to reality.
First, as this book has demonstrated, it’s not that we don’t have a Pope, but rather that the Sedevacantists refuse to recognize that there is a Pope. Second, the presence or absence of a Pope does not eliminate “those matters about which [they] currently legitimately dispute and disagree,” because “those matters” include precisely how and when a Pope loses his office for heresy. As we saw in this book, the Sedevacantists have very divisive opinions on these matters, and those disagreements would exist irrespective of whether we have a Pope or not.
But as the Sedevacantist, John Lane, noted in his response to Mr. Derksen’s article, the problem is not only one of disunity and infighting amongst various Sedevacantist factions, but true spiritual disorder in the lives of those who embrace the position. Mr. Lane wrote: “...people who get interested in Sedevacantism become unstable in their spiritual lives, confused about what matters and what doesn’t , forget their own incompetence in what are often very technically challenging areas of law and doctrine, often destabilize others in their parish, and very often more broadly disturb the peace of the parish. I’ve observed all of this myself, and so often that I can’t answer it. It’s true.”
John Lane admits he has no answer for the spiritual disorders he finds in those who embrace Sedevacantism. He went on to say one might be able to blame the divisions on their being no Pope (since the Pope is the principle of unity), but he then noted that...
But here is what John Lane actually wrote: The sedeplenist Joe Bloggs, and more importantly, the sedeplenist Fr. Bloggs, won't find the apology regarding sedevacantist disunity compelling. The reason is that the logic doesn't work. I think that Mario doesn't understand the objection to which he is meant to be replying.
The sedeplenist observation over decades is that people who get interested in sedevacantism become unstable in their spiritual lives, confused about what matters and what doesn't, forget their own incompetence in what are often very technically challenging areas of law and doctrine, often destablise others in their parish, and very often more broadly disturb the peace of the parish. I've observed all of this myself, and so often that I can't answer it. It's true. It isn't an observation that touches upon whether Francis is pope, obviously, but one can certainly understand that to somebody with the other conviction, it's a mighty motivation not to look at our view.
One cannot answer this by arguing as follows:
1. The pope is the principle of unity in the Church
2. But there's no pope at present
Ergo, disunity is expected and not at all surprising.
This argument, which is sound and true, only explains the disunity on all fronts, amongst all Catholics, whatever their convictions. It says nothing whatsoever about why sedevacantism is so often concommitant with spiritual maladies.
cf. http://www.sedevacantist.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=1771
So John Lane is not admitting the disunity of sedevacantists alone, he is saying that all traditionalists suffer from the same thing. INCLUDING SALZA AND SISCOE'S R&R POSITION.
This is the kind of intellectual dishonesty which lawyers are notorious for.
Later in the same thread, John Lane wrote this: Nice reply, James.
I'm of the view, and have been for years, that the crisis presents a mystery, and that the only valid and useful approach is to address the mystery as a whole. The sedeplenists don't do this, and neither has any sedevacantist writer. Instead, the sedevacantists "prove" their position, whilst failing to address the real elements of mystery which remain, and then turn and rend the sedeplenists for not accepting their opinion. The sedeplenists, on the other hand, restrict themselves to refuting sedevacantism, without addressing the very real problems it is meant to (partially) answer. The problem with this approach is compounded by the use of bad arguments, erroneous theology, and absolutely garbage "scholarship" (e.g. invented quotes from Pope Adrian VI, taken from a book which St. Pius X put on the Index). For these reasons, once one is a sedevacantist, one is constantly and severely tempted to believe that the other side are actually just complete charlatans without the slightest affection for the moral law or truth itself.
It's a great dynamic! :)
Which pretty much sums up everything that Salza and Siscoe have ever written about the SV position.
-
Paul, what I have written is correct. I agree that the quotes on ipso facto loss of membership and office for heresy are clear, and that Salza and Siscoe's assertions are false and absurd. But you don't understand their argument. You don't realize that Salza and Siscoe don't believe that anyone can be considered 'a heretic' until he is declared to be one.
A Catholic recognizes that these quotes teach that people who manifestly deny the faith are AUTOMATICALLY expelled from the Church WITHOUT the need for a declaration by a Church authority. But Salza and Siscoe don't believe that anyone is an actual 'heretic' or a 'manifest heretic' UNTIL HE IS DECLARED TO BE A HERETIC by a Church authority. So, for them: every reference to 'HERETIC' OR 'MANIFEST HERETIC' = A PERSON DECLARED TO BE SUCH.
Hi Catholictrue,
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. For instance, the following quotes are extremely clear in stating the loss of position has already occurred before a declaration has taken place:
"A heretical pope necessarily ceases to be head of the Church, for by his heresy he is no longer a member thereof; in the event of his still claiming the Roman see, a General Council, improperly so called because without the pope, could remove him. But this is not deposition, since by his own act is no longer pope." A Catholic Dictionary, Deposition
"The question was also raised by a Cardinal, “What is to be done with the Pope if he becomes a heretic?” It was answered that there has never been such a case; the Council of Bishops could depose him for heresy, for from the moment he becomes a heretic he is not the head or even a member of the Church. The Church would not be, for a moment, obliged to listen to him when he begins to teach a doctrine the Church knows to be a false doctrine, and he would cease to be Pope, being deposed by God Himself." (Abp. John B. Purcell, quoted in Rev. James J. McGovern, Life and Life Work of Pope Leo XIII [Chicago, IL: Allied Printing, 1903], p. 241; imprimatur by Abp. James Quigley of Chicago.)
The other quotes I presented clearly state the same, but the above 2 are more explicit about it. I'm not looking for anyone to help Salza here; I'm asking him to explain the discrepancy for all of us. Thanks
-
By the way, John Salza has made appearances on Eric Gajewski's podcast several times. Eric Gajewski is claiming that he is the Great Monarch and he has been caught buying fake social media activity to create the illusion of popularity for his website. So people living in glass houses should not be throwing stones. Spiritual maladies are everywhere. There is no magic Catholic theological/ecclesiological position which will make them go away. So Chapter 21 of True or False Pope? appears to me to be nothing more than a thin veneer of scholarship draped over detraction and calumny with at least one misleading quote thrown in for good measure.
-
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".
-
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?
-
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.
-
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:
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:
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?
-
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.
-
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.
You really need to address this:
It is not possible for the Bishops of the world to defect at a council. This would be contrary to the attribute of indefectibility. If the Church’s legitimate hierarchy met in Rome in 1962, and then defected sometime over the next three years during the council, it would mean that the Church’s hierarchy defected; you cannot simply claim that the hierarchy morphed into a New Church and it is the New Church that defected. By adding the additional step that the legitimate hierarchy morphed into a New Church, and that the New Church defected, would not avoid the same conclusion that the legitimate hierarchy defected.
-
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.
You really need to address this:
It is not possible for the Bishops of the world to defect at a council. This would be contrary to the attribute of indefectibility. If the Church’s legitimate hierarchy met in Rome in 1962, and then defected sometime over the next three years during the council, it would mean that the Church’s hierarchy defected; you cannot simply claim that the hierarchy morphed into a New Church and it is the New Church that defected. By adding the additional step that the legitimate hierarchy morphed into a New Church, and that the New Church defected, would not avoid the same conclusion that the legitimate hierarchy defected.
Cantarella, you missed the subtle point by G1 where he puts "Church" in quotes. This means he doesn't really believe it is a Church, and that he is not going to elaborate on it there to avoid cluttering his main point.
In truth, only the Catholic Church deserves the description of a "Church" because it is the only true Church. A false Church is not a Church. What we have working within the realm of the true Church is an "illegitimate following" of men who claim to represent the Church but really do not because of their heresies. The "illegitimate following" is a sort of entity itself, a sort of club, which for the sake of convenience we call the "Conciliar Church".
-
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.
You really need to address this:
It is not possible for the Bishops of the world to defect at a council. This would be contrary to the attribute of indefectibility. If the Church’s legitimate hierarchy met in Rome in 1962, and then defected sometime over the next three years during the council, it would mean that the Church’s hierarchy defected; you cannot simply claim that the hierarchy morphed into a New Church and it is the New Church that defected. By adding the additional step that the legitimate hierarchy morphed into a New Church, and that the New Church defected, would not avoid the same conclusion that the legitimate hierarchy defected.
Cantarella, you missed the subtle point by G1 where he puts "Church" in quotes. This means he doesn't really believe it is a Church, and that he is not going to elaborate on it there to avoid cluttering his main point.
In truth, only the Catholic Church deserves the description of a "Church" because it is the only true Church. A false Church is not a Church. What we have working within the realm of the true Church is an "illegitimate following" of men who claim to represent the Church but really do not because of their heresies. The "illegitimate following" is a sort of entity itself, a sort of club, which for the sake of convenience we call the "Conciliar Church".
Yes, but this "Conciliar" Church at some point in time had to be the Catholic Church (let's say right before the Council, October 10, 1962). It is unrealistic to say that 2600 Catholic Bishops entered the Council being the True Church of Christ and came out of the Council as apostates, NOT being the True Church of Christ anymore. Either a substantial change happened to the Church of Christ during the Council or did not. If it did not (not really, but just appears as if), then the pre / post conciliar Church is one and the same and there is continuity, at least materially. If it did, then the True Church of Christ (2600 bishops entering the Council on October 10, 1962) defected, which we know is impossible.
"By adding the additional step that the legitimate hierarchy morphed into a New Church, and that the New Church defected, would not avoid the same conclusion that the legitimate hierarchy defected".
-
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.
You really need to address this:
It is not possible for the Bishops of the world to defect at a council. This would be contrary to the attribute of indefectibility. If the Church’s legitimate hierarchy met in Rome in 1962, and then defected sometime over the next three years during the council, it would mean that the Church’s hierarchy defected; you cannot simply claim that the hierarchy morphed into a New Church and it is the New Church that defected. By adding the additional step that the legitimate hierarchy morphed into a New Church, and that the New Church defected, would not avoid the same conclusion that the legitimate hierarchy defected.
Cantarella, you missed the subtle point by G1 where he puts "Church" in quotes. This means he doesn't really believe it is a Church, and that he is not going to elaborate on it there to avoid cluttering his main point.
In truth, only the Catholic Church deserves the description of a "Church" because it is the only true Church. A false Church is not a Church. What we have working within the realm of the true Church is an "illegitimate following" of men who claim to represent the Church but really do not because of their heresies. The "illegitimate following" is a sort of entity itself, a sort of club, which for the sake of convenience we call the "Conciliar Church".
Yes, but this "Conciliar" Church at some point in time had to be the Catholic Church (let's say right before the Council, October 10, 1962). It is unrealistic to say that 2600 Catholic Bishops entered the Council being the True Church of Christ and came out of the Council as apostates, NOT being the True Church of Christ anymore. Either a substantial change happened to the Church of Christ during the Council or did not. If it did not (not really, but just appears as if), then the pre / post conciliar Church is one and the same and there is continuity, at least materially. If it did, then the True Church of Christ (2600 bishops entering the Council on October 10, 1962) defected, which we know is impossible.
"By adding the additional step that the legitimate hierarchy morphed into a New Church, and that the New Church defected, would not avoid the same conclusion that the legitimate hierarchy defected".
Nobody said everyone did or will defect. What you are here directly implying is that Holy Scripture is unrealistic. You are criticising Holy Scripture! It has been predicted by Holy Scripture that there will be a great falling away, and that a remnant will remain so obscure that it will be able to hide from the Antichrist for years. It is been well-known without complaint since St. Athanasius penned it, that the Church can become a handful of faithful and still be the true Church, without the buildings. Vatican II occurred, and a great falling away is in the process of happening, There are a handful that reject Vatican II and are keeping the faith.
-
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.
You really need to address this:
It is not possible for the Bishops of the world to defect at a council. This would be contrary to the attribute of indefectibility. If the Church’s legitimate hierarchy met in Rome in 1962, and then defected sometime over the next three years during the council, it would mean that the Church’s hierarchy defected; you cannot simply claim that the hierarchy morphed into a New Church and it is the New Church that defected. By adding the additional step that the legitimate hierarchy morphed into a New Church, and that the New Church defected, would not avoid the same conclusion that the legitimate hierarchy defected.
Cantarella, you missed the subtle point by G1 where he puts "Church" in quotes. This means he doesn't really believe it is a Church, and that he is not going to elaborate on it there to avoid cluttering his main point.
In truth, only the Catholic Church deserves the description of a "Church" because it is the only true Church. A false Church is not a Church. What we have working within the realm of the true Church is an "illegitimate following" of men who claim to represent the Church but really do not because of their heresies. The "illegitimate following" is a sort of entity itself, a sort of club, which for the sake of convenience we call the "Conciliar Church".
Yes, but this "Conciliar" Church at some point in time had to be the Catholic Church (let's say right before the Council, October 10, 1962). It is unrealistic to say that 2600 Catholic Bishops entered the Council being the True Church of Christ and came out of the Council as apostates, NOT being the True Church of Christ anymore. Either a substantial change happened to the Church of Christ during the Council or did not. If it did not (not really, but just appears as if), then the pre / post conciliar Church is one and the same and there is continuity, at least materially. If it did, then the True Church of Christ (2600 bishops entering the Council on October 10, 1962) defected, which we know is impossible.
"By adding the additional step that the legitimate hierarchy morphed into a New Church, and that the New Church defected, would not avoid the same conclusion that the legitimate hierarchy defected".
Nobody said everyone did or will defect. What you are here directly implying is that Holy Scripture is unrealistic. You are criticising Holy Scripture! It has been predicted by Holy Scripture that there will be a great falling away, and that a remnant will remain so obscure that it will be able to hide from the Antichrist for years. It is been well-known without complaint since St. Athanasius penned it, that the Church can become a handful of faithful and still be the true Church, without the buildings. Vatican II occurred, and a great falling away is in the process of happening, There are a handful that reject Vatican II and are keeping the faith.
The fact that God indeed always operates through a small remnant (His true flock) in the midst of the apostasy of the many, and it has always been so, since the beginning of time, has absolutely nothing to do with sedevacantism, or the supposed Magisterium's defection in Vatican II, which was the point I was trying to make; but if anything, it should be a reminder and a lesson on the continuity of the True Religion of the Just through time.
The constant focus of God's action, in the Old and New Testaments, is on the remnant. When all Israel is ready to apostasize and stone Moses, it is Moses God is concerned with; He is ready to consume the unfaithful. When ten of the twelve tribes go after foreign gods, God sends them away into oblivion. When Jerusalem sins, God wipes them away like one wipes a dish but encourages the small remnant who remains to be faithful. It is the remnant that must be encouraged, the remnant that must be strengthened, the good of the remnant which must be preserved. It is the remnant which will fulfill God's will; it always has, whether that remnant was 7,000 men, as in the case of Elijah, or a single man, in the case of Moses.
The modern Church is fundamentally afraid of entering into a remnant scenario; petrified of a circuмstance when the world scoffs and laughs at her, in which she loses all relevance. And therefore she tries everything to postpone or avoid this state of affairs, even to the point of compromising very basic Catholic disciplines and inventing ingenious ways around doctrine. Ultimately, it is because they do not trust God. They care about numbers; "What are we going to do about declining Mass attendance?" "What about these abysmal baptismal statistics?" God doesn't care about your numbers; He cares about truth. Just preach the truth. Let God worry about the numbers. If hearts are soft, they will repent and come back by the preaching of the truth. If not, the truth will serve as a sword against them, and they shall go forth, and God will wipe them away as one wipes a dish, and the 7,000 who have not bowed the knee to Baal will rise up in judgment against them, and the Lord will start over again if He needs to, working out His mysterious providence through the remnant that He has chosen by grace.
God works through remnants. And He doesn't care about the numbers. He will wipe everything out and start over if He has to. He's done it before. It's the way He operates.
http://unamsanctamcatholicam.blogspot.com/2014/03/god-is-not-impressed-by-numbers.html
-
Yes, but this "Conciliar" Church at some point in time had to be the Catholic Church (let's say right before the Council, October 10, 1962). It is unrealistic to say that 2600 Catholic Bishops entered the Council being the True Church of Christ and came out of the Council as apostates, NOT being the True Church of Christ anymore. Either a substantial change happened to the Church of Christ during the Council or did not. If it did not (not really, but just appears as if), then the pre / post conciliar Church is one and the same and there is continuity, at least materially. If it did, then the True Church of Christ (2600 bishops entering the Council on October 10, 1962) defected, which we know is impossible.
"By adding the additional step that the legitimate hierarchy morphed into a New Church, and that the New Church defected, would not avoid the same conclusion that the legitimate hierarchy defected".
Hang on, you are heading the right direction, but veering off track.
VATICAN II was a substantial change. The changes introduced by IT are substantial Change. The Church herself remains unchanged.
What this demonstrates is that VATICAN II cannot come from legitimate magisterial authority. It is therefore not an act of the Church, and not an act of Christ reigning in his Church.
Now, THERE WAS NO MASS EPISCOPAL DEFECTION. I want to be clear. There WERE many bishops who signed out of confusion. But they all walked out bishops, they all walked out occupying their sees. The single exception would be Paul VI.
He Formally was stripped of his authority and his jurisdiction. Why? Because he promulgated Public Heresy.
Nevertheless, he materially retained the Papal Office, but, he placed an obstacle between the office and the authority: Heresy.
Since he no longer willed the good of the Church, and he proved he did not objectively have the good of the Church in mind, through his heresy, he was formally stripped of jurisdiction.
SO, the question you are asking is :
When Vatican II ended, where was the Church?
Where she had always been:
But she was now formally headless.
AS the years would roll by, the heresies from Vatican II, resulting from its implementation, would creep through each diocese and eviscerate it.
BUT those who would remain faithful to tradition, who would call the heresy heresy, who separated themselves from these perversions, THEY are the ones who retained the Catholic faith.
The 7000 whom God had reserved who had not bowed their knees to Ba'al, that was the Traditionalists.
The laity who are stuck within the Novus Ordo establishment however, are, and remain, through their general goodwill, Catholics, since no canonical act has ever severed them from the Church. And the "Bishops" retain their material offices through common factual error, and as a result, the Church supplies jurisdiction to these various elections of various bishops. Ecclesia Supplet. JURISDICTION, NOT GRACE.
The same with the Cardinals. There is this really ridiculous cry of "IF THERE IS NO POPE THERE ARE NO CARDINALS!"
Not true. These men who are designated through election to the Papacy, they possess a valid election, but their heresy (from willfully implementing and acting upon Vatican II, the Novus Ordo Mass and apostasy, from ecuмenical activity) is an obstacle to the exercise of Jurisdiction.
Now, the Cardinals and the "Popes" are of the same mindset. So, they approach him, anticipating him to be Pope, and make an error of FACT. Making that error, they receive from the "Pope" the Cardinals hat.
Because this is a common error of Fact, and Even a LEGAL Common Error, the Church Supplies Jurisdiction, and they obtain the Cardinals Hat Validly and Canonically, even from a Formally Heretical Pope who has no Ordinary Jurisdiction due to heresy.
So, we have many structures that remain intact due to Common Factual Error, and we have simultaneously many Heretical Bishops, MOST of which are Doubtfully Consecrated as Priests and Bishops.
THIS gets into the Fact that Pope Pius XII IRREFORMABLY set the Form for the Ordination of Bishops Priests and Deacons in "Sacramentum Ordinis." This means, it is literally an IRREFORMABLE act, and the fact that the reform of it was attempted simply proves those trying to do it are not who they say they are. The Church cannot do this.
See for yourself, he is invoking Papal Infallibility:
"Wherefore, after invoking the divine light, We of Our Apostolic Authority and from certain knowledge declare, and as far as may be necessary decree and provide: that the matter, and the only matter, of the Sacred Orders of the Diaconate, the Priesthood, and the Episcopacy is the imposition of hands; and that the form, and the only form, is the words which determine the application of this matter, which univocally signify the sacramental effects - namely the power of Order and the grace of the Holy Spirit - and which are accepted and used by the Church in that sense. It follows as a consequence that We should declare, and in order to remove all controversy and to preclude doubts of conscience, We do by Our Apostolic Authority declare, and if there was ever a lawful disposition to the contrary We now decree that at least in the future the traditio instrumentorum is not necessary for the validity of the Sacred Orders of the Diaconate, the Priesthood, and the Episcopacy.
5. As to the matter and form in the conferring of each Order, We of Our same supreme Apostolic Authority decree and provide as follows: In the Ordination to the Diaconate, the matter is the one imposition of the hand of the Bishop which occurs in the rite of that Ordination. The form consists of the words of the "Preface," of which the following are essential and therefore required for validity:" etc.
...
These things We proclaim, declare, and decree, all things to the contrary notwithstanding, even those worthy of special mention, and accordingly We will and order that in the Roman Pontifical they be clearly indicated. Let no man therefore infringe this Constitution which We have enacted, nor dare to contravene the same.
You can't really BE more forceful...
This is an irreformable act, one that cannot be undone, Rome has spoken. YET, Paul VI undid it. Further prof that he simply could no be Pope.
SO, as the years wind on, and as these priests are ordained in dubious rites, and as bishops are consecrated in Profoundly doubtful consecrations, the number of true priests rapidly dwindles.
YET, we know, and in fact have made lists of bishops who are still alive from Pope Pius XII, John XXIII, and Paul VI. There are Very many spread all over the world.
In addition, we have the ordinations by Archbishops Thuc and Lefebvre, and
Archbishop Thuc apparently was granted a Motu Proprio by Pius XI where he didn't NEED Papal permission to consecrate Bishops.
http://holyrosarychapel.vpweb.com/ARCHBISHOP-THUC.html# (Photos of docuмents).
And the Church Retains the Passive Exercise of Her Universal Ordinary Magisterium.
But the Novus Ordo is not the Church. Its CHARTER was Vatican II. Its Membership was an exponential swelling from 1965 onward to the present day. The LEAVING that took place was the Silent Apostasy JPII spoke of, from Tradition, to Protestantism. From Catholic, to Anglican.
The Novus Ordo Chruch is basically the Church of England now. It has the High Church and the Low Church, for those with different tastes. It has extreme liberals, and extreme conservatices, and very borad-minded priests, ALL under the Vatican II umbrella. It followed the same program of Reform as England: "Make the Mass Vernacular, introduce small changes, insist on the priority of fellowship." It's exactly what happened. The English Reformation is a near perfect Model of the Novus Ordo.
But Cantarella, don't be so surprised, it was FORESEEN by Marie Julie Jahenny, who had approbation from her local Bishop. She literally saw this happening and said so.
"On 10th of May 1904, She (Our Lady) denotes the new clergy and its
Mass :
« They won't stop at this hateful and sacrilegious road. They will go
further TO COMPROMISE ALL AT ONCE AND IN ONE GO, THE HOLY
CHURCH, THE CLERGY AND THE FAITH OF MY CHILDREN... » She
announces the « DISPERSION OF THE PASTORS » by the Church itself ;
real pastors who will be replaced by others formed by hell, initiated in
all vices, ALL INIQUITIES, PERFIDIOUS, WHO WILL COVER SOULS
WITH FILTH... NEW PREACHERS OF NEW SACRAMENTS, NEW
TEMPLES, NEW BAPTISMS, NEW CONFRATERNITIES. . . >
She says LOTS more too:
1881: THE GREATER NUMBER [OF BISHOPS] ARE READY TO GIVE THEIR FAITH TO SAVE THEIR BODIES... THE SUFFERING THEY CAUSE (the Church) WILL
NEVER BE REPAIRED. IN A SHORT TIME THE PASTORS OF THE
CHURCH WILL HAVE SPREAD SCANDALS EVERYWHERE AND WILL
HAVE GIVEN THE LAST SWORD THRUST TO HOLY CHURCH. -
She frequently announced that the enemies of the Church would
penetrate into its bosom "AND PERPETRATE HORRIBLE SCANDALS
AND THRUST THE SWORD INTO THE HEART OF THE CHURCH.
RAGE HAS NEVER BEEN GREATER."
She assisted at a dialogue between Our Lord and Lucifer and the
latter said
:
I will attack the Church. I will overthrow the Cross, I will decimate
the people, I will deposit a great weakness of Faith in hearts. THERE
WILL ALSO BE A GREAT DENIAL OF RELIGION. FOR A TIME I WILL
BE MASTER OF ALL THINGS, EVERYTHING WILL BE UNDER MY
CONTROL, EVEN YOUR TEMPLE AND ALL YOUR PEOPLE,
.
« Saint Michael says that Satan will have possession of everything for
some time and that he will reign completely over everything ; that all
goodness, Faith, Religion WILL BE BURIED IN THE TOMB, . . Satan and
his own will triumph with joy, but after this triumph, the Lord will in
His turn gather His own people and WILL REIGN AND TRIUMPH OVER
EVIL AND WILL RAISE UP FROM THE TOMB THE BURIED CHURCH,
the prostrated Cross...
Read it for yourself, page 40.
https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B72oYysTeSi1MHVvYkRlZ3pfVTQ
In fact, read the whole book. We're there.
Best for last:
On 27th of November 1902 and 10th of May 1904, Our Lord and Our
Lady announced the - New Mass >. Listen :
- I give you a WARNING. The disciples who are not of My Gospel are
now working hard to remake according to their ideas AND UNDER
THE INFLUENCE OF THE ENEMY OF SOULS A MASS THAT CONTAINS
WORDS THAT ARE ODIOUS IN MY SIGHT.
When the fatal hour arrives when the faith of my priests is put to the
test, it will be (these texts) that will be CELEBRATED IN THIS SECOND
PERIOD... THE FIRST PERIOD IS (THE ONE) OF MY PRIESTHOOD
WHICH EXISTS SINCE ME. THE SECOND is (the one) of the
persecution WHEN THE ENEMIES OF THE FAITH and of Holy Religion
(will impose their formulas) in the book of the second celebration...
THESE INFAMOUS SPIRITS ARE THOSE WHO CRUCIFIED ME and are
awaiting THE KINGDOM OF THE NEW MESSIAH >
-
Gregory I, you quote Marie-Julie Jahenny, but you don't know her prophecies. Do you know when they have been found back? In 1972. And do you know what the Lord had said about their disappearance? He had said that they would be found back when they would be better understood. Well, 1972, is the date of Paul VI's replacement with a double. In France, the two persons who look after the house of Marie-Julie believe in Paul VI's survival.
One day you will understand this prophecy:
M.-J. JAHENNY, September 18th, 1877:
"At the foot of the mountain, in a rock, I see like a solitary cell where an old man with white hair is imprisoned and his face shining. He wears a cross on his chest. Jesus receives him and embraces him. He dries his tears and says to him: For a long time you carry the cross but soon I will give you back all your rights and your freedom!"
-
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.
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.
-
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.
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.
-
TO ROB. SISCOE:
You replied by confirming that you believe all of those people who notoriously promote heresies and deny Catholic teaching publicly (such as Kasper) to be members of the Church, since they have not been officially removed. According to the same principle, you consider all the people at Novus Ordo parishes who even favor women ‘priests’, gαy 'marriage', etc. to be members of the Church, since they have not been declared heretics or officially separated. Your position has been reduced to its absurdity.
You then erect a straw man, perhaps to shift the focus away from these considerations, by referencing Cekada. I did not reference him or base my comments on him. Rather, I pointed out that the procedures instituted in ecclesiastical law are not required by divine law to recognize heretics. That’s a fact. Your response indicates that you don’t agree and that you don’t understand. That means that you actually think that one must always be declared a heretic by a Church authority and in ecclesiastical law to be considered a heretic. That is utter nonsense (as the examples listed above about women 'priests', etc. illustrate). It shows how flawed and warped your understanding of these matters are.
You also, at least so far, did not respond to whether your book is approved by your ‘ordinary’ and, if not, why not? Also, why do you feature endorsements from independent priests and from an independent bishop, as if that means something, when your book’s thesis is that it’s forbidden under pain of condemnation to separate from the the visible social unit without a declaration.
This appears to be the anti-sedevacantist go-to when they can't answer a question.
I've seen just such a thing on the bellarmine forums when a staunch sedevacantist was trying to provide the proof that the SSPX has a heretical/blasphemous position and John Lane kept trying to force the discussion to something Fr. Cekada said somewhere else.
-
Has anyone ever written a scholarly refutation of sedevacantism?
Can't be done, at least honestly. I am sure that this new book will only prove to be yet another example of what happens when someone sets out to prove a thesis which is just not true. Sooner or later, they are going to have to misrepresent the facts, for example by misusing their quotes sources or by harping on the faults and deficiencies of particular sedevacantists as though their failings would be proof of some inadequacy of the position itself.
-
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...
-
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...
Of course you did. And we all believe you. :wink:
-
I believe him. I have no reason not to.
-
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.
-
I believe him. I have no reason not to.
You really mean to say that you believe he thinks so.
-
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.
Ha, okay, that's cute.
Here is a question: does the Pope's Ordinary Authentic Magisterial teaching have limited or unlimited potential for error?
-
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.
It's obvious that you condemn St. Francis de Sales for saying that a pope can become a heretic and ipso facto cease to be pope. And, for condemn St. Athanasius for saying the true Church can be reduced to a handful...and, St. Bernard for believing the final Antichrist would be a false pope who would fool the majority of Catholics through the world!
-
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.
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.
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.
-
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.
Those doctrines that were contradicted at Vatican II, Stubborn, were they not condemned by the Church up and until Vatican II (ie. the OUM)? Are you saying that these same doctrines that were strongly condemned by the Church before 1960 are doctrines that the Holy Ghost would not protect? Rather it would allow a true pope to teach the opposite?
-
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.
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.
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.
-
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.
Those doctrines that were contradicted at Vatican II, Stubborn, were they not condemned by the Church up and until Vatican II (ie. the OUM)? Are you saying that these same doctrines that were strongly condemned by the Church before 1960 are doctrines that the Holy Ghost would not protect? Rather it would allow a true pope to teach the opposite?
Your question shows you need to re-read your own quote from PPXII.
You posted the criteria, it was an infallible part of the Assumption dogma you posted, as such, you cannot argue against it, rather, you are bound to believe it. Do you think if you went back and re-read it that would help you to understand it better? I think you should.
You have to get off the whole "true pope" Cekadian jazz because it is all Modernist, Novus Ordo inspired teachings - accept that. Instead, concentrate on the doctrine of infallibility, what it is, when teachings enjoy protection from the possibility of error and when they don't.
PPXII teaches the doctrine right in your quote, explicitly. PPXII also quotes the doctrine from V1 in the declaration you quoted.
Which doctrine or dogma was defined at V2?
What teachings did V2 promulgate that is part of the Deposit of Faith?
What teachings from V2 enjoyed "an almost unanimous" and "concordant teaching" of "Catholic prelates and faithful" - which is to say, what teaching did V2 promulgate which was either Divinely Revealed or has always been taught by the OUM?
Answer is; None, to all of the above. This proves that not only was V2 fallible, it also proves that the doctrine of infallibility was never in danger of being violated at V2. This is what it proves. It does not prove the pope is not the pope.
To answer your question directly, yes, the Holy Ghost did not protect the pope and Living OUM from error - this is an historical fact therefore indisputable.
These same doctrines that were strongly condemned before 1960 are doctrines that the Holy Ghost did not protect at V2. Again, this is an historical fact therefore indisputable. That the Holy Ghost withdrew His protection and allowed the pope and Living OUM to teach the opposite is once again, an historical fact therefore indisputable.
Again, the criteria to enjoy the protection of the Holy Ghost is not "automatic" just because he is a pope. SVs are duped into the belief that the ONLY criteria for infallibility is to be a pope.
-
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.
-
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.
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.
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.
-
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.
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.
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.
Everyone take notice that Stubborn completely avoided answering my direct question!
-
Which doctrine or dogma was defined at V2?
What teachings did V2 promulgate that is part of the Deposit of Faith?
What teachings from V2 enjoyed "an almost unanimous" and "concordant teaching" of "Catholic prelates and faithful" - which is to say, what teaching did V2 promulgate which was either Divinely Revealed or has always been taught by the OUM?
Answer is; None, to all of the above. This proves that not only was V2 fallible, it also proves that the doctrine of infallibility was never in danger of being violated at V2.
Stubborn,
It comes directly from Scripture that anything proposed by a General Council and confirmed by the Pope is infallible. Trying to specify that only certain things within a Council apply is a complete fabrication. Some quotes:
1917 Catholic Encyclopedia, General Councils, Infallibility of General Councils:
"All the arguments which go to prove the infallibility of the Church apply with their fullest force to the infallible authority of general councils in union with the pope"
and further down in the same paragraph, a quote from Denzinger's: "General councils represent the universal Church and demand absolute obedience"
Definition of “Infallibility” from “A Catholic Dictionary”, 1951:
"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...
-
Second, those guilty of the crime of heresy lose their office, but only after the Church establishes the crime.
John,
What you have stated here is absolutely false, and there are many quotes from the Church that confirm otherwise. Here are a few of them that confirm loss of office is AUTOMATIC in the case of heresy, and the Church teaches this occurs BEFORE the Church establishes the crime. Notice especially the underlined parts. Please explain why all of these Church sources teach exactly the opposite of what you are going around preaching:
"In the case in which the pope would become a heretic, he would find himself, by that fact alone and without any other sentence, separated from the Church." Summa Theologica, cited in Actes de Vatican I. V. Frond pub. St. Antoninus (†1459)
“The Pope should not flatter himself about his power nor should he rashly glory in his honor and high estate, because the less he is judged by man, the more he is judged by God. Still the less can the Roman Pontiff glory because he can be judged by men, or rather, can be shown to be already judged, if for example he should wither away into heresy; because he who does not believe is already judged..." Pope Innocent III
"...a pope who is a manifest heretic by that fact ceases to be pope and head, just as he by that fact ceases to be a Christian and a member of the body of the Church; wherefore he can be judged and punished by the Church. This is the judgement of all the early fathers, who teach that manifest heretics immediately lose all jurisdiction." St. Robert Bellarmine, "On the Roman Pontiff"
"If God permitted a pope to be notoriously heretical and contumacious, he would then cease to be pope, and the Apostolic Chair would be vacant." St. Alphonsus de Liguori, "The Truths of the Faith"
"A heretical pope necessarily ceases to be head of the Church, for by his heresy he is no longer a member thereof; in the event of his still claiming the Roman see, a General Council, improperly so called because without the pope, could remove him. But this is not deposition, since by his own act is no longer pope." A Catholic Dictionary, Deposition
"The councils of Constance and Basle, and Gallican theologians, hold that a council may depose a pope...(2) /ob fidem/ (on account of his faith or rather want of faith, i.e. heresy). In point of fact however, heresy is the only legitimate ground. For a heretical pope has ceased to be a member of the Church, and cannot, therefore, be its head." Catholic Encyclopedia, 1913. [Vol. IV p.435] Councils
"The question was also raised by a Cardinal, “What is to be done with the Pope if he becomes a heretic?” It was answered that there has never been such a case; the Council of Bishops could depose him for heresy, for from the moment he becomes a heretic he is not the head or even a member of the Church. The Church would not be, for a moment, obliged to listen to him when he begins to teach a doctrine the Church knows to be a false doctrine, and he would cease to be Pope, being deposed by God Himself." (Abp. John B. Purcell, quoted in Rev. James J. McGovern, Life and Life Work of Pope Leo XIII [Chicago, IL: Allied Printing, 1903], p. 241; imprimatur by Abp. James Quigley of Chicago.)
John Salza, I am waiting for your comments on my message above. Thanks
-
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.
RobS, I am also waiting for your reply on the message above. Thanks
-
Which doctrine or dogma was defined at V2?
What teachings did V2 promulgate that is part of the Deposit of Faith?
What teachings from V2 enjoyed "an almost unanimous" and "concordant teaching" of "Catholic prelates and faithful" - which is to say, what teaching did V2 promulgate which was either Divinely Revealed or has always been taught by the OUM?
Answer is; None, to all of the above. This proves that not only was V2 fallible, it also proves that the doctrine of infallibility was never in danger of being violated at V2.
Stubborn,
It comes directly from Scripture that anything proposed by a General Council and confirmed by the Pope is infallible. Trying to specify that only certain things within a Council apply is a complete fabrication. Some quotes:
1917 Catholic Encyclopedia, General Councils, Infallibility of General Councils:
"All the arguments which go to prove the infallibility of the Church apply with their fullest force to the infallible authority of general councils in union with the pope"
and further down in the same paragraph, a quote from Denzinger's: "General councils represent the universal Church and demand absolute obedience".
The cited 1917 Catholic Encyclopedia also concludes the following on the question of what teachings are considered infallible:
As to the organ of authority by which such doctrines or facts are determined, three possible organs exist. One of these, the magisterium ordinarium, is liable to be somewhat indefinite in its pronouncements and, as a consequence, practically ineffective as an organ. The other two, however, are adequately efficient organs, and when they definitively decide any question of faith or morals that may arise, no believer who pays due attention to Christ's promises can consistently refuse to assent with absolute and irrevocable certainty to their teaching.
But before being bound to give such an assent, the believer has a right to be certain that the teaching in question is definitive (since only definitive teaching is infallible); and the means by which the definitive intention, whether of a council or of the pope, may be recognized have been stated above. It need only be added here that not everything in a conciliar or papal pronouncement, in which some doctrine is defined, is to be treated as definitive and infallible. For example, in the lengthy Bull of Pius IX defining the Immaculate Conception the strictly definitive and infallible portion is comprised in a sentence or two; and the same is true in many cases in regard to conciliar decisions. The merely argumentative and justificatory statements embodied in definitive judgments, however true and authoritative they may be, are not covered by the guarantee of infallibility which attaches to the strictly definitive sentences — unless, indeed, their infallibility has been previously or subsequently established by an independent decision.
-
In fact, one Sedevacantist Bishop removed multiple sections containing a doctrinal point and didn't even provide an ellipses. He simply removed the part that undermined his argument, and spliced the paragraphs and sentences together.
I have no doubt that it shall turn out that you also had to have done a great deal of the same, for only by such deception can such a position as yours be sustained.
-
Yes, but this "Conciliar" Church at some point in time had to be the Catholic Church (let's say right before the Council, October 10, 1962). It is unrealistic to say that 2600 Catholic Bishops entered the Council being the True Church of Christ and came out of the Council as apostates, NOT being the True Church of Christ anymore. Either a substantial change happened to the Church of Christ during the Council or did not. If it did not (not really, but just appears as if), then the pre / post conciliar Church is one and the same and there is continuity, at least materially. If it did, then the True Church of Christ (2600 bishops entering the Council on October 10, 1962) defected, which we know is impossible.
"By adding the additional step that the legitimate hierarchy morphed into a New Church, and that the New Church defected, would not avoid the same conclusion that the legitimate hierarchy defected".
Hang on, you are heading the right direction, but veering off track.
VATICAN II was a substantial change. The changes introduced by IT are substantial Change. The Church herself remains unchanged.
What this demonstrates is that VATICAN II cannot come from legitimate magisterial authority. It is therefore not an act of the Church, and not an act of Christ reigning in his Church.
Now, THERE WAS NO MASS EPISCOPAL DEFECTION. I want to be clear. There WERE many bishops who signed out of confusion. But they all walked out bishops, they all walked out occupying their sees. The single exception would be Paul VI.
He Formally was stripped of his authority and his jurisdiction. Why? Because he promulgated Public Heresy.
Nevertheless, he materially retained the Papal Office, but, he placed an obstacle between the office and the authority: Heresy.
Since he no longer willed the good of the Church, and he proved he did not objectively have the good of the Church in mind, through his heresy, he was formally stripped of jurisdiction.
SO, the question you are asking is :
When Vatican II ended, where was the Church?
Where she had always been:
But she was now formally headless.
AS the years would roll by, the heresies from Vatican II, resulting from its implementation, would creep through each diocese and eviscerate it.
BUT those who would remain faithful to tradition, who would call the heresy heresy, who separated themselves from these perversions, THEY are the ones who retained the Catholic faith.
The 7000 whom God had reserved who had not bowed their knees to Ba'al, that was the Traditionalists.
The laity who are stuck within the Novus Ordo establishment however, are, and remain, through their general goodwill, Catholics, since no canonical act has ever severed them from the Church. And the "Bishops" retain their material offices through common factual error, and as a result, the Church supplies jurisdiction to these various elections of various bishops. Ecclesia Supplet. JURISDICTION, NOT GRACE.
The same with the Cardinals. There is this really ridiculous cry of "IF THERE IS NO POPE THERE ARE NO CARDINALS!"
Not true. These men who are designated through election to the Papacy, they possess a valid election, but their heresy (from willfully implementing and acting upon Vatican II, the Novus Ordo Mass and apostasy, from ecuмenical activity) is an obstacle to the exercise of Jurisdiction.
Now, the Cardinals and the "Popes" are of the same mindset. So, they approach him, anticipating him to be Pope, and make an error of FACT. Making that error, they receive from the "Pope" the Cardinals hat.
Because this is a common error of Fact, and Even a LEGAL Common Error, the Church Supplies Jurisdiction, and they obtain the Cardinals Hat Validly and Canonically, even from a Formally Heretical Pope who has no Ordinary Jurisdiction due to heresy.
So, we have many structures that remain intact due to Common Factual Error, and we have simultaneously many Heretical Bishops, MOST of which are Doubtfully Consecrated as Priests and Bishops.
THIS gets into the Fact that Pope Pius XII IRREFORMABLY set the Form for the Ordination of Bishops Priests and Deacons in "Sacramentum Ordinis." This means, it is literally an IRREFORMABLE act, and the fact that the reform of it was attempted simply proves those trying to do it are not who they say they are. The Church cannot do this.
See for yourself, he is invoking Papal Infallibility:
"Wherefore, after invoking the divine light, We of Our Apostolic Authority and from certain knowledge declare, and as far as may be necessary decree and provide: that the matter, and the only matter, of the Sacred Orders of the Diaconate, the Priesthood, and the Episcopacy is the imposition of hands; and that the form, and the only form, is the words which determine the application of this matter, which univocally signify the sacramental effects - namely the power of Order and the grace of the Holy Spirit - and which are accepted and used by the Church in that sense. It follows as a consequence that We should declare, and in order to remove all controversy and to preclude doubts of conscience, We do by Our Apostolic Authority declare, and if there was ever a lawful disposition to the contrary We now decree that at least in the future the traditio instrumentorum is not necessary for the validity of the Sacred Orders of the Diaconate, the Priesthood, and the Episcopacy.
5. As to the matter and form in the conferring of each Order, We of Our same supreme Apostolic Authority decree and provide as follows: In the Ordination to the Diaconate, the matter is the one imposition of the hand of the Bishop which occurs in the rite of that Ordination. The form consists of the words of the "Preface," of which the following are essential and therefore required for validity:" etc.
...
These things We proclaim, declare, and decree, all things to the contrary notwithstanding, even those worthy of special mention, and accordingly We will and order that in the Roman Pontifical they be clearly indicated. Let no man therefore infringe this Constitution which We have enacted, nor dare to contravene the same.
You can't really BE more forceful...
This is an irreformable act, one that cannot be undone, Rome has spoken. YET, Paul VI undid it. Further prof that he simply could no be Pope.
SO, as the years wind on, and as these priests are ordained in dubious rites, and as bishops are consecrated in Profoundly doubtful consecrations, the number of true priests rapidly dwindles.
YET, we know, and in fact have made lists of bishops who are still alive from Pope Pius XII, John XXIII, and Paul VI. There are Very many spread all over the world.
In addition, we have the ordinations by Archbishops Thuc and Lefebvre, and
Archbishop Thuc apparently was granted a Motu Proprio by Pius XI where he didn't NEED Papal permission to consecrate Bishops.
http://holyrosarychapel.vpweb.com/ARCHBISHOP-THUC.html# (Photos of docuмents).
And the Church Retains the Passive Exercise of Her Universal Ordinary Magisterium.
But the Novus Ordo is not the Church. Its CHARTER was Vatican II. Its Membership was an exponential swelling from 1965 onward to the present day. The LEAVING that took place was the Silent Apostasy JPII spoke of, from Tradition, to Protestantism. From Catholic, to Anglican.
The Novus Ordo Chruch is basically the Church of England now. It has the High Church and the Low Church, for those with different tastes. It has extreme liberals, and extreme conservatices, and very borad-minded priests, ALL under the Vatican II umbrella. It followed the same program of Reform as England: "Make the Mass Vernacular, introduce small changes, insist on the priority of fellowship." It's exactly what happened. The English Reformation is a near perfect Model of the Novus Ordo.
But Cantarella, don't be so surprised, it was FORESEEN by Marie Julie Jahenny, who had approbation from her local Bishop. She literally saw this happening and said so.
"On 10th of May 1904, She (Our Lady) denotes the new clergy and its
Mass :
« They won't stop at this hateful and sacrilegious road. They will go
further TO COMPROMISE ALL AT ONCE AND IN ONE GO, THE HOLY
CHURCH, THE CLERGY AND THE FAITH OF MY CHILDREN... » She
announces the « DISPERSION OF THE PASTORS » by the Church itself ;
real pastors who will be replaced by others formed by hell, initiated in
all vices, ALL INIQUITIES, PERFIDIOUS, WHO WILL COVER SOULS
WITH FILTH... NEW PREACHERS OF NEW SACRAMENTS, NEW
TEMPLES, NEW BAPTISMS, NEW CONFRATERNITIES. . . >
She says LOTS more too:
1881: THE GREATER NUMBER [OF BISHOPS] ARE READY TO GIVE THEIR FAITH TO SAVE THEIR BODIES... THE SUFFERING THEY CAUSE (the Church) WILL
NEVER BE REPAIRED. IN A SHORT TIME THE PASTORS OF THE
CHURCH WILL HAVE SPREAD SCANDALS EVERYWHERE AND WILL
HAVE GIVEN THE LAST SWORD THRUST TO HOLY CHURCH. -
She frequently announced that the enemies of the Church would
penetrate into its bosom "AND PERPETRATE HORRIBLE SCANDALS
AND THRUST THE SWORD INTO THE HEART OF THE CHURCH.
RAGE HAS NEVER BEEN GREATER."
She assisted at a dialogue between Our Lord and Lucifer and the
latter said
:
I will attack the Church. I will overthrow the Cross, I will decimate
the people, I will deposit a great weakness of Faith in hearts. THERE
WILL ALSO BE A GREAT DENIAL OF RELIGION. FOR A TIME I WILL
BE MASTER OF ALL THINGS, EVERYTHING WILL BE UNDER MY
CONTROL, EVEN YOUR TEMPLE AND ALL YOUR PEOPLE,
.
« Saint Michael says that Satan will have possession of everything for
some time and that he will reign completely over everything ; that all
goodness, Faith, Religion WILL BE BURIED IN THE TOMB, . . Satan and
his own will triumph with joy, but after this triumph, the Lord will in
His turn gather His own people and WILL REIGN AND TRIUMPH OVER
EVIL AND WILL RAISE UP FROM THE TOMB THE BURIED CHURCH,
the prostrated Cross...
Read it for yourself, page 40.
https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B72oYysTeSi1MHVvYkRlZ3pfVTQ
In fact, read the whole book. We're there.
Best for last:
On 27th of November 1902 and 10th of May 1904, Our Lord and Our
Lady announced the - New Mass >. Listen :
- I give you a WARNING. The disciples who are not of My Gospel are
now working hard to remake according to their ideas AND UNDER
THE INFLUENCE OF THE ENEMY OF SOULS A MASS THAT CONTAINS
WORDS THAT ARE ODIOUS IN MY SIGHT.
When the fatal hour arrives when the faith of my priests is put to the
test, it will be (these texts) that will be CELEBRATED IN THIS SECOND
PERIOD... THE FIRST PERIOD IS (THE ONE) OF MY PRIESTHOOD
WHICH EXISTS SINCE ME. THE SECOND is (the one) of the
persecution WHEN THE ENEMIES OF THE FAITH and of Holy Religion
(will impose their formulas) in the book of the second celebration...
THESE INFAMOUS SPIRITS ARE THOSE WHO CRUCIFIED ME and are
awaiting THE KINGDOM OF THE NEW MESSIAH >
Thank you for the link, Gregory I.
From what you said, one may conclude that it is then entirely possible to adopt the sedeprivationist position (better known as Thesis of Cassiciacuм) and still being in communion and juridical union with the hierarchy. If not, why not? The Papa materialiter, non formaliter thesis is only an opinion. It could also be applied to the Bishops but on an individual basis.
Interesting to note, "The Cassiciacuм Thesis" will not produce another Papal election so a conclave for restoration is out of the question. Just as with Sedevacantism, there is no solution to Sedeprivationism. Well, the only solution would be praying for the Pope to convert to the Catholic Faith so he can become a papa formaliter, kind of the same situation with the Lefebvrists praying for Rome to convert half a century ago... Etc etc.
-
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.
Everyone take notice that Stubborn completely avoided answering my direct question!
That's right - everyone take notice that Stubborn admits to not answering question. Let's wait till after you reply to my inquiry so I can reply to it before changing the subject.
Which is why I said......
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.
-
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.
You see, refuting sedevacantism is simple...
Oh yes, all it takes are circular arguments:
1) Everyone who questions or rejects the claims of Paul VI to the papacy is no Catholic.
2) Therefore all Catholics accept Paul VI as pope.
3) Therefore Paul VI really is pope.
4) Therefore everyone who questions or rejects the claims of Paul VI to the papacy is no Catholic.
It always comes down to that, doesn't it?
-
Which doctrine or dogma was defined at V2?
What teachings did V2 promulgate that is part of the Deposit of Faith?
What teachings from V2 enjoyed "an almost unanimous" and "concordant teaching" of "Catholic prelates and faithful" - which is to say, what teaching did V2 promulgate which was either Divinely Revealed or has always been taught by the OUM?
Answer is; None, to all of the above. This proves that not only was V2 fallible, it also proves that the doctrine of infallibility was never in danger of being violated at V2.
Stubborn,
It comes directly from Scripture that anything proposed by a General Council and confirmed by the Pope is infallible. Trying to specify that only certain things within a Council apply is a complete fabrication. Some quotes:
1917 Catholic Encyclopedia, General Councils, Infallibility of General Councils:
"All the arguments which go to prove the infallibility of the Church apply with their fullest force to the infallible authority of general councils in union with the pope"
and further down in the same paragraph, a quote from Denzinger's: "General councils represent the universal Church and demand absolute obedience"
Definition of “Infallibility” from “A Catholic Dictionary”, 1951:
"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...
Cantarella answered better than I could. Thank you Cantarella!
I maintain that the Cekadian version, which is a false of infallibility, has been taught for many decades before V2. I also maintain that it is because of this false teaching that the enemies were able to take over the Church as efficiently if not as easily as they did. I say this not only because I witnessed many times in my youth, different priests, nuns, bishops and lay people all explain why the NO was ok - the answer always eventually ended up being the same, - "because the pope and all the bishops said it's ok, so it has to be ok". They said this because this is what was taught for many decades at least, prior to V2. The devil must have known this was a teaching he needed to perpetrate well in advance of V2, and that's what he did.
The Cekadian version of the infallible OUM is an unknown impossible to know and ambiguous entity to begin with. It is also ambiguous of time.
The Cekadian version of the OUM can and does mean anything from all bishops together or dispersed throughout the world, to one or more bishops, theologians, or saints, or Canon Law, or Catechisms. But past popes by themselves are rarely the OUM. The Cekadian UOM is always infallible by virtue of them being the UOM, as the pope is always infallible by virtue of him being the pope, albeit in the SV world, the ambiguous UOM seems to always have authority over popes somehow.
But this is not at all what the Church teaches, this is what the enemies have been teaching for many decades at least. So this is why I ask to use only magisterial teachings or lessons from the Church - either papal, solemn or magisterial. THEN, after posting something papal, feel free to post theological explanations of those teachings if you need to. But to only post theological explanations without first posting the foundational magisterial teaching only leads to more Cekadian type confusion.
-
Yes, but this "Conciliar" Church at some point in time had to be the Catholic Church (let's say right before the Council, October 10, 1962). It is unrealistic to say that 2600 Catholic Bishops entered the Council being the True Church of Christ and came out of the Council as apostates, NOT being the True Church of Christ anymore. Either a substantial change happened to the Church of Christ during the Council or did not. If it did not (not really, but just appears as if), then the pre / post conciliar Church is one and the same and there is continuity, at least materially. If it did, then the True Church of Christ (2600 bishops entering the Council on October 10, 1962) defected, which we know is impossible.
"By adding the additional step that the legitimate hierarchy morphed into a New Church, and that the New Church defected, would not avoid the same conclusion that the legitimate hierarchy defected".
Hang on, you are heading the right direction, but veering off track.
VATICAN II was a substantial change. The changes introduced by IT are substantial Change. The Church herself remains unchanged.
What this demonstrates is that VATICAN II cannot come from legitimate magisterial authority. It is therefore not an act of the Church, and not an act of Christ reigning in his Church.
Now, THERE WAS NO MASS EPISCOPAL DEFECTION. I want to be clear. There WERE many bishops who signed out of confusion. But they all walked out bishops, they all walked out occupying their sees. The single exception would be Paul VI.
He Formally was stripped of his authority and his jurisdiction. Why? Because he promulgated Public Heresy.
Nevertheless, he materially retained the Papal Office, but, he placed an obstacle between the office and the authority: Heresy.
Since he no longer willed the good of the Church, and he proved he did not objectively have the good of the Church in mind, through his heresy, he was formally stripped of jurisdiction.
SO, the question you are asking is :
When Vatican II ended, where was the Church?
Where she had always been:
But she was now formally headless.
AS the years would roll by, the heresies from Vatican II, resulting from its implementation, would creep through each diocese and eviscerate it.
BUT those who would remain faithful to tradition, who would call the heresy heresy, who separated themselves from these perversions, THEY are the ones who retained the Catholic faith.
The 7000 whom God had reserved who had not bowed their knees to Ba'al, that was the Traditionalists.
The laity who are stuck within the Novus Ordo establishment however, are, and remain, through their general goodwill, Catholics, since no canonical act has ever severed them from the Church. And the "Bishops" retain their material offices through common factual error, and as a result, the Church supplies jurisdiction to these various elections of various bishops. Ecclesia Supplet. JURISDICTION, NOT GRACE.
The same with the Cardinals. There is this really ridiculous cry of "IF THERE IS NO POPE THERE ARE NO CARDINALS!"
Not true. These men who are designated through election to the Papacy, they possess a valid election, but their heresy (from willfully implementing and acting upon Vatican II, the Novus Ordo Mass and apostasy, from ecuмenical activity) is an obstacle to the exercise of Jurisdiction.
Now, the Cardinals and the "Popes" are of the same mindset. So, they approach him, anticipating him to be Pope, and make an error of FACT. Making that error, they receive from the "Pope" the Cardinals hat.
Because this is a common error of Fact, and Even a LEGAL Common Error, the Church Supplies Jurisdiction, and they obtain the Cardinals Hat Validly and Canonically, even from a Formally Heretical Pope who has no Ordinary Jurisdiction due to heresy.
So, we have many structures that remain intact due to Common Factual Error, and we have simultaneously many Heretical Bishops, MOST of which are Doubtfully Consecrated as Priests and Bishops.
THIS gets into the Fact that Pope Pius XII IRREFORMABLY set the Form for the Ordination of Bishops Priests and Deacons in "Sacramentum Ordinis." This means, it is literally an IRREFORMABLE act, and the fact that the reform of it was attempted simply proves those trying to do it are not who they say they are. The Church cannot do this.
See for yourself, he is invoking Papal Infallibility:
"Wherefore, after invoking the divine light, We of Our Apostolic Authority and from certain knowledge declare, and as far as may be necessary decree and provide: that the matter, and the only matter, of the Sacred Orders of the Diaconate, the Priesthood, and the Episcopacy is the imposition of hands; and that the form, and the only form, is the words which determine the application of this matter, which univocally signify the sacramental effects - namely the power of Order and the grace of the Holy Spirit - and which are accepted and used by the Church in that sense. It follows as a consequence that We should declare, and in order to remove all controversy and to preclude doubts of conscience, We do by Our Apostolic Authority declare, and if there was ever a lawful disposition to the contrary We now decree that at least in the future the traditio instrumentorum is not necessary for the validity of the Sacred Orders of the Diaconate, the Priesthood, and the Episcopacy.
5. As to the matter and form in the conferring of each Order, We of Our same supreme Apostolic Authority decree and provide as follows: In the Ordination to the Diaconate, the matter is the one imposition of the hand of the Bishop which occurs in the rite of that Ordination. The form consists of the words of the "Preface," of which the following are essential and therefore required for validity:" etc.
...
These things We proclaim, declare, and decree, all things to the contrary notwithstanding, even those worthy of special mention, and accordingly We will and order that in the Roman Pontifical they be clearly indicated. Let no man therefore infringe this Constitution which We have enacted, nor dare to contravene the same.
You can't really BE more forceful...
This is an irreformable act, one that cannot be undone, Rome has spoken. YET, Paul VI undid it. Further prof that he simply could no be Pope.
SO, as the years wind on, and as these priests are ordained in dubious rites, and as bishops are consecrated in Profoundly doubtful consecrations, the number of true priests rapidly dwindles.
YET, we know, and in fact have made lists of bishops who are still alive from Pope Pius XII, John XXIII, and Paul VI. There are Very many spread all over the world.
In addition, we have the ordinations by Archbishops Thuc and Lefebvre, and
Archbishop Thuc apparently was granted a Motu Proprio by Pius XI where he didn't NEED Papal permission to consecrate Bishops.
http://holyrosarychapel.vpweb.com/ARCHBISHOP-THUC.html# (Photos of docuмents).
And the Church Retains the Passive Exercise of Her Universal Ordinary Magisterium.
But the Novus Ordo is not the Church. Its CHARTER was Vatican II. Its Membership was an exponential swelling from 1965 onward to the present day. The LEAVING that took place was the Silent Apostasy JPII spoke of, from Tradition, to Protestantism. From Catholic, to Anglican.
The Novus Ordo Chruch is basically the Church of England now. It has the High Church and the Low Church, for those with different tastes. It has extreme liberals, and extreme conservatices, and very borad-minded priests, ALL under the Vatican II umbrella. It followed the same program of Reform as England: "Make the Mass Vernacular, introduce small changes, insist on the priority of fellowship." It's exactly what happened. The English Reformation is a near perfect Model of the Novus Ordo.
But Cantarella, don't be so surprised, it was FORESEEN by Marie Julie Jahenny, who had approbation from her local Bishop. She literally saw this happening and said so.
"On 10th of May 1904, She (Our Lady) denotes the new clergy and its
Mass :
« They won't stop at this hateful and sacrilegious road. They will go
further TO COMPROMISE ALL AT ONCE AND IN ONE GO, THE HOLY
CHURCH, THE CLERGY AND THE FAITH OF MY CHILDREN... » She
announces the « DISPERSION OF THE PASTORS » by the Church itself ;
real pastors who will be replaced by others formed by hell, initiated in
all vices, ALL INIQUITIES, PERFIDIOUS, WHO WILL COVER SOULS
WITH FILTH... NEW PREACHERS OF NEW SACRAMENTS, NEW
TEMPLES, NEW BAPTISMS, NEW CONFRATERNITIES. . . >
She says LOTS more too:
1881: THE GREATER NUMBER [OF BISHOPS] ARE READY TO GIVE THEIR FAITH TO SAVE THEIR BODIES... THE SUFFERING THEY CAUSE (the Church) WILL
NEVER BE REPAIRED. IN A SHORT TIME THE PASTORS OF THE
CHURCH WILL HAVE SPREAD SCANDALS EVERYWHERE AND WILL
HAVE GIVEN THE LAST SWORD THRUST TO HOLY CHURCH. -
She frequently announced that the enemies of the Church would
penetrate into its bosom "AND PERPETRATE HORRIBLE SCANDALS
AND THRUST THE SWORD INTO THE HEART OF THE CHURCH.
RAGE HAS NEVER BEEN GREATER."
She assisted at a dialogue between Our Lord and Lucifer and the
latter said
:
I will attack the Church. I will overthrow the Cross, I will decimate
the people, I will deposit a great weakness of Faith in hearts. THERE
WILL ALSO BE A GREAT DENIAL OF RELIGION. FOR A TIME I WILL
BE MASTER OF ALL THINGS, EVERYTHING WILL BE UNDER MY
CONTROL, EVEN YOUR TEMPLE AND ALL YOUR PEOPLE,
.
« Saint Michael says that Satan will have possession of everything for
some time and that he will reign completely over everything ; that all
goodness, Faith, Religion WILL BE BURIED IN THE TOMB, . . Satan and
his own will triumph with joy, but after this triumph, the Lord will in
His turn gather His own people and WILL REIGN AND TRIUMPH OVER
EVIL AND WILL RAISE UP FROM THE TOMB THE BURIED CHURCH,
the prostrated Cross...
Read it for yourself, page 40.
https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B72oYysTeSi1MHVvYkRlZ3pfVTQ
In fact, read the whole book. We're there.
Best for last:
On 27th of November 1902 and 10th of May 1904, Our Lord and Our
Lady announced the - New Mass >. Listen :
- I give you a WARNING. The disciples who are not of My Gospel are
now working hard to remake according to their ideas AND UNDER
THE INFLUENCE OF THE ENEMY OF SOULS A MASS THAT CONTAINS
WORDS THAT ARE ODIOUS IN MY SIGHT.
When the fatal hour arrives when the faith of my priests is put to the
test, it will be (these texts) that will be CELEBRATED IN THIS SECOND
PERIOD... THE FIRST PERIOD IS (THE ONE) OF MY PRIESTHOOD
WHICH EXISTS SINCE ME. THE SECOND is (the one) of the
persecution WHEN THE ENEMIES OF THE FAITH and of Holy Religion
(will impose their formulas) in the book of the second celebration...
THESE INFAMOUS SPIRITS ARE THOSE WHO CRUCIFIED ME and are
awaiting THE KINGDOM OF THE NEW MESSIAH >
Thank you for the link, Gregory I.
From what you said, one may conclude that it is then entirely possible to adopt the sedeprivationist position (better known as Thesis of Cassiciacuм) and still being in communion and juridical union with the hierarchy. If not, why not? The Papa materialiter, non formaliter thesis is only an opinion. It could also be applied to the Bishops but on an individual basis.
Interesting to note, "The Cassiciacuм Thesis" will not produce another Papal election so a conclave for restoration is out of the question. Just as with Sedevacantism, there is no solution to Sedeprivationism. Well, the only solution would be praying for the Pope to convert to the Catholic Faith so he can become a papa formaliter, kind of the same situation with the Lefebvrists praying for Rome to convert half a century ago... Etc etc.
I am making my way through the actual 76 page thesis and filling it with my comments and notes in Adobe Acrobat. It is actually pretty brilliant so far, because it first bases its premise of a necessary theological conclusion and then argues metaphysically as to HOW the conclusion could be.
It does NOT rely on the individual failings of recent popes to establish its claims but purely theological reflection, dogma, natural law and metaphysical necessity.
That's a powerhouse combination if you ask me.
-
Which doctrine or dogma was defined at V2?
What teachings did V2 promulgate that is part of the Deposit of Faith?
What teachings from V2 enjoyed "an almost unanimous" and "concordant teaching" of "Catholic prelates and faithful" - which is to say, what teaching did V2 promulgate which was either Divinely Revealed or has always been taught by the OUM?
Answer is; None, to all of the above. This proves that not only was V2 fallible, it also proves that the doctrine of infallibility was never in danger of being violated at V2.
Stubborn,
It comes directly from Scripture that anything proposed by a General Council and confirmed by the Pope is infallible. Trying to specify that only certain things within a Council apply is a complete fabrication. Some quotes:
1917 Catholic Encyclopedia, General Councils, Infallibility of General Councils:
"All the arguments which go to prove the infallibility of the Church apply with their fullest force to the infallible authority of general councils in union with the pope"
and further down in the same paragraph, a quote from Denzinger's: "General councils represent the universal Church and demand absolute obedience".
The cited 1917 Catholic Encyclopedia also concludes the following on the question of what teachings are considered infallible:
As to the organ of authority by which such doctrines or facts are determined, three possible organs exist. One of these, the magisterium ordinarium, is liable to be somewhat indefinite in its pronouncements and, as a consequence, practically ineffective as an organ. The other two, however, are adequately efficient organs, and when they definitively decide any question of faith or morals that may arise, no believer who pays due attention to Christ's promises can consistently refuse to assent with absolute and irrevocable certainty to their teaching.
But before being bound to give such an assent, the believer has a right to be certain that the teaching in question is definitive (since only definitive teaching is infallible); and the means by which the definitive intention, whether of a council or of the pope, may be recognized have been stated above. It need only be added here that not everything in a conciliar or papal pronouncement, in which some doctrine is defined, is to be treated as definitive and infallible. For example, in the lengthy Bull of Pius IX defining the Immaculate Conception the strictly definitive and infallible portion is comprised in a sentence or two; and the same is true in many cases in regard to conciliar decisions. The merely argumentative and justificatory statements embodied in definitive judgments, however true and authoritative they may be, are not covered by the guarantee of infallibility which attaches to the strictly definitive sentences — unless, indeed, their infallibility has been previously or subsequently established by an independent decision.
So Cantarella, are you implying that after a pope places his stamp of approval on the proceedings from an infallible General Council, that Catholics can sift through approved proceedings, and pick out the infallible statements, then set aside the non-infallible statements as optional to believe? In other words, if something is not explicitly infallible, we don't have to believe it? Please confirm that's really what you are trying to say here.
-
In fact, one Sedevacantist Bishop removed multiple sections containing a doctrinal point and didn't even provide an ellipses. He simply removed the part that undermined his argument, and spliced the paragraphs and sentences together.
I have no doubt that it shall turn out that you also had to have done a great deal of the same, for only by such deception can such a position as yours be sustained.
Actually, John Lane already caught him doing just that in an article Siscoe wrote a year or two ago. He also caught Siscoe using a John Daly translation without attribution.
-
The Papa materialiter, non formaliter thesis is only an opinion. It could also be applied to the Bishops but on an individual basis.
Interesting to note, "The Cassiciacuм Thesis" will not produce another Papal election so a conclave for restoration is out of the question. Just as with Sedevacantism, there is no solution to Sedeprivationism. Well, the only solution would be praying for the Pope to convert to the Catholic Faith so he can become a papa formaliter, kind of the same situation with the Lefebvrists praying for Rome to convert half a century ago... Etc etc.
Actually Cantarella, even the Absolute Sedevacantists have ways out. They actually SHOULD admit the possibility that a traditional Pope could come from the college of Cardinals, because they are designated canonically via Common Factual Error. The Church supplies for their appointment.
Also, an imperfect general council could depose the "pope" and elect a new one.
But you seem to slight the efficacy of prayer? I am sure we are getting what we deserve because of our sinfulness.
Be that as it may, I personally, on deeper reflection, do think it is needful not overreach in our diagnosis and therefore solution.
-
Which doctrine or dogma was defined at V2?
What teachings did V2 promulgate that is part of the Deposit of Faith?
What teachings from V2 enjoyed "an almost unanimous" and "concordant teaching" of "Catholic prelates and faithful" - which is to say, what teaching did V2 promulgate which was either Divinely Revealed or has always been taught by the OUM?
Answer is; None, to all of the above. This proves that not only was V2 fallible, it also proves that the doctrine of infallibility was never in danger of being violated at V2.
Stubborn,
It comes directly from Scripture that anything proposed by a General Council and confirmed by the Pope is infallible. Trying to specify that only certain things within a Council apply is a complete fabrication. Some quotes:
1917 Catholic Encyclopedia, General Councils, Infallibility of General Councils:
"All the arguments which go to prove the infallibility of the Church apply with their fullest force to the infallible authority of general councils in union with the pope"
and further down in the same paragraph, a quote from Denzinger's: "General councils represent the universal Church and demand absolute obedience".
The cited 1917 Catholic Encyclopedia also concludes the following on the question of what teachings are considered infallible:
As to the organ of authority by which such doctrines or facts are determined, three possible organs exist. One of these, the magisterium ordinarium, is liable to be somewhat indefinite in its pronouncements and, as a consequence, practically ineffective as an organ. The other two, however, are adequately efficient organs, and when they definitively decide any question of faith or morals that may arise, no believer who pays due attention to Christ's promises can consistently refuse to assent with absolute and irrevocable certainty to their teaching.
But before being bound to give such an assent, the believer has a right to be certain that the teaching in question is definitive (since only definitive teaching is infallible); and the means by which the definitive intention, whether of a council or of the pope, may be recognized have been stated above. It need only be added here that not everything in a conciliar or papal pronouncement, in which some doctrine is defined, is to be treated as definitive and infallible. For example, in the lengthy Bull of Pius IX defining the Immaculate Conception the strictly definitive and infallible portion is comprised in a sentence or two; and the same is true in many cases in regard to conciliar decisions. The merely argumentative and justificatory statements embodied in definitive judgments, however true and authoritative they may be, are not covered by the guarantee of infallibility which attaches to the strictly definitive sentences — unless, indeed, their infallibility has been previously or subsequently established by an independent decision.
So Cantarella, are you implying that after a pope places his stamp of approval on the proceedings from an infallible General Council, that Catholics can sift through approved proceedings, and pick out the infallible statements, then set aside the non-infallible statements as optional to believe? In other words, if something is not explicitly infallible, we don't have to believe it? Please confirm that's really what you are trying to say here.
No, just the fact that to these fallible teachings the faithful are to adhere with religious assent different from the assent of faith . See, there is massive confusion with the notion of infallibility all around. The question of the infallibility of the Magisterium is often confused with the question of the truth of a doctrine but the truth and irreformability of a doctrine depends on the depositum fide, transmitted by Scripture and Tradition, while infallibility refers only to the degree of certitude of a magisterial teaching. Infallible dogmas and definitive doctrines are necessarily connected to the depositum fidei and must be believed by all Catholics with the assent of faithand thus never doubted or questioned. Teachings such as Religious Liberty or Ecuмenism do not belong to these categories because they are in no way connected with the Deposit of Faith. The possibility of error entering these teachings is there; but that is not the same as saying that they are necessarily in error. We do not blame the Council in itself; but unrestrained bad Modernist theology.
-
The Papa materialiter, non formaliter thesis is only an opinion. It could also be applied to the Bishops but on an individual basis.
Interesting to note, "The Cassiciacuм Thesis" will not produce another Papal election so a conclave for restoration is out of the question. Just as with Sedevacantism, there is no solution to Sedeprivationism. Well, the only solution would be praying for the Pope to convert to the Catholic Faith so he can become a papa formaliter, kind of the same situation with the Lefebvrists praying for Rome to convert half a century ago... Etc etc.
Actually Cantarella, even the Absolute Sedevacantists have ways out. They actually SHOULD admit the possibility that a traditional Pope could come from the college of Cardinals, because they are designated canonically via Common Factual Error. The Church supplies for their appointment.
Also, an imperfect general council could depose the "pope" and elect a new one.
But you seem to slight the efficacy of prayer? I am sure we are getting what we deserve because of our sinfulness.
Be that as it may, I personally, on deeper reflection, do think it is needful not overreach in our diagnosis and therefore solution.
The strongest criticisms towards The Cassiciacuм Thesis come from sedevacantists. I think it is because they see it as a distracting block of inaction having to wait for the material pope to convert to the Catholic Faith and then become formal pope. As said before, Bishop Guerard des Lauriers' hypothesis will not produce another Papal election. As a sedevacantist I would feel a certain sense of urgency in deposing the heretical impostor. Nothing wrong with praying for the Pope's "conversion" of course, but a spirited sedevacantist could caution about falling into a stupor of "quietism".
Also, (and this is important as it brings me back to my question about communion / juridical union with the Hierarchy) those adhering to the Cassiciacuм thesis do not necessarily believe in invalid consecrations so this fact alone opens an entire new perspective of the current Church's Hierarchy which the strict sedevacantist will not easily accept.
-
The Papa materialiter, non formaliter thesis is only an opinion. It could also be applied to the Bishops but on an individual basis.
Interesting to note, "The Cassiciacuм Thesis" will not produce another Papal election so a conclave for restoration is out of the question. Just as with Sedevacantism, there is no solution to Sedeprivationism. Well, the only solution would be praying for the Pope to convert to the Catholic Faith so he can become a papa formaliter, kind of the same situation with the Lefebvrists praying for Rome to convert half a century ago... Etc etc.
Actually Cantarella, even the Absolute Sedevacantists have ways out. They actually SHOULD admit the possibility that a traditional Pope could come from the college of Cardinals, because they are designated canonically via Common Factual Error. The Church supplies for their appointment.
Also, an imperfect general council could depose the "pope" and elect a new one.
But you seem to slight the efficacy of prayer? I am sure we are getting what we deserve because of our sinfulness.
Be that as it may, I personally, on deeper reflection, do think it is needful not overreach in our diagnosis and therefore solution.
The strongest criticisms towards The Cassiciacuм Thesis come from sedevacantists. I think it is because they see it as a distracting block of inaction having to wait for the material pope to convert to the Catholic Faith and then become formal pope. As said before, Bishop Guerard des Lauriers' hypothesis will not produce another Papal election. As a sedevacantist I would feel a certain sense of urgency in deposing the heretical impostor. Nothing wrong with praying for the Pope's "conversion" of course, but a spirited sedevacantist could caution about falling into a stupor of "quietism".
Also, (and this is important as it brings me back to my question about communion / juridical union with the Hierarchy) those adhering to the Cassiciacuм thesis do not necessarily believe in invalid consecrations so this fact alone opens an entire new perspective of the current Church's Hierarchy which the strict sedevacantist will not easily accept.
Cantarella, I think you would rather enjoy reading the Cassiciacuм Thesis. It IS 79 pages, and you have to read chapters 3 and 4 SLOWLY to grasp the philosophy, but it is really rather good.
Basically, it encapsulates your objections, but raises the point that we don't HAVE to speak about the Popes deposition for private heresy or schism or apostasy. It suffices that we can speak of the fact that in this situation, he simply has no authority.
The thesis really emphasizes:
Yes, theologians say one scenario could play out one way, but other theologians give other opinions and the Church hasn't decided. That is important.
Also, if we are speaking solely of arguments from Theological deduction, natural law, and metaphysics, that's an extremely powerful argument.
http://www.mostholytrinityseminary.org/CASSICIAcuм%20THESIS-Lucien.pdf
-
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.
Everyone take notice that Stubborn completely avoided answering my direct question!
That's right - everyone take notice that Stubborn admits to not answering question. Let's wait till after you reply to my inquiry so I can reply to it before changing the subject.
Which is why I said......
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.
I am helping 2Vermont because I am more familiar with the subject, and asked you a question first. It pertains directly to the subject of the UOM, and you cannot answer it. Because you don't know how to believe with divine and Catholic that which is not solemnly taught by the Church. This also cuts to the very root of your Feeneyism.
-
The Papa materialiter, non formaliter thesis is only an opinion. It could also be applied to the Bishops but on an individual basis.
Interesting to note, "The Cassiciacuм Thesis" will not produce another Papal election so a conclave for restoration is out of the question. Just as with Sedevacantism, there is no solution to Sedeprivationism. Well, the only solution would be praying for the Pope to convert to the Catholic Faith so he can become a papa formaliter, kind of the same situation with the Lefebvrists praying for Rome to convert half a century ago... Etc etc.
Actually Cantarella, even the Absolute Sedevacantists have ways out. They actually SHOULD admit the possibility that a traditional Pope could come from the college of Cardinals, because they are designated canonically via Common Factual Error. The Church supplies for their appointment.
Also, an imperfect general council could depose the "pope" and elect a new one.
But you seem to slight the efficacy of prayer? I am sure we are getting what we deserve because of our sinfulness.
Be that as it may, I personally, on deeper reflection, do think it is needful not overreach in our diagnosis and therefore solution.
The strongest criticisms towards The Cassiciacuм Thesis come from sedevacantists. I think it is because they see it as a distracting block of inaction having to wait for the material pope to convert to the Catholic Faith and then become formal pope. As said before, Bishop Guerard des Lauriers' hypothesis will not produce another Papal election. As a sedevacantist I would feel a certain sense of urgency in deposing the heretical impostor. Nothing wrong with praying for the Pope's "conversion" of course, but a spirited sedevacantist could caution about falling into a stupor of "quietism".
Also, (and this is important as it brings me back to my question about communion / juridical union with the Hierarchy) those adhering to the Cassiciacuм thesis do not necessarily believe in invalid consecrations so this fact alone opens an entire new perspective of the current Church's Hierarchy which the strict sedevacantist will not easily accept.
The Cassiacuм Thesis is nothing more than the sedevacantist position, while explaining it more fully with Thomistic philosophy. It says the man is NOT the pope, and that he can either be converted and become the pope instantly, or be declared deprived of the Apostolic See, as all sedevacantists believe.
Your comment about "quietism" is completely off-base because that subject as to do with mental prayer.
-
I really want to share this life of Bishop Guerard des Lauriers. I google translated it from French, it's pretty intelligible, but I want everyone who cares to read it and be edified by the man. He offered himself completely to Christ, he died in extreme agony, but lucid, and encouraged everyone who would listen to never give up the fight. He was plainly in love with our Lord.
https://drive.google.com/open?id=1yETsu2oJL7ABhvrMLkSSPBA5FOdWlvAAvkePlxIu46Q
-
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.
-
Which doctrine or dogma was defined at V2?
What teachings did V2 promulgate that is part of the Deposit of Faith?
What teachings from V2 enjoyed "an almost unanimous" and "concordant teaching" of "Catholic prelates and faithful" - which is to say, what teaching did V2 promulgate which was either Divinely Revealed or has always been taught by the OUM?
Answer is; None, to all of the above. This proves that not only was V2 fallible, it also proves that the doctrine of infallibility was never in danger of being violated at V2.
Stubborn,
It comes directly from Scripture that anything proposed by a General Council and confirmed by the Pope is infallible. Trying to specify that only certain things within a Council apply is a complete fabrication. Some quotes:
1917 Catholic Encyclopedia, General Councils, Infallibility of General Councils:
"All the arguments which go to prove the infallibility of the Church apply with their fullest force to the infallible authority of general councils in union with the pope"
and further down in the same paragraph, a quote from Denzinger's: "General councils represent the universal Church and demand absolute obedience".
The cited 1917 Catholic Encyclopedia also concludes the following on the question of what teachings are considered infallible:
As to the organ of authority by which such doctrines or facts are determined, three possible organs exist. One of these, the magisterium ordinarium, is liable to be somewhat indefinite in its pronouncements and, as a consequence, practically ineffective as an organ. The other two, however, are adequately efficient organs, and when they definitively decide any question of faith or morals that may arise, no believer who pays due attention to Christ's promises can consistently refuse to assent with absolute and irrevocable certainty to their teaching.
But before being bound to give such an assent, the believer has a right to be certain that the teaching in question is definitive (since only definitive teaching is infallible); and the means by which the definitive intention, whether of a council or of the pope, may be recognized have been stated above. It need only be added here that not everything in a conciliar or papal pronouncement, in which some doctrine is defined, is to be treated as definitive and infallible. For example, in the lengthy Bull of Pius IX defining the Immaculate Conception the strictly definitive and infallible portion is comprised in a sentence or two; and the same is true in many cases in regard to conciliar decisions. The merely argumentative and justificatory statements embodied in definitive judgments, however true and authoritative they may be, are not covered by the guarantee of infallibility which attaches to the strictly definitive sentences — unless, indeed, their infallibility has been previously or subsequently established by an independent decision.
So Cantarella, are you implying that after a pope places his stamp of approval on the proceedings from an infallible General Council, that Catholics can sift through approved proceedings, and pick out the infallible statements, then set aside the non-infallible statements as optional to believe? In other words, if something is not explicitly infallible, we don't have to believe it? Please confirm that's really what you are trying to say here.
No, just the fact that to these fallible teachings the faithful are to adhere with religious assent different from the assent of faith . See, there is massive confusion with the notion of infallibility all around. The question of the infallibility of the Magisterium is often confused with the question of the truth of a doctrine but the truth and irreformability of a doctrine depends on the depositum fide, transmitted by Scripture and Tradition, while infallibility refers only to the degree of certitude of a magisterial teaching. Infallible dogmas and definitive doctrines are necessarily connected to the depositum fidei and must be believed by all Catholics with the assent of faithand thus never doubted or questioned. Teachings such as Religious Liberty or Ecuмenism do not belong to these categories because they are in no way connected with the Deposit of Faith. The possibility of error entering these teachings is there; but that is not the same as saying that they are necessarily in error. We do not blame the Council in itself; but unrestrained bad Modernist theology.
Paul,
Cantarella trotted out this same quote from the Catholic Encyclopedia pages ago. She is ascribing "not everything in a conciliar pronouncement" to include not everything in matters of faith and morals. Nowhere does the Catholic Encyclopedia say that a general council can teach error in some things related to faith and morals.
As ubipetrus noted in another thread, it is interesting that some of the strongest anti-OUM posters are also Feeneyites.
-
The Papa materialiter, non formaliter thesis is only an opinion. It could also be applied to the Bishops but on an individual basis.
Interesting to note, "The Cassiciacuм Thesis" will not produce another Papal election so a conclave for restoration is out of the question. Just as with Sedevacantism, there is no solution to Sedeprivationism. Well, the only solution would be praying for the Pope to convert to the Catholic Faith so he can become a papa formaliter, kind of the same situation with the Lefebvrists praying for Rome to convert half a century ago... Etc etc.
Actually Cantarella, even the Absolute Sedevacantists have ways out. They actually SHOULD admit the possibility that a traditional Pope could come from the college of Cardinals, because they are designated canonically via Common Factual Error. The Church supplies for their appointment.
Also, an imperfect general council could depose the "pope" and elect a new one.
But you seem to slight the efficacy of prayer? I am sure we are getting what we deserve because of our sinfulness.
Be that as it may, I personally, on deeper reflection, do think it is needful not overreach in our diagnosis and therefore solution.
The strongest criticisms towards The Cassiciacuм Thesis come from sedevacantists. I think it is because they see it as a distracting block of inaction having to wait for the material pope to convert to the Catholic Faith and then become formal pope. As said before, Bishop Guerard des Lauriers' hypothesis will not produce another Papal election. As a sedevacantist I would feel a certain sense of urgency in deposing the heretical impostor. Nothing wrong with praying for the Pope's "conversion" of course, but a spirited sedevacantist could caution about falling into a stupor of "quietism".
Also, (and this is important as it brings me back to my question about communion / juridical union with the Hierarchy) those adhering to the Cassiciacuм thesis do not necessarily believe in invalid consecrations so this fact alone opens an entire new perspective of the current Church's Hierarchy which the strict sedevacantist will not easily accept.
The Cassiacuм Thesis is nothing more than the sedevacantist position, while explaining it more fully with Thomistic philosophy. It says the man is NOT the pope, and that he can either be converted and become the pope instantly, or be declared deprived of the Apostolic See, as all sedevacantists believe.
If this was true, then the strongest opponents of The Cassiciacuм Thesis would not precisely be the sedevacantists, as it is the case. Simple.
-
The Papa materialiter, non formaliter thesis is only an opinion. It could also be applied to the Bishops but on an individual basis.
Interesting to note, "The Cassiciacuм Thesis" will not produce another Papal election so a conclave for restoration is out of the question. Just as with Sedevacantism, there is no solution to Sedeprivationism. Well, the only solution would be praying for the Pope to convert to the Catholic Faith so he can become a papa formaliter, kind of the same situation with the Lefebvrists praying for Rome to convert half a century ago... Etc etc.
Actually Cantarella, even the Absolute Sedevacantists have ways out. They actually SHOULD admit the possibility that a traditional Pope could come from the college of Cardinals, because they are designated canonically via Common Factual Error. The Church supplies for their appointment.
Also, an imperfect general council could depose the "pope" and elect a new one.
But you seem to slight the efficacy of prayer? I am sure we are getting what we deserve because of our sinfulness.
Be that as it may, I personally, on deeper reflection, do think it is needful not overreach in our diagnosis and therefore solution.
The strongest criticisms towards The Cassiciacuм Thesis come from sedevacantists. I think it is because they see it as a distracting block of inaction having to wait for the material pope to convert to the Catholic Faith and then become formal pope. As said before, Bishop Guerard des Lauriers' hypothesis will not produce another Papal election. As a sedevacantist I would feel a certain sense of urgency in deposing the heretical impostor. Nothing wrong with praying for the Pope's "conversion" of course, but a spirited sedevacantist could caution about falling into a stupor of "quietism".
Also, (and this is important as it brings me back to my question about communion / juridical union with the Hierarchy) those adhering to the Cassiciacuм thesis do not necessarily believe in invalid consecrations so this fact alone opens an entire new perspective of the current Church's Hierarchy which the strict sedevacantist will not easily accept.
The Cassiacuм Thesis is nothing more than the sedevacantist position, while explaining it more fully with Thomistic philosophy. It says the man is NOT the pope, and that he can either be converted and become the pope instantly, or be declared deprived of the Apostolic See, as all sedevacantists believe.
If this was true, then the strongest opponents of The Cassiciacuм Thesis would not precisely be the sedevacantists, as it is the case. Simple.
No, it is true, and that sedevacantists generally don't understand it. Simple.
-
The Papa materialiter, non formaliter thesis is only an opinion. It could also be applied to the Bishops but on an individual basis.
Interesting to note, "The Cassiciacuм Thesis" will not produce another Papal election so a conclave for restoration is out of the question. Just as with Sedevacantism, there is no solution to Sedeprivationism. Well, the only solution would be praying for the Pope to convert to the Catholic Faith so he can become a papa formaliter, kind of the same situation with the Lefebvrists praying for Rome to convert half a century ago... Etc etc.
Actually Cantarella, even the Absolute Sedevacantists have ways out. They actually SHOULD admit the possibility that a traditional Pope could come from the college of Cardinals, because they are designated canonically via Common Factual Error. The Church supplies for their appointment.
Also, an imperfect general council could depose the "pope" and elect a new one.
But you seem to slight the efficacy of prayer? I am sure we are getting what we deserve because of our sinfulness.
Be that as it may, I personally, on deeper reflection, do think it is needful not overreach in our diagnosis and therefore solution.
The strongest criticisms towards The Cassiciacuм Thesis come from sedevacantists. I think it is because they see it as a distracting block of inaction having to wait for the material pope to convert to the Catholic Faith and then become formal pope. As said before, Bishop Guerard des Lauriers' hypothesis will not produce another Papal election. As a sedevacantist I would feel a certain sense of urgency in deposing the heretical impostor. Nothing wrong with praying for the Pope's "conversion" of course, but a spirited sedevacantist could caution about falling into a stupor of "quietism".
Also, (and this is important as it brings me back to my question about communion / juridical union with the Hierarchy) those adhering to the Cassiciacuм thesis do not necessarily believe in invalid consecrations so this fact alone opens an entire new perspective of the current Church's Hierarchy which the strict sedevacantist will not easily accept.
Cantarella, I think you would rather enjoy reading the Cassiciacuм Thesis. It IS 79 pages, and you have to read chapters 3 and 4 SLOWLY to grasp the philosophy, but it is really rather good.
Basically, it encapsulates your objections, but raises the point that we don't HAVE to speak about the Popes deposition for private heresy or schism or apostasy. It suffices that we can speak of the fact that in this situation, he simply has no authority.
The thesis really emphasizes:
Yes, theologians say one scenario could play out one way, but other theologians give other opinions and the Church hasn't decided. That is important.
Also, if we are speaking solely of arguments from Theological deduction, natural law, and metaphysics, that's an extremely powerful argument.
http://www.mostholytrinityseminary.org/CASSICIAcuм%20THESIS-Lucien.pdf
In THE CASSICIAcuм THESIS by Fr. Bernard Lucien, there is a disclaimer, that this thesis is just that, a thesis, an hypothesis, or an opinion, which is good:
It is important to realize that a "thesis" is not a dogma. It represents a theological opinion which attempts to explain the facts, and as such is not binding on the Catholic conscience. The Thesis that the pope is only materially pope, but not formally pope is but one way of explaining the situation. The Magisterium of the Church, when it is once again established, will decide whether this is the correct explanation or not.
-
So Cantarella, are you implying that after a pope places his stamp of approval on the proceedings from an infallible General Council, that Catholics can sift through approved proceedings, and pick out the infallible statements, then set aside the non-infallible statements as optional to believe? In other words, if something is not explicitly infallible, we don't have to believe it? Please confirm that's really what you are trying to say here.
No, just the fact that to these fallible teachings the faithful are to adhere with religious assent different from the assent of faith . See, there is massive confusion with the notion of infallibility all around. The question of the infallibility of the Magisterium is often confused with the question of the truth of a doctrine but the truth and irreformability of a doctrine depends on the depositum fide, transmitted by Scripture and Tradition, while infallibility refers only to the degree of certitude of a magisterial teaching. Infallible dogmas and definitive doctrines are necessarily connected to the depositum fidei and must be believed by all Catholics with the assent of faithand thus never doubted or questioned. Teachings such as Religious Liberty or Ecuмenism do not belong to these categories because they are in no way connected with the Deposit of Faith. The possibility of error entering these teachings is there; but that is not the same as saying that they are necessarily in error. We do not blame the Council in itself; but unrestrained bad Modernist theology.
Cantarella,
You are all mixed up here. To better explain, here is the definition for Infallibility from "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[/b]. 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."
So there are essentially two ways a doctrine becomes infallible; 1) In the rare event of a solemn declaration from a pope or General Council, or 2) through the continuous/unanimous teaching of the Church (the ordinary magisterium). You'll notice the definition above states that the ordinary magisterium is manifested in a striking manner in an ecuмenical (General) Council. So a General Council may make solemn decrees, but whether it does or it doesn't, the resulting text from a General Council is part of the ordinary magisterium at a minimum. This is why all Church references state that General Councils are infallible. In other words, Catholics and not just bound by solemnly decreed dogmas, but also by the ordinary teaching of the Church, as the following 2 quotes confirm:
Pope Pius IX in his Letter to Archbishop Scherr of Munich in 1863:
"We desire to reassure ourselves that they did not mean to limit the obligation, which strictly binds Catholic teachers and writers, to those things only which are proposed by the infallible judgment of the Church as dogmas of faith to be believed by everybody. In a like manner, We are convinced that it was not their intention to state that the perfect adherence to revealed truths (which they regard as absolutely necessary for true progress in science and for refuting errors) can be maintained, if the submission of faith is given only to those dogmas expressly defined by the Church. The reason for this is the following: even supposing that we are treating of that subjection which is to be made by an explicit act of divine faith, this must not be limited to those things which have been defined in the express decrees of the ecuмenical councils or of the Roman Pontiffs of this See; but it must also be extended to those things which, through the ordinary teaching of the whole Church throughout the world, are proposed as divinely revealed and, as a result, by universal and constant consent of Catholic theologians are held to be matters of faith. "
Pope Pius XII, Humani Generis, in 1950 (Denz. 2313):
"It is not to be thought that what is set down in Encyclical Letters does not demand assent in itself, because in this the popes do not exercise the supreme power of their magisterium. For these matters are taught by the ordinary magisterium, regarding which the following is pertinent: "He who heareth you, heareth me." [Luke 10:16]; and usually what is set forth and inculcated in the Encyclical Letters, already pertains to Catholic doctrine. But if the Supreme Pontiffs in their acts, after due consideration, express an opinion on a hitherto controversial matter, it is clear to all that this matter, according to the mind and will of the same Pontiffs, cannot any longer be considered a question of free discussion among the theologians."
So as we can see from the above quotes, Catholics are bound by BOTH solemn and ordinary teaching, and that is exactly what General Councils consist of; solemn and ordinary teaching. If Vatican II is a true General Council, then it is 100% guaranteed free from error, and we owe it 100% obedience. If on the other hand the Vatican II contains anything that has been previously condemned by the Church, it is automatically guaranteed to be an illegitimate Council. Religious liberty and ecuмenism have been condemned repeatedly throughout the history of the Church, so it is absolutely IMPOSSIBLE for a true, infallible, General Council to propose these doctrines as Catholic.
-
In the very introduction of the THE CASSICIAcuм THESIS, Fr. Bernard Lucien condemns Sedevacantism stricto sensu as well as the SSPX R&R position:
In the Present Crisis of the Church:
1.) The Pope preserves his Pontifical authority which is divinely
assisted.
11. And one should submit to his disciplinary decisions,
while at same time denouncing the doctrinal errors of his
teaching and his personal responsibility for them (CRC).
12. But one should not submit to his disciplinary
dispositions. It is necessary to transmit the Sacraments and the
Faith against his authority ("ECONE").
2.) He no longer has his divinely assisted Pontifical authority.
21. He is deposed because of his personal heresy.
("Sedevacantism")
22. But he is not yet deposed: he materially occupies the
Apostolic throne. ("Thesis of Cassiciacuм")
Its disagreement with theses 11 and 12 (again in the above
delineated chart) is radical...
Specifically, Thesis 11 places the Church as a "human
society" over and above the reality of the Mystical Body of
Christ, which is an inversion of their proper order.
Thesis 12, for its part, specifically undermines the entire
Catholic teaching about the Primacy of Peter.
The error of Thesis 21 (sedevacantism) lies in its affirmation of
conclusions that cannot be proved, or at least proved with the
certitude necessary in such matters.
This deficiency pertains above all to two aspects of the
thesis.
On the one hand, with regard to the factual heresy of the
pope, Thesis 21 (sedevacantism) passes from the objective aspect to the
subjective aspect without any proofs.[5] This first objection
pertains, not only "de facto," but also "de jure." For this
"passing" from the objective to the subjective plane without any
admission of culpability on the part of the person involved does
not provide us with that quality of objectivity which would be
absolutely necessary to come to such a conclusion independent of
the intervention of Authority. A proof based on these premises
is, in the eyes of the Church, too weak to impose itself on the
Church by necessity.
-
In the very introduction of the THE CASSICIAcuм THESIS, Fr. Bernard Lucien condemns Sedevacantism stricto sensu as well as the SSPX R&R position:
In the Present Crisis of the Church:
1.) The Pope preserves his Pontifical authority which is divinely
assisted.
11. And one should submit to his disciplinary decisions,
while at same time denouncing the doctrinal errors of his
teaching and his personal responsibility for them (CRC).
12. But one should not submit to his disciplinary
dispositions. It is necessary to transmit the Sacraments and the
Faith against his authority ("ECONE").
2.) He no longer has his divinely assisted Pontifical authority.
21. He is deposed because of his personal heresy.
("Sedevacantism")
22. But he is not yet deposed: he materially occupies the
Apostolic throne. ("Thesis of Cassiciacuм")
Its disagreement with theses 11 and 12 (again in the above
delineated chart) is radical...
Specifically, Thesis 11 places the Church as a "human
society" over and above the reality of the Mystical Body of
Christ, which is an inversion of their proper order.
Thesis 12, for its part, specifically undermines the entire
Catholic teaching about the Primacy of Peter.
The error of Thesis 21 (sedevacantism) lies in its affirmation of
conclusions that cannot be proved, or at least proved with the
certitude necessary in such matters.
This deficiency pertains above all to two aspects of the
thesis.
On the one hand, with regard to the factual heresy of the
pope, Thesis 21 (sedevacantism) passes from the objective aspect to the
subjective aspect without any proofs.[5] This first objection
pertains, not only "de facto," but also "de jure." For this
"passing" from the objective to the subjective plane without any
admission of culpability on the part of the person involved does
not provide us with that quality of objectivity which would be
absolutely necessary to come to such a conclusion independent of
the intervention of Authority. A proof based on these premises
is, in the eyes of the Church, too weak to impose itself on the
Church by necessity.
If you understood my previous post you wouldn't have posted this. Again, the C-thesis believes the "man" is not a true pope. This is not what Fr. Lucien is going against. The "see" is not "the man". While the man is not a true pope, he can obstruct the see and impede it. In canon law this is called "sede impedita", which means "sede vacante" is not correct in "stricto sensu , but the man is nevertheless NOT a true pope. Do you really understand this, Canterella?
-
In the very introduction of the THE CASSICIAcuм THESIS, Fr. Bernard Lucien condemns Sedevacantism stricto sensu as well as the SSPX R&R position:
In the Present Crisis of the Church:
1.) The Pope preserves his Pontifical authority which is divinely
assisted.
11. And one should submit to his disciplinary decisions,
while at same time denouncing the doctrinal errors of his
teaching and his personal responsibility for them (CRC).
12. But one should not submit to his disciplinary
dispositions. It is necessary to transmit the Sacraments and the
Faith against his authority ("ECONE").
2.) He no longer has his divinely assisted Pontifical authority.
21. He is deposed because of his personal heresy.
("Sedevacantism")
22. But he is not yet deposed: he materially occupies the
Apostolic throne. ("Thesis of Cassiciacuм")
Its disagreement with theses 11 and 12 (again in the above
delineated chart) is radical...
Specifically, Thesis 11 places the Church as a "human
society" over and above the reality of the Mystical Body of
Christ, which is an inversion of their proper order.
Thesis 12, for its part, specifically undermines the entire
Catholic teaching about the Primacy of Peter.
The error of Thesis 21 (sedevacantism) lies in its affirmation of
conclusions that cannot be proved, or at least proved with the
certitude necessary in such matters.
This deficiency pertains above all to two aspects of the
thesis.
On the one hand, with regard to the factual heresy of the
pope, Thesis 21 (sedevacantism) passes from the objective aspect to the
subjective aspect without any proofs.[5] This first objection
pertains, not only "de facto," but also "de jure." For this
"passing" from the objective to the subjective plane without any
admission of culpability on the part of the person involved does
not provide us with that quality of objectivity which would be
absolutely necessary to come to such a conclusion independent of
the intervention of Authority. A proof based on these premises
is, in the eyes of the Church, too weak to impose itself on the
Church by necessity.
If you understood my previous post you wouldn't have posted this. Again, the C-thesis believes the "man" is not a true pope. This is not what Fr. Lucien is going against. The "see" is not "the man". While the man is not a true pope, he can obstruct the see and impede it. In canon law this is called "sede impedita", which means "sede vacante" is not correct in "stricto sensu , but the man is nevertheless NOT a true pope. Do you really understand this, Canterella?
Too late, McCork.
Good luck trying to explain this statement:
The Cassiacuм Thesis is nothing more than the sedevacantist position
When the thesis itself is saying that Sedevacantism is in error:
The error of Thesis 21 (sedevacantism) lies in its affirmation of conclusions that cannot be proved, or at least proved with the certitude necessary in such matters.
This deficiency pertains above all to two aspects of the thesis.
On the one hand, with regard to the factual heresy of the pope, Thesis 21 (sedevacantism) passes from the objective aspect to the subjective aspect without any proofs.[5] This first objection pertains, not only "de facto," but also "de jure." For this "passing" from the objective to the subjective plane without any admission of culpability on the part of the person involved does not provide us with that quality of objectivity which would be absolutely necessary to come to such a conclusion independent of the intervention of Authority. A proof based on these premises is, in the eyes of the Church, too weak to impose itself on the Church by necessity
.
And this is just the introduction.
By the way, do not become too impatient with me, usually when people start asking me if understand something it is not really out of concern for my understanding, but out of a frustrating inability to debate my understanding. Ad nominees are next.
OK, It is time for me to go to Mass to receive the Sacraments necessary for salvation.
Have a great Sunday!
-
If you understood my previous post you wouldn't have posted this. Again, the C-thesis believes the "man" is not a true pope. This is not what Fr. Lucien is going against. The "see" is not "the man". While the man is not a true pope, he can obstruct the see and impede it. In canon law this is called "sede impedita", which means "sede vacante" is not correct in "stricto sensu , but the man is nevertheless NOT a true pope. Do you really understand this, Canterella?
Too late, McCork.
Good luck trying to explain this statement:
The Cassiacuм Thesis is nothing more than the sedevacantist position
When the thesis itself is saying that Sedevacantism is in error:
The error of Thesis 21 (sedevacantism) lies in its affirmation of conclusions that cannot be proved, or at least proved with the certitude necessary in such matters.
This deficiency pertains above all to two aspects of the thesis.
On the one hand, with regard to the factual heresy of the pope, Thesis 21 (sedevacantism) passes from the objective aspect to the subjective aspect without any proofs.[5] This first objection pertains, not only "de facto," but also "de jure." For this "passing" from the objective to the subjective plane without any admission of culpability on the part of the person involved does not provide us with that quality of objectivity which would be absolutely necessary to come to such a conclusion independent of the intervention of Authority. A proof based on these premises is, in the eyes of the Church, too weak to impose itself on the Church by necessity
.
And this is just the introduction.
By the way, do not become too impatient with me, usually when people start asking me if understand something it is not really out of concern for my understanding, but out of a frustrating inability to debate my understanding. Ad nominees are next.
OK, It is time for me to go to Mass to receive the Sacraments necessary for salvation.
Have a great Sunday!
No, you just showed you misunderstand "in stricto sensu". Loosely speaking, everyone knows that the sedevacantist position entails the conviction that the Vatican II popes are not true popes. What is wrong in a strict sense is the choice of terminology for that position. I have just explained what it all is "strictly" speaking. Look in the Catholic Encyclopedia and you will see an article mention "sede Romana impedita" for a pope who becomes a heretic, or insane. That is the PRECISE terminology. The see doesn't become vacant of the false pope until the Church makes the declaration of fact. Untill then, the see is obstructed by a false pope.
-
Cantarella,
Both positions arrive at the same end, but the methodology and presuppositions of both are slightly different.
1. Sedeprivationists and Sedevacantists are agreed in the final conclusion: the man claiming to be Pope in Rome has no formal jurisdiction. Vatican II is a rupture, the new mass is a rupture, and the new code of canon law is rupture, they therefore cannot come from the Church herself, therefore the authority promulgating them is illegitimate. Everyone agrees here, and really, that's the point. It is enough. Why? Because we escape the horribl horrible horrible mistake of the RnR camp: to attribute blasphemy and heresy to Christ, who reigns in his Church through his Vicar in the Church's magisterium. That is the point to avoid.
2. There are differences of presupposition and understanding. Purist sedevacantism works from the reading of the More recent theologians and has a direct, linear, literal understanding: a heretic is outside the Church, these Popes have pronounced public heresies, therefore they are outside the Church. The weakness of this position is that it takes some of the theologians arguments into account, not all, and draws a conclusion that is firmer than its sources.
3. Sede-impedism/Cassiciacuм thesis works from a necessary theological conclusion, and strives not to overreach in its arguments and conclusions: The Church is indefectibile, but Vatican II is defection, therefore Vatican II is not of the Church. Furthermore, if Vatican II is not of the Church, neither is the authority promulgating it. This is a theologically certain argument. The HOW is where the Cassiciacuм thesis is unique, arguing metaphysically from the nature of authority and natural law. A Pope who does not will the good of the whole Church is existing in a state contrary to nature, because without the intention to will the good of the Church, he receives no divine protection in his ministry, and the office is formally is severed from Christ. He therefore occupies the see, but becomes capable of anything, for he is unaided.
-
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.
I am helping 2Vermont because I am more familiar with the subject, and asked you a question first. It pertains directly to the subject of the UOM, and you cannot answer it. Because you don't know how to believe with divine and Catholic that which is not solemnly taught by the Church. This also cuts to the very root of your Feeneyism.
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.
To her credit, 2Vermont produced an excellent example, one I had never even seen - yet there it is for all to understand who the UOM is and what their criteria is for infallibility. The decree she provided entirely on her own teaches us not only who the UOM actually is, it also clearly explains the criteria for infallibility of the UOM - those criteria are infallible, you cannot change those criteria, those criteria will remain a necessity for infallibility of the UOM till the end of time. Poster Bellator Dei contributed as well when he posed the criteria from Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum - which guess what, agreed with 2Vermont's snip from PPXII. So if you really want to help, then help explain her snip from PPXII by telling her what it teaches, not what you think he meant to say.
You choose to debate the teaching from that dogmatic decree, which per PPXII's own words, certainly enjoyed the protection from error by the Holy Ghost and dictated why we can be certain of it's infallibility whether PPXII defined it or not. Those are the rules, they have always applied and can never change no matter how you would like to alter them to suit your opinion. Sorry but that's how it is no matter what anyone says.
Here below is the quote 2Vermont provided, please go ahead and edit it, perhaps in a different color, to make what YOU say the criteria is. Understand though that when you do this, that this is what everyone has to do every time they reference the Cekadian UOM.
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.
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."
-
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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
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?
McCork does have an important question for you and you should answer it; that is, if you're not "copping out".
-
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.
-
"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.
-
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.)
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.
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.
-
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.)
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.
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?
-
"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.
-
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.
Actually Stubborn, I'm interested to hear your answer to McCork's question too. It's a straightforward, precise question. It really says it all when you keep avoiding it.
-
So Cantarella, are you implying that after a pope places his stamp of approval on the proceedings from an infallible General Council, that Catholics can sift through approved proceedings, and pick out the infallible statements, then set aside the non-infallible statements as optional to believe? In other words, if something is not explicitly infallible, we don't have to believe it? Please confirm that's really what you are trying to say here.
No, just the fact that to these fallible teachings the faithful are to adhere with religious assent different from the assent of faith . See, there is massive confusion with the notion of infallibility all around. The question of the infallibility of the Magisterium is often confused with the question of the truth of a doctrine but the truth and irreformability of a doctrine depends on the depositum fide, transmitted by Scripture and Tradition, while infallibility refers only to the degree of certitude of a magisterial teaching. Infallible dogmas and definitive doctrines are necessarily connected to the depositum fidei and must be believed by all Catholics with the assent of faithand thus never doubted or questioned. Teachings such as Religious Liberty or Ecuмenism do not belong to these categories because they are in no way connected with the Deposit of Faith. The possibility of error entering these teachings is there; but that is not the same as saying that they are necessarily in error. We do not blame the Council in itself; but unrestrained bad Modernist theology.
Cantarella,
You are all mixed up here. To better explain, here is the definition for Infallibility from "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[/b]. 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."
So there are essentially two ways a doctrine becomes infallible; 1) In the rare event of a solemn declaration from a pope or General Council, or 2) through the continuous/unanimous teaching of the Church (the ordinary magisterium). You'll notice the definition above states that the ordinary magisterium is manifested in a striking manner in an ecuмenical (General) Council. So a General Council may make solemn decrees, but whether it does or it doesn't, the resulting text from a General Council is part of the ordinary magisterium at a minimum. This is why all Church references state that General Councils are infallible. In other words, Catholics and not just bound by solemnly decreed dogmas, but also by the ordinary teaching of the Church, as the following 2 quotes confirm:
Pope Pius IX in his Letter to Archbishop Scherr of Munich in 1863:
"We desire to reassure ourselves that they did not mean to limit the obligation, which strictly binds Catholic teachers and writers, to those things only which are proposed by the infallible judgment of the Church as dogmas of faith to be believed by everybody. In a like manner, We are convinced that it was not their intention to state that the perfect adherence to revealed truths (which they regard as absolutely necessary for true progress in science and for refuting errors) can be maintained, if the submission of faith is given only to those dogmas expressly defined by the Church. The reason for this is the following: even supposing that we are treating of that subjection which is to be made by an explicit act of divine faith, this must not be limited to those things which have been defined in the express decrees of the ecuмenical councils or of the Roman Pontiffs of this See; but it must also be extended to those things which, through the ordinary teaching of the whole Church throughout the world, are proposed as divinely revealed and, as a result, by universal and constant consent of Catholic theologians are held to be matters of faith. "
Pope Pius XII, Humani Generis, in 1950 (Denz. 2313):
"It is not to be thought that what is set down in Encyclical Letters does not demand assent in itself, because in this the popes do not exercise the supreme power of their magisterium. For these matters are taught by the ordinary magisterium, regarding which the following is pertinent: "He who heareth you, heareth me." [Luke 10:16]; and usually what is set forth and inculcated in the Encyclical Letters, already pertains to Catholic doctrine. But if the Supreme Pontiffs in their acts, after due consideration, express an opinion on a hitherto controversial matter, it is clear to all that this matter, according to the mind and will of the same Pontiffs, cannot any longer be considered a question of free discussion among the theologians."
So as we can see from the above quotes, Catholics are bound by BOTH solemn and ordinary teaching, and that is exactly what General Councils consist of; solemn and ordinary teaching. If Vatican II is a true General Council, then it is 100% guaranteed free from error, and we owe it 100% obedience. If on the other hand the Vatican II contains anything that has been previously condemned by the Church, it is automatically guaranteed to be an illegitimate Council. Religious liberty and ecuмenism have been condemned repeatedly throughout the history of the Church, so it is absolutely IMPOSSIBLE for a true, infallible, General Council to propose these doctrines as Catholic.
Interested in your thoughts on this Cantarella.... Thanks
-
Cantarella,
Both positions arrive at the same end, but the methodology and presuppositions of both are slightly different.
1. Sedeprivationists and Sedevacantists are agreed in the final conclusion: the man claiming to be Pope in Rome has no formal jurisdiction. Vatican II is a rupture, the new mass is a rupture, and the new code of canon law is rupture, they therefore cannot come from the Church herself, therefore the authority promulgating them is illegitimate. Everyone agrees here, and really, that's the point. It is enough. Why? Because we escape the horribl horrible horrible mistake of the RnR camp: to attribute blasphemy and heresy to Christ, who reigns in his Church through his Vicar in the Church's magisterium. That is the point to avoid.
2. There are differences of presupposition and understanding. Purist sedevacantism works from the reading of the More recent theologians and has a direct, linear, literal understanding: a heretic is outside the Church, these Popes have pronounced public heresies, therefore they are outside the Church. The weakness of this position is that it takes some of the theologians arguments into account, not all, and draws a conclusion that is firmer than its sources.
3. Sede-impedism/Cassiciacuм thesis works from a necessary theological conclusion, and strives not to overreach in its arguments and conclusions: The Church is indefectibile, but Vatican II is defection, therefore Vatican II is not of the Church. Furthermore, if Vatican II is not of the Church, neither is the authority promulgating it. This is a theologically certain argument. The HOW is where the Cassiciacuм thesis is unique, arguing metaphysically from the nature of authority and natural law. A Pope who does not will the good of the whole Church is existing in a state contrary to nature, because without the intention to will the good of the Church, he receives no divine protection in his ministry, and the office is formally is severed from Christ. He therefore occupies the see, but becomes capable of anything, for he is unaided.
There is a world of difference between concluding that the See is vacant (sedevacantism) and concluding that the Seat is occupied by a material Pope whom is not given Divine Assistance (sedeprivationism). There is also a world of difference between concluding that the new episcopal consecrations are invalid (therefore, the sacraments are also invalid) and concluding that there is material continuity in the Hierarchy pre / post Vatican II Council.
Sedevacantist Dr. Eberhard Heller condemns The Cassiciacuм Thesis as "Schizophrenic Theology":
The thesis of des Lauriers that a Pope fallen into heresy (an American author has made a list of the 101 heresies alone of John Paul II) warns that a Pope legitimately elected—is a "material pope", that is to say, that he is still able to be so in potency, unequivocally remains refuted. The papal ministry has exactly ended when the possessor of that ministry falls into heresy. As it has already been demonstrated, the deception that he is not conscious of his heresy, that is to say, that he is not a 'formal heretic' can not be applied. Why is this? Because it can not be that he who in quality of successor as the representative of Christ here on earth, having been installed as teacher and supreme guardian of the integrity of the faith proclaim simultaneously truth and error.
The identity of the person of the Pope can not be divided schizophrenically into "material" and on the other hand "formal," if this were the case he would not be in any condition to preserve his identity as a person. This schizophrenic division of the person would be, at least in content, not only a contradiction but an absurdity.
Someone who, as the Pope, claims infallibility in matters of faith and morals, in the above mentioned boundaries personifies the truth qua ministry; cannot at the same time be the representative of error and falsehood. In reference to this person respectively, would signify not only that he validates contradiction, but that he introduces that schizophrenia as a principle in theology. At the moment when John Paul II shows that he is promoting error—as accentuated by Bishop Guerard des Lauriers, and who holds habitually to heresy—, is no longer the representative of infallible truth.
-
Cantarella,
Both positions arrive at the same end, but the methodology and presuppositions of both are slightly different.
1. Sedeprivationists and Sedevacantists are agreed in the final conclusion: the man claiming to be Pope in Rome has no formal jurisdiction. Vatican II is a rupture, the new mass is a rupture, and the new code of canon law is rupture, they therefore cannot come from the Church herself, therefore the authority promulgating them is illegitimate. Everyone agrees here, and really, that's the point. It is enough. Why? Because we escape the horribl horrible horrible mistake of the RnR camp: to attribute blasphemy and heresy to Christ, who reigns in his Church through his Vicar in the Church's magisterium. That is the point to avoid.
2. There are differences of presupposition and understanding. Purist sedevacantism works from the reading of the More recent theologians and has a direct, linear, literal understanding: a heretic is outside the Church, these Popes have pronounced public heresies, therefore they are outside the Church. The weakness of this position is that it takes some of the theologians arguments into account, not all, and draws a conclusion that is firmer than its sources.
3. Sede-impedism/Cassiciacuм thesis works from a necessary theological conclusion, and strives not to overreach in its arguments and conclusions: The Church is indefectibile, but Vatican II is defection, therefore Vatican II is not of the Church. Furthermore, if Vatican II is not of the Church, neither is the authority promulgating it. This is a theologically certain argument. The HOW is where the Cassiciacuм thesis is unique, arguing metaphysically from the nature of authority and natural law. A Pope who does not will the good of the whole Church is existing in a state contrary to nature, because without the intention to will the good of the Church, he receives no divine protection in his ministry, and the office is formally is severed from Christ. He therefore occupies the see, but becomes capable of anything, for he is unaided.
There is a world of difference between concluding that the See is vacant (sedevacantism) and concluding that the Seat is occupied by a material Pope whom is not given Divine Assistance (sedeprivationism). There is also a world of difference between concluding that the new episcopal consecrations are invalid (therefore, the sacraments are also invalid) and concluding that there is material continuity in the Hierarchy pre / post Vatican II Council.
Sedevacantist Dr. Eberhard Heller condemns The Cassiciacuм Thesis as "Schizophrenic Theology":
The thesis of des Lauriers that a Pope fallen into heresy (an American author has made a list of the 101 heresies alone of John Paul II) warns that a Pope legitimately elected—is a "material pope", that is to say, that he is still able to be so in potency, unequivocally remains refuted. The papal ministry has exactly ended when the possessor of that ministry falls into heresy. As it has already been demonstrated, the deception that he is not conscious of his heresy, that is to say, that he is not a 'formal heretic' can not be applied. Why is this? Because it can not be that he who in quality of successor as the representative of Christ here on earth, having been installed as teacher and supreme guardian of the integrity of the faith proclaim simultaneously truth and error.
The identity of the person of the Pope can not be divided schizophrenically into "material" and on the other hand "formal," if this were the case he would not be in any condition to preserve his identity as a person. This schizophrenic division of the person would be, at least in content, not only a contradiction but an absurdity.
Someone who, as the Pope, claims infallibility in matters of faith and morals, in the above mentioned boundaries personifies the truth qua ministry; cannot at the same time be the representative of error and falsehood. In reference to this person respectively, would signify not only that he validates contradiction, but that he introduces that schizophrenia as a principle in theology. At the moment when John Paul II shows that he is promoting error—as accentuated by Bishop Guerard des Lauriers, and who holds habitually to heresy—, is no longer the representative of infallible truth.
I agree there IS a difference, but it is not a world apart. They themselves view it as similar to the disputes about grace between the Jesuits and the DOminicans, who at different times both accused one another of being heretics, and yet the Holy See said that EITHER opinion can be taught, as long as you don't condemn each other.
As I said, there is some common conclusion, namely: He who claims to be Pope, is formally NOT Pope, and as such, these heretical changes cannot come from him, they cannot bind us, and we are not obliged to follow him.
Also, most Total Sedevacantists I think would agree that it's fairly obvious that there is a man in Rome laying claim to Peter's throne. So even if they consider him fully deposed, obviously something has yet to be done by the Church about it. That's not really very controversial.
I myself find the Cassiciacuм thesis wonderful because it doesn't work from theological OPINION.
Like produces like, so if you argue from OPINION, you only get opinion. I think many Total sedevacantists perhaps overlook the fact that many of their arguments are only based on probable opinion. The Cassiciacuм thesis would say they are not justified in making an argument from a probable theological opinion into anything more than another probable theological opinion. There are elements of Total Sedevacantism that cannot have theological certitude.
The Cassiciacuм thesis CAN have theological certitude, because it argues only from certain theological facts/ metaphysical principles.
-
The identity of the person of the Pope can not be divided schizophrenically into "material" and on the other hand "formal," if this were the case he would not be in any condition to preserve his identity as a person. This schizophrenic division of the person would be, at least in content, not only a contradiction but an absurdity.
This is ridiculous Cantarella. The PERSON of the Pope is distinct from his office, which he can posses only materially, yet not formally. The fact is that for a Pope to not have the habitual intention of preserving the good of the Church is proof that he does not have the divine assistance with him and that he is fallible, ergo, formally NOT Pope.
For example What happens if a Pope becomes insane? What if he develops dementia? Does he remain Pope? Not formally, because he is incapable of a habitual willing of the common good. He is a loose canon, and because of this, he is formally deprived of the Papacy even before he is retired by the college of Cardinals.
The theologians make this distinction:
If a Pope who has become a heretic mends his ways before the declaratory sentence, he recovers ipso facto his pontifical authority without any new election of the Cardinals or other legal formality. —
Objection: «If, as we have said, the Pope by the very fact that he has become a heretic loses his pontifical dignity and remains outside the Church, then it is not possible for him to go back into office, at least not in the sense of becoming Pope again, because such a return would have the force of a new election, in which case a council would be attributing to itself a right that belongs to the Cardinals, namely the right of electing, and this —according to Rosellus— is not something that can be done legitimately.
Answer: In the present case, according to the interpretation of ecclesiastical law, the right of election returns to the Cardinals only after a declaratory sentence of the crime, because the penalties imposed by the law itself cannot be executed without such a sentence… And it has not been shown that such a declaration should be pronounced in virtue of any existing law. But rather the opposite is true when the Pope mends his ways, as we demonstrated before. Thus, no harm is done to the Cardinals, since they receive back in a revocable manner the right of choosing another Pontiff, on condition that the heretical Pope be unrepentant and unwilling to mends his ways. It should be of no wonder if a reintegration of this type takes place without any legal solemnity, because, if a person loses ecclesiastical dignity by committing a crime—and this happens by a simple internal effect of the law (nudo juris mysterio fit)— by the same token, once the crime goes away by reason of the amendment, the thing goes back to its original state— also by a simple internal effect of the law.
Cardinal John Jerome of Albano, Tractatus de Potestate Papae, 1543.
Again:
Whether the power of the Pope remains in the College of Cardinals after the death of the Pope?
Augustine of Ancona responds in the third Question of the aforesaid book:
After his death the power of the Pope remains in the College of Cardinals in two ways. First with respect to the root, for the College is compared to the Pope as the root to the tree or the branch. But just as the power of the tree or the branch, by which it blossoms and produces fruit, remains in the root even after the tree itself or its branch are destroyed, so the papal power remains in the Church or the College after the death of the Pope. It remains in the College as in the proximate root and in the church of the prelates and other faithful as in the remote root. Secondly, such power remains in the Church and in the College with respect to that which is material in the papacy, since after the death of the Pope the College is able, through election, to determine a person to the papacy, that it be such or such a one.
Wherefore just as the root produces the tree through which it produces the flowers and fruit, so also the College makes a Pope who has jurisdiction and administration in the Church. Hence, if by the name of papacy we understand the election and determination of the person (which is the material thing in the papacy, as has been said before) then such power remains in the College after the death of the Pope. But if by the name of papal power we understand his authority and jurisdiction (which is the formal thing), then such power never dies, because it always remains in Christ, who rising again from the dead, dieth now no more. Wherefore St. Augustine, commenting on the words “all power is given to me in heaven and in earth ... and behold I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world” (Mat. 28), says that the Apostles, to whom Christ spoke, were not going to remain until the consummation of the world, but He spoke to them in the person of all those that would succeed them, as to a single body of the Church.
If, however, by the name of papal power we understand the actual administration, which is the material and formal thing in the papacy, then it is true that this actual administration dies with the death of the Pope, since the actual administration of the papal power does not remain in the College after the death of the Pope (except to the extent that it was entrusted to them by a decree of the predecessor), nor does it remain, in this manner, in Christ, because, according to the common law, Christ has not exercised such power, after His resurrection, except through the mediation of the Pope; for although He Himself is the door, He has nevertheless constituted Peter and his successors as the His porters, by whose mediation the door of access to Him is opened and closed. The power of the Church therefore with regard to jurisdiction (which is, as it were, the formal thing in the papacy) does not die with the death of the Pope but persists in Christ.
Nor does it die with regard to the election and determination of the person, (which is like the material element), but it persists in the College of Cardinals; it dies, however, with respect to its actual administration and jurisdiction, because after the death of the Pope, the Church is vacant and is deprived of the administration of such power. Nor is that conclusion hindered by saying that the priesthood of Christ will endure forever, just as Christ, and that therefore, after the death of the Pope, his power remains, because this is true with regard to what is formal in the priesthood. For just as all priests, as regards the power of consecration, are but one priest, Christ, inasmuch as all consecrate in the person of Christ); so all Popes are but one Pope, Christ, because all Popes receive jurisdiction and the power of ruling immediately from God; and yet the actual administration of the said power dies with the death of this or that Pope.
St. Antoninus, Summa Theologica, Part III n. 3. Verona, 1740.
SO, no, Eberhard is wrong. The theologians clearly distinguish between the formal and the material in the Papacy. But it would make sense that he would object to this, because if you research this fellow, he is a Kantian in terms of Philosophy. His philosophy is all screwed of actually. So, of course he would object to Helomorphic (Matter/form) reality. But then he rejects St. Thomas and the other Catholic Theologians.
-
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.
Has it though? The Ordinary Universal Magisterium requires the bishops to universally teach something.
Although the individual bishops do not enjoy the prerogative of infallibility, they nevertheless proclaim Christ’s doctrine infallibly whenever, even though dispersed through the world, but still maintaining the bond of communion among themselves and with the successor of Peter, and authentically teaching matters of faith and morals, they are in agreement on one position as definitively to be held.
Lumen Gentium, 25
(Vatican II docuмent)
What doctrine has been preached universally by the bishops after Vatican II that contradicts Catholic doctrine?
Remember, the Church did not defect when so many of the bishops began to preach Arianism during the Arian crisis.
-
McFiggly, go back and look into the history of the Assumption and tell me whether there was proof that it was taught "universally" in the manner in which you believe it was taught.
And yet it is declared a universal, concordant teaching of the OUM by Pius XII.
-
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.
Yes. The teaching of the UOM is concordant.
The V2 Magisterium's teaching are not concordant teachings, by that fact alone are fallible.
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?
There are a zillion teachings prior to 1960 that were not concordant, not from the UOM.
I'm guilty of not clarifying and you are guilty of confusing "universal", which per your own quote from PPXII means not only teachings which are "almost unanimous" among the Church hierarchy, it also means "concordant teaching" - or the universal teachings of the Church, taught since the time of the apostles.
The V2 magisterium is universal in number only or "almost unanimous", but their teachings are not automatically concordant teachings. They can and have taught new teachings, contradictory teachings, teachings which are not contained in the deposit of divine revelation. These teachings are not binding, these teachings are fallible precisely because they are new. These teachings from this magisterium can never be counted as teachings of the UOM because they are contradictory. But you say the magisterium will not be counted among the magisterium - which is altogether wrong and a terrible assumption.
You say that because their teachings are contradictory or new, that they cannot be a true pope and magisterium - but this conclusion is based on the false premise that the magisterium is always automatically infallible. They are only automatically infallible when they preach that which has always been taught. That which is part of the deposit of faith. They can teach error and they have taught error, they are not protected from error by virtue of them being bishops and popes in a council. Nothing infallible came from that council. Nothing binding came from that council. Contradictory and new teachings have come from that council which proves the whole point that it was fallible.
The UOM is not the Church:
"Christ instituted in the Church a living, authoritative and permanent Magisterium,...He willed and ordered, under the gravest penalties, that its teachings should be received as if they were His own. As often, therefore, as it is declared on the authority of this teaching that this or that is contained in the deposit of divine revelation, it must be believed by every one as true.
Unlike your quote from PPXII, nothing in V2 was nor was any thing ever declared as being contained in the deposit of divine revelation. Therefore, per Pope Leo XIII, the criteria for infallibility was not met by the V2 magisterium.
He continues:
For this reason the Fathers of the Vatican Council laid down nothing new, but followed divine revelation and the acknowledged and invariable teaching of the Church as to the very nature of faith, when they decreed as follows: "All those things are to be believed by divine and Catholic faith which are contained in the written or unwritten word of God,*and* which are proposed by the Church as divinely revealed, either by a solemn definition or in the exercise of its ordinary and universal Magisterium"
We are bound to believe those things contained in the written or unwritten word of God AND those things proposed by the Church as divinely revealed. The NO from V2 was never proposed as divinely revealed.
The ordinary magisterium held a council alright, it was not a "supposed UOM", it was the ordinary magisterium who never proposed anything as divinely revealed, therefore not binding.
Infallibility is not something automatic. It is applied to a teaching or teachings that are in the deposit of faith.
If the UOM taught that no one in purgatory was sentenced to more than one day before being released into heaven, that teaching would necessarily be a revelation, a Divine Revelation of something belonging to the deposit of faith, something already established and would be dogmatically decreed. Without a dogmatic decree, for that teaching to be infallible it would be a teaching which was known to be taught by the Apostles and was a teaching of the UOM.
If the magisterium which existed 200 years ago just decided to start teaching it, it would not be infallible by virtue of them teaching it, it would be error because it was not a teaching of the UOM nor was it ever dogmatically decreed.
This is how it works. That is why PPXII and the other similar papal teachings posted here make it clear what criteria is necessary to be infallible. They are not shy about making sure this is understood so that we can be certain of what is infallible and what is not.
-
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.
Actually Stubborn, I'm interested to hear your answer to McCork's question too. It's a straightforward, precise question. It really says it all when you keep avoiding it.
I can answer his question easy enough, but won't until he answers my question with a reply instead of another question.
My question to him is also straight forward - why does he not answer it?
-
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.
Actually Stubborn, I'm interested to hear your answer to McCork's question too. It's a straightforward, precise question. It really says it all when you keep avoiding it.
I can answer his question easy enough, but won't until he answers my question with a reply instead of another question.
My question to him is also straight forward - why does he not answer it?
You have already made a public statement of what you said I believe about the UOM. That is what you say I believe. Besides, I asked you FIRST, and the person I jumped in to help (who was already in discussion with you) wants you to also answer that question. I asked it first, you answer first, you asked something second, I will answer it second.
-
The previously published screed against sedevacantism, Sedevacantims: A False Solution to a Real Problem, was an merely an exercise of erecting straw men and mowing them down. The book largely refuted a definition of sedevacantism that virtually no one accepts.
I responded to that book in detail in this series:
Let's Hold a Conclave
http://www.dailycatholic.org/issue/09Jul/jul20str.htm
And Now, the Other Kind of Sedevacantist
http://www.dailycatholic.org/issue/09Oct/oct5str.htm
Is it Too Complicated?
http://www.dailycatholic.org/issue/09Oct/oct26str.htm
The Case of the Disappearing Disappearance
http://www.dailycatholic.org/issue/09Nov/nov3str.htm
The Screed of a Creed?
http://www.dailycatholic.org/issue/10Jan/jan11str.htm
Misrepresenting Billot
http://www.dailycatholic.org/issue/10Feb/feb1str.htm
Learning Curve, Interrupted
http://www.dailycatholic.org/issue/10Mar/mar1str.htm
Undoing the Double-Negative
http://www.dailycatholic.org/issue/10Apr/apr19str.htm
Authority by Default?
http://www.dailycatholic.org/issue/10Jul/jul19str.htm
Worthy of Consideration
http://www.dailycatholic.org/issue/10Sep/sep6str.htm
Spontaneous Sedevacantism?
http://www.dailycatholic.org/issue/10Nov/nov5str.htm
Man of Providence
http://www.dailycatholic.org/issue/10Nov/nov15str.htm
Fecundity and Sterility
http://www.dailycatholic.org/issue/10Nov/nov22str.htm
In Conclusion - A Real Solution To a False Problem
http://www.dailycatholic.org/issue/10Dec/dec6str.htm
-
So Cantarella, are you implying that after a pope places his stamp of approval on the proceedings from an infallible General Council, that Catholics can sift through approved proceedings, and pick out the infallible statements, then set aside the non-infallible statements as optional to believe? In other words, if something is not explicitly infallible, we don't have to believe it? Please confirm that's really what you are trying to say here.
No, just the fact that to these fallible teachings the faithful are to adhere with religious assent different from the assent of faith . See, there is massive confusion with the notion of infallibility all around. The question of the infallibility of the Magisterium is often confused with the question of the truth of a doctrine but the truth and irreformability of a doctrine depends on the depositum fide, transmitted by Scripture and Tradition, while infallibility refers only to the degree of certitude of a magisterial teaching. Infallible dogmas and definitive doctrines are necessarily connected to the depositum fidei and must be believed by all Catholics with the assent of faithand thus never doubted or questioned. Teachings such as Religious Liberty or Ecuмenism do not belong to these categories because they are in no way connected with the Deposit of Faith. The possibility of error entering these teachings is there; but that is not the same as saying that they are necessarily in error. We do not blame the Council in itself; but unrestrained bad Modernist theology.
Cantarella,
You are all mixed up here. To better explain, here is the definition for Infallibility from "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[/b]. 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."
So there are essentially two ways a doctrine becomes infallible; 1) In the rare event of a solemn declaration from a pope or General Council, or 2) through the continuous/unanimous teaching of the Church (the ordinary magisterium). You'll notice the definition above states that the ordinary magisterium is manifested in a striking manner in an ecuмenical (General) Council. So a General Council may make solemn decrees, but whether it does or it doesn't, the resulting text from a General Council is part of the ordinary magisterium at a minimum. This is why all Church references state that General Councils are infallible. In other words, Catholics and not just bound by solemnly decreed dogmas, but also by the ordinary teaching of the Church, as the following 2 quotes confirm:
Pope Pius IX in his Letter to Archbishop Scherr of Munich in 1863:
"We desire to reassure ourselves that they did not mean to limit the obligation, which strictly binds Catholic teachers and writers, to those things only which are proposed by the infallible judgment of the Church as dogmas of faith to be believed by everybody. In a like manner, We are convinced that it was not their intention to state that the perfect adherence to revealed truths (which they regard as absolutely necessary for true progress in science and for refuting errors) can be maintained, if the submission of faith is given only to those dogmas expressly defined by the Church. The reason for this is the following: even supposing that we are treating of that subjection which is to be made by an explicit act of divine faith, this must not be limited to those things which have been defined in the express decrees of the ecuмenical councils or of the Roman Pontiffs of this See; but it must also be extended to those things which, through the ordinary teaching of the whole Church throughout the world, are proposed as divinely revealed and, as a result, by universal and constant consent of Catholic theologians are held to be matters of faith. "
Pope Pius XII, Humani Generis, in 1950 (Denz. 2313):
"It is not to be thought that what is set down in Encyclical Letters does not demand assent in itself, because in this the popes do not exercise the supreme power of their magisterium. For these matters are taught by the ordinary magisterium, regarding which the following is pertinent: "He who heareth you, heareth me." [Luke 10:16]; and usually what is set forth and inculcated in the Encyclical Letters, already pertains to Catholic doctrine. But if the Supreme Pontiffs in their acts, after due consideration, express an opinion on a hitherto controversial matter, it is clear to all that this matter, according to the mind and will of the same Pontiffs, cannot any longer be considered a question of free discussion among the theologians."
So as we can see from the above quotes, Catholics are bound by BOTH solemn and ordinary teaching, and that is exactly what General Councils consist of; solemn and ordinary teaching. If Vatican II is a true General Council, then it is 100% guaranteed free from error, and we owe it 100% obedience. If on the other hand the Vatican II contains anything that has been previously condemned by the Church, it is automatically guaranteed to be an illegitimate Council. Religious liberty and ecuмenism have been condemned repeatedly throughout the history of the Church, so it is absolutely IMPOSSIBLE for a true, infallible, General Council to propose these doctrines as Catholic.
Interested in your thoughts on this Cantarella.... Thanks
Religious Liberty and Ecuмenism do not belong to the first two levels of Magisterial teaching (infallible dogmas and definitive doctrines which require Assent of Faith), but to the third level of Magisterial teaching:
3. Ordinary teaching on faith and morals -> Faithful are to adhere to these with religious assent (which is different from the assent of Faith (assensus fidei) of #1 and #2)
This is not to say they are in error but that they are open to a theological critique and modification.
The decree Dignitatis humanae (Religious Liberty) is a non-infallible docuмent, it is "new development" not connected with Scripture or Tradition and the kind of religious assent (assensus religious) which the faithful owe to it is does not exclude the logical possibility that the teaching is wrong.
The ambiguous and banal language present in Dignitatis humanae arose from the wave of global political correctness and the lack of distinction between the internal and public forum. On the one hand, nobody can be forced to be a Catholic and believe in the private forum, because Faith is Divine grace; but on the other and, the Church has always taught that men are not permitted to profess whatever religion in the public forum because error has no right.
Now, if you believe that a there are other possible paths to Heaven and visible exceptions to the Catholic dogma of salvation Extra Ecclesiam Nullas Salus, and that a person professing a false religion, say a Jew, Moslem, Hindu, can actually be saved without formally converting to Catholicism and entering the Church via water Baptism, then tell me what right on earth have you to force this people into the Catholic religion?
As the runner of baptismofdesire.com,it would be interesting to hear your reply on this. We can also further discuss the connection between BOD, Pluralism, and Religious Liberty in the appropriate subforum and the reason why in these times of crisis that call for Catholic restoration, out of hundred of topics conductive to restitution, you precisely choose to run a website promoting the possibility of salvation of non-Catholics as conversion was an option.
-
So Cantarella, are you implying that after a pope places his stamp of approval on the proceedings from an infallible General Council, that Catholics can sift through approved proceedings, and pick out the infallible statements, then set aside the non-infallible statements as optional to believe? In other words, if something is not explicitly infallible, we don't have to believe it? Please confirm that's really what you are trying to say here.
No, just the fact that to these fallible teachings the faithful are to adhere with religious assent different from the assent of faith . See, there is massive confusion with the notion of infallibility all around. The question of the infallibility of the Magisterium is often confused with the question of the truth of a doctrine but the truth and irreformability of a doctrine depends on the depositum fide, transmitted by Scripture and Tradition, while infallibility refers only to the degree of certitude of a magisterial teaching. Infallible dogmas and definitive doctrines are necessarily connected to the depositum fidei and must be believed by all Catholics with the assent of faithand thus never doubted or questioned. Teachings such as Religious Liberty or Ecuмenism do not belong to these categories because they are in no way connected with the Deposit of Faith. The possibility of error entering these teachings is there; but that is not the same as saying that they are necessarily in error. We do not blame the Council in itself; but unrestrained bad Modernist theology.
Cantarella,
You are all mixed up here. To better explain, here is the definition for Infallibility from "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[/b]. 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."
So there are essentially two ways a doctrine becomes infallible; 1) In the rare event of a solemn declaration from a pope or General Council, or 2) through the continuous/unanimous teaching of the Church (the ordinary magisterium). You'll notice the definition above states that the ordinary magisterium is manifested in a striking manner in an ecuмenical (General) Council. So a General Council may make solemn decrees, but whether it does or it doesn't, the resulting text from a General Council is part of the ordinary magisterium at a minimum. This is why all Church references state that General Councils are infallible. In other words, Catholics and not just bound by solemnly decreed dogmas, but also by the ordinary teaching of the Church, as the following 2 quotes confirm:
Pope Pius IX in his Letter to Archbishop Scherr of Munich in 1863:
"We desire to reassure ourselves that they did not mean to limit the obligation, which strictly binds Catholic teachers and writers, to those things only which are proposed by the infallible judgment of the Church as dogmas of faith to be believed by everybody. In a like manner, We are convinced that it was not their intention to state that the perfect adherence to revealed truths (which they regard as absolutely necessary for true progress in science and for refuting errors) can be maintained, if the submission of faith is given only to those dogmas expressly defined by the Church. The reason for this is the following: even supposing that we are treating of that subjection which is to be made by an explicit act of divine faith, this must not be limited to those things which have been defined in the express decrees of the ecuмenical councils or of the Roman Pontiffs of this See; but it must also be extended to those things which, through the ordinary teaching of the whole Church throughout the world, are proposed as divinely revealed and, as a result, by universal and constant consent of Catholic theologians are held to be matters of faith. "
Pope Pius XII, Humani Generis, in 1950 (Denz. 2313):
"It is not to be thought that what is set down in Encyclical Letters does not demand assent in itself, because in this the popes do not exercise the supreme power of their magisterium. For these matters are taught by the ordinary magisterium, regarding which the following is pertinent: "He who heareth you, heareth me." [Luke 10:16]; and usually what is set forth and inculcated in the Encyclical Letters, already pertains to Catholic doctrine. But if the Supreme Pontiffs in their acts, after due consideration, express an opinion on a hitherto controversial matter, it is clear to all that this matter, according to the mind and will of the same Pontiffs, cannot any longer be considered a question of free discussion among the theologians."
So as we can see from the above quotes, Catholics are bound by BOTH solemn and ordinary teaching, and that is exactly what General Councils consist of; solemn and ordinary teaching. If Vatican II is a true General Council, then it is 100% guaranteed free from error, and we owe it 100% obedience. If on the other hand the Vatican II contains anything that has been previously condemned by the Church, it is automatically guaranteed to be an illegitimate Council. Religious liberty and ecuмenism have been condemned repeatedly throughout the history of the Church, so it is absolutely IMPOSSIBLE for a true, infallible, General Council to propose these doctrines as Catholic.
Interested in your thoughts on this Cantarella.... Thanks
Religious Liberty and Ecuмenism do not belong to the first two levels of Magisterial teaching (infallible dogmas and definitive doctrines which require Assent of Faith), but to the third level of Magisterial teaching:
3. Ordinary teaching on faith and morals -> Faithful are to adhere to these with religious assent (which is different from the assent of Faith (assensus fidei) of #1 and #2)
This is not to say they are in error but that they are open to a theological critique and modification.
The decree Dignitatis humanae (Religious Liberty) is a non-infallible docuмent, it is "new development" not connected with Scripture or Tradition and the kind of religious assent (assensus religious) which the faithful owe to it is does not exclude the logical possibility that the teaching is wrong.
The ambiguous and banal language present in Dignitatis humanae arose from the wave of global political correctness and the lack of distinction between the internal and public forum. On the one hand, nobody can be forced to be a Catholic and believe in the private forum, because Faith is Divine grace; but on the other and, the Church has always taught that men are not permitted to profess whatever religion in the public forum because error has no right.
Now, if you believe that a there are other possible paths to Heaven and visible exceptions to the Catholic dogma of salvation Extra Ecclesiam Nullas Salus, and that a person professing a false religion, say a Jew, Moslem, Hindu, can actually be saved without formally converting to Catholicism and entering the Church via water Baptism, then tell me what right on earth have you to force this people into the Catholic religion?
As the runner of baptismofdesire.com,it would be interesting to hear your reply on this. We can also further discuss the connection between BOD, Pluralism, and Religious Liberty in the appropriate subforum and the reason why in these times of crisis that call for Catholic restoration, out of hundred of topics conductive to restitution, you precisely choose to run a website promoting the possibility of salvation of non-Catholics as conversion was an option.
Have you read quanta cura? How does pope Pius IX treat the subject matter? Does he bind all the faithful?
-
Religious Liberty and Ecuмenism do not belong to the first two levels of Magisterial teaching (infallible dogmas and definitive doctrines which require Assent of Faith), but to the third level of Magisterial teaching:
3. Ordinary teaching on faith and morals -> Faithful are to adhere to these with religious assent (which is different from the assent of Faith (assensus fidei) of #1 and #2)
This is not to say they are in error but that they are open to a theological critique and modification.
The decree Dignitatis humanae (Religious Liberty) is a non-infallible docuмent, it is "new development" not connected with Scripture or Tradition and the kind of religious assent (assensus religious) which the faithful owe to it is does not exclude the logical possibility that the teaching is wrong.
The ambiguous and banal language present in Dignitatis humanae arose from the wave of global political correctness and the lack of distinction between the internal and public forum. On the one hand, nobody can be forced to be a Catholic and believe in the private forum, because Faith is Divine grace; but on the other and, the Church has always taught that men are not permitted to profess whatever religion in the public forum because error has no right.
Now, if you believe that a there are other possible paths to Heaven and visible exceptions to the Catholic dogma of salvation Extra Ecclesiam Nullas Salus, and that a person professing a false religion, say a Jew, Moslem, Hindu, can actually be saved without formally converting to Catholicism and entering the Church via water Baptism, then tell me what right on earth have you to force this people into the Catholic religion?
Cantarella,
Everything you just said above I have never seen in a Catholic book in my life. Can you please cite your sources? Something before Vatican II. You are adding all kinds of conditions that are not found in traditional sources. If you look at the quotes I just provided by Pope Pius IX and Pope Pius XII, they state very simply and straightforwardly that Catholics must believe the ordinary magisterium in addition to the solemn magisterium. That's it. Nothing else.
The First Vatican Council was also just as brief and to the point on the matter when it stated,
"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."
You continually reply with all kinds of additional conditions above and beyond what this General Council and these popes have given us, which is why I'm asking you to state your sources.
-
The First Vatican Council was also just as brief and to the point on the matter when it stated,
"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."
Is Religious Liberty or Ecuмenism in any way contained in the written Word of God or in Tradition?
Have they been proposed by the Church to be believed by Divine and Catholic Faith?
"The ambiguous and banal language present in Dignitatis humanae arose from the wave of global political correctness and the lack of distinction between the internal and public forum. On the one hand, nobody can be forced to be a Catholic and believe in the private forum, because Faith is Divine grace; but on the other and, the Church has always taught that men are not permitted to profess whatever religion in the public forum because error has no rights".
Now, please do not ignore this:
Now, if you believe that a there are other possible paths to Heaven and visible exceptions to the Catholic dogma of salvation Extra Ecclesiam Nullas Salus, and that a person professing a false religion, say a Jew, Moslem, Hindu, can actually be saved without formally converting to Catholicism and entering the Church via water Baptism, then tell me what right on earth have you to force this people into the Catholic religion?
As the runner of baptismofdesire.com,it would be interesting to hear your reply on this. We can also further discuss the connection between BOD, Pluralism, and Religious Liberty in the appropriate subforum and the reason why in these times of crisis that call for Catholic restoration, out of hundred of topics conductive to restitution, you precisely choose to run a website promoting the possibility of salvation of non-Catholics as conversion was an option.
-
The First Vatican Council was also just as brief and to the point on the matter when it stated,
"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."
Is Religious Liberty or Ecuмenism in any way contained in the written Word of God or in Tradition?
Have they been proposed by the Church to be believed by Divine and Catholic Faith?
"The ambiguous and banal language present in Dignitatis humanae arose from the wave of global political correctness and the lack of distinction between the internal and public forum. On the one hand, nobody can be forced to be a Catholic and believe in the private forum, because Faith is Divine grace; but on the other and, the Church has always taught that men are not permitted to profess whatever religion in the public forum because error has no rights".
Now, please do not ignore this:
Now, if you believe that a there are other possible paths to Heaven and visible exceptions to the Catholic dogma of salvation Extra Ecclesiam Nullas Salus, and that a person professing a false religion, say a Jew, Moslem, Hindu, can actually be saved without formally converting to Catholicism and entering the Church via water Baptism, then tell me what right on earth have you to force this people into the Catholic religion?
As the runner of baptismofdesire.com,it would be interesting to hear your reply on this. We can also further discuss the connection between BOD, Pluralism, and Religious Liberty in the appropriate subforum and the reason why in these times of crisis that call for Catholic restoration, out of hundred of topics conductive to restitution, you precisely choose to run a website promoting the possibility of salvation of non-Catholics as conversion was an option.
Religious libert is condemned formally and irreformably:
Pius IX determined the gravity of Religious Liberty quite clearly, and you are not free to move away from it:
" For you well know, venerable brethren, that at this time men are found not a few who, applying to civil society the impious and absurd principle of "naturalism," as they call it, dare to teach that "the best constitution of public society and (also) civil progress altogether require that human society be conducted and governed without regard being had to religion any more than if it did not exist; or, at least, without any distinction being made between the true religion and false ones." And, against the doctrine of Scripture, of the Church, and of the Holy Fathers, they do not hesitate to assert that "that is the best condition of civil society, in which no duty is recognized, as attached to the civil power, of restraining by enacted penalties, offenders against the Catholic religion, except so far as public peace may require." From which totally false idea of social government they do not fear to foster that erroneous opinion, most fatal in its effects on the Catholic Church and the salvation of souls, called by Our Predecessor, Gregory XVI, an "insanity,"2 viz., that "liberty of conscience and worship is each man's personal right, which ought to be legally proclaimed and asserted in every rightly constituted society; and that a right resides in the citizens to an absolute liberty, which should be restrained by no authority whether ecclesiastical or civil, whereby they may be able openly and publicly to manifest and declare any of their ideas whatever, either by word of mouth, by the press, or in any other way." But, while they rashly affirm this, they do not think and consider that they are preaching "liberty of perdition;"3 and that "if human arguments are always allowed free room for discussion, there will never be wanting men who will dare to resist truth, and to trust in the flowing speech of human wisdom; whereas we know, from the very teaching of our Lord Jesus Christ, how carefully Christian faith and wisdom should avoid this most injurious babbling."
And he in turn solemnly and irreformably condemned these errors:
"Amidst, therefore, such great perversity of depraved opinions, we, well remembering our Apostolic Office, and very greatly solicitous for our most holy Religion, for sound doctrine and the salvation of souls which is intrusted to us by God, and (solicitous also) for the welfare of human society itself, have thought it right again to raise up our Apostolic voice. Therefore, by our Apostolic authority, we reprobate, proscribe, and condemn all the singular and evil opinions and doctrines severally mentioned in this letter, and will and command that they be thoroughly held by all children of the Catholic Church as reprobated, proscribed and condemned."
This is irreformable and binding on all the faithful and Dignitatis Humanae blatantly contradicts the irreformable and Magisterial teaching of Pope Pius IX.
-
The First Vatican Council was also just as brief and to the point on the matter when it stated,
"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."
Is Religious Liberty or Ecuмenism in any way contained in the written Word of God or in Tradition?
Have they been proposed by the Church to be believed by Divine and Catholic Faith?
"The ambiguous and banal language present in Dignitatis humanae arose from the wave of global political correctness and the lack of distinction between the internal and public forum. On the one hand, nobody can be forced to be a Catholic and believe in the private forum, because Faith is Divine grace; but on the other and, the Church has always taught that men are not permitted to profess whatever religion in the public forum because error has no rights".
Now, please do not ignore this:
Now, if you believe that a there are other possible paths to Heaven and visible exceptions to the Catholic dogma of salvation Extra Ecclesiam Nullas Salus, and that a person professing a false religion, say a Jew, Moslem, Hindu, can actually be saved without formally converting to Catholicism and entering the Church via water Baptism, then tell me what right on earth have you to force this people into the Catholic religion?
As the runner of baptismofdesire.com,it would be interesting to hear your reply on this. We can also further discuss the connection between BOD, Pluralism, and Religious Liberty in the appropriate subforum and the reason why in these times of crisis that call for Catholic restoration, out of hundred of topics conductive to restitution, you precisely choose to run a website promoting the possibility of salvation of non-Catholics as conversion was an option.
We can certainly discuss these subjects, but first things first, I'm asking you to cite your sources on the magisterium of the Church. You keep posting here how the magisterium supposedly works, and when we are to believe it and when we are to not. The quotes I have presented from the Church state that we must ALWAYS believe the ordinary and solemn magisterium. I'm asking you to please show us the sources from the Church where you are getting your definitions from. At this point it appears you are just presenting your opinion. After you answer, I will be happy to answer what you are asking here.
-
The First Vatican Council was also just as brief and to the point on the matter when it stated,
"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."
Is Religious Liberty or Ecuмenism in any way contained in the written Word of God or in Tradition?
Have they been proposed by the Church to be believed by Divine and Catholic Faith?
"The ambiguous and banal language present in Dignitatis humanae arose from the wave of global political correctness and the lack of distinction between the internal and public forum. On the one hand, nobody can be forced to be a Catholic and believe in the private forum, because Faith is Divine grace; but on the other and, the Church has always taught that men are not permitted to profess whatever religion in the public forum because error has no rights".
Now, please do not ignore this:
Now, if you believe that a there are other possible paths to Heaven and visible exceptions to the Catholic dogma of salvation Extra Ecclesiam Nullas Salus, and that a person professing a false religion, say a Jew, Moslem, Hindu, can actually be saved without formally converting to Catholicism and entering the Church via water Baptism, then tell me what right on earth have you to force this people into the Catholic religion?
As the runner of baptismofdesire.com,it would be interesting to hear your reply on this. We can also further discuss the connection between BOD, Pluralism, and Religious Liberty in the appropriate subforum and the reason why in these times of crisis that call for Catholic restoration, out of hundred of topics conductive to restitution, you precisely choose to run a website promoting the possibility of salvation of non-Catholics as conversion was an option.
Religious libert is condemned formally and irreformably:
Pius IX determined the gravity of Religious Liberty quite clearly, and you are not free to move away from it:
" For you well know, venerable brethren, that at this time men are found not a few who, applying to civil society the impious and absurd principle of "naturalism," as they call it, dare to teach that "the best constitution of public society and (also) civil progress altogether require that human society be conducted and governed without regard being had to religion any more than if it did not exist; or, at least, without any distinction being made between the true religion and false ones." And, against the doctrine of Scripture, of the Church, and of the Holy Fathers, they do not hesitate to assert that "that is the best condition of civil society, in which no duty is recognized, as attached to the civil power, of restraining by enacted penalties, offenders against the Catholic religion, except so far as public peace may require." From which totally false idea of social government they do not fear to foster that erroneous opinion, most fatal in its effects on the Catholic Church and the salvation of souls, called by Our Predecessor, Gregory XVI, an "insanity,"2 viz., that "liberty of conscience and worship is each man's personal right, which ought to be legally proclaimed and asserted in every rightly constituted society; and that a right resides in the citizens to an absolute liberty, which should be restrained by no authority whether ecclesiastical or civil, whereby they may be able openly and publicly to manifest and declare any of their ideas whatever, either by word of mouth, by the press, or in any other way." But, while they rashly affirm this, they do not think and consider that they are preaching "liberty of perdition;"3 and that "if human arguments are always allowed free room for discussion, there will never be wanting men who will dare to resist truth, and to trust in the flowing speech of human wisdom; whereas we know, from the very teaching of our Lord Jesus Christ, how carefully Christian faith and wisdom should avoid this most injurious babbling."
And he in turn solemnly and irreformably condemned these errors:
"Amidst, therefore, such great perversity of depraved opinions, we, well remembering our Apostolic Office, and very greatly solicitous for our most holy Religion, for sound doctrine and the salvation of souls which is intrusted to us by God, and (solicitous also) for the welfare of human society itself, have thought it right again to raise up our Apostolic voice. Therefore, by our Apostolic authority, we reprobate, proscribe, and condemn all the singular and evil opinions and doctrines severally mentioned in this letter, and will and command that they be thoroughly held by all children of the Catholic Church as reprobated, proscribed and condemned."
This is irreformable and binding on all the faithful and Dignitatis Humanae blatantly contradicts the irreformable and Magisterial teaching of Pope Pius IX.
What you are referring to that has been condemned by the Church is the Liberty of Public Worship and what Pius IX is talking about: the Principle of Naturalism leading to a false liberty of conscience and worship and therefore Indifferentism; as if error could have any rights:
Man has no right to religious freedom in the public space, or rather freedom to profess whatever religion, because only the true and the good have rights and not what is error and is evil.
However, the Church does not force upon anyone the Catholic religion. The goal is conversion of the unbelievers by Divine Grace and not but violent coercion as the Mohammedans do, for example. In reality, people cannot be constricted to believe in the private forum. Also, in occasions the Church has taught that "Public worship of false religions" is to be tolerated by the civil authorities, with the view of obtaining a greater good or avoiding a greater evil". See quote below:
Public worship of false religions may be, in cases, tolerated by the civil authorities, with the view of obtaining a greater good or avoiding a greater evil, but, in essence, it may be repressed even by force if necessary. But the right to tolerance is a contradiction, because, as is evident even from the term, whatever is tolerated is never a good thing, rather, it is always a purely bad thing. In the social life of nations, error may be tolerated as a reality, but never allowed as a right. Error “has no right to exist objectively nor to propaganda, nor action”
It is not that easy. Gregory I, you seem to be an intelligent man. Think a minute about something: Do you really believe that if the heresy in Dignitatis humanae (Religious Liberty) was so indisputably evident none of the 2600 Bishops entering the Council (which you agreed were Catholics up to that point) had seen it and immediately protested it? Virtually all Catholic bishops (2600!) signed Dignitatis humanae, including Archbishop Lefebvre. Do you really think they just did not read it?
-
The First Vatican Council was also just as brief and to the point on the matter when it stated,
"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."
Is Religious Liberty or Ecuмenism in any way contained in the written Word of God or in Tradition?
Have they been proposed by the Church to be believed by Divine and Catholic Faith?
"The ambiguous and banal language present in Dignitatis humanae arose from the wave of global political correctness and the lack of distinction between the internal and public forum. On the one hand, nobody can be forced to be a Catholic and believe in the private forum, because Faith is Divine grace; but on the other and, the Church has always taught that men are not permitted to profess whatever religion in the public forum because error has no rights".
Now, please do not ignore this:
Now, if you believe that a there are other possible paths to Heaven and visible exceptions to the Catholic dogma of salvation Extra Ecclesiam Nullas Salus, and that a person professing a false religion, say a Jew, Moslem, Hindu, can actually be saved without formally converting to Catholicism and entering the Church via water Baptism, then tell me what right on earth have you to force this people into the Catholic religion?
As the runner of baptismofdesire.com,it would be interesting to hear your reply on this. We can also further discuss the connection between BOD, Pluralism, and Religious Liberty in the appropriate subforum and the reason why in these times of crisis that call for Catholic restoration, out of hundred of topics conductive to restitution, you precisely choose to run a website promoting the possibility of salvation of non-Catholics as conversion was an option.
Religious libert is condemned formally and irreformably:
Pius IX determined the gravity of Religious Liberty quite clearly, and you are not free to move away from it:
" For you well know, venerable brethren, that at this time men are found not a few who, applying to civil society the impious and absurd principle of "naturalism," as they call it, dare to teach that "the best constitution of public society and (also) civil progress altogether require that human society be conducted and governed without regard being had to religion any more than if it did not exist; or, at least, without any distinction being made between the true religion and false ones." And, against the doctrine of Scripture, of the Church, and of the Holy Fathers, they do not hesitate to assert that "that is the best condition of civil society, in which no duty is recognized, as attached to the civil power, of restraining by enacted penalties, offenders against the Catholic religion, except so far as public peace may require." From which totally false idea of social government they do not fear to foster that erroneous opinion, most fatal in its effects on the Catholic Church and the salvation of souls, called by Our Predecessor, Gregory XVI, an "insanity,"2 viz., that "liberty of conscience and worship is each man's personal right, which ought to be legally proclaimed and asserted in every rightly constituted society; and that a right resides in the citizens to an absolute liberty, which should be restrained by no authority whether ecclesiastical or civil, whereby they may be able openly and publicly to manifest and declare any of their ideas whatever, either by word of mouth, by the press, or in any other way." But, while they rashly affirm this, they do not think and consider that they are preaching "liberty of perdition;"3 and that "if human arguments are always allowed free room for discussion, there will never be wanting men who will dare to resist truth, and to trust in the flowing speech of human wisdom; whereas we know, from the very teaching of our Lord Jesus Christ, how carefully Christian faith and wisdom should avoid this most injurious babbling."
And he in turn solemnly and irreformably condemned these errors:
"Amidst, therefore, such great perversity of depraved opinions, we, well remembering our Apostolic Office, and very greatly solicitous for our most holy Religion, for sound doctrine and the salvation of souls which is intrusted to us by God, and (solicitous also) for the welfare of human society itself, have thought it right again to raise up our Apostolic voice. Therefore, by our Apostolic authority, we reprobate, proscribe, and condemn all the singular and evil opinions and doctrines severally mentioned in this letter, and will and command that they be thoroughly held by all children of the Catholic Church as reprobated, proscribed and condemned."
This is irreformable and binding on all the faithful and Dignitatis Humanae blatantly contradicts the irreformable and Magisterial teaching of Pope Pius IX.
What you are referring to that has been condemned by the Church is the Liberty of Public Worship and what Pius IX is talking about: the Principle of Naturalism leading to a false liberty of conscience and worship and therefore Indifferentism; as if error could have any rights:
Man has no right to religious freedom in the public space, or rather freedom to profess whatever religion, because only the true and the good have rights and not what is error and is evil.
However, the Church does not force upon anyone the Catholic religion. The goal is conversion of the unbelievers by Divine Grace and not but violent coercion as the Mohammedans do, for example. In reality, people cannot be constricted to believe in the private forum. Also, in occasions the Church has taught that "Public worship of false religions" is to be tolerated by the civil authorities, with the view of obtaining a greater good or avoiding a greater evil". See quote below:
Public worship of false religions may be, in cases, tolerated by the civil authorities, with the view of obtaining a greater good or avoiding a greater evil, but, in essence, it may be repressed even by force if necessary. But the right to tolerance is a contradiction, because, as is evident even from the term, whatever is tolerated is never a good thing, rather, it is always a purely bad thing. In the social life of nations, error may be tolerated as a reality, but never allowed as a right. Error “has no right to exist objectively nor to propaganda, nor action”
It is not that easy. Gregory I, you seem to be an intelligent man. Think a minute about something: Do you really believe that if the heresy in Dignitatis humanae (Religious Liberty) was so indisputably evident none of the 2600 Bishops entering the Council (which you agreed were Catholics up to that point) had seen it and immediately protested it? Virtually all Catholic bishops (2600!) signed Dignitatis humanae, including Archbishop Lefebvre. Do you really think they just did not read it?
Cantarella, unfortunately, I see you didn't research this. That's ok.
The voting at Dignitatis Humanae was 2200 pro vs 244 against. It wasn't a simple unanimity.
Secondly, read Dignitatis Humanae. It is making subtle distinctions.
It is one think to tolerate other religions for the civil good, but do they for all that have a natural right to choose freely? That is what Dignitatis Humanae teaches, and it is FALSE. What is natural to man is to choose the truth and abide in it, no man is born free to choose error. He has the capacity to choose it, but not the right. Freedom exists in service of the good, anything else is abuse. Does man have a natural right to abuse the gifts of nature in order to choose evil? Does man have a natural right to revolt against God?
No. Therefore Dignitatis Humanae is false.
-
Is Religious Liberty or Ecuмenism in any way contained in the written Word of God or in Tradition?
Have they been proposed by the Church to be believed by Divine and Catholic Faith?
Cantarella,
It appears you have been making up your definitions of how the magisterium works on-the-fly, rather than getting your information from the Church. We will continue to wait for you to provide your sources of information.
In the meantime I will touch on your questions above. Religious liberty and ecuмenism are clearly condemned in both Scripture, and by the magisterium of the Church. Example:
"Go ye into the whole world, and preach the gospel to every creature. He that believeth and is baptized, shall be saved: but he that believeth not shall be condemned." Matthew 16:15
Jews, Muslims and Hindus are not baptized, do not believe Jesus is God, and do not believe in the Gospels. Therefore they are condemned as a rule. Note that these are Jesus' own words. Next example:
"But he that shall deny me before men, I will also deny him before my Father who is in heaven." Mat 10:33
Jews, Muslims and Hindus all deny Jesus. No further comment necessary.
Popes have written numerous encyclicals confirming the above condemnations. Obvious examples are "Mortalium Animos" (On Religious Unity), by Pope Pius XI in 1928, and "On Liberalism and Religious Indifferentism", by Pope Gregory XVI in 1832
Here are some of the more obvious quotes from Mortalium Animos:
"The Catholic Church is alone in keeping the true worship”
“it is clear why this Apostolic See has never allowed its subjects to take part in the assemblies of non-Catholics”
"Certainly such attempts can nowise be approved by Catholics, founded as they are on that false opinion which considers all religions to be more or less good and praiseworthy”?
So there you have answers to your questions. Religious liberty and ecuмenism are condemned by both Scripture and the magisterium, and this must be believed by all Catholics. The fact that Paul VI put his stamp of approval on these shows with absolute certainty that he cannot be a true Pope, nor can Vatican II be a true Council.
-
The First Vatican Council was also just as brief and to the point on the matter when it stated,
"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."
Is Religious Liberty or Ecuмenism in any way contained in the written Word of God or in Tradition?
Have they been proposed by the Church to be believed by Divine and Catholic Faith?
"The ambiguous and banal language present in Dignitatis humanae arose from the wave of global political correctness and the lack of distinction between the internal and public forum. On the one hand, nobody can be forced to be a Catholic and believe in the private forum, because Faith is Divine grace; but on the other and, the Church has always taught that men are not permitted to profess whatever religion in the public forum because error has no rights".
Now, please do not ignore this:
Now, if you believe that a there are other possible paths to Heaven and visible exceptions to the Catholic dogma of salvation Extra Ecclesiam Nullas Salus, and that a person professing a false religion, say a Jew, Moslem, Hindu, can actually be saved without formally converting to Catholicism and entering the Church via water Baptism, then tell me what right on earth have you to force this people into the Catholic religion?
As the runner of baptismofdesire.com,it would be interesting to hear your reply on this. We can also further discuss the connection between BOD, Pluralism, and Religious Liberty in the appropriate subforum and the reason why in these times of crisis that call for Catholic restoration, out of hundred of topics conductive to restitution, you precisely choose to run a website promoting the possibility of salvation of non-Catholics as conversion was an option.
We can certainly discuss these subjects, but first things first, I'm asking you to cite your sources on the magisterium of the Church. You keep posting here how the magisterium supposedly works, and when we are to believe it and when we are to not. The quotes I have presented from the Church state that we must ALWAYS believe the ordinary and solemn magisterium. I'm asking you to please show us the sources from the Church where you are getting your definitions from. At this point it appears you are just presenting your opinion. After you answer, I will be happy to answer what you are asking here.
It is all right there in the PROFESSION OF FAITH and THE OATH OF FIDELITY ON ASSUMING AN OFFICE TO BE EXERCISED IN THE NAME OF THE CHURCH
http://www.ewtn.com/library/curia/cdfoath.htm
Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Profession of Faith and Oath of Fidelity: AAS 81 (1989), 104-106; CIC, can. 833.
There are more explanations on these level of Magisterial teachings and expected faithful assent in this doctrinal commentary:
http://www.ewtn.com/library/curia/cdfadtu.htm
And....
Code of Canon Law
http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__P2H.HTM
The relevant canons in the Catechism of the Catholic Church are:
* For the first category: (Catechism, nos. 84; 2033) (cf. Catechism, no. 2089).
* For the second category: (Canon 750 §2).
* For the third category: (Catechism, no. 892).
More:
cann. 750 and 751; 1364 § 1; CCEO, cann. 598; 1436 § 1.
Of course, being a sedevacantist, you will be quick to dismiss these sources for not having the magical date before 1962... as if every. single. thing before 1962 was necessarily good and after 1962 was necessarily bad. :wink:
-
The First Vatican Council was also just as brief and to the point on the matter when it stated,
"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."
Is Religious Liberty or Ecuмenism in any way contained in the written Word of God or in Tradition?
Have they been proposed by the Church to be believed by Divine and Catholic Faith?
"The ambiguous and banal language present in Dignitatis humanae arose from the wave of global political correctness and the lack of distinction between the internal and public forum. On the one hand, nobody can be forced to be a Catholic and believe in the private forum, because Faith is Divine grace; but on the other and, the Church has always taught that men are not permitted to profess whatever religion in the public forum because error has no rights".
Now, please do not ignore this:
Now, if you believe that a there are other possible paths to Heaven and visible exceptions to the Catholic dogma of salvation Extra Ecclesiam Nullas Salus, and that a person professing a false religion, say a Jew, Moslem, Hindu, can actually be saved without formally converting to Catholicism and entering the Church via water Baptism, then tell me what right on earth have you to force this people into the Catholic religion?
As the runner of baptismofdesire.com,it would be interesting to hear your reply on this. We can also further discuss the connection between BOD, Pluralism, and Religious Liberty in the appropriate subforum and the reason why in these times of crisis that call for Catholic restoration, out of hundred of topics conductive to restitution, you precisely choose to run a website promoting the possibility of salvation of non-Catholics as conversion was an option.
Religious libert is condemned formally and irreformably:
Pius IX determined the gravity of Religious Liberty quite clearly, and you are not free to move away from it:
" For you well know, venerable brethren, that at this time men are found not a few who, applying to civil society the impious and absurd principle of "naturalism," as they call it, dare to teach that "the best constitution of public society and (also) civil progress altogether require that human society be conducted and governed without regard being had to religion any more than if it did not exist; or, at least, without any distinction being made between the true religion and false ones." And, against the doctrine of Scripture, of the Church, and of the Holy Fathers, they do not hesitate to assert that "that is the best condition of civil society, in which no duty is recognized, as attached to the civil power, of restraining by enacted penalties, offenders against the Catholic religion, except so far as public peace may require." From which totally false idea of social government they do not fear to foster that erroneous opinion, most fatal in its effects on the Catholic Church and the salvation of souls, called by Our Predecessor, Gregory XVI, an "insanity,"2 viz., that "liberty of conscience and worship is each man's personal right, which ought to be legally proclaimed and asserted in every rightly constituted society; and that a right resides in the citizens to an absolute liberty, which should be restrained by no authority whether ecclesiastical or civil, whereby they may be able openly and publicly to manifest and declare any of their ideas whatever, either by word of mouth, by the press, or in any other way." But, while they rashly affirm this, they do not think and consider that they are preaching "liberty of perdition;"3 and that "if human arguments are always allowed free room for discussion, there will never be wanting men who will dare to resist truth, and to trust in the flowing speech of human wisdom; whereas we know, from the very teaching of our Lord Jesus Christ, how carefully Christian faith and wisdom should avoid this most injurious babbling."
And he in turn solemnly and irreformably condemned these errors:
"Amidst, therefore, such great perversity of depraved opinions, we, well remembering our Apostolic Office, and very greatly solicitous for our most holy Religion, for sound doctrine and the salvation of souls which is intrusted to us by God, and (solicitous also) for the welfare of human society itself, have thought it right again to raise up our Apostolic voice. Therefore, by our Apostolic authority, we reprobate, proscribe, and condemn all the singular and evil opinions and doctrines severally mentioned in this letter, and will and command that they be thoroughly held by all children of the Catholic Church as reprobated, proscribed and condemned."
This is irreformable and binding on all the faithful and Dignitatis Humanae blatantly contradicts the irreformable and Magisterial teaching of Pope Pius IX.
What you are referring to that has been condemned by the Church is the Liberty of Public Worship and what Pius IX is talking about: the Principle of Naturalism leading to a false liberty of conscience and worship and therefore Indifferentism; as if error could have any rights:
Man has no right to religious freedom in the public space, or rather freedom to profess whatever religion, because only the true and the good have rights and not what is error and is evil.
However, the Church does not force upon anyone the Catholic religion. The goal is conversion of the unbelievers by Divine Grace and not but violent coercion as the Mohammedans do, for example. In reality, people cannot be constricted to believe in the private forum. Also, in occasions the Church has taught that "Public worship of false religions" is to be tolerated by the civil authorities, with the view of obtaining a greater good or avoiding a greater evil". See quote below:
Public worship of false religions may be, in cases, tolerated by the civil authorities, with the view of obtaining a greater good or avoiding a greater evil, but, in essence, it may be repressed even by force if necessary. But the right to tolerance is a contradiction, because, as is evident even from the term, whatever is tolerated is never a good thing, rather, it is always a purely bad thing. In the social life of nations, error may be tolerated as a reality, but never allowed as a right. Error “has no right to exist objectively nor to propaganda, nor action”
It is not that easy. Gregory I, you seem to be an intelligent man. Think a minute about something: Do you really believe that if the heresy in Dignitatis humanae (Religious Liberty) was so indisputably evident none of the 2600 Bishops entering the Council (which you agreed were Catholics up to that point) had seen it and immediately protested it? Virtually all Catholic bishops (2600!) signed Dignitatis humanae, including Archbishop Lefebvre. Do you really think they just did not read it?
Cantarella, unfortunately, I see you didn't research this. That's ok.
The voting at Dignitatis Humanae was 2200 pro vs 244 against. It wasn't a simple unanimity.
Secondly, read Dignitatis Humanae. It is making subtle distinctions.
It is one think to tolerate other religions for the civil good, but do they for all that have a natural right to choose freely? That is what Dignitatis Humanae teaches, and it is FALSE. What is natural to man is to choose the truth and abide in it, no man is born free to choose error. He has the capacity to choose it, but not the right. Freedom exists in service of the good, anything else is abuse. Does man have a natural right to abuse the gifts of nature in order to choose evil? Does man have a natural right to revolt against God?
No. Therefore Dignitatis Humanae is false.
OK, 2200 Catholic Bishops were not paying attention....
Gregory I, you are missing the entire point:
I am a Catholic who is a strict believer in Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus whatsoever. Simply put, I am convinced that there are only validly water baptized Roman Catholics in Heaven. In the US, this type of Catholic is commonly called a "Feneeyite". Believe me, the idea of Religious Liberty is more revolting to me than it is to you.
The point is that the heretical novelty was not presented in the Council as a straightforward as many assume, but in an ambiguous, subtle, almost imperceptible manner. It is one of the tactics of the Nouvelle Théologie and it is related not to Modernism but to New-Modernism.
Neo-Modernism tends to be present (3) mostly implicitly or behind-the-scenes in the Council, the Catechism, etc., even though it seldom comes out more explicitly. Things are done at this level under the pretext of 'aggiornamento', a euphemism for neo-modernism. That is usually all the justification provided since at this authoritative level, there is no need to justify things theologically. Hence, Vatican II and the Catechism are not outright neo-modernistic. Rather, they (like most of post-conciliar doctrine) tend in that direction and/or are inspired by that mentality. In other words, most of the time these docuмents do not explicitly teach neo-modernist errors (the kind of errors you hear explicitly from neo-modernist theologians and priests). Rather, they are full of dangerous ambiguities: statements that in a technical sense could be interpreted as being in harmony with the traditional faith, but that, in their natural, non-forced, interpretation are heterodox. One clear example of this is Dignitatis humanae, par. 2; entire monographs have been written in order to prove that, despite appearances, this docuмent does not contradict previous teaching. Maybe in fact it ultimately does not, but it is obvious that the prima facie meaning does; otherwise there would be no need to write so many volumes to prove it.
http://iteadthomam.blogspot.com/2010/09/modernism-vs-neo-modernism-what-is.html
-
It is all right there in the PROFESSION OF FAITH and THE OATH OF FIDELITY ON ASSUMING AN OFFICE TO BE EXERCISED IN THE NAME OF THE CHURCH
http://www.ewtn.com/library/curia/cdfoath.htm
Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Profession of Faith and Oath of Fidelity: AAS 81 (1989), 104-106; CIC, can. 833.
There are more explanations on these level of Magisterial teachings and expected faithful assent in this doctrinal commentary:
http://www.ewtn.com/library/curia/cdfadtu.htm
And....
Code of Canon Law
http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__P2H.HTM
The relevant canons in the Catechism of the Catholic Church are:
* For the first category: (Catechism, nos. 84; 2033) (cf. Catechism, no. 2089).
* For the second category: (Canon 750 §2).
* For the third category: (Catechism, no. 892).
More:
cann. 750 and 751; 1364 § 1; CCEO, cann. 598; 1436 § 1.
Of course, being a sedevacantist, you will be quick to dismiss these sources for not having the magical date before 1962... as if every. single. thing before 1962 was necessarily good and after 1962 was necessarily bad. :wink:
Don't you understand that the very reason we are having this discussion is due to the fact that there have been sudden, drastic changes in the Church since Vatican II which lead us to different conclusions? It is that very issue we are trying to get to the bottom of and you reply with post-Vatican II sources anyway?
Bottom line: I have provided you pre-Vatican II sources that all unanimously state solemn and ordinary magisterium are infallible and must be believed by all Catholics. The faithful relied on these same definitions for over 19 centuries. You have responded with completely different definitions for the magisterium as was never seen in those first 19 centuries. Truth does not change, yet you are pushing newly fabricated definitions. I'm asking you to show us that the Church in fact taught your version of the magisterium in the first 19 centuries. There are plenty of writings from the Church during the centuries so you should have no problem with the request.
-
It is all right there in the PROFESSION OF FAITH and THE OATH OF FIDELITY ON ASSUMING AN OFFICE TO BE EXERCISED IN THE NAME OF THE CHURCH
http://www.ewtn.com/library/curia/cdfoath.htm
Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Profession of Faith and Oath of Fidelity: AAS 81 (1989), 104-106; CIC, can. 833.
There are more explanations on these level of Magisterial teachings and expected faithful assent in this doctrinal commentary:
http://www.ewtn.com/library/curia/cdfadtu.htm
And....
Code of Canon Law
http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__P2H.HTM
The relevant canons in the Catechism of the Catholic Church are:
* For the first category: (Catechism, nos. 84; 2033) (cf. Catechism, no. 2089).
* For the second category: (Canon 750 §2).
* For the third category: (Catechism, no. 892).
More:
cann. 750 and 751; 1364 § 1; CCEO, cann. 598; 1436 § 1.
Of course, being a sedevacantist, you will be quick to dismiss these sources for not having the magical date before 1962... as if every. single. thing before 1962 was necessarily good and after 1962 was necessarily bad. :wink:
Don't you understand that the very reason we are having this discussion is due to the fact that there have been sudden, drastic changes in the Church since Vatican II which lead us to different conclusions? It is that very issue we are trying to get to the bottom of and you reply with post-Vatican II sources anyway?
Bottom line: I have provided you pre-Vatican II sources that all unanimously state solemn and ordinary magisterium are infallible and must be believed by all Catholics. The faithful relied on these same definitions for over 19 centuries. You have responded with completely different definitions for the magisterium as was never seen in those first 19 centuries. Truth does not change, yet you are pushing newly fabricated definitions. I'm asking you to show us that the Church in fact taught your version of the magisterium in the first 19 centuries. There are plenty of writings from the Church during the centuries so you should have no problem with the request.
I do understand but thank you anyway for such genuine concern.
Again, if one of these links were to have the magic date before October 10, 1962 would you automatically considered as good and reliable? You can check for the schismatic mentality and discontinuity of religion right there.
Or do you really have an actual objection against the different levels of Magisterial teachings and assent due to each? If so, what is it?
-
Bottom line: I have provided you pre-Vatican II sources that all unanimously state solemn and ordinary magisterium are infallible and must be believed by all Catholics.
You are absolutely correct PaulFC - but you left out the important part. The part that 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 (NOT, BECAUSE THEY) 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." It says "and which" - it does not say; "because they".
So to fix your quote to reflect what all the sources say, you should have said:
Bottom line: I have provided you pre-Vatican II sources that all unanimously state solemn and ordinary magisterium are infallible and must be believed by all Catholics when they teach that which is contained in the written Word of God or in Tradition.
How is it that you keep missing this I wonder? Do you get it now?
-
...but this conclusion is based on the false premise that the magisterium is always automatically infallible.
Stubborn,
Similar to what I have asked of Cantarella, can you please provide something from the first 19+ centuries of the Catholic Church (before Vatican II) that states the magisterium is not always infallible? In other words, if I was a Catholic any time before 1960, in what Catholic book could I find something stating the magisterium is not always infallible?
I ask this because every book I have ever referenced before Vatican II says it is always infallible, whether solemn or ordinary, and this is what Vatican I confirms. Suddenly since Vatican II, I see people popping up all over the place, including Salza and Siscoe, suddenly claiming it is not always infallible. Please show us your sources.
Thanks
-
...but this conclusion is based on the false premise that the magisterium is always automatically infallible.
Stubborn,
Similar to what I have asked of Cantarella, can you please provide something from the first 19+ centuries of the Catholic Church (before Vatican II) that states the magisterium is not always infallible? In other words, if I was a Catholic any time before 1960, in what Catholic book could I find something stating the magisterium is not always infallible?
I ask this because every book I have ever referenced before Vatican II says it is always infallible, whether solemn or ordinary, and this is what Vatican I confirms. Suddenly since Vatican II, I see people popping up all over the place, including Salza and Siscoe, suddenly claiming it is not always infallible. Please show us your sources.
Thanks
Read the post I just made directly above yours.
-
Bottom line: I have provided you pre-Vatican II sources that all unanimously state solemn and ordinary magisterium are infallible and must be believed by all Catholics.
You are absolutely correct PaulFC - but you left out the important part. The part that 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 (NOT, BECAUSE THEY) 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." It says "and which" - it does not say; "because they".
So to fix your quote to reflect what all the sources say, you should have said:
Bottom line: I have provided you pre-Vatican II sources that all unanimously state solemn and ordinary magisterium are infallible and must be believed by all Catholics when they teach that which is contained in the written Word of God or in Tradition.
How is it that you keep missing this I wonder? Do you get it now?
Why are you adding your own words to the quote from Vatican I ??????
-
I do understand but thank you anyway for such genuine concern.
Again, if one of these links were to have the magic date before October 10, 1962 would you automatically considered as good and reliable? You can check for the schismatic mentality and discontinuity of religion right there.
Or do you really have an actual objection against the different levels of Magisterial teachings and assent due to each? If so, what is it?
Cantarella,
The bottom line here is you are claiming the magisterium of the Church is not always infallible. I have shown otherwise with multiple quotes from the Church. If what you are saying is true, don't beat around the bush, just show us your sources showing that this has been taught all along.
-
...but this conclusion is based on the false premise that the magisterium is always automatically infallible.
Stubborn,
Similar to what I have asked of Cantarella, can you please provide something from the first 19+ centuries of the Catholic Church (before Vatican II) that states the magisterium is not always infallible? In other words, if I was a Catholic any time before 1960, in what Catholic book could I find something stating the magisterium is not always infallible?
I ask this because every book I have ever referenced before Vatican II says it is always infallible, whether solemn or ordinary, and this is what Vatican I confirms. Suddenly since Vatican II, I see people popping up all over the place, including Salza and Siscoe, suddenly claiming it is not always infallible. Please show us your sources.
Thanks
I responded to this question already in this Post (http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php?a=topic&t=38915&min=169&num=1) and offered my opinion as to why every book out there that I could ever find taught the same thing - that whatever the magisterium says or does, is automatically infallible - which is altogether wrong. Which is why I ask for papal or magisterial docuмents on the magisterium to compare to what all the theologians and books teach. To date, all the theologians and books teach something different than all the papal docuмents.
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.
-
Bottom line: I have provided you pre-Vatican II sources that all unanimously state solemn and ordinary magisterium are infallible and must be believed by all Catholics.
You are absolutely correct PaulFC - but you left out the important part. The part that 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 (NOT, BECAUSE THEY) 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." It says "and which" - it does not say; "because they".
So to fix your quote to reflect what all the sources say, you should have said:
Bottom line: I have provided you pre-Vatican II sources that all unanimously state solemn and ordinary magisterium are infallible and must be believed by all Catholics when they teach that which is contained in the written Word of God or in Tradition.
How is it that you keep missing this I wonder? Do you get it now?
Why are you adding your own words to the quote from Vatican I ??????
I did not add any words, apparently tho, you are still missing it.
-
OK, 2200 Catholic Bishops were not paying attention....
Gregory I, you are missing the entire point:
I am a Catholic who is a strict believer in Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus whatsoever. Simply put, I am convinced that there are only validly water baptized Roman Catholics in Heaven. In the US, this type of Catholic is commonly called a "Feneeyite". Believe me, the idea of Religious Liberty is more revolting to me than it is to you.
The point is that the heretical novelty was not presented in the Council as a straightforward as many assume, but in an ambiguous, subtle, almost imperceptible manner. It is one of the tactics of the Nouvelle Théologie and it is related not to Modernism but to New-Modernism.
What actually happened was it was introduced on the last day of the council.
But the thought that the Pope could be heretical or simply stripped of authority was so far from anyone's mind, that they just went along with what the Pope said. It was a massive case of false obedience. I don't blame those bishops, I pity them. But the fact is that over 200 had a serious concern.
And rightly so, because Dignitatis Humanae is not really so subtle; it is brash. But it's brashness IS it's subtlety; How could any Pope approve this? They couldn't so, maybe I just don't really understand it properly. Combine that with peer pressure and the fact that the liberals were campaigning their agenda all along...
Although, I do take offense Cantarella at your assuming that you take this more seriously than I do. Simply because I accept Baptism of Desire as a teaching of the Ordinary Universal Magisterium, doesn't mean Baptism is unnecessary! It is ENTIRELY Necessary, and unless that is acknowledged, BOD doesn't work.
But that's a digression, not for this thread.
Dignitatis Humanae:
"This right of the human person to religious freedom is to be recognized in the constitutional law whereby society is governed and thus it is to become a civil right."
Quanta Cura:
"From which totally false idea of social government they do not fear to foster that erroneous opinion, most fatal in its effects on the Catholic Church and the salvation of souls, called by Our Predecessor, Gregory XVI, an "insanity,"2 viz., that "liberty of conscience and worship is each man's personal right, which ought to be legally proclaimed and asserted in every rightly constituted society; and that a right resides in the citizens to an absolute liberty, which should be restrained by no authority whether ecclesiastical or civil, whereby they may be able openly and publicly to manifest and declare any of their ideas whatever, either by word of mouth, by the press, or in any other way." But, while they rashly affirm this, they do not think and consider that they are preaching "liberty of perdition;"
Dignitatis Humanae:
"The social nature of man, however, itself requires that he should give external expression to his internal acts of religion: that he should share with others in matters religious; that he should profess his religion in community. Injury therefore is done to the human person and to the very order established by God for human life, if the free exercise of religion is denied in society, provided just public order is observed."
Mirari Vos:
"This shameful font of indifferentism gives rise to that absurd and erroneous proposition which claims that liberty of conscience must be maintained for everyone. It spreads ruin in sacred and civil affairs, though some repeat over and over again with the greatest impudence that some advantage accrues to religion from it. "But the death of the soul is worse than freedom of error," as Augustine was wont to say.[21] When all restraints are removed by which men are kept on the narrow path of truth, their nature, which is already inclined to evil, propels them to ruin."
There is no subtley here. This ALONE is enough to burn the docuмents of Vatican II, in toto in the center of St. Peter's square, as a single drop of poison corrupts an entire goblet of wine.
Cantarella, will you be one of those who tell us, "Just drink AROUND the poison!"
HOW??????????????????
No, the salt has lost its savor, and it is fit for nothing but to be trampled upon.
-
I responded to this question already in this Post (http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php?a=topic&t=38915&min=169&num=1) and offered my opinion as to why every book out there that I could ever find taught the same thing - that whatever the magisterium says or does, is automatically infallible - which is altogether wrong. Which is why I ask for papal or magisterial docuмents on the magisterium to compare to what all the theologians and books teach. To date, all the theologians and books teach something different than all the papal docuмents.
Stubborn,
Here you are admitting that all books you have ever found about the magisterium state that it is automatically infallible, and then state they are WRONG??? You've lost your mind brother - you sound just like Martin Luther.
I read your other post, and you need to stop and think what you are saying. The Catholic Church is made up of human beings; do you really expect hundreds of bishops to come to 100% unanimity when discussing a particular matter? They are human beings and are going to have different opinions. What matters is that they all submit to the final decision of the Church in the end - that's how infallibility is maintained. If one Bishop refuses to submit, he would be excommunicated, and again, infallibility would be maintained. This paragraph from the Catholic Encyclopedia explains it very well:
Catholic Encyclopedia (~1913), Science and the Church, The Holders of the Teaching Office:
(1) 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. The promise of Divine assistance provides for the integrity of doctrine "all days, even to the consummation of the world" (Matt., xxviii, 20). From the nature of the case it follows that individual bishops may fall into error, because ample provision is made when the entire teaching body of the Church and the supreme pastor in particular are protected by Providence. The "Ecclesia docens", as a whole, can never fall into error in matters of faith or morals, whether her teaching be the ordinary or the solemn; nor can the pope proclaim false doctrines in his capacity of supreme pastor of the universal Church. Without this prerogative, which is known by the name of Infallibility, the Divine promise of assistance would be a fallacy.
-
I responded to this question already in this Post (http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php?a=topic&t=38915&min=169&num=1) and offered my opinion as to why every book out there that I could ever find taught the same thing - that whatever the magisterium says or does, is automatically infallible - which is altogether wrong. Which is why I ask for papal or magisterial docuмents on the magisterium to compare to what all the theologians and books teach. To date, all the theologians and books teach something different than all the papal docuмents.
Stubborn,
Here you are admitting that all books you have ever found about the magisterium state that it is automatically infallible, and then state they are WRONG??? You've lost your mind brother - you sound just like Martin Luther.
I read your other post, and you need to stop and think what you are saying. The Catholic Church is made up of human beings; do you really expect hundreds of bishops to come to 100% unanimity when discussing a particular matter? They are human beings and are going to have different opinions. What matters is that they all submit to the final decision of the Church in the end - that's how infallibility is maintained. If one Bishop refuses to submit, he would be excommunicated, and again, infallibility would be maintained. This paragraph from the Catholic Encyclopedia explains it very well:
Catholic Encyclopedia (~1913), Science and the Church, The Holders of the Teaching Office:
(1) 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. The promise of Divine assistance provides for the integrity of doctrine "all days, even to the consummation of the world" (Matt., xxviii, 20). From the nature of the case it follows that individual bishops may fall into error, because ample provision is made when the entire teaching body of the Church and the supreme pastor in particular are protected by Providence. The "Ecclesia docens", as a whole, can never fall into error in matters of faith or morals, whether her teaching be the ordinary or the solemn; nor can the pope proclaim false doctrines in his capacity of supreme pastor of the universal Church. Without this prerogative, which is known by the name of Infallibility, the Divine promise of assistance would be a fallacy.
The sacred cow of Feeneyinsm is hard melting down. It is why everyone else is wrong: obsession with pet theology.
-
OK, 2200 Catholic Bishops were not paying attention....
Gregory I, you are missing the entire point:
I am a Catholic who is a strict believer in Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus whatsoever. Simply put, I am convinced that there are only validly water baptized Roman Catholics in Heaven. In the US, this type of Catholic is commonly called a "Feneeyite". Believe me, the idea of Religious Liberty is more revolting to me than it is to you.
The point is that the heretical novelty was not presented in the Council as a straightforward as many assume, but in an ambiguous, subtle, almost imperceptible manner. It is one of the tactics of the Nouvelle Théologie and it is related not to Modernism but to New-Modernism.
What actually happened was it was introduced on the last day of the council.
But the thought that the Pope could be heretical or simply stripped of authority was so far from anyone's mind, that they just went along with what the Pope said. It was a massive case of false obedience. I don't blame those bishops, I pity them. But the fact is that over 200 had a serious concern.
And rightly so, because Dignitatis Humanae is not really so subtle; it is brash. But it's brashness IS it's subtlety; How could any Pope approve this? They couldn't so, maybe I just don't really understand it properly. Combine that with peer pressure and the fact that the liberals were campaigning their agenda all along...
Although, I do take offense Cantarella at your assuming that you take this more seriously than I do. Simply because I accept Baptism of Desire as a teaching of the Ordinary Universal Magisterium, doesn't mean Baptism is unnecessary! It is ENTIRELY Necessary, and unless that is acknowledged, BOD doesn't work.
But that's a digression, not for this thread.
Dignitatis Humanae:
"This right of the human person to religious freedom is to be recognized in the constitutional law whereby society is governed and thus it is to become a civil right."
Quanta Cura:
"From which totally false idea of social government they do not fear to foster that erroneous opinion, most fatal in its effects on the Catholic Church and the salvation of souls, called by Our Predecessor, Gregory XVI, an "insanity,"2 viz., that "liberty of conscience and worship is each man's personal right, which ought to be legally proclaimed and asserted in every rightly constituted society; and that a right resides in the citizens to an absolute liberty, which should be restrained by no authority whether ecclesiastical or civil, whereby they may be able openly and publicly to manifest and declare any of their ideas whatever, either by word of mouth, by the press, or in any other way." But, while they rashly affirm this, they do not think and consider that they are preaching "liberty of perdition;"
Dignitatis Humanae:
"The social nature of man, however, itself requires that he should give external expression to his internal acts of religion: that he should share with others in matters religious; that he should profess his religion in community. Injury therefore is done to the human person and to the very order established by God for human life, if the free exercise of religion is denied in society, provided just public order is observed."
Mirari Vos:
"This shameful font of indifferentism gives rise to that absurd and erroneous proposition which claims that liberty of conscience must be maintained for everyone. It spreads ruin in sacred and civil affairs, though some repeat over and over again with the greatest impudence that some advantage accrues to religion from it. "But the death of the soul is worse than freedom of error," as Augustine was wont to say.[21] When all restraints are removed by which men are kept on the narrow path of truth, their nature, which is already inclined to evil, propels them to ruin."
There is no subtley here. This ALONE is enough to burn the docuмents of Vatican II, in toto in the center of St. Peter's square, as a single drop of poison corrupts an entire goblet of wine.
Cantarella, will you be one of those who tell us, "Just drink AROUND the poison!"
HOW??????????????????
No, the salt has lost its savor, and it is fit for nothing but to be trampled upon.
Not for anything the Thesis of Cassiciacuм gives an exact date the Pope was no longer being the recipient of Divine Assistance: December 7, 1965. This is, the day of the promulgation of "Dignitatis Humanae":
In the Thesis of Cassiciacuм, the absence of this Authority is not demonstrated, regardless of how justified this might be, from a theory, or from a doctrine about the nature of authority in general, but from the facts and from the givens of the Faith (i.e., specifically, as a result of the promulgation of the Vatican II docuмent "Dignitatis Humanae Personae" on December 7, 1965 which contradicts the constant Catholic teaching on religious liberty and the infallibility of the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium). It is especially to be noted that the various theories with regard to the question of a heretical pope ARE IN NO WAY INVOLVED in this demonstration.
-
OK, 2200 Catholic Bishops were not paying attention....
Gregory I, you are missing the entire point:
I am a Catholic who is a strict believer in Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus whatsoever. Simply put, I am convinced that there are only validly water baptized Roman Catholics in Heaven. In the US, this type of Catholic is commonly called a "Feneeyite". Believe me, the idea of Religious Liberty is more revolting to me than it is to you.
The point is that the heretical novelty was not presented in the Council as a straightforward as many assume, but in an ambiguous, subtle, almost imperceptible manner. It is one of the tactics of the Nouvelle Théologie and it is related not to Modernism but to New-Modernism.
What actually happened was it was introduced on the last day of the council.
But the thought that the Pope could be heretical or simply stripped of authority was so far from anyone's mind, that they just went along with what the Pope said. It was a massive case of false obedience. I don't blame those bishops, I pity them. But the fact is that over 200 had a serious concern.
And rightly so, because Dignitatis Humanae is not really so subtle; it is brash. But it's brashness IS it's subtlety; How could any Pope approve this? They couldn't so, maybe I just don't really understand it properly. Combine that with peer pressure and the fact that the liberals were campaigning their agenda all along...
Although, I do take offense Cantarella at your assuming that you take this more seriously than I do. Simply because I accept Baptism of Desire as a teaching of the Ordinary Universal Magisterium, doesn't mean Baptism is unnecessary! It is ENTIRELY Necessary, and unless that is acknowledged, BOD doesn't work.
But that's a digression, not for this thread.
Dignitatis Humanae:
"This right of the human person to religious freedom is to be recognized in the constitutional law whereby society is governed and thus it is to become a civil right."
Quanta Cura:
"From which totally false idea of social government they do not fear to foster that erroneous opinion, most fatal in its effects on the Catholic Church and the salvation of souls, called by Our Predecessor, Gregory XVI, an "insanity,"2 viz., that "liberty of conscience and worship is each man's personal right, which ought to be legally proclaimed and asserted in every rightly constituted society; and that a right resides in the citizens to an absolute liberty, which should be restrained by no authority whether ecclesiastical or civil, whereby they may be able openly and publicly to manifest and declare any of their ideas whatever, either by word of mouth, by the press, or in any other way." But, while they rashly affirm this, they do not think and consider that they are preaching "liberty of perdition;"
Dignitatis Humanae:
"The social nature of man, however, itself requires that he should give external expression to his internal acts of religion: that he should share with others in matters religious; that he should profess his religion in community. Injury therefore is done to the human person and to the very order established by God for human life, if the free exercise of religion is denied in society, provided just public order is observed."
Mirari Vos:
"This shameful font of indifferentism gives rise to that absurd and erroneous proposition which claims that liberty of conscience must be maintained for everyone. It spreads ruin in sacred and civil affairs, though some repeat over and over again with the greatest impudence that some advantage accrues to religion from it. "But the death of the soul is worse than freedom of error," as Augustine was wont to say.[21] When all restraints are removed by which men are kept on the narrow path of truth, their nature, which is already inclined to evil, propels them to ruin."
There is no subtley here. This ALONE is enough to burn the docuмents of Vatican II, in toto in the center of St. Peter's square, as a single drop of poison corrupts an entire goblet of wine.
Cantarella, will you be one of those who tell us, "Just drink AROUND the poison!"
HOW??????????????????
No, the salt has lost its savor, and it is fit for nothing but to be trampled upon.
Not for anything the Thesis of Cassiciacuм gives an exact date the Pope was no longer being the recipient of Divine Assistance: December 7, 1965. This is, the day of the promulgation of "Dignitatis Humanae":
In the Thesis of Cassiciacuм, the absence of this Authority is not demonstrated, regardless of how justified this might be, from a theory, or from a doctrine about the nature of authority in general, but from the facts and from the givens of the Faith (i.e., specifically, as a result of the promulgation of the Vatican II docuмent "Dignitatis Humanae Personae" on December 7, 1965 which contradicts the constant Catholic teaching on religious liberty and the infallibility of the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium). It is especially to be noted that the various theories with regard to the question of a heretical pope ARE IN NO WAY INVOLVED in this demonstration.
Yep, but it was also the day of the last session. It was closed the next day. I found another excellent work that outlines the Thesis and examines the major and minor premises and conclusions, explains how it works and answers objections. I find it very satisfactory.
http://www.mostholytrinityseminary.org/On%20Being%20a%20Pope%20Materially.pdf
Scroll down to page 18 and read from there. You may be pleasantly surprised by the structure and explanations. I found it intellectually satisfying myself.
-
I responded to this question already in this Post (http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php?a=topic&t=38915&min=169&num=1) and offered my opinion as to why every book out there that I could ever find taught the same thing - that whatever the magisterium says or does, is automatically infallible - which is altogether wrong. Which is why I ask for papal or magisterial docuмents on the magisterium to compare to what all the theologians and books teach. To date, all the theologians and books teach something different than all the papal docuмents.
Stubborn,
Here you are admitting that all books you have ever found about the magisterium state that it is automatically infallible, and then state they are WRONG??? You've lost your mind brother - you sound just like Martin Luther.
Here's you thinking I lost my mind, you also think I added words to the dogmatic decree. What words did I add? Please post the words I added which changed the meaning.
You're doing EXACTLY what the old poster Ambose did after he finally read what a Canon from Trent actually said. He accused me of heresy because he finally realized what the Canon taught - and like you, he thought I changed something, but I never changed one word. Because I never changed a word, he was guilty of accusing Trent of heresy. You are doing the same thing he did. I did not change one word.
I am saying that actual magisterial teachings on papal infallibility and the infallibility of the UOM, disagree with every teaching from any book's teachings I personally have ever read. Granted I never made it my mission to read every book ever written on the subject, but the few I have read cannot be reconciled with any magisterial teachings I've read.
I've asked those who say the magisterium is always infallible to produce magisterial teachings first, then theologian teachings second for the purpose of demonstrating the differences. The differences cannot be reconciled.
I ask you to do the same thing - stop posting from the encyclopedia and post from any magisterial docuмent as 2Vermont and BD did. *Then* go ahead and reconcile the Cekadian UOM with the Church's - so far, no one has been able to. All they've done so far is post the papal teachings, then try and convince us that they do not actually say what they say or mean what they say.
Infallibility is not something automatic. It is a promise from God applied to a teaching or teachings that are in the deposit of faith, handed to us via solemn pronouncements or through the teachings of the UOM.
If the UOM taught that no one in purgatory was sentenced to more than one day before being released into heaven, that teaching would necessarily be a revelation, a Divine Revelation of something belonging to the deposit of faith, something already established and would be dogmatically decreed. Without a dogmatic decree, for that teaching to be infallible it would be a teaching which was known to be taught by the Apostles and was a teaching of the UOM.
OTOH, if the magisterium which existed 200 years ago just decided to start teaching it, that in and of itself would not make it an infallible teaching, it would not be infallible by virtue of them teaching it, it would be error because it was not a teaching of the UOM, nor was it ever dogmatically decreed.
This is how it works. This is why PPXII and the other similar papal teachings posted here, make it clear what criteria is necessary to be infallible. They are not shy about making sure this is understood so that they can be sure that we are certain of what is infallible and what is not.
You've been taught that the magisterium cannot teach error and if they ever do then they lose their offices ipso facto - but the Church does not teach that, a few saints or fathers may have taught that, but those teachings are not teachings of the Church, any pope or the UOM.
The way you believe is the way you were taught, which is the same most were taught - which served it's purpose marvelously for the enemy because when it was time, they pretty much walked right in and took over because most people figured just like you - ie that whatever they did must be OK, because whatever they did was automatically infallible because of who they were.
I read your other post, and you need to stop and think what you are saying. The Catholic Church is made up of human beings; do you really expect hundreds of bishops to come to 100% unanimity when discussing a particular matter?
No, I personally do not expect 100%, but PPXII's "almost unanimous....prelates and the faithful" UOM means what it says clear enough, and because it is clear enough, we should be able to be absolutely certain that it does not mean "one or more bishops, theologians, saints, Canon Law, or Catechisms".
If you still disagree, then please do as I ask and post a magisterial teaching to demonstrate that in a papal teaching, the UOM means "one or more bishops, theologians, saints, Canon Law, or Catechisms." This is what I've been asking for.
If you can do this, then there will be no need to post anything from any encyclopedia or from any theologian - will there? So far, the magisterial teachings wholly disagree with you.
-
I responded to this question already in this Post (http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php?a=topic&t=38915&min=169&num=1) and offered my opinion as to why every book out there that I could ever find taught the same thing - that whatever the magisterium says or does, is automatically infallible - which is altogether wrong. Which is why I ask for papal or magisterial docuмents on the magisterium to compare to what all the theologians and books teach. To date, all the theologians and books teach something different than all the papal docuмents.
Stubborn,
Here you are admitting that all books you have ever found about the magisterium state that it is automatically infallible, and then state they are WRONG??? You've lost your mind brother - you sound just like Martin Luther.
I read your other post, and you need to stop and think what you are saying. The Catholic Church is made up of human beings; do you really expect hundreds of bishops to come to 100% unanimity when discussing a particular matter? They are human beings and are going to have different opinions. What matters is that they all submit to the final decision of the Church in the end - that's how infallibility is maintained. If one Bishop refuses to submit, he would be excommunicated, and again, infallibility would be maintained. This paragraph from the Catholic Encyclopedia explains it very well:
Catholic Encyclopedia (~1913), Science and the Church, The Holders of the Teaching Office:
(1) 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. The promise of Divine assistance provides for the integrity of doctrine "all days, even to the consummation of the world" (Matt., xxviii, 20). From the nature of the case it follows that individual bishops may fall into error, because ample provision is made when the entire teaching body of the Church and the supreme pastor in particular are protected by Providence. The "Ecclesia docens", as a whole, can never fall into error in matters of faith or morals, whether her teaching be the ordinary or the solemn; nor can the pope proclaim false doctrines in his capacity of supreme pastor of the universal Church. Without this prerogative, which is known by the name of Infallibility, the Divine promise of assistance would be a fallacy.
Yes, how does this work? All the great Catholic minds throughout the centuries agree that the Church is always infallible in matters of faith and morals. They have read and studied these same papal pronouncements and have come to this conclusion ....and yet Stubborn comes up with a different answer. It is much more likely that Stubborn has interpreted said papal pronouncements incorrectly.
-
I responded to this question already in this Post (http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php?a=topic&t=38915&min=169&num=1) and offered my opinion as to why every book out there that I could ever find taught the same thing - that whatever the magisterium says or does, is automatically infallible - which is altogether wrong. Which is why I ask for papal or magisterial docuмents on the magisterium to compare to what all the theologians and books teach. To date, all the theologians and books teach something different than all the papal docuмents.
Stubborn,
Here you are admitting that all books you have ever found about the magisterium state that it is automatically infallible, and then state they are WRONG??? You've lost your mind brother - you sound just like Martin Luther.
I read your other post, and you need to stop and think what you are saying. The Catholic Church is made up of human beings; do you really expect hundreds of bishops to come to 100% unanimity when discussing a particular matter? They are human beings and are going to have different opinions. What matters is that they all submit to the final decision of the Church in the end - that's how infallibility is maintained. If one Bishop refuses to submit, he would be excommunicated, and again, infallibility would be maintained. This paragraph from the Catholic Encyclopedia explains it very well:
Catholic Encyclopedia (~1913), Science and the Church, The Holders of the Teaching Office:
(1) 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. The promise of Divine assistance provides for the integrity of doctrine "all days, even to the consummation of the world" (Matt., xxviii, 20). From the nature of the case it follows that individual bishops may fall into error, because ample provision is made when the entire teaching body of the Church and the supreme pastor in particular are protected by Providence. The "Ecclesia docens", as a whole, can never fall into error in matters of faith or morals, whether her teaching be the ordinary or the solemn; nor can the pope proclaim false doctrines in his capacity of supreme pastor of the universal Church. Without this prerogative, which is known by the name of Infallibility, the Divine promise of assistance would be a fallacy.
The sacred cow of Feeneyinsm is hard melting down. It is why everyone else is wrong: obsession with pet theology.
Actually, it's the Empty Chair Syndrome prohibiting reading comprehension.
-
The previously published screed against sedevacantism, Sedevacantims: A False Solution to a Real Problem, was an merely an exercise of erecting straw men and mowing them down. The book largely refuted a definition of sedevacantism that virtually no one accepts.
I responded to that book in detail in this series:
Let's Hold a Conclave
http://www.dailycatholic.org/issue/09Jul/jul20str.htm
And Now, the Other Kind of Sedevacantist
http://www.dailycatholic.org/issue/09Oct/oct5str.htm
Is it Too Complicated?
http://www.dailycatholic.org/issue/09Oct/oct26str.htm
The Case of the Disappearing Disappearance
http://www.dailycatholic.org/issue/09Nov/nov3str.htm
The Screed of a Creed?
http://www.dailycatholic.org/issue/10Jan/jan11str.htm
Misrepresenting Billot
http://www.dailycatholic.org/issue/10Feb/feb1str.htm
Learning Curve, Interrupted
http://www.dailycatholic.org/issue/10Mar/mar1str.htm
Undoing the Double-Negative
http://www.dailycatholic.org/issue/10Apr/apr19str.htm
Authority by Default?
http://www.dailycatholic.org/issue/10Jul/jul19str.htm
Worthy of Consideration
http://www.dailycatholic.org/issue/10Sep/sep6str.htm
Spontaneous Sedevacantism?
http://www.dailycatholic.org/issue/10Nov/nov5str.htm
Man of Providence
http://www.dailycatholic.org/issue/10Nov/nov15str.htm
Fecundity and Sterility
http://www.dailycatholic.org/issue/10Nov/nov22str.htm
In Conclusion - A Real Solution To a False Problem
http://www.dailycatholic.org/issue/10Dec/dec6str.htm
I would have given you a like if it allowed me. I have liked you too much already. Keep your good work.
-
Stubborn,
Forgive me for pressing the issue, but I have become lost in the Magisterium discussion...
To clarify:
You believe, as I do, that the Magisterium of the Catholic Church is infallible - when certain conditions are met (Pope Leo XIII, etc.).
However, you believe that the Magisterium of the Catholic Church is fallible when certain conditions are not met.
Is this what you believe?
Good luck getting a straight answer!
-
So, it appears Siscoe and Salza slinked away from this thread. I saw Salza on for about 30 minutes the other day, shortly after all of our posts to them, but he left without posting. Hopefully they realize their book is not ready for printing and that they really need to test their theories in the real world before deciding to make public statements.
-
Stubborn,
Forgive me for pressing the issue, but I have become lost in the Magisterium discussion...
To clarify:
You believe, as I do, that the Magisterium of the Catholic Church is infallible - when certain conditions are met (Pope Leo XIII, etc.).
However, you believe that the Magisterium of the Catholic Church is fallible when certain conditions are not met.
Is this what you believe?
Yes.
-
I've asked those who say the magisterium is always infallible to produce magisterial teachings first, then theologian teachings second for the purpose of demonstrating the differences. The differences cannot be reconciled.
I ask you to do the same thing - stop posting from the encyclopedia and post from any magisterial docuмent as 2Vermont and BD did. *Then* go ahead and reconcile the Cekadian UOM with the Church's - so far, no one has been able to. All they've done so far is post the papal teachings, then try and convince us that they do not actually say what they say or mean what they say.
Stubborn,
As you've asked for, below I am providing a list of quotes from the Church on the infallibility of the ordinary magisterium and the solemn magisterium (Cantarella, Mr Salza, and Mr Siscoe take note). This list contains quotes from a General Council, Canon law, A Commentary on Canon Law, papal letters and encyclicals, the Catholic Encyclopedia, A Catholic Dictionary, and The Catechism Explained. All of these sources contain imprimatur.
As for your complaints about using quotes from the Catholic Encyclopedia, you should be reminded that if you look in its preface, it clearly states that it was compiled by over 1500 bishops, priests, professors and authors from all over the world, and it of course contains imprimatur. It is an extremely trustworthy resource in the Church.
As you read through these quotes, take note that they are unanimous in stating that the magisterium of the Church teaches in two ways; ordinarily and solemnly, both of which are infallible at all times:
First Vatican Council (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 judgment or in its ordinary and universal teaching office, as divinely revealed truths which must be believed."
Canon Law 1323 (1917):
1. All of those things are to be believed with a divine and Catholic faith that are contained in the written word of God or in tradition and that the Church proposes as worthy of belief, as divinely revealed, whether by solemn judgment or by her ordinary and universal magisterium.
Commentary On Canon Law, Augustine (imprimatur, 1918) Canon 1323:
§ 1. All those truths which are contained in the written word of God, or in tradition, and proposed to our belief as divinely revealed either by a solemn proclamation or by the ordinary and universal magisterium of the Church must be believed by Divine and Catholic faith.
§ 2. To pronounce a solemn judgment of this kind appertains either to a general Council or to the Roman Pontiff speaking ex cathedra.
§ 3. Nothing is to be taken as dogmatically declared or defined, unless it is manifestly known to be such.
The material object of faith (objectum materialc fidci), or that which is to be believed, is contained either in Holy Writ, as accepted by the Church, or in tradition, as preserved by the Church. However, as Holy Writ itself, without the acceptance of the Church, would be merely a material or indifferent book — though perhaps sacred on account of its venerable age and contents—so tradition would lack sacred character and obligation but for the infallible judgment of the Church. This infallible judgment is embodied in the teaching office of the Church, and constitutes a special prerogative granted to the Church by Christ, in virtue of which she cannot deceive nor be deceived in matters of faith and morals.
Our text distinguishes a solemn ex cathedra judgment and the ordinary magisterium of the Church. But there is no intrinsic difference between the two, as they derive from the same source, vis., the divine promise and providence, and have the same object and purpose. The object is faith and morals; the purpose, to protect the faithful from error.
**
The ordinary and universal teaching body of the Church consists of the pastors together with their head, the Roman Pontiff, no matter where the former are found, whether scattered over the globe, or sitting united in St. Peter's Dome. This is called the active subject of the infallible magisterium (subicctum activae infallibilitatis). To this teaching body corresponds the believing body of the faithful, which latter, however, being the subiectutn passivae infallibilitatis, cannot be separated from the teaching body or be opposed to it. For the teaching office or authority is the cause of the infallibility of the Church, and both bodies are one in the same faith.
There is, however, a distinction, though not quite adequate, between the teaching office of the Sovereign Pontiff alone, and the body of teachers or the teaching Church united to its head, i. e., the Pontiff. Without the latter, or, worse still, in opposition to the latter, there can be no teaching body, whilst the authority of infallible teacher is embodied in the Roman Pontiff alone. Both the Pontiff sole and the body of teachers united with him, enjoy the power of teaching infallibly.
The universal and ordinary magisterium " consists of the entire episcopate, according to the constitution and order defined by Christ, i. e., all the bishops of the universal Church,— dependently on the Roman Pontiff. Priests and deacons do not, ittre d'wino, belong to the hierarchy of jurisdiction, and therefore, are not, properly speaking, judges in matters of faith and morals, nor can they be, hire ordinario, bearers of infallible teaching. However, they exercise a certain teaching authority by divine right, inasmuch, namely, as they are helpers and co-workers of the bishops, from whom they receive delegated mission, and preach and testify to the faith preached and expounded by the episcopate. They, too, in a wider sense partake of the assistance of the Holy Ghost.
This teaching authority, then, proposes what must be believed by divine and Catholic faith. It is indeed true that what God has revealed may and must be believed with divine faith* and that what the Church proposes as part of divine Revelation, may and must be believed with divine and Catholic faith, or, shortly, with Catholic faith. But the material object of divine faith comprises more than the object of Catholic faith, and besides there is something in Catholic faith which is not so clearly expressed or conspicuous in divine faith. For the former is offered by the living word of the Church with a precision and determination that leaves no doubt as to the supernatural origin and medium through which it is conveyed. This Catholic faith then commands our assent and obedience to the full extent of a childlike belief, but from the motive of divine veracity and truth.
The term proposed means not merely an official or authentic formulation of a given object or article, but an authoritative promulgation of a law or rule contained in revelation, commanding our full interior and exterior assent.
§ 2 defines, according to Vatican Council, the solemn judgment of the Church in contradistinction to her ordinary and universal magisterium, not as if the office of the Supreme Pontiff were extraordinary, in the strict sense, but because this means of proposing an infallible truth is uncommon. Such a solemn pronunciamento or proclamation may be made either by a general council or by the Pope. That a council cannot be ecuмenical without the head, is evident, as explained in our Vol. II, where the other requisites are also discussed.
The Pope alone, after having been duly elected and having accepted the election, is the lawful head of the Church, and, in virtue of his primacy of jurisdiction, is the supreme pastor and teacher of the whole Church, as the Vatican Council has defined. As such he may define, or issue decrees on, points of faith and morals, binding the whole Church. His decisions do not receive their obligatory force from the consent of the Church, as the Gallicans asserted, but embrace the whole extent of the object of the infallibility inherent in the teaching Church. The term ex cathedra means: (a) that the Pope proclaims a dogma as the supreme teacher and pastor of the Church; (b) that it be a matter of faith and morals, not of history or politics disconnected with the former; (c) that he pronounce an authoritative and final sentence with the manifest intention of obliging (d) the entire Church, i. e.t all individuals as well as the whole body of the faithful.
However, as § 3 intimates, there may be doubt as to what is declared or defined either by the universal teaching Church or by means of papal ex cathedra definitions. Therefore the theologians have laid down certain rules, which we will briefly restate.
a) What has been solemnly defined, either by a general council or by the Supreme Pontiff, is certainly de fide; but not all the historical or theological assertions which accompany a papal decision (for instance, the Bull "Ineffabilis ") are de fide.
b) What is clearly and undoubtedly contained in Holy Scripture and Tradition as a matter of faith or morals, must be believed, although individual errors are not entirely excluded;
c) What the universal and approved practice and discipline proposes as connected with faith and morals must also be believed ("Lex orandi, lex credendi").
d) What the Holy Fathers and the theologians hold unanimously as a matter of faith and morals, is also de fide.
There may be some doubt as to the form of infallible decisions. A test for genuine ex cathedra definitions has been found in the following formulas: (1) if those who assert the contrary are declared heretics; (2) if the terms "si quis" is used with "anathema" following; (3) if it is declared that the doctrine in question must be firmly believed by all the faithful as a dogma.
If after the application of these rules a solid doubt remains, the utterance is not infallibly binding, as is evident from our text.
Pope Pius IX in his Letter to Archbishop Scherr of Munich in 1863:
"We desire to reassure ourselves that they did not mean to limit the obligation, which strictly binds Catholic teachers and writers, to those things only which are proposed by the infallible judgment of the Church as dogmas of faith to be believed by everybody. In a like manner, We are convinced that it was not their intention to state that the perfect adherence to revealed truths (which they regard as absolutely necessary for true progress in science and for refuting errors) can be maintained, if the submission of faith is given only to those dogmas expressly defined by the Church. The reason for this is the following: even supposing that we are treating of that subjection which is to be made by an explicit act of divine faith, this must not be limited to those things which have been defined in the express decrees of the ecuмenical councils or of the Roman Pontiffs of this See; but it must also be extended to those things which, through the ordinary teaching of the whole Church throughout the world, are proposed as divinely revealed and, as a result, by universal and constant consent of Catholic theologians are held to be matters of faith. "
Pope Leo XIII, Providentissimus Deus, On the Study of Holy Scripture, Nov 18, 1893:
Wherefore the first and dearest object of the Catholic commentator should be to interpret those passages which have received an authentic interpretation either from the sacred writers themselves, under the inspiration of the Holy Ghost (as in many places of the New Testament), or from the Church, under the assistance of the same Holy Spirit, whether by her solemn judgment or her ordinary and universal magisterium
Pope Leo XIII, Encyclical On the Church in Scotland, 1898
"But as the Church was to last to the end of time, something more was required besides the bestowal of the Sacred Scriptures. It was obviously necessary that the Divine Founder should take every precaution, lest the treasure of heavenly-given truths, possessed by the Church, should ever be destroyed, which would assuredly have happened, had He left those doctrines to each one's private judgment. It stands to reason, therefore, that a living, perpetual "magisterium" was necessary in the Church from the beginning, which, by the command of Christ himself, should besides teaching other wholesome doctrines, give an authoritative explanation of Holy Writ, and which being directed and safeguarded by Christ himself, could by no means commit itself to erroneous teaching"
Pope Pius XII, Humani Generis, 1950 (Denz 2313):
It is not to be thought that what is set down in Encyclical Letters does not demand assent in itself, because in this the popes do not exercise the supreme power of their magisterium. For these matters are taught by the ordinary magisterium, regarding which the following is pertinent: "He who heareth you, heareth me." [Luke 10:16]; and usually what is set forth and inculcated in the Encyclical Letters, already pertains to Catholic doctrine. But if the Supreme Pontiffs in their acts, after due consideration, express an opinion on a hitherto controversial matter, it is clear to all that this matter, according to the mind and will of the same Pontiffs, cannot any longer be considered a question of free discussion among the theologians.
Pope Pius XII, Defining the Dogma of the Assumption, Munificentissimus Deus, Nov 1, 1950:
"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."
“Certainly this teaching authority of the Church, not by any merely human effort but under the protection of the Spirit of Truth,[7] 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.”
Catholic Encyclopedia (~1913), Science and the Church, The Holders of the Teaching Office:
(1) 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. The promise of Divine assistance provides for the integrity of doctrine "all days, even to the consummation of the world" (Matt., xxviii, 20). From the nature of the case it follows that individual bishops may fall into error, because ample provision is made when the entire teaching body of the Church and the supreme pastor in particular are protected by Providence. The "Ecclesia docens", as a whole, can never fall into error in matters of faith or morals, whether her teaching be the ordinary or the solemn; nor can the pope proclaim false doctrines in his capacity of supreme pastor of the universal Church. Without this prerogative, which is known by the name of Infallibility, the Divine promise of assistance would be a fallacy.
Catholic Encyclopedia (~1913), Dogma:
But according to a long-standing usage a dogma is now understood to be a truth appertaining to faith or morals, revealed by God, transmitted from the Apostles in the Scriptures or by tradition, and proposed by the Church for the acceptance of the faithful. It might be described briefly as a revealed truth defined by the Church -- but private revelations do not constitute dogmas, and some theologians confine the word defined to doctrines solemnly defined by the pope or by a general council, while a revealed truth becomes a dogma even when proposed by the Church through her ordinary magisterium or teaching office. A dogma therefore implies a twofold relation: to Divine revelation and to the authoritative teaching of the Church.
"...some theologians confine the word defined to doctrines solemnly defined by the pope or by a general council, while a revealed truth becomes a dogma even when proposed by the Church through her ordinary magisterium or teaching office”
Catholic Encyclopedia (~1913), Infallibility:
Mutual Relations of the Organs of Infallibility
A few brief remarks under this head will serve to make the Catholic conception of ecclesiastical infallibility still clearer. Three organs have been mentioned:
1. the bishops dispersed throughout the world in union with the Holy See;
2. ecuмenical councils under the headship of the pope; and
3. the pope himself separately.
Through the first of these is exercised what theologians describe as the ordinarium magisterium, i. e. the common or everyday teaching authority of the Church; through the second and third the magisterium solemne, or undeniably definitive authority. Practically speaking, at the present day, and for many centuries in the past, only the decisions of ecuмenical councils and the ex cathedra teaching of the pope have been treated as strictly definitive in the canonical sense, and the function of the magisterium ordinarium has been concerned with the effective promulgation and maintenance of what has been formally defined by the magisterium solemne or may be legitimately deduced from its definitions.
Even the ordinarium magisterium is not independent of the pope. In other words, it is only bishops who are in corporate union with the pope, the Divinely constituted head and centre of Christ's mystical body, the one true Church, who have any claim to share in the charisma by which the infallibility of their morally unanimous teaching is divinely guaranteed according to the terms of Christ's promises.
A Catholic Dictionary (imprimatur, 1931-1957), Infallibility:
"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."
A Catholic Dictionary (imprimatur, 1931-1957), Magisterium:
“The Church's divinely appointed authority to teach the truths of religion…This teaching is infallible. The solemn magisterium is that which is exercised only rarely by formal and authentic definitions of councils or Popes... The ordinary magisterium is continually exercised by the Church especially in her universal practices connected with faith and morals, in the unanimous consent of the Fathers and theologians, in the decisions of the Roman Congregations concerning faith and morals, in the common sense of the Faithful, and various historical docuмents, in which the faith is declared. All these are founts of a teaching which as a whole is infallible...”
The Catechism Explained (imprimatur, 1899) Page 237: The Infallibility of the Church
As Christ was not to remain always on earth, He appointed another infallible teacher, His Church, and provided it with the necessary gifts, especially with the assistance of the Holy Spirit. Christ conferred on His apostles and their successors the teaching office and promised them His divine assistance. Thus He said at His ascension into heaven: "Going, teach ye all nations . . . and behold I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world" (Matt, xxviii. 19, 20) ; and at the Last Supper: "I will ask the Father and He shall give you another Paraclete that He may abide with you forever, the Spirit of truth"; (John xiv. 16, 17). To St. Peter He said: "The gates of hell shall not prevail against the Church" (Matt. xvi. 18). Since Christ is the Son of God, His words must be true. If the Church, in the carrying out of her teaching office, could lead man into error, Christ would not have kept His word. Hence St. Paul calls the Church "the pillar and ground of truth" (1 Tim. iii. 15), and the measures decided upon by the apostles in the Council of Jerusalem were introduced with the words: "For it hath seemed good to the Holy Ghost and to us" (Acts xv. 28).
Page 239:
Nor was this solemn declaration (of the Immaculate Conception in 1854) necessary; it was quite sufficient that all the bishops should teach in the same sense in regard of any given subject to make that teaching infallible; were it otherwise the Church would be capable of teaching heresy, or of falling away from the truth. Hence the Vatican Council declared that not only must that be accepted which has been solemnly defined by the Church, but also whatever is proposed by the lawful and general teaching authority (Vatican Council, 3, 3).
-
Stubborn,
Forgive me for pressing the issue, but I have become lost in the Magisterium discussion...
To clarify:
You believe, as I do, that the Magisterium of the Catholic Church is infallible - when certain conditions are met (Pope Leo XIII, etc.).
However, you believe that the Magisterium of the Catholic Church is fallible when certain conditions are not met.
Is this what you believe?
Yes.
Thank you for clarifying that for me.
Now, moving on....
Do you believe that there are different "levels" of the Magisterium?
Yes.
Do you believe the living magisterium from say, 500 years ago could make any teaching at all an infallible teaching by virtue of them all teaching it?
-
You believe, as I do, that the Magisterium of the Catholic Church is infallible - when certain conditions are met (Pope Leo XIII, etc.).
However, you believe that the Magisterium of the Catholic Church is fallible when certain conditions are not met.
You're completely fabricating your own Catholicism making such statements. Nowhere does the Church teach that there are exceptions to the infallibility of the magisterium. Nowhere. People in this forum love to say it because it helps them justify the errors of Vatican II, but it is complete nonsense.
I will ask again where you think the Church has ever taught there are exceptions to the infallibility of the magisterium, but no matter how many times this is asked, no one ever responds. No one responds because the Church never taught it. Go look at the list of quotes just posted about the magisterium.
There is no such thing as a General Council that teaches error. But there IS such a thing as a General Council that is illegitimate. There have been many illegitimate Councils throughout the history of the Church and Catholics need to start realizing this is the only logical explanation for Vatican II.
-
I've asked those who say the magisterium is always infallible to produce magisterial teachings first, then theologian teachings second for the purpose of demonstrating the differences. The differences cannot be reconciled.
I ask you to do the same thing
I have long ago asked you the same basic question of you and you refused to answer it under the plea that it was immature and not topical to the thread. Why the double standard?
I quoted the Vatican Council saying that Catholics believe with "divine and Catholic faith" not only solemn teaching but teaching that is not solemn. I asked to you list things that YOU believe with the same faith that were never solemenly taught.
This is perfectly topical and always was, which is why you yourself are basically asking the same of others now. It is precisely a question about the UOM and you keep refusing to answer it. The Pharisees answered not a word, and we all know what that meant...that they couldn't.
-
I've asked those who say the magisterium is always infallible to produce magisterial teachings first, then theologian teachings second for the purpose of demonstrating the differences. The differences cannot be reconciled.
I ask you to do the same thing - stop posting from the encyclopedia and post from any magisterial docuмent as 2Vermont and BD did. *Then* go ahead and reconcile the Cekadian UOM with the Church's - so far, no one has been able to. All they've done so far is post the papal teachings, then try and convince us that they do not actually say what they say or mean what they say.
Stubborn,
As you've asked for, below I am providing a list of quotes from the Church on the infallibility of the ordinary magisterium and the solemn magisterium (Cantarella, Mr Salza, and Mr Siscoe take note). This list contains quotes from a General Council, Canon law, A Commentary on Canon Law, papal letters and encyclicals, the Catholic Encyclopedia, A Catholic Dictionary, and The Catechism Explained. All of these sources contain imprimatur.
I just lost my reply as I was logged out when I hit reply, so here is the condensed version anyway....
Out of all the quotes, there is one quote I found that disagrees with all the rest, it is from the catechism;
"Nor was this solemn declaration (of the Immaculate Conception in 1854) necessary; it was quite sufficient that all the bishops since the time of the apostles should teach in the same sense in regard of any given subject to make that teaching infallible; were it otherwise the Church would be capable of teaching heresy, or of falling away from the truth. Hence the Vatican Council declared that not only must that be accepted which has been solemnly defined by the Church, but also whatever is proposed by the lawful and general teaching authority which are contained in the written Word of God or in Tradition.
The quote from the catechism (I bolded) disagrees with all the other quotes by stating the half truth that whatever the bishops teach is made infallible. I made it agree with the decrees and other teachings with my edit in blue.
It seems this quote in bold is what nearly everyone believes, regardless of what the decrees and all your other quotes actually teach.
-
Do you believe that there are different "levels" of the Magisterium?
Yes.
Do you believe the living magisterium from say, 500 years ago could make any teaching at all an infallible teaching by virtue of them all teaching it?
No.
What are the different "levels" of the Magisterium?
I thought we already discussed this somewhere.....
The Ordinary Magisterium
Extraordinary Magisterium
What is it with the 20 questions anyway?
Can we say the Ordinary Magisterium is the living Magisterium, that is the magisterium alive today, and the Ordinary Universal Magisterium is all the ordinary magisterium in union with the pope from the time of the Apostles till today? It is the UOM's teachings that are infallible.
-
I've asked those who say the magisterium is always infallible to produce magisterial teachings first, then theologian teachings second for the purpose of demonstrating the differences. The differences cannot be reconciled.
I ask you to do the same thing
I have long ago asked you the same basic question of you and you refused to answer it under the plea that it was immature and not topical to the thread. Why the double standard?
I quoted the Vatican Council saying that Catholics believe with "divine and Catholic faith" not only solemn teaching but teaching that is not solemn. I asked to you list things that YOU believe with the same faith that were never solemenly taught.
This is perfectly topical and always was, which is why you yourself are basically asking the same of others now. It is precisely a question about the UOM and you keep refusing to answer it. The Pharisees answered not a word, and we all know what that meant...that they couldn't.
I told you I would reply when you answered my question - you said you would but for whatever reason haven't.
I will give you some I do not know if they were ever solemnly defined or not - after you do what you said you would do.
-
You believe, as I do, that the Magisterium of the Catholic Church is infallible - when certain conditions are met (Pope Leo XIII, etc.).
However, you believe that the Magisterium of the Catholic Church is fallible when certain conditions are not met.
You're completely fabricating your own Catholicism making such statements. Nowhere does the Church teach that there are exceptions to the infallibility of the magisterium. Nowhere. People in this forum love to say it because it helps them justify the errors of Vatican II, but it is complete nonsense.
I will ask again where you think the Church has ever taught there are exceptions to the infallibility of the magisterium, but no matter how many times this is asked, no one ever responds. No one responds because the Church never taught it. Go look at the list of quotes just posted about the magisterium.
There is no such thing as a General Council that teaches error. But there IS such a thing as a General Council that is illegitimate. There have been many illegitimate Councils throughout the history of the Church and Catholics need to start realizing this is the only logical explanation for Vatican II.
No one is arguing about there being any exceptions to infallibility. It is the criteria, the requirements necessary for infallibility which you say do not exist - even though the criteria has been repeatedly pointed out to you and you yourself even posted them from what, like 10 different sources all, except the one that I pointed out, giving the same criteria?
-
Do you believe that there are different "levels" of the Magisterium?
Yes.
Do you believe the living magisterium from say, 500 years ago could make any teaching at all an infallible teaching by virtue of them all teaching it?
No.
What are the different "levels" of the Magisterium?
I thought we already discussed this somewhere.....
The Ordinary Magisterium
Extraordinary Magisterium
What is it with the 20 questions anyway?
Can we say the Ordinary Magisterium is the living Magisterium, that is the magisterium alive today, and the Ordinary Universal Magisterium is all the ordinary magisterium in union with the pope from the time of the Apostles till today? It is the UOM's teachings that are infallible.
I wanted to get some clarification from you so I understand your position more accurately.
To be clear, there are no such "levels" of the Magisterium.
There is ONE teaching authority of the Catholic Church and instructs the faithful by TWO means:
Extraordinary
Ordinary
When the Magisterium teaches the faithful, it cannot err - it's that simple.
But I just asked you:
Do you believe the living magisterium from say, 500 years ago could make any teaching at all an infallible teaching by virtue of them all teaching it?
No.
What made you change your mind?
I'd also like to know, where in all the decrees do you read that? It's not in any papal decree, but if it is, please post it so we can pit infallible decrees against each other. The only place that teaching is to be found, out of everything Paul posted, was in the catechism - and the catechism is wrong.
The Magisterium does not introduce "new" doctrine to the faithful, it merely defines doctrine when necessary, or it repeats what has always been taught and known throughout the Church - that's it.
How on earth is it possible for the Magisterium to err when it's sole purpose is to guard, protect, and pass on to the faithful the Sacred Deposit of Faith?
Wasn't it you - or maybe it was Paul admitted that the Bishops are human, certainly you agree that humans err, even in groups of 1500 they err.
And it is possible for the Magisterium to err when they venture from their purpose and come up with non-binding, non-infallible teachings that people accept as binding and infallible because they were taught to believe that whatever the Magisterium say is automatically infallible.
-
I've asked those who say the magisterium is always infallible to produce magisterial teachings first, then theologian teachings second for the purpose of demonstrating the differences. The differences cannot be reconciled.
I ask you to do the same thing
I have long ago asked you the same basic question of you and you refused to answer it under the plea that it was immature and not topical to the thread. Why the double standard?
I quoted the Vatican Council saying that Catholics believe with "divine and Catholic faith" not only solemn teaching but teaching that is not solemn. I asked to you list things that YOU believe with the same faith that were never solemenly taught.
This is perfectly topical and always was, which is why you yourself are basically asking the same of others now. It is precisely a question about the UOM and you keep refusing to answer it. The Pharisees answered not a word, and we all know what that meant...that they couldn't.
I told you I would reply when you answered my question - you said you would but for whatever reason haven't.
I will give you some I do not know if they were ever solemnly defined or not - after you do what you said you would do.
I was just showing here how you have a double standard.
I agreed to start another thread to ask my same question. I didn't agree to answer your question first, because I asked my question first.
-
You believe, as I do, that the Magisterium of the Catholic Church is infallible - when certain conditions are met (Pope Leo XIII, etc.).
However, you believe that the Magisterium of the Catholic Church is fallible when certain conditions are not met.
You're completely fabricating your own Catholicism making such statements. Nowhere does the Church teach that there are exceptions to the infallibility of the magisterium. Nowhere. People in this forum love to say it because it helps them justify the errors of Vatican II, but it is complete nonsense.
I will ask again where you think the Church has ever taught there are exceptions to the infallibility of the magisterium, but no matter how many times this is asked, no one ever responds. No one responds because the Church never taught it. Go look at the list of quotes just posted about the magisterium.
There is no such thing as a General Council that teaches error. But there IS such a thing as a General Council that is illegitimate. There have been many illegitimate Councils throughout the history of the Church and Catholics need to start realizing this is the only logical explanation for Vatican II.
Here is a screenshot referent to the 1917 Code of Canon Law about the Teaching Authority of the Church. The relevant part is 1166. In particular, this statement:
No part of the religious teaching is to be understood as dogmatically declared and defined, unless such a is clearly known to have been made (Canon 1323)
A teaching is not infallible unless it meets the conditions for infallibility. As simple as that. The confusion resides in the assumption that a fallible teaching, is necessarily an error, which is not so either.
This resource has the magic date of 1918, which alone is enough for the sedevacantist to be good.
Do you see any significant difference between the 1918 source and the current Code of Canon Law link I presented to you before, which you dismissed just for not being pre Vatican II?.
http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__P2H.HTM
These are the relevant canons:
Can. 749 §1. By virtue of his office, the Supreme Pontiff possesses infallibility in teaching when as the supreme pastor and teacher of all the Christian faithful, who strengthens his brothers and sisters in the faith, he proclaims by definitive act that a doctrine of faith or morals is to be held.
§2. The college of bishops also possesses infallibility in teaching when the bishops gathered together in an ecuмenical council exercise the magisterium as teachers and judges of faith and morals who declare for the universal Church that a doctrine of faith or morals is to be held definitively; or when dispersed throughout the world but preserving the bond of communion among themselves and with the successor of Peter and teaching authentically together with the Roman Pontiff matters of faith or morals, they agree that a particular proposition is to be held definitively.
§3. No doctrine is understood as defined infallibly unless this is manifestly evident.
Can. 750 §1. A person must believe with divine and Catholic faith all those things contained in the word of God, written or handed on, that is, in the one deposit of faith entrusted to the Church, and at the same time proposed as divinely revealed either by the solemn magisterium of the Church or by its ordinary and universal magisterium which is manifested by the common adherence of the Christian faithful under the leadership of the sacred magisterium; therefore all are bound to avoid any doctrines whatsoever contrary to them.
§2. Each and every thing which is proposed definitively by the magisterium of the Church concerning the doctrine of faith and morals, that is, each and every thing which is required to safeguard reverently and to expound faithfully the same deposit of faith, is also to be firm-ly embraced and retained; therefore, one who rejects those propositions which are to be held definitively is opposed to the doctrine of the Catholic Church.
-
I think with the passing of each new day under Pope Francis, more and more Catholics the world over are googling "Sedevacantism".
-
Here is a screenshot referent to the 1917 Code of Canon Law about the Teaching Authority of the Church. The relevant part is 1166. In particular, this statement:
No part of the religious teaching is to be understood as dogmatically declared and defined, unless such a is clearly known to have been made (Canon 1323)
A teaching is not infallible unless it meets the conditions for infallibility. As simple as that. The confusion resides in the assumption that a fallible teaching, is necessarily an error, which is not so either.
Cantarella,
You don't seem to understand the subject we are discussing here. The above quote is referring to a solemn declaration from the solemn magisterium and is perfectly legitimate. That particular statement is not referring to the ordinary magisterium.
Maybe a real world example will help clarify how this all works. For the first 3 centuries after Christ, the entire Catholic world learned their faith through the ordinary magisterium (the continuous, unanimous teaching among the Pope, all the bishops, and anyone helping them). There had been no solemn teaching (solemn magisterium) yet. During those 3 centuries, Catholics learned about the divinity of Christ, which was taught unanimously across all bishops. All the bishops knew well about the promise that the Church could not possibly teach error, so they knew the doctrine on the divinity of Christ was true without a doubt, having been taught unanimously between all of them without the Holy Ghost preventing it. This is the infallible ordinary magisterium in progress.
When Arius started teaching contrary to the other bishops on the divinity of Christ, the other bishops tried to correct him, knowing with absolute certainty he was wrong based on what I just said above, even though there had been no solemn teaching yet. When Arius refused to correct his belief, the bishops circulated a letter saying he was guilty of teaching heretically against the continuous teaching of the Church (the ordinary magisterium). When Arius still refused to teach in unison with the other bishops, they called the Council of Nicaea and condemned him as a heretic, and at the same time solemnly defined the doctrine on the divinity of Christ so no one would make the same mistake in the future. This was the first time the Church had used the solemn magisterium - a full 3 centuries after Christ). After this, the infallible ordinary magisterium continued on its way. At this point, the doctrine on the divinity of Christ was now basically the only teaching of both the ordinary magisterium and the solemn magisterium.
Since then, the solemn magisterium has only been called to form a General Council 20 times in 2000 years, and each time it was simply to clarify a teaching of the ordinary magisterium that was being attacked at the time. Catholics historically have always learned their faith through the ordinary magisterium, which is guaranteed infallible. The infallible solemn magisterium steps in only in rare cases, like a referee would, to clarify and straighten out problems. Once the referee has done his job, the ordinary magisterium resumes day-to-day infallible teaching. Hopefully that helps clarify how the ordinary and the solemn magisterium work together to form one, continuous infallible teaching of the Church.
-
Since then, the solemn magisterium has only been called to form a General Council 20 times in 2000 years, and each time it was simply to clarify a teaching of the ordinary magisterium that was being attacked at the time. Catholics historically have always learned their faith through the ordinary magisterium, which is guaranteed infallible. The infallible solemn magisterium steps in only in rare cases, like a referee would, to clarify and straighten out problems. Once the referee has done his job, the ordinary magisterium resumes day-to-day infallible teaching. Hopefully that helps clarify how the ordinary and the solemn magisterium work together to form one, continuous infallible teaching of the Church.
No, the 1917 Catholic Encyclopedia is very explicit when it teaches that the Ordinary Magisterium (Magisterium Ordinarium), is liable to be somewhat indefinite in its pronouncements and, as a consequence, practically ineffective as an organ of Infallibility:
As regards matter, only doctrines of faith and morals, and facts so intimately connected with these as to require infallible determination, fall under the scope of infallible ecclesiastical teaching. These doctrines or facts need not necessarily be revealed; it is enough if the revealed deposit cannot be adequately and effectively guarded and explained, unless they are infallibly determined.
As to the organ of authority by which such doctrines or facts are determined, three possible organs exist. One of these, the Magisterium Ordinarium, is liable to be somewhat indefinite in its pronouncements and, as a consequence, practically ineffective as an organ. The other two, however, are adequately efficient organs, and when they definitively decide any question of faith or morals that may arise, no believer who pays due attention to Christ's promises can consistently refuse to assent with absolute and irrevocable certainty to their teaching.
But before being bound to give such an assent, the believer has a right to be certain that the teaching in question is definitive (since only definitive teaching is infallible); and the means by which the definitive intention, whether of a council or of the pope, may be recognized have been stated above. It need only be added here that not everything in a conciliar or papal pronouncement, in which some doctrine is defined, is to be treated as definitive and infallible. For example, in the lengthy Bull of Pius IX defining the Immaculate Conception the strictly definitive and infallible portion is comprised in a sentence or two; and the same is true in many cases in regard to conciliar decisions. The merely argumentative and justificatory statements embodied in definitive judgments, however true and authoritative they may be, are not covered by the guarantee of infallibility which attaches to the strictly definitive sentences — unless, indeed, their infallibility has been previously or subsequently established by an independent decision.
-
When the Magisterium teaches the faithful, it cannot err - it's that simple.
Bellator Dei,
Would you not agree that the Magisterium made an objective mistake in the Letter of the Holy Office of 1949 when it taught that "Therefore, that one may obtain eternal salvation, it is not always required that he be incorporated into the Church actually as a member, but it is necessary that at least he be united to her by desire and longing...
However, this desire need not always be explicit, as it is in catechumens; but when a person is involved in invincible ignorance God accepts also an implicit desire, so called because it is included in that good disposition of soul whereby a person wishes his will to be conformed to the will of God."
This error was actually carried over the Vatican II Council docuмents, specifically, in Lumen Gentium 16:
"'Those also can attain to everlasting life who through no fault of their own do not know the gospel of Christ or His Church, yet sincerely seek God, and moved by grace strive by their deeds to do His will as it is known to them through the dictates of conscience.'
This passage above has a its footnote nothing less than the "Letter of the Holy Office to the Archbishop of Boston". (*(19) Cfr. Epist. S.S.C.S. Officii ad Archiep. Boston.: Denz. 3869-72)
The sedevacantists arguing in this thread, all, with the exception of you, are ready to condemn as entirely heretical nothing less that an ecuмenical council docuмent; yet they have a serious problem admitting the possibility of error in this fallible Letter created to please the Jews and Judaizers teaching the same thing.
-
When the Magisterium teaches the faithful, it cannot err - it's that simple.
Bellator Dei,
Would you not agree that the Magisterium made an objective mistake in the Letter of the Holy Office of 1949 when it taught that "Therefore, that one may obtain eternal salvation, it is not always required that he be incorporated into the Church actually as a member, but it is necessary that at least he be united to her by desire and longing...
However, this desire need not always be explicit, as it is in catechumens; but when a person is involved in invincible ignorance God accepts also an implicit desire, so called because it is included in that good disposition of soul whereby a person wishes his will to be conformed to the will of God."
This error was actually carried over the Vatican II Council docuмents, specifically, in Lumen Gentium 16:
"'Those also can attain to everlasting life who through no fault of their own do not know the gospel of Christ or His Church, yet sincerely seek God, and moved by grace strive by their deeds to do His will as it is known to them through the dictates of conscience.'
This passage above has a its footnote nothing less than the "Letter of the Holy Office to the Archbishop of Boston". (*(19) Cfr. Epist. S.S.C.S. Officii ad Archiep. Boston.: Denz. 3869-72)
The sedevacantists arguing in this thread, all, with the exception of you, are ready to condemn as entirely heretical nothing less that an ecuмenical council docuмent; yet they have a serious problem admitting the possibility of error in this fallible Letter created to please the Jews and Judaizers teaching the same thing.
That is not an error Cantarella, there is such a thing as implicit faith, you exercise it all the time. It is you r good will to accept all that the Church teaches as true even if you do not know it. That is implicit faith.
A person who is told the truth of the gospel, but does not hear the fullness, but believes what he HAS heard, has implicit faith. And this faith can justify him, and if he dies justified, he will be glorified.
-
Since then, the solemn magisterium has only been called to form a General Council 20 times in 2000 years, and each time it was simply to clarify a teaching of the ordinary magisterium that was being attacked at the time. Catholics historically have always learned their faith through the ordinary magisterium, which is guaranteed infallible. The infallible solemn magisterium steps in only in rare cases, like a referee would, to clarify and straighten out problems. Once the referee has done his job, the ordinary magisterium resumes day-to-day infallible teaching. Hopefully that helps clarify how the ordinary and the solemn magisterium work together to form one, continuous infallible teaching of the Church.
No, the 1917 Catholic Encyclopedia is very explicit when it teaches that the Ordinary Magisterium (Magisterium Ordinarium), is liable to be somewhat indefinite in its pronouncements and, as a consequence, practically ineffective as an organ of Infallibility:
As regards matter, only doctrines of faith and morals, and facts so intimately connected with these as to require infallible determination, fall under the scope of infallible ecclesiastical teaching. These doctrines or facts need not necessarily be revealed; it is enough if the revealed deposit cannot be adequately and effectively guarded and explained, unless they are infallibly determined.
As to the organ of authority by which such doctrines or facts are determined, three possible organs exist. One of these, the Magisterium Ordinarium, is liable to be somewhat indefinite in its pronouncements and, as a consequence, practically ineffective as an organ. The other two, however, are adequately efficient organs, and when they definitively decide any question of faith or morals that may arise, no believer who pays due attention to Christ's promises can consistently refuse to assent with absolute and irrevocable certainty to their teaching.
But before being bound to give such an assent, the believer has a right to be certain that the teaching in question is definitive (since only definitive teaching is infallible); and the means by which the definitive intention, whether of a council or of the pope, may be recognized have been stated above. It need only be added here that not everything in a conciliar or papal pronouncement, in which some doctrine is defined, is to be treated as definitive and infallible. For example, in the lengthy Bull of Pius IX defining the Immaculate Conception the strictly definitive and infallible portion is comprised in a sentence or two; and the same is true in many cases in regard to conciliar decisions. The merely argumentative and justificatory statements embodied in definitive judgments, however true and authoritative they may be, are not covered by the guarantee of infallibility which attaches to the strictly definitive sentences — unless, indeed, their infallibility has been previously or subsequently established by an independent decision.
You are changing the words of this quote from the Catholic Encyclopedia. It doesn't say, "organ of infallibility", it just says "organ". Furthermore, you are misinterpreting the sentence because the same article you are referring to confirms the ordinary magisterium is an organ of infallibility. Here's the complete quote from the article:
Mutual Relations of the Organs of Infallibility
A few brief remarks under this head will serve to make the Catholic conception of ecclesiastical infallibility still clearer. Three organs have been mentioned:
1) the bishops dispersed throughout the world in union with the Holy See;
2) ecuмenical councils under the headship of the pope; and
3) the pope himself separately.
Through the first of these is exercised what theologians describe as the ordinarium magisterium, i. e. the common or everyday teaching authority of the Church; through the second and third the magisterium solemne, or undeniably definitive authority...
-
Since then, the solemn magisterium has only been called to form a General Council 20 times in 2000 years, and each time it was simply to clarify a teaching of the ordinary magisterium that was being attacked at the time. Catholics historically have always learned their faith through the ordinary magisterium, which is guaranteed infallible. The infallible solemn magisterium steps in only in rare cases, like a referee would, to clarify and straighten out problems. Once the referee has done his job, the ordinary magisterium resumes day-to-day infallible teaching. Hopefully that helps clarify how the ordinary and the solemn magisterium work together to form one, continuous infallible teaching of the Church.
No, the 1917 Catholic Encyclopedia is very explicit when it teaches that the Ordinary Magisterium (Magisterium Ordinarium), is liable to be somewhat indefinite in its pronouncements and, as a consequence, practically ineffective as an organ of Infallibility:
As regards matter, only doctrines of faith and morals, and facts so intimately connected with these as to require infallible determination, fall under the scope of infallible ecclesiastical teaching. These doctrines or facts need not necessarily be revealed; it is enough if the revealed deposit cannot be adequately and effectively guarded and explained, unless they are infallibly determined.
As to the organ of authority by which such doctrines or facts are determined, three possible organs exist. One of these, the Magisterium Ordinarium, is liable to be somewhat indefinite in its pronouncements and, as a consequence, practically ineffective as an organ. The other two, however, are adequately efficient organs, and when they definitively decide any question of faith or morals that may arise, no believer who pays due attention to Christ's promises can consistently refuse to assent with absolute and irrevocable certainty to their teaching.
But before being bound to give such an assent, the believer has a right to be certain that the teaching in question is definitive (since only definitive teaching is infallible); and the means by which the definitive intention, whether of a council or of the pope, may be recognized have been stated above. It need only be added here that not everything in a conciliar or papal pronouncement, in which some doctrine is defined, is to be treated as definitive and infallible. For example, in the lengthy Bull of Pius IX defining the Immaculate Conception the strictly definitive and infallible portion is comprised in a sentence or two; and the same is true in many cases in regard to conciliar decisions. The merely argumentative and justificatory statements embodied in definitive judgments, however true and authoritative they may be, are not covered by the guarantee of infallibility which attaches to the strictly definitive sentences — unless, indeed, their infallibility has been previously or subsequently established by an independent decision.
You are changing the words of this quote from the Catholic Encyclopedia. It doesn't say, "organ of infallibility", it just says "organ". Furthermore, you are misinterpreting the sentence because the same article you are referring to confirms the ordinary magisterium is an organ of infallibility. Here's the complete quote from the article:
Mutual Relations of the Organs of Infallibility
A few brief remarks under this head will serve to make the Catholic conception of ecclesiastical infallibility still clearer. Three organs have been mentioned:
1) the bishops dispersed throughout the world in union with the Holy See;
2) ecuмenical councils under the headship of the pope; and
3) the pope himself separately.
Through the first of these is exercised what theologians describe as the ordinarium magisterium, i. e. the common or everyday teaching authority of the Church; through the second and third the magisterium solemne, or undeniably definitive authority...
Wait a minute...why leave the rest of the paragraph uncited?. It continues:
Through the first of these is exercised what theologians describe as the ordinarium magisterium, i.e. the common or everyday teaching authority of the Church; through the second and third the magisterium solemne, or undeniably definitive authority. Practically speaking, at the present day, and for many centuries in the past, only the decisions of ecuмenical councils and the ex cathedra teaching of the pope have been treated as strictly definitive in the canonical sense, and the function of the magisterium ordinarium has been concerned with the effective promulgation and maintenance of what has been formally defined by the magisterium solemne or may be legitimately deduced from its definitions.
-
Since then, the solemn magisterium has only been called to form a General Council 20 times in 2000 years, and each time it was simply to clarify a teaching of the ordinary magisterium that was being attacked at the time. Catholics historically have always learned their faith through the ordinary magisterium, which is guaranteed infallible. The infallible solemn magisterium steps in only in rare cases, like a referee would, to clarify and straighten out problems. Once the referee has done his job, the ordinary magisterium resumes day-to-day infallible teaching. Hopefully that helps clarify how the ordinary and the solemn magisterium work together to form one, continuous infallible teaching of the Church.
No, the 1917 Catholic Encyclopedia is very explicit when it teaches that the Ordinary Magisterium (Magisterium Ordinarium), is liable to be somewhat indefinite in its pronouncements and, as a consequence, practically ineffective as an organ of Infallibility:
As regards matter, only doctrines of faith and morals, and facts so intimately connected with these as to require infallible determination, fall under the scope of infallible ecclesiastical teaching. These doctrines or facts need not necessarily be revealed; it is enough if the revealed deposit cannot be adequately and effectively guarded and explained, unless they are infallibly determined.
As to the organ of authority by which such doctrines or facts are determined, three possible organs exist. One of these, the Magisterium Ordinarium, is liable to be somewhat indefinite in its pronouncements and, as a consequence, practically ineffective as an organ. The other two, however, are adequately efficient organs, and when they definitively decide any question of faith or morals that may arise, no believer who pays due attention to Christ's promises can consistently refuse to assent with absolute and irrevocable certainty to their teaching.
But before being bound to give such an assent, the believer has a right to be certain that the teaching in question is definitive (since only definitive teaching is infallible); and the means by which the definitive intention, whether of a council or of the pope, may be recognized have been stated above. It need only be added here that not everything in a conciliar or papal pronouncement, in which some doctrine is defined, is to be treated as definitive and infallible. For example, in the lengthy Bull of Pius IX defining the Immaculate Conception the strictly definitive and infallible portion is comprised in a sentence or two; and the same is true in many cases in regard to conciliar decisions. The merely argumentative and justificatory statements embodied in definitive judgments, however true and authoritative they may be, are not covered by the guarantee of infallibility which attaches to the strictly definitive sentences — unless, indeed, their infallibility has been previously or subsequently established by an independent decision.
You are changing the words of this quote from the Catholic Encyclopedia. It doesn't say, "organ of infallibility", it just says "organ". Furthermore, you are misinterpreting the sentence because the same article you are referring to confirms the ordinary magisterium is an organ of infallibility. Here's the complete quote from the article:
Mutual Relations of the Organs of Infallibility
A few brief remarks under this head will serve to make the Catholic conception of ecclesiastical infallibility still clearer. Three organs have been mentioned:
1) the bishops dispersed throughout the world in union with the Holy See;
2) ecuмenical councils under the headship of the pope; and
3) the pope himself separately.
Through the first of these is exercised what theologians describe as the ordinarium magisterium, i. e. the common or everyday teaching authority of the Church; through the second and third the magisterium solemne, or undeniably definitive authority...
Wait a minute...why leave the rest of the paragraph uncited?. It continues:
Through the first of these is exercised what theologians describe as the ordinarium magisterium, i.e. the common or everyday teaching authority of the Church; through the second and third the magisterium solemne, or undeniably definitive authority. Practically speaking, at the present day, and for many centuries in the past, only the decisions of ecuмenical councils and the ex cathedra teaching of the pope have been treated as strictly definitive in the canonical sense, and the function of the magisterium ordinarium has been concerned with the effective promulgation and maintenance of what has been formally defined by the magisterium solemne or may be legitimately deduced from its definitions.
C'mon Cantarella.... This doesn't change the fact that this same article we are speaking about confirms there are three organs if infallibility, one of them being the ordinary magisterium. And given all the other quotes I posted earlier today say the same, your argument is over. You are trying to cling to every little thing you can to say the ordinary magisterium is not infallible, but you have been disproven.
-
Since then, the solemn magisterium has only been called to form a General Council 20 times in 2000 years, and each time it was simply to clarify a teaching of the ordinary magisterium that was being attacked at the time. Catholics historically have always learned their faith through the ordinary magisterium, which is guaranteed infallible. The infallible solemn magisterium steps in only in rare cases, like a referee would, to clarify and straighten out problems. Once the referee has done his job, the ordinary magisterium resumes day-to-day infallible teaching. Hopefully that helps clarify how the ordinary and the solemn magisterium work together to form one, continuous infallible teaching of the Church.
No, the 1917 Catholic Encyclopedia is very explicit when it teaches that the Ordinary Magisterium (Magisterium Ordinarium), is liable to be somewhat indefinite in its pronouncements and, as a consequence, practically ineffective as an organ of Infallibility:
As regards matter, only doctrines of faith and morals, and facts so intimately connected with these as to require infallible determination, fall under the scope of infallible ecclesiastical teaching. These doctrines or facts need not necessarily be revealed; it is enough if the revealed deposit cannot be adequately and effectively guarded and explained, unless they are infallibly determined.
As to the organ of authority by which such doctrines or facts are determined, three possible organs exist. One of these, the Magisterium Ordinarium, is liable to be somewhat indefinite in its pronouncements and, as a consequence, practically ineffective as an organ. The other two, however, are adequately efficient organs, and when they definitively decide any question of faith or morals that may arise, no believer who pays due attention to Christ's promises can consistently refuse to assent with absolute and irrevocable certainty to their teaching.
But before being bound to give such an assent, the believer has a right to be certain that the teaching in question is definitive (since only definitive teaching is infallible); and the means by which the definitive intention, whether of a council or of the pope, may be recognized have been stated above. It need only be added here that not everything in a conciliar or papal pronouncement, in which some doctrine is defined, is to be treated as definitive and infallible. For example, in the lengthy Bull of Pius IX defining the Immaculate Conception the strictly definitive and infallible portion is comprised in a sentence or two; and the same is true in many cases in regard to conciliar decisions. The merely argumentative and justificatory statements embodied in definitive judgments, however true and authoritative they may be, are not covered by the guarantee of infallibility which attaches to the strictly definitive sentences — unless, indeed, their infallibility has been previously or subsequently established by an independent decision.
You are changing the words of this quote from the Catholic Encyclopedia. It doesn't say, "organ of infallibility", it just says "organ". Furthermore, you are misinterpreting the sentence because the same article you are referring to confirms the ordinary magisterium is an organ of infallibility. Here's the complete quote from the article:
Mutual Relations of the Organs of Infallibility
A few brief remarks under this head will serve to make the Catholic conception of ecclesiastical infallibility still clearer. Three organs have been mentioned:
1) the bishops dispersed throughout the world in union with the Holy See;
2) ecuмenical councils under the headship of the pope; and
3) the pope himself separately.
Through the first of these is exercised what theologians describe as the ordinarium magisterium, i. e. the common or everyday teaching authority of the Church; through the second and third the magisterium solemne, or undeniably definitive authority...
Wait a minute...why leave the rest of the paragraph uncited?. It continues:
Through the first of these is exercised what theologians describe as the ordinarium magisterium, i.e. the common or everyday teaching authority of the Church; through the second and third the magisterium solemne, or undeniably definitive authority. Practically speaking, at the present day, and for many centuries in the past, only the decisions of ecuмenical councils and the ex cathedra teaching of the pope have been treated as strictly definitive in the canonical sense, and the function of the magisterium ordinarium has been concerned with the effective promulgation and maintenance of what has been formally defined by the magisterium solemne or may be legitimately deduced from its definitions.
C'mon Cantarella.... This doesn't change the fact that this same article we are speaking about confirms there are three organs if infallibility, one of them being the ordinary magisterium. And given all the other quotes I posted earlier today say the same, your argument is over. You are trying to cling to every little thing you can to say the ordinary magisterium is not infallible, but you have been disproven.
Please read very carefully the conclusion of the article:
What teaching is infallible?
A word or two under this head, summarizing what has been already explained in this and in other articles will suffice.
As regards matter, only doctrines of faith and morals, and facts so intimately connected with these as to require infallible determination, fall under the scope of infallible ecclesiastical teaching. These doctrines or facts need not necessarily be revealed; it is enough if the revealed deposit cannot be adequately and effectively guarded and explained, unless they are infallibly determined.
As to the organ of authority by which such doctrines or facts are determined, three possible organs exist. One of these, the Magisterium Ordinarium, is liable to be somewhat indefinite in its pronouncements and, as a consequence, practically ineffective as an organ. The other two, however, are adequately efficient organs, and when they definitively decide any question of faith or morals that may arise, no believer who pays due attention to Christ's promises can consistently refuse to assent with absolute and irrevocable certainty to their teaching.
The Ordinary Magisterium (Magisterium Ordinarium), is liable to be somewhat indefinite in its pronouncements and, as a consequence, practically INEFFECTIVE as an organ. End of discussion.
-
Well the "end of discussion" should have occured long ago, but the sedevacantist guys are not even able to understand the distinction between the legal act and its content. When they hear "ordinary magisterium", they speak as though the whole text in question were infallible, and not only the part which includes a definition (when there is one!); now, there is no definition in Vatican II.
This is what is explained in the book of John Salza, and he is right.
The French sedevacantists make the same error.
We could tell it to them a thousand times, they would not understand better... :fryingpan:
-
Paul, I did not change one word from any of your quotes.
Post (http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php?a=topic&t=38915&min=272&num=1)
First Vatican Council (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 judgment or in its ordinary and universal teaching office, as divinely revealed truths which must be believed."
Canon Law 1323 (1917):
1. All of those things are to be believed with a divine and Catholic faith that are contained in the written word of God or in tradition and that the Church proposes as worthy of belief, as divinely revealed, whether by solemn judgment or by her ordinary and universal magisterium.
Commentary On Canon Law, Augustine (imprimatur, 1918) Canon 1323:
§ 1. All those truths which are contained in the written word of God, or in tradition, and proposed to our belief as divinely revealed either by a solemn proclamation or by the ordinary and universal magisterium of the Church must be believed by Divine and Catholic faith.
§ 3. Nothing is to be taken as dogmatically declared or defined, unless it is manifestly known to be such.
...that which is to be believed, is contained either in Holy Writ, as accepted by the Church, or in tradition, as preserved by the Church.
Then, from your same post, we get to the half truth from the Catechism "Explained".
The Catechism Explained (imprimatur, 1899) Page 237: The Infallibility of the Church
....it was quite sufficient that all the bishops should teach in the same sense in regard of any given subject to make that teaching infallible;
This "explanation" is the *only* "explanation" that nearly the entire world knows. Why? Because it's in the catechism. And look at that date - who authored that explanation - the UOM? No. As I said, the wrong teaching has been around for many decades.
It is because of THIS "explanation" that the Novus Ordo was able to be perpetrated on the lethargic Catholics of the 60s and 70s and till today. How can you NOT see this? - Or do you see it clear now?
What you are doing is you are completely ignoring what is taught, not only in the infallible decree you yourself posted, you are also ignoring all the commentaries which clearly explain the infallible decree you posted. As you ignore all of that, you are busy accepting the half truth "Explanation" and in the process helping the enemy promote the lie as a bonus.
Why are you doing this?
-
Well the "end of discussion" should have occured long ago, but the sedevacantist guys are not even able to understand the distinction between the legal act and its content. When they hear "ordinary magisterium", they speak as though the whole text in question were infallible, and not only the part which includes a definition (when there is one!); now, there is no definition in Vatican II.
This is what is explained in the book of John Salza, and he is right.
The French sedevacantists make the same error.
We could tell it to them a thousand times, they would not understand better... :fryingpan:
The end of discussion occurred when both Siscoe and Salza quit this thread several days ago.
-
Please read very carefully the conclusion of the article:
What teaching is infallible?
A word or two under this head, summarizing what has been already explained in this and in other articles will suffice.
As regards matter, only doctrines of faith and morals, and facts so intimately connected with these as to require infallible determination, fall under the scope of infallible ecclesiastical teaching. These doctrines or facts need not necessarily be revealed; it is enough if the revealed deposit cannot be adequately and effectively guarded and explained, unless they are infallibly determined.
As to the organ of authority by which such doctrines or facts are determined, three possible organs exist. One of these, the Magisterium Ordinarium, is liable to be somewhat indefinite in its pronouncements and, as a consequence, practically ineffective as an organ. The other two, however, are adequately efficient organs, and when they definitively decide any question of faith or morals that may arise, no believer who pays due attention to Christ's promises can consistently refuse to assent with absolute and irrevocable certainty to their teaching.
The Ordinary Magisterium (Magisterium Ordinarium), is liable to be somewhat indefinite in its pronouncements and, as a consequence, practically INEFFECTIVE as an organ. End of discussion.
Cantarella,
Like anyone is going to believe this article from the Catholic Encyclopedia is going to claim the ordinary magisterium is infallible, then within the same article, contradict itself and say it is not infallible. And like anyone is going to believe this same article would openly contradict the First Vatican Council which mandates all the faithful believe both solemn and ordinary magisterium. Your argument is embarrassing.
-
Now that plenty of quotes have been presented in this discussion confirming that the magisterium of the Church consists of ordinary magisterium and solemn magisterium, both infallible at all times, let's get back to the topic of this discussion, which is John Salza and Robert Siscoe's upcoming book. A previous quote from Robert:
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. The citation in question also states that teachings of the Supreme Magisterium can be resisted when there is sufficient reason to conclude that it is contrary to what the Church teaches.
Here Robert is actually trying to state that the "supreme ordinary magisterium" is somehow different than the ordinary and universal magisterium. As we can see from the quotes previously posted in this discussion from a General Council, Canon law, A Commentary on Canon Law, papal encyclicals and letters, and numerous other resources with imprimatur, this is not what the Church teaches.
In fact, I could not find the phrase "supreme ordinary magisterium" in a single Catholic book before Vatican II. No matter what fancy description someone wants to use for the magisterium, ALL quotes from the Church before Vatican II unanimously state that the magisterium consists of just ordinary and solemn teaching, both infallible and that's it.
Then Robert takes it a step further and actually comes right out and says the magisterium is not infallible, contrary to all the Church quotes that have just been previously posted in this discussion. Talk about a most crucial, fundamental error before their book even hits the shelves!
-
The end of discussion occurred when both Siscoe and Salza quit this thread several days ago.
Did anyone but me notice WHEN they quit? It was when Catholictrue asked him/them:
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’!
And the nails in the coffin were when Clemens Maria pointed out that:
Bravo! Don't expect a response on that one.
And when Gregory I also brought up the same point:
Does your book have the Nihil Obstat of your local bishop Mr. Salza? Mr. Siscoe? An imprimatur?
Not only had they no reply to that; that shut them both up completely!
-
The end of discussion occurred when both Siscoe and Salza quit this thread several days ago.
Did anyone but me notice WHEN they quit? It was when Catholictrue asked him/them:
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?
Oh come on man lol
Have you seen PaulFC's website all about a BOD? He has no approval at all either. Strange that, because it's certain he could get all the permissions, approvals and imprimaturs from every NO bishop there is for that site.
-
Not only had they no reply to that; that shut them both up completely!
I think they got caught in their own web.
-
The end of discussion occurred when both Siscoe and Salza quit this thread several days ago.
Did anyone but me notice WHEN they quit? It was when Catholictrue asked him/them:
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?
Oh come on man lol
Have you seen PaulFC's website all about a BOD? He has no approval at all either. Strange that, because it's certain he could get all the permissions, approvals and imprimaturs from every NO bishop there is for that site.
Seriously, it's like you are losing the rudiments of reasoning. Why would a sedevacantist go get permission from heretics he doesn't recognize as having authority?
Salza & Siscoe profess to be under their bishop's authority so it is just and right to show they are being inconsistent in principle.
-
The end of discussion occurred when both Siscoe and Salza quit this thread several days ago.
Did anyone but me notice WHEN they quit? It was when Catholictrue asked him/them:
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?
Oh come on man lol
Have you seen PaulFC's website all about a BOD? He has no approval at all either. Strange that, because it's certain he could get all the permissions, approvals and imprimaturs from every NO bishop there is for that site.
Seriously, it's like you are losing the rudiments of reasoning. Why would a sedevacantist go get permission from heretics he doesn't recognize as having authority?
Salza & Siscoe profess to be under their bishop's authority so it is just and right to show they are being inconsistent in principle.
It's the principle of the thing.
-
The end of discussion occurred when both Siscoe and Salza quit this thread several days ago.
Did anyone but me notice WHEN they quit? It was when Catholictrue asked him/them:
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?
Oh come on man lol
Have you seen PaulFC's website all about a BOD? He has no approval at all either. Strange that, because it's certain he could get all the permissions, approvals and imprimaturs from every NO bishop there is for that site.
Seriously, it's like you are losing the rudiments of reasoning. Why would a sedevacantist go get permission from heretics he doesn't recognize as having authority?
Salza & Siscoe profess to be under their bishop's authority so it is just and right to show they are being inconsistent in principle.
It's the principle of the thing.
Seriously, you should find some aquaintance of yours who is indifferent to Catholicism and ask him to take a look at your postings. Maybe you will listen to an aquaintance that you need help even reasoning properly.
-
The end of discussion occurred when both Siscoe and Salza quit this thread several days ago.
Did anyone but me notice WHEN they quit? It was when Catholictrue asked him/them:
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?
Oh come on man lol
Have you seen PaulFC's website all about a BOD? He has no approval at all either. Strange that, because it's certain he could get all the permissions, approvals and imprimaturs from every NO bishop there is for that site.
Seriously, it's like you are losing the rudiments of reasoning. Why would a sedevacantist go get permission from heretics he doesn't recognize as having authority?
Salza & Siscoe profess to be under their bishop's authority so it is just and right to show they are being inconsistent in principle.
It's the principle of the thing.
Seriously, you should find some aquaintance of yours who is indifferent to Catholicism and ask him to take a look at your postings. Maybe you will listen to an aquaintance that you need help even reasoning properly.
FYI, the principle of the thing is; PaulFC would not get permission from them because he believes them to be heretics, hence he doesn't recognize them as having authority, yet he believes the exact same thing they do.
-
I'm pretty sure that your idea of UOM and infallibility is the same as their idea of UOM and infallibility as well. I could be wrong there, mainly because I'm pretty sure you are not really sure what your idea of UOM and infallibility even is - then again, I'm pretty sure they're not sure about it either.
Like I said, it's the principle of the thing.
-
The end of discussion occurred when both Siscoe and Salza quit this thread several days ago.
Did anyone but me notice WHEN they quit? It was when Catholictrue asked him/them:
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’!
And the nails in the coffin were when Clemens Maria pointed out that:
Bravo! Don't expect a response on that one.
And when Gregory I also brought up the same point:
Does your book have the Nihil Obstat of your local bishop Mr. Salza? Mr. Siscoe? An imprimatur?
Not only had they no reply to that; that shut them both up completely!
That is the Achilles' heel of proving Sedevacantism wrong from a SSPX R&R standpoint. It can be done and easily so from many other different angles, though.
-
The end of discussion occurred when both Siscoe and Salza quit this thread several days ago.
They left because they saw that you didn't understand anything about infallibility...
-
Oh come on man lol
Have you seen PaulFC's website all about a BOD? He has no approval at all either. Strange that, because it's certain he could get all the permissions, approvals and imprimaturs from every NO bishop there is for that site.
Why do you make up things on the fly about things you have no knowledge of? Do you think no one is going to notice?
For your information, I have received approval from multiple traditional clergy on baptismofdesire.com, and there are CMRI clergy that regularly refer people there.
-
Please read very carefully the conclusion of the article:
What teaching is infallible?
A word or two under this head, summarizing what has been already explained in this and in other articles will suffice.
As regards matter, only doctrines of faith and morals, and facts so intimately connected with these as to require infallible determination, fall under the scope of infallible ecclesiastical teaching. These doctrines or facts need not necessarily be revealed; it is enough if the revealed deposit cannot be adequately and effectively guarded and explained, unless they are infallibly determined.
As to the organ of authority by which such doctrines or facts are determined, three possible organs exist. One of these, the Magisterium Ordinarium, is liable to be somewhat indefinite in its pronouncements and, as a consequence, practically ineffective as an organ. The other two, however, are adequately efficient organs, and when they definitively decide any question of faith or morals that may arise, no believer who pays due attention to Christ's promises can consistently refuse to assent with absolute and irrevocable certainty to their teaching.
The Ordinary Magisterium (Magisterium Ordinarium), is liable to be somewhat indefinite in its pronouncements and, as a consequence, practically INEFFECTIVE as an organ. End of discussion.
Cantarella,
Like anyone is going to believe this article from the Catholic Encyclopedia is going to claim the ordinary magisterium is infallible, then within the same article, contradict itself and say it is not infallible. And like anyone is going to believe this same article would openly contradict the First Vatican Council which mandates all the faithful believe both solemn and ordinary magisterium. Your argument is embarrassing.
You can reasonably argue that an Ecuмenical Council cannot teach heresy; but you are indeed making a factual error when you say that the Ordinary Magisterium is infallible or that everything emanating from it is guaranteed to be free from error.
The mentioned article clearly states that there are two organs of infallibility: Ecuмenical Councils & the Pope (when speaking ex-cathedra). It is very explicit when it states that the Ordinary Magisterium is NOT an efficient organ of infallibility. It also teaches that: not everything in a Conciliar pronouncement, is to be treated as definitive and infallible and it gives a clear example: In the Bull of Pius IX defining the Immaculate Conception the infallible portion is only a sentence or two. The rest of the narrative is not covered by the guarantee of infallibility.
-
I'm pretty sure that your idea of UOM and infallibility is the same as their idea of UOM and infallibility as well. I could be wrong there, mainly because I'm pretty sure you are not really sure what your idea of UOM and infallibility even is - then again, I'm pretty sure they're not sure about it either.
Like I said, it's the principle of the thing.
:confused1: Now there's a confusing post!
-
Cantarella,
Perhaps you didn't see this list of quotes I posted recently from the Church all which unanimously state the ordinary magisterium is infallible? There are no exceptions, so don't waste your time continuing to fight this - these quotes speak for themselves.
First Vatican Council (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 judgment or in its ordinary and universal teaching office, as divinely revealed truths which must be believed."
Canon Law 1323 (1917):
1. All of those things are to be believed with a divine and Catholic faith that are contained in the written word of God or in tradition and that the Church proposes as worthy of belief, as divinely revealed, whether by solemn judgment or by her ordinary and universal magisterium.
Commentary On Canon Law, Augustine (imprimatur, 1918) Canon 1323:
§ 1. All those truths which are contained in the written word of God, or in tradition, and proposed to our belief as divinely revealed either by a solemn proclamation or by the ordinary and universal magisterium of the Church must be believed by Divine and Catholic faith.
§ 2. To pronounce a solemn judgment of this kind appertains either to a general Council or to the Roman Pontiff speaking ex cathedra.
§ 3. Nothing is to be taken as dogmatically declared or defined, unless it is manifestly known to be such.
The material object of faith (objectum materialc fidci), or that which is to be believed, is contained either in Holy Writ, as accepted by the Church, or in tradition, as preserved by the Church. However, as Holy Writ itself, without the acceptance of the Church, would be merely a material or indifferent book — though perhaps sacred on account of its venerable age and contents—so tradition would lack sacred character and obligation but for the infallible judgment of the Church. This infallible judgment is embodied in the teaching office of the Church, and constitutes a special prerogative granted to the Church by Christ, in virtue of which she cannot deceive nor be deceived in matters of faith and morals.
Our text distinguishes a solemn ex cathedra judgment and the ordinary magisterium of the Church. But there is no intrinsic difference between the two, as they derive from the same source, vis., the divine promise and providence, and have the same object and purpose. The object is faith and morals; the purpose, to protect the faithful from error.
**
The ordinary and universal teaching body of the Church consists of the pastors together with their head, the Roman Pontiff, no matter where the former are found, whether scattered over the globe, or sitting united in St. Peter's Dome. This is called the active subject of the infallible magisterium (subicctum activae infallibilitatis). To this teaching body corresponds the believing body of the faithful, which latter, however, being the subiectutn passivae infallibilitatis, cannot be separated from the teaching body or be opposed to it. For the teaching office or authority is the cause of the infallibility of the Church, and both bodies are one in the same faith.
There is, however, a distinction, though not quite adequate, between the teaching office of the Sovereign Pontiff alone, and the body of teachers or the teaching Church united to its head, i. e., the Pontiff. Without the latter, or, worse still, in opposition to the latter, there can be no teaching body, whilst the authority of infallible teacher is embodied in the Roman Pontiff alone. Both the Pontiff sole and the body of teachers united with him, enjoy the power of teaching infallibly.
The universal and ordinary magisterium " consists of the entire episcopate, according to the constitution and order defined by Christ, i. e., all the bishops of the universal Church,— dependently on the Roman Pontiff. Priests and deacons do not, ittre d'wino, belong to the hierarchy of jurisdiction, and therefore, are not, properly speaking, judges in matters of faith and morals, nor can they be, hire ordinario, bearers of infallible teaching. However, they exercise a certain teaching authority by divine right, inasmuch, namely, as they are helpers and co-workers of the bishops, from whom they receive delegated mission, and preach and testify to the faith preached and expounded by the episcopate. They, too, in a wider sense partake of the assistance of the Holy Ghost.
This teaching authority, then, proposes what must be believed by divine and Catholic faith. It is indeed true that what God has revealed may and must be believed with divine faith* and that what the Church proposes as part of divine Revelation, may and must be believed with divine and Catholic faith, or, shortly, with Catholic faith. But the material object of divine faith comprises more than the object of Catholic faith, and besides there is something in Catholic faith which is not so clearly expressed or conspicuous in divine faith. For the former is offered by the living word of the Church with a precision and determination that leaves no doubt as to the supernatural origin and medium through which it is conveyed. This Catholic faith then commands our assent and obedience to the full extent of a childlike belief, but from the motive of divine veracity and truth.
The term proposed means not merely an official or authentic formulation of a given object or article, but an authoritative promulgation of a law or rule contained in revelation, commanding our full interior and exterior assent.
§ 2 defines, according to Vatican Council, the solemn judgment of the Church in contradistinction to her ordinary and universal magisterium, not as if the office of the Supreme Pontiff were extraordinary, in the strict sense, but because this means of proposing an infallible truth is uncommon. Such a solemn pronunciamento or proclamation may be made either by a general council or by the Pope. That a council cannot be ecuмenical without the head, is evident, as explained in our Vol. II, where the other requisites are also discussed.
The Pope alone, after having been duly elected and having accepted the election, is the lawful head of the Church, and, in virtue of his primacy of jurisdiction, is the supreme pastor and teacher of the whole Church, as the Vatican Council has defined. As such he may define, or issue decrees on, points of faith and morals, binding the whole Church. His decisions do not receive their obligatory force from the consent of the Church, as the Gallicans asserted, but embrace the whole extent of the object of the infallibility inherent in the teaching Church. The term ex cathedra means: (a) that the Pope proclaims a dogma as the supreme teacher and pastor of the Church; (b) that it be a matter of faith and morals, not of history or politics disconnected with the former; (c) that he pronounce an authoritative and final sentence with the manifest intention of obliging (d) the entire Church, i. e.t all individuals as well as the whole body of the faithful.
However, as § 3 intimates, there may be doubt as to what is declared or defined either by the universal teaching Church or by means of papal ex cathedra definitions. Therefore the theologians have laid down certain rules, which we will briefly restate.
a) What has been solemnly defined, either by a general council or by the Supreme Pontiff, is certainly de fide; but not all the historical or theological assertions which accompany a papal decision (for instance, the Bull "Ineffabilis ") are de fide.
b) What is clearly and undoubtedly contained in Holy Scripture and Tradition as a matter of faith or morals, must be believed, although individual errors are not entirely excluded;
c) What the universal and approved practice and discipline proposes as connected with faith and morals must also be believed ("Lex orandi, lex credendi").
d) What the Holy Fathers and the theologians hold unanimously as a matter of faith and morals, is also de fide.
There may be some doubt as to the form of infallible decisions. A test for genuine ex cathedra definitions has been found in the following formulas: (1) if those who assert the contrary are declared heretics; (2) if the terms "si quis" is used with "anathema" following; (3) if it is declared that the doctrine in question must be firmly believed by all the faithful as a dogma.
If after the application of these rules a solid doubt remains, the utterance is not infallibly binding, as is evident from our text.
Pope Pius IX in his Letter to Archbishop Scherr of Munich in 1863:
"We desire to reassure ourselves that they did not mean to limit the obligation, which strictly binds Catholic teachers and writers, to those things only which are proposed by the infallible judgment of the Church as dogmas of faith to be believed by everybody. In a like manner, We are convinced that it was not their intention to state that the perfect adherence to revealed truths (which they regard as absolutely necessary for true progress in science and for refuting errors) can be maintained, if the submission of faith is given only to those dogmas expressly defined by the Church. The reason for this is the following: even supposing that we are treating of that subjection which is to be made by an explicit act of divine faith, this must not be limited to those things which have been defined in the express decrees of the ecuмenical councils or of the Roman Pontiffs of this See; but it must also be extended to those things which, through the ordinary teaching of the whole Church throughout the world, are proposed as divinely revealed and, as a result, by universal and constant consent of Catholic theologians are held to be matters of faith. "
Pope Leo XIII, Providentissimus Deus, On the Study of Holy Scripture, Nov 18, 1893:
Wherefore the first and dearest object of the Catholic commentator should be to interpret those passages which have received an authentic interpretation either from the sacred writers themselves, under the inspiration of the Holy Ghost (as in many places of the New Testament), or from the Church, under the assistance of the same Holy Spirit, whether by her solemn judgment or her ordinary and universal magisterium
Pope Leo XIII, Encyclical On the Church in Scotland, 1898
"But as the Church was to last to the end of time, something more was required besides the bestowal of the Sacred Scriptures. It was obviously necessary that the Divine Founder should take every precaution, lest the treasure of heavenly-given truths, possessed by the Church, should ever be destroyed, which would assuredly have happened, had He left those doctrines to each one's private judgment. It stands to reason, therefore, that a living, perpetual "magisterium" was necessary in the Church from the beginning, which, by the command of Christ himself, should besides teaching other wholesome doctrines, give an authoritative explanation of Holy Writ, and which being directed and safeguarded by Christ himself, could by no means commit itself to erroneous teaching"
Pope Pius XII, Humani Generis, 1950 (Denz 2313):
It is not to be thought that what is set down in Encyclical Letters does not demand assent in itself, because in this the popes do not exercise the supreme power of their magisterium. For these matters are taught by the ordinary magisterium, regarding which the following is pertinent: "He who heareth you, heareth me." [Luke 10:16]; and usually what is set forth and inculcated in the Encyclical Letters, already pertains to Catholic doctrine. But if the Supreme Pontiffs in their acts, after due consideration, express an opinion on a hitherto controversial matter, it is clear to all that this matter, according to the mind and will of the same Pontiffs, cannot any longer be considered a question of free discussion among the theologians.
Pope Pius XII, Defining the Dogma of the Assumption, Munificentissimus Deus, Nov 1, 1950:
"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."
“Certainly this teaching authority of the Church, not by any merely human effort but under the protection of the Spirit of Truth,[7] 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.”
Catholic Encyclopedia (~1913), Science and the Church, The Holders of the Teaching Office:
(1) 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. The promise of Divine assistance provides for the integrity of doctrine "all days, even to the consummation of the world" (Matt., xxviii, 20). From the nature of the case it follows that individual bishops may fall into error, because ample provision is made when the entire teaching body of the Church and the supreme pastor in particular are protected by Providence. The "Ecclesia docens", as a whole, can never fall into error in matters of faith or morals, whether her teaching be the ordinary or the solemn; nor can the pope proclaim false doctrines in his capacity of supreme pastor of the universal Church. Without this prerogative, which is known by the name of Infallibility, the Divine promise of assistance would be a fallacy.
Catholic Encyclopedia (~1913), Dogma:
But according to a long-standing usage a dogma is now understood to be a truth appertaining to faith or morals, revealed by God, transmitted from the Apostles in the Scriptures or by tradition, and proposed by the Church for the acceptance of the faithful. It might be described briefly as a revealed truth defined by the Church -- but private revelations do not constitute dogmas, and some theologians confine the word defined to doctrines solemnly defined by the pope or by a general council, while a revealed truth becomes a dogma even when proposed by the Church through her ordinary magisterium or teaching office. A dogma therefore implies a twofold relation: to Divine revelation and to the authoritative teaching of the Church.
"...some theologians confine the word defined to doctrines solemnly defined by the pope or by a general council, while a revealed truth becomes a dogma even when proposed by the Church through her ordinary magisterium or teaching office”
Catholic Encyclopedia (~1913), Infallibility:
Mutual Relations of the Organs of Infallibility
A few brief remarks under this head will serve to make the Catholic conception of ecclesiastical infallibility still clearer. Three organs have been mentioned:
1. the bishops dispersed throughout the world in union with the Holy See;
2. ecuмenical councils under the headship of the pope; and
3. the pope himself separately.
Through the first of these is exercised what theologians describe as the ordinarium magisterium, i. e. the common or everyday teaching authority of the Church; through the second and third the magisterium solemne, or undeniably definitive authority. Practically speaking, at the present day, and for many centuries in the past, only the decisions of ecuмenical councils and the ex cathedra teaching of the pope have been treated as strictly definitive in the canonical sense, and the function of the magisterium ordinarium has been concerned with the effective promulgation and maintenance of what has been formally defined by the magisterium solemne or may be legitimately deduced from its definitions.
Even the ordinarium magisterium is not independent of the pope. In other words, it is only bishops who are in corporate union with the pope, the Divinely constituted head and centre of Christ's mystical body, the one true Church, who have any claim to share in the charisma by which the infallibility of their morally unanimous teaching is divinely guaranteed according to the terms of Christ's promises.
A Catholic Dictionary (imprimatur, 1931-1957), Infallibility:
"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."
A Catholic Dictionary (imprimatur, 1931-1957), Magisterium:
“The Church's divinely appointed authority to teach the truths of religion…This teaching is infallible. The solemn magisterium is that which is exercised only rarely by formal and authentic definitions of councils or Popes... The ordinary magisterium is continually exercised by the Church especially in her universal practices connected with faith and morals, in the unanimous consent of the Fathers and theologians, in the decisions of the Roman Congregations concerning faith and morals, in the common sense of the Faithful, and various historical docuмents, in which the faith is declared. All these are founts of a teaching which as a whole is infallible...”
The Catechism Explained (imprimatur, 1899) Page 237: The Infallibility of the Church
As Christ was not to remain always on earth, He appointed another infallible teacher, His Church, and provided it with the necessary gifts, especially with the assistance of the Holy Spirit. Christ conferred on His apostles and their successors the teaching office and promised them His divine assistance. Thus He said at His ascension into heaven: "Going, teach ye all nations . . . and behold I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world" (Matt, xxviii. 19, 20) ; and at the Last Supper: "I will ask the Father and He shall give you another Paraclete that He may abide with you forever, the Spirit of truth"; (John xiv. 16, 17). To St. Peter He said: "The gates of hell shall not prevail against the Church" (Matt. xvi. 18). Since Christ is the Son of God, His words must be true. If the Church, in the carrying out of her teaching office, could lead man into error, Christ would not have kept His word. Hence St. Paul calls the Church "the pillar and ground of truth" (1 Tim. iii. 15), and the measures decided upon by the apostles in the Council of Jerusalem were introduced with the words: "For it hath seemed good to the Holy Ghost and to us" (Acts xv. 28).
Page 239:
Nor was this solemn declaration (of the Immaculate Conception in 1854) necessary; it was quite sufficient that all the bishops should teach in the same sense in regard of any given subject to make that teaching infallible; were it otherwise the Church would be capable of teaching heresy, or of falling away from the truth. Hence the Vatican Council declared that not only must that be accepted which has been solemnly defined by the Church, but also whatever is proposed by the lawful and general teaching authority (Vatican Council, 3, 3).
-
The end of discussion occurred when both Siscoe and Salza quit this thread several days ago.
Did anyone but me notice WHEN they quit? It was when Catholictrue asked him/them:
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’!
And the nails in the coffin were when Clemens Maria pointed out that:
Bravo! Don't expect a response on that one.
And when Gregory I also brought up the same point:
Does your book have the Nihil Obstat of your local bishop Mr. Salza? Mr. Siscoe? An imprimatur?
Not only had they no reply to that; that shut them both up completely!
That is the Achilles' heel of proving Sedevacantism wrong from a SSPX R&R standpoint. It can be done and easily so from many other different angles, though.
It literally cannot be shown to be wrong from any standpoint, because the theological conclusions it arrives at are certain and binding:
1. The Church cannot defect.
2. Vatican II defected.
3. The teaching of Vatican II doesn't come from the Church.
1. Vatican II is a defection from prior magisterial teaching.
2. But the ordinary universal magisterial authority cannot promulgate false magisterial teaching.
3. Therefore Vatican II was not promulgated by magisterial authority.
1. Pope Paul VI promulgated Vatican II in the name of the Church.
2. But the Pope cannot promulgate heresy in the name of the whole church.
3. Therefore Paul VI has no Papal authority.
Game over.
-
Cantarella,
Perhaps you didn't see this list of quotes I posted recently from the Church all which unanimously state the ordinary magisterium is infallible? There are no exceptions, so don't waste your time continuing to fight this - these quotes speak for themselves.
First Vatican Council (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 judgment or in its ordinary and universal teaching office, as divinely revealed truths which must be believed."
Canon Law 1323 (1917):
1. All of those things are to be believed with a divine and Catholic faith that are contained in the written word of God or in tradition and that the Church proposes as worthy of belief, as divinely revealed, whether by solemn judgment or by her ordinary and universal magisterium.
Commentary On Canon Law, Augustine (imprimatur, 1918) Canon 1323:
§ 1. All those truths which are contained in the written word of God, or in tradition, and proposed to our belief as divinely revealed either by a solemn proclamation or by the ordinary and universal magisterium of the Church must be believed by Divine and Catholic faith.
§ 2. To pronounce a solemn judgment of this kind appertains either to a general Council or to the Roman Pontiff speaking ex cathedra.
§ 3. Nothing is to be taken as dogmatically declared or defined, unless it is manifestly known to be such.
The material object of faith (objectum materialc fidci), or that which is to be believed, is contained either in Holy Writ, as accepted by the Church, or in tradition, as preserved by the Church. However, as Holy Writ itself, without the acceptance of the Church, would be merely a material or indifferent book — though perhaps sacred on account of its venerable age and contents—so tradition would lack sacred character and obligation but for the infallible judgment of the Church. This infallible judgment is embodied in the teaching office of the Church, and constitutes a special prerogative granted to the Church by Christ, in virtue of which she cannot deceive nor be deceived in matters of faith and morals.
Our text distinguishes a solemn ex cathedra judgment and the ordinary magisterium of the Church. But there is no intrinsic difference between the two, as they derive from the same source, vis., the divine promise and providence, and have the same object and purpose. The object is faith and morals; the purpose, to protect the faithful from error.
**
The ordinary and universal teaching body of the Church consists of the pastors together with their head, the Roman Pontiff, no matter where the former are found, whether scattered over the globe, or sitting united in St. Peter's Dome. This is called the active subject of the infallible magisterium (subicctum activae infallibilitatis). To this teaching body corresponds the believing body of the faithful, which latter, however, being the subiectutn passivae infallibilitatis, cannot be separated from the teaching body or be opposed to it. For the teaching office or authority is the cause of the infallibility of the Church, and both bodies are one in the same faith.
There is, however, a distinction, though not quite adequate, between the teaching office of the Sovereign Pontiff alone, and the body of teachers or the teaching Church united to its head, i. e., the Pontiff. Without the latter, or, worse still, in opposition to the latter, there can be no teaching body, whilst the authority of infallible teacher is embodied in the Roman Pontiff alone. Both the Pontiff sole and the body of teachers united with him, enjoy the power of teaching infallibly.
The universal and ordinary magisterium " consists of the entire episcopate, according to the constitution and order defined by Christ, i. e., all the bishops of the universal Church,— dependently on the Roman Pontiff. Priests and deacons do not, ittre d'wino, belong to the hierarchy of jurisdiction, and therefore, are not, properly speaking, judges in matters of faith and morals, nor can they be, hire ordinario, bearers of infallible teaching. However, they exercise a certain teaching authority by divine right, inasmuch, namely, as they are helpers and co-workers of the bishops, from whom they receive delegated mission, and preach and testify to the faith preached and expounded by the episcopate. They, too, in a wider sense partake of the assistance of the Holy Ghost.
This teaching authority, then, proposes what must be believed by divine and Catholic faith. It is indeed true that what God has revealed may and must be believed with divine faith* and that what the Church proposes as part of divine Revelation, may and must be believed with divine and Catholic faith, or, shortly, with Catholic faith. But the material object of divine faith comprises more than the object of Catholic faith, and besides there is something in Catholic faith which is not so clearly expressed or conspicuous in divine faith. For the former is offered by the living word of the Church with a precision and determination that leaves no doubt as to the supernatural origin and medium through which it is conveyed. This Catholic faith then commands our assent and obedience to the full extent of a childlike belief, but from the motive of divine veracity and truth.
The term proposed means not merely an official or authentic formulation of a given object or article, but an authoritative promulgation of a law or rule contained in revelation, commanding our full interior and exterior assent.
§ 2 defines, according to Vatican Council, the solemn judgment of the Church in contradistinction to her ordinary and universal magisterium, not as if the office of the Supreme Pontiff were extraordinary, in the strict sense, but because this means of proposing an infallible truth is uncommon. Such a solemn pronunciamento or proclamation may be made either by a general council or by the Pope. That a council cannot be ecuмenical without the head, is evident, as explained in our Vol. II, where the other requisites are also discussed.
The Pope alone, after having been duly elected and having accepted the election, is the lawful head of the Church, and, in virtue of his primacy of jurisdiction, is the supreme pastor and teacher of the whole Church, as the Vatican Council has defined. As such he may define, or issue decrees on, points of faith and morals, binding the whole Church. His decisions do not receive their obligatory force from the consent of the Church, as the Gallicans asserted, but embrace the whole extent of the object of the infallibility inherent in the teaching Church. The term ex cathedra means: (a) that the Pope proclaims a dogma as the supreme teacher and pastor of the Church; (b) that it be a matter of faith and morals, not of history or politics disconnected with the former; (c) that he pronounce an authoritative and final sentence with the manifest intention of obliging (d) the entire Church, i. e.t all individuals as well as the whole body of the faithful.
However, as § 3 intimates, there may be doubt as to what is declared or defined either by the universal teaching Church or by means of papal ex cathedra definitions. Therefore the theologians have laid down certain rules, which we will briefly restate.
a) What has been solemnly defined, either by a general council or by the Supreme Pontiff, is certainly de fide; but not all the historical or theological assertions which accompany a papal decision (for instance, the Bull "Ineffabilis ") are de fide.
b) What is clearly and undoubtedly contained in Holy Scripture and Tradition as a matter of faith or morals, must be believed, although individual errors are not entirely excluded;
c) What the universal and approved practice and discipline proposes as connected with faith and morals must also be believed ("Lex orandi, lex credendi").
d) What the Holy Fathers and the theologians hold unanimously as a matter of faith and morals, is also de fide.
There may be some doubt as to the form of infallible decisions. A test for genuine ex cathedra definitions has been found in the following formulas: (1) if those who assert the contrary are declared heretics; (2) if the terms "si quis" is used with "anathema" following; (3) if it is declared that the doctrine in question must be firmly believed by all the faithful as a dogma.
If after the application of these rules a solid doubt remains, the utterance is not infallibly binding, as is evident from our text.
Pope Pius IX in his Letter to Archbishop Scherr of Munich in 1863:
"We desire to reassure ourselves that they did not mean to limit the obligation, which strictly binds Catholic teachers and writers, to those things only which are proposed by the infallible judgment of the Church as dogmas of faith to be believed by everybody. In a like manner, We are convinced that it was not their intention to state that the perfect adherence to revealed truths (which they regard as absolutely necessary for true progress in science and for refuting errors) can be maintained, if the submission of faith is given only to those dogmas expressly defined by the Church. The reason for this is the following: even supposing that we are treating of that subjection which is to be made by an explicit act of divine faith, this must not be limited to those things which have been defined in the express decrees of the ecuмenical councils or of the Roman Pontiffs of this See; but it must also be extended to those things which, through the ordinary teaching of the whole Church throughout the world, are proposed as divinely revealed and, as a result, by universal and constant consent of Catholic theologians are held to be matters of faith. "
Pope Leo XIII, Providentissimus Deus, On the Study of Holy Scripture, Nov 18, 1893:
Wherefore the first and dearest object of the Catholic commentator should be to interpret those passages which have received an authentic interpretation either from the sacred writers themselves, under the inspiration of the Holy Ghost (as in many places of the New Testament), or from the Church, under the assistance of the same Holy Spirit, whether by her solemn judgment or her ordinary and universal magisterium
Pope Leo XIII, Encyclical On the Church in Scotland, 1898
"But as the Church was to last to the end of time, something more was required besides the bestowal of the Sacred Scriptures. It was obviously necessary that the Divine Founder should take every precaution, lest the treasure of heavenly-given truths, possessed by the Church, should ever be destroyed, which would assuredly have happened, had He left those doctrines to each one's private judgment. It stands to reason, therefore, that a living, perpetual "magisterium" was necessary in the Church from the beginning, which, by the command of Christ himself, should besides teaching other wholesome doctrines, give an authoritative explanation of Holy Writ, and which being directed and safeguarded by Christ himself, could by no means commit itself to erroneous teaching"
Pope Pius XII, Humani Generis, 1950 (Denz 2313):
It is not to be thought that what is set down in Encyclical Letters does not demand assent in itself, because in this the popes do not exercise the supreme power of their magisterium. For these matters are taught by the ordinary magisterium, regarding which the following is pertinent: "He who heareth you, heareth me." [Luke 10:16]; and usually what is set forth and inculcated in the Encyclical Letters, already pertains to Catholic doctrine. But if the Supreme Pontiffs in their acts, after due consideration, express an opinion on a hitherto controversial matter, it is clear to all that this matter, according to the mind and will of the same Pontiffs, cannot any longer be considered a question of free discussion among the theologians.
Pope Pius XII, Defining the Dogma of the Assumption, Munificentissimus Deus, Nov 1, 1950:
"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."
“Certainly this teaching authority of the Church, not by any merely human effort but under the protection of the Spirit of Truth,[7] 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.”
Catholic Encyclopedia (~1913), Science and the Church, The Holders of the Teaching Office:
(1) 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. The promise of Divine assistance provides for the integrity of doctrine "all days, even to the consummation of the world" (Matt., xxviii, 20). From the nature of the case it follows that individual bishops may fall into error, because ample provision is made when the entire teaching body of the Church and the supreme pastor in particular are protected by Providence. The "Ecclesia docens", as a whole, can never fall into error in matters of faith or morals, whether her teaching be the ordinary or the solemn; nor can the pope proclaim false doctrines in his capacity of supreme pastor of the universal Church. Without this prerogative, which is known by the name of Infallibility, the Divine promise of assistance would be a fallacy.
Catholic Encyclopedia (~1913), Dogma:
But according to a long-standing usage a dogma is now understood to be a truth appertaining to faith or morals, revealed by God, transmitted from the Apostles in the Scriptures or by tradition, and proposed by the Church for the acceptance of the faithful. It might be described briefly as a revealed truth defined by the Church -- but private revelations do not constitute dogmas, and some theologians confine the word defined to doctrines solemnly defined by the pope or by a general council, while a revealed truth becomes a dogma even when proposed by the Church through her ordinary magisterium or teaching office. A dogma therefore implies a twofold relation: to Divine revelation and to the authoritative teaching of the Church.
"...some theologians confine the word defined to doctrines solemnly defined by the pope or by a general council, while a revealed truth becomes a dogma even when proposed by the Church through her ordinary magisterium or teaching office”
Catholic Encyclopedia (~1913), Infallibility:
Mutual Relations of the Organs of Infallibility
A few brief remarks under this head will serve to make the Catholic conception of ecclesiastical infallibility still clearer. Three organs have been mentioned:
1. the bishops dispersed throughout the world in union with the Holy See;
2. ecuмenical councils under the headship of the pope; and
3. the pope himself separately.
Through the first of these is exercised what theologians describe as the ordinarium magisterium, i. e. the common or everyday teaching authority of the Church; through the second and third the magisterium solemne, or undeniably definitive authority. Practically speaking, at the present day, and for many centuries in the past, only the decisions of ecuмenical councils and the ex cathedra teaching of the pope have been treated as strictly definitive in the canonical sense, and the function of the magisterium ordinarium has been concerned with the effective promulgation and maintenance of what has been formally defined by the magisterium solemne or may be legitimately deduced from its definitions.
Even the ordinarium magisterium is not independent of the pope. In other words, it is only bishops who are in corporate union with the pope, the Divinely constituted head and centre of Christ's mystical body, the one true Church, who have any claim to share in the charisma by which the infallibility of their morally unanimous teaching is divinely guaranteed according to the terms of Christ's promises.
A Catholic Dictionary (imprimatur, 1931-1957), Infallibility:
"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."
A Catholic Dictionary (imprimatur, 1931-1957), Magisterium:
“The Church's divinely appointed authority to teach the truths of religion…This teaching is infallible. The solemn magisterium is that which is exercised only rarely by formal and authentic definitions of councils or Popes... The ordinary magisterium is continually exercised by the Church especially in her universal practices connected with faith and morals, in the unanimous consent of the Fathers and theologians, in the decisions of the Roman Congregations concerning faith and morals, in the common sense of the Faithful, and various historical docuмents, in which the faith is declared. All these are founts of a teaching which as a whole is infallible...”
The Catechism Explained (imprimatur, 1899) Page 237: The Infallibility of the Church
As Christ was not to remain always on earth, He appointed another infallible teacher, His Church, and provided it with the necessary gifts, especially with the assistance of the Holy Spirit. Christ conferred on His apostles and their successors the teaching office and promised them His divine assistance. Thus He said at His ascension into heaven: "Going, teach ye all nations . . . and behold I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world" (Matt, xxviii. 19, 20) ; and at the Last Supper: "I will ask the Father and He shall give you another Paraclete that He may abide with you forever, the Spirit of truth"; (John xiv. 16, 17). To St. Peter He said: "The gates of hell shall not prevail against the Church" (Matt. xvi. 18). Since Christ is the Son of God, His words must be true. If the Church, in the carrying out of her teaching office, could lead man into error, Christ would not have kept His word. Hence St. Paul calls the Church "the pillar and ground of truth" (1 Tim. iii. 15), and the measures decided upon by the apostles in the Council of Jerusalem were introduced with the words: "For it hath seemed good to the Holy Ghost and to us" (Acts xv. 28).
Page 239:
Nor was this solemn declaration (of the Immaculate Conception in 1854) necessary; it was quite sufficient that all the bishops should teach in the same sense in regard of any given subject to make that teaching infallible; were it otherwise the Church would be capable of teaching heresy, or of falling away from the truth. Hence the Vatican Council declared that not only must that be accepted which has been solemnly defined by the Church, but also whatever is proposed by the lawful and general teaching authority (Vatican Council, 3, 3).
PaulCF,
No need to re-post these lengthy quotes. For some reason, many sedevacantists are so fond of cutting & pasting these insufferable lengthy quotes all at once in forum discussions as to dissimulate their poor understanding of the topic and deceive the untrained naïve reader. It is juvenile.
"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."
What happens with the many teachings that are NOT proposed by the Church to be believed by Divine and Catholic Faith and which are NOT contained in the Word of God or in Tradition?
Perhaps this question will put things in the right perspective for you.
It is not about what organ is teaching what, but the teaching itself, which necessarily must be connected to Scripture and Tradition to be dogmatic and defined as such by the Church. Infallibility is the degree of certitude of a teaching. Of course, there are instance where the Ordinary Magisterium teaches what has been previously defined as infallible via Ecuмenical Council or the Pope speaking ex-cathedra. Whenever this happens, their infallibility has been previously established by an independent decision by the proper organ.
-
The end of discussion occurred when both Siscoe and Salza quit this thread several days ago.
They left because they saw that you didn't understand anything about infallibility...
Is that what they told you, or wishful thinking on your part?
-
"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."
What happens with the many teachings that are NOT proposed by the Church to be believed by Divine and Catholic Faith and which are NOT contained in the Word of God or in Tradition?
Perhaps this question will put things in the right perspective for you.
It is not about what organ is teaching what, but the teaching itself, which necessarily must be connected to Scripture and Tradition to be dogmatic and defined as such by the Church. Infallibility is the degree of certitude of a teaching. Of course, there are instance where the Ordinary Magisterium teaches what has been previously defined as infallible via Ecuмenical Council or the Pope speaking ex-cathedra. Whenever this happens, their infallibility has been previously established by an independent decision by the proper organ.
If something is not proposed by the Church to be believed, or not contained in Scripture or tradition, it's not part of the magisterium. Very, very simple. It's baffling why you have such a mental block on this.
This flowchart makes it very clear:
(http://baptismofdesire.com/test-for-infallibility.jpg)
-
Cantarella,
Perhaps you didn't see this list of quotes I posted recently from the Church all which unanimously state the ordinary magisterium is infallible? There are no exceptions, so don't waste your time continuing to fight this - these quotes speak for themselves.
Yes, they speak for themselves, but you ignore what they are saying as you only hear this one......
it was quite sufficient that all the bishops should teach in the same sense in regard of any given subject to make that teaching infallible.
-
"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."
What happens with the many teachings that are NOT proposed by the Church to be believed by Divine and Catholic Faith and which are NOT contained in the Word of God or in Tradition?
Perhaps this question will put things in the right perspective for you.
It is not about what organ is teaching what, but the teaching itself, which necessarily must be connected to Scripture and Tradition to be dogmatic and defined as such by the Church. Infallibility is the degree of certitude of a teaching. Of course, there are instance where the Ordinary Magisterium teaches what has been previously defined as infallible via Ecuмenical Council or the Pope speaking ex-cathedra. Whenever this happens, their infallibility has been previously established by an independent decision by the proper organ.
If something is not proposed by the Church to be believed, or not contained in Scripture or tradition, it's not part of the magisterium. Very, very simple. It's baffling why you have such a mental block on this.
This flowchart makes it very clear:
(http://baptismofdesire.com/test-for-infallibility.jpg)
The question was about the teachings which are not proposed by the Church to be believed with Divine and Catholic Faith. Do not cut off the question!
The Magisterium does contain fallible teachings, sorry. Your error is assuming that if a teaching is fallible, is necessarily mistaken; when this is not the case. These are merely teachings that are open to a theological critique (and perhaps, modification). An example would be the teachings on Religious Liberty outlined in Pope Pius IX' Syllabus.
Just out of curiosity, what is the source for this flowchart?
-
Oh come on man lol
Have you seen PaulFC's website all about a BOD? He has no approval at all either. Strange that, because it's certain he could get all the permissions, approvals and imprimaturs from every NO bishop there is for that site.
Why do you make up things on the fly about things you have no knowledge of? Do you think no one is going to notice?
For your information, I have received approval from multiple traditional clergy on baptismofdesire.com, and there are CMRI clergy that regularly refer people there.
Well that's no surprise Paul, the CMRI clergy believe in salvation via No Sacrament At All the same as the NO hierarchy and you, so it should be expected that they'd give their permissions and approvals.
-
Oh come on man lol
Have you seen PaulFC's website all about a BOD? He has no approval at all either. Strange that, because it's certain he could get all the permissions, approvals and imprimaturs from every NO bishop there is for that site.
Why do you make up things on the fly about things you have no knowledge of? Do you think no one is going to notice?
For your information, I have received approval from multiple traditional clergy on baptismofdesire.com, and there are CMRI clergy that regularly refer people there.
Well that's no surprise Paul, the CMRI clergy believe in salvation via No Sacrament At All the same as the NO hierarchy and you, so it should be expected that they'd give their permissions and approvals.
No so. The Church teaches that baptism of desire is an intrinsic PART of the Sacrament of baptism, but not a sacrament itself. Just like the soul by itself, separated from the body, is NOT a human, but an intrinsic part of a human, because a human is BOTH body and soul. This will probably be too much for you to comprehend, but this is the teaching of the Church.
-
The question was about the teachings which are not proposed by the Church to be believed with Divine and Catholic Faith. Do not cut off the question!
The Magisterium does contain fallible teachings, sorry. Your error is assuming that if a teaching is fallible, is necessarily mistaken; when this is not the case. These are merely teachings that are open to a theological critique (and perhaps, modification). An example would be the teachings on Religious Liberty outlined in Pope Pius IX' Syllabus.
Just out of curiosity, what is the source for this flowchart?
Holy smokes, I never said any of the things that you just said I did! You come across just as imbalanced as Stubborn. You must be a Feeneyite.
As for the source of the flowchart, given that you completely disregard quotes from General Councils, Popes, and Canon Law etc, does it really matter to you what the source is?
-
You Must admit that the CONTENT of Vatican II is infallible. For it has been Promulgated by a Pope, accepted by all the Bishops, preached and acted upon, has been placed in Catechisms and has been made the Ordinary Universal teaching of all the Church.
Gregory I,
I’ll answer for John. The ordinary and universal Magisterium (OUM) is an organ of infallibility, but there are conditions for the infallibility of the OUM, just as there are conditions for infallibility of the Pope. If you find out what the conditions for the infallibility of the OUM are, you will know at once that Vatican II did not meet them (at least not one of them). And don’t look for these conditions in the article written by John Daly, because you won’t find them there. It is precisely because Mr. Daly doesn’t know the conditions that he mistakenly believes Vatican II should have been infallible by the OUM. We address the conditions for the infallibility of the OUM in chapter 14. You can read the first two pages of chapter 14 here:
http://trueorfalsepope.com/True%20or%20False%20Pope%20-%20Sneak%20Peak.pdf
That's where to go for a sneak peak, is it? What's a sneak peak anyway, a mountain that's real sneaky?
Is sneak peak better than "sneek peek"?
-
BTW the link for that post by RobS is as follows:
http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php?a=topic&t=38915&min=110&#p3
.
-
This is from their book:
In light of the clear evidence that Vatican II did not meet the conditions for conciliar infallibility, the Sedevacantist apologist, John Daly, came up with a new theory in an attempt to demonstrate that Vatican II still violated the Church’s infallibility, even though it did not define any doctrines. This novel theory is another attempt to “prove” that Paul VI, who ratified the docuмents, could not have been a true Pope. While Mr. Daly acknowledges that Paul VI himself admitted that Vatican II explicitly “avoided proclaiming in an extraordinary manner any dogma carrying the mark of infallibility,” he nevertheless claims that Vatican II met the conditions for infallibility in another way. He claims that because Vatican II was a gathering of the bishops of the world along with the Pope, its teachings constitute an act of the Ordinary Universal Magisterium. Now, since the First Vatican Council (1870) taught that the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium is infallible, Mr. Daly asserts that the teachings contained in the docuмents of Vatican II should have been covered entirely by the Church's infallibility. Accordingly, he concludes that if the docuмents of Vatican II contain errors, it proves that Paul VI could not have been a true Pope, since the bishops throughout the world, when united to the Pope, teach infallibly. Now, from what we have already seen, it should be evident that there is a flaw somewhere in Mr. Daly’s reasoning. After all, every general council of the Church consists of the bishops of the world in union with the Pope, yet even in the councils in which dogmas are infallibly defined, only the definitions themselves are protected by the Church’s infallibility, which, interestingly, even some Sedevacantists acknowledge. How, then, can Mr. Daly claim that everything in Vatican II should have been covered by Church’s infallibility, when, in fact, unlike the other general councils, Vatican II issued no definitions at all? The fact that Mr. Daly has been spreading this error for years, and has been unable to see the evident problem with his reasoning, is actually quite telling in and of itself.
Note the subtle error, that the Ordinary Universal Magisterium is spoken of as a DEFINING power. They are trying to imply that there was no definition so it is not infallible.
THIS is stupid. The Ordinary Universal Magisterium is not a DEFINING power, it is a PROPOSING power.
Behold the theologian Van Noort:
IV. The Object of Infallibility
In the definition given above the object of infallibility was expressed in these words borrowed from the Vatican Council: “when it defines a doctrine of faith or morals.” It remains now to fix more accurately the meaning and the scope of this formula. This will be done on the basis of the words of Christ and of the apostles cited in the course of the proof; and on the basis, too, of the purpose for which the privilege of infallibility was granted.
It is important to pay attention above all to the word doctrine; for infallibility concerns the teaching office and so has as its special object doctrines, or at least doctrinal decisions by which some truth is presented to be believed or maintained by everyone.
The formula, “a doctrine of faith or morals,” comprises all doctrines the knowledge of which is of vital concern to people if they are to believe aright and to live uprightly in accordance with the religion of Christ. Now doctrines of this sort have either been revealed themselves or are so closely allied with revelation that they cannot be neglected without doing harm to the latter. Consequently the object of infallibility is twofold: there is a primary and a secondary object.
PROPOSITION 1: The primary object of infallibility is each and every religious truth contained formally in the sources of revelation.
By a religious truth is meant anything (doctrine or fact) which pertains to religion, i.e., to faith and morals, and insofar as it does pertain to it. The various ways in which a truth can be formally contained in the sources of revelation will be explained in the treatise on Faith. According to all Catholics, the present proposition is a dogma of faith.
Proof: That religious truths contained formally in the sources of revelation are the object of infallibility calls for no explicit demonstration.
That infallibility extends to each and every one of these truths, whether they be matters of intellectual concern or of practical action, is clear: (1) from the words of Christ, who promised His assistance to the apostles and sent them forth to teach the nations “to observe all the commandments I have given you,” and who promised them the Spirit of truth who “will teach you everything.” (2) from the express purpose of infallibility. If the latter did not embrace all these truths, one could be doubtful about almost any single truth; for where could one find a criterion for distinguishing fundamental from not-so-fundamental truths?
Sequel
To the primary object of infallibility belong specifically:
1. Decisions on the canon, or the material extent, of Sacred Scripture, or on its true meaning in passages dealing with faith or morals.
2. Decisions acknowledging and explaining the records of divine tradition.
3. Decisions on the selection of terms in which revealed truth is to be presented for belief (dogmatic terminology, creeds, dogmatic decrees).
4. Decisions on doctrines directly opposed to revealed truth (condemnation of heresies). For he who knows with infallible certainty the truth of a proposition knows with the same infallibility the falseness of a contradictory or contrary proposition.
PROPOSITION 2: The secondary object of infallibility comprises all those matters which are so closely connected with the revealed deposit that revelation itself would be imperiled unless an absolutely certain decision could he made about them.
The charism of infallibility was bestowed upon the Church so that the latter could piously safeguard and confidently explain the deposit of Christian revelation, and thus could be in all ages the teacher of Christian truth and of the Christian way of life. But if the Church is to fulfill this purpose, it must be infallible in its judgment of doctrines and facts which, even though not revealed, are so intimately connected with revelation that any error or doubt about them would constitute a peril to the faith. Furthermore, the Church must be infallible not only when it issues a formal decree, but also when it performs some action which, for all practical purposes, is the equivalent of a doctrinal definition.
One can easily see why matters connected with revelation are called the secondary object of infallibility. Doctrinal authority and infallibility were given to the Church's rulers that they might safeguard and confidently explain the deposit of Christian revelation. That is why the chief object of infallibility, that, namely, which by its very nature falls within the scope of infallibility, includes only the truths contained in the actual deposit of revelation. Allied matters, on the other hand, which are not in the actual deposit, but contribute to its safeguarding and security, come within the purview of infallibility not by their very nature, but rather by reason of the revealed truth to which they are annexed. As a result, infallibility embraces them only secondarily. It follows that when the Church passes judgment on matters of this sort, it is infallible only insofar as they are connected with revelation.
When theologians go on to break up the general statement of this thesis into its component parts, they teach that the following individual matters belong to the secondary object of infallibility: 1. theological conclusions; 2. dogmatic facts; 3. the general discipline of the Church; 4. approval of religious orders; 5. canonization of saints.
Assertion 1: The Church's infallibility extends to theological conclusions. This proposition is theologically certain.
A theological conclusion is a proposition which by genuinely discursive reasoning is deduced with certainty from two premises, one of which is formally revealed, the other known with natural certitude. It can be strictly a matter of intellectual knowledge, like the fact that the Son proceeds from the Father by a process of intellectual generation; or it can be a matter of practical knowledge, like the fact that one may not directly abort a fetus to save the life of the mother. To assert that the Church is infallible in decreeing these conclusions is to affirm implicitly that it is infallible in rejecting errors opposed thereto; the principle is the same for both.
Proof:
1. From the purpose of infallibility. The Church is infallible in matters so closely connected with revelation that any error in these matters would constitute a peril to the faith. But theological conclusions are matters of this type. The conclusion is obvious.
Major. It is evident from Christ's promises that the teaching office of the Church was endowed with infallibility so that it might be able to carry out its mission properly: to safeguard reverently, explain confidently, and defend effectively the deposit of faith. But the realization of this purpose demands the extension of infallibility to related matters, in the sense explained above. Here is the reason. The security of the deposit requires the effective warding off or elimination of all error which may be opposed to it, even though only indirectly. This would be simply impossible without infallibility in related matters. If the Church were infallible only in the field of revealed truth and not in that of matters annexed thereto, it would be like a general who was assigned to defend a city but was given no authority to build up defenses or to destroy the material which the enemy had assembled. It would be like a caretaker to whom the master of the house had said, “Take care that my house doesn't burn down; but don't put out any flames as long as they remain merely nearby”!
Minor. Every conclusion is so connected with its premises that a denial of the conclusion involves necessarily the denial of at least one of those premises. Now one of the premises upon which every theological conclusion rests is a truth evident from reason, and since no one can very well deny such a premise, there is danger that an error in the conclusion may give rise to an error about the revealed premise.
2. From the mind of the Church. The Church surely makes no mistake when it determines the force and extent of its infallibility, for the greatest of harm would result if the Church, by stretching infallibility beyond its limits, could force everyone to give unqualified assent to a matter about which it is liable to be mistaken. But the fact is that the Church has often and openly expressed its conviction of being infallible in the matter of theological conclusions. It has expressed this conviction at least in an active, practical way, by irrevocably repudiating doctrines which, while not directly opposed to revealed truths, are opposed to theological conclusions. See, e.g., DB 602, 679, 1542, 1748.
Assertion 2: The Church's infallibility extends to dogmatic facts.
This proposition is theologically certain.
A dogmatic fact is a fact not contained in the sources of revelation, on the admission of which depends the knowledge or certainty of a dogma or of a revealed truth. The following questions are concerned with dogmatic facts: “Was the Vatican Council a legitimate ecuмenical council? Is the Latin Vulgate a substantially faithful translation of the original books of the Bible? Was Pius XII legitimately elected bishop of Rome?” One can readily see that on these facts hang the questions of whether the decrees of the Vatican Council are infallible, whether the Vulgate is truly Sacred Scripture, whether Piux XII is to be recognized as supreme ruler of the universal Church.
From the time of the Jansenist controversies, theologians have understood by the term “dogmatic fact” especially the following question: “Is such and such a doctrine (orthodox or heretical) really contained in such and such a book?” The Jansenists in fact admitted the Church's infallibility in a question of right or of dogma, i.e., the Church could decide whether this or that doctrine (considered in itself and prescinding from the book in which it was said to be expressed) was heretical. But at the same time they denied its infallibility in a question of fact, e.g., whether this (heretical) doctrine was really stated in such and such a book, as, e.g., Jansen's Augustinus.(9) One can readily see that a determination of this fact would determine whether one could or could not maintain and defend the doctrine of this book.
Proof:
1. From the purpose of infallibility. The Church is infallible in those related matters in which an error would constitute a danger to the faith. But dogmatic facts are matters of this kind. The reason should be obvious from the examples alleged above. What good would it do to proclaim in theory the infallible authority of ecuмenical councils if one could licitly doubt the legitimacy of a specific council? What good would it do to acknowledge the inspiration of the Sacred Books in their original forms — forms long ago extinct — if one could not definitively establish the substantial fidelity of copies of the original, and of the translations which the Church has to use? Could Christians be effectively protected against errors in their faith if the Church could not warn them against poisonous fare, such as are books which contain heresy or errors in religious matters?
2. From the practice of the Church, which (a) often resolutely and officially repudiated heretical writings as e.g., the Thalia of Arius in the Council of Nicaea and the works of Nestorius in the Council of Ephesus; (b) declared the Vulgate to be authentic at the Council of Trent,(10) and the Canon of the Mass to be free of any error; (11) (c) asserted specifically in the case of Jansen that “reverent silence” about a dogmatic fact is not at all adequate, “but that all faithful Christians must condemn as heretical in their hearts as well as with their lips the opinions [which the Church has] condemned in the five aforementioned propositions of Jansen's book, opinions which the very words of those propositions quite clearly state.” (12)
A famous objection is that concerned with the Three Chapters (Theodore, bishop of Mopsuestia and his works; some of the works of Theodoret, bishop of Cyrrhus, and the letter of Ibas, a priest of Edessa, to Mans of Persia, all of which works favored Nestorianism). The Council of Chalcedon is said to have approved these works and the Second Council of Constantinople and Pope Vigilius subsequently to have condemned them. Consequently, they say, at least one of them was in error about a dogmatic fact. But this conclusion is not justified, for although the fathers of Chalcedon, after having expressly condemned Nestorianism, accepted Theodore and Ibas as members of the Council, they passed no explicit decision regarding the Three Chapters.(13)
Assertion 3: The Church's infallibility extends to the general discipline of the Church. This proposition is theologically certain.
By the term “general discipline of the Church” are meant those ecclesiastical laws passed for the universal Church for the direction of Christian worship and Christian living. Note the italicized words: ecclesiastical laws, passed for the universal Church.
The imposing of commands belongs not directly to the teaching office but to the ruling office; disciplinary laws are only indirectly an object of infallibility, i.e., only by reason of the doctrinal decision implicit in them. When the Church's rulers sanction a law, they implicitly make a twofold judgment: 1. “This law squares with the Church's doctrine of faith and morals”; that is, it imposes nothing that is at odds with sound belief and good morals. (15) This amounts to a doctrinal decree. 2. “This law, considering all the circuмstances, is most opportune.” This is a decree of practical judgment.
Although it would he rash to cast aspersions on the timeliness of a law, especially at the very moment when the Church imposes or expressly reaffirms it, still the Church does not claim to he infallible in issuing a decree of practical judgment. For the Church's rulers were never promised the highest degree of prudence for the conduct of affairs. But the Church is infallible in issuing a doctrinal decree as intimated above — and to such an extent that it can never sanction a universal law which would be at odds with faith or morality or would be by its very nature conducive to the injury of souls.
The Church's infallibility in disciplinary matters, when understood in this way, harmonizes beautifully with the mutability of even universal laws. For a law, even though it be thoroughly consonant with revealed truth, can, given a change in circuмstances, become less timely or even useless, so that prudence may dictate its abrogation or modification.
And Tanquerey:
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.
SO, no Mr Salza, clearly you have not yet examined infallibility. Although, given, I haven't finished his book! lol. Still, it is false to Assert Vatican II was not covered by infallibility, as defined by the theologians of the Church.
-
The question was about the teachings which are not proposed by the Church to be believed with Divine and Catholic Faith. Do not cut off the question!
The Magisterium does contain fallible teachings, sorry. Your error is assuming that if a teaching is fallible, is necessarily mistaken; when this is not the case. These are merely teachings that are open to a theological critique (and perhaps, modification). An example would be the teachings on Religious Liberty outlined in Pope Pius IX' Syllabus.
Just out of curiosity, what is the source for this flowchart?
Holy smokes, I never said any of the things that you just said I did! You come across just as imbalanced as Stubborn. You must be a Feeneyite.
As for the source of the flowchart, given that you completely disregard quotes from General Councils, Popes, and Canon Law etc, does it really matter to you what the source is?
Yes Cantarella, the Catholic faith is imbalanced lol
-
Note the subtle error, that the Ordinary Universal Magisterium is spoken of as a DEFINING power. They are trying to imply that there was no definition so it is not infallible.
THIS is stupid. The Ordinary Universal Magisterium is not a DEFINING power, it is a PROPOSING power.
Behold the theologian Van Noort….
GregoryI,
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.
-
Note the subtle error, that the Ordinary Universal Magisterium is spoken of as a DEFINING power. They are trying to imply that there was no definition so it is not infallible.
THIS is stupid. The Ordinary Universal Magisterium is not a DEFINING power, it is a PROPOSING power.
Behold the theologian Van Noort….
GregoryI,
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.
If your argument is that V2 is off the hook because it didn't define anything, forget about it. That kind of argument is right out of the modernist playbook. The entire point of V2 was to bring the 1789 revolution into the Church. Ratzinger among others has publicly admitted this. V2 defined religious liberty, ecuмenism (=egality), and collegiality (=fraternity). Afterwards it was celebrated as "razing the bastions of the Church". All these things were approved at the very highest levels of the Conciliar hierarchy including P6, JP1, JP2, B16, and F1. And everyone who opposed it was driven into exile. So of course V2 did define these things and they defined these things as solemnly as they possibly could. If V2 is truly a work of the magisterium then it is certainly binding and cannot possibly be in error. Sedevacantism is a rational attempt to explain how this could have all transpired without violating any of the Church's previous teaching. Pretending that what happened didn't really happen and then engaging in detraction of prominent sedevacantists is a cowardly response to the current crisis. You should be ashamed.
-
Note the subtle error, that the Ordinary Universal Magisterium is spoken of as a DEFINING power. They are trying to imply that there was no definition so it is not infallible.
THIS is stupid. The Ordinary Universal Magisterium is not a DEFINING power, it is a PROPOSING power.
Behold the theologian Van Noort….
GregoryI,
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.
If your argument is that V2 is off the hook because it didn't define anything, forget about it. That kind of argument is right out of the modernist playbook. The entire point of V2 was to bring the 1789 revolution into the Church. Ratzinger among others has publicly admitted this. V2 defined religious liberty, ecuмenism (=egality), and collegiality (=fraternity). Afterwards it was celebrated as "razing the bastions of the Church". All these things were approved at the very highest levels of the Conciliar hierarchy including P6, JP1, JP2, B16, and F1. And everyone who opposed it was driven into exile. So of course V2 did define these things and they defined these things as solemnly as they possibly could. If V2 is truly a work of the magisterium then it is certainly binding and cannot possibly be in error. Sedevacantism is a rational attempt to explain how this could have all transpired without violating any of the Church's previous teaching. Pretending that what happened didn't really happen and then engaging in detraction of prominent sedevacantists is a cowardly response to the current crisis. You should be ashamed.
The underlined part above is pure ignorance. You're basing you position on emotion, rather than the doctrine of the Church. Being led by emotion rather than sound doctrine is probably why you fell into Sedevacantism, which is awash in ignorance and doctrinal error.
And the book in no way defends Vatican II; it only shows that it did not violate the Church's infallibility. If you knew what the Church teaches, you would be aware of that. Since you don't, you are not. Again, ignorance and error is at the root of Sedevacantism. And the errors run very deep, which is why it took 700 pages to sort everything out.
-
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.
Lastly, below I am posting a short paragraph from the Catholic Encyclopedia from a century ago. It is jampacked with information and quotes confirming the infallibility of General Councils. The teaching of the Church does not provide exceptions to the infallibility of a General Council based on what is defined there. The infallibility originates directly from Scripture and pertains to bishops gathering in the name of our Lord to make a decision on a matter, followed by the Vicar of Christ putting his stamp of approval on what was decided. Even for the sake of argument and putting aside what was clearly defined at Vatican II and approved by Paul VI, you have amazing audacity to publicly declare these promises from Scripture and the Church as void when over 2500 clergy from every part of the world were present and in participation at Vatican II, and Paul VI put his stamp of approval on all of it. The bottom line is, if Vatican II is a valid Council (approved by a true Pope), it is infallible and owed complete obedience according to Church teaching.
VIII. INFALLIBILITY OF GENERAL COUNCILS
All the arguments which go to prove the infallibility of the Church apply with their fullest force to the infallible authority of general councils in union with the pope. For conciliary decisions are the ripe fruit of the total life-energy of the teaching Church actuated and directed by the Holy Ghost. Such was the mind of the Apostles when, at the Council of Jerusalem (Acts, xv, 28), they put the seal of supreme authority on their decisions in attributing them to the joint action of the Spirit of God and of themselves: Visum est Spiritui sancto et nobis (It hath seemed good to the Holy Ghost and to us). This formula and the dogma it enshrines stand out brightly in the deposit of faith and have been carefully guarded throughout the many storms raised in councils by the play of the human element. From the earliest times they who rejected the decisions of councils were themselves rejected by the Church. Emperor Constantine saw in the decrees of Nicaea "a Divine commandment" and Athanasius wrote to the bishops of Africa: "What God has spoken through the Council of Nicaea endureth for ever." St. Ambrose (Ep. xxi) pronounces himself ready to die by the sword rather than give up the Nicene decrees, and Pope Leo the Great expressly declares that "whoso resists the Councils of Nicaea and Chalcedon cannot be numbered among Catholics" (Ep. lxxviii, ad Leonem Augustum). In the same epistle he says that the decrees of Chalcedon were framed instruente Spiritu Sancto, i.e. under the guidance of the Holy Ghost. How the same doctrine was embodied in many professions of faith may be seen in Denzinger's (ed. Stahl) "Enchiridion symbolorum et definitionum", under the heading (index) "Concilium generale representat ecclesiam universalem, eique absolute obediendum" (General councils represent the universal Church and demand absolute obedience). The Scripture texts on which this unshaken belief is based are, among others: "But when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will teach you all truth . . ." John xvi, 13) "Behold I am with you [teaching] all days even to the consummation of the world" (Matt., xxviii, 20), "The gates of hell shall not prevail against it [i.e. the Church]" (Matt., xvi, 18).
-
Note the subtle error, that the Ordinary Universal Magisterium is spoken of as a DEFINING power. They are trying to imply that there was no definition so it is not infallible.
THIS is stupid. The Ordinary Universal Magisterium is not a DEFINING power, it is a PROPOSING power.
Behold the theologian Van Noort….
GregoryI,
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.
If the book is as good as its preview, I fear your book is not going to make much of an argument.
It's all the same confused issues, as if those who make a prudential judgment that he who claims to be Pope lacks authority are actually rendering a canonical verdict as self-appointed judges.
This is ridiculous Rob. Think it through:
A man who is presumably Pope falls into public heresy, not just once in a single topic, but repeatedly on various topics. Now, suppose it DOES get to the point of canonical Notoriety, where he actually or virtually admits his own guilt:
HOW will anyone on earth DETERMINE this man OUGHT to be deposed without making a prudential judgment of the FACT beforehand? It's impossible!
There are three responses to a Pope who is in different levels of Heresy;
1. If he is a secret heretic, he is guilty before God, but not in the sight of the Church, therefore, we determine nothing. He is our Pope.
2. If he is a public heretic, publicly ENACTING and PROMULGATING heresies and erroneous material in the name of the Church, such as Vatican II in Toto, the New Mass and the 1983 canon law, we must state the obvious: he is formally deprived of jurisdiction. He has no power to bind or loose, because the authority of Christ and his Vicar are a single authority governing the Church. To attribute to one the authority of Christ who goes counter to Christ in the very capacity of that Authority is to blaspheme Christ. It is to say that God has given us the Novus Ordo. That is blasphemous. So since we recognize in him NONE of the Authority of Christ (because God is not mocked) we reject all of his claims to authority. Nevertheless, the see is not vacant, it is occupied, but by one who has no authority, but he is not yet deposed by the Church, but he is to be deposed if he does not repent.
3. If a man who calls himself Pope publicly professes heresy and enacts it in the life of the Church and then admits what he did was wrong but continues to do it, irrespective of the voices clamor inf around him, then he is no Pope, the see is vacant, he is deposed by Christ and the Church is widowed.
We are at least in stage 2. Stage 3 I sense is right around the corner, because Francis has no divine assistance in his office.
-
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.
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.
-
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:
"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.
-
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,
You were asked a couple questions, that you never answered...
...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.
-
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.
-
RobS, you used one of John Daly's translations (without attribution I might add) and you are a more knowledgeable theologian than he is? At least he can read Latin! Why do you think you are more capable than he is? Actually the reality is that neither you nor Mr. Daly are theologians. But Fr./Bishop Michel Guerard des Lauriers was a true theologian who was highly respected prior to V2. He took the SV position. So are you, a lawyer and amateur theologian, more capable than Bishop des Lauriers? Do you consider him ignorant?
-
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.
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.
My point wasn't that we should be the ones to do it, it's that no one can avoid the charge of "Judging." Say an imperfect general council IS called. On what basis is it called? On the basis of prudential judgments. And what are the foundations of those judgments? Public and manifest heresy enacted in the life of the Church.
So to avoid making prudential judgments that this man has zero papal authority is impossible. It is inevitably necessary at some point.
We simply say that we were at that point Dec. 7th 1965. And have remained there ever since. It has simply gotten, in fact, worse.
-
Note the subtle error, that the Ordinary Universal Magisterium is spoken of as a DEFINING power. They are trying to imply that there was no definition so it is not infallible.
THIS is stupid. The Ordinary Universal Magisterium is not a DEFINING power, it is a PROPOSING power.
Behold the theologian Van Noort….
GregoryI,
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.
If the book is as good as its preview, I fear your book is not going to make much of an argument.
It's all the same confused issues, as if those who make a prudential judgment that he who claims to be Pope lacks authority are actually rendering a canonical verdict as self-appointed judges.
This is ridiculous Rob. Think it through:
A man who is presumably Pope falls into public heresy, not just once in a single topic, but repeatedly on various topics. Now, suppose it DOES get to the point of canonical Notoriety, where he actually or virtually admits his own guilt:
HOW will anyone on earth DETERMINE this man OUGHT to be deposed without making a prudential judgment of the FACT beforehand? It's impossible!
If a pope is suspected of heresy, an imperfect council is called, and the council deals with the matter. If you want to know what will happen during this council, read the book. Briefly, if the authorities judge him to be a heretic, he is either deposed ipso facto, or he is deposed by virtue of a vitandus declaration. But he will not lose his office while he is recognized as pope by the Church. We can understand why this is so by using theology and reason.
During the election, the Church merely designates the man who is to receive the pontificate immediately from God. Once the man is chosen by the election (the will of the Church) and accepts (the will of the man elected) God joins the man to the pontificate and he becomes pope.
If a pope falls from the Pontificate, it also happens by an act of God, since only God has the authority to sever the bond uniting the man to the pontificate. Now, the actions of man cannot directly move God to act. Man’s actions are merely the dispositive cause; the efficient cause is Christ. Now, because there is no metaphysical incompatibility between jurisdiction and undeclared heresy for one who holds office (by the judgment of the Church), Christ can sustain the papacy even in a publicly heretical pope, as long as he is being tolerated by the Church and publicly recognized as its head.
Now, if we use our reason, we can understand why Christ would not secretly depose a heretical pope who was recognized as Pope by the Church, for if he were to do so, Christ would effectively deceive his Church into following a false pope – that is, one who was elected by the law of the Church, and presented to the Church as Pope (“Habemus Papam”), yet who was secretly deposed by God.
Now, if Christ did this, the false pope could do what no true pope could do – that is, he could bind the Church to believe heresy by employing all of the conditions set down for papal infallibility And this would only be possible because of a secret act of Christ. This shows why it is that Christ will not depose a heretical pope while he is being recognized as pope by the Church.
The following is a citation from one of the greatest canonists of Bellarmine’s day, who affirmed this very point. The following is a long version of the citation, of which only a small section has been translated into English and published:
Fr. Paul Laymann, S. J. “It is more probable that the Supreme Pontiff, as concerns his own person, could fall into heresy, even a notorious one, by reason of which he would deserve to be deposed by the Church, or rather declared to be separated from her. … The proof of this assertion is that neither Sacred Scripture nor the tradition of the Fathers indicates that such a privilege [i.e., being preserved from heresy when not defining a doctrine] was granted by Christ to the Supreme Pontiff: therefore the privilege is not to be asserted. The first part of the proof is shown from the fact that the promises made by Christ to St. Peter cannot be transferred to the other Supreme Pontiffs insofar as they are private persons, but only as the successor of Peter in the pastoral power of teaching, etc. The latter part is proven from the fact that it is rather the contrary that one finds in the writings of the Fathers and in decrees: not indeed as if the Roman Pontiffs were at any time heretics de facto (for one could hardly show that); but it was the persuasion that it could happen that they fall into heresy and that, therefore, if such a thing should seem to have happened, it would pertain to the other bishops to examine and give a judgment on the matter; as one can see in the Sixth Synod, Act 13; the Seventh Synod, last Act; the eight Synod, Act 7 in the epistle of [Pope] Hadrian; and in the fifth Roman Council under Pope Symmachus. (…) Observe, however, that, though we affirm that the Supreme Pontiff, as a private person, might be able to become a heretic and therefore cease to be a true member of the Church, (…) still, while he was tolerated by the Church, and publicly recognized84 as the universal pastor, he would really enjoy the pontifical power, in such a way that all his decrees would have no less force and authority than they would if he were truly faithful. The reason is: because it is conducive to the governing of the Church, even as, in any other well-constituted commonwealth, that the acts of a public magistrate are in force as long as he remains in office and is publicly tolerated.”
If you disagree with this, please provide an authoritative citation saying that Christ would, in fact, depose a heretical pope while he was being tolerated by the Church and recognized as its head.
Also notice that the above citation refutes the novel Cassiciacuм Thesis, which claims that a heretical pope can be a legal pope, but not possess the authority of the office he legally holds.
-
RobS, you used one of John Daly's translations (without attribution I might add) and you are a more knowledgeable theologian than he is? At least he can read Latin! Why do you think you are more capable than he is? Actually the reality is that neither you nor Mr. Daly are theologians. But Fr./Bishop Michel Guerard des Lauriers was a true theologian who was highly respected prior to V2. He took the SV position. So are you, a lawyer and amateur theologian, more capable than Bishop des Lauriers? Do you consider him ignorant?
The best I can say about John Daly is that he is a very confused individual who has caused much confusion by his writings (especially his article arguing that Vatican II should have been infallible).
Regarding Des Lauriers, his thesis has no basis in tradition and, in fact, is directly contradicted by authorities, such as Fr. Laymann (cited earlier). Here is how Des Laurier's was described as a Seminary professor:
In 1977, a former professor of theology at the seminary at Ecône, Fr. Guérard de Lauriers, published a fanciful thesis with the intention of proving without a shadow of a doubt that Paul VI, Bishop of Rome, recognized and acknowledged by the entire visible Church, was not, in fact, Pope at all. This thesis is known under the title of Thesis of Cassissiacuм. This Father had previously attained widespread notoriety thanks to his incomprehensible courses. This thesis ran true to form. Literally no one could understand his "distinctions," for instance, between the "sessio" and the "missio."
His incomprehensible distinctions are what led to his novel theory that a pope can be a "material pope" but not a formal pope. No such thing. A pope is constituted pope by virtue of his jurisdiction alone, as Cajetan teaches; consequently a "pope" who does not possess papal jurisdiction is no pope at all - not even materially. This is probably why his novel theory did not gain traction.
If you hold to des Laurier's thesis, please provide an authoritative citation from a pre-Vatican II theologian saying that a person can legally possess an office, yet not possess the authority that goes with the office.
-
Edit
-
Rob S
First I would say that the good father Laymann simply offered an opinion I have not seen elsewhere. Besides that, to offer his opinion as evidence is to suggest that we are actually NOT in the conditions he holds to be problematic. But that is the very point, we ARE in that position, where those who claim to be Popes have promulgated and enforced within the bosom of the Church Novelties, errors and heresies. They have all promulgated and enforced Vatican II which is heretical in toto. They have all promulgated and enforced the New Mass which is schismatic. They have all performed public acts of apostasy. Fr Laymann is disqualified as a witness by virtue of the fact that the physical evidence does not conform to his theory.
Nor can we assent to it without denying what he have seen with our eyes or heard with our ears. No theory can cause us to say: "Those aren't rocks the ship is going to run into, they are after all flowers! Because the ships captain cannot steer us toward rocks, even if he wasn't really the captain and he actively tried to."
Which brings up a point: Fr Laymann would suggest that a person who is outside the Church and not really Pope is protected by infallibility for the good of the Church. This is ridiculous, it flies in the face of all the other theologians who specifically say that a PUBLICLY heretical Pope would have no jurisdiction! This opinion could only be considered an aberration in view of the reality and the much more numerous theologians who teach and suggest the opposite.
Regarding Bishop Guerard des Lauriers:
His thesis is totally comprehensible to me. It is grounded in a theologically certain conclusion:
1. Christ, reigning in his Church through his Vicar cannot be the author of error. He and his vicar have a single authority.
2. But Paul VI had erred by promulgating objective heresy and schismatic rites.
3. Therefore, in order not to impute to Christ that which is heretical and erroneous, we are compelled to acknowledge that Paul VI is formally dissociated from Pontifical authority.
There just is no way around this. The Cassiciacuм Thesis is not vague on this at all. The thesis seeks to explain metaphysically how this is possible, and it does very well.
But you would like to see a pre Vatican II theologian make these distinctions?
Very well:
If a Pope who has become a heretic mends his ways before the declaratory sentence, he recovers ipso facto his pontifical authority without any new election of the Cardinals or other legal formality. —
Objection: «If, as we have said, the Pope by the very fact that he has become a heretic loses his pontifical dignity and remains outside the Church, then it is not possible for him to go back into office, at least not in the sense of becoming Pope again, because such a return would have the force of a new election, in which case a council would be attributing to itself a right that belongs to the Cardinals, namely the right of electing, and this —according to Rosellus— is not something that can be done legitimately.
Answer: In the present case, according to the interpretation of ecclesiastical law, the right of election returns to the Cardinals only after a declaratory sentence of the crime, because the penalties imposed by the law itself cannot be executed without such a sentence… And it has not been shown that such a declaration should be pronounced in virtue of any existing law. But rather the opposite is true when the Pope mends his ways, as we demonstrated before. Thus, no harm is done to the Cardinals, since they receive back in a revocable manner the right of choosing another Pontiff, on condition that the heretical Pope be unrepentant and unwilling to mends his ways. It should be of no wonder if a reintegration of this type takes place without any legal solemnity, because, if a person loses ecclesiastical dignity by committing a crime—and this happens by a simple internal effect of the law (nudo juris mysterio fit)— by the same token, once the crime goes away by reason of the amendment, the thing goes back to its original state— also by a simple internal effect of the law.
Cardinal John Jerome of Albano, Tractatus de Potestate Papae, 1543.
Anything else? Also, where is your nihil obstat and imprimatur?
-
Clemens Maria:
It is my understanding that Fr./Bishop Michel Guerard des Lauriers only adhered to the Sedevacantist position temporarily (during his *consecration*) and then reverted even more strongly to his original Cahiers de Cassiciacuм (Sedeprivationism). Then, he commenced a war against the Sedevacantists, who reciprocally, are the strongest opponents of the Thesis.
As said before, the Cassiciacuм thesis clearly condemns strict Sedevacantism (Thesis 21) as an error:
*****In the Present Crisis of the Church:
The Pope no longer has his divinely assisted Pontifical authority.
21. He is deposed because of his personal heresy.
("Sedevacantism")
The error of Thesis 21 (Sedevacantism) lies in its affirmation of conclusions that cannot be proved, or at least proved with the certitude necessary in such matters.
This deficiency pertains above all to two aspects of the thesis.
On the one hand, with regard to the factual heresy of the pope, Thesis 21 passes from the objective aspect to the subjective aspect without any proof. This first objection pertains, not only "de facto," but also "de jure." For this "passing" from the objective to the subjective plane without any admission of culpability on the part of the person involved does not provide us with that quality of objectivity which would be absolutely necessary to come to such a conclusion independent of the intervention of Authority. A proof based on these premises is, in the eyes of the Church, too weak to impose itself on the Church by necessity.
-
Oh, Rob you also asked for a theologians teaching that the Visibility of the Church could be taken away, essentially?
Here you go. Cardinal Siri writing in 1967:
THE ROCK
(LA ROCCIA)
By: Joseph Cardinal Siri
From “Il Dovere Dell’Ortodossia”
Page 6 in Il Dovere Dell’Ortodossia
and originally published in RENOVATIO II (1967), fasc. 2, pp. 183-184
Red bold print added for emphasis.
In The Gospel of Matthew (16,18) the “roccia” (rock), is not only a person, but also an “istituzione” (institution).
The Church founded by Christ on that “roccia” (rock) – Peter, appears clearly (in the aforementioned cited Gospel) acquiring solidity, stability, indefectibility.
The bond between the firmness of the “rock” – Peter – and the firmness of the Church appears totally beyond discussion, that one cannot make any undue inference, qualifying that same Church like “roccia” (the rock).
Here we speak of that rock. As Christ wants it.
That placed, there are many important considerations to be made.
The Church provides security because it is the “roccia” (rock), not thick, and not sand. It deals with a significance that goes beyond the material sense of the metaphor: in fact the rocks of the earth crumble in time, due to the effects of the elements. This “roccia” (rock) will never crumble, nor flake, given that its solidity is guaranteed in the text of Matthew until the end of time. The “rock” remains and no one will scratch it, implicated as she is in a divine undertaking. But on occasion some men may take from others the vision of the rock. Other things may be made to seem like the rock, other things that may appear to all as such. The distinction is a profound one, even if the errors of these men are capable of veiling the reality (truth), they cannot destroy it. The question, easy for all, that presents itself is one of the visibility of the rock. If then situations should occur, that took from certain men the visibility of the “roccia” (rock) in the Church, the consequences would be grave. Those that convert to the Church, convert because they are convinced that they have found the “roccia” (rock), not doubt, hesitation, contradiction or doctrinal anarchy. One converts when one knows that ones hope is not futile. Taking away the visibility of the “roccia” (rock): what happens?
It is necessary that the “roccia” (rock) remains visible in her unity and her invulnerability.
Maybe it is best that we emerge from the metaphor for a moment. Here are the elements from which the Church can be in her significance, full and pure, considered the “roccia” (rock).She has for her head and divine guarantor Jesus Christ. He has assigned to her the four distinctive marks mentioned in the Nicene Creed
It (the Church) has legitimate and secure sacramental efficacy.
It has ability to reconcile, a distinction that cannot be disregarded (or omitted) between the truth acquired with certainty and hypothesis, opinion, the always free search. In total because in her (the Church) operates an Infallible Magisterium.
The infallible Magisterium is tied to the hierarchical structure of the Church. It is for this reason that he who does not see the hierarchy, does not see the “roccia” (rock). He loses and does not acquire easily the security.
-
His incomprehensible distinctions are what led to his novel theory that a pope can be a "material pope" but not a formal pope. No such thing. A pope is constituted pope by virtue of his jurisdiction alone, as Cajetan teaches; consequently a "pope" who does not possess papal jurisdiction is no pope at all - not even materially. This is probably why his novel theory did not gain traction.
If you hold to des Laurier's thesis, please provide an authoritative citation from a pre-Vatican II theologian saying that a person can legally possess an office, yet not possess the authority that goes with the office.
I don't hold Bishop des Laurier's thesis. But unlike you, I don't detract and calumniate people just because I disagree with them. You're an amatuer theologian and you rashly accuse both professional and very capable amateur theologians of being ignorant of theology. But not only that you accuse them of producing bitter fruits. But what could be more of a bitter fruit than rash judgement, detraction and calumny? One can go to hell for that. But being innocently mistaken about the identity of the pope is not a mortal sin. Maybe you should just stick to the theological arguments before you start trying to trash the reputations of good people. But then again, John Lane completely refuted you on Bellarmine Forums. cf. http://sedevacantist.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=1723
http://sedevacantist.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=1756
http://sedevacantist.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=1443
http://sedevacantist.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=1606
So I guess when you are a lawyer and you don't have a good defence, you attack the character of the witnesses.
-
Clemens Maria:
It is my understanding that Fr./Bishop Michel Guerard des Lauriers only adhered to the Sedevacantist position temporarily (during his *consecration*) and then reverted even more strongly to his original Cahiers de Cassiciacuм (Sedeprivationism). Then, he commenced a war against the Sedevacantists, who reciprocally, are the strongest opponents of the Thesis.
You still don't get it. The C-Thesis and "strict sedevacantism" share the common belief that the Vatican II papal claimants are NOT TRUE POPES. Do you understand this?
The beef Bp. Guerard had with "strict" sedevacantists was the danger of them holding a conclave. That is the only real beef. As a matter of fact, many regular sedevacantists who don't accept the C-thesis have a beef with strict sedes for the same reason.
-
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,
You are confusing terms for the magisterium, and it is leading you to a false conclusion. The term "authentic magisterium" is just another term for the magisterium as a whole. Let me get right to the point by providing the definition for "magisterium":
A Catholic Dictionary (imprimatur, 1931-1957), Magisterium:
“The Church's divinely appointed authority to teach the truths of religion…This teaching is infallible. The solemn magisterium is that which is exercised only rarely by formal and authentic definitions of councils or Popes... The ordinary magisterium is continually exercised by the Church especially in her universal practices connected with faith and morals, in the unanimous consent of the Fathers and theologians, in the decisions of the Roman Congregations concerning faith and morals, in the common sense of the Faithful, and various historical docuмents, in which the faith is declared. All these are founts of a teaching which as a whole is infallible...”
All other references to the magisterium in Catholic books before Vatican II all concur with this definition, namely that the magisterium of the Church teaches in two ways; ordinary everyday teaching, and occasional solemn teaching. That is it - there are no other components to the magisterium.
I previously posted other references from the Church referring to the magisterium a few pages back in this discussion, and hopefully you can also get to them through this link:
http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php?a=topic&t=38915&min=310&num=5
I recommend you look very closely at the quotes I posted at the link above and you'll see that the First Vatican Council, Canon law (1917), several papal encyclicals and letters, and numerous Catholic books with imprimatur, ALL refer to the magisterium in the same manner as I mention above (two components; ordinary + solemn, compose one infallible magisterium), and all of them are unanimous in stating these components are always infallible, no exceptions.
I do not have your book, so if you have any teachings of the Church that trump what I have mentioned here, I kindly ask you to please post them. Thanks
-
Clemens Maria:
It is my understanding that Fr./Bishop Michel Guerard des Lauriers only adhered to the Sedevacantist position temporarily (during his *consecration*) and then reverted even more strongly to his original Cahiers de Cassiciacuм (Sedeprivationism). Then, he commenced a war against the Sedevacantists, who reciprocally, are the strongest opponents of the Thesis.
You still don't get it. The C-Thesis and "strict sedevacantism" share the common belief that the Vatican II papal claimants are NOT TRUE POPES. Do you understand this?
The beef Bp. Guerard had with "strict" sedevacantists was the danger of them holding a conclave. That is the only real beef. As a matter of fact, many regular sedevacantists who don't accept the C-thesis have a beef with strict sedes for the same reason.
I agree. His whole thesis is an attempt to respect the strict interpretation of canon law while taking a moderate approach to the question: "Is an heretical Pope ACTUALLY deposed?" The point is that the theologians disagree on that question. But they DO share much more in common the idea that an heretical pope has no Jurisdiction! Bishop des Lauriers was also working from a common denominator, which makes his claims stronger. He didn't want to make any leaps of reasoning.
-
Clemens Maria:
It is my understanding that Fr./Bishop Michel Guerard des Lauriers only adhered to the Sedevacantist position temporarily (during his *consecration*) and then reverted even more strongly to his original Cahiers de Cassiciacuм (Sedeprivationism). Then, he commenced a war against the Sedevacantists, who reciprocally, are the strongest opponents of the Thesis.
You still don't get it. The C-Thesis and "strict sedevacantism" share the common belief that the Vatican II papal claimants are NOT TRUE POPES. Do you understand this?
There is a world of difference between believing there is a materialiter Pope occupying the Seat of Peter who has lost Divine Assistance due to an evident absence of intention effecting the common good of the Church and who can recant, convert, and instantaneously become a formaliter Pope; and the belief that there is no Pope at all due to heresy, he will not be able to revert or re-gain his pontificate by a simple act, and he has lost it for good in so facto without further ecclesiastical declaration; specially in regards to the final outcome:
The Thesis of Cassiciacuм which says the occupant of the See is not deposed, does not ABSOLUTELY say he should be deposed. It only says this hypothetically: he should be compelled (by the Catholic bishops and by the cardinals, or by any competent Authority in the Church) to condemn the errors; it is only after such an official demand is made on the part of those who have Authority in the Church that deposition can occur: that is to say, when the occupant of the Apostolic Throne refuses to confess the Faith and condemn the errors contradicting it. (Only then could the Bishops and or cardinals officially state that he is deposed, the person responsible for deposing him being Christ.) But, should the occupant of the Throne comply with the demand: then his act of condemning the errors would ipso facto establish him as being formally the Pope.
Sedeprivationists acknowledge the fact that there is a need for the Church to depose the Pope after proving pertinacity (unwillingness to recant his heresy after warnings performed by proper ecclesiastical authority). This is not done by the laity. Until this procedure is completed, the Seat remains occupied.
Sedevacantists commonly argue against Sedeprivationism from the angle of Ecclesiastical law: citing canon 188.4 (cleric losing office after publicly deviating form the Faith without further ecclesiastical declaration, as if the Pope was bound to Ecclesiastical Law, when he is not.
-
Yes, but the point they both agree on CantArella is that, effectively, there is no Pope. Where there is no legitimate exercise of Juridical authority there is no legitimate office, therefore the Pope-elect or Papabile, is simply a marker for the sake of material continuity.
Also, if you re-read those docuмents, you will see that the Cassiciacuм Thesis does not posit a legitimate Pope who lost divine assistance. It Posits a man who was elected and accepted. But because of his lack of willing the common good of the Church, did not attain to the Papacy Formally AT ALL. He was never a formal Pope. This is why he deviates LATER into heresy.
Remember, the way the thesis works is this:
1. Reduction ad absurdum: A true vicar of Christ is associated with Christ in his official and authoritative acts, and this association is the Divine assistance. BUT These apparent vicars have enacted erroneous and heretical laws from within the bosom of the Church. Therefore, they, of necessity, have ALWAYS been dissociated from the Divine assistance.
It has to be from the moment of election because how could Divine assistance abandon a true pope? It isn't possible.
The rest of the thesis is commentary on this theologically certain fact. HOW does an apparently validly elected Pope, from the moment of his election, fail to attain the Papacy?
The answer is an argument from induction:
By failing to habitually will the common good of the Church. Authority is based on the obligation to pursue the common good, and the principle of the common good is the Habitual WILLING of the good. Therefore if a Pope-elect failed to will the common good, for example by coming at the Papacy with an agenda and forcing his election, or even just having a secret disposition to do HIS OWN will, selfishly, he would fail to attain to the papacy. It would be an impediment.
This explains the heresy he commits LATER.
Some say that is too internal and subjective, but think about it: what are heresy, schism, and apostasy if not failing to will the common good of the Church? AND what about insanity? Would an insane Pope remain Pope? Not formally, because he cannot will the common good. And he had the power to sever himself from his office in retirement, no longer willing to act for the common good.
Just some clarifications.
-
Cantarella:
You can reasonably argue that an Ecuмenical Council cannot teach heresy; but you are indeed making a factual error when you say that the Ordinary Magisterium is infallible or that everything emanating from it is guaranteed to be free from error.
The mentioned article clearly states that there are two organs of infallibility: Ecuмenical Councils & the Pope (when speaking ex-cathedra). It is very explicit when it states that the Ordinary Magisterium is NOT an efficient organ of infallibility. It also teaches that: not everything in a Conciliar pronouncement, is to be treated as definitive and infallible and it gives a clear example: In the Bull of Pius IX defining the Immaculate Conception the infallible portion is only a sentence or two. The rest of the narrative is not covered by the guarantee of infallibility.
-> We have been repeating to them a hundred times that not everything is infallible in the acts of the Magisterium, but they still do not understand anything about it! They still don't make the distinction between the legal act and its content. I don't know what is their job, but if they are not able to understand that, I wonder what they can do in their life...
The fourth condition of infallibility is that the doctrine be taught irrevocably. Now, I hardly see how "religious freedom" is taught irrevocably in Vatican II!
The posts of PaulFC and Gregory I are clear evidence that they have not understood anything about what you have said.
The thesis of Cassiciacuм is a heresy for two simple reasons:
1-A Pope elected in a valid conclave and accepted by the whole Church necessarily receives the papal authority from Our Lord Jesus Christ, as infallibly taught by the Council of Constance.
2-It is impossible that a legitimate pope fall in heresy: "I have prayed for your, that your faith fail not".
The papal election is infallible.
-
Another common angle the Sedevacantists argue against Sedeprivationism is from the Bull "cuм EX APOSTOLATUS" of Paul IV, which the Cassiciacuм Thesis is in opposition of, making it clear that it has been abrogated and that even if it had not been so, there was not proof of the sin of formal heresy before the Papal conclave; as cuм Ex would only apply in the case of a declared formal heresy occurring before election.
The (Sedevacantist) argument is the following: Rather than examining the heterodox teachings of Paul VI and John-Paul II, all we have to do is to prove that they fell into heresy prior to their election, and then to apply the Constitution of Paul IV.
We oppose this argument with two objections:
The first concerns the very fact of heresy. The proof of the sin of formal heresy encounters in the present state of affairs, the same insurmountable problems we pointed out in Chapters VII and VIII.
It suffices to show that the Constitution provides us with no new grounds from which we can draw conclusions.
The second objection is based on the fact that the canonical dispositions of this Constitution have not been included in the 1917 Code of Canon Law and are therefore, by this fact, abrogated.
-
Anyway the fact that they were accepted by the whole Church proves that their election was valid.
The Bull of Paul IV does not say that an antipope can be acknowledged by the whole Church, as several sedevacantists claim, but only that he can be acknowledged by all the cardinals. It alludes to a ceremony which occurs in the Sistine chapel after the election. I have mentioned this issue in my book.
-
Anyway the fact that they were accepted by the whole Church proves that their election was valid.
The Bull of Paul IV does not say that an antipope can be acknowledged by the whole Church, as several sedevacantists claim, but only that he can be acknowledged by all the cardinals. It alludes to a ceremony which occurs in the Sistine chapel after the election. I have mentioned this issue in my book.
No, Amakusa, read the Bull. If a heretic was elected to the Papacy, even the reception of EVERYONE could not validate it. Receptionism is only limited to canonical and ecclesiastical impediments, these can be healed by unanimous reception. But public heresy, schism and apostasy that exist prior to an election cannot be healed by universal reception, because it is to say that God instilled infallibility and the Papacy on one objectively outside the Church, to say He chose a foreigner, one outside the Church to be his representative within the Church.
That is, in ascending order of egregiousness:
Absurd,
Blasphemous and
Heretical.
-
.
Post (http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php?a=topic&t=38915&min=320&#p2)
The question was about the teachings which are not proposed by the Church to be believed with Divine and Catholic Faith. Do not cut off the question!
...
Just out of curiosity, what is the source for this flowchart?
Holy smokes, I never said any of the things that you just said I did! ...
As for the source of the flowchart, given that you completely disregard quotes from General Councils, Popes, and Canon Law etc, does it really matter to you what the source is?
Cantarella, In case you missed it,
PFC is telling you here, by the hyperbole of his reply, that he wrote the flowchart himself.
.
-
No Gregory I, your answer is utterly false, for an antipope cannot be accepted by the whole Church: it is the Catholic doctrine.
The phrase mentioned in the Bull is "praestitam ab omnibus obedientiam"; now, this phrase alludes to a ceremony which occurs in the Sistine chapel after the papal election, which one call in French "la prestation d'obéissance": the exact words of the Bull. During this ceremony, all the cardinals swear allegiance to the newly elected pope. I have included some pictures of this ceremony in my book, and you can even find a movie on the internet.
Almost no one has understood this point among our traditional priests. Most of them make mistakes of beginners.
-
Greg, I'm truly sorry to see you've completely gone off the deep end and are now espousing heresy. Your assertion is point-blank heretical and you follow, just like the Feeneyites, your own private interpretation rather than the unanimous teaching of the Church's approved theologians. Read this, if you still have a Catholic spirit, you will immediately correct yourself and retract your earlier statement above.
Cardinal Billot, one of the great Thomists of the last century, writes “Finally, what one may think of the possibility or the impossibility of an heretical pope, there is at least one point absolutely clear which no one can put in doubt, and it is that the acceptance, the adherence, of the Universal Church to a pope will always be, by itself, the infallible sign of the legitimacy of such-and-such a pontiff; and consequently of the existence of all the conditions required for legitimacy itself. God can permit that at times a vacancy in the Apostolic See be prolonged for a long time. He can also permit that doubt arise about the legitimacy of this or that election. He cannot however permit that the whole Church accept as Pontiff him who is not so truly and legitimately. Therefore, from the moment in which the Pope is accepted by the Church and united to her as the head to the body, it is no longer permitted to raise doubts about a possible vice of election or a possible lack of any condition whatsoever necessary for legitimacy. For the aforementioned adhesion of the Church heals in the root all fault in the election and proves infallibly the existence of all the required conditions.”
If you stubbornly don't believe this doctrine as it is taught by Cardinal Billot, you are not Catholic anymore and are in manifest heresy. The same goes for all who follow you in your heresy, this is an absolutely certain point, as Cardinal Billot, explains, which no one can lawfully doubt and remain Catholic. Wernz-Vidal, and unanimously all theologians and canonists, teach that universal acceptance is in itself "a sign and infallible effect of a valid election."
-
Greg, I'm truly sorry to see you've completely gone off the deep end and are now espousing heresy. Your assertion is point-blank heretical and you follow, just like the Feeneyites, your own private interpretation rather than the unanimous teaching of the Church's approved theologians. Read this, if you still have a Catholic spirit, you will immediately correct yourself and retract your earlier statement above.
Cardinal Billot, one of the great Thomists of the last century, writes “Finally, what one may think of the possibility or the impossibility of an heretical pope, there is at least one point absolutely clear which no one can put in doubt, and it is that the acceptance, the adherence, of the Universal Church to a pope will always be, by itself, the infallible sign of the legitimacy of such-and-such a pontiff; and consequently of the existence of all the conditions required for legitimacy itself. God can permit that at times a vacancy in the Apostolic See be prolonged for a long time. He can also permit that doubt arise about the legitimacy of this or that election. He cannot however permit that the whole Church accept as Pontiff him who is not so truly and legitimately. Therefore, from the moment in which the Pope is accepted by the Church and united to her as the head to the body, it is no longer permitted to raise doubts about a possible vice of election or a possible lack of any condition whatsoever necessary for legitimacy. For the aforementioned adhesion of the Church heals in the root all fault in the election and proves infallibly the existence of all the required conditions.”
Obviously you and Greg have two different UOMs.
Greg's UOM teaches the election is null even if approved by all the cardinals - which cardinals are part of the UOM btw, meanwhile your UOM teaches the election is valid if accepted by the whole Church.
HHmmmmmmm. :scratchchin:
-
And in case anyone is inclined to think that is too harsh, what is to prevent Joe Layman on the street from claiming Pope Pius XII never became or suddenly ceased to be Pope, as in fact some extreme sedevacantists do? This mode of proceeding would cripple all certainty about the dogma of the Assumption, which depends on the infallibly certain dogmatic fact of the Papacy of Pius XII? Or say, because of his statement in Humani Generis about evolution (I think all traditional Catholics can agree that evolutionism is a detestable heresy, but that is beside the point here), or his approving of saying the Lord's prayer in meetings between Protestants and Catholics? We absolutely CANNOT doubt the legitimacy of Pius XII without heresy for the reason I explained, and I say it again, to deny even in principle the teaching of Cardinal Billot etc above is nothing short of heretical. That a man accepted by the whole Church is infallibly known by that very fact to be the validly elected (all conditions necessary for his election, even in the internal forum, are by this very fact infallibly shown to be fulfilled) Vicar of Christ is called by theologians a dogmatic fact to which all Catholics are obliged to yield an irrevocable assent of mind and will called "ecclesiastical faith" as Rev. Connell explains in the American Ecclesiastical Review, as has been docuмented before many times.
-
And in case anyone is inclined to think that is too harsh, what is to prevent Joe Layman on the street from claiming Pope Pius XII never became or suddenly ceased to be Pope, as in fact some extreme sedevacantists do? This mode of proceeding would cripple all certainty about the dogma of the Assumption, which depends on the infallibly certain dogmatic fact of the Papacy of Pius XII? Or say, because of his statement in Humani Generis about evolution (I think all traditional Catholics can agree that evolutionism is a detestable heresy, but that is beside the point here), or his approving of saying the Lord's prayer in meetings between Protestants and Catholics? We absolutely CANNOT doubt the legitimacy of Pius XII without heresy for the reason I explained, and I say it again, to deny even in principle the teaching of Cardinal Billot etc above is nothing short of heretical. That a man accepted by the whole Church is infallibly known by that very fact to be the validly elected (all conditions necessary for his election, even in the internal forum, are by this very fact infallibly shown to be fulfilled) Vicar of Christ is called by theologians a dogmatic fact to which all Catholics are obliged to yield an irrevocable assent of mind and will called "ecclesiastical faith" as Rev. Connell explains in the American Ecclesiastical Review, as has been docuмented before many times.
Nishant, cuм ex disagrees. This is the opinion of a single theologian, and what follows because of it? Imputing heresy to Christ, because it is he who rules THROUGH his Vicar.
Are you ready to claim that the Novus Ordo and Vatican II are the work of Christ? That is far more heretical than basing yourself off the opinion of a theologian who nowhere speaks about heresy and its effects in his theory and manifestly contradicts the doctrinal teaching of Pope Paul IV.
So I really have no basis for concern.
-
Besides, Cardinal Siri taught the Visibility of the Rock, of Peter could be taken away from men. To say nothing of La Salette: "The Church will be in eclipse."
I mean what else did you think an eclipsed Church would look like?
It is an unhealthy sign of fundamentalism to grasp at a single author and apply his teaching across the board.
You will note he is also speaking of ELECTION. Very well, what about after an election if the Pope falls into heresy?
Then Billit says:
"Truly, from both opinions (Papa deponendus-Papa depositus), the last one seems to retain the only way in which the most certain principles of the ecclesiastical constitution are kept unhurt. And he who reads the reasons gathered by Cajetan in order to convince of the first opinion, will easily see, how in vain he tries to show how these three things can exist at the same time, namely:
1) That the Pope, once he becomes heretic is not deposed from the pontificate, either by divine or human law.
2) That the Pope, while remaining Pope, has no superior upon earth.
3) That if the Pope diverts from the faith, must be, nevertheless, deposed by the Church.
Sed contra est that, if in the case of heresy the Pope that remains Pope may be deposed by the Church, necessarily would follow one of these two things: that deposition doesn’t mean superiority of the one who deposes with regard to the one who is deposed, or that the Pope, remaining Pope, has actually, at least in some cases, superior upon earth. Besides, once you open the door for deposition, there is no reason, either by its nature, or by positive law, by which you must restrict the deposition of the Pope to the sole case of heresy. In this way are destroyed all the principles by mean of which are shown its repugnance and there is but a voluntary rule to which is united an arbitrary exception.
Besides, the reasons by which Cajetan rejects the opinion of his adversaries hardly have any value. “You can see, he says, that the heretical Pope is not ipso facto deprived (of the pontificate) neither by divine nor human law, by this reason: if the other Bishops are heretics are not deprived ipso facto, either by divine law or by human law. Therefore, neither the Pope. Conclusion follows since the Pope is not in a worst condition that the rest of the Bishops. What I just said is proved in this way: the Bishop who believes against faith, only by means of an internal act is truly, properly and perfectly heretical and is not deprived ipso facto. There are two statements in this affirmation. The first is that by an internal act you are perfectly heretical and this is manifest per se… the second, on the other hand, is proved… since such heretic is not excommunicated; the Church cannot excommunicate what she cannot judge. Ergo much less he is deprived of the power of jurisdiction delegated by man, etc” (Tract. 1 de auct. Papae et Concilii, chapter 19). Here you can see that the sole reason given by Cajetan resides in the fact that in order to have heresy it is enough the interior act, and that jurisdiction is never lost by reason of the interior heresy. The argument, therefore, is the following: the Bishop doesn’t lose his power by mean of an interior and occult per se heresy; therefore, the heretical Bishop is never deprived ipso facto of his Episcopal jurisdiction; ergo, neither is the Pope deprived, since he is not in a worst condition. Nevertheless we must take into account that we are not dealing here with heresy precisely as a sin against the virtue of faith in the internal forum of both God and conscience, but rather purely and simply of the heresy which has the power to cut the man from the visible body of the Church and which is directly opposed to the outward profession of the Catholic religion. This heresy is not interior and occult but only exterior and manifest, as we widely explained in Question 7, Thesis 11, paragraph 2. In fact, the bound by which he belonged to the visible structure of the ecclesiastical society is broken not by secretly disbelieving, but rather by openly professing not to believe those things proposed to the faithful in order to be believed with Catholic faith, and in this way he loses immediately his membership along with all the titles it necessarily presupposes. Therefore, given the hypothesis of the Pope who would become manifest heretical, we must conclude, without doubt, that he would lose the pontifical power ipso facto, since, once he is unfaithful, he would put himself, by his own will, outside the body if the Church, as rightly say the authors that wrongly, it seems, contradicts Cajetan."
-
Anyway the fact that they were accepted by the whole Church proves that their election was valid.
The Bull of Paul IV does not say that an antipope can be acknowledged by the whole Church, as several sedevacantists claim, but only that he can be acknowledged by all the cardinals. It alludes to a ceremony which occurs in the Sistine chapel after the election. I have mentioned this issue in my book.
Amakusa, looking at your posts, they are a disaster. You come across like a janitor in a roomful of surgeons trying to tell them how to do surgery. You need to learn your faith before you discuss it.
-
Waiting for your answer on the post below, John Salza
Second, those guilty of the crime of heresy lose their office, but only after the Church establishes the crime.
John,
What you have stated here is absolutely false, and there are many quotes from the Church that confirm otherwise. Here are a few of them that confirm loss of office is AUTOMATIC in the case of heresy, and the Church teaches this occurs BEFORE the Church establishes the crime. Notice especially the underlined parts. Please explain why all of these Church sources teach exactly the opposite of what you are going around preaching:
"In the case in which the pope would become a heretic, he would find himself, by that fact alone and without any other sentence, separated from the Church." Summa Theologica, cited in Actes de Vatican I. V. Frond pub. St. Antoninus (†1459)
“The Pope should not flatter himself about his power nor should he rashly glory in his honor and high estate, because the less he is judged by man, the more he is judged by God. Still the less can the Roman Pontiff glory because he can be judged by men, or rather, can be shown to be already judged, if for example he should wither away into heresy; because he who does not believe is already judged..." Pope Innocent III
"...a pope who is a manifest heretic by that fact ceases to be pope and head, just as he by that fact ceases to be a Christian and a member of the body of the Church; wherefore he can be judged and punished by the Church. This is the judgement of all the early fathers, who teach that manifest heretics immediately lose all jurisdiction." St. Robert Bellarmine, "On the Roman Pontiff"
"If God permitted a pope to be notoriously heretical and contumacious, he would then cease to be pope, and the Apostolic Chair would be vacant." St. Alphonsus de Liguori, "The Truths of the Faith"
"A heretical pope necessarily ceases to be head of the Church, for by his heresy he is no longer a member thereof; in the event of his still claiming the Roman see, a General Council, improperly so called because without the pope, could remove him. But this is not deposition, since by his own act is no longer pope." A Catholic Dictionary, Deposition
"The councils of Constance and Basle, and Gallican theologians, hold that a council may depose a pope...(2) /ob fidem/ (on account of his faith or rather want of faith, i.e. heresy). In point of fact however, heresy is the only legitimate ground. For a heretical pope has ceased to be a member of the Church, and cannot, therefore, be its head." Catholic Encyclopedia, 1913. [Vol. IV p.435] Councils
"The question was also raised by a Cardinal, “What is to be done with the Pope if he becomes a heretic?” It was answered that there has never been such a case; the Council of Bishops could depose him for heresy, for from the moment he becomes a heretic he is not the head or even a member of the Church. The Church would not be, for a moment, obliged to listen to him when he begins to teach a doctrine the Church knows to be a false doctrine, and he would cease to be Pope, being deposed by God Himself." (Abp. John B. Purcell, quoted in Rev. James J. McGovern, Life and Life Work of Pope Leo XIII [Chicago, IL: Allied Printing, 1903], p. 241; imprimatur by Abp. James Quigley of Chicago.)
-
Cardinal Siri taught the Visibility of the Rock, of Peter could be taken away from men. To say nothing of La Salette: "The Church will be in eclipse."
Well, unlike Sedevacantism, the necessity of the Visibility of the Hierarchy is explicitly taught in the Thesis of Cassiciacuм. The thesis is very clear upon this point and as a matter of fact, it may be as well the pillar of the whole thesis.
The case for the material permanence of the hierarchy in the present crisis is thus established by the principle of "non desertion."
But how is Jesus still concretely with His Church considered as a human society? To this question which should be answered we respond: by maintaining in place the visible hierarchical structure, even while allowing the great trial which the eclipse of Authority and the absence of her supernatural functions involves, to continue.
This permanence of the hierarchical structure constitutes the foundation while patiently awaiting the divine renovation of Authority; and it assures the material continuity of the hierarchical succession, a continuity absolutely required for the Church to retain her Apostolic Nature.
First of all, the crisis in no way questions the fact that the Church is a visible human society. This society has actually been subjected to a grave trial: the defection of the leaders. She thus finds herself in a state of privation with regard to Authority. This trial however is not the same thing as its
destruction. The Church truly preserves in her bosom the power to recover he normal state. Christ, in effect, faithful to His promise of indefectibility, maintains everything that is necessary for that to happen. In brief, as we have shown, he sustains the faithful who profess the true faith and [adhere to] the true sacraments, and he assures the material permanence of the hierarchy for the sake of the continuity of this institution.
It is moreover useful to recall that if the faith assures us that the Church will continue to exist, even as a human society, until the end of time, this same faith says nothing to us about the severity of the crisis that she must undergo.
It suffices for us to mention the Arian crisis, with its dizzying reduction of the number of those professing the true faith, or the Great Western Schism (1378-1417) with two and then three concurrent doubtful Popes!
-
You will note he is also speaking of ELECTION. Very well, what about after an election if the Pope falls into heresy?
Then, cuм Ex would not even apply, even if it had never been abrogated. In the very first paragraph it states that nobody can judge the Pope, echoing the dogmatic declaration in Unam Sanctam. Besides, Election processes are disciplinary matters that can be modified and do not pertain to faith and morals.
-
Clemens Maria:
It is my understanding that Fr./Bishop Michel Guerard des Lauriers only adhered to the Sedevacantist position temporarily (during his *consecration*) and then reverted even more strongly to his original Cahiers de Cassiciacuм (Sedeprivationism). Then, he commenced a war against the Sedevacantists, who reciprocally, are the strongest opponents of the Thesis.
You still don't get it. The C-Thesis and "strict sedevacantism" share the common belief that the Vatican II papal claimants are NOT TRUE POPES. Do you understand this?
There is a world of difference between believing there is a materialiter Pope occupying the Seat of Peter who has lost Divine Assistance due to an evident absence of intention effecting the common good of the Church and who can recant, convert, and instantaneously become a formaliter Pope; and the belief that there is no Pope at all due to heresy, he will not be able to revert or re-gain his pontificate by a simple act, and he has lost it for good in so facto without further ecclesiastical declaration; specially in regards to the final outcome:
The Thesis of Cassiciacuм which says the occupant of the See is not deposed, does not ABSOLUTELY say he should be deposed. It only says this hypothetically: he should be compelled (by the Catholic bishops and by the cardinals, or by any competent Authority in the Church) to condemn the errors; it is only after such an official demand is made on the part of those who have Authority in the Church that deposition can occur: that is to say, when the occupant of the Apostolic Throne refuses to confess the Faith and condemn the errors contradicting it. (Only then could the Bishops and or cardinals officially state that he is deposed, the person responsible for deposing him being Christ.) But, should the occupant of the Throne comply with the demand: then his act of condemning the errors would ipso facto establish him as being formally the Pope.
Sedeprivationists acknowledge the fact that there is a need for the Church to depose the Pope after proving pertinacity (unwillingness to recant his heresy after warnings performed by proper ecclesiastical authority). This is not done by the laity. Until this procedure is completed, the Seat remains occupied.
Sedevacantists commonly argue against Sedeprivationism from the angle of Ecclesiastical law: citing canon 188.4 (cleric losing office after publicly deviating form the Faith without further ecclesiastical declaration, as if the Pope was bound to Ecclesiastical Law, when he is not.
Cantarella, you have to stop pretending as if you understand this subject, because you do not. The very author of the C-Thesis, Bp. Guerard, and the two main Bishops McKenna and Sanborn who have studied and accepted it, all have believed that the Vatican II popes are NOT POPES. Further, they have had no problem considering themselves in league with the sedevacantist position, which means they all consider it essentially the same. There is no world of difference.
You also need to stop talking about sedevacantists as if they all agree on everything. They don't. Stop treating the position as if it has a set of beliefs common among them. The essence of the sedevacantist position is "there is no pope". That's it. That is the definition of the stand. Beyond that they vary in opinions as to details, and many are wrong about incidental details. There are plenty of sedevacantists who reject the C-thesis while still believing that a declaration is needed to remove him and believe that his conversion would make him the pope. The late Father Francis Fenton was a one such pioneer of the sedevacantist position who fits that category.
-
You people can argue all you want against sedevacantism but, come 2016 or 2017, if Rome shares the "Sacrament of Holy Communion" with Lutherans as planned, a sacrament that even Newchurch correctly asserted was invalid in the Lutheran church, it will prove, at that moment, that the Seat of Peter is vacant, for never could a true Vicar of Christ promulgate the validity of, and shared communion with, a sacrament that is invalid with heretics.
Will Frank also place the "eucharist", which was "consecrated" by a Lutheran minister, inside the Tabernacle in a Catholic Church to show the world their communion with each another?
Only a fool and, perhaps, an enemy of the true Church, will still say an ecclesial proceeding is needed to adjudicate that the purported pope is a heretic and not really a pope. It's like watching your house get burglarized, but you're waiting for investigators to run lab tests and analyze the results, thus determine if your house was actually burglarized, which is a proceeding that might never take place anyway, but you still witnessed your house be intruded upon and your possessions stolen, yet you're still saying your house was not burglarized even though it unfolded right before your very eyes.
-
Clemens Maria:
It is my understanding that Fr./Bishop Michel Guerard des Lauriers only adhered to the Sedevacantist position temporarily (during his *consecration*) and then reverted even more strongly to his original Cahiers de Cassiciacuм (Sedeprivationism). Then, he commenced a war against the Sedevacantists, who reciprocally, are the strongest opponents of the Thesis.
You still don't get it. The C-Thesis and "strict sedevacantism" share the common belief that the Vatican II papal claimants are NOT TRUE POPES. Do you understand this?
There is a world of difference between believing there is a materialiter Pope occupying the Seat of Peter who has lost Divine Assistance due to an evident absence of intention effecting the common good of the Church and who can recant, convert, and instantaneously become a formaliter Pope; and the belief that there is no Pope at all due to heresy, he will not be able to revert or re-gain his pontificate by a simple act, and he has lost it for good in so facto without further ecclesiastical declaration; specially in regards to the final outcome:
The Thesis of Cassiciacuм which says the occupant of the See is not deposed, does not ABSOLUTELY say he should be deposed. It only says this hypothetically: he should be compelled (by the Catholic bishops and by the cardinals, or by any competent Authority in the Church) to condemn the errors; it is only after such an official demand is made on the part of those who have Authority in the Church that deposition can occur: that is to say, when the occupant of the Apostolic Throne refuses to confess the Faith and condemn the errors contradicting it. (Only then could the Bishops and or cardinals officially state that he is deposed, the person responsible for deposing him being Christ.) But, should the occupant of the Throne comply with the demand: then his act of condemning the errors would ipso facto establish him as being formally the Pope.
Sedeprivationists acknowledge the fact that there is a need for the Church to depose the Pope after proving pertinacity (unwillingness to recant his heresy after warnings performed by proper ecclesiastical authority). This is not done by the laity. Until this procedure is completed, the Seat remains occupied.
Sedevacantists commonly argue against Sedeprivationism from the angle of Ecclesiastical law: citing canon 188.4 (cleric losing office after publicly deviating form the Faith without further ecclesiastical declaration, as if the Pope was bound to Ecclesiastical Law, when he is not.
Cantarella, you have to stop pretending as if you understand this subject, because you do not. The very author of the C-Thesis, Bp. Guerard, and the two main Bishops McKenna and Sanborn who have studied and accepted it, all have believed that the Vatican II popes are NOT POPES. Further, they have had no problem considering themselves in league with the sedevacantist position, which means they all consider it essentially the same. There is no world of difference.
You also need to stop talking about sedevacantists as if they all agree on everything. They don't. Stop treating the position as if it has a set of beliefs common among them. The essence of the sedevacantist position is "there is no pope". That's it. That is the definition of the stand. Beyond that they vary in opinions as to details, and many are wrong about incidental details. There are plenty of sedevacantists who reject the C-thesis while still believing that a declaration is needed to remove him and believe that his conversion would make him the pope. The late Father Francis Fenton was a one such pioneer of the sedevacantist position who fits that category.
Who are you McCork and what are your qualifications that I should believe YOU instead of the docuмentation that I have been reading with my own two eyes? If you find objection to my research and interpretation, then this is an appropriate place to discuss it with objective arguments. I understand who Bp. Guerard is. Have you ever actually read the original Thesis? I have not arrived to a definitive conclusion on it, but I am free to study it myself before believing what anyone tells me. That of course includes, you.
And, by the way, I do not need to stop doing anything just because an anonymous "McCork" tells me to. You have not demonstrated any credentials in your posts (which are actually quite mediocre) for me to take you as an authoritative figure in any way, shape, or form. Sorry.
-
Clemens Maria:
It is my understanding that Fr./Bishop Michel Guerard des Lauriers only adhered to the Sedevacantist position temporarily (during his *consecration*) and then reverted even more strongly to his original Cahiers de Cassiciacuм (Sedeprivationism). Then, he commenced a war against the Sedevacantists, who reciprocally, are the strongest opponents of the Thesis.
You still don't get it. The C-Thesis and "strict sedevacantism" share the common belief that the Vatican II papal claimants are NOT TRUE POPES. Do you understand this?
There is a world of difference between believing there is a materialiter Pope occupying the Seat of Peter who has lost Divine Assistance due to an evident absence of intention effecting the common good of the Church and who can recant, convert, and instantaneously become a formaliter Pope; and the belief that there is no Pope at all due to heresy, he will not be able to revert or re-gain his pontificate by a simple act, and he has lost it for good in so facto without further ecclesiastical declaration; specially in regards to the final outcome:
The Thesis of Cassiciacuм which says the occupant of the See is not deposed, does not ABSOLUTELY say he should be deposed. It only says this hypothetically: he should be compelled (by the Catholic bishops and by the cardinals, or by any competent Authority in the Church) to condemn the errors; it is only after such an official demand is made on the part of those who have Authority in the Church that deposition can occur: that is to say, when the occupant of the Apostolic Throne refuses to confess the Faith and condemn the errors contradicting it. (Only then could the Bishops and or cardinals officially state that he is deposed, the person responsible for deposing him being Christ.) But, should the occupant of the Throne comply with the demand: then his act of condemning the errors would ipso facto establish him as being formally the Pope.
Sedeprivationists acknowledge the fact that there is a need for the Church to depose the Pope after proving pertinacity (unwillingness to recant his heresy after warnings performed by proper ecclesiastical authority). This is not done by the laity. Until this procedure is completed, the Seat remains occupied.
Sedevacantists commonly argue against Sedeprivationism from the angle of Ecclesiastical law: citing canon 188.4 (cleric losing office after publicly deviating form the Faith without further ecclesiastical declaration, as if the Pope was bound to Ecclesiastical Law, when he is not.
Cantarella, you have to stop pretending as if you understand this subject, because you do not. The very author of the C-Thesis, Bp. Guerard, and the two main Bishops McKenna and Sanborn who have studied and accepted it, all have believed that the Vatican II popes are NOT POPES. Further, they have had no problem considering themselves in league with the sedevacantist position, which means they all consider it essentially the same. There is no world of difference.
You also need to stop talking about sedevacantists as if they all agree on everything. They don't. Stop treating the position as if it has a set of beliefs common among them. The essence of the sedevacantist position is "there is no pope". That's it. That is the definition of the stand. Beyond that they vary in opinions as to details, and many are wrong about incidental details. There are plenty of sedevacantists who reject the C-thesis while still believing that a declaration is needed to remove him and believe that his conversion would make him the pope. The late Father Francis Fenton was a one such pioneer of the sedevacantist position who fits that category.
Who are you McCork and what are your qualifications that I should believe YOU instead of the docuмentation that I have been reading with my own two eyes? If you find objection to my research and interpretation, then this is an appropriate place to discuss it with objective arguments. I understand who Bp. Guerard is. Have you ever actually read the original Thesis? I have not arrived to a definitive conclusion on it, but I am free to study it myself before believing what anyone tells me. That of course includes, you.
And, by the way, I do not need to stop doing anything just because an anonymous "McCork" tells me to. You have not demonstrated any credentials in your posts (which are actually quite mediocre) for me to take you as an authoritative figure in any way, shape, or form. Sorry.
Yes, I agree, this is an appropriate place to discuss it. I don't expect you to just swallow what I just wrote unquestioningly, but since this is a place of discussion, question the points in my two paragraphs from top to bottom and see.
First point, it is a fact about Bp. Sanborn. He has the training and credentials. He is easy to email and ask. Do you accept his credentials? He fully accepts the C-thesis, after studying it, and still calls himself a sedevacantist. Bp. McKenna has the credentials, studied the thesis, and done the same. He was consecrated by Bp. Guerard. I myself have written a full piece on explanation of papa materialiter with full approval of Bp. McKenna after he read it.
-
I apologize, Greg, for the tone of my last post, which I see was unwarranted and unjustified after reading all of your contributions in this thread. You have not given any indication, even after your last post, that you are ready to discard the unanimous teaching of theologians and I shouldn't have insinuated that you were. I still think you are mistaken, but I shouldn't have come down on you as I did. I apologize again. But you are mistaken, it is not a lone opinion, but the unanimous teaching. Please read the below carefully, it is from a peer-reviewed theological publication of the highest repute,
Question: What certainty have we that the reigning Pontiff is actually the primate of the universal Church – that is, that he became a member of the Church through valid baptism, and that he was validly elected Pope?
Answer: Of course, we have human moral certainty ... This type of certainty excludes every prudent fear of the opposite.
But in the case of the Pope we have a higher grade of certainty – a certainty that excludes not merely the prudent fear of the opposite, but even the possible fear of the opposite. In other words, we have infallible certainty ... This is an example of a fact that is not contained in the deposit of revelation but is so intimately connected with revelation [called a dogmatic fact - Ed] that it must be within the scope of the Church's magisterial authority to declare it infallibly. The whole Church, teaching and believing, declares and believes this fact, and from this it follows that this fact is infallibly true. We accept it with ecclesiastical – not divine – faith, based on the authority of the infallible Church."
Please understand properly - the theologians are saying universal acceptance proves infallibly that all the conditions for Papal legitimacy are infallibly known to be fulfilled, universal acceptance proves that the person elected is not a heretic. Here is Van Noort, whom you are fond of quoting, repeating the dogmatic basis for this teaching (even one of your earlier quotes from him mentioned that the legitimacy of Popes and the Ecuмenicity of Councils comes under this same classification, do you understand the term "dogmatic fact"?),
“So, for example, one must give an absolute assent to the proposition: “Pius XII is the legitimate successor of St. Peter” ...when someone has been constantly acting as Pope and has theoretically and practically been recognized as such by the bishops and by the universal Church, it is clear that the ordinary and universal magisterium is giving an utterly clear-cut witness to the legitimacy of his succession”
So, you have it backward. You start with the false premise that Vatican II is heretical or worse and the New Mass is invalid/basically a Black Mass etc etc. From that totally false premise, - which no one except a few rigorists who have never really thought through their position hold, as for example Bishop Williamson's recent comments and important distinctions prove - you draw the equally false (and heretical) conclusion that the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium of the Church practically doesn't exist anymore. I maintain that you are gravely mistaken, as the above theologians prove, whether you will submit to their teaching is up to you. I find it interesting that Mith said earlier that Indult traditionalists usually have a more sound view of the Papacy and the Church's Magisterium than those who hold to extreme opinions like the Magisterium promotes invalid/heretical rites, it is good to seek to remain without canonical communion with the Pope etc. I tend to agree, generally speaking, and note that almost each of the persons endorsing this particular book earlier are Indult traditionalists, Michael Matt, Brian McCall etc, certainly not those who believe Vatican II is heretical or the New Mass is worse than a Black Mass. I haven't read this particular book, so I can't vouch for it, but you yourself not long ago were an Indult trad, Greg, so what changed?
-
Cantarella, you have to stop pretending as if you understand this subject, because you do not.
Yes Cantarella, as long as you keep using Catholic teaching as your foundation, I don't see how you will never have the same understanding as McCork. His religion is based on and is nothing without an empty chair. Difficult to accept though it may be, you have to always keep that at the forefront otherwise the whole thing will make no sense.
By the same token, if you can accept the faith of empty chair, you will probably better understand where McCork coming from and why he says the things that he says.
-
Regarding your opinion about visibility, if you still think it tenable, try and reconcile it with Dom Gueranger's explanation of the doctrine, note how he stresses the Church, the "city set on a hill that cannot be hid" in the language of holy Scripture must necessarily be visible since all must be able to see and enter Her, that Her teaching authority (or Magisterium) is visibly identified by a succession of bishops who have received the keys from Peter's hands etc.
We, then, both priests and people, have a right to know whence our pastors have received their power. From whose hand have they received the keys? If their mission come from the apostolic see, let us honor and obey them, for they are sent to us by Jesus Christ, who has invested them, through Peter, with His own authority. If they claim our obedience without having been sent by the bishop of Rome, we must refuse to receive them, for they are not acknowledged by Christ as His ministers. The holy anointing may have conferred on them the sacred character of the episcopate: it matters not; they must be as aliens to us, for they have not been sent, they are not pastors.
Thus it is that the divine Founder of the Church, who willed that she should be a city seated on a mountain, gave her visibility; it was an essential requisite; for since all were called to enter her pale, all must be able to see her. But He was not satisfied with this. He moreover willed that the spiritual power exercised by her pastors should come from a visible source, so that the faithful might have a sure means of verifying the claims of those who were to guide them in His name. Our Lord (we say it reverently) owed this to us; for, on the last day, He will not receive us as His children, unless we shall have been members of His Church, and have lived in union with Him by the ministry of pastors lawfully constituted. Honor, then, and submission to Jesus in His Vicar! Honor and submission to the Vicar of Christ in the pastors he sends!
Please read the following link in full if you can, (www.hoyletutoring.com/Docs/Gueranger_pastors.pdf) a more detailed explanation of visibility, Apostolicity, jurisdiction, etc from the same theologian, and see if you can reconcile it with the opinion on visibility etc you expressed earlier. The Catholic teaching is that the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium of the Church cannot cease to exist, must be visibly known, that Catholics must remain in communion with this teaching authority, that when all bishops with teaching authority acknowledges a man is Pope, they do so infallibly, as Van Noort and others cited above plainly teach. Fr. Sylvester Hunter, in Outlines of Dogmatic Theology states, "This argument is in substance the same as applies to other cases of dogmatic facts ... it is enough to say that if the Bishops agree in recognizing a certain man as Pope, they are certainly right, for otherwise the body of the Bishops would be separated from their head, and the Divine constitution of the Church would be ruined." This is the implication of what you believe, I'm afraid, Gregory my friend, that the Divine Constitution of the Church has been ruined, if the Body of the Bishops can be separated from their Head.
-
You people can argue all you want against sedevacantism but, come 2016 or 2017, if Rome shares the "Sacrament of Holy Communion" with Lutherans as planned, a sacrament that even Newchurch correctly asserted was invalid in the Lutheran church, it will prove, at that moment, that the Seat of Peter is vacant, for never could a true Vicar of Christ promulgate the validity of, and shared communion with, a sacrament that is invalid with heretics.
Will Frank also place the "eucharist", which was "consecrated" by a Lutheran minister, inside the Tabernacle in a Catholic Church to show the world their communion with each another?
Only a fool and, perhaps, an enemy of the true Church, will still say an ecclesial proceeding is needed to adjudicate that the purported pope is a heretic and not really a pope. It's like watching your house get burglarized, but you're waiting for investigators to run lab tests and analyze the results, thus determine if your house was actually burglarized, which is a proceeding that might never take place anyway, but you still witnessed your house be intruded upon and your possessions stolen, yet you're still saying your house was not burglarized even though it unfolded right before your very eyes.
.
-
Regarding your opinion about visibility, if you still think it tenable, try and reconcile it with Dom Gueranger's explanation of the doctrine, note how he stresses the Church, the "city set on a hill that cannot be hid" in the language of holy Scripture must necessarily be visible since all must be able to see and enter Her, that Her teaching authority (or Magisterium) is visibly identified by a succession of bishops who have received the keys from Peter's hands etc.
We, then, both priests and people, have a right to know whence our pastors have received their power. From whose hand have they received the keys? If their mission come from the apostolic see, let us honor and obey them, for they are sent to us by Jesus Christ, who has invested them, through Peter, with His own authority. If they claim our obedience without having been sent by the bishop of Rome, we must refuse to receive them, for they are not acknowledged by Christ as His ministers. The holy anointing may have conferred on them the sacred character of the episcopate: it matters not; they must be as aliens to us, for they have not been sent, they are not pastors.
Thus it is that the divine Founder of the Church, who willed that she should be a city seated on a mountain, gave her visibility; it was an essential requisite; for since all were called to enter her pale, all must be able to see her. But He was not satisfied with this. He moreover willed that the spiritual power exercised by her pastors should come from a visible source, so that the faithful might have a sure means of verifying the claims of those who were to guide them in His name. Our Lord (we say it reverently) owed this to us; for, on the last day, He will not receive us as His children, unless we shall have been members of His Church, and have lived in union with Him by the ministry of pastors lawfully constituted. Honor, then, and submission to Jesus in His Vicar! Honor and submission to the Vicar of Christ in the pastors he sends!
Please read the following link in full if you can, (www.hoyletutoring.com/Docs/Gueranger_pastors.pdf) a more detailed explanation of visibility, Apostolicity, jurisdiction, etc from the same theologian, and see if you can reconcile it with the opinion on visibility etc you expressed earlier. The Catholic teaching is that the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium of the Church cannot cease to exist, must be visibly known, that Catholics must remain in communion with this teaching authority, that when all bishops with teaching authority acknowledges a man is Pope, they do so infallibly, as Van Noort and others cited above plainly teach. Fr. Sylvester Hunter, in Outlines of Dogmatic Theology states, "This argument is in substance the same as applies to other cases of dogmatic facts ... it is enough to say that if the Bishops agree in recognizing a certain man as Pope, they are certainly right, for otherwise the body of the Bishops would be separated from their head, and the Divine constitution of the Church would be ruined." This is the implication of what you believe, I'm afraid, Gregory my friend, that the Divine Constitution of the Church has been ruined, if the Body of the Bishops can be separated from their Head.
In regards to the argument that the visibility of the Catholic Church necessarily involves modern Rome, let me ask you this:
What good does visibility do, when that which is visible is undeniably an express flight to hell?
The Anglicans are visible. So? So are the Jєωιѕн ѕуηαgσgυєs. The Vatican II religion speeding towards a one world church and the pits of hell is very visible, so what?
If that which is visible does not preach and hold the TRUE faith it is worthless. Right?
-
Cantarella:
You can reasonably argue that an Ecuмenical Council cannot teach heresy; but you are indeed making a factual error when you say that the Ordinary Magisterium is infallible or that everything emanating from it is guaranteed to be free from error.
The mentioned article clearly states that there are two organs of infallibility: Ecuмenical Councils & the Pope (when speaking ex-cathedra). It is very explicit when it states that the Ordinary Magisterium is NOT an efficient organ of infallibility. It also teaches that: not everything in a Conciliar pronouncement, is to be treated as definitive and infallible and it gives a clear example: In the Bull of Pius IX defining the Immaculate Conception the infallible portion is only a sentence or two. The rest of the narrative is not covered by the guarantee of infallibility.
-> We have been repeating to them a hundred times that not everything is infallible in the acts of the Magisterium, but they still do not understand anything about it! They still don't make the distinction between the legal act and its content. I don't know what is their job, but if they are not able to understand that, I wonder what they can do in their life...
The fourth condition of infallibility is that the doctrine be taught irrevocably. Now, I hardly see how "religious freedom" is taught irrevocably in Vatican II!
The posts of PaulFC and Gregory I are clear evidence that they have not understood anything about what you have said.
The thesis of Cassiciacuм is a heresy for two simple reasons:
1-A Pope elected in a valid conclave and accepted by the whole Church necessarily receives the papal authority from Our Lord Jesus Christ, as infallibly taught by the Council of Constance.
2-It is impossible that a legitimate pope fall in heresy: "I have prayed for your, that your faith fail not".
The papal election is infallible.
Dear Amakusa,
Could you please elaborate a little on the first reason for considering the Cassiciacuм Thesis a heresy, in regards to the Papal authority as taught in the Council of Constance:
1-A Pope elected in a valid conclave and accepted by the whole Church necessarily receives the papal authority from Our Lord Jesus Christ, as infallibly taught by the Council of Constance
This Council of Constance is the one convoked by the anti-Pope John XXIII and considered a partial - Ecuмenical Council as some of its teachings were later rejected (the ones concerning the error of Conciliarism). I would like to read, if possible, the approved canons and narratives about Papal Authority you are referring to.
-
You people can argue all you want against sedevacantism but, come 2016 or 2017, if Rome shares the "Sacrament of Holy Communion" with Lutherans as planned, a sacrament that even Newchurch correctly asserted was invalid in the Lutheran church, it will prove, at that moment, that the Seat of Peter is vacant, for never could a true Vicar of Christ promulgate the validity of, and shared communion with, a sacrament that is invalid with heretics.
Will Frank also place the "eucharist", which was "consecrated" by a Lutheran minister, inside the Tabernacle in a Catholic Church to show the world their communion with each another?
Only a fool and, perhaps, an enemy of the true Church, will still say an ecclesial proceeding is needed to adjudicate that the purported pope is a heretic and not really a pope. It's like watching your house get burglarized, but you're waiting for investigators to run lab tests and analyze the results, thus determine if your house was actually burglarized, which is a proceeding that might never take place anyway, but you still witnessed your house be intruded upon and your possessions stolen, yet you're still saying your house was not burglarized even though it unfolded right before your very eyes.
There is not a line that can be crossed that will convince most people that this is correct.
I've said it before and I'll say it again. If Bergoglio were to announce that there is no God but Allah and Muhammad is his prophet and convert Saint Peters into a Mosque, there would be people on this forum congratulating him for evangelizing the Muslims.
-
Nishant, this is my response to someone at Te Deum. Perhaps it will make some points clearer. I hold to sedeprivationism.
Let's establish the Syllogism which permits no wiggle room.
Syllogism 1.
1. Christ and his Vicar on earth have a single and unified authority. They are one authority taken together.
[/u]
"Nor against this may one argue that the primacy of jurisdiction established in the Church gives such a Mystical Body two heads. For Peter in view of his primacy is only Christ's Vicar; so that there is only one chief Head of this Body, namely Christ, who never ceases Himself to guide the Church invisibly, though at the same time He rules it visibly, through him who is His representative on earth...That Christ and His Vicar constitute one only Head is the solemn teaching of Our predecessor of immortal memory Boniface VIII in the Apostolic Letter Unam Sanctam; [61] and his successors have never ceased to repeat the same." - Mystici Corporis Christi- w2.vatican.va/content/pius-xii/en/encyclicals/docuмents/hf_p-xii_enc_29061943_mystici-corporis-christi.html
"Therefore, of the one and only Church there is one body and one head, not two heads like a monster; that is, Christ and the Vicar of Christ, Peter and the successor of Peter, since the Lord speaking to Peter Himself said: 'Feed my sheep' [Jn 21:17], meaning, my sheep in general, not these, nor those in particular, whence we understand that He entrusted all to him [Peter]." -Pope Boniface VIII Unam Sancatam- www.papalencyclicals.net/Bon08/B8unam.htm
2. But the Vicar of Christ is responsible for the promulgation of magisterial teaching and universal laws binding on the faithful.
3. Therefore, those acts which are covered by the Vicar of Christ's infallibility, as well as the Church's infallibility, in matters both primary and secondary, are to be attributed also to Christ. For he rules his Church THROUGH his Vicar IN the Magisterial teaching of the Church.
[/div]
Syllogism 2.
1. The authentic and Magisterial Acts of the Vicar of Christ are to be treated as the action of Christ himself, even in the Ordinary Authentic Magisterium.
[/u]" Nor must it be thought that what is expounded in Encyclical Letters does not of itself demand consent, since in writing such Letters the Popes do not exercise the supreme power of their Teaching Authority. For these matters are taught with the ordinary teaching authority, of which it is true to say: "He who heareth you, heareth me";[3] and generally what is expounded and inculcated in Encyclical Letters already for other reasons appertains to Catholic doctrine. But if the Supreme Pontiffs in their official docuмents purposely pass judgment on a matter up to that time under dispute, it is obvious that that matter, according to the mind and will of the Pontiffs, cannot be any longer considered a question open to discussion among theologians." -Humani Generis- w2.vatican.va/content/pius-xii/en/encyclicals/docuмents/hf_p-xii_enc_12081950_humani-generis.html
2. But Paul VI has established Harmful disciplines and heretical teachings from within the bosom of the Church, Promulgating, enacting, and decreeing that Vatican II be religiously observed, and calling it an act of the Supreme Magisterium, and in an Apostolic Exhortation made to the bishops on November 4, 1965,"Extraordinary Magisterium":
"In fact, if we look at the immense quantity of work, which the Council up to this point has accomplished, we are indeed struck with great astonishment, either because of the many points of doctrine proposed by the extraordinary Magisterium of the Church [ob complura doctrinæ capita a Magisterio Ecclesiæ extraordinario proposita] or because of the norms of discipline wisely communicated, which indeed, while the ecclesiastical tradition was faithfully preserved, command that new paths be opened to the Church's activity, and will contribute without doubt very much to the good of minds."
3. It is therefore certain that Paul VI cannot wield the Pontifical authority, for that would be to attribute error, heresy and schism o Jesus Christ, which is blasphemy.
Therefore Paul VI cannot, and has never, wielded the Pontifical authority.
Now, you make the claim that this is Post Hoc, ergo Propter Hoc. This is also false. This FIRST line of reasoning is deductive/reductio ad absurdum. Post Hoc fallacy takes this form: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post_hoc_ergo_propter_hoc
The form of the post hoc fallacy can be expressed as follows:
A occurred, then B occurred.
Therefore, A caused B.
When B is undesirable, this pattern is often extended in reverse: Avoiding A will prevent B.
An example of this fallacy is superstitious practices. "I scratched my head. It started to rain. Therefore scratching my head caused it to rain."
Now, the Position of Roman Catholics who adhere to the Thesis of Cassiciacuм is definitely NOT in this form. We use the above Reductio ad absurdum to certainly establish FIRST that Paul VI does not have pontifical authority, which is a logical necessary conclusion to his actions, which otherwise results in blaspheming Jesus Christ (Remember the Single and Unified authority?).
Now that the certainty of his Non-Authority is established, we must explain WHY it is so. WHY doesn't he have authority? For this we use INDUCTION. Inductive reasoning is arguing from a specific instance to a general conclusion. An example would be: "All heretics are first schismatics. Arius is a heretic, therefore he was once a schismatic."
Now, OUR argument would follow this way:
1."All validly elected Popes who accept their election obtain to the Pontifical Authority if there is no impediment.
2. But Paul VI has officially promulgated errors and heresies in the body of the Church, thus plainly establishing that his "authority" cannot be the authority of Christ.
3. Therefore, he must have had an impediment to his election(for we know that Christ protects the infallibility of his vicar and His Church)."
This is a solid argument from induction because the PREMISE upon which it is based is a solid fact of law (divine law and canon law), and the minor premise is certain from reasonable deduction.
Therefore, it is established that Paul VI formally does not possess Papal Authority, and it is certain that he never had this authority due to some impediment. But what is the nature of the impediment? This is where the metaphysics come in. There can be no authority that does not habitually will the common good. Therefore, it must be that Paul VI has internal reservations of will regarding the Papacy and did not Habitually an stably will the common good of the Church. That this is in fact SO is proven by how he acted LATER.
Again, this is not Post Hoc argumentation, because we are not first positing event "a" happened, and event "b" happened, therefore "a" caused "b". We are arguing that event "b" definitely happened, from this we can induce that "a" happened, and from there it is reasonable to conclude that "a" produced "b". What is lacking in the post hoc fallacy is any connective tissue between events "a" and "b", that is what makes it a fallacy. But in this case, we provide a direct relationship between event "a" (Not willing the good of the Church) and event "b" (the fall into heresy). In fact, event "a" can naturally lead to event "b". So your claims of fallacy are ridiculous.
Now, you claim this line of reasoning is novel. In fact, it is not:
"If a Pope who has become a heretic mends his ways before the declaratory sentence, he recovers ipso facto his pontifical authority without any new election of the Cardinals or other legal formality. —
Objection: «If, as we have said, the Pope by the very fact that he has become a heretic loses his pontifical dignity and remains outside the Church, then it is not possible for him to go back into office, at least not in the sense of becoming Pope again, because such a return would have the force of a new election, in which case a council would be attributing to itself a right that belongs to the Cardinals, namely the right of electing, and this —according to Rosellus— is not something that can be done legitimately.
Answer: In the present case, according to the interpretation of ecclesiastical law, the right of election returns to the Cardinals only after a declaratory sentence of the crime, because the penalties imposed by the law itself cannot be executed without such a sentence… And it has not been shown that such a declaration should be pronounced in virtue of any existing law. But rather the opposite is true when the Pope mends his ways, as we demonstrated before. Thus, no harm is done to the Cardinals, since they receive back in a revocable manner the right of choosing another Pontiff, on condition that the heretical Pope be unrepentant and unwilling to mends his ways. It should be of no wonder if a reintegration of this type takes place without any legal solemnity, because, if a person loses ecclesiastical dignity by committing a crime—and this happens by a simple internal effect of the law (nudo juris mysterio fit)— by the same token, once the crime goes away by reason of the amendment, the thing goes back to its original state— also by a simple internal effect of the law. "
Here is the source text: www.mostholytrinityseminary.org/Tractatus_de_papa_ubi_et_de_concilio_oec.pdf
Here is the Latin:
"Papa factus haereticus, si resipiscat ante sententiam declaratoriam, jus Pontificium ipso facto recuperat, absque nova Cardinalium electione aliave solemnitate. — «Neque obstat si diceretur: si eo ipso quod Papa haereticus est, a Pontificia dignitate cadit et extra Ecclesiam est, ut prediximus, ergo is redire non potest, saltem ut iterum Pontifex sit: alioquin hujusmodi reditus novae electionis vim haberet; et ita concilium Cardinalibus eligendi jus auferret, quod jure fieri non potest, sucundum Rosellum (in dicto loco). Respondeo, in proposita re jus eligendi, interpretatione juris, ita demum ad Cardinales devolvi, si sententia criminis declaratoria subsequatur: quoniam poenae quae pro haeresi ipso jure imponuntur, exequi non possunt, nisi hujusmodi praecedat sententia… Eam vero (sententiam declaratoriam haeresis) proferri oportere lege aliqua non probatur. Immo contrarium, quando Pontifex resipiscit, paulo ante demonstratum est. Quare cuм istud jus ad Cardinales revocabiliter devolutum sit, hoc est, ut ita demum novus Pontifex eligatur, si is peracta poenitentia non resipiscat…, eis nulla infertur injuria… Nec mirum est si absque alicujus solemnitatis interventu hujusmodi reintegratio fiat: nam quemadmodum ob delictum privatio dignitatis nudo juris mysterio fit, ita per poenitentiam crimine extinto res ejusdem juris nudo mysterio ad primum statum redit.»
Card. Hieronymus Albanus, Tractatus de Potestate Papae, anno 1543. —Cit. a D. Bouix, Tractatus De Papa, tomus I, Paisiis, 1869, p. 548.
Again, Page 548.
Here we clearly see the teaching that heretical pope loses his jurisdiction BEFORE any declaratory sentence, and as such cannot rule in the Church, yet, is not deposed. He loses this jurisdiction by a simple internal effect of the law, WHICH , should he repent, is reversed, again by a simple internal effect of the law.
In other words, he retains his see, but loses the authority it possesses but can regain that authority if he repents.
SO, no, this is not a novelty at all.
As for your insistence on whether a publicly heretical Pope is deposed or not, it is irrelevant, because either way he at LEAST is stripped of juridical power. The theologians themselves do not agree on this question, therefore it cannot constitute more than a probable opinion. But if we argue from what they hold in common, we make a stronger argument.
So, as you can see it is based on precedent, clear logic, avoids unnecessary opinionating, and seeks to establish a theological certainty: The Popes have no authority, therefore they are not formally popes. [/b]
-
RobS, you used one of John Daly's translations (without attribution I might add) and you are a more knowledgeable theologian than he is? At least he can read Latin! Why do you think you are more capable than he is? Actually the reality is that neither you nor Mr. Daly are theologians. But Fr./Bishop Michel Guerard des Lauriers was a true theologian who was highly respected prior to V2. He took the SV position. So are you, a lawyer and amateur theologian, more capable than Bishop des Lauriers? Do you consider him ignorant?
The best I can say about John Daly is that he is a very confused individual who has caused much confusion by his writings (especially his article arguing that Vatican II should have been infallible).
Regarding Des Lauriers, his thesis has no basis in tradition and, in fact, is directly contradicted by authorities, such as Fr. Laymann (cited earlier). Here is how Des Laurier's was described as a Seminary professor:
In 1977, a former professor of theology at the seminary at Ecône, Fr. Guérard de Lauriers, published a fanciful thesis with the intention of proving without a shadow of a doubt that Paul VI, Bishop of Rome, recognized and acknowledged by the entire visible Church, was not, in fact, Pope at all. This thesis is known under the title of Thesis of Cassissiacuм. This Father had previously attained widespread notoriety thanks to his incomprehensible courses. This thesis ran true to form. Literally no one could understand his "distinctions," for instance, between the "sessio" and the "missio."
His incomprehensible distinctions are what led to his novel theory that a pope can be a "material pope" but not a formal pope. No such thing. A pope is constituted pope by virtue of his jurisdiction alone, as Cajetan teaches; consequently a "pope" who does not possess papal jurisdiction is no pope at all - not even materially. This is probably why his novel theory did not gain traction.
If you hold to des Laurier's thesis, please provide an authoritative citation from a pre-Vatican II theologian saying that a person can legally possess an office, yet not possess the authority that goes with the office.
Siscoe seems to check back in here every now and then, but I think he should spend a little more time answering questions people have asked of him since he decided to participate. It is only polite.
I know that what I am going to say is going to be a surprise to Siscoe (and Salza), and to some others, but S & S do NOT understand the role of "theologians" in the Church. Theologians were expected to be on the edge of speculation for the direct purpose of helping other contemporary theologians. They didn't promulgate their speculations to the laity or average parish priest of their time because they designed it as speculation to help other theologians, even by their own errors; they spurred other theologians of their time to react and correct what is wrong, and thus make advancement for the Church. For instance, you have St. Thomas Aquinas. He didn't publish his Summa Theologica to the laity as some kind of imprimatured book. It was designed for clerics alone. Anything that was passed over in their time was considered in accord with Church teaching. That which was questioned showed their might have been some kind of problem. This is so with some statement by St. Thomas about the immaculate conception. The Holy Ghost saw to it that some theologian would react if something was not quite right with another theologian.
What does all this mean? This means it is absolutely unreasonable to jump back into a previous century and pick out a theologian and under the pretext that he was an "upright" theologian, recklessly quote him as though what he said is STILL acceptable! This shows that one does NOT understand the role and office of theologians and the progress they participated in over the centuries.
Siscoe and Salza violate this, and it makes a shambles of their concocted theories they are now putting into a book.
It is wrong to quote John of St. Thomas even if he was a respectable theologian of his time, because we need to wonder whether some opinion he held in his time was erroneous but still helped other theologians advance to a solution on it. It is what come LATER and promulgated to the laity and clergy at large that shows what the ACTUAL OUTCOME of what previous theologians participated towards, but what the Church finally accepted as a solution.
I am waiting for either of them to come here and discuss this further with me. They really need to.
-
RobS, you used one of John Daly's translations (without attribution I might add) and you are a more knowledgeable theologian than he is? At least he can read Latin! Why do you think you are more capable than he is? Actually the reality is that neither you nor Mr. Daly are theologians. But Fr./Bishop Michel Guerard des Lauriers was a true theologian who was highly respected prior to V2. He took the SV position. So are you, a lawyer and amateur theologian, more capable than Bishop des Lauriers? Do you consider him ignorant?
The best I can say about John Daly is that he is a very confused individual who has caused much confusion by his writings (especially his article arguing that Vatican II should have been infallible).
Regarding Des Lauriers, his thesis has no basis in tradition and, in fact, is directly contradicted by authorities, such as Fr. Laymann (cited earlier). Here is how Des Laurier's was described as a Seminary professor:
In 1977, a former professor of theology at the seminary at Ecône, Fr. Guérard de Lauriers, published a fanciful thesis with the intention of proving without a shadow of a doubt that Paul VI, Bishop of Rome, recognized and acknowledged by the entire visible Church, was not, in fact, Pope at all. This thesis is known under the title of Thesis of Cassissiacuм. This Father had previously attained widespread notoriety thanks to his incomprehensible courses. This thesis ran true to form. Literally no one could understand his "distinctions," for instance, between the "sessio" and the "missio."
His incomprehensible distinctions are what led to his novel theory that a pope can be a "material pope" but not a formal pope. No such thing. A pope is constituted pope by virtue of his jurisdiction alone, as Cajetan teaches; consequently a "pope" who does not possess papal jurisdiction is no pope at all - not even materially. This is probably why his novel theory did not gain traction.
If you hold to des Laurier's thesis, please provide an authoritative citation from a pre-Vatican II theologian saying that a person can legally possess an office, yet not possess the authority that goes with the office.
Siscoe seems to check back in here every now and then, but I think he should spend a little more time answering questions people have asked of him since he decided to participate. It is only polite.
I know that what I am going to say is going to be a surprise to Siscoe (and Salza), and to some others, but S & S do NOT understand the role of "theologians" in the Church. Theologians were expected to be on the edge of speculation for the direct purpose of helping other contemporary theologians. They didn't promulgate their speculations to the laity or average parish priest of their time because they designed it as speculation to help other theologians, even by their own errors; they spurred other theologians of their time to react and correct what is wrong, and thus make advancement for the Church. For instance, you have St. Thomas Aquinas. He didn't publish his Summa Theologica to the laity as some kind of imprimatured book. It was designed for clerics alone. Anything that was passed over in their time was considered in accord with Church teaching. That which was questioned showed their might have been some kind of problem. This is so with some statement by St. Thomas about the immaculate conception. The Holy Ghost saw to it that some theologian would react if something was not quite right with another theologian.
What does all this mean? This means it is absolutely unreasonable to jump back into a previous century and pick out a theologian and under the pretext that he was an "upright" theologian, recklessly quote him as though what he said is STILL acceptable! This shows that one does NOT understand the role and office of theologians and the progress they participated in over the centuries.
Siscoe and Salza violate this, and it makes a shambles of their concocted theories they are now putting into a book.
It is wrong to quote John of St. Thomas even if he was a respectable theologian of his time, because we need to wonder whether some opinion he held in his time was erroneous but still helped other theologians advance to a solution on it. It is what come LATER and promulgated to the laity and clergy at large that shows what the ACTUAL OUTCOME of what previous theologians participated towards, but what the Church finally accepted as a solution.
I am waiting for either of them to come here and discuss this further with me. They really need to.
Exactly, not to mention their indirect influence on the magisterium itself. Who trains bishops? Theologians. So what informs the decrees and theology of bishops? The theologians. It is on that basis that what is universally taught in seminaries is considered to be part of the universal ordinary magisterium.
-
RobS, you used one of John Daly's translations (without attribution I might add) and you are a more knowledgeable theologian than he is? At least he can read Latin! Why do you think you are more capable than he is? Actually the reality is that neither you nor Mr. Daly are theologians. But Fr./Bishop Michel Guerard des Lauriers was a true theologian who was highly respected prior to V2. He took the SV position. So are you, a lawyer and amateur theologian, more capable than Bishop des Lauriers? Do you consider him ignorant?
The best I can say about John Daly is that he is a very confused individual who has caused much confusion by his writings (especially his article arguing that Vatican II should have been infallible).
Regarding Des Lauriers, his thesis has no basis in tradition and, in fact, is directly contradicted by authorities, such as Fr. Laymann (cited earlier). Here is how Des Laurier's was described as a Seminary professor:
In 1977, a former professor of theology at the seminary at Ecône, Fr. Guérard de Lauriers, published a fanciful thesis with the intention of proving without a shadow of a doubt that Paul VI, Bishop of Rome, recognized and acknowledged by the entire visible Church, was not, in fact, Pope at all. This thesis is known under the title of Thesis of Cassissiacuм. This Father had previously attained widespread notoriety thanks to his incomprehensible courses. This thesis ran true to form. Literally no one could understand his "distinctions," for instance, between the "sessio" and the "missio."
His incomprehensible distinctions are what led to his novel theory that a pope can be a "material pope" but not a formal pope. No such thing. A pope is constituted pope by virtue of his jurisdiction alone, as Cajetan teaches; consequently a "pope" who does not possess papal jurisdiction is no pope at all - not even materially. This is probably why his novel theory did not gain traction.
If you hold to des Laurier's thesis, please provide an authoritative citation from a pre-Vatican II theologian saying that a person can legally possess an office, yet not possess the authority that goes with the office.
Siscoe seems to check back in here every now and then, but I think he should spend a little more time answering questions people have asked of him since he decided to participate. It is only polite.
I know that what I am going to say is going to be a surprise to Siscoe (and Salza), and to some others, but S & S do NOT understand the role of "theologians" in the Church. Theologians were expected to be on the edge of speculation for the direct purpose of helping other contemporary theologians. They didn't promulgate their speculations to the laity or average parish priest of their time because they designed it as speculation to help other theologians, even by their own errors; they spurred other theologians of their time to react and correct what is wrong, and thus make advancement for the Church. For instance, you have St. Thomas Aquinas. He didn't publish his Summa Theologica to the laity as some kind of imprimatured book. It was designed for clerics alone. Anything that was passed over in their time was considered in accord with Church teaching. That which was questioned showed their might have been some kind of problem. This is so with some statement by St. Thomas about the immaculate conception. The Holy Ghost saw to it that some theologian would react if something was not quite right with another theologian.
What does all this mean? This means it is absolutely unreasonable to jump back into a previous century and pick out a theologian and under the pretext that he was an "upright" theologian, recklessly quote him as though what he said is STILL acceptable! This shows that one does NOT understand the role and office of theologians and the progress they participated in over the centuries.
Siscoe and Salza violate this, and it makes a shambles of their concocted theories they are now putting into a book.
It is wrong to quote John of St. Thomas even if he was a respectable theologian of his time, because we need to wonder whether some opinion he held in his time was erroneous but still helped other theologians advance to a solution on it. It is what come LATER and promulgated to the laity and clergy at large that shows what the ACTUAL OUTCOME of what previous theologians participated towards, but what the Church finally accepted as a solution.
I am waiting for either of them to come here and discuss this further with me. They really need to.
Exactly, not to mention their indirect influence on the magisterium itself. Who trains bishops? Theologians. So what informs the decrees and theology of bishops? The theologians. It is on that basis that what is universally taught in seminaries is considered to be part of the universal ordinary magisterium.
Exactly McCork and Gregory I!
This is why Canon Law states, "What the Holy Fathers and the theologians hold unanimously as a matter of faith and morals, is also de fide".
Theologians are ordinary human beings and not protected individually by infallibility, but when they agree unanimously together on a doctrine and the Church accepts it, the doctrine becomes part of the infallible ordinary magisterium.
I also have an outstanding question for Salza and one for Siscoe as well, and waiting for them to answer them here. I expect they would want to answer them as they are clearly wrong on each, which inevitably discredits the rest of their book.
-
If that which is visible does not preach and hold the TRUE faith it is worthless. Right?
Your question reveals you falsely believe the visible Church can defect from the Faith. The Catholic Church is identified visibly primarily by the Pope and the Bishops appointed by him (many of those bishops individually can defect, but all simultaneously cannot, since the Church's teaching on Apostolicity and indefectibility of the visible Church precludes that). This means you don't understand the role that Apostolicity and the visible line of succession from St. Peter and the Apostles to the present day plays in identifying the true Church. Here is how the Catholic Church answers your objection,
The Apostolicity of the Church in her origin and teaching follows from the Apostolic succession of her teachers and rulers. In order to be able to distinguish with certainty the true Church of Christ from all false claimants, it is sufficient to establish the Apostolic Succession with regard to the primacy of Peter. For, since the primacy is the crown of the Apostolate, the Church which possesses the primacy must needs be Apostolic ... Hence that Church, and that Church only, which can trace its rulers to the first primate, namely, St. Peter, is in fact and by right Apostolic in every sense. Those regional churches which are subject to the successor of St. Peter, and live in community with him, participate in this Apostolicity. All others, be it that they have separated from the one only Apostolic Church or developed independently of her, lack the note of Apostolicity and consequently cannot be the true Church of Christ ... The Church of Christ will continue to the end of time, unchanged in all her essential elements, one of which is the ordinary and legitimate Apostolic succession of her teachers and rulers.
Gregory, I will reply to your post subsequently.
-
If that which is visible does not preach and hold the TRUE faith it is worthless. Right?
Your question reveals you falsely believe the visible Church can defect from the Faith. The Catholic Church is identified visibly primarily by the Pope and the Bishops appointed by him (many of those bishops individually can defect, but all simultaneously cannot, since the Church's teaching on Apostolicity and indefectibility of the visible Church precludes that). This means you don't understand the role that Apostolicity and the visible line of succession from St. Peter and the Apostles to the present day plays in identifying the true Church. Here is how the Catholic Church answers your objection,
The Apostolicity of the Church in her origin and teaching follows from the Apostolic succession of her teachers and rulers. In order to be able to distinguish with certainty the true Church of Christ from all false claimants, it is sufficient to establish the Apostolic Succession with regard to the primacy of Peter. For, since the primacy is the crown of the Apostolate, the Church which possesses the primacy must needs be Apostolic ... Hence that Church, and that Church only, which can trace its rulers to the first primate, namely, St. Peter, is in fact and by right Apostolic in every sense. Those regional churches which are subject to the successor of St. Peter, and live in community with him, participate in this Apostolicity. All others, be it that they have separated from the one only Apostolic Church or developed independently of her, lack the note of Apostolicity and consequently cannot be the true Church of Christ ... The Church of Christ will continue to the end of time, unchanged in all her essential elements, one of which is the ordinary and legitimate Apostolic succession of her teachers and rulers.
Gregory, I will reply to your post subsequently.
:cheers:
-
Gregory I. Nishant, cuм ex disagrees. This is the opinion of a single theologian, and what follows because of it? Imputing heresy to Christ, because it is he who rules THROUGH his Vicar.
Either you have not read my message, or it is nothing but stubornness:
Amakusa. No Gregory I, your answer is utterly false, for an antipope cannot be accepted by the whole Church: it is the Catholic doctrine.
The phrase mentioned in the Bull is "praestitam ab omnibus obedientiam"; now, this phrase alludes to a ceremony which occurs in the Sistine chapel after the papal election, which one call in French "la prestation d'obéissance": the exact words of the Bull. During this ceremony, all the cardinals swear allegiance to the newly elected pope. I have included some pictures of this ceremony in my book, and you can even find a movie on the internet.
Almost no one has understood this point among our traditional priests. Most of them make mistakes of beginners.
Concerning la Salette, one more time you don't know your subject, since Melany of la Salette commented on the image of the eclipse and said that the Catholics wouldn't know who is the true pope, and then the Sacrifice would be abolished. She meant that there were two phases: the reign of the Great Harlot and the exile of the Roman Pontiff, and then the reign of Antichrist.
La Salette mentions a pope "during the awful crisis", you sedevacantist guys should learn how to read! The prophecy even says that the successor of this pope "will not reign long". Now, since that time, the only pope whose successor has not reigned long is Paul VI (Luciani is not a true pope but he is a successor in some way).
My friend Éric Faure was revealed by Notre-Dame de la Salette that Paul VI was still alive, on the mountain of la Salette, when he was a seminarian in the modernist Church and when he was looking for an answer to the Church crisis.
-
Gregory I. Nishant, cuм ex disagrees. This is the opinion of a single theologian, and what follows because of it? Imputing heresy to Christ, because it is he who rules THROUGH his Vicar.
Either you have not read my message, or it is nothing but stubornness:
Amakusa. No Gregory I, your answer is utterly false, for an antipope cannot be accepted by the whole Church: it is the Catholic doctrine.
The phrase mentioned in the Bull is "praestitam ab omnibus obedientiam"; now, this phrase alludes to a ceremony which occurs in the Sistine chapel after the papal election, which one call in French "la prestation d'obéissance": the exact words of the Bull. During this ceremony, all the cardinals swear allegiance to the newly elected pope. I have included some pictures of this ceremony in my book, and you can even find a movie on the internet.
Almost no one has understood this point among our traditional priests. Most of them make mistakes of beginners.
Concerning la Salette, one more time you don't know your subject, since Melany of la Salette commented on the image of the eclipse and said that the Catholics wouldn't know who is the true pope, and then the Sacrifice would be abolished. She meant that there were two phases: the reign of the Great Harlot and the exile of the Roman Pontiff, and then the reign of Antichrist.
La Salette mentions a pope "during the awful crisis", you sedevacantist guys should learn how to read! The prophecy even says that the successor of this pope "will not reign long". Now, since that time, the only pope whose successor has not reigned long is Paul VI (Luciani is not a true pope but he is a successor in some way).
My friend Éric Faure was revealed by Notre-Dame de la Salette that Paul VI was still alive, on the mountain of la Salette, when he was a seminarian in the modernist Church and when he was looking for an answer to the Church crisis.
You are not listening: the idea of reception by the whole Church CAN heal canonical impediments and ecclesiastical censures.
But it cannot heal heresy. Only personal repentance can. The fact is that a public and manifest heretic can become Pope is contrary to divine law, for heretics are outside the church.
He who is not a member of Christ cannot be his vicar, and no amount of reception can change that. If it WERE to happen, then he would have a valid election, but he would have no authority. Why? Because his bad will and his heresies are impediments from receiving the Pontifical authority.
Regarding private revelation, I hold that they are all demonic delusions until proven otherwise.
That's it.
-
If that which is visible does not preach and hold the TRUE faith it is worthless. Right?
Your question reveals you falsely believe the visible Church can defect from the Faith. The Catholic Church is identified visibly primarily by the Pope and the Bishops appointed by him (many of those bishops individually can defect, but all simultaneously cannot, since the Church's teaching on Apostolicity and indefectibility of the visible Church precludes that). This means you don't understand the role that Apostolicity and the visible line of succession from St. Peter and the Apostles to the present day plays in identifying the true Church. Here is how the Catholic Church answers your objection.
Come on Nishant, that's a completely legitimate question that you've consistently evaded, begging the question that's being debated. Regardless of all of the quotes you produce regarding the Church being the city on a hill (which She is), you also condone Mass attendance at chapels outside the juridical communion of said visible Church. Again, what good is having this visible hierarchy that must be avoided to retain the Faith? That position implicitly holds that the hierarchy HAS in fact defected despite such vehement protestations to the contrary (and attacks against certain sedevacantists who you claim hold this view). You neither learn from this hierarchy nor submit to them. On what planet does simply placing a photo of Francis in the vestibule does submission make? I agree with you that sedevacantism has issues also (as you're right, the entire hierarchy cannot defect), but I can't wrap my head around the blatant logical inconsistency here.
-
Here' a better question:
If Christ and his Vicar are a singe head over all the Church, and Christ reigns in the Church through his Vicar-
-If you assume Paul VI was legitimate Pope...
...Is Christ the author of the Novus Ordo Mass? Of Vatican II?
-
the idea of reception by the whole Church CAN heal canonical impediments and ecclesiastical censures.
When a pope has been accepted by the whole Church, we infallibly know that there were no definitive impediments. It is not possible that the whole Ecclesia discens follow a wrong head, for the Ecclesia docens would be separated from the Ecclesia discens, and the Church of Christ would not be one anymore. Period.
I have already explained the case of the new ordo and that of Vatican 2: the new ordo is a falsified docuмent, and V2 was not infallible; but you does not understand anything about infallibility since you does not distinguish the legal act and its content itself.
-
the idea of reception by the whole Church CAN heal canonical impediments and ecclesiastical censures.
When a pope has been accepted by the whole Church, we infallibly know that there were no definitive impediments. It is not possible that the whole Ecclesia discens follow a wrong head, for the Ecclesia docens would be separated from the Ecclesia discens, and the Church of Christ would not be one anymore. Period.
I have already explained the case of the new ordo and that of Vatican 2: the new ordo is a falsified docuмent, and V2 was not infallible; but you does not understand anything about infallibility since you does not distinguish the legal act and its content itself.
Then you explain to me, metaphysically, how it is possible for a Public Heretic to be elected Pope and THEN for his heresy to vanish. This is an interesting absolution indeed! So, the day before his election, Bishop X Publishes in his diocesan Newspaper: "There was no Virgin Birth." The next day he is elected pope and accepted by all the faithful. He dies a week later having never retracted his article.
Does he or does he not die as a heretic?
As regarding Vatican II: All the evidence that is REAL and TANGIBLE (And not the result of overwrought delusions of grandeur) points to Paul Vi promulgating heresy. Vatican II is heretical. Your opinion is moot on this point. Read Quanta Cura, then Read Dignitatis Humanae. It is a matter of objective fact. Not idle speculation.
He officially Promulgated the Heresy of Vatican II on December 8th, 1965. From that point forth he showed he was never Pope. A Pope cannot promulgate heresy. But he did. Fact. So he can't be Pope. Fact.
Inference from ab-duction (logical method, not capture!). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abductive_reasoning#Abductive_validation (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abductive_reasoning#Abductive_validation)
We know a heretic cannot be Pope. But Paul Vi is a heretic, therefore he was never Pope. HOW? Through never willing the common good of the Church, which is consistent with all his Liturgical shenanigans before 1963. Simple.
-
Gregory I, I won't say sedeprivationsm (the thesis that the man designated Pope by the College of Cardinals is only a designate who as yet does not exercise authority) is heretical, but ecclesia-privationism (the implicit thesis that practically no Bishop of the whole Church does) certainly is.
Your syllogism roughly goes,
Major: Vatican II is heretical/ New Mass is invalid (a judgment of reason)
Minor: Church cannot teach heresy, promulgate/universally use a heretical docuмent/invalid rite (a truth of faith)
Conclusion: Therefore, the Church did not or does not teach Vatican II/promulgate/use the New Mass. (what you call theologically certain)
I grant the truth of faith but deny the conclusion of your private judgment. Here is how the syllogism should go
Major: Church cannot teach heresy (de fide)
Minor: The Bishops of the Church with moral unanimity accepted Vatican II (a historical fact)
Conclusion: Vatican II doesn't contain heresy (a dogmatic fact)
This is how Pope Pius IX answered similar heretical claims of the Old Catholics in Etsi Multa, "Incredibly, they boldly affirm that the Roman Pontiff and all the bishops, the priests and the people conjoined with him in the unity of faith and communion fell into heresy when they approved and professed the definitions of the Ecuмenical Vatican Council. Therefore they deny also the indefectibility of the Church and blasphemously declare that it has perished throughout the world and that its visible Head and the bishops have erred.... Christ Himself is asked; He says 'and this gospel will be preached in the whole world, in testimony to all nations, and then will come the end.' Therefore the Church will be among all nations until the end of the world."
Explain how you don't deny indefectibility, Apostolicity, visiblity, universality and the other criteria mentioned by Pope Pius IX.
Major: The entire hierarchial Episcopate (the Ecclesia Docens) cannot use a rite that is heretical/invalid (dogma)
Minor: The entire hierarchical Episcopate currently uses the New Mass. (again, a contingent fact)
Conclusion: The New Mass is neither invalid nor heretical (a dogmatic fact flowing from these two premises)
Again, Pope Pius IX says, "They assert the necessity of restoring a legitimate episcopacy in the person of their pseudo-bishop, who has entered not by the gate but from elsewhere like a thief or robber and calls the damnation of Christ upon his head. These unhappy men undermine the foundations of religion, overturn all its marks and properties, and invent so many foul errors, or rather, draw forth from the ancient store of heretics and gather them "
You affirmed earlier the episcopacy must be continued without the Pope, you implicitly deny the mark and property of Apostolic succession depends on the Petrine Succession. Explain why these words don't apply to your claims. Although the New Mass will and should be removed one day, the correct position is that it is neither invalid or heretical, as Archbishop Lefebvre always held, and Fr. Gleize (Bp. Williamson's comments, perhaps, are better known) wrote recently.
Thus, the thoughtless exaggeration, perhaps, of some R&R folk, whose Bishops and priests clearly correct them, and the sedevacantists taking those erroneously exaggerated premises for granted without critically examining them, is what leads you to your patently heretical conclusion that there is, in practice, no hierarchy and no visible Church proving its truth by the mark of Apostolic succession. When you arrive at a heretical conclusion, faith and reason alike compel you to go back and examine the premises that led you there, one of which is certain to be mistaken.
-
Regardless of all of the quotes you produce regarding the Church being the city on a hill (which She is), you also condone Mass attendance at chapels outside the juridical communion of said visible Church.
Yes, no informed Catholic denies She is, so where is that City set on a Hill that cannot be hid, if not in Rome? As far as the Magisterium is concerned, beside of course the Roman Pontiff, today the teaching authority of the Church continues above all in good prelates like Cardinal Burke, Athanasius Schneider etc. One of these good prelates must be Pope one day if the Church is to be restored. As the saintly historical namesake of the latter showed us, and some theologians teach expressly, it can happen that due to Arianism etc very many Bishops can fall away from the Faith. What is absolutely impossible and precluded by the divine promise of Christ our Savior is that the entire Ecclesia Docens, the visible teaching Church as a whole, can defect or cease to exist.
Also, I appreciate that a few sedevacantists, Ladislaus, Gregory, I think 2Vermont and others, correctly recognized earlier that Ecclesia-Vacantism (a term Matthew coined, and I borrowed, to describe this new heresy that all episcopal sees throughout the universal Church are vacant, which implies the ordinary power of jurisdiction and thus formal Apostolic succession have ceased to exist) is heretical. The fact of the matter is, as is well known by now, Fr. Cekada, very plainly and publicly, defended it in a discussion with John Lane on Ignis Ardens, Mr. Lane rightly calling it out as heretical. Bp. Sanborn's published articles have also suggested the alternative of the entire hierarchy defecting is quite possible and preferable to the "dogmatic fact" of sedevacantism being incorrect, with the visible Church's Magisterium now supposedly requiring what he calls "dissent of faith" (see http://www.traditionalmass.org/articles/article.php?id=40&catname=10). Now, Fr. Cekada and Bp. Sanborn are perhaps two of the most outspoken and eloquent defenders of sedevacantism there are. Are you going to excuse them by ignorance, which would be ironical? Are they Catholics erring in good faith? By the standard of most sedevacantists, though not mine, they would be "manifest heretics" outside the Church.
I know what you are referring to, Histrionics, so let me say I have not felt compelled to defend the exaggerated positions Lad somewhat jokingly attributed to me in the past, since he entirely knows that I don't hold "Catholics can refuse juridical submission to the Magisterium to the point of rejecting canonical communion with the Holy See". In case it is not clear to you, mate, I have always disavowed such a radical position and have taken quite a lot of heat for doing so, as he knows full well. I endorse Bishop Fellay's view on the crisis, as even he admitted those who recognize the Pope must do. Lad likes to say slightly exaggerated things even Rome never says, the SSPX is outside the Church, in schism etc if the Pope is the Pope, and even right now, that's not accurate. But more importantly, in very probably just a few days, they will exercise ordinary jurisdiction, be members of the episcopal college, and belong to the teaching Church strictly so called, exercising the Magisterium of the Church in communion with and subjection to the Supreme Pontiff. Catholics who support the Society, therefore, don't need to fear that they are "outside the juridical communion of said visible Church". As as we discussed last time this claim was made and as Bishop Fellay pointed out in the "Forty Years of Fidelity" conference some years ago, Rome, in fact, has long expressly recognized the right of SSPX priests to give valid absolutions even in the case of grave sins normally reserved to the Holy See.
-
Gregory I, you know nothing about theology and you are debating such subjects. You don't know anything about the definition of public heresy. Cardinals Roncalli and Montini would have been public heretics if they had been judged by the Pope himself (a cardinal must be judged by the Pope), or if they had both promoted a heresy and admitted that it is a heresy against Catholic doctrine, just like Luther and Calvin who said that the Catholic Church was the Whore of Babylon. Such is "public heresy".
Paul VI has never promulgated the new mass, it was a falsified docuмent. I am not going to repeat this a hundred times. As for Vatican II, we have already answered too. It is impossible that all bishops, in their moral unanimity, proclaim a heresy properly speaking; now, the declaration on religious freedom received moral unanimity (at least 97%).
Religious freedom is merely an error, and it was not infallible.
-
The misunderstandings of the words "heresy" and "infallibility." and their scope and applicability, is at the heart of too many sedevacantists' arguments, and of the arguments of some other trads as well.
Gregory I, you know nothing about theology and you are debating such subjects. You don't know anything about the definition of public heresy. Cardinals Roncalli and Montini would have been public heretics if they had been judged by the Pope himself (a cardinal must be judged by the Pope), or if they had both promoted a heresy and admitted that it is a heresy against Catholic doctrine, just like Luther and Calvin who said that the Catholic Church was the Whore of Babylon. Such is "public heresy".
Paul VI has never promulgated the new mass, it was a falsified docuмent. I am not going to repeat this a hundred times. As for Vatican II, we have already answered too. It is impossible that all bishops, in their moral unanimity, proclaim a heresy properly speaking; now, the declaration on religious freedom received moral unanimity (at least 97%).
Religious freedom is merely an error, and it was not infallible.
-
Regardless of all of the quotes you produce regarding the Church being the city on a hill (which She is), you also condone Mass attendance at chapels outside the juridical communion of said visible Church.
Yes, no informed Catholic denies She is, so where is that City set on a Hill that cannot be hid, if not in Rome? As far as the Magisterium is concerned, beside of course the Roman Pontiff, today the teaching authority of the Church continues above all in good prelates like Cardinal Burke, Athanasius Schneider etc. One of these good prelates must be Pope one day if the Church is to be restored. As the saintly historical namesake of the latter showed us, and some theologians teach expressly, it can happen that due to Arianism etc very many Bishops can fall away from the Faith. What is absolutely impossible and precluded by the divine promise of Christ our Savior is that the entire Ecclesia Docens, the visible teaching Church as a whole, can defect or cease to exist.
Also, I appreciate that a few sedevacantists, Ladislaus, Gregory, I think 2Vermont and others, correctly recognized earlier that Ecclesia-Vacantism (a term Matthew coined, and I borrowed, to describe this new heresy that all episcopal sees throughout the universal Church are vacant, which implies the ordinary power of jurisdiction and thus formal Apostolic succession have ceased to exist) is heretical. The fact of the matter is, as is well known by now, Fr. Cekada, very plainly and publicly, defended it in a discussion with John Lane on Ignis Ardens, Mr. Lane rightly calling it out as heretical. Bp. Sanborn's published articles have also suggested the alternative of the entire hierarchy defecting is quite possible and preferable to the "dogmatic fact" of sedevacantism being incorrect, with the visible Church's Magisterium now supposedly requiring what he calls "dissent of faith" (see http://www.traditionalmass.org/articles/article.php?id=40&catname=10). Now, Fr. Cekada and Bp. Sanborn are perhaps two of the most outspoken and eloquent defenders of sedevacantism there are. Are you going to excuse them by ignorance, which would be ironical? Are they Catholics erring in good faith? By the standard of most sedevacantists, though not mine, they would be "manifest heretics" outside the Church.
It is confusing how Bp. Sanborn arrives to such conclusions after apparently adhering to the Cassiciacuм Thesis, when the original teaches:
Under these conditions, should one not state that those who
recognize John-Paul II (and Paul VI) as formally pope(s) are
effectively no longer members of the Church, which is to say that
they find themselves no longer visibly belonging to the Church?
In other words, should we not consider them, as regards
BELONGING to the Church, like the Orthodox or the Protestants?
Such a conclusion would be illegitimate.
One should not forget that the PRESENT living Magisterium
and that alone, which is divinely instituted in order to
authentically present everything which is the object of the Faith
is PRESENTLY involved.
-------------
Thus one CANNOT state that those who recognize John-Paul II
as formally Pope are because of this, personally guilty of the
sin of heresy or of schism and that they thus place themselves
outside the Church.
Moreover, one cannot state that those persons who adhere to
the "Conciliar Church" are outside the Church because they adhere
to a non-Catholic sect. We have already pointed this out, but
will add further provisions here.
-
Regardless of all of the quotes you produce regarding the Church being the city on a hill (which She is), you also condone Mass attendance at chapels outside the juridical communion of said visible Church.
Yes, no informed Catholic denies She is, so where is that City set on a Hill that cannot be hid, if not in Rome? As far as the Magisterium is concerned, beside of course the Roman Pontiff, today the teaching authority of the Church continues above all in good prelates like Cardinal Burke, Athanasius Schneider etc. One of these good prelates must be Pope one day if the Church is to be restored. As the saintly historical namesake of the latter showed us, and some theologians teach expressly, it can happen that due to Arianism etc very many Bishops can fall away from the Faith. What is absolutely impossible and precluded by the divine promise of Christ our Savior is that the entire Ecclesia Docens, the visible teaching Church as a whole, can defect or cease to exist.
Also, I appreciate that a few sedevacantists, Ladislaus, Gregory, I think 2Vermont and others, correctly recognized earlier that Ecclesia-Vacantism (a term Matthew coined, and I borrowed, to describe this new heresy that all episcopal sees throughout the universal Church are vacant, which implies the ordinary power of jurisdiction and thus formal Apostolic succession have ceased to exist) is heretical. The fact of the matter is, as is well known by now, Fr. Cekada, very plainly and publicly, defended it in a discussion with John Lane on Ignis Ardens, Mr. Lane rightly calling it out as heretical. Bp. Sanborn's published articles have also suggested the alternative of the entire hierarchy defecting is quite possible and preferable to the "dogmatic fact" of sedevacantism being incorrect, with the visible Church's Magisterium now supposedly requiring what he calls "dissent of faith" (see http://www.traditionalmass.org/articles/article.php?id=40&catname=10%29%2E Now, Fr. Cekada and Bp. Sanborn are perhaps two of the most outspoken and eloquent defenders of sedevacantism there are. Are you going to excuse them by ignorance, which would be ironical? Are they Catholics erring in good faith? By the standard of most sedevacantists, though not mine, they would be "manifest heretics" outside the Church.
It is confusing how Bp. Sanborn arrives to such conclusions after apparently adhering to the Cassiciacuм Thesis, when the original teaches:
Under these conditions, should one not state that those who
recognize John-Paul II (and Paul VI) as formally pope(s) are
effectively no longer members of the Church, which is to say that
they find themselves no longer visibly belonging to the Church?
In other words, should we not consider them, as regards
BELONGING to the Church, like the Orthodox or the Protestants?
Such a conclusion would be illegitimate.
One should not forget that the PRESENT living Magisterium
and that alone, which is divinely instituted in order to
authentically present everything which is the object of the Faith
is PRESENTLY involved.
-------------
Thus one CANNOT state that those who recognize John-Paul II
as formally Pope are because of this, personally guilty of the
sin of heresy or of schism and that they thus place themselves
outside the Church.
Moreover, one cannot state that those persons who adhere to
the "Conciliar Church" are outside the Church because they adhere
to a non-Catholic sect. We have already pointed this out, but
will add further provisions here.
Just because YOU are confused, doesn't make it confusing.
No person in the Church (less than a pope) is considered a formal heretic until the superior gives admonition, and the person refuses to comply. That admonition/refusal determines pertinacity of will and formal heresy.
A pope is in a different category because he has no superior on earth, But because he has something nobody else does (infallibility), it is based precisely on that we determine his pertinacity....when he is a manifest heretic. That is to say, when he does something harmful to faith or morals in the official organs of the Church. God prevents a true pope from accidentally doing so, but if we see he as done so, it is a dogmatic fact he is not a true pope.
-
There is something I don't understand about sedevacantism. I have heard a million times that when a Pope becomes a heretic he ipso facto loses the papacy. But what happens next. He will still be in the chair acting as Pope and nearly everyone will still obey him and he will function until he dies as Pope even though he supposedly lost his office and nobody would know any better, right?
Or what if a man elected Pope was already a heretic? Supposedly he would not be Pope even though he was elected, but the whole world like all the cardinals would still recognize him even though he is supposedly not the Pope because he was the man the cardinals chose. What happens then? Do you think the cardinals who had just elected him would accuse him of heresy and overthrow him?
-
Just because YOU are confused, doesn't make it confusing.
No person in the Church (less than a pope) is considered a formal heretic until the superior gives admonition, and the person refuses to comply. That admonition/refusal determines pertinacity of will and formal heresy.
A pope is in a different category because he has no superior on earth, But because he has something nobody else does (infallibility), it is based precisely on that we determine his pertinacity....when he is a manifest heretic. That is to say, when he does something harmful to faith or morals in the official organs of the Church. God prevents a true pope from accidentally doing so, but if we see he as done so, it is a dogmatic fact he is not a true pope.
Not sure which religion your idea comes from, but Catholics believe, and are bound to believe that the pope cannot err when he speaks ex cathedra, that is, when in the exercise of his office as supreme shepherd and teacher of all Christians he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole Church.
It was quite clearly defined at Vatican 1.
-
Just because YOU are confused, doesn't make it confusing.
No person in the Church (less than a pope) is considered a formal heretic until the superior gives admonition, and the person refuses to comply. That admonition/refusal determines pertinacity of will and formal heresy.
A pope is in a different category because he has no superior on earth, But because he has something nobody else does (infallibility), it is based precisely on that we determine his pertinacity....when he is a manifest heretic. That is to say, when he does something harmful to faith or morals in the official organs of the Church. God prevents a true pope from accidentally doing so, but if we see he as done so, it is a dogmatic fact he is not a true pope.
Not sure which religion your idea comes from, but Catholics believe, and are bound to believe that the pope cannot err when he speaks ex cathedra, that is, when in the exercise of his office as supreme shepherd and teacher of all Christians he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole Church.
It was quite clearly defined at Vatican 1.
That's what he said. A True pope can't do that. Can a false pope though? What are the signs of a false Pope? How about contradicting past magisterial teaching formally and officially?
-
Gregory I, I won't say sedeprivationsm (the thesis that the man designated Pope by the College of Cardinals is only a designate who as yet does not exercise authority) is heretical, but ecclesia-privationism (the implicit thesis that practically no Bishop of the whole Church does) certainly is.
Your syllogism roughly goes,
Major: Vatican II is heretical/ New Mass is invalid (a judgment of reason)
Minor: Church cannot teach heresy, promulgate/universally use a heretical docuмent/invalid rite (a truth of faith)
Conclusion: Therefore, the Church did not or does not teach Vatican II/promulgate/use the New Mass. (what you call theologically certain)
I grant the truth of faith but deny the conclusion of your private judgment. Here is how the syllogism should go
Major: Church cannot teach heresy (de fide)
Minor: The Bishops of the Church with moral unanimity accepted Vatican II (a historical fact)
Conclusion: Vatican II doesn't contain heresy (a dogmatic fact)
Here is the problem Nishant: your conclusion leads to a necessary conflict with reality. The reality is Quanta Cura is infallible and irreformable. It is an issue directly related to the salvation of souls, just read it.
Dignitatis Humanae is a 100% 180' about face, a reform of the irreformable, the fall of the infallible. There is no way around that.
Therefore, on the basis of this docuмent ALONE, all of Vatican II should be burned in St Peter's square. The authority promulgating it CANNOT be legit, unless you choose to attribute heresy to Christ.
Can you do that? Can you attribute the New Mass and Vatican II to Christ ruling in his Church? Can you?
I am not brave enough to blaspheme that way. It is therefore necessary that he who claims pontifical authority with Christ be dissociated from that authority: he could never have been Pope.
Amakusa: attach a copy of your degree in theology please. You accuse me of not knowing theology yet you believe Paul VI is 117 years old on nothing other than second hand info and private revelation.
Please.
Btw, look up canon laws definition of Public: "Having the possibility of becoming widely known."
-
Just because YOU are confused, doesn't make it confusing.
No person in the Church (less than a pope) is considered a formal heretic until the superior gives admonition, and the person refuses to comply. That admonition/refusal determines pertinacity of will and formal heresy.
A pope is in a different category because he has no superior on earth, But because he has something nobody else does (infallibility), it is based precisely on that we determine his pertinacity....when he is a manifest heretic. That is to say, when he does something harmful to faith or morals in the official organs of the Church. God prevents a true pope from accidentally doing so, but if we see he as done so, it is a dogmatic fact he is not a true pope.
Not sure which religion your idea comes from, but Catholics believe, and are bound to believe that the pope cannot err when he speaks ex cathedra, that is, when in the exercise of his office as supreme shepherd and teacher of all Christians he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole Church.
It was quite clearly defined at Vatican 1.
That's what he said. A True pope can't do that. Can a false pope though? What are the signs of a false Pope? How about contradicting past magisterial teaching formally and officially?
No, that is not what he said, that's what I said.
He may as well have said he was confused - because the pope cannot err when he speaks ex cathedra - heretic pope or not. The dogma as decreed at V1 makes no exceptions, only SVs make exceptions, then say the exceptions are Church teaching.
"A pope is in a different category because he has no superior on earth, But because he has something nobody else does (infallibility), it is based precisely on that we determine his pertinacity....when he is a manifest heretic."
"He has no superior on earth" is the only thing correct in his entire post - and when believed, as we are bound to believe under pain of mortal sin, the rest is confused, incoherent Cekadian theology - not a teaching of the Church, which is why I said I wondered which religion his idea came from.
-
Just because YOU are confused, doesn't make it confusing.
No person in the Church (less than a pope) is considered a formal heretic until the superior gives admonition, and the person refuses to comply. That admonition/refusal determines pertinacity of will and formal heresy.
A pope is in a different category because he has no superior on earth, But because he has something nobody else does (infallibility), it is based precisely on that we determine his pertinacity....when he is a manifest heretic. That is to say, when he does something harmful to faith or morals in the official organs of the Church. God prevents a true pope from accidentally doing so, but if we see he as done so, it is a dogmatic fact he is not a true pope.
Not sure which religion your idea comes from, but Catholics believe, and are bound to believe that the pope cannot err when he speaks ex cathedra, that is, when in the exercise of his office as supreme shepherd and teacher of all Christians he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole Church.
It was quite clearly defined at Vatican 1.
That's what he said. A True pope can't do that. Can a false pope though? What are the signs of a false Pope? How about contradicting past magisterial teaching formally and officially?
No, that is not what he said, that's what I said.
He may as well have said he was confused - because the pope cannot err when he speaks ex cathedra - heretic pope or not. The dogma as decreed at V1 makes no exceptions, only SVs make exceptions, then say the exceptions are Church teaching.
"A pope is in a different category because he has no superior on earth, But because he has something nobody else does (infallibility), it is based precisely on that we determine his pertinacity....when he is a manifest heretic."
"He has no superior on earth" is the only thing correct in his entire post - and when believed, as we are bound to believe under pain of mortal sin, the rest is confused, incoherent Cekadian theology - not a teaching of the Church, which is why I said I wondered which religion his idea came from.
Hold up, think it through: does a pope have limited or unlimited potential for error on his Ordinary Authentic magisterium?
-
Hold up, think it through: does a pope have limited or unlimited potential for error on his Ordinary Authentic magisterium?
Ordinary Authentic, Extraordinary, Universal, whatever - he is the pope, he is the supreme head of the Magisterium whom God promised - through another pope, Pius IX, that the pope cannot err under very specific circuмstances as outlined at V1.
Believe that and you will be unable to believe that no matter what he does, is supposed to be safeguarded from error.
-
Hold up, think it through: does a pope have limited or unlimited potential for error on his Ordinary Authentic magisterium?
Ordinary Authentic, Extraordinary, Universal, whatever - he is the pope, he is the supreme head of the Magisterium whom God promised - through another pope, Pius IX, that the pope cannot err under very specific circuмstances as outlined at V1.
Believe that and you will be unable to believe that no matter what he does, is supposed to be safeguarded from error.
No he could err as a private theologian.
But in his authentic magisterium, when he is preaching in an encyclical or apostolic constitution or bull or apostolic decree without the extraordinary magisterium:
Does he or does he not have unlimited potential for err?
How bad can he err officially? Can he officially in his authentic non-infallible magisterium teach something harmful to souls?
Limited or unlimited? Which is it?
-
Just because YOU are confused, doesn't make it confusing.
No person in the Church (less than a pope) is considered a formal heretic until the superior gives admonition, and the person refuses to comply. That admonition/refusal determines pertinacity of will and formal heresy.
A pope is in a different category because he has no superior on earth, But because he has something nobody else does (infallibility), it is based precisely on that we determine his pertinacity....when he is a manifest heretic. That is to say, when he does something harmful to faith or morals in the official organs of the Church. God prevents a true pope from accidentally doing so, but if we see he as done so, it is a dogmatic fact he is not a true pope.
Not sure which religion your idea comes from, but Catholics believe, and are bound to believe that the pope cannot err when he speaks ex cathedra, that is, when in the exercise of his office as supreme shepherd and teacher of all Christians he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole Church.
It was quite clearly defined at Vatican 1.
That's what he said. A True pope can't do that. Can a false pope though? What are the signs of a false Pope? How about contradicting past magisterial teaching formally and officially?
No, that is not what he said, that's what I said.
He may as well have said he was confused - because the pope cannot err when he speaks ex cathedra - heretic pope or not. The dogma as decreed at V1 makes no exceptions, only SVs make exceptions, then say the exceptions are Church teaching.
"A pope is in a different category because he has no superior on earth, But because he has something nobody else does (infallibility), it is based precisely on that we determine his pertinacity....when he is a manifest heretic."
"He has no superior on earth" is the only thing correct in his entire post - and when believed, as we are bound to believe under pain of mortal sin, the rest is confused, incoherent Cekadian theology - not a teaching of the Church, which is why I said I wondered which religion his idea came from.
No, G1 had it right. I said it. I said a true pope cannot accidentally promote harm to the Church in Her official organs of responsibility. Which means that if the man who looks to be pope does so, it is PRECISELY because he is not a true pope, because God is not obliged to prevent a non-pope from such mischief.
It sure is based on Church teaching. It is based on the teaching of free-will; that God forces no man's will. That means anyone can wilfully become a heretic and reject the divine virtue of Faith. That is a Church teaching.
The question of a pope going into heresy was asked during the council, and the answer was given according to how I related. After the Council the Church scrutnized the writings of St. Francis de Sales and approved of them. Contained in them was St. Francis deliberately teaching Protestant,s as Church teaching, that a pope can become a heretic and automatically cease to be pope. This was also deliberately included in a canon law book approved directly by Rome for the clergy of America. It also happens to be the very same included in other imprimatured works since 1870 as a solid fact.
St. Francis de Sales:
"Now when [a Pope] is explicitly a heretic, he falls ipso facto from his dignity and out of the Church, and the Church must either deprive him, or, as some say, declare him deprived, of his Apostolic See."
What are you going to say now, Your Stubborness?
-
Well Stubborn? In the Popes authentic Ordinary Magisterium, his Non-Infallible magisterium, is his potential for error limited (error that is accidental and not substantial) or unlimited (Capable of substantial error).
If limited, we agree. But then you must account for substantial error of Vatican II.
If Unlimited, we disagree, and you must provide precedent.
Well?
-
If that which is visible does not preach and hold the TRUE faith it is worthless. Right?
Your question reveals you falsely believe the visible Church can defect from the Faith. The Catholic Church is identified visibly primarily by the Pope and the Bishops appointed by him (many of those bishops individually can defect, but all simultaneously cannot, since the Church's teaching on Apostolicity and indefectibility of the visible Church precludes that). This means you don't understand the role that Apostolicity and the visible line of succession from St. Peter and the Apostles to the present day plays in identifying the true Church. Here is how the Catholic Church answers your objection,
The Apostolicity of the Church in her origin and teaching follows from the Apostolic succession of her teachers and rulers. In order to be able to distinguish with certainty the true Church of Christ from all false claimants, it is sufficient to establish the Apostolic Succession with regard to the primacy of Peter. For, since the primacy is the crown of the Apostolate, the Church which possesses the primacy must needs be Apostolic ... Hence that Church, and that Church only, which can trace its rulers to the first primate, namely, St. Peter, is in fact and by right Apostolic in every sense. Those regional churches which are subject to the successor of St. Peter, and live in community with him, participate in this Apostolicity. All others, be it that they have separated from the one only Apostolic Church or developed independently of her, lack the note of Apostolicity and consequently cannot be the true Church of Christ ... The Church of Christ will continue to the end of time, unchanged in all her essential elements, one of which is the ordinary and legitimate Apostolic succession of her teachers and rulers.
.
It sure SEEMS to have failed as a visible institution. We both know She can never defect from the faith, but men can. Simultaneously defecting is redundant, come on this false church has been building for at least a century and a half. So much so that Pope Pius IX's dip pen ran out of ink writing encyclical letters (40 of them) against the liberal Catholics.
I hear you though, stay away, disregard what they say, the Conciliar Church is a false church and it is messed up, but it is also the Roman Catholic Church outside of which there is no salvation? No that is really messed up!
-
During the Arian heresy, wasn't the Pope and about 90% (maybe more) of the clergy infected with error? Didn't all these men believe, teach (to some degree) and act as Arians? If not, why is it said that St Athanasius was "against the world"?
Pope John XXIII once remarked: "I am only infallible if I speak infallibly but I shall never do that, so I am not infallible."
Pope Benedict said in 2005: "The Pope is not an oracle; he is infallible in very rare situations, as we know."
Infallibility is very strict. The pope has a LOT of room to err, to be led astray, to lose his soul. And he can lead us into error just the same. Christ promised the gates of hell would not prevail over the Church; He did not promise this protection over the papacy.
-
During the Arian heresy, wasn't the Pope and about 90% (maybe more) of the clergy infected with error? Didn't all these men believe, teach (to some degree) and act as Arians? If not, why is it said that St Athanasius was "against the world"?
Pope John XXIII once remarked: "I am only infallible if I speak infallibly but I shall never do that, so I am not infallible."
Pope Benedict said in 2005: "The Pope is not an oracle; he is infallible in very rare situations, as we know."
Infallibility is very strict. The pope has a LOT of room to err, to be led astray, to lose his soul. And he can lead us into error just the same. Christ promised the gates of hell would not prevail over the Church; He did not promise this protection over the papacy.
Can he do so, not as a private individual but in ANY official capacity? Can he issue erroneous encyclicals to all the faithful? Can you name any?
-
An Encyclical is not infallible, nor is any other papal bull, dogmatic constitution, etc, unless the Pope follows the proper formula and declares he will speak infallibly. Just because he speaks on faith and morals doesn't mean he cant err. In theory, the pope can 'teach' without using his teaching 'authority'.
(The universal magisterium exists so that Catholics may know their faith and 'test' any borderline novelties or imperfections against that which Christ handed down to us. And let us remember that there are no NEW truths of our faith. Everything we must believe is in the Creed and other basic prayers. We already have ALL truth! Thats why infallibility is used so sparingly; our faith is simple, so that errors, which usually hide behind grandiose or ambiguous language, 'should be' easily perceived.)
Some theologians have said that when the declaration of the dogma of the Assumption was written, only the few sentences starting with, 'We declare, pronounce and define...' were infallible. The 'intro' where it was listed all the reasons for believing in the Assumption (which was 95% of the docuмent), was not infallible and was irrelevant to the actual declaration. In theory, the pope could say he was defining the Assumption because he likes the color blue. As long as he uses the correct formula, the reasons for the infallible statement don't matter. This would be an example of an 'official' act where the pope could err, in a sense.
-
An Encyclical is not infallible, nor is any other papal bull, dogmatic constitution, etc, unless the Pope follows the proper formula and declares he will speak infallibly. Just because he speaks on faith and morals doesn't mean he cant err. In theory, the pope can 'teach' without using his teaching 'authority'.
(The universal magisterium exists so that Catholics may know their faith and 'test' any borderline novelties or imperfections against that which Christ handed down to us. And let us remember that there are no NEW truths of our faith. Everything we must believe is in the Creed and other basic prayers. We already have ALL truth! Thats why infallibility is used so sparingly; our faith is simple, so that errors, which usually hide behind grandiose or ambiguous language, 'should be' easily perceived.)
Some theologians have said that when the declaration of the dogma of the Assumption was written, only the few sentences starting with, 'We declare, pronounce and define...' were infallible. The 'intro' where it was listed all the reasons for believing in the Assumption (which was 95% of the docuмent), was not infallible and was irrelevant to the actual declaration. In theory, the pope could say he was defining the Assumption because he likes the color blue. As long as he uses the correct formula, the reasons for the infallible statement don't matter. This would be an example of an 'official' act where the pope could err, in a sense.
That is not an answer to my question:
1. An ex cathedra declaration can occur in any form of papal docuмent.
2. HAS any Pope ever issued an encyclical which has taught error? Does the Pope have an unlimited potential for error, or a limited potential for error in his ordinary authentic magisterium?
Has any Pope in the entire history of the Church ever led the Church astray by means of the authentic magisterium? When and where please. Not private theological speculation, not unpublished letters, but in promulgating his encyclicals or apostolic decrees and constitutions to the Church- has he erred? And to what degree can he err?
-
Hold up, think it through: does a pope have limited or unlimited potential for error on his Ordinary Authentic magisterium?
Ordinary Authentic, Extraordinary, Universal, whatever - he is the pope, he is the supreme head of the Magisterium whom God promised - through another pope, Pius IX, that the pope cannot err under very specific circuмstances as outlined at V1.
Believe that and you will be unable to believe that no matter what he does, is supposed to be safeguarded from error.
No he could err as a private theologian.
But in his authentic magisterium, when he is preaching in an encyclical or apostolic constitution or bull or apostolic decree without the extraordinary magisterium:
Does he or does he not have unlimited potential for err?
How bad can he err officially? Can he officially in his authentic non-infallible magisterium teach something harmful to souls?
Limited or unlimited? Which is it?
Look to V1 for your answer. He can err when he is not speaking ex cathedra, same as anyone can err. The doctrine of papal infallibility, by stating in what respect the pope cannot err, admits, in effect, that in all other areas of his vast prerogatives the pope is completely fallible. SVs do not accept this simple truth, hence, they become SVs.
Whether limited or unlimited potential for error is not the issue because you and I are not in any position to determine his validity at all, not even based on the scope of his error. But to offer you a direct answer, obviously it is not unlimited, due to the doctrine of papal infallibility, which SVs misapply as a rule.
-
Just because YOU are confused, doesn't make it confusing.
No person in the Church (less than a pope) is considered a formal heretic until the superior gives admonition, and the person refuses to comply. That admonition/refusal determines pertinacity of will and formal heresy.
A pope is in a different category because he has no superior on earth, But because he has something nobody else does (infallibility), it is based precisely on that we determine his pertinacity....when he is a manifest heretic. That is to say, when he does something harmful to faith or morals in the official organs of the Church. God prevents a true pope from accidentally doing so, but if we see he as done so, it is a dogmatic fact he is not a true pope.
Not sure which religion your idea comes from, but Catholics believe, and are bound to believe that the pope cannot err when he speaks ex cathedra, that is, when in the exercise of his office as supreme shepherd and teacher of all Christians he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole Church.
It was quite clearly defined at Vatican 1.
That's what he said. A True pope can't do that. Can a false pope though? What are the signs of a false Pope? How about contradicting past magisterial teaching formally and officially?
No, that is not what he said, that's what I said.
He may as well have said he was confused - because the pope cannot err when he speaks ex cathedra - heretic pope or not. The dogma as decreed at V1 makes no exceptions, only SVs make exceptions, then say the exceptions are Church teaching.
"A pope is in a different category because he has no superior on earth, But because he has something nobody else does (infallibility), it is based precisely on that we determine his pertinacity....when he is a manifest heretic."
"He has no superior on earth" is the only thing correct in his entire post - and when believed, as we are bound to believe under pain of mortal sin, the rest is confused, incoherent Cekadian theology - not a teaching of the Church, which is why I said I wondered which religion his idea came from.
No, G1 had it right. I said it. I said a true pope cannot accidentally promote harm to the Church in Her official organs of responsibility. Which means that if the man who looks to be pope does so, it is PRECISELY because he is not a true pope, because God is not obliged to prevent a non-pope from such mischief.
This is your own idea, it is not a teaching of the Church. If it is a teaching of the Church, then V1 is not a teaching of the Church.
I've said repeatedly the Church does not teach what you teach, SVs teach what you teach, but the Church does not teach that. SVs have embraced the Cekadian teachings as Church teaching, which is why SVs reject what the Church actually teaches.
As I said, the doctrine of papal infallibility, by Pope Pius IX infallibly stating in what respect the pope cannot err, admits, in effect, that in all other areas of his vast prerogatives, the pope is completely fallible. SVs have the complete opposite idea.
As proof, look at what SVs do.
Here we have a pope, Pius IX, who actually exercised his papal infallibility when he decreed at V1, the parameters of when the pope is infallible, yet SVs do not listen to him.
Meanwhile we have the conciliar popes who have never even attempted to - and have even said they've never exercised their papal infallibility - but SVs don't believe them. Instead, SVs accuse them of not being popes because they are guilty of infringing upon the doctrine, which is, by Divine Promise, impossible to infringe upon.
SVs have succeeded in creating a "catch 22" in order to believe the pope is not the pope.
-
Just because YOU are confused, doesn't make it confusing.
No person in the Church (less than a pope) is considered a formal heretic until the superior gives admonition, and the person refuses to comply. That admonition/refusal determines pertinacity of will and formal heresy.
A pope is in a different category because he has no superior on earth, But because he has something nobody else does (infallibility), it is based precisely on that we determine his pertinacity....when he is a manifest heretic. That is to say, when he does something harmful to faith or morals in the official organs of the Church. God prevents a true pope from accidentally doing so, but if we see he as done so, it is a dogmatic fact he is not a true pope.
Not sure which religion your idea comes from, but Catholics believe, and are bound to believe that the pope cannot err when he speaks ex cathedra, that is, when in the exercise of his office as supreme shepherd and teacher of all Christians he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole Church.
It was quite clearly defined at Vatican 1.
That's what he said. A True pope can't do that. Can a false pope though? What are the signs of a false Pope? How about contradicting past magisterial teaching formally and officially?
No, that is not what he said, that's what I said.
He may as well have said he was confused - because the pope cannot err when he speaks ex cathedra - heretic pope or not. The dogma as decreed at V1 makes no exceptions, only SVs make exceptions, then say the exceptions are Church teaching.
"A pope is in a different category because he has no superior on earth, But because he has something nobody else does (infallibility), it is based precisely on that we determine his pertinacity....when he is a manifest heretic."
"He has no superior on earth" is the only thing correct in his entire post - and when believed, as we are bound to believe under pain of mortal sin, the rest is confused, incoherent Cekadian theology - not a teaching of the Church, which is why I said I wondered which religion his idea came from.
No, G1 had it right. I said it. I said a true pope cannot accidentally promote harm to the Church in Her official organs of responsibility. Which means that if the man who looks to be pope does so, it is PRECISELY because he is not a true pope, because God is not obliged to prevent a non-pope from such mischief.
This is your own idea, it is not a teaching of the Church. If it is a teaching of the Church, then V1 is not a teaching of the Church.
I've said repeatedly the Church does not teach what you teach, SVs teach what you teach, but the Church does not teach that. SVs have embraced the Cekadian teachings as Church teaching, which is why SVs reject what the Church actually teaches.
As I said, the doctrine of papal infallibility, by Pope Pius IX infallibly stating in what respect the pope cannot err, admits, in effect, that in all other areas of his vast prerogatives, the pope is completely fallible. SVs have the complete opposite idea.
As proof, look at what SVs do.
Here we have a pope, Pius IX, who actually exercised his papal infallibility when he decreed at V1, the parameters of when the pope is infallible, yet SVs do not listen to him.
Meanwhile we have the conciliar popes who have never even attempted to - and have even said they've never exercised their papal infallibility - but SVs don't believe them. Instead, SVs accuse them of not being popes because they are guilty of infringing upon the doctrine, which is, by Divine Promise, impossible to infringe upon.
SVs have succeeded in creating a "catch 22" in order to believe the pope is not the pope.
.........................................................(http://i.imgur.com/0UQrTWj.jpg)
-
An Encyclical is not infallible, nor is any other papal bull, dogmatic constitution, etc, unless the Pope follows the proper formula and declares he will speak infallibly. Just because he speaks on faith and morals doesn't mean he cant err. In theory, the pope can 'teach' without using his teaching 'authority'.
(The universal magisterium exists so that Catholics may know their faith and 'test' any borderline novelties or imperfections against that which Christ handed down to us. And let us remember that there are no NEW truths of our faith. Everything we must believe is in the Creed and other basic prayers. We already have ALL truth! Thats why infallibility is used so sparingly; our faith is simple, so that errors, which usually hide behind grandiose or ambiguous language, 'should be' easily perceived.)
Some theologians have said that when the declaration of the dogma of the Assumption was written, only the few sentences starting with, 'We declare, pronounce and define...' were infallible. The 'intro' where it was listed all the reasons for believing in the Assumption (which was 95% of the docuмent), was not infallible and was irrelevant to the actual declaration. In theory, the pope could say he was defining the Assumption because he likes the color blue. As long as he uses the correct formula, the reasons for the infallible statement don't matter. This would be an example of an 'official' act where the pope could err, in a sense.
You don't understand Catholicism at all. The following quotes from 2 popes say exactly the opposite of what you just said above:
Pope Pius IX in his Letter to Archbishop Scherr of Munich in 1863:
"We desire to reassure ourselves that they did not mean to limit the obligation, which strictly binds Catholic teachers and writers, to those things only which are proposed by the infallible judgment of the Church as dogmas of faith to be believed by everybody. In a like manner, We are convinced that it was not their intention to state that the perfect adherence to revealed truths (which they regard as absolutely necessary for true progress in science and for refuting errors) can be maintained, if the submission of faith is given only to those dogmas expressly defined by the Church. The reason for this is the following: even supposing that we are treating of that subjection which is to be made by an explicit act of divine faith, this must not be limited to those things which have been defined in the express decrees of the ecuмenical councils or of the Roman Pontiffs of this See; but it must also be extended to those things which, through the ordinary teaching of the whole Church throughout the world, are proposed as divinely revealed and, as a result, by universal and constant consent of Catholic theologians are held to be matters of faith. "
Pope Pius XII in his encyclical, Humani Generis, in 1950 (Denz. 2313):
"It is not to be thought that what is set down in Encyclical Letters does not demand assent in itself, because in this the popes do not exercise the supreme power of their magisterium. For these matters are taught by the ordinary magisterium, regarding which the following is pertinent: "He who heareth you, heareth me." [Luke 10:16]; and usually what is set forth and inculcated in the Encyclical Letters, already pertains to Catholic doctrine. But if the Supreme Pontiffs in their acts, after due consideration, express an opinion on a hitherto controversial matter, it is clear to all that this matter, according to the mind and will of the same Pontiffs, cannot any longer be considered a question of free discussion among the theologians."
-
An Encyclical is not infallible, nor is any other papal bull, dogmatic constitution, etc, unless the Pope follows the proper formula and declares he will speak infallibly. Just because he speaks on faith and morals doesn't mean he cant err. In theory, the pope can 'teach' without using his teaching 'authority'.
(The universal magisterium exists so that Catholics may know their faith and 'test' any borderline novelties or imperfections against that which Christ handed down to us. And let us remember that there are no NEW truths of our faith. Everything we must believe is in the Creed and other basic prayers. We already have ALL truth! Thats why infallibility is used so sparingly; our faith is simple, so that errors, which usually hide behind grandiose or ambiguous language, 'should be' easily perceived.)
Some theologians have said that when the declaration of the dogma of the Assumption was written, only the few sentences starting with, 'We declare, pronounce and define...' were infallible. The 'intro' where it was listed all the reasons for believing in the Assumption (which was 95% of the docuмent), was not infallible and was irrelevant to the actual declaration. In theory, the pope could say he was defining the Assumption because he likes the color blue. As long as he uses the correct formula, the reasons for the infallible statement don't matter. This would be an example of an 'official' act where the pope could err, in a sense.
You don't understand Catholicism at all. The following quotes from 2 popes say exactly the opposite of what you just said above:
Pope Pius IX in his Letter to Archbishop Scherr of Munich in 1863:
"We desire to reassure ourselves that they did not mean to limit the obligation, which strictly binds Catholic teachers and writers, to those things only which are proposed by the infallible judgment of the Church as dogmas of faith to be believed by everybody. In a like manner, We are convinced that it was not their intention to state that the perfect adherence to revealed truths (which they regard as absolutely necessary for true progress in science and for refuting errors) can be maintained, if the submission of faith is given only to those dogmas expressly defined by the Church. The reason for this is the following: even supposing that we are treating of that subjection which is to be made by an explicit act of divine faith, this must not be limited to those things which have been defined in the express decrees of the ecuмenical councils or of the Roman Pontiffs of this See; but it must also be extended to those things which, through the ordinary teaching of the whole Church throughout the world, are proposed as divinely revealed and, as a result, by universal and constant consent of Catholic theologians are held to be matters of faith. "
Pope Pius XII in his encyclical, Humani Generis, in 1950 (Denz. 2313):
"It is not to be thought that what is set down in Encyclical Letters does not demand assent in itself, because in this the popes do not exercise the supreme power of their magisterium. For these matters are taught by the ordinary magisterium, regarding which the following is pertinent: "He who heareth you, heareth me." [Luke 10:16]; and usually what is set forth and inculcated in the Encyclical Letters, already pertains to Catholic doctrine. But if the Supreme Pontiffs in their acts, after due consideration, express an opinion on a hitherto controversial matter, it is clear to all that this matter, according to the mind and will of the same Pontiffs, cannot any longer be considered a question of free discussion among the theologians."
Will two hurdles be overcome:
Will Pax Vobis read it?
Will he comprehend it?
-
An Encyclical is not infallible, nor is any other papal bull, dogmatic constitution, etc, unless the Pope follows the proper formula and declares he will speak infallibly. Just because he speaks on faith and morals doesn't mean he cant err. In theory, the pope can 'teach' without using his teaching 'authority'.
(The universal magisterium exists so that Catholics may know their faith and 'test' any borderline novelties or imperfections against that which Christ handed down to us. And let us remember that there are no NEW truths of our faith. Everything we must believe is in the Creed and other basic prayers. We already have ALL truth! Thats why infallibility is used so sparingly; our faith is simple, so that errors, which usually hide behind grandiose or ambiguous language, 'should be' easily perceived.)
Some theologians have said that when the declaration of the dogma of the Assumption was written, only the few sentences starting with, 'We declare, pronounce and define...' were infallible. The 'intro' where it was listed all the reasons for believing in the Assumption (which was 95% of the docuмent), was not infallible and was irrelevant to the actual declaration. In theory, the pope could say he was defining the Assumption because he likes the color blue. As long as he uses the correct formula, the reasons for the infallible statement don't matter. This would be an example of an 'official' act where the pope could err, in a sense.
You don't understand Catholicism at all.
Actually, sad as it is, Pax Vobs is talking Catholicism, PaulFC only seems to understand SVism.
-
Let's look at your quote from Pius XII, as he makes the exact point I am trying to make, which is: Just because something is written in an Encylical or another papal docuмent, doesn't mean it's infallible. It could be infallible, it also could not be. It depends on 1) if the pope uses the right formula or 2) if the topic is consistent with the univeral magisterium (i.e. "what the Church has always taught").
Here's what Pius XII said: "It is not to be thought that what is set down in Encyclical Letters does not demand assent in itself, because in this the popes do not exercise the supreme power of their magisterium. For these matters are taught by the ordinary magisterium, regarding which the following is pertinent: "He who heareth you, heareth me." [Luke 10:16]; and USUALLY what is set forth and inculcated in the Encyclical Letters, already pertains to Catholic doctrine."
I agree wholeheartedly with what Pius XII says, because he highlights the connection between the pope's Infallibility and the unerring truth of the universal magisterium (infallibility with a small 'i'). He's basically saying that just because before 1950 the dogma of the assumption wasn't formally defined, doesn't mean we don't have to believe it, because it has ALWAYS been part of Church tradition (i.e. universal magisterium).
Now, when Pius XII mentions the "ordinary" magisterium, he says we must also give assent because "USUALLY what is set forth...in the Encyclical...already pertains to Catholic doctrine."
Of course. He's saying you can't ignore the pope's encyclical just because he doesn't speak infallibly. I agree, because USUALLY, if we have a decent pope, he's going to preach or teach TRUTHS.
...however, if a pope DOESN'T teach the truth (which Pius XII admits could happen), and if what the pope says DOESN'T line up with the universal magisterium, then he's in error and we owe no assent of faith.
-
Let's look at your quote from Pius XII, as he makes the exact point I am trying to make, which is: Just because something is written in an Encylical or another papal docuмent, doesn't mean it's infallible. It could be infallible, it also could not be. It depends on 1) if the pope uses the right formula or 2) if the topic is consistent with the univeral magisterium (i.e. "what the Church has always taught").
Here's what Pius XII said: "It is not to be thought that what is set down in Encyclical Letters does not demand assent in itself, because in this the popes do not exercise the supreme power of their magisterium. For these matters are taught by the ordinary magisterium, regarding which the following is pertinent: "He who heareth you, heareth me." [Luke 10:16]; and USUALLY what is set forth and inculcated in the Encyclical Letters, already pertains to Catholic doctrine."
I agree wholeheartedly with what Pius XII says, because he highlights the connection between the pope's Infallibility and the unerring truth of the universal magisterium (infallibility with a small 'i'). He's basically saying that just because before 1950 the dogma of the assumption wasn't formally defined, doesn't mean we don't have to believe it, because it has ALWAYS been part of Church tradition (i.e. universal magisterium).
Now, when Pius XII mentions the "ordinary" magisterium, he says we must also give assent because "USUALLY what is set forth...in the Encyclical...already pertains to Catholic doctrine."
Of course. He's saying you can't ignore the pope's encyclical just because he doesn't speak infallibly. I agree, because USUALLY, if we have a decent pope, he's going to preach or teach TRUTHS.
...however, if a pope DOESN'T teach the truth (which Pius XII admits could happen), and if what the pope says DOESN'T line up with the universal magisterium, then he's in error and we owe no assent of faith.
But can an act of his authentic magisterium be harmful to the faithful?
Does it have a limited or unlimited potential for error? Is there any case where to hear the authentic magisterium of a Pope is to NOT hear the voice of Christ????
And if so, what are some examples of the authentic Papal magisterium promulgating error?
-
Let's look at your quote from Pius XII, as he makes the exact point I am trying to make, which is: Just because something is written in an Encylical or another papal docuмent, doesn't mean it's infallible. It could be infallible, it also could not be. It depends on 1) if the pope uses the right formula or 2) if the topic is consistent with the univeral magisterium (i.e. "what the Church has always taught").
Here's what Pius XII said: "It is not to be thought that what is set down in Encyclical Letters does not demand assent in itself, because in this the popes do not exercise the supreme power of their magisterium. For these matters are taught by the ordinary magisterium, regarding which the following is pertinent: "He who heareth you, heareth me." [Luke 10:16]; and USUALLY what is set forth and inculcated in the Encyclical Letters, already pertains to Catholic doctrine."
I agree wholeheartedly with what Pius XII says, because he highlights the connection between the pope's Infallibility and the unerring truth of the universal magisterium (infallibility with a small 'i'). He's basically saying that just because before 1950 the dogma of the assumption wasn't formally defined, doesn't mean we don't have to believe it, because it has ALWAYS been part of Church tradition (i.e. universal magisterium).
Now, when Pius XII mentions the "ordinary" magisterium, he says we must also give assent because "USUALLY what is set forth...in the Encyclical...already pertains to Catholic doctrine."
Of course. He's saying you can't ignore the pope's encyclical just because he doesn't speak infallibly. I agree, because USUALLY, if we have a decent pope, he's going to preach or teach TRUTHS.
...however, if a pope DOESN'T teach the truth (which Pius XII admits could happen), and if what the pope says DOESN'T line up with the universal magisterium, then he's in error and we owe no assent of faith.
But can an act of his authentic magisterium be harmful to the faithful?
If it does not involve an ex cathedra act, then there is nothing to stop it except the providence of God, if He so chooses.
Does it have a limited or unlimited potential for error? Is there any case where to hear the authentic magisterium of a Pope is to NOT hear the voice of Christ????
This will likely be unacceptable to SVs, but from The Great Sacrilege............
There is nothing in Divine Revelation or ecclesiastical law which guarantees that the pope will never make an unwise law, or repeal a wise one; appoint an inept bishop, or a bad one; impose an unjust interdiction, or refuse to impose a necessary one; teach erroneous notions (even rank heresy) and say and do things which lead to mistaken conclusions, or permit his subordinates to do so. Nothing—except Divine Providence, if He so chooses—prevents there being a totally incompetent, or imprudent, or immoral pope. Indeed, forbidding as such a thought may be, it is not inconceivable (i.e., out of the realm of possibility, or, the same thing, contradictory to the doctrine here under discussion) that there ascend the Throne of St. Peter a malicious pope, one bent on the total destruction of the Church, he being faithless enough to think such a thing possible!
That even such a one, with such unrestricted and unrestrictable power, with all the help of his similarly-minded appointees, would be unable to succeed in such an effort is guaranteed by the doctrine of the Church's Indefectibility. And the reason even such a one would not be able to succeed is, in fact, papal infallibility itself.
There is, at the same time, nothing in the definition of the Papacy which guarantees that the Supreme Pontiff could not give sinful commands and permit, or even encourage, the gravest abuses, or raise wicked and conspiratorial men to the episcopacy and the cardinalate, to give them free reign to teach every kind of error and command or permit every kind of misdeed. In a word, there is no divine promise that the pope will not be permitted to use his great authority in the most wicked and destructive ways.
Such a pope would not, despite any and all manner of unholy action, lose his own legitimacy, nor his all-comprehensive jurisdiction, nor the divine prerogative of infallibility; so that, should an avowed conspirator become the Roman pontiff, were he converted, he might immediately set about repairing the damage he himself had helped to inflict on the Church, without needing to be re-elected and re-instated or re-confirmed in his office; only his private confession and absolution from any censure he might have incurred would be required.
And if so, what are some examples of the authentic Papal magisterium promulgating error?
I'm sure some one can come up with something for you - I am sure Richard Ibranyi could if you read any of his material.
-
Father wathen speaks of commands, bad decisions and "teaching" which is presumably teaching as a private theologian.
He doesn't address the authentic papal magisterium nor does he indicate to what degree he could err. But if we limit him to what he said, clearly he is designating a limited potential for error.
So I will ask again:
Do the official acts of the Pope's individual magisterial teaching, and this alone, does this have a limited or unlimited potential for error?
-
Limited.
-
Potiential for error...
Unlimited in the sense that the Pope has the full power to "bind and loose" with respect to his powers over the disciplines/laws of the Church, as long as they aren't "Divine" laws. (i.e. He can change the law and require NO fasting before Holy Communion)
Limited in the sense that the pope can't change/destroy Divine Truth, Revelation, or the nature of sacraments. Though he could try. (i.e. He couldn't lawfully allow a person in moral sin to receive communion...though he tried at the Synod).
If you want specific examples, Gregory, where popes have taught error, they are out on the web. *Disclaimer: I assume this website is accurate; maybe it's not. But I know there have been false, heretical popes throughout history, so if these examples are wrong, there are others out there that are true.*
http://www.traditionalcatholicmass.com/home-m240.html
“I consider that, if one equates the Church of Rome with her Head, that is with the Pope, it is correct to say that she can err, even in matters touching the Faith, by giving encouragement to heresy, in issuing certain decrees, for example. Several Roman Pontiffs [i.e. Popes] have in fact been guilty of heresy”
-Pope Adrian VI 1522
Pope Saint Victor I [189 - 199] officially approved the heresy of Montanism in 192 A.D., but afterwards condemned it!
Pope Saint Marcellinus I (304) “At that time was a great persecution, so that within 30 days 17,000 Christians of both sexes in divers provinces were crowned with martyrdom. For this reason [Pope] Marcellinus [296-304] himself was haled to sacrifice, that he might offer incense [before pagan idols], and he did it. After a few days, inspired by penitence, he was beheaded by the same Diocletian and crowned with martyrdom for the faith...” (Liber Pontificalis, The Book of the Popes, XXX. Marcellinus.)
Pope Liberius I condemned St Athanasius for fighting Arianism and signed a docuмent accepting the heresy, so he could return from exile. After the Arian heresy was realized, he hypocritically condemned all those Bishops who had signed the same agreement he had.
Pope Vigilius I disagreed with the 5th Ecuмenical council, which had been previously ratified by previous popes.
Pope Honorius I is the best example. He was condemned by a council and labeled a heretic by multiple popes who succeeded him.
I'm sure there's more...
-
No, none of those are what I am talking about. I am talking about official magisterial acts, not private acts. Is the non-infallible magisterium of a pope subject to an unlimited or limited degree of error?
-
Potiential for error...
Unlimited in the sense that the Pope has the full power to "bind and loose" with respect to his powers over the disciplines/laws of the Church, as long as they aren't "Divine" laws. (i.e. He can change the law and require NO fasting before Holy Communion)
Limited in the sense that the pope can't change/destroy Divine Truth, Revelation, or the nature of sacraments. Though he could try. (i.e. He couldn't lawfully allow a person in moral sin to receive communion...though he tried at the Synod).
If you want specific examples, Gregory, where popes have taught error, they are out on the web. *Disclaimer: I assume this website is accurate; maybe it's not. But I know there have been false, heretical popes throughout history, so if these examples are wrong, there are others out there that are true.*
http://www.traditionalcatholicmass.com/home-m240.html
“I consider that, if one equates the Church of Rome with her Head, that is with the Pope, it is correct to say that she can err, even in matters touching the Faith, by giving encouragement to heresy, in issuing certain decrees, for example. Several Roman Pontiffs [i.e. Popes] have in fact been guilty of heresy”
-Pope Adrian VI 1522
Pope Saint Victor I [189 - 199] officially approved the heresy of Montanism in 192 A.D., but afterwards condemned it!
Pope Saint Marcellinus I (304) “At that time was a great persecution, so that within 30 days 17,000 Christians of both sexes in divers provinces were crowned with martyrdom. For this reason [Pope] Marcellinus [296-304] himself was haled to sacrifice, that he might offer incense [before pagan idols], and he did it. After a few days, inspired by penitence, he was beheaded by the same Diocletian and crowned with martyrdom for the faith...” (Liber Pontificalis, The Book of the Popes, XXX. Marcellinus.)
Pope Liberius I condemned St Athanasius for fighting Arianism and signed a docuмent accepting the heresy, so he could return from exile. After the Arian heresy was realized, he hypocritically condemned all those Bishops who had signed the same agreement he had.
Pope Vigilius I disagreed with the 5th Ecuмenical council, which had been previously ratified by previous popes.
Pope Honorius I is the best example. He was condemned by a council and labeled a heretic by multiple popes who succeeded him.
I'm sure there's more...
Pax Vobis, you simply do not understand what a "manifest heretic" is. Historically, only Honorius came the closest, but there is still no doubt he was not a manifest heretic. When you compare what Honorius did, and what the Vatican II papal claimants have been doing, there is not the slightest doubt that they are manifest heretics.
-
No, none of those are what I am talking about. I am talking about official magisterial acts, not private acts. Is the non-infallible magisterium of a pope subject to an unlimited or limited degree of error?
The non-infallible magisterium of a pope is subject to the same potential error as any other human being. Why would anyone think it's otherwise?
-
Limited.
You are adhering to heretical ex-cathedrism. The false idea that the only infallibility the Church has is papal infallibility. The false idea that the Church as a whole is only infallible in those rare and solemn acts of a pope.
Papal infallibility is a facet of Church infallibility. Aside from it, the Church is protected by infallibility. That is why when I first came on to this forum I quoted Vatican I and asked you to list doctrines that were not solemnly taught by the Church but which you believe with the very SAME" divine and Catholic faith" as you believe the dogma of the Assumption.
You refused to answer....and we all know why.
-
Limited.
You are adhering to heretical ex-cathedrism. The false idea that the only infallibility the Church has is papal infallibility. The false idea that the Church as a whole is only infallible in those rare and solemn acts of a pope.
Papal infallibility is a facet of Church infallibility. Aside from it, the Church is protected by infallibility. That is why when I first came on to this forum I quoted Vatican I and asked you to list doctrines that were not solemnly taught by the Church but which you believe with the very SAME" divine and Catholic faith" as you believe the dogma of the Assumption.
You refused to answer....and we all know why.
Again, only SVs teach such things, the Church does not teach such things.
"Heretical ex-cathedrism" - I'm sorry but that really is LOL
Beyond that, you do not understand infallibility, you have the SV idea of infallibility which amounts to Popolatry.
-
Limited.
You are adhering to heretical ex-cathedrism. The false idea that the only infallibility the Church has is papal infallibility. The false idea that the Church as a whole is only infallible in those rare and solemn acts of a pope.
Papal infallibility is a facet of Church infallibility. Aside from it, the Church is protected by infallibility. That is why when I first came on to this forum I quoted Vatican I and asked you to list doctrines that were not solemnly taught by the Church but which you believe with the very SAME" divine and Catholic faith" as you believe the dogma of the Assumption.
You refused to answer....and we all know why.
Again, only SVs teach such things, the Church does not teach such things.
"Heretical ex-cathedrism" - I'm sorry but that really is LOL
Beyond that, you do not understand infallibility, you have the SV idea of infallibility which amounts to Popolatry.
It doesn't REALLY matter though, now does it, Stubborn? Because what I am writing here is not "meant to be" infallible, so why should you complain?
-
True, also, according to The Letter and you, the conciliar popes all belong to the Church at least by desire and longing anyway, so what's all the fuss about?
-
No, none of those are what I am talking about. I am talking about official magisterial acts, not private acts. Is the non-infallible magisterium of a pope subject to an unlimited or limited degree of error?
The non-infallible magisterium of a pope is subject to the same potential error as any other human being. Why would anyone think it's otherwise?
So a Pope can officially promulgate heresy in an encyclical or apostolic constitution?
Please cite an example.
-
I'll see if I can dig something up tomorrow, I'm leaving for Mass in a few minutes for Our Blessed Lady's feast day.
Perhaps if you look, you can save me the trouble.
-
True, also, according to The Letter and you, the conciliar popes all belong to the Church at least by desire and longing anyway, so what's all the fuss about?
That is the MOST ignorant blather I have heard in a long time. How could that be since I am a sedevacantist and say they are manifest heretics and NOT popes? It's like you have a penchant for sticking square pegs in round holes!
You complain and condemn about something someone says here which is not meant to be infallible, and remain silent about Bergolio and call him Holy Father by saying what he says is "not meant to be infallible". And you don't see any inconsistency in your actions??
-
True, also, according to The Letter and you, the conciliar popes all belong to the Church at least by desire and longing anyway, so what's all the fuss about?
That is the MOST ignorant blather I have heard in a long time. How could that be since I am a sedevacantist and say they are manifest heretics and NOT popes? It's like you have a penchant for sticking square pegs in round holes!
You complain and condemn about something someone says here which is not meant to be infallible, and remain silent about Bergolio and call him Holy Father by saying what he says is "not meant to be infallible". And you don't see any inconsistency in your actions??
(http://i.imgur.com/0UQrTWj.jpg)
-
True, also, according to The Letter and you, the conciliar popes all belong to the Church at least by desire and longing anyway, so what's all the fuss about?
That is the MOST ignorant blather I have heard in a long time. How could that be since I am a sedevacantist and say they are manifest heretics and NOT popes? It's like you have a penchant for sticking square pegs in round holes!
You complain and condemn about something someone says here which is not meant to be infallible, and remain silent about Bergolio and call him Holy Father by saying what he says is "not meant to be infallible". And you don't see any inconsistency in your actions??
This is why I use that awesome, beautiful hide button with Stubborn. Enough is enough with the intentional, circular arguments.
-
True, also, according to The Letter and you, the conciliar popes all belong to the Church at least by desire and longing anyway, so what's all the fuss about?
That is the MOST ignorant blather I have heard in a long time. How could that be since I am a sedevacantist and say they are manifest heretics and NOT popes? It's like you have a penchant for sticking square pegs in round holes!
You complain and condemn about something someone says here which is not meant to be infallible, and remain silent about Bergolio and call him Holy Father by saying what he says is "not meant to be infallible". And you don't see any inconsistency in your actions??
This is why I use that awesome, beautiful hide button with Stubborn. Enough is enough with the intentional, circular arguments.
Yea, I see. He used a graphic I used for two of his posts, but I didn't use them for posts where he was directly addressing me and asking me a question!!! He is running away from what I am saying and asking.
-
True, also, according to The Letter and you, the conciliar popes all belong to the Church at least by desire and longing anyway, so what's all the fuss about?
That is the MOST ignorant blather I have heard in a long time. How could that be since I am a sedevacantist and say they are manifest heretics and NOT popes? It's like you have a penchant for sticking square pegs in round holes!
You complain and condemn about something someone says here which is not meant to be infallible, and remain silent about Bergolio and call him Holy Father by saying what he says is "not meant to be infallible". And you don't see any inconsistency in your actions??
This is why I use that awesome, beautiful hide button with Stubborn. Enough is enough with the intentional, circular arguments.
Since the clear teachings of the Catholic Church are circular arguments to you and since by your own admission it's the way you silence feeneyites , you may as well just continue using it.
-
True, also, according to The Letter and you, the conciliar popes all belong to the Church at least by desire and longing anyway, so what's all the fuss about?
That is the MOST ignorant blather I have heard in a long time. How could that be since I am a sedevacantist and say they are manifest heretics and NOT popes? It's like you have a penchant for sticking square pegs in round holes!
You complain and condemn about something someone says here which is not meant to be infallible, and remain silent about Bergolio and call him Holy Father by saying what he says is "not meant to be infallible". And you don't see any inconsistency in your actions??
This is why I use that awesome, beautiful hide button with Stubborn. Enough is enough with the intentional, circular arguments.
Yea, I see. He used a graphic I used for two of his posts, but I didn't use them for posts where he was directly addressing me and asking me a question!!! He is running away from what I am saying and asking.
Answer heretical ex-cathedrism? Where do you come up with this stuff? I mean honestly, that is one of the funniest terms I've ever heard a SV use.
-
True, also, according to The Letter and you, the conciliar popes all belong to the Church at least by desire and longing anyway, so what's all the fuss about?
That is the MOST ignorant blather I have heard in a long time. How could that be since I am a sedevacantist and say they are manifest heretics and NOT popes? It's like you have a penchant for sticking square pegs in round holes!
You complain and condemn about something someone says here which is not meant to be infallible, and remain silent about Bergolio and call him Holy Father by saying what he says is "not meant to be infallible". And you don't see any inconsistency in your actions??
This is why I use that awesome, beautiful hide button with Stubborn. Enough is enough with the intentional, circular arguments.
Yea, I see. He used a graphic I used for two of his posts, but I didn't use them for posts where he was directly addressing me and asking me a question!!! He is running away from what I am saying and asking.
Answer heretical ex-cathedrism? Where do you come up with this stuff? I mean honestly, that is one of the funniest terms I've ever heard a SV use.
It's not just funny, it's hilarious. Just as hilarious as the position you have.
-
Let's look at your quote from Pius XII, as he makes the exact point I am trying to make, which is: Just because something is written in an Encylical or another papal docuмent, doesn't mean it's infallible. It could be infallible, it also could not be. It depends on 1) if the pope uses the right formula or 2) if the topic is consistent with the univeral magisterium (i.e. "what the Church has always taught").
Here's what Pius XII said: "It is not to be thought that what is set down in Encyclical Letters does not demand assent in itself, because in this the popes do not exercise the supreme power of their magisterium. For these matters are taught by the ordinary magisterium, regarding which the following is pertinent: "He who heareth you, heareth me." [Luke 10:16]; and USUALLY what is set forth and inculcated in the Encyclical Letters, already pertains to Catholic doctrine."
I agree wholeheartedly with what Pius XII says, because he highlights the connection between the pope's Infallibility and the unerring truth of the universal magisterium (infallibility with a small 'i'). He's basically saying that just because before 1950 the dogma of the assumption wasn't formally defined, doesn't mean we don't have to believe it, because it has ALWAYS been part of Church tradition (i.e. universal magisterium).
Now, when Pius XII mentions the "ordinary" magisterium, he says we must also give assent because "USUALLY what is set forth...in the Encyclical...already pertains to Catholic doctrine."
Of course. He's saying you can't ignore the pope's encyclical just because he doesn't speak infallibly. I agree, because USUALLY, if we have a decent pope, he's going to preach or teach TRUTHS.
...however, if a pope DOESN'T teach the truth (which Pius XII admits could happen), and if what the pope says DOESN'T line up with the universal magisterium, then he's in error and we owe no assent of faith.
What a heretical pile of garbage. Let's look closer at the quote from Pope Pius XII:
"It is not to be thought that what is set down in Encyclical Letters does not demand assent in itself, because in this the popes do not exercise the supreme power of their magisterium. For these matters are taught by the ordinary magisterium, regarding which the following is pertinent: "He who heareth you, heareth me." [Luke 10:16];"
Here Pope Pius XII is clearly stating encyclical letters demand assent equally to solemn declarations because they are taught by the ordinary magisterium. He provides the quote from Luke 10:16 to show that the ordinary magisterium is the equivalent of hearing our Lord himself.
Now the next part of the quote, which is connected to the first part above, but separated by a semicolon, states:
"and usually what is set forth and inculcated in the Encyclical Letters, already pertains to Catholic doctrine."
This part of the quote is stating that usually what is in encyclical letters already pertains to Catholic doctrine. If we look at the full list of papal encyclicals online, some had focused on current events and related topics, such as persecutions taking place in the world. Speaking about a current event may not pertain specifically to Catholic doctrine, but is related to it. Nevertheless the first part of the quote from Pope Pius XII still holds, and that is, that encyclical letters as a whole, demand assent, even though the encyclical may touch on topics that are only related to Catholic doctrine.
Pax Vobis, you're having trouble with basic English here. It is a total absurdity for Pope Pius XII in the first part of his quote to demand assent to encyclicals because they are part of the OM, then in the second part of the same quote, completely contradict himself and state that, oh by the way, the encyclicals, taught by the OM, may also contain error.
-
Let's look at your quote from Pius XII, as he makes the exact point I am trying to make, which is: Just because something is written in an Encylical or another papal docuмent, doesn't mean it's infallible. It could be infallible, it also could not be. It depends on 1) if the pope uses the right formula or 2) if the topic is consistent with the univeral magisterium (i.e. "what the Church has always taught").
Here's what Pius XII said: "It is not to be thought that what is set down in Encyclical Letters does not demand assent in itself, because in this the popes do not exercise the supreme power of their magisterium. For these matters are taught by the ordinary magisterium, regarding which the following is pertinent: "He who heareth you, heareth me." [Luke 10:16]; and USUALLY what is set forth and inculcated in the Encyclical Letters, already pertains to Catholic doctrine."
I agree wholeheartedly with what Pius XII says, because he highlights the connection between the pope's Infallibility and the unerring truth of the universal magisterium (infallibility with a small 'i'). He's basically saying that just because before 1950 the dogma of the assumption wasn't formally defined, doesn't mean we don't have to believe it, because it has ALWAYS been part of Church tradition (i.e. universal magisterium).
Now, when Pius XII mentions the "ordinary" magisterium, he says we must also give assent because "USUALLY what is set forth...in the Encyclical...already pertains to Catholic doctrine."
Of course. He's saying you can't ignore the pope's encyclical just because he doesn't speak infallibly. I agree, because USUALLY, if we have a decent pope, he's going to preach or teach TRUTHS.
...however, if a pope DOESN'T teach the truth (which Pius XII admits could happen), and if what the pope says DOESN'T line up with the universal magisterium, then he's in error and we owe no assent of faith.
What a heretical pile of garbage. Let's look closer at the quote from Pope Pius XII:
"It is not to be thought that what is set down in Encyclical Letters does not demand assent in itself, because in this the popes do not exercise the supreme power of their magisterium. For these matters are taught by the ordinary magisterium, regarding which the following is pertinent: "He who heareth you, heareth me." [Luke 10:16];"
Here Pope Pius XII is clearly stating encyclical letters demand assent equally to solemn declarations because they are taught by the ordinary magisterium. He provides the quote from Luke 10:16 to show that the ordinary magisterium is the equivalent of hearing our Lord himself.
Now the next part of the quote, which is connected to the first part above, but separated by a semicolon, states:
"and usually what is set forth and inculcated in the Encyclical Letters, already pertains to Catholic doctrine."
This part of the quote is stating that usually what is in encyclical letters already pertains to Catholic doctrine. If we look at the full list of papal encyclicals online, some had focused on current events and related topics, such as persecutions taking place in the world. Speaking about a current event may not pertain specifically to Catholic doctrine, but is related to it. Nevertheless the first part of the quote from Pope Pius XII still holds, and that is, that encyclical letters as a whole, demand assent, even though the encyclical may touch on topics that are only related to Catholic doctrine.
Pax Vobis, you're having trouble with basic English here. It is a total absurdity for Pope Pius XII in the first part of his quote to demand assent to encyclicals because they are part of the OM, then in the second part of the same quote, completely contradict himself and state that, oh by the way, the encyclicals, taught by the OM, may also contain error.
There could be ERROR perhaps but not to the degree where it is actually harmful to the faith, and that's it harmful to faith in morals. Error of fact, error of circuмstance, perhaps in exact terminology.
But not an UNLIMITED potential for error. Or, once again, you end up implicating Christ in heresy, for Christ rules the church through his vicar in the unity of a single authority.
-
Let's look at your quote from Pius XII, as he makes the exact point I am trying to make, which is: Just because something is written in an Encylical or another papal docuмent, doesn't mean it's infallible. It could be infallible, it also could not be. It depends on 1) if the pope uses the right formula or 2) if the topic is consistent with the univeral magisterium (i.e. "what the Church has always taught").
Here's what Pius XII said: "It is not to be thought that what is set down in Encyclical Letters does not demand assent in itself, because in this the popes do not exercise the supreme power of their magisterium. For these matters are taught by the ordinary magisterium, regarding which the following is pertinent: "He who heareth you, heareth me." [Luke 10:16]; and USUALLY what is set forth and inculcated in the Encyclical Letters, already pertains to Catholic doctrine."
I agree wholeheartedly with what Pius XII says, because he highlights the connection between the pope's Infallibility and the unerring truth of the universal magisterium (infallibility with a small 'i'). He's basically saying that just because before 1950 the dogma of the assumption wasn't formally defined, doesn't mean we don't have to believe it, because it has ALWAYS been part of Church tradition (i.e. universal magisterium).
Now, when Pius XII mentions the "ordinary" magisterium, he says we must also give assent because "USUALLY what is set forth...in the Encyclical...already pertains to Catholic doctrine."
Of course. He's saying you can't ignore the pope's encyclical just because he doesn't speak infallibly. I agree, because USUALLY, if we have a decent pope, he's going to preach or teach TRUTHS.
...however, if a pope DOESN'T teach the truth (which Pius XII admits could happen), and if what the pope says DOESN'T line up with the universal magisterium, then he's in error and we owe no assent of faith.
What a heretical pile of garbage. Let's look closer at the quote from Pope Pius XII:
"It is not to be thought that what is set down in Encyclical Letters does not demand assent in itself, because in this the popes do not exercise the supreme power of their magisterium. For these matters are taught by the ordinary magisterium, regarding which the following is pertinent: "He who heareth you, heareth me." [Luke 10:16];"
Here Pope Pius XII is clearly stating encyclical letters demand assent equally to solemn declarations because they are taught by the ordinary magisterium. He provides the quote from Luke 10:16 to show that the ordinary magisterium is the equivalent of hearing our Lord himself.
Now the next part of the quote, which is connected to the first part above, but separated by a semicolon, states:
"and usually what is set forth and inculcated in the Encyclical Letters, already pertains to Catholic doctrine."
This part of the quote is stating that usually what is in encyclical letters already pertains to Catholic doctrine. If we look at the full list of papal encyclicals online, some had focused on current events and related topics, such as persecutions taking place in the world. Speaking about a current event may not pertain specifically to Catholic doctrine, but is related to it. Nevertheless the first part of the quote from Pope Pius XII still holds, and that is, that encyclical letters as a whole, demand assent, even though the encyclical may touch on topics that are only related to Catholic doctrine.
Pax Vobis, you're having trouble with basic English here. It is a total absurdity for Pope Pius XII in the first part of his quote to demand assent to encyclicals because they are part of the OM, then in the second part of the same quote, completely contradict himself and state that, oh by the way, the encyclicals, taught by the OM, may also contain error.
There could be ERROR perhaps but not to the degree where it is actually harmful to the faith, and that's it harmful to faith in morals. Error of fact, error of circuмstance, perhaps in exact terminology.
But not an UNLIMITED potential for error. Or, once again, you end up implicating Christ in heresy, for Christ rules the church through his vicar in the unity of a single authority.
Let me clarify this even more....
That which is taught and not protected as being infallible at the very MOMENT of promulgation, actually BECOMES infallible if the Church receiving it makes no objection to it. It's IMPOSSIBLE for the Church receiving it to have no objection to something if it were against previously taught dogma.
Stubborn proclaims, like a heretic, that it can and has happened!
-
Let's look at your quote from Pius XII, as he makes the exact point I am trying to make, which is: Just because something is written in an Encylical or another papal docuмent, doesn't mean it's infallible. It could be infallible, it also could not be. It depends on 1) if the pope uses the right formula or 2) if the topic is consistent with the univeral magisterium (i.e. "what the Church has always taught").
Here's what Pius XII said: "It is not to be thought that what is set down in Encyclical Letters does not demand assent in itself, because in this the popes do not exercise the supreme power of their magisterium. For these matters are taught by the ordinary magisterium, regarding which the following is pertinent: "He who heareth you, heareth me." [Luke 10:16]; and USUALLY what is set forth and inculcated in the Encyclical Letters, already pertains to Catholic doctrine."
I agree wholeheartedly with what Pius XII says, because he highlights the connection between the pope's Infallibility and the unerring truth of the universal magisterium (infallibility with a small 'i'). He's basically saying that just because before 1950 the dogma of the assumption wasn't formally defined, doesn't mean we don't have to believe it, because it has ALWAYS been part of Church tradition (i.e. universal magisterium).
Now, when Pius XII mentions the "ordinary" magisterium, he says we must also give assent because "USUALLY what is set forth...in the Encyclical...already pertains to Catholic doctrine."
Of course. He's saying you can't ignore the pope's encyclical just because he doesn't speak infallibly. I agree, because USUALLY, if we have a decent pope, he's going to preach or teach TRUTHS.
...however, if a pope DOESN'T teach the truth (which Pius XII admits could happen), and if what the pope says DOESN'T line up with the universal magisterium, then he's in error and we owe no assent of faith.
What a heretical pile of garbage. Let's look closer at the quote from Pope Pius XII:
"It is not to be thought that what is set down in Encyclical Letters does not demand assent in itself, because in this the popes do not exercise the supreme power of their magisterium. For these matters are taught by the ordinary magisterium, regarding which the following is pertinent: "He who heareth you, heareth me." [Luke 10:16];"
Here Pope Pius XII is clearly stating encyclical letters demand assent equally to solemn declarations because they are taught by the ordinary magisterium. He provides the quote from Luke 10:16 to show that the ordinary magisterium is the equivalent of hearing our Lord himself.
Now the next part of the quote, which is connected to the first part above, but separated by a semicolon, states:
"and usually what is set forth and inculcated in the Encyclical Letters, already pertains to Catholic doctrine."
This part of the quote is stating that usually what is in encyclical letters already pertains to Catholic doctrine. If we look at the full list of papal encyclicals online, some had focused on current events and related topics, such as persecutions taking place in the world. Speaking about a current event may not pertain specifically to Catholic doctrine, but is related to it. Nevertheless the first part of the quote from Pope Pius XII still holds, and that is, that encyclical letters as a whole, demand assent, even though the encyclical may touch on topics that are only related to Catholic doctrine.
Pax Vobis, you're having trouble with basic English here. It is a total absurdity for Pope Pius XII in the first part of his quote to demand assent to encyclicals because they are part of the OM, then in the second part of the same quote, completely contradict himself and state that, oh by the way, the encyclicals, taught by the OM, may also contain error.
There could be ERROR perhaps but not to the degree where it is actually harmful to the faith, and that's it harmful to faith in morals. Error of fact, error of circuмstance, perhaps in exact terminology.
But not an UNLIMITED potential for error. Or, once again, you end up implicating Christ in heresy, for Christ rules the church through his vicar in the unity of a single authority.
Let me clarify this even more....
That which is taught and not protected as being infallible at the very MOMENT of promulgation, actually BECOMES infallible if the Church receiving it makes no objection to it. It's IMPOSSIBLE for the Church receiving it to have no objection to something if it were against previously taught dogma.
Stubborn proclaims, like a heretic, that it can and has happened!
Yes. For example, the ordinary universal magisterium is the ordinary teaching of the popes and all the bishops down through the ages.
This is infallible.
If each INSTANCE of Authentic Papal Magisterium were fallible with an unlimited potential for error (Each teaching encyclical, apostolic constitution, Papal Bull, Apostolic Decree, etc), how could the Ordinary Universal Magisterium be certainly infallible? Would it not have an unlimited POTENTIAL for error???
For example, Stubborn wants to say that the Authentic Magisterium of the Popes is fallible.
Okay, so what Pope St. Damasus taught ordinarily was fallible, St Innocent was fallible, St Leo was fallible, St. Gelasius was fallible, St. Gregory was fallible. and ALL with the potential for falling into grave heresy.
How then can they be certainly infallible in TOTALITY? Simply because they agree? Well, what if they all agree on error? Why can't that happen? After all, each Pope individually taught non-infallibly, and with unlimited potential for error!
Do you see how that undermines the Universal Ordinary Magisterium? The Ordinary Universal Magisterium is PREDICATED upon the STABLE and CONSTANT Promulgation of TRUTH by the AUTHENTIC Papal Magisterium! This means that it is absolutely NECESSARY that even the Non-Infallible teaching of a Pope MUST have only a limited potential for error!
Or Denzinger is screwed! Many of the sources of Catholic Dogma are "Non-infallible" Authentic Papal Docuмents, many of which are not connected to Ecuмenical councils or Extraordinary Decrees. Auctorem Fidei for example.
So the idea of The Pope even in his Ordinary Magisterium being able to error with an unlimited potential is simply false. Otherwise he would be capable of leading others into mortal sin on a regular basis, and where would the visibility of the Church be?
-
The idea that the ordinary magisterium of the popes can teach doctrinal error is a position held by modernists, such as Karl Rahner.
“The ordinary magisterium of the pope in authentic doctrinal decisions at least in the past and up to very recent times was often involved in error and, on the other hand, Rome was accustomed to put forward and insist on such decisions as if there could be no doubt about their ultimate correctness and as if any further discussion of them was unbecoming for a Catholic theologian.” (Karl Rahner, quoted in The Critical Calling: Reflections on Moral Dilemmas Since Vatican II by Richard A. McCormick).
-
PaulFC,
This part of the quote is stating that usually what is in encyclical letters already pertains to Catholic doctrine. If we look at the full list of papal encyclicals online, some had focused on current events and related topics, such as persecutions taking place in the world. Speaking about a current event may not pertain specifically to Catholic doctrine, but is related to it. Nevertheless the first part of the quote from Pope Pius XII still holds, and that is, that encyclical letters as a whole, demand assent, even though the encyclical may touch on topics that are only related to Catholic doctrine.
If a pope issues an encyclical on economics, it does not have the same doctrinal weight as if he were commenting on the assumption of the BVM. Why? Because if a pope does not speak infallibly (which, 99.9% of the time he does NOT), then what he writes, teaches, or preaches must agree with tradition and the universal magisterium. If it does, then it's infallible with a small 'i'. If his economic policy is unrelated to church doctrine, then he's as fallible as I am, or maybe moreso, if I were an economist (but I am not).
Please don't take Pius XII's quote out of context. The first part about "assent" is true, but the 2nd part, where he makes the connection to the universal magisterium is important because this provides the context on WHEN assent is required. As he said, we must give assent, even if no infallible statement, because USUALLY an encyclical deals with doctrinal matters....but not always! If it doesn't, then no assent. How do we know? We compare it to the universal magisterium and tradition (i.e. "what the Church has always taught"). We aren't 2nd graders who must listen to their teacher on what color crayon to use; we have to be mature adults and use our brains.
Under no circuмstances does this mean that a pope is prevented from error in his encyclicals. If there was no such possibility, then why does St Paul warn us that "even if an angel from heaven preach a doctrine different from the one i've taught you, let him be anathema"?
Why does Christ warn us of false prophets and false "christs"? Heck, isn't the anti-christ supposed to be an anti-pope?
Also, what is a "manifest heretic"? Why wasn't Pope Honorius I one? Was he a closet heretic? Doesn't sound like he was. Was John XXIII (the first one, way back), who was labeled an "anti pope" a heretic? Why not?
-
PaulFC,
If a pope issues an encyclical on economics, it does not have the same doctrinal weight as if he were commenting on the assumption of the BVM. Why? Because if a pope does not speak infallibly (which, 99.9% of the time he does NOT), then what he writes, teaches, or preaches must agree with tradition and the universal magisterium. If it does, then it's infallible with a small 'i'. If his economic policy is unrelated to church doctrine, then he's as fallible as I am, or maybe moreso, if I were an economist (but I am not).
Please don't take Pius XII's quote out of context. The first part about "assent" is true, but the 2nd part, where he makes the connection to the universal magisterium is important because this provides the context on WHEN assent is required. As he said, we must give assent, even if no infallible statement, because USUALLY an encyclical deals with doctrinal matters....but not always! If it doesn't, then no assent. How do we know? We compare it to the universal magisterium and tradition (i.e. "what the Church has always taught"). We aren't 2nd graders who must listen to their teacher on what color crayon to use; we have to be mature adults and use our brains.
Under no circuмstances does this mean that a pope is prevented from error in his encyclicals. If there was no such possibility, then why does St Paul warn us that "even if an angel from heaven preach a doctrine different from the one i've taught you, let him be anathema"?
Why does Christ warn us of false prophets and false "christs"? Heck, isn't the anti-christ supposed to be an anti-pope?
Also, what is a "manifest heretic"? Why wasn't Pope Honorius I one? Was he a closet heretic? Doesn't sound like he was. Was John XXIII (the first one, way back), who was labeled an "anti pope" a heretic? Why not?
You were absolutely right in the first part, if a Pope gives some informal teaching on some matter outside faith and morals, he has a definite and unlimited potential for error. Such error wouldn't touch the faith.
But the second part is false. It is absolutely impossible that a Pope, even in his non-infallible magisterium, in an encyclical decree on a matter related to faith and morals, has unlimited potential for error.
Why? Because the Pope and Christ taken together are a single authority, and as Pope Pius XII SAYS, the utilization of this authority is to be regarded as Christ speaking through the Pope: "He who hears you hears me."
Under such circuмstances, please explain how the Pope could promulgate to the entire Church a doctrine or a teaching that would be injurious to souls?
-
Gregory, you said:
The Ordinary Universal Magisterium is PREDICATED upon the STABLE and CONSTANT Promulgation of TRUTH by the AUTHENTIC Papal Magisterium!
Not exactly. The universal magisterium is predicated upon the stable and constant promulgation of divine truths by God, not the popes. The church is based firstly, on the truths of the old testament, then on the fulfillment of that truth in Christ, then on what Christ taught to the Apostles, as the first members of the Church. Then, it was passed on and explained more clearly by St Paul, the early Church Fathers, and the rest of the saints, etc.
ALL the teachings of the Church exist ALREADY in the CREED and the other basic prayers that we learn as children. We have EVERYTHING WE NEED TO KNOW (typically) by the age of our confirmation, to save our souls. We don't need papal preaching and teaching to save our souls (and, I would argue, most catholics throughout history never heard or read anything the pope said, because, first, it was not available and second, they learned from their local priest.)
The Church is based on divine truth and Christ. The pope's job is the "guard" that truth, to pass it down and to declare, define, and distinguish when error creeps in to cause disruption (as it always does). Yet, our faith is so simple that when error does creep in, all we must do is compare the error to the Truth we already know. Christ already told us EVERYTHING!
The pope's job is to re-teach, re-preach and re-educate the world on what Christ already told us. When he does this, even if apart from the formal infallible formula, he is infallible because he agrees with the magisterium (i.e. Christ's teachings). But this is the same job as a bishop, a priest, even you and I have - is to preach the universal (magisterial) truths of the Faith. When any of us does, we are infallible, in a sense.
But if (or when) the pope deviates from the truth of Christ, as St Paul says, let him be anathema!
-
Under such circuмstances, please explain how the Pope could promulgate to the entire Church a doctrine or a teaching that would be injurious to souls?
Did not the pope during the arian heresy promote, agree and teach this error? There's countless examples in history. Why is this so difficult?
The only thing a pope would be prevented from doing (in my opinion) is to sit on the chair of St Peter and say: "We declare, define and pronounce that... (some error)." Outside of that, he could teach, coax, lead, tempt, coerce, or command error and evil.
The real question is: Why would God allow this? He would, because we have 2,000 years of history on which to study and we should know our Faith enough to recognize the error and resist it. It's our job to know, love and serve God to our best ability and this includes knowing, loving and serving the Church and the articles of our Faith. So, if some pope were to say that "it's ok to receive communion in the hand" and "it's ok to dance around in church and wear immodest dress", the pope didn't PROMULGATE error, he just invited us to sin and we should have known better. If we didn't and we followed along blindly, it's our own fault.
-
Did not the pope during the arian heresy promote, agree and teach this error? There's countless examples in history. Why is this so difficult?
Because he DID NOT. Pope Liberius was coerced into signing a vaguely worded creed which he retracted upon finding his freedom. That is NOT Promulgating to the Church.
All the others are the same: They are PRIVATE actions. Name a single time a Pope has publicly set forth, magisterially, an erroneous teaching. I will bet you can't find one.
Honorius? Private letters.
Vigilius? Waffled, but came around in the end and ratified the 5th ecuмenical council.
John XXII- Private theological speculation, RETRACTED before death.
Sixtus V- Never published his bad copy of the Vulgate.'
Consider yourself challenged. :laugh1:
-
Did not the pope during the arian heresy promote, agree and teach this error? There's countless examples in history. Why is this so difficult?
Because he DID NOT. Pope Liberius was coerced into signing a vaguely worded creed which he retracted upon finding his freedom. That is NOT Promulgating to the Church.
All the others are the same: They are PRIVATE actions. Name a single time a Pope has publicly set forth, magisterially, an erroneous teaching. I will bet you can't find one.
Honorius? Private letters.
Vigilius? Waffled, but came around in the end and ratified the 5th ecuмenical council.
John XXII- Private theological speculation, RETRACTED before death.
Sixtus V- Never published his bad copy of the Vulgate.'
Consider yourself challenged. :laugh1:
BTW, where this is going, is that a Pope CANNOT Promulgate heresy or error: At all. Period, full stop end of sentence.
IF heretical teachings were FORMALLY AND OFFICIALLY introduced into the heart of the Church by the man claiming to be Pontiff, it would be conclusive proof not only that he was NOT Pontiff, but that he never was. WHY?
Because a true Pope cannot promulgate heresy. The divine assistance cannot fail him. ERGO:
Those who fail in this regard are non-popes.
WHY?????
Because otherwise you attribute heresy to Christ, blasphemy. He reigns in his Church through his vicar in the unity of a single authority.
Are not the dogmas of Trent the reign of Christ? Is not the definition of the immaculate conception the reign of Christ? Is not the Definition of the Assumption the very reign of Christ in his Church, for the good of the faithful through the magisterium?
Of course.
Now consider the bastard council: Vatican II.
It is heretical, and blatantly so. It attempts to reform irreformable teaching (Dignitatis Humanae) It severs the Church of Christ from the Catholic Church (Lumen Gentium) and declares that Non-catholic sects are means of salvation IN THEMSELVES (Lumen Gentium). It goes on to say that the body of the Church is the Particular churches all taken collectively (Lumen gentium) and yet admits the Orthodox and other oriental Churches ARE Particular Churches (Unitatis Redintegratio). The great irony HERE, is that the "Pope" has just defined into existence a Church over which he cannot be head.
WHY?
Because all the faithful are SUBJECT to the Pope. But he has made the Church LARGER than the catholic faithful, by admitting sects into it, over whom he admits he has no jurisdiction! So by definition, he literally cannot be Pope if he admits there is a section of the Church over which he has no oversight or governance!
Funny legal fiction, that. He just reduced himself to a major Archbishop.
But aside from that, the thesis of Cassiciacuм explains it all very well.
-
But Vatican 2 isnt infallible And doesn't claim to be. Never once does the pope speak in "we" terms, or invoke his apostolic authority. Without such language, its not an official pronouncement. Ergo, not an official pronouncement of error.
Vatican 2 errs because its a pastoral council, as both John xxiii and Paul vi said.
And Trent is only infallible in its few "anathema" statements. 90% of Trent is not formally infallible; it may be informally infallible, if it agrees with the magisterium (and I'm sure it does).
-
But Vatican 2 isnt infallible And doesn't claim to be. Never once does the pope speak in "we" terms, or invoke his apostolic authority. Without such language, its not an official pronouncement. Ergo, not an official pronouncement of error.
Vatican 2 errs because its a pastoral council, as both John xxiii and Paul vi said.
And Trent is only infallible in its few "anathema" statements. 90% of Trent is not formally infallible; it may be informally infallible, if it agrees with the magisterium (and I'm sure it does).
AH, but that is the great joke. Paul VI called it Supreme Ordinary Magisterium, and it IS infallible in that it is an act of the Universal Ordinary Magisterium. The Very content has found its way into the Catechism of the Catholic Church, received and taught peacefully by every bishop of the world in communion with Rome. THAT is Infallible teaching. The theologian Tanquerey writing in 1894 explicitly says the content of Catechism constitutes the Ordinary Universal Magisterium.
ALSO, it was willed by Paul VI that everyone accept it, embrace it, live by it, and not reject it. On another occasion he CALLED it extraordinary magisterium.
And this is JUST the point:
By virtue of the fact that it is universally promulgated and received, you CAN'T make the argument it is simply "not--infallible,"as if you can just reject the magisterial teaching of Popes when YOU decide on the Orthodoxy of their content! NOT if this man is truly Pope! The only response you can offer is submission, which is necessary for salvation. And that submission is itself an act of saying: "Well, I guess the rocks we are dashing the ship against are just daisies, after all!" It causes you to live in denial of reality.
This cannot be. But you say it is. Therefore, admit, compelled by reason, that Jesus Christ is the author of the Novus Ordo Mass.
Can you admit this? IF not, why not?
But if you do not, then be aware:
The Papacy doesn't waffle. IF the New MAss is not an act of the reign of Christ in his Church, then the act itself is foreign to the Church.
But if it is foreign, then the invading body is the man himself who issued it:
Meaning he cannot be Pope, being severed from Christ, to whom you cannot attribute this Novus Ordo Mass.
-
Let me clarify this even more....
That which is taught and not protected as being infallible at the very MOMENT of promulgation, actually BECOMES infallible if the Church receiving it makes no objection to it. It's IMPOSSIBLE for the Church receiving it to have no objection to something if it were against previously taught dogma.
Stubborn proclaims, like a heretic, that it can and has happened!
I quote and claim Church teaching - which you and many SVs say is heretical. That's the crazy part.
Then you speak error, possibly heresy by claiming the pope is automatically infallible - which is what sedevacantists teach, however, that is definitely not what the Church teaches - remember, we've already made that determination.
The snip from a post I made a few posts ago explains it all in a nutshell - you probably will need to read it over a few dozen times to have any hope of it sinking in:
That even such a one, with such unrestricted and unrestrictable power, with all the help of his similarly-minded appointees, would be unable to succeed in such an effort is guaranteed by the doctrine of the Church's Indefectibility. And the reason even such a one would not be able to succeed is, in fact, papal infallibility itself.
The reason you say what you say is because you have zero faith in the doctrines of infallibility and indefectibility. The doctrines makes no sense to you because in your thinking, you've replaced them with popolatry. The very reason for sedevacantism at all is for this same reason.
I've made this suggestion dozens of times, but so far, like my challenge to BODers, has been ignored...........
Stop using Catholic popes, saints, fathers, catechisms and encyclopedias to support your opinion, rather, use only sedevacantist popes, saints, fathers, catechisms and encyclopedias to support your opinion. In so doing, you will then be able to defend your SV position, until then, know that the Church does not teach what SVs teach, only other SVs teach it.
-
Let me clarify this even more....
That which is taught and not protected as being infallible at the very MOMENT of promulgation, actually BECOMES infallible if the Church receiving it makes no objection to it. It's IMPOSSIBLE for the Church receiving it to have no objection to something if it were against previously taught dogma.
Stubborn proclaims, like a heretic, that it can and has happened!
I quote and claim Church teaching - which you and many SVs say is heretical. That's the crazy part.
Then you speak error, possibly heresy by claiming the pope is automatically infallible - which is what sedevacantists teach, however, that is definitely not what the Church teaches - remember, we've already made that determination.
The snip from a post I made a few posts ago explains it all in a nutshell - you probably will need to read it over a few dozen times to have any hope of it sinking in:
That even such a one, with such unrestricted and unrestrictable power, with all the help of his similarly-minded appointees, would be unable to succeed in such an effort is guaranteed by the doctrine of the Church's Indefectibility. And the reason even such a one would not be able to succeed is, in fact, papal infallibility itself.
The reason you say what you say is because you have zero faith in the doctrines of infallibility and indefectibility. The doctrines makes no sense to you because in your thinking, you've replaced them with popolatry. The very reason for sedevacantism at all is for this same reason.
I've made this suggestion dozens of times, but so far, like my challenge to BODers, has been ignored...........
Stop using Catholic popes, saints, fathers, catechisms and encyclopedias to support your opinion, rather, use only sedevacantist popes, saints, fathers, catechisms and encyclopedias to support your opinion. In so doing, you will then be able to defend your SV position, until then, know that the Church does not teach what SVs teach, only other SVs teach it.
Is Jesus Christ the author of Vatican II and the Novus Ordo? Yes or no?
Point to an act of the merely authentic magisterium of a Pope that taught error or heresy. You can't.
-
Gregory,
Paul VI called it Supreme Ordinary Magisterium, and it IS infallible in that it is an act of the Universal Ordinary Magisterium. The Very content has found its way into the Catechism of the Catholic Church, received and taught peacefully by every bishop of the world in communion with Rome. THAT is Infallible teaching. The theologian Tanquerey writing in 1894 explicitly says the content of Catechism constitutes the Ordinary Universal Magisterium.
This is just not correct. The Council of Trent was a dogmatic council because it issued solemn definitions. These definitions are infallible (5% of the council); all the reasons/proofs for the definitions are not (95%).
In the same way, Vatican II COULD have been infallible, had it issued any definitions or definitive teachings. But it did not. A council must meet the same criteria for it's infallible statements, as the pope would have to meet, if he were to issue a statement by himself.
Now, even though Vatican II did not issue any formal definitions, it still could be infallible, IF what it teaches agrees with the universal magisterium. In same cases it does; mostly it does not. Same for the catechism. Even though Paul VI used the words "apostolic authority" and "supreme ordinary magisterium" that doesn't mean anything if he doesn't follow through and fulfill the remaining requirements.
I could declare I'm going to sue someone, file all the paperwork, subpeona them to court, but if I don't show up to testify, then it's all a waste of time. It sounds good, but has no teeth.
-
Let me clarify this even more....
That which is taught and not protected as being infallible at the very MOMENT of promulgation, actually BECOMES infallible if the Church receiving it makes no objection to it. It's IMPOSSIBLE for the Church receiving it to have no objection to something if it were against previously taught dogma.
Stubborn proclaims, like a heretic, that it can and has happened!
I quote and claim Church teaching - which you and many SVs say is heretical. That's the crazy part.
Then you speak error, possibly heresy by claiming the pope is automatically infallible - which is what sedevacantists teach, however, that is definitely not what the Church teaches - remember, we've already made that determination.
The snip from a post I made a few posts ago explains it all in a nutshell - you probably will need to read it over a few dozen times to have any hope of it sinking in:
That even such a one, with such unrestricted and unrestrictable power, with all the help of his similarly-minded appointees, would be unable to succeed in such an effort is guaranteed by the doctrine of the Church's Indefectibility. And the reason even such a one would not be able to succeed is, in fact, papal infallibility itself.
The reason you say what you say is because you have zero faith in the doctrines of infallibility and indefectibility. The doctrines makes no sense to you because in your thinking, you've replaced them with popolatry. The very reason for sedevacantism at all is for this same reason.
I've made this suggestion dozens of times, but so far, like my challenge to BODers, has been ignored...........
Stop using Catholic popes, saints, fathers, catechisms and encyclopedias to support your opinion, rather, use only sedevacantist popes, saints, fathers, catechisms and encyclopedias to support your opinion. In so doing, you will then be able to defend your SV position, until then, know that the Church does not teach what SVs teach, only other SVs teach it.
Is Jesus Christ the author of Vatican II and the Novus Ordo? Yes or no?
Point to an act of the merely authentic magisterium of a Pope that taught error or heresy. You can't.
These are not even subjects that Catholics should concern themselves with - except perhaps for a few moments. These are however subjects that fester incessantly among sedevacantists looking to prove their opinion.
V2 and the NO were permitted by God - we can only guess why He permitted it, but the fact is that faithful Catholics know that the doctrines of infallibility and indefectibility were never infringed upon. We know it because we wholly and faithfully believe in that promise, which is why we can be certain of that as an indisputable fact.
Sedevacantists cannot accept that the reason the NO happened is because by and large, the masses of lethargic Catholics let the NO happen. Only comparatively very few refused to compromise and many of those who refused to compromised were persecuted into submission. Only a very few resisted the persecution and remained faithful.
But one thing all the lethargic Catholics who let the NO happen had in common was the same wrong belief that sedevacantists hold - namely, that the pope is always infallible so it must be ok. And if NOers are united in any belief at all these days, it is this error they are still united in.
Yes, the pope and most of the bishops were the perpetrators, but not all the bishops - there were many bishops as well as priests replaced, or who left and whose office remained vacant after the council.
Yes, these popes and hierarchy did what at the time was unimaginable, and they did it while holding their offices legitimately and the doctrines of infallibility and indefectibility remained untouched.
I would like your thoughts on this, including the quote below. Consider that if the hierarchy and faithful actually would have done what they should have done (see quote below), no way would we be in this crisis - that fact alone dictates that the doctrines were missing from V2.
However, even though the hierarchy cannot take legal action against an heretical pope, all of them together, or any one of them in particular, can condemn his teaching; they can accuse him before God's tribunal, warn him of his sins, and remind him of the divine wrath. Should this measure fail to produce any correction, they can denounce him before his subjects, the Catholic faithful, and warn them that they are not to listen to his teaching. Indeed, not only may the prelates of the Church do this, they have a most serious obligation to do it, an obligation which is as grave as the heresies are pernicious and scandalous. And if they fail to do this, they become a party to the pope's crimes, and will most certainly share in his punishment.
Moreover, where the bishops default in their solemn duty to protect the Church and God's Little Sheep, the priests and the laypeople have not the right, but the duty, to raise their voices against an heretical pontiff. They not only raise their voices to God in prayer for the misguided man, but they also speak out to the bishops and the priests, and among themselves so as to warn their brothers and sisters in Christ that the plague of heresy has infected even their Holy Father, and has rendered him dangerous and unclean.
-
Gregory,
Paul VI called it Supreme Ordinary Magisterium, and it IS infallible in that it is an act of the Universal Ordinary Magisterium. The Very content has found its way into the Catechism of the Catholic Church, received and taught peacefully by every bishop of the world in communion with Rome. THAT is Infallible teaching. The theologian Tanquerey writing in 1894 explicitly says the content of Catechism constitutes the Ordinary Universal Magisterium.
This is just not correct. The Council of Trent was a dogmatic council because it issued solemn definitions. These definitions are infallible (5% of the council); all the reasons/proofs for the definitions are not (95%).
In the same way, Vatican II COULD have been infallible, had it issued any definitions or definitive teachings. But it did not. A council must meet the same criteria for it's infallible statements, as the pope would have to meet, if he were to issue a statement by himself.
Now, even though Vatican II did not issue any formal definitions, it still could be infallible, IF what it teaches agrees with the universal magisterium. In same cases it does; mostly it does not. Same for the catechism. Even though Paul VI used the words "apostolic authority" and "supreme ordinary magisterium" that doesn't mean anything if he doesn't follow through and fulfill the remaining requirements.
I could declare I'm going to sue someone, file all the paperwork, subpeona them to court, but if I don't show up to testify, then it's all a waste of time. It sounds good, but has no teeth.
Pax Vobis,
I just read through your past several posts and I have never, ever seen so many heresies preached, back to back, in so few sentences. You are just winging statement after statement off the top of your head without even supporting what you are saying.
What is this "infallibility with a small "i" nonsense? Like this is found in any Catholic book! And accusing the Pope during the Arian heresy of heresy himself when the Church has clearly declared otherwise?
And most amazing of all is your invention of applying percentages of truth/infallibility to General Councils and other Church teaching. Like saying a teaching is x% infallible and y% not infallible. Where do we see the Catholic Church teach such nonsense? Do you really expect people to believe this when this is not found in any Catholic books?
Your credibility was already destroyed when you added your comments about Vatican II. By definition, it was a General Council, having 4 times as many clergy from the entire globe present than was present at Vatican I. All Catholic references throughout the history of the Church state that General Councils are always infallible. period. The term "pastoral Council" was an invention of Vatican II - it is not found in Catholic books before it. It has always been taught that General Councils are infallible, and Paul VI claiming it was part of the ordinary magisterium only confirmed that all the more. You do not have an ounce of credibility on the subject.
-
Stubborn, I find your tactics a good example of psychological warfare, lol.
Now, stop feigning pious ignorance and answer the question directly:
Is Vatican II the work of Jesus Christ reigning in His Church?
We know Trent is, because it is an act of the Church. We know Vatican I is because it's an act of the Church. We know the dogmatic decree on the assumption is, because it is an act of the Church.
These are all the positive will of Christ for his Church which is knowable because "He who hears you hears me."
So act on your principles and just tell me:
Is Vatican II also an act of Jesus Christ reigning in his Church? What have you got to losing by saying yes? AFTER ALL, the Church is the Church and the Pope is the Pope!
Right?
...right?
"Check."
BTW. Where did any pope ever err in his official ordinary magisterial teaching? Name and Place please.
-
V2 and the NO were permitted by God - we can only guess why He permitted it, but the fact is that faithful Catholics know that the doctrines of infallibility and indefectibility were never infringed upon.
You are right about infallibility (V2 did not solemnly define any doctrine), but not about indefectibility. The Ecuмenical Council leading 95% of the Church astray into apostasy and implementation of a a non-Catholic, schismatic liturgy (with possibly invalid sacraments) is most certainly defection of the Church. Last time we discussed it you astoundingly asserted that "Magisterium of the Church wants you to offend God", and when asked about indefectibility of the Church all you could say was "at least I have Magisterium, sedevacantists don't". There is no way to reconcile indefectibility of the Church with NOM and V2 apostasy - R&R is heretical. Either NOM is a Catholic rite and V2 can be reconciled with previous Magisterium or we have to put validity of V2 Popes into doubt. Having said that, straight sedevacantism is also wrong, only sedeprivationism and sede-doubtism offer any meaningful solution for this moment.
Let me ask you - if V2, NOM and resulting universal apostasy do not compromise the doctrine of Church's indefectibility, what would it take for the Conciliar Church to do to reach the point when you would consider their actions as going against indefectibility of the Church and putting their legitimacy into doubt?
-
Is Vatican II the work of Jesus Christ reigning in His Church?
No.
It is the work of the modernists, the enemies Pope St. Pius X warned of who were already digging in, positioning themselves within the Church even before his time, not the work of Jesus Christ.
We know Trent is, because it is an act of the Church. We know Vatican I is because it's an act of the Church. We know the dogmatic decree on the assumption is, because it is an act of the Church.
These are all the positive will of Christ for his Church which is knowable because "He who hears you hears me."
So act on your principles and just tell me:
Is Vatican II also an act of Jesus Christ reigning in his Church? What have you got to losing by saying yes? AFTER ALL, the Church is the Church and the Pope is the Pope!
Right?
...right?
"Check."
I just answered you "no", above.
BTW. Where did any pope ever err in his official ordinary magisterial teaching? Name and Place please.
I have no idea when or even if it ever happened in the past, but given time could find out as well as you could, but I do not need to waste my time or concern myself with that, neither do you and neither do any of us.
The reason for this is because our Catholic faith teaches us what it is that we must do to survive this mess in order to save our souls - and being concerned about "the pope problem" as Fr. Cekada puts it, is not among those things the faith teaches us we are supposed to concern ourselves with.
And I still am asking for you to comment on at least the last part of my previous post.
-
V2 and the NO were permitted by God - we can only guess why He permitted it, but the fact is that faithful Catholics know that the doctrines of infallibility and indefectibility were never infringed upon.
You are right about infallibility (V2 did not solemnly define any doctrine), but not about indefectibility. The Ecuмenical Council leading 95% of the Church astray into apostasy and implementation of a a non-Catholic, schismatic liturgy (with possibly invalid sacraments) is most certainly defection of the Church. Last time we discussed it you astoundingly asserted that "Magisterium of the Church wants you to offend God", and when asked about indefectibility of the Church all you could say was "at least I have Magisterium, sedevacantists don't". There is no way to reconcile indefectibility of the Church with NOM and V2 apostasy - R&R is heretical. Either NOM is a Catholic rite and V2 can be reconciled with previous Magisterium or we have to put validity of V2 Popes into doubt. Having said that, straight sedevacantism is also wrong, only sedeprivationism and sede-doubtism offer any meaningful solution for this moment.
Let me ask you - if V2, NOM and resulting universal apostasy do not compromise the doctrine of Church's indefectibility, what would it take for the Conciliar Church to do to reach the point when you would consider their actions as going against indefectibility of the Church and putting their legitimacy into doubt?
Fr. said it way better than I could.......
If the Church is indefectible, it will be so without any dialectic of yours. If these are the doctrines of the Church, the only One Who will prove them true is Christ the Lord. Therefore, as in all other circuмstances in which you find yourselves as Catholics, and in which you find the Church, these two doctrines are not meant to serve as a kind of escape mechanism, but rather as supports to your faith. We mean, to use the Doctrine of Infallibility to justify or to validate acts of papal malfeasance and/or incompetence is to undermine the Doctrine, rather than is it to explain the patent reality, or to solve the problem thus created.
If these two Doctrines, infallibility and indefectibility be true, then whatever the popes have said or done, whatever they ever say or do, will not be a violation of the Church' s attribute of infallibility. And no matter what anyone does, whether from within or without, he will not succeed in destroying the Church. The enemies of Christ's Church do not believe this, which explains why they will never cease to try.
Do you believe in these doctrines? You should you know. They should be foundational to your faith, something you can and must place all your trust in. You could die a holy martyr defending these doctrines - that's the trust you can have in these two doctrines.
-
If the Church is indefectible, it will be so without any dialectic of yours. If these are the doctrines of the Church, the only One Who will prove them true is Christ the Lord. Therefore, as in all other circuмstances in which you find yourselves as Catholics, and in which you find the Church, these two doctrines are not meant to serve as a kind of escape mechanism, but rather as supports to your faith. We mean, to use the Doctrine of Infallibility to justify or to validate acts of papal malfeasance and/or incompetence is to undermine the Doctrine, rather than is it to explain the patent reality, or to solve the problem thus created.
If these two Doctrines, infallibility and indefectibility be true, then whatever the popes have said or done, whatever they ever say or do, will not be a violation of the Church' s attribute of infallibility. And no matter what anyone does, whether from within or without, he will not succeed in destroying the Church. The enemies of Christ's Church do not believe this, which explains why they will never cease to try.
Regarding the highlighted quote - this is not about infallibility, we agree that V2 was not infallible, its about indefectibility of the Church. And yes, I agree with Fr Wathen that no valid Pope will do anything violating Church's indefectibility - which is exactly why I doubt validity of V2 claimants to the Papacy.
Do you believe in these doctrines? You should you know. They should be foundational to your faith, something you can and must place all your trust in. You could die a holy martyr defending these doctrines - that's the trust you can have in these two doctrines.
Of course I do, which is precisely why I must question validity of V2 Popes. It is rather you who compromise the doctrine of Church's indefectibility, because you assert that a valid Ecuмenical Council promulgated by a valid Pope can result in universal apostasy and wants you to offend God. Thus, you effectively believe the Church has defected. So far you have not produced any meaningful explanation how the Ecuмenical Council leading vast majority of Catholics astray and the Church subsequently promulgating a non-Catholic (and possibly invalid) rite of Mass don't compromise Church's indefectibility. The doctrine of indefectibility effectively means nothing in your understanding.
Also, you have not answered my question from previous post.
-
If I'm wrong about the Pope during the Arian heresy, then I take it back wholeheartedly. I'm not a historian and I wasn't there, so I could be wrong. I apologize.
As far as saying that Trent was 5% infallible and 95% not, i'll give an example. Here is the solemn declaration on infallibility, from Vatican I:
Now, everyone will agree that Vatican I was an infallible/doctrinal council because it defined doctrine. But NOT EVERY PART OF AN INFALLIBLE/DOCTRINAL COUNCIL IS INFALLIBLE.
I've highlighted the part (at the end) that is infallible. Everything else that comes before this declaration and which makes up the reasons for the declaration/doctrine, is not infallible. That's why I say that 95% of this docuмent is not infallible, even though it comes from an infallible/doctrinal council.
Infallibility is meant for the Pope to make doctrinal STATEMENTS (i.e. a few sentences, which explain a truth), not to protect entire councils, encyclicals, bulls, etc.
-----
ON THE INFALLIBLE TEACHING AUTHORITY OF THE ROMAN PONTIFF
That apostolic primacy which the Roman pontiff possesses as successor of Peter, the prince of the apostles, includes also the supreme power of teaching. This holy see has always maintained this, the constant custom of the church demonstrates it, and the ecuмenical councils, particularly those in which East and West met in the union of faith and charity, have declared it.
So the fathers of the fourth council of Constantinople, following the footsteps of their predecessors, published this solemn profession of faith: The first condition of salvation is to maintain the rule of the true faith. And since that saying of our lord Jesus Christ, You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church [55] , cannot fail of its effect, the words spoken are confirmed by their consequences. For in the apostolic see the catholic religion has always been preserved unblemished, and sacred doctrine been held in honour. Since it is our earnest desire to be in no way separated from this faith and doctrine, we hope that we may deserve to remain in that one communion which the apostolic see preaches, for in it is the whole and true strength of the christian religion [56] .
What is more, with the approval of the second council of Lyons, the Greeks made the following profession: "The holy Roman church possesses the supreme and full primacy and principality over the whole catholic church. She truly and humbly acknowledges that she received this from the Lord himself in blessed Peter, the prince and chief of the apostles, whose successor the Roman pontiff is, together with the fullness of power. And since before all others she has the duty of defending the truth of the faith, so if any questions arise concerning the faith, it is by her judgment that they must be settled." [57]
Then there is the definition of the council of Florence: "The Roman pontiff is the true vicar of Christ, the head of the whole church and the father and teacher of all Christians; and to him was committed in blessed Peter, by our lord Jesus Christ, the full power of tending, ruling and governing the whole church." [58]
To satisfy this pastoral office, our predecessors strove unwearyingly that the saving teaching of Christ should be spread among all the peoples of the world; and with equal care they made sure that it should be kept pure and uncontaminated wherever it was received.
It was for this reason that the bishops of the whole world, sometimes individually, sometimes gathered in synods, according to the long established custom of the churches and the pattern of ancient usage referred to this apostolic see those dangers especially which arose in matters concerning the faith. This was to ensure that any damage suffered by the faith should be repaired in that place above all where the faith can know no failing [59].
The Roman pontiffs, too, as the circuмstances of the time or the state of affairs suggested, sometimes by summoning ecuмenical councils or consulting the opinion of the churches scattered throughout the world, sometimes by special synods, sometimes by taking advantage of other useful means afforded by divine providence, defined as doctrines to be held those things which, by God's help, they knew to be in keeping with sacred scripture and the apostolic traditions.
For the holy Spirit was promised to the successors of Peter not so that they might, by his revelation, make known some new doctrine, but that, by his assistance, they might religiously guard and faithfully expound the revelation or deposit of faith transmitted by the apostles.
Indeed, their apostolic teaching was embraced by all the venerable fathers and reverenced and followed by all the holy orthodox doctors, for they knew very well that this see of St. Peter always remains unblemished by any error, in accordance with the divine promise of our Lord and Saviour to the prince of his disciples: I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail; and when you have turned again, strengthen your brethren [60] .
This gift of truth and never-failing faith was therefore divinely conferred on Peter and his successors in this see so that they might discharge their exalted office for the salvation of all, and so that the whole flock of Christ might be kept away by them from the poisonous food of error and be nourished with the sustenance of heavenly doctrine. Thus the tendency to schism is removed and the whole church is preserved in unity, and, resting on its foundation, can stand firm against the gates of hell.
But since in this very age when the salutary effectiveness of the apostolic office is most especially needed, not a few are to be found who disparage its authority, we judge it absolutely necessary to affirm solemnly the prerogative which the only-begotten Son of God was pleased to attach to the supreme pastoral office.
Therefore, faithfully adhering to the tradition received from the beginning of the christian faith, to the glory of God our saviour, for the exaltation of the catholic religion and for the salvation of the christian people, with the approval of the sacred council, we teach and define as a divinely revealed dogma that when the Roman pontiff speaks EX CATHEDRA, that is, when, in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole church, he possesses, by the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter, that infallibility which the divine Redeemer willed his church to enjoy in defining doctrine concerning faith or morals.
Therefore, such definitions of the Roman pontiff are of themselves, and not by the consent of the church, irreformable.
So then, should anyone, which God forbid, have the temerity to reject this definition of ours: let him be anathema.
-
Stubborn, if Vatican II is not an act of Christ in his Church, then it cannot be an act of Papal authority. But a Pope ostensibly promulgated it. So you must admit that the one promulgating must be formally dissociated from the papacy, for the papacy is the authority of Christ. It's a necessary conclusion, unless you can find a legal, metaphysical or divine "switch" which could turn the authority of the Papacy off and on. But you can't, because that's the point of the papacy, stability and divine assistance.
So either the divine assistance failed or he isn't Pope. Which one?
-
Do you believe in these doctrines? You should you know. They should be foundational to your faith, something you can and must place all your trust in. You could die a holy martyr defending these doctrines - that's the trust you can have in these two doctrines
However, if forced to give allegiance to the NO that would not be a problem for you. It would be for me and I would die holding on to the doctrine of indefectibility. Screaming from the rooftops that if the the NO is the Catholic Church then She has definitely DEFECTED!
-
R&R is heretical. Either NOM is a Catholic rite and V2 can be reconciled with previous Magisterium or we have to put validity of V2 Popes into doubt. Having said that, straight sedevacantism is also wrong, only sedeprivationism and sede-doubtism offer any meaningful solution for this moment.
The term "Sedeprivationism" is actually a derogatory name for the Cassiciacuм Thesis of Des Lauries. At least it was so in the beginning. It was actually English sedevacantist William J. Morgan who named the antagonist position as "sedeprivationism" in his writings condemning Des Lauries' Thesis as a heresy.
-
R&R is heretical. Either NOM is a Catholic rite and V2 can be reconciled with previous Magisterium or we have to put validity of V2 Popes into doubt. Having said that, straight sedevacantism is also wrong, only sedeprivationism and sede-doubtism offer any meaningful solution for this moment.
The term "Sedeprivationism" is actually a derogatory name for the Cassiciacuм Thesis of Des Lauries. At least it was so in the beginning. It was actually English sedevacantist William J. Morgan who named the antagonist position as "sedeprivationism" in his writings condemning Des Lauries' Thesis as a heresy.
I think a strength of the Cassiciacuм thesis is its embracing of reality: A Heretical Pope ipso fa cto loses all jurisdiction and tacitly resigns his office, insofar as he resigns the authority proper to the office. Yet, until he is actually deposed as a heretic (not as a Pope) he retains the physical see, albeit stripped of authority. I think this understanding balances out the various theologians differing points of view, Cajetan on the one hand making the point that the Church needs to make it clear to everyone he is deposed, and to clear the way for a new election, Bellarmine on the other hand making the point that he who is a heretic and estranged from the Church cannot hold any office int he Church.
The Formal/Material distinction answers both positions and affirms the strengths of both-
He is deprived of authority for his heresy and so cannot BE Pope, yet he remains to be ousted by the Church, occupying the See essentially by violence at that point.
-
It is actually from Pope Pius VI Bull Auctorem Fidei that we learn that the Ordinary Papal Magisterium can never be harmful to the faithful:
78. The prescription of the synod about the order of transacting business in the conferences, in which,
after it prefaced "in every article that which pertains to faith and to the essence of religion must be
distinguished from that which is proper to discipline," it adds, "in this itself (discipline) there is to be
distinguished what is necessary or useful to retain the faithful in spirit, from that which is useless or too
burden-some for the liberty of the sons of the new Covenant to endure, but more so, from that which is
dangerous or harmful, namely, leading to superstition and materialism"; in so far as by the generality
of the words it includes and submits to a prescribed examination even the discipline established and
approved by the Church, as if the Church which is ruled by the Spirit of God could have established
discipline which is not only useless and burdensome for Christian liberty to endure, but which is even
dangerous and harmful and leading to superstition and materialism,—false, rash, scandalous,
dangerous, offensive to pious ears, injurious to the Church and to the Spirit of God by whom it is
guided, at least erroneous.]
This is verbose, so let's break it down:
78. The prescription of the synod about the order of transacting business in the conferences, in which,
after it prefaced "in every article that which pertains to faith and to the essence of religion must be
distinguished from that which is proper to discipline,"
So the false synod of Pistoia was saying, "Yes, a Papal decree can be true in regard to DOCTRINE, but we need to distinguish that from its DISCIPLINE, the praxis the Pope would impose...
it adds, "in this itself (discipline) there is to be
distinguished what is necessary or useful to retain the faithful in spirit, from that which is useless or too
burden-some for the liberty of the sons of the new Covenant to endure, but more so, from that which is
dangerous or harmful, namely, leading to superstition and materialism";
Here, the false synod Pistoia was saying that in the realm of discipline, we need to sift out the harmful discipline from the good discipline, and discard the harmful and keep the good (Sound familiar???)
in so far as by the generality
of the words it includes and submits to a prescribed examination even the discipline established and
approved by the Church
The Pope is here saying that the false synod of Pistoia went so far as to even examine the discipline proposed by the Church
, as if the Church which is ruled by the Spirit of God could have established
discipline which is not only useless and burdensome for Christian liberty to endure, but which is even
dangerous and harmful and leading to superstition and materialism,—false, rash, scandalous,
dangerous, offensive to pious ears, injurious to the Church and to the Spirit of God by whom it is
guided, at least erroneous.]
The notion that the Church could give error in her disciplines was condemned as rash and scandalous and erroneous at MINIMUM.
The historical context here is the Jansenists of France were saying about the Papal Bulls (Like Unigenitus) condemning their position, "Well, ok, fine, this DOCTRINALLY is correct, but the PRACTICES they are asking us to adopt are erroneous. We don't need to change our practices and conform to Rome."
This Bull, Auctorem Fidei, condemns the very idea that these previous acts of the Church (Which were Papal Initiative, Papal Bulls and Encyclicals, NOT Synods) could be in error in regard to their discipline. It is therefore certain that the Popes own ordinary magisterium cannot be harmful to the faithful in any way shape or form
BUT the ENTIRE Problem is that Paul VI's ACTS of PROMULGATING Vatican II, JP2's ACTS of PROMULGATING The New Catechism, Ratzinger's consistent promulgation of Vatican II ecclesiology in docuмents such as Dominus Iesus, and Francis' continued promulgation of Vatican II, are all PROOF that they are NOT Popes! This is to enact heresy from within the heart of the Church.
This is a new religion. It is a New Anglicanism. It has mirrored its liturgical reforms, in strikingly similar ways as well; it has fallen into liberal disrepute, just as Anglicanism has, and it has adopted a Rainbow principle (All the pretty colors get along in the unity of a single rainbow!). It now has a low church service, and a high church service, which are both legitimate forms of the same one rite!
And as long as the SSPX seeks to be just another color in the rainbow, they abandon the Catholic faith, they get their little side chapel of tradition in the Novus Ordo cathedral, and they become just another high Church feature. The New Anglo-Catholics.
The only plausible solution for remaining a true Catholic is to imitate the recusants of England and ireland:
Flee. Flee the company of heretics and schismatics, flee the "Church of the New Advent" and take to the deserts. Priests have to be trained at "foreign" seminaries, and re-enter society with a missionary spirit. The faithful have to travel long distances, (Just as the Irish had to hike for hours at 1 in the morning into the forests to hear mass at designated "Mass Rocks" where the priests would show up with the faithful).
This is where we are.
Except NOW, we don't face a martyrdom by blood, but of our poor sensitive feelings:
There is only SCORN that awaits us for choosing to follow ONLY the Catholic teaching, ONLY traditional Bishops and Priests, ONLY the unadulterated Latin Mass, and to AVOID LIKE A PLAGUE the Church of the New Advent!
Yes, JP2 called it that in Redemptor Hominis, his first encyclical, http://w2.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/en/encyclicals/docuмents/hf_jp-ii_enc_04031979_redemptor-hominis.html
"Nevertheless, it is certain that the Church of the new Advent, the Church that is continually preparing for the new coming of the Lord..."
The True Church of Christ is a good mother. She cannot give us error. Her True Pastors cannot each heresy and promote it from within the heart of the Church. It is impossible. Her Popes, even in their ordinary teaching and discipline, cannot prescribe a false medicine.
Yet these liars, these neo-traditionalists, these High Church Anglo-Catholics of the "Church of the New Advent" would have you believe that, well, "In these, the latter days of the world, the Church has fallen into error, and we must resist the false teachings she is offering us through her Popes..."
That's heresy! That's a lie from hell!
The very FIRST ITEM CONDEMNED AS HERESY in the Bull "Auctorem Fidei" is that EXACT NOTION!
http://patristica.net/denzinger/#n1500
[Condemned in the Constitution, "Auctorem fidei," Aug. 28, 1794]
[A.Errors about the Church *
Obscuring of Truths in the Church
[From the Decree de Grat., sec. I]1. The proposition, which asserts "that in these later times there has been spread a general obscuring of the more important truths pertaining to religion, which are the basis of faith and of the moral teachings of Jesus Christ,"--heretical.
Christ is faithful, though we are not, we are rather pitiful and weak creatures.
Nevertheless, if we want to be faithful, we must abandon this false Church, this Neo- Anglican/Novus Ordo/ Church of the New Advent/.
I will not follow these Henry VIII's as they chase their Anne Boleyn of Modernism, birthing the bastards of Ecuмenism, Religious Liberty and Indifferentism.
May God save us and destroy them.
-
Also, you have not answered my question from previous post.
From your previous post:
Let me ask you - if V2, NOM and resulting universal apostasy do not compromise the doctrine of Church's indefectibility, what would it take for the Conciliar Church to do to reach the point when you would consider their actions as going against indefectibility of the Church and putting their legitimacy into doubt?
Their actions *are* going against the indefectibility of the Church, there is no dispute there - but their actions will prove worthless because it is impossible for anyone, from within or without to destroy the Church. "The gates of hell shall not prevail against it" is God's promise to us on that.
-
Stubborn, if Vatican II is not an act of Christ in his Church, then it cannot be an act of Papal authority. But a Pope ostensibly promulgated it. So you must admit that the one promulgating must be formally dissociated from the papacy, for the papacy is the authority of Christ. It's a necessary conclusion, unless you can find a legal, metaphysical or divine "switch" which could turn the authority of the Papacy off and on. But you can't, because that's the point of the papacy, stability and divine assistance.
So either the divine assistance failed or he isn't Pope. Which one?
No, you don't get it.
It was an act of papal authority, but it was not an act of infallible papal authority.
So the one promulgating it must be in error, not formally dissociated from the papacy.
-
Do you believe in these doctrines? You should you know. They should be foundational to your faith, something you can and must place all your trust in. You could die a holy martyr defending these doctrines - that's the trust you can have in these two doctrines
However, if forced to give allegiance to the NO that would not be a problem for you. It would be for me and I would die holding on to the doctrine of indefectibility. Screaming from the rooftops that if the the NO is the Catholic Church then She has definitely DEFECTED!
Where do you come off saying something so stupid anyway? The NO is not the Catholic Church and screaming from the rooftops that if it is she has defected only demonstrates your ignorance as well as your lack of faith in the matter.
-
Do you believe in these doctrines? You should you know. They should be foundational to your faith, something you can and must place all your trust in. You could die a holy martyr defending these doctrines - that's the trust you can have in these two doctrines
However, if forced to give allegiance to the NO that would not be a problem for you. It would be for me and I would die holding on to the doctrine of indefectibility. Screaming from the rooftops that if the the NO is the Catholic Church then She has definitely DEFECTED!
Where do you come off saying something so stupid anyway? The NO is not the Catholic Church and screaming from the rooftops that if it is she has defected only demonstrates your ignorance as well as your lack of faith in the matter.
My faith that the Catholic Church can never defect proves that the NO is not the Catholic Church. How much proof do you need to see?
Do you expect me to be claim that the NO is the Catholic Church and simultaneously attend chapels that call the man they believe to be the Pope a heretic, talk about the faith destroying ISSUES that seem to manifest on a daily basis, and for the most part want nothing to do with the it? But claim it is the Church out of which there is no salvation? If I were to do that then I would be the one with the ISSUES!
-
Do you believe in these doctrines? You should you know. They should be foundational to your faith, something you can and must place all your trust in. You could die a holy martyr defending these doctrines - that's the trust you can have in these two doctrines
However, if forced to give allegiance to the NO that would not be a problem for you. It would be for me and I would die holding on to the doctrine of indefectibility. Screaming from the rooftops that if the the NO is the Catholic Church then She has definitely DEFECTED!
Where do you come off saying something so stupid anyway? The NO is not the Catholic Church and screaming from the rooftops that if it is she has defected only demonstrates your ignorance as well as your lack of faith in the matter.
My faith that the Catholic Church can never defect proves that the NO is not the Catholic Church. How much proof do you need to see?
How do I know, you're the one screaming from the roof tops that you really don't know.
-
Stubborn, if Vatican II is not an act of Christ in his Church, then it cannot be an act of Papal authority. But a Pope ostensibly promulgated it. So you must admit that the one promulgating must be formally dissociated from the papacy, for the papacy is the authority of Christ. It's a necessary conclusion, unless you can find a legal, metaphysical or divine "switch" which could turn the authority of the Papacy off and on. But you can't, because that's the point of the papacy, stability and divine assistance.
So either the divine assistance failed or he isn't Pope. Which one?
No, you don't get it.
It was an act of papal authority, but it was not an act of infallible papal authority.
So the one promulgating it must be in error, not formally dissociated from the papacy.
Impossible. The Papal authority AS A WHOLE cannot be harmful to the Church It never has been and never will be, and Auctorem Fidei condemned the notion.
WHO teaches that the Papal Authority can be harmful to the Church?
Again, limited, or unlimited potential for Papal error?
What you are saying is the Pope has the potential to bring harm to the faithful.
Not Possible. Not in his official Magisterium, whether Ordinary or Extraordinary.
-
Stubborn, if Vatican II is not an act of Christ in his Church, then it cannot be an act of Papal authority. But a Pope ostensibly promulgated it. So you must admit that the one promulgating must be formally dissociated from the papacy, for the papacy is the authority of Christ. It's a necessary conclusion, unless you can find a legal, metaphysical or divine "switch" which could turn the authority of the Papacy off and on. But you can't, because that's the point of the papacy, stability and divine assistance.
So either the divine assistance failed or he isn't Pope. Which one?
No, you don't get it.
It was an act of papal authority, but it was not an act of infallible papal authority.
So the one promulgating it must be in error, not formally dissociated from the papacy.
Impossible. The Papal authority AS A WHOLE cannot be harmful to the Church It never has been and never will be, and Auctorem Fidei condemned the notion.
WHO teaches that the Papal Authority can be harmful to the Church?
Again, limited, or unlimited potential for Papal error?
What you are saying is the Pope has the potential to bring harm to the faithful.
Not Possible. Not in his official Magisterium, whether Ordinary or Extraordinary.
If the pope were to come out after V2 and say; "Attention all, I am out to destroy the Church, and toward that end along with my hierarchy, I have introduced the New Order and decided to call the new service, "the New mass" and I am hoping that you all will go along with it and participate in this effort."
This would not be something that as a pope, he is incapable of doing. There is nothing to stop him or any past pope from doing such a thing - nothing at all.
All the pope did was word it differently, the idiot sheeple are the ones who went along with it because like SVs, they believed that whatever the pope said was automatically infallible.
-
Do you believe in these doctrines? You should you know. They should be foundational to your faith, something you can and must place all your trust in. You could die a holy martyr defending these doctrines - that's the trust you can have in these two doctrines
However, if forced to give allegiance to the NO that would not be a problem for you. It would be for me and I would die holding on to the doctrine of indefectibility. Screaming from the rooftops that if the the NO is the Catholic Church then She has definitely DEFECTED!
Where do you come off saying something so stupid anyway? The NO is not the Catholic Church and screaming from the rooftops that if it is she has defected only demonstrates your ignorance as well as your lack of faith in the matter.
So you say that the Conciliar Church is definitely not the Catholic Church, yet you maintain that the head of this non-Catholic entity is nevertheless a valid Roman Pontiff. That makes no sense at all. Sedevacantists are at least consistent in their errors, R&R unfortunately is not.
-
Do you believe in these doctrines? You should you know. They should be foundational to your faith, something you can and must place all your trust in. You could die a holy martyr defending these doctrines - that's the trust you can have in these two doctrines
However, if forced to give allegiance to the NO that would not be a problem for you. It would be for me and I would die holding on to the doctrine of indefectibility. Screaming from the rooftops that if the the NO is the Catholic Church then She has definitely DEFECTED!
Where do you come off saying something so stupid anyway? The NO is not the Catholic Church and screaming from the rooftops that if it is she has defected only demonstrates your ignorance as well as your lack of faith in the matter.
So you say that the Conciliar Church is definitely not the Catholic Church, yet you maintain that the head of this non-Catholic entity is nevertheless a valid Roman Pontiff. That makes no sense at all. Sedevacantists are at least consistent in their errors, R&R unfortunately is not.
So are you say that you have the authority over the pope to depose him? That is supposed to make sense?
-
Do you believe in these doctrines? You should you know. They should be foundational to your faith, something you can and must place all your trust in. You could die a holy martyr defending these doctrines - that's the trust you can have in these two doctrines
However, if forced to give allegiance to the NO that would not be a problem for you. It would be for me and I would die holding on to the doctrine of indefectibility. Screaming from the rooftops that if the the NO is the Catholic Church then She has definitely DEFECTED!
Where do you come off saying something so stupid anyway? The NO is not the Catholic Church and screaming from the rooftops that if it is she has defected only demonstrates your ignorance as well as your lack of faith in the matter.
So you say that the Conciliar Church is definitely not the Catholic Church, yet you maintain that the head of this non-Catholic entity is nevertheless a valid Roman Pontiff. That makes no sense at all. Sedevacantists are at least consistent in their errors, R&R unfortunately is not.
So are you say that you have the authority over the pope to depose him? That is supposed to make sense?
Of course not, this is why I'm sede-doubtist, not sedevacantist - I know I have no authority to depose a pope, but under current circuмstances it is possible that the Chair of Peter is vacant. I wait for the judgement of the Church.
Your question does not explain how can a head of a non-Catholic entity (and thus a non-Catholic) be a valid Pope. If you maintain that Francis is a head of the Catholic Church, then it must follow that the Conciliar Church is the Catholic Church.
-
Of course not, this is why I'm sede-doubtist, not sedevacantist - I know I have no authority to depose a pope, but under current circuмstances it is possible that the Chair of Peter is vacant. I wait for the judgement of the Church.
First, I believe that "sede-doubtist" is a luke warm position to take. It is neither hot nor cold. Read Apoc. 3:16 to see what God thinks of taking the "safe" middle ground.
Your question does not explain how can a head of a non-Catholic entity (and thus a non-Catholic) be a valid Pope. If you maintain that Francis is a head of the Catholic Church, then it must follow that the Conciliar Church is the Catholic Church.
I disagree that it "must" follow. The pope and hierarchy are fallible humans - except under certain exacting circuмstances, they can and have done the previously unthinkable by using his and their offices and authority to attempt to destroy the Church.
This act does not prove they have not been popes nor do people's knowledge of these acts qualify them in any way to have the authority to declare the claimants have not been popes.
The real travesty is that the people blindly followed - but some choose to blame the pope for other's and even their own stupidity, by saying that popes cannot do what popes have actually done.
-
Do you believe in these doctrines? You should you know. They should be foundational to your faith, something you can and must place all your trust in. You could die a holy martyr defending these doctrines - that's the trust you can have in these two doctrines
However, if forced to give allegiance to the NO that would not be a problem for you. It would be for me and I would die holding on to the doctrine of indefectibility. Screaming from the rooftops that if the the NO is the Catholic Church then She has definitely DEFECTED!
Where do you come off saying something so stupid anyway? The NO is not the Catholic Church and screaming from the rooftops that if it is she has defected only demonstrates your ignorance as well as your lack of faith in the matter.
So you say that the Conciliar Church is definitely not the Catholic Church, yet you maintain that the head of this non-Catholic entity is nevertheless a valid Roman Pontiff. That makes no sense at all. Sedevacantists are at least consistent in their errors, R&R unfortunately is not.
So are you say that you have the authority over the pope to depose him? That is supposed to make sense?
Of course not, this is why I'm sede-doubtist, not sedevacantist - I know I have no authority to depose a pope, but under current circuмstances it is possible that the Chair of Peter is vacant. I wait for the judgement of the Church.
Your question does not explain how can a head of a non-Catholic entity (and thus a non-Catholic) be a valid Pope. If you maintain that Francis is a head of the Catholic Church, then it must follow that the Conciliar Church is the Catholic Church.
After contemplating the sede-doubtist position, I just can't get past the "I wait for the judgement of the Church".
The Dogmas are clear, and heresy and apostasy are defined as well. So to say I'll wait for a judgement from the Church is like saying, I doubt what EENS really means or what UNITY means as infallibly defined by the Vatican I.
The King Of Kings has made clear that what goes in the mouth of a man does not defile him, but what COMES OUT of the mouth; heresies, blasphemy, murder, etc.....that defileth.
Since we can know the tree by its fruit, why would a confirmation of what has been defined be needed? Unless of course we doubt what has been defined?
-
Of course not, this is why I'm sede-doubtist, not sedevacantist - I know I have no authority to depose a pope, but under current circuмstances it is possible that the Chair of Peter is vacant. I wait for the judgement of the Church.
First, I believe that "sede-doubtist" is a luke warm position to take. It is neither hot nor cold. Read Apoc. 3:16 to see what God thinks of taking the "safe" middle ground.
Your question does not explain how can a head of a non-Catholic entity (and thus a non-Catholic) be a valid Pope. If you maintain that Francis is a head of the Catholic Church, then it must follow that the Conciliar Church is the Catholic Church.
I disagree that it "must" follow. The pope and hierarchy are fallible humans - except under certain exacting circuмstances, they can and have done the previously unthinkable by using his and their offices and authority to attempt to destroy the Church.
This act does not prove they have not been popes nor do people's knowledge of these acts qualify them in any way to have the authority to declare the claimants have not been popes.
The real travesty is that the people blindly followed - but some choose to blame the pope for other's and even their own stupidity, by saying that popes cannot do what popes have actually done.
So to recap Stubborn, you believe:
1. The Pope's in their ordinary magisterial teaching have an unlimited potential for error, that in their non-infallible magisterium they can promote heresy.
2. That this has already happened.
Very well:
1. You destroy the stability of the ordinary universal magisterium. If the non-infallible Papal Magisterium has an unlimited potential for error and even heresy, then Denzinger is worthless, for it is a collection of Papal Magisterial Docuмents not issued in solemn fashion, yet considered sources of dogma. In addition, any of the Pope's throughout history in their ordinary teaching could be heretical. But if the potential for heresy existsin the papacy, then what is the point or the significance of the supposed "infallibility" of all the bishops of the world in UNION with the Pope, teaching with him? It would be meaningless for all these bishops can be heretics, and the Pope can be a heretic, so how do you know when the UOM is TRULY infallible? You can't!
On the contrary Stubborn, it is by virtue of the fact all the bishops of the world follow the POPE in their universal teaching that the UOM iS infallible! This means the POPE in his ordinary magisterial teaching is the ROCK, a stable point of reference to which all the bishops must conform, even in his ordinary teaching!
But YOU deny this! And in doing so you destroy the unity of the Church and reduce it to high church Protestantism. This is a fact. This is why you feel free to pick and choose what you will accept and reject, this is what enables you to be a Feeneyite, because you have no faith in the Stability of the Papacy! If you did you would CONFORM to the UOM as it is taught, not only through time, but in every moment of every century! You would acknowledge that in 1945, all the bishops of the world, together with Pope Pius XII, who teach in their catechisms, in their sermons, in their seminary training, UNIVERSALLY that something is true, is true!
But you do not. And in this failure you are a Protestant. You are literally no better than a high church episcopalian, for you have robbed the hierarchy of their authority, and specifically the POPE of his ordinary teaching authority which YOU, as one especially graced by the spirit of "discernment" have determined you have the right to reject in favor of private interpretation!
This is a delusion. It is a spiritual sickness and blindness and makes you non-Catholic.
Why?
The Catholic Faith is characterized by stability, and the root of that stability is the single authority is Christ reigning through Peter in his Church in EVERY SINGLE magisterial act.
But you have destroyed the rock. You have taken away the foundation. You have decided that Peter is SOMETIMES a Rock, when he agrees with "Tradition."
Listen dry bones, and I will breathe life into you:
Peter is now and always Rock! And the Stability of the Papacy is not a matter of your own theological fancy or private interpretation! This is the spirit of heresy, the spirit of error, falsehood, delusion!
Awaken!
2. You cannot provide a single historical instance where the Ordinary Papal Magisterium has failed. Produce one. Demonstrate one. As long as you are claiming it has, you are obliged.
-
Like all sede's who are preoccupied with "the pope problem", you cannot see the forest through all those trees that are right dab smack in the way.
It does no good for me to tell you yet again that the doctrines of infallibility and indefectibility were never infringed upon, because while you probably agree with that, you continually seek to find any other reason to support your opinion, even when it means ignoring the doctrines.
And you have yet to comment on my other post (http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php?a=topic&t=38915&min=458&num=1), and also this post (http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php?a=topic&t=38915&min=478&num=1).
My guess is you and most SVs cannot understand either one.
-
Like all sede's who are preoccupied with "the pope problem", you cannot see the forest through all those trees that are right dab smack in the way.
It does no good for me to tell you yet again that the doctrines of infallibility and indefectibility were never infringed upon, because while you probably agree with that, you continually seek to find any other reason to support your opinion, even when it means ignoring the doctrines.
And you have yet to comment on my other post (http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php?a=topic&t=38915&min=458&num=1), and also this post (http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php?a=topic&t=38915&min=478&num=1).
My guess is you and most SVs cannot understand either one.
My previous post is my response to both: you destroy the unity of the Church's magisterium.
-
Of course not, this is why I'm sede-doubtist, not sedevacantist - I know I have no authority to depose a pope, but under current circuмstances it is possible that the Chair of Peter is vacant. I wait for the judgement of the Church.
Please explain.... How, exactly, is your position different than the sedevacantist position?
I recognize that Francis at least materially (possibly also formally) occupies the Chair of Peter. However, given evidence for his heresies it is posible that he's not a Pope, yet I don't have authority to decide about that. In other words, sedevacantist says "we have no Pope", I say "I don't know with certainty of faith whether we have a Pope or not".
Of course not, this is why I'm sede-doubtist, not sedevacantist - I know I have no authority to depose a pope, but under current circuмstances it is possible that the Chair of Peter is vacant. I wait for the judgement of the Church.
First, I believe that "sede-doubtist" is a luke warm position to take. It is neither hot nor cold. Read Apoc. 3:16 to see what God thinks of taking the "safe" middle ground.
I think it is not lukewarm, but prudent. On one hand, I have no authority to depose a pope. On the other hand, I am confronted with indisputable evidence for his heresies and for non-Catholic character of the Novus Ordo religion. Thus, I have to consider the possibility of the vacancy at the Chair of Peter, but I cannot embrace this position on my own authority.
Regarding Revelation 3:16, this verse is hardly applicable to what we are talking about. In context, 3:16 refers to the quality of works of Christians (Revelation 3:15 "I know thy works, that thou art neither cold, nor hot. I would thou wert cold, or hot"). Applying it to positions regarding legitimacy of V2 Popes in the most confusing period of Church history is a big stretch.
Your question does not explain how can a head of a non-Catholic entity (and thus a non-Catholic) be a valid Pope. If you maintain that Francis is a head of the Catholic Church, then it must follow that the Conciliar Church is the Catholic Church.
I disagree that it "must" follow. The pope and hierarchy are fallible humans - except under certain exacting circuмstances, they can and have done the previously unthinkable by using his and their offices and authority to attempt to destroy the Church.
This act does not prove they have not been popes nor do people's knowledge of these acts qualify them in any way to have the authority to declare the claimants have not been popes.
The real travesty is that the people blindly followed - but some choose to blame the pope for other's and even their own stupidity, by saying that popes cannot do what popes have actually done.
Yes, the Pope and hierarchy are fallible humans, but if they are valid Popes they can't teach or do things which would compromise indefectibility of the Church. If they do (as Vatican II and Paul VI did), their legitimacy logically becomes questionable.
I still don't understand how can you recognize Francis as Pope and at the same time claim that the Conciliar Church is not Catholic - you assert that the head of non-Catholic entity (and thus a non-Catholic who is separated from the Church) can remain a valid Pope. To use the words of St. Antoninus:
In the case in which the pope would become a heretic, he would find himself, by that fact alone and without any other sentence,
separated from the Church. A head separated from a body cannot, as long
as it remains separated, be head of the same body from which it was cut
off.
If the Conciliar Church is not Catholic, Francis cannot be the pope, as he is separated from the Church. If he is the Pope, he must be part of the Church, and thus the Conciliar Church is Catholic. You can't have it both ways.
-
Like all sede's who are preoccupied with "the pope problem", you cannot see the forest through all those trees that are right dab smack in the way.
It does no good for me to tell you yet again that the doctrines of infallibility and indefectibility were never infringed upon, because while you probably agree with that, you continually seek to find any other reason to support your opinion, even when it means ignoring the doctrines.
And you have yet to comment on my other post (http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php?a=topic&t=38915&min=458&num=1), and also this post (http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php?a=topic&t=38915&min=478&num=1).
My guess is you and most SVs cannot understand either one.
My previous post is my response to both: you destroy the unity of the Church's magisterium.
No, I do not. You saying I do, does not make it so, but I admit it's a whole lot easier of a thing for you to say than to actually comment on the posts.
-
Your question does not explain how can a head of a non-Catholic entity (and thus a non-Catholic) be a valid Pope. If you maintain that Francis is a head of the Catholic Church, then it must follow that the Conciliar Church is the Catholic Church.
I disagree that it "must" follow. The pope and hierarchy are fallible humans - except under certain exacting circuмstances, they can and have done the previously unthinkable by using his and their offices and authority to attempt to destroy the Church.
This act does not prove they have not been popes nor do people's knowledge of these acts qualify them in any way to have the authority to declare the claimants have not been popes.
The real travesty is that the people blindly followed - but some choose to blame the pope for other's and even their own stupidity, by saying that popes cannot do what popes have actually done.
Yes, the Pope and hierarchy are fallible humans, but if they are valid Popes they can't teach or do things which would compromise indefectibility of the Church. If they do (as Vatican II and Paul VI did), their legitimacy logically becomes questionable.
I still don't understand how can you recognize Francis as Pope and at the same time claim that the Conciliar Church is not Catholic - you assert that the head of non-Catholic entity (and thus a non-Catholic who is separated from the Church) can remain a valid Pope. To use the words of St. Antoninus:
In the case in which the pope would become a heretic, he would find himself, by that fact alone and without any other sentence,
separated from the Church. A head separated from a body cannot, as long
as it remains separated, be head of the same body from which it was cut
off.
If the Conciliar Church is not Catholic, Francis cannot be the pope, as he is separated from the Church. If he is the Pope, he must be part of the Church, and thus the Conciliar Church is Catholic. You can't have it both ways.
I like these quotes from St. Robert.
Although it clearly follows from the circuмstances that the Pope can err at times and command things which must not be done, that we are not to be simply obedient to him in all things, that does not show that he must not be obeyed by all when his commands are good. To know in what cases he is to be obeyed and in what not … it is said in the Acts of the Apostles. “One ought to obey God rather than man:” therefore, were the Pope to command anything against Holy Scripture, or the articles of faith, or the truths of the Sacraments, or the commands of natural or divine law, he ought not to be obeyed, but in such commands, to be passed over (despiciendus). [as quoted in Turrencremata’s Summa de Eccles.]
And, again, he repeated the same in another work;
It is lawful to resist him (the Pope) if he assaulted souls, or troubled the state, and much more if he strove to destroy the Church. It is lawful, I say, to resist him by not doing what he commands and hindering the execution of his will. [Cardinal Saint Robert Bellarmine (de Rom. Pont.)]
-
I like these quotes from St. Robert.
Although it clearly follows from the circuмstances that the Pope can err at times and command things which must not be done, that we are not to be simply obedient to him in all things, that does not show that he must not be obeyed by all when his commands are good. To know in what cases he is to be obeyed and in what not … it is said in the Acts of the Apostles. “One ought to obey God rather than man:” therefore, were the Pope to command anything against Holy Scripture, or the articles of faith, or the truths of the Sacraments, or the commands of natural or divine law, he ought not to be obeyed, but in such commands, to be passed over (despiciendus). [as quoted in Turrencremata’s Summa de Eccles.]
And, again, he repeated the same in another work;
It is lawful to resist him (the Pope) if he assaulted souls, or troubled the state, and much more if he strove to destroy the Church. It is lawful, I say, to resist him by not doing what he commands and hindering the execution of his will. [Cardinal Saint Robert Bellarmine (de Rom. Pont.)]
Too bad you seem to be unfamiliar with the context, especially of the second quote:
http://www.traditionalmass.org/images/articles/Bellarmine-Myth.pdf
How about these ones:
Now in regard to reason this is indeed very certain. A non-Christian cannot in any way be Pope, as Cajetan affirms in the same book, and the reason is because he cannot be the head of that which he is not a member, and he is not a member of the Church who is not a Christian. But a manifest heretic is not a Christian, as St. Cyprian and many other Fathers clearly teach. Therefore, a manifest heretic cannot be Pope.
Now the fifth true opinion, is that a Pope who is a manifest heretic, ceases in himself to be Pope and head, just as he ceases in himself to be a Christian and member of the body of the Church: whereby, he can be judged and punished by the Church. This is the opinion of all the ancient Fathers, who teach that manifest heretics soon lose all jurisdiction(...)
Now, as I said, I have no authority to say that the above happened (loss of jurisdiction and office due to heresy), which is why I'm not a sedevacantist, but given the evidence it is a possibility.
-
The Bellarmine “Resistance” Quote:
Another Traditionalist Myth
(2004)
by Rev. Anthony Cekada
:facepalm:
-
After contemplating the sede-doubtist position, I just can't get past the "I wait for the judgement of the Church".
The Dogmas are clear, and heresy and apostasy are defined as well. So to say I'll wait for a judgement from the Church is like saying, I doubt what EENS really means or what UNITY means as infallibly defined by the Vatican I.
The King Of Kings has made clear that what goes in the mouth of a man does not defile him, but what COMES OUT of the mouth; heresies, blasphemy, murder, etc.....that defileth.
Since we can know the tree by its fruit, why would a confirmation of what has been defined be needed? Unless of course we doubt what has been defined?
You misunderstood me. Of course, we know what the dogmas are and what they mean, by saying about "judgment of the Church" I mean judgment on whether V2 Popes are formal heretics or not. The most we can prove at the moment is that they are material heretics (it is highly probable that they are formal heretics, especially Francis on EENS, but there is no way to prove it - the closest the V2 pope got to formal heresy was when Benedict XVI called Dignitatis Humanae a counter-syllabus refering to Pope Pius IX Syllabus of Errors, indicating he realizes the contradiction). John Salza in his refutations of the Dimonds on sedevacantism emphasized the requirements to establish whether one is a formal heretic and loses office.
-
I like these quotes from St. Robert.
Although it clearly follows from the circuмstances that the Pope can err at times and command things which must not be done, that we are not to be simply obedient to him in all things, that does not show that he must not be obeyed by all when his commands are good. To know in what cases he is to be obeyed and in what not … it is said in the Acts of the Apostles. “One ought to obey God rather than man:” therefore, were the Pope to command anything against Holy Scripture, or the articles of faith, or the truths of the Sacraments, or the commands of natural or divine law, he ought not to be obeyed, but in such commands, to be passed over (despiciendus). [as quoted in Turrencremata’s Summa de Eccles.]
And, again, he repeated the same in another work;
It is lawful to resist him (the Pope) if he assaulted souls, or troubled the state, and much more if he strove to destroy the Church. It is lawful, I say, to resist him by not doing what he commands and hindering the execution of his will. [Cardinal Saint Robert Bellarmine (de Rom. Pont.)]
Too bad you seem to be unfamiliar with the context, especially of the second quote:
http://www.traditionalmass.org/images/articles/Bellarmine-Myth.pdf
It's surprising how easy it is to refute Fr. Cekada on this one, I'm surprised you didn't even think to look:
Book from 2006 written and endorsed by Sede's galore:
Link (PDF) (http://portalconservador.com/livros/Rama-Coomaraswamy-The-Destruction-of-the-Christian-Tradition.pdf)
Foreword by Bishop Robert F. McKenna, O.P.
Preface to the Second Edition by Rama P. Coomaraswamy
Introduction by Bishop Thomas C. Fouhy
Bishop Kelly even gave his approval while he was still an SSPXer
If you scroll to page 115 - 116, you'll find these SVs do not agree with Fr. Cekada that St. Roberts quotes were a myth. Which SV will you believe?
-
I recognize that Francis at least materially (possibly also formally) occupies the Chair of Peter. However, given evidence for his heresies it is posible that he's not a Pope, yet I don't have authority to decide about that. In other words, sedevacantist says "we have no Pope", I say "I don't know with certainty of faith whether we have a Pope or not".
I will never understand the "half-pope" theory... I don't mean to ridicule, Avringer, but this theory cannot be reconciled with Vatican I.
Vatican I states that: "...if anyone says that the Roman pontiff...has only the principal part, but not the absolute fullness, of this supreme power...let him be anathema."
What Vatican I deals with in this quote is a scope of power of the office of the Roman Pontiff, not ability of a Pontiff to exercise that power. In other words, Vatican I anathematizes those who would acknowledge the office of the Roman Pontiff, but would try to limit the scope of power associated with the office. Sedeprivationism (which is not exactly my position) does not do that, it acknowledges that Roman Pontiff has full power over the Universal Church. This full power is just suspended due to heresy in this specific case.
-
I like these quotes from St. Robert.
Although it clearly follows from the circuмstances that the Pope can err at times and command things which must not be done, that we are not to be simply obedient to him in all things, that does not show that he must not be obeyed by all when his commands are good. To know in what cases he is to be obeyed and in what not … it is said in the Acts of the Apostles. “One ought to obey God rather than man:” therefore, were the Pope to command anything against Holy Scripture, or the articles of faith, or the truths of the Sacraments, or the commands of natural or divine law, he ought not to be obeyed, but in such commands, to be passed over (despiciendus). [as quoted in Turrencremata’s Summa de Eccles.]
And, again, he repeated the same in another work;
It is lawful to resist him (the Pope) if he assaulted souls, or troubled the state, and much more if he strove to destroy the Church. It is lawful, I say, to resist him by not doing what he commands and hindering the execution of his will. [Cardinal Saint Robert Bellarmine (de Rom. Pont.)]
Too bad you seem to be unfamiliar with the context, especially of the second quote:
http://www.traditionalmass.org/images/articles/Bellarmine-Myth.pdf
It's surprising how easy it is to refute Fr. Cekada on this one, I'm surprised you didn't even think to look:
Book from 2006 written and endorsed by Sede's galore:
Link (PDF) (http://portalconservador.com/livros/Rama-Coomaraswamy-The-Destruction-of-the-Christian-Tradition.pdf)
Foreword by Bishop Robert F. McKenna, O.P.
Preface to the Second Edition by Rama P. Coomaraswamy
Introduction by Bishop Thomas C. Fouhy
Bishop Kelly even gave his approval while he was still an SSPXer
If you scroll to page 115 - 116, you'll find these SVs do not agree with Fr. Cekada that St. Roberts quotes were a myth. Which SV will you believe?
I'm not saying I subscribe myself to this or that SV view (as I already states, sedevacantism is not a Catholic position). The point is that nothing in these quotes from St. Robert Bellarmine indicates that a non-Catholic and a head of non-Catholic Church can be a valid Pope. All the quotes (as well as those provided in the passage from the book you posted) are about resistance to commands (rather than teachings) of the Pope, not asserting that a non-Catholic heretic can be a Pope. In fact, St. Robert Bellarmine and St. Antoninus both explicitly reject your position that a non-Catholic can be a Pope.
Please explain these quotes from St. Robert Bellarmine in light of your position:
Now in regard to reason this is indeed very certain. A non-Christian cannot in any way be Pope, as Cajetan affirms in the same book, and the reason is because he cannot be the head of that which he is not a member, and he is not a member of the Church who is not a Christian. But a manifest heretic is not a Christian, as St. Cyprian and many other Fathers clearly teach. Therefore, a manifest heretic cannot be Pope.
Now the fifth true opinion, is that a Pope who is a manifest heretic, ceases in himself to be Pope and head, just as he ceases in himself to be a Christian and member of the body of the Church: whereby, he can be judged and punished by the Church. This is the opinion of all the ancient Fathers, who teach that manifest heretics soon lose all jurisdiction(...)
You want to have your cake and eat it at the same time - reject the Conciliar Church as non-Catholic but have its head as a valid Pope. I'm sorry, but I can't see this in any other way as an utter nonsense. Sedevacantists are at least consistently taking their errors to logical conclusions.
-
I like these quotes from St. Robert.
Although it clearly follows from the circuмstances that the Pope can err at times and command things which must not be done, that we are not to be simply obedient to him in all things, that does not show that he must not be obeyed by all when his commands are good. To know in what cases he is to be obeyed and in what not … it is said in the Acts of the Apostles. “One ought to obey God rather than man:” therefore, were the Pope to command anything against Holy Scripture, or the articles of faith, or the truths of the Sacraments, or the commands of natural or divine law, he ought not to be obeyed, but in such commands, to be passed over (despiciendus). [as quoted in Turrencremata’s Summa de Eccles.]
And, again, he repeated the same in another work;
It is lawful to resist him (the Pope) if he assaulted souls, or troubled the state, and much more if he strove to destroy the Church. It is lawful, I say, to resist him by not doing what he commands and hindering the execution of his will. [Cardinal Saint Robert Bellarmine (de Rom. Pont.)]
Too bad you seem to be unfamiliar with the context, especially of the second quote:
http://www.traditionalmass.org/images/articles/Bellarmine-Myth.pdf
It's surprising how easy it is to refute Fr. Cekada on this one, I'm surprised you didn't even think to look:
Book from 2006 written and endorsed by Sede's galore:
Link (PDF) (http://portalconservador.com/livros/Rama-Coomaraswamy-The-Destruction-of-the-Christian-Tradition.pdf)
Foreword by Bishop Robert F. McKenna, O.P.
Preface to the Second Edition by Rama P. Coomaraswamy
Introduction by Bishop Thomas C. Fouhy
Bishop Kelly even gave his approval while he was still an SSPXer
If you scroll to page 115 - 116, you'll find these SVs do not agree with Fr. Cekada that St. Roberts quotes were a myth. Which SV will you believe?
These quotes refer to evil commands, not magisterial teaching. Such as, "Dynamite Fatima and bring me another blonde Chorus Girl Monsignor."
This has nothing to do with resisting an official popes official magisterium. At all.
-
These quotes refer to evil commands, not magisterial teaching. Such as, "Dynamite Fatima and bring me another blonde Chorus Girl Monsignor."
This has nothing to do with resisting an official popes official magisterium. At all.
Give it up, Gregory I. He won't understand.
-
These quotes refer to evil commands, not magisterial teaching. Such as, "Dynamite Fatima and bring me another blonde Chorus Girl Monsignor."
This has nothing to do with resisting an official popes official magisterium. At all.
Give it up, Gregory I. He won't understand.
No traditionalist priest would put his support behind Stubborn's textual graffiti here. The very first objection would be his choice of name.
-
After contemplating the sede-doubtist position, I just can't get past the "I wait for the judgement of the Church".
The Dogmas are clear, and heresy and apostasy are defined as well. So to say I'll wait for a judgement from the Church is like saying, I doubt what EENS really means or what UNITY means as infallibly defined by the Vatican I.
The King Of Kings has made clear that what goes in the mouth of a man does not defile him, but what COMES OUT of the mouth; heresies, blasphemy, murder, etc.....that defileth.
Since we can know the tree by its fruit, why would a confirmation of what has been defined be needed? Unless of course we doubt what has been defined?
You misunderstood me. Of course, we know what the dogmas are and what they mean, by saying about "judgment of the Church" I mean judgment on whether V2 Popes are formal heretics or not. The most we can prove at the moment is that they are material heretics (it is highly probable that they are formal heretics, especially Francis on EENS, but there is no way to prove it - the closest the V2 pope got to formal heresy was when Benedict XVI called Dignitatis Humanae a counter-syllabus refering to Pope Pius IX Syllabus of Errors, indicating he realizes the contradiction). John Salza in his refutations of the Dimonds on sedevacantism emphasized the requirements to establish whether one is a formal heretic and loses office.
I hear you Arvinger. I disagree with waiting for judgment from the Church to officially say the V2 Popes are heretics.
They are heretics! The Catholic Church teaches that unity only exists in the true Catholic Church, we all know this so need to quote Vatican I.
All of the V2 false popes deny this. So why does the Church have to redeclare what has been declared? To convince the unconvinced?
Pope Paul IV protected the flock from being lead by a false Shepard simply by making it clear that no declaration must be made. So Pope Paul refutes J. Salza.
-
After contemplating the sede-doubtist position, I just can't get past the "I wait for the judgement of the Church".
The Dogmas are clear, and heresy and apostasy are defined as well. So to say I'll wait for a judgement from the Church is like saying, I doubt what EENS really means or what UNITY means as infallibly defined by the Vatican I.
The King Of Kings has made clear that what goes in the mouth of a man does not defile him, but what COMES OUT of the mouth; heresies, blasphemy, murder, etc.....that defileth.
Since we can know the tree by its fruit, why would a confirmation of what has been defined be needed? Unless of course we doubt what has been defined?
You misunderstood me. Of course, we know what the dogmas are and what they mean, by saying about "judgment of the Church" I mean judgment on whether V2 Popes are formal heretics or not. The most we can prove at the moment is that they are material heretics (it is highly probable that they are formal heretics, especially Francis on EENS, but there is no way to prove it - the closest the V2 pope got to formal heresy was when Benedict XVI called Dignitatis Humanae a counter-syllabus refering to Pope Pius IX Syllabus of Errors, indicating he realizes the contradiction). John Salza in his refutations of the Dimonds on sedevacantism emphasized the requirements to establish whether one is a formal heretic and loses office.
I hear you Arvinger. I disagree with waiting for judgment from the Church to officially say the V2 Popes are heretics.
They are heretics! The Catholic Church teaches that unity only exists in the true Catholic Church, we all know this so need to quote Vatican I.
All of the V2 false popes deny this. So why does the Church have to redeclare what has been declared? To convince the unconvinced?
Pope Paul IV protected the flock from being lead by a false Shepard simply by making it clear that no declaration must be made. So Pope Paul refutes J. Salza.
As a lay Catholic, the powerful reasoning behind this would be the Principle of Non-Contradiction, meaning that we can know with certainty that there is something wrong when the proposed teachings are contrary to precedent teachings, as Truth is immutable and does not "evolve".
St. Bellarmine explains this in an example of a Bishop who teaches his flock what is contrary to his predecessors teaching and by this very fact he loses his Authority. The people then "judge" that a contradiction indeed exists and refuse to listen any further to this false pastor. However, if the Bishop is not as yet deposed, then he must be deposed by competent Authority according to the laws of the Church.
Of course, a Bishop is different from the Roman Pontiff.
-
After contemplating the sede-doubtist position, I just can't get past the "I wait for the judgement of the Church".
The Dogmas are clear, and heresy and apostasy are defined as well. So to say I'll wait for a judgement from the Church is like saying, I doubt what EENS really means or what UNITY means as infallibly defined by the Vatican I.
The King Of Kings has made clear that what goes in the mouth of a man does not defile him, but what COMES OUT of the mouth; heresies, blasphemy, murder, etc.....that defileth.
Since we can know the tree by its fruit, why would a confirmation of what has been defined be needed? Unless of course we doubt what has been defined?
You misunderstood me. Of course, we know what the dogmas are and what they mean, by saying about "judgment of the Church" I mean judgment on whether V2 Popes are formal heretics or not. The most we can prove at the moment is that they are material heretics (it is highly probable that they are formal heretics, especially Francis on EENS, but there is no way to prove it - the closest the V2 pope got to formal heresy was when Benedict XVI called Dignitatis Humanae a counter-syllabus refering to Pope Pius IX Syllabus of Errors, indicating he realizes the contradiction). John Salza in his refutations of the Dimonds on sedevacantism emphasized the requirements to establish whether one is a formal heretic and loses office.
I hear you Arvinger. I disagree with waiting for judgment from the Church to officially say the V2 Popes are heretics.
They are heretics! The Catholic Church teaches that unity only exists in the true Catholic Church, we all know this so need to quote Vatican I.
All of the V2 false popes deny this. So why does the Church have to redeclare what has been declared? To convince the unconvinced?
Pope Paul IV protected the flock from being lead by a false Shepard simply by making it clear that no declaration must be made. So Pope Paul refutes J. Salza.
As a lay Catholic, the powerful reasoning behind this would be the Principle of Non-Contradiction, meaning that we can know with certainty that there is something wrong when the proposed teachings are contrary to precedent teachings, as Truth is immutable and does not "evolve".
St. Bellarmine explains this in an example of a Bishop who teaches his flock what is contrary to his predecessors teaching and by this very fact he loses his Authority. The people then "judge" that a contradiction indeed exists and refuse to listen any further to this false pastor. However, if the Bishop is not as yet deposed, then he must be deposed by competent Authority according to the laws of the Church.
But no declarations are needed. The Church teaches this. Heretics are ipso facto deposed it doesn't matter who they are.
Think about it this way Cantrella, if what you are saying is true then you could be lead by an antichrist.
Pope Paul IV has protected you from this. No Declarations, which means no trial.
This is what I believe.
-
After contemplating the sede-doubtist position, I just can't get past the "I wait for the judgement of the Church".
The Dogmas are clear, and heresy and apostasy are defined as well. So to say I'll wait for a judgement from the Church is like saying, I doubt what EENS really means or what UNITY means as infallibly defined by the Vatican I.
The King Of Kings has made clear that what goes in the mouth of a man does not defile him, but what COMES OUT of the mouth; heresies, blasphemy, murder, etc.....that defileth.
Since we can know the tree by its fruit, why would a confirmation of what has been defined be needed? Unless of course we doubt what has been defined?
You misunderstood me. Of course, we know what the dogmas are and what they mean, by saying about "judgment of the Church" I mean judgment on whether V2 Popes are formal heretics or not. The most we can prove at the moment is that they are material heretics (it is highly probable that they are formal heretics, especially Francis on EENS, but there is no way to prove it - the closest the V2 pope got to formal heresy was when Benedict XVI called Dignitatis Humanae a counter-syllabus refering to Pope Pius IX Syllabus of Errors, indicating he realizes the contradiction). John Salza in his refutations of the Dimonds on sedevacantism emphasized the requirements to establish whether one is a formal heretic and loses office.
I hear you Arvinger. I disagree with waiting for judgment from the Church to officially say the V2 Popes are heretics.
They are heretics! The Catholic Church teaches that unity only exists in the true Catholic Church, we all know this so need to quote Vatican I.
All of the V2 false popes deny this. So why does the Church have to redeclare what has been declared? To convince the unconvinced?
Pope Paul IV protected the flock from being lead by a false Shepard simply by making it clear that no declaration must be made. So Pope Paul refutes J. Salza.
As a lay Catholic, the powerful reasoning behind this would be the Principle of Non-Contradiction, meaning that we can know with certainty that there is something wrong when the proposed teachings are contrary to precedent teachings, as Truth is immutable and does not "evolve".
St. Bellarmine explains this in an example of a Bishop who teaches his flock what is contrary to his predecessors teaching and by this very fact he loses his Authority. The people then "judge" that a contradiction indeed exists and refuse to listen any further to this false pastor. However, if the Bishop is not as yet deposed, then he must be deposed by competent Authority according to the laws of the Church.
But no declarations are needed. The Church teaches this. Heretics are ipso facto deposed it doesn't matter who they are.
Think about it this way Cantrella, if what you are saying is true then you could be lead by an antichrist.
Pope Paul IV has protected you from this. No Declarations, which means no trial.
This is what I believe.
No declaration is needed to realize he is stripped of his authority.
BUT, in order to clear the way for a re-election, the Church would have to legally declare the man to be deposed by Christ.
I am not saying he is a legitimate Pope in the meantime, I am saying that he loses the very heart and essence of his office: his authority.
But he has yet to be physically removed by the Church. And this recognition of the need for a legal displacement is necessary to replace him with a new Pope.
The reason this is necessary is because, suppose he repented before a declaration? Would he need to be re-elected? No, because LEGALLY the see was never declared Vacant. Although it WAS vacated in the sense that the claimant was shown to be utterly without authority and jurisdiction by the very fact of being a heretic, ipso facto.
I think we need both dynamics to be working here.
-
TRUE OR FALSE POPE?
Refuting Sedevacantism and Other Modern Errors
By John Salza and Robert Siscoe, 700 pages
Foreword by His Excellency, Bishop Bernard Fellay
Interesting. Sounds like a readable book to me. Unfortunately, there's about a dozen books I'd like to read, and no time to read any of them.
-
I'm not saying I subscribe myself to this or that SV view (as I already states, sedevacantism is not a Catholic position). The point is that nothing in these quotes from St. Robert Bellarmine indicates that a non-Catholic and a head of non-Catholic Church can be a valid Pope. All the quotes (as well as those provided in the passage from the book you posted) are about resistance to commands (rather than teachings) of the Pope, not asserting that a non-Catholic heretic can be a Pope. In fact, St. Robert Bellarmine and St. Antoninus both explicitly reject your position that a non-Catholic can be a Pope.
Please explain these quotes from St. Robert Bellarmine in light of your position:
Now in regard to reason this is indeed very certain. A non-Christian cannot in any way be Pope, as Cajetan affirms in the same book, and the reason is because he cannot be the head of that which he is not a member, and he is not a member of the Church who is not a Christian. But a manifest heretic is not a Christian, as St. Cyprian and many other Fathers clearly teach. Therefore, a manifest heretic cannot be Pope.
Now the fifth true opinion, is that a Pope who is a manifest heretic, ceases in himself to be Pope and head, just as he ceases in himself to be a Christian and member of the body of the Church: whereby, he can be judged and punished by the Church. This is the opinion of all the ancient Fathers, who teach that manifest heretics soon lose all jurisdiction(...)
You want to have your cake and eat it at the same time - reject the Conciliar Church as non-Catholic but have its head as a valid Pope. I'm sorry, but I can't see this in any other way as an utter nonsense. Sedevacantists are at least consistently taking their errors to logical conclusions.
First, I agree that overall, sedevacantism is not a Catholic position - which is why I have asked many times for the SVs to stop quoting from Catholic popes, fathers and saints (as in St. Robert) and only quote from SV popes, fathers and saints. I think if they did that, it would help them clear up this whole issue for themselves in short order, but oh well.
So St. Robert says "A non-Christian cannot in any way be Pope....and the reason is because he cannot be the head of that which he is not a member" and "that a Pope who is a manifest heretic, ceases in himself to be Pope and head,".
I believe that he is correct, and I agree with him almost completely. But what does he say we are permitted to do about it? What does he say that anyone is permitted, allowed, bound to or are required to do about it? Where do priests and bishops and even laity get the authority to proclaim the Chair is Vacant as if they actually know? Not from St. Robert, not from the Catholic Church - anyone can tell you that much.
St. Robert clearly teaches we are to resist and disobey, Pope Paul IV in cuм ex explicitly taught that we are permitted to contradict him. That is what we, his subjects, are actually supposed to do about it. No pope, father, theologian or saint taught, declared, mandated or even hinted that we are to declare the Chair Vacant, omit the pope's name from the Mass and obsess about "the pope problem".
It is no longer a matter of SVs ignoring or rejecting the doctrines of infallibility and indefectibility in their quest to publicize "the pope problem", not that it really ever was. These days, it has evolved into something entirely ridiculous for Catholics, today, it has morphed into a matter of "Francis’ outrageous public statements and madcap antics have led more and more traditionalists to embrace sedevacantism, and many more to consider doing the same." as Fr. Cekada (http://www.fathercekada.com/2015/06/10/stuck-in-a-rut-anti-sedevacantism-in-the-age-of-bergoglio/) continues to do his part to rally the troops........and the troops seem to eat this stuff up.
-
I'm not saying I subscribe myself to this or that SV view (as I already states, sedevacantism is not a Catholic position). The point is that nothing in these quotes from St. Robert Bellarmine indicates that a non-Catholic and a head of non-Catholic Church can be a valid Pope. All the quotes (as well as those provided in the passage from the book you posted) are about resistance to commands (rather than teachings) of the Pope, not asserting that a non-Catholic heretic can be a Pope. In fact, St. Robert Bellarmine and St. Antoninus both explicitly reject your position that a non-Catholic can be a Pope.
Please explain these quotes from St. Robert Bellarmine in light of your position:
Now in regard to reason this is indeed very certain. A non-Christian cannot in any way be Pope, as Cajetan affirms in the same book, and the reason is because he cannot be the head of that which he is not a member, and he is not a member of the Church who is not a Christian. But a manifest heretic is not a Christian, as St. Cyprian and many other Fathers clearly teach. Therefore, a manifest heretic cannot be Pope.
Now the fifth true opinion, is that a Pope who is a manifest heretic, ceases in himself to be Pope and head, just as he ceases in himself to be a Christian and member of the body of the Church: whereby, he can be judged and punished by the Church. This is the opinion of all the ancient Fathers, who teach that manifest heretics soon lose all jurisdiction(...)
You want to have your cake and eat it at the same time - reject the Conciliar Church as non-Catholic but have its head as a valid Pope. I'm sorry, but I can't see this in any other way as an utter nonsense. Sedevacantists are at least consistently taking their errors to logical conclusions.
First, I agree that overall, sedevacantism is not a Catholic position - which is why I have asked many times for the SVs to stop quoting from Catholic popes, fathers and saints (as in St. Robert) and only quote from SV popes, fathers and saints. I think if they did that, it would help them clear up this whole issue for themselves in short order, but oh well.
So St. Robert says "A non-Christian cannot in any way be Pope....and the reason is because he cannot be the head of that which he is not a member" and "that a Pope who is a manifest heretic, ceases in himself to be Pope and head,".
I believe that he is correct, and I agree with him almost completely. But what does he say we are permitted to do about it? What does he say that anyone is permitted, allowed, bound to or are required to do about it? Where do priests and bishops and even laity get the authority to proclaim the Chair is Vacant as if they actually know? Not from St. Robert, not from the Catholic Church - anyone can tell you that much.
St. Robert clearly teaches we are to resist and disobey, Pope Paul IV in cuм ex explicitly taught that we are permitted to contradict him. That is what we, his subjects, are actually supposed to do about it. No pope, father, theologian or saint taught, declared, mandated or even hinted that we are to declare the Chair Vacant, omit the pope's name from the Mass and obsess about "the pope problem".
It is no longer a matter of SVs ignoring or rejecting the doctrines of infallibility and indefectibility in their quest to publicize "the pope problem", not that it really ever was. These days, it has evolved into something entirely ridiculous for Catholics, today, it has morphed into a matter of "Francis’ outrageous public statements and madcap antics have led more and more traditionalists to embrace sedevacantism, and many more to consider doing the same." as Fr. Cekada (http://www.fathercekada.com/2015/06/10/stuck-in-a-rut-anti-sedevacantism-in-the-age-of-bergoglio/) continues to do his part to rally the troops........and the troops seem to eat this stuff up.
Where do YOU get the authority to say Fr Feeney is right and the judgment of Rome is wrong? Where do YOU get the authority to judge you have to attend a Latin Mass! Spare us the "You don't have authority to judge" scenario Stubborn, you have NEVER submitted to the Church's judgment! If you did, you would admit that Fr Feeney was rightly excommunicated by Rome.
But you don't because you are a Neo-High Church Anglican.
The faithful have the RIGHT to refuse submission to a manifest heretic.
Pope Paul IV clearly stated that if it were clear that a heretic had been made Pope, that the faithful owe him NO submission.
Again, St, Paul says, "If I or an Angel from heaven should preach to you another gospel, let him be anathema" implying the Corinthians could DISCERN the issue through its manifest CLARITY!
HOW Did St. Vincent Ferrer approach Benedict XIII and declare to him, that because he was behaving as a schismatic, no one owed him anymore obedience as a Pope, we withdrew his obedience, encouraged others to do the same and ABANDONED him without submitting to either the Roman Claimants or the Pisan Claimants in the great western Schism!
By the same judgment YOU Hypocritically make to decide Fr Feeney is right and tradition is wrong, by the same judgment and in the same spirit, we will not bow to these heretics and kiss the fisherman's ring which they have STOLEN. They are all FALSE. They are all anti-Christ.
So do yourself a favor, either put-up and SUBMIT to Romes judgment of Fr Feeney and the Novus Ordo, or shut up and don't calumniate what you clearly do not understand.
WE submit to all that Rome has asked of us, true Rome, Catholic Rome. We don't blindly follow the modernists on the path to Hell, they have no authority anyway. They are stripped of authority by virtue of their apostasy, their schism, their private heresies, but MORE than all those, because they OFFICIALLY, from within the HEART of the Church Promulgate, teach, enact and support the heresy of Vatican II.
-
I think this debate is an interesting one, and all of you have brought up some great points, but it's still a debate over theoretical matters. We live in a time of unprecedented events and we are all grasping at straws trying to come up with ways to deal with the heresies and insanities of the day. But, really, if Francis is the pope or if he isn't - i'm open to both possibilities. Because it doesn't change much for me, practically.
I still need to go to mass, say my rosary, go to work, etc. I still have my soul to save and no matter who the pope is or isn't doesn't change this fact. God will not judge me on the time spent or not spent trying to figure out who has papal authority and who didn't, or who abused it and to what extent. That's not my calling; not my daily duty. My only duty in regards to the pope and the Church is to pray for the pope (or his office) and to promote the Church's teachings. And frankly, even if I had more time, I would rather spend it on these two things, rather than study theories on papal actions.
I'm not saying papal actions don't matter AT ALL, but i'm saying they matter a lot less that we think. Because we already have ALL the truths we need to save our souls (and 2,000 years of history and consistent teaching to support those truths). The pope's job is to guard those truths and re-teach them. If he doesn't guard them, if he doesn't re-teach the new generation and if he chooses to become a heretic and promote error, that's on him. Maybe he loses his office, or part of his office, or none of it at all. I don't know. That's why I'm supposed to pray for him.
But no one can say definitively - this is what we should do about the papal office - so can't we all get along? We'd be quite a force against the agents of satan if we could.
-
I think this debate is an interesting one, and all of you have brought up some great points, but it's still a debate over theoretical matters. We live in a time of unprecedented events and we are all grasping at straws trying to come up with ways to deal with the heresies and insanities of the day. But, really, if Francis is the pope or if he isn't - i'm open to both possibilities. Because it doesn't change much for me, practically.
I still need to go to mass, say my rosary, go to work, etc. I still have my soul to save and no matter who the pope is or isn't doesn't change this fact. God will not judge me on the time spent or not spent trying to figure out who has papal authority and who didn't, or who abused it and to what extent. That's not my calling; not my daily duty. My only duty in regards to the pope and the Church is to pray for the pope (or his office) and to promote the Church's teachings. And frankly, even if I had more time, I would rather spend it on these two things, rather than study theories on papal actions.
I'm not saying papal actions don't matter AT ALL, but i'm saying they matter a lot less that we think. Because we already have ALL the truths we need to save our souls (and 2,000 years of history and consistent teaching to support those truths). The pope's job is to guard those truths and re-teach them. If he doesn't guard them, if he doesn't re-teach the new generation and if he chooses to become a heretic and promote error, that's on him. Maybe he loses his office, or part of his office, or none of it at all. I don't know. That's why I'm supposed to pray for him.
But no one can say definitively - this is what we should do about the papal office - so can't we all get along? We'd be quite a force against the agents of satan if we could.
Consider: perhaps we are not dealing with theories but necessary theological conclusions that dictate certain practical actions, such as:
Avoiding any mass mentioning the name of the heretic.
-
I'm not saying I subscribe myself to this or that SV view (as I already states, sedevacantism is not a Catholic position). The point is that nothing in these quotes from St. Robert Bellarmine indicates that a non-Catholic and a head of non-Catholic Church can be a valid Pope. All the quotes (as well as those provided in the passage from the book you posted) are about resistance to commands (rather than teachings) of the Pope, not asserting that a non-Catholic heretic can be a Pope. In fact, St. Robert Bellarmine and St. Antoninus both explicitly reject your position that a non-Catholic can be a Pope.
Please explain these quotes from St. Robert Bellarmine in light of your position:
Now in regard to reason this is indeed very certain. A non-Christian cannot in any way be Pope, as Cajetan affirms in the same book, and the reason is because he cannot be the head of that which he is not a member, and he is not a member of the Church who is not a Christian. But a manifest heretic is not a Christian, as St. Cyprian and many other Fathers clearly teach. Therefore, a manifest heretic cannot be Pope.
Now the fifth true opinion, is that a Pope who is a manifest heretic, ceases in himself to be Pope and head, just as he ceases in himself to be a Christian and member of the body of the Church: whereby, he can be judged and punished by the Church. This is the opinion of all the ancient Fathers, who teach that manifest heretics soon lose all jurisdiction(...)
You want to have your cake and eat it at the same time - reject the Conciliar Church as non-Catholic but have its head as a valid Pope. I'm sorry, but I can't see this in any other way as an utter nonsense. Sedevacantists are at least consistently taking their errors to logical conclusions.
First, I agree that overall, sedevacantism is not a Catholic position - which is why I have asked many times for the SVs to stop quoting from Catholic popes, fathers and saints (as in St. Robert) and only quote from SV popes, fathers and saints. I think if they did that, it would help them clear up this whole issue for themselves in short order, but oh well.
So St. Robert says "A non-Christian cannot in any way be Pope....and the reason is because he cannot be the head of that which he is not a member" and "that a Pope who is a manifest heretic, ceases in himself to be Pope and head,".
I believe that he is correct, and I agree with him almost completely. But what does he say we are permitted to do about it? What does he say that anyone is permitted, allowed, bound to or are required to do about it? Where do priests and bishops and even laity get the authority to proclaim the Chair is Vacant as if they actually know? Not from St. Robert, not from the Catholic Church - anyone can tell you that much.
St. Robert clearly teaches we are to resist and disobey, Pope Paul IV in cuм ex explicitly taught that we are permitted to contradict him. That is what we, his subjects, are actually supposed to do about it. No pope, father, theologian or saint taught, declared, mandated or even hinted that we are to declare the Chair Vacant, omit the pope's name from the Mass and obsess about "the pope problem".
It is no longer a matter of SVs ignoring or rejecting the doctrines of infallibility and indefectibility in their quest to publicize "the pope problem", not that it really ever was. These days, it has evolved into something entirely ridiculous for Catholics, today, it has morphed into a matter of "Francis’ outrageous public statements and madcap antics have led more and more traditionalists to embrace sedevacantism, and many more to consider doing the same." as Fr. Cekada (http://www.fathercekada.com/2015/06/10/stuck-in-a-rut-anti-sedevacantism-in-the-age-of-bergoglio/) continues to do his part to rally the troops........and the troops seem to eat this stuff up.
Where do YOU get the authority to say Fr Feeney is right and the judgment of Rome is wrong? Where do YOU get the authority to judge you have to attend a Latin Mass! Spare us the "You don't have authority to judge" scenario Stubborn, you have NEVER submitted to the Church's judgment! If you did, you would admit that Fr Feeney was rightly excommunicated by Rome.
But you don't because you are a Neo-High Church Anglican.
The faithful have the RIGHT to refuse submission to a manifest heretic.
Pope Paul IV clearly stated that if it were clear that a heretic had been made Pope, that the faithful owe him NO submission.
Again, St, Paul says, "If I or an Angel from heaven should preach to you another gospel, let him be anathema" implying the Corinthians could DISCERN the issue through its manifest CLARITY!
HOW Did St. Vincent Ferrer approach Benedict XIII and declare to him, that because he was behaving as a schismatic, no one owed him anymore obedience as a Pope, we withdrew his obedience, encouraged others to do the same and ABANDONED him without submitting to either the Roman Claimants or the Pisan Claimants in the great western Schism!
By the same judgment YOU Hypocritically make to decide Fr Feeney is right and tradition is wrong, by the same judgment and in the same spirit, we will not bow to these heretics and kiss the fisherman's ring which they have STOLEN. They are all FALSE. They are all anti-Christ.
So do yourself a favor, either put-up and SUBMIT to Romes judgment of Fr Feeney and the Novus Ordo, or shut up and don't calumniate what you clearly do not understand.
WE submit to all that Rome has asked of us, true Rome, Catholic Rome. We don't blindly follow the modernists on the path to Hell, they have no authority anyway. They are stripped of authority by virtue of their apostasy, their schism, their private heresies, but MORE than all those, because they OFFICIALLY, from within the HEART of the Church Promulgate, teach, enact and support the heresy of Vatican II.
You have nothing. You cannot rightly use Catholic teachings to support sedevacantism. It really all boils down to that, doesn't it.
You cannot provide one SV pope, Father or saint's teaching to support SVism because the whole idea is absurd. But that is your choice. No matter how badly you wish it weren't so, you will never in a thousand years find a Church teaching that permits you to declare the Chair Vacant, omit the pope's name from the Mass and obsess about "the pope problem".
Sorry, that's just the way it is.
-
I think this debate is an interesting one, and all of you have brought up some great points, but it's still a debate over theoretical matters. We live in a time of unprecedented events and we are all grasping at straws trying to come up with ways to deal with the heresies and insanities of the day. But, really, if Francis is the pope or if he isn't - i'm open to both possibilities. Because it doesn't change much for me, practically.
I still need to go to mass, say my rosary, go to work, etc. I still have my soul to save and no matter who the pope is or isn't doesn't change this fact. God will not judge me on the time spent or not spent trying to figure out who has papal authority and who didn't, or who abused it and to what extent. That's not my calling; not my daily duty. My only duty in regards to the pope and the Church is to pray for the pope (or his office) and to promote the Church's teachings. And frankly, even if I had more time, I would rather spend it on these two things, rather than study theories on papal actions.
I'm not saying papal actions don't matter AT ALL, but i'm saying they matter a lot less that we think. Because we already have ALL the truths we need to save our souls (and 2,000 years of history and consistent teaching to support those truths). The pope's job is to guard those truths and re-teach them. If he doesn't guard them, if he doesn't re-teach the new generation and if he chooses to become a heretic and promote error, that's on him. Maybe he loses his office, or part of his office, or none of it at all. I don't know. That's why I'm supposed to pray for him.
But no one can say definitively - this is what we should do about the papal office - so can't we all get along? We'd be quite a force against the agents of satan if we could.
You are exactly right, as I wrote in another post........
For me, I do not need to worry about whether or not the pope is pope or not to know what I must do to persevere in the true faith during this crisis. I already know that whatever comes out of Rome is bad, even those few times it sounds good I know it's bad - that's just the way it works in this crisis and it's been happening over and over again since I was a little kid, it's the same o same o over and over for the last +50 years of my life.
I do not know if the pope is the pope or not and I do not need to know in order for me to keep the faith. Neither do you, neither does anyone. Just look at all the trads and all the neo trads and all the SVs, all who have lived without a pope for the last +50 years and presumably have kept the faith - they don't need the pope either. The reason they say they need a pope is to put an end to this crisis, but they don't need a pope to keep the faith or to open chapels, celebrate the Mass and administer the sacraments, raise their children in the faith, etc. and on and on. Are we to suppose they need a pope or they will lose their faith and end up in hell forever? No, of course not.
-
You have nothing. You cannot rightly use Catholic teachings to support sedevacantism. It really all boils down to that, doesn't it.
You cannot provide one SV pope, Father or saint's teaching to support SVism because the whole idea is absurd. But that is your choice. No matter how badly you wish it weren't so, you will never in a thousand years find a Church teaching that permits you to declare the Chair Vacant, omit the pope's name from the Mass and obsess about "the pope problem".
Sorry, that's just the way it is.
No my dear Feeneyite, I DO, that's just the point.
Sedevacantism is not an alternative to Catholicism. Sedevacantists are Roman Catholics with a particular perspective on the Papacy, that he who says he is Pope, in fact never was, due to manifest heresy.
The Catholic theologians and saints support the possibility of such occurring as did the fathers of Vatican I.
So what is non-Catholic about saying it HAS happened?
I like how you said nothing in defense of your own rebellion either, nice evasion. :rolleyes:
-
You have nothing. You cannot rightly use Catholic teachings to support sedevacantism. It really all boils down to that, doesn't it.
You cannot provide one SV pope, Father or saint's teaching to support SVism because the whole idea is absurd. But that is your choice. No matter how badly you wish it weren't so, you will never in a thousand years find a Church teaching that permits you to declare the Chair Vacant, omit the pope's name from the Mass and obsess about "the pope problem".
Sorry, that's just the way it is.
No my dear Feeneyite, I DO, that's just the point.
Sedevacantism is not an alternative to Catholicism. Sedevacantists are Roman Catholics with a particular perspective on the Papacy, that he who says he is Pope, in fact never was, due to manifest heresy.
The Catholic theologians and saints support the possibility of such occurring as did the fathers of Vatican I.
So what is non-Catholic about saying it HAS happened?
I like how you said nothing in defense of your own rebellion either, nice evasion. :rolleyes:
I already told you there is only one way to convince me I am wrong and you are right about Fr. Feeney and the whole salvation via NSAA subject, but so far, all you've done is prove you're wrong and I'm right. So that's where that stands.
So the same goes for SVs adulterating Catholic teachings to agree with their OPINION. You do agree that SVism is only your opinion don't you? I hope so.
Simply provide just one Catholic teaching that teaches you are permitted or otherwise required to declare the Chair Vacant, omit the pope's name from the Mass and obsess about "the pope problem". At least by doing that, we can agree it is something the Church actually teaches.
-
You have nothing. You cannot rightly use Catholic teachings to support sedevacantism. It really all boils down to that, doesn't it.
You cannot provide one SV pope, Father or saint's teaching to support SVism because the whole idea is absurd. But that is your choice. No matter how badly you wish it weren't so, you will never in a thousand years find a Church teaching that permits you to declare the Chair Vacant, omit the pope's name from the Mass and obsess about "the pope problem".
Sorry, that's just the way it is.
No my dear Feeneyite, I DO, that's just the point.
Sedevacantism is not an alternative to Catholicism. Sedevacantists are Roman Catholics with a particular perspective on the Papacy, that he who says he is Pope, in fact never was, due to manifest heresy.
The Catholic theologians and saints support the possibility of such occurring as did the fathers of Vatican I.
So what is non-Catholic about saying it HAS happened?
I like how you said nothing in defense of your own rebellion either, nice evasion. :rolleyes:
I already told you there is only one way to convince me I am wrong and you are right about Fr. Feeney and the whole salvation via NSAA subject, but so far, all you've done is prove you're wrong and I'm right. So that's where that stands.
So the same goes for SVs adulterating Catholic teachings to agree with their OPINION. You do agree that SVism is only your opinion don't you? I hope so.
Simply provide just one Catholic teaching that teaches you are permitted or otherwise required to declare the Chair Vacant, omit the pope's name from the Mass and obsess about "the pope problem". At least by doing that, we can agree it is something the Church actually teaches.
Stubborn, you don't get to be right simply by claiming to be right. You are a Feeneyite in open rebellion against an official decree of the Holy Office, issued to clarify the stand Fr Feeney had taken.
What did Pope Pius IX say again on Tuas Libentur?
"It is not sufficient for Catholic savants to accept and respect the dogmas of the Church which We have been speaking about: they must, besides, submit themselves, whether to doctrinal decisions stemming from pontifical congregations, or to points of doctrine which, with common and constant consent, are held in the Church as truths and as theological conclusions so certain that opposing opinions, though they may not be dubbed heretical, nonetheless, merit some other form of theological censure."
Oh, that's right! But my bad, I forgot, this is a non-infallible docuмent even though Pope Pius XII said these very docuмents demand your submission AND you can't demonstrate a single heresy or error even in the ordinary Papal teaching. How sad to be so far removed from the Church!
Come on Stubborn! READ! Don't just speak without even thinking.
You are begging the question. You say we have no right to declare such about the Pope.
Stubborn! That's the whole point! He is NOT the Pope! It is a necessary theological conclusion based on reason! You cannot establish we have no right to say this about Francis, because what remains to be proved is whether he is Pope or not!
Therefore, is Francis Pope? That is the first question.
It is a theological necessity binding on the faithful that they answer, "No."
It is NOT opinion because there is no possibility of it being false.
1. The Pope and Christ are a single head of the Church, and it is through the Pipe that Christ Rules the Church, such that, "He who hears you hears me."
2. But Paul VI and his successors have officially promulgated in their own universal ordinary magisterium, in catechisms, in seminary training, through the various theologians, via Papal decree that Vatican II is to be held by all the faithful who owe it Religious assent. They have therefore enacted heresy and schism from within the heart of the Church.
3. Therefore, in order not to blaspheme the Lord Jesus and to not implicate our Lord in heresy and schism and apostasy, Paul VI must be officially and formally dissociated from that authority which IS Christs. He therefore is NOT the Pope, he has no jurisdiction and the faithful owe him nothing, and this from the first moment of his election.
Therefore, having certainly established he is NOT Pope, I say from the housetops:
THIS MAN is not Pope, it is theologically certain, and saying so I make no judgment on a Pope, for he never was!
-
What I find incredible is the number of people who build straw man arguments claiming that Catholics actually hold that there is salvation outside the Church in the same manner as the Modernists hold.
-
You have nothing. You cannot rightly use Catholic teachings to support sedevacantism. It really all boils down to that, doesn't it.
You cannot provide one SV pope, Father or saint's teaching to support SVism because the whole idea is absurd. But that is your choice. No matter how badly you wish it weren't so, you will never in a thousand years find a Church teaching that permits you to declare the Chair Vacant, omit the pope's name from the Mass and obsess about "the pope problem".
Sorry, that's just the way it is.
No my dear Feeneyite, I DO, that's just the point.
Sedevacantism is not an alternative to Catholicism. Sedevacantists are Roman Catholics with a particular perspective on the Papacy, that he who says he is Pope, in fact never was, due to manifest heresy.
The Catholic theologians and saints support the possibility of such occurring as did the fathers of Vatican I.
So what is non-Catholic about saying it HAS happened?
I like how you said nothing in defense of your own rebellion either, nice evasion. :rolleyes:
I already told you there is only one way to convince me I am wrong and you are right about Fr. Feeney and the whole salvation via NSAA subject, but so far, all you've done is prove you're wrong and I'm right. So that's where that stands.
So the same goes for SVs adulterating Catholic teachings to agree with their OPINION. You do agree that SVism is only your opinion don't you? I hope so.
Simply provide just one Catholic teaching that teaches you are permitted or otherwise required to declare the Chair Vacant, omit the pope's name from the Mass and obsess about "the pope problem". At least by doing that, we can agree it is something the Church actually teaches.
Stubborn, you don't get to be right simply by claiming to be right. You are a Feeneyite in open rebellion against an official decree of the Holy Office, issued to clarify the stand Fr Feeney had taken.
What did Pope Pius IX say again on Tuas Libentur?
"It is not sufficient for Catholic savants to accept and respect the dogmas of the Church which We have been speaking about: they must, besides, submit themselves, whether to doctrinal decisions stemming from pontifical congregations, or to points of doctrine which, with common and constant consent, are held in the Church as truths and as theological conclusions so certain that opposing opinions, though they may not be dubbed heretical, nonetheless, merit some other form of theological censure."
Oh, that's right! But my bad, I forgot, this is a non-infallible docuмent even though Pope Pius XII said these very docuмents demand your submission AND you can't demonstrate a single heresy or error even in the ordinary Papal teaching. How sad to be so far removed from the Church!
Come on Stubborn! READ! Don't just speak without even thinking.
You are begging the question. You say we have no right to declare such about the Pope.
Stubborn! That's the whole point! He is NOT the Pope! It is a necessary theological conclusion based on reason! You cannot establish we have no right to say this about Francis, because what remains to be proved is whether he is Pope or not!
Therefore, is Francis Pope? That is the first question.
It is a theological necessity binding on the faithful that they answer, "No."
It is NOT opinion because there is no possibility of it being false.
1. The Pope and Christ are a single head of the Church, and it is through the Pipe that Christ Rules the Church, such that, "He who hears you hears me."
2. But Paul VI and his successors have officially promulgated in their own universal ordinary magisterium, in catechisms, in seminary training, through the various theologians, via Papal decree that Vatican II is to be held by all the faithful who owe it Religious assent. They have therefore enacted heresy and schism from within the heart of the Church.
3. Therefore, in order not to blaspheme the Lord Jesus and to not implicate our Lord in heresy and schism and apostasy, Paul VI must be officially and formally dissociated from that authority which IS Christs. He therefore is NOT the Pope, he has no jurisdiction and the faithful owe him nothing, and this from the first moment of his election.
Therefore, having certainly established he is NOT Pope, I say from the housetops:
THIS MAN is not Pope, it is theologically certain, and saying so I make no judgment on a Pope, for he never was!
I don't know Greg, even though it is impossible to prove the pope is not the pope regardless of however confident in your opinion you may be, I offered a few pretty basic ways to prove you are right - about both SVism and a BOD.
But you cannot even meet those few basic things to prove you're right, which you must do, and remember, the onus is on you, not me.
-
What I find incredible is the number of people who build straw man arguments claiming that Catholics actually hold that there is salvation outside the Church in the same manner as the Modernists hold.
And what I find incredible is how many believe that there is salvation for those who are, "invincibly ignorant through no fault of their own" and do not recognize they are Modernists.
-
You have nothing. You cannot rightly use Catholic teachings to support sedevacantism. It really all boils down to that, doesn't it.
You cannot provide one SV pope, Father or saint's teaching to support SVism because the whole idea is absurd. But that is your choice. No matter how badly you wish it weren't so, you will never in a thousand years find a Church teaching that permits you to declare the Chair Vacant, omit the pope's name from the Mass and obsess about "the pope problem".
Sorry, that's just the way it is.
No my dear Feeneyite, I DO, that's just the point.
Sedevacantism is not an alternative to Catholicism. Sedevacantists are Roman Catholics with a particular perspective on the Papacy, that he who says he is Pope, in fact never was, due to manifest heresy.
The Catholic theologians and saints support the possibility of such occurring as did the fathers of Vatican I.
So what is non-Catholic about saying it HAS happened?
I like how you said nothing in defense of your own rebellion either, nice evasion. :rolleyes:
I already told you there is only one way to convince me I am wrong and you are right about Fr. Feeney and the whole salvation via NSAA subject, but so far, all you've done is prove you're wrong and I'm right. So that's where that stands.
So the same goes for SVs adulterating Catholic teachings to agree with their OPINION. You do agree that SVism is only your opinion don't you? I hope so.
Simply provide just one Catholic teaching that teaches you are permitted or otherwise required to declare the Chair Vacant, omit the pope's name from the Mass and obsess about "the pope problem". At least by doing that, we can agree it is something the Church actually teaches.
Stubborn, you don't get to be right simply by claiming to be right. You are a Feeneyite in open rebellion against an official decree of the Holy Office, issued to clarify the stand Fr Feeney had taken.
What did Pope Pius IX say again on Tuas Libentur?
"It is not sufficient for Catholic savants to accept and respect the dogmas of the Church which We have been speaking about: they must, besides, submit themselves, whether to doctrinal decisions stemming from pontifical congregations, or to points of doctrine which, with common and constant consent, are held in the Church as truths and as theological conclusions so certain that opposing opinions, though they may not be dubbed heretical, nonetheless, merit some other form of theological censure."
Oh, that's right! But my bad, I forgot, this is a non-infallible docuмent even though Pope Pius XII said these very docuмents demand your submission AND you can't demonstrate a single heresy or error even in the ordinary Papal teaching. How sad to be so far removed from the Church!
Come on Stubborn! READ! Don't just speak without even thinking.
You are begging the question. You say we have no right to declare such about the Pope.
Stubborn! That's the whole point! He is NOT the Pope! It is a necessary theological conclusion based on reason! You cannot establish we have no right to say this about Francis, because what remains to be proved is whether he is Pope or not!
Therefore, is Francis Pope? That is the first question.
It is a theological necessity binding on the faithful that they answer, "No."
It is NOT opinion because there is no possibility of it being false.
1. The Pope and Christ are a single head of the Church, and it is through the Pipe that Christ Rules the Church, such that, "He who hears you hears me."
2. But Paul VI and his successors have officially promulgated in their own universal ordinary magisterium, in catechisms, in seminary training, through the various theologians, via Papal decree that Vatican II is to be held by all the faithful who owe it Religious assent. They have therefore enacted heresy and schism from within the heart of the Church.
3. Therefore, in order not to blaspheme the Lord Jesus and to not implicate our Lord in heresy and schism and apostasy, Paul VI must be officially and formally dissociated from that authority which IS Christs. He therefore is NOT the Pope, he has no jurisdiction and the faithful owe him nothing, and this from the first moment of his election.
Therefore, having certainly established he is NOT Pope, I say from the housetops:
THIS MAN is not Pope, it is theologically certain, and saying so I make no judgment on a Pope, for he never was!
I don't know Greg, even though it is impossible to prove the pope is not the pope regardless of however confident in your opinion you may be, I offered a few pretty basic ways to prove you are right - about both SVism and a BOD.
But you cannot even meet those few basic things to prove you're right, which you must do, and remember, the onus is on you, not me.
Which I have irrefutably demonstrated. Demonstrate the falsity of my argument. Please do!
-
I already told you there is only one way to convince me I am wrong and you are right about Fr. Feeney and the whole salvation via NSAA subject, but so far, all you've done is prove you're wrong and I'm right. So that's where that stands.
I truly am amazed at the number of Catholics holding the sede vacante position that believe in salvation via NSAA.
Even more amazing, not to derail the thread, is the amount of Catholics holding the sede vacante position that recognize the "conciliar popes" as heretics, yet share the same belief with these heretics when it comes to salvation via NSAA.
It's unbelievable to me that Catholics do not recognize that 99% of the problems with the apostate church derive from the belief that there IS salvation outside the Catholic Church.
Precisely. There is no salvation outside the Catholic Church, the recognized Catholic Church -- not a parallel Catholic Church which has been created by men and given itself supernatural power and authority. In that respect, Rorate recently published this:
http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2015/12/radicati-editorial-grace-not-revoltion.html
The more the crisis in the Church gets deeper and more terrible, the more we have to love Her. The more the scandals in the House of God increase, the more we have to love the Church. And this love must be very concrete and effective.
The right [we have] to react should never be separated from a profound love of Holy Mother Church - the Bride of Christ; we cannot play around with this.
On the other hand, you have to react and ask the Church to turn back to Tradition, by referring to what you have received from the Church Herself: Tradition to be exact. Being a traditional Catholic means doing just that.
Tradition belongs to the Church, it is not yours. You couldn’t appeal to Tradition if you hadn’t first received it. Yet, who did you receive it from if not from the Church Herself? Since you cannot follow Christ without the Church, as the Protestant crisis teaches us, in the same way you cannot be a Traditional Catholic without the Church.
The Protestants imagined union with Christ by breaking away from the Catholic Church and history itself, as a consequence they lost Him in the haze of a mythological past. If Traditional Catholics don’t persist in loving the Church fervently( even to the shedding of blood) they will be left with a Tradition that is empty, made of bitterness and recriminations: besides, Tradition without the Church doesn’t have Christ in it.
The words of St. Paul to the Corinthians might apply to the “sour Traditional Catholics” the non-lovers of the Church: “Or what hast thou that thou hast not received, and if thou hast received, why dost thou glory, as if thou hadst not received it? (1 Cor. 4, 7).
If it’s true that those who ask for obedience to the Church err, by submitting things that go against faith, morals, the Gospel and dogma (or neglecting them); those who are attached to dogma and the Gospel equally err, when they use them against the one and only Church of Christ.
All those who start off defending traditional Catholicism, risk this second error. They begin to dissent whether the Pope really is the Pope, or where the Church of God truly subsists. They extend their defense of Tradition into a field which is not of their competence, risking the grave danger of placing themselves outside the Church.
Father Calmel says: “The Church is not an institution of this world: She descends from Heaven, directly from God (…) The Church is invincible, even when Her children are subject to defeat and frequently vanquished; nonetheless, as long as they remain within Her, they will never be irreparably vanquished. When they are, it is because they have separated themselves from Her (…). She remains the infallible dispenser of salvation, the Holy Temple of God. Those who abandon Her are lost, but She is never lost.” (R.T. Calmel, A Brief Apology of the Everlasting Church, pages 17-18).
In short, the Church is one and only one. There is no traditional Church and no modernist Church, there is only one Catholic Church, whose children will risk perdition if they abandon Her, even with the excuse of defending Her.
To understand this it would be sufficient to repeat: we received the Tradition we are fighting for - from the Church - nay - it is the Church.
Furthermore, you didn’t receive Tradition, the Gospel, dogma, the sacraments and discipline once, but continue receiving them from the Church, the Mystical Body of Christ. So, it’s clear that in every decision and approach, you need to keep this unity in the Church and with the Church, without questioning Her visibility. Whoever the Pope or Bishop is, is directly God’s business, not yours. Those of you who understand the crisis in the Church, have a fundamental duty to hold firm to Her Tradition i.e. what the Church has said and done outside these terrible times of apostasy.
God has revealed Himself, He has given you reason to recognize His revelation and to preserve it; He doesn’t require you to be involved in ecclesiastical politics.
We need to avoid two extremes which are lethal to the faith: “authoritarianism” or “submissivism” on the one hand and “sedevacantism” on the other: both, in the long term, bring about atheism and loss of faith.
The first makes you stay in the Church under a false obedience which doesn’t safeguard the Gospel or the Sacraments; the second makes you seek a false, alternative Church: both of these errors come from an overly human vision of the Church. Both lack supernatural vision.
We need to be authentically traditional: the traditional Catholic stands before God, lovingly preserving the treasure of the Church. The sedevacantist, who invents another church or doesn’t know where the true Church is anymore, stands before himself, using the things he received from God.
Again, Father Calmel speaks, in a touching way, of true Christians - Christians according to Tradition, who preserve the faith with an immense love for the Church:
“These Christians, who preserve Tradition with no concessions to the revolution, in order to be fully children of the Church, desire ardently that their fidelity be penetrated with humility and fervor; they do not love sectarianism or ostentation. Where they are in the Church, which is modest and barely tolerated, they try to preserve what the Church has transmitted to them, well assured that She has never revoked anything, and they strive, in preserving it, to defend the spirit of what they are preserving.” (R.T: Calmel, op. cit. p. 101).
Let us pray dear people, that our love for the one visible Church increases as the winds of apostasy become increasingly violent.
Food for thought, i.m.h.o.
-
I already told you there is only one way to convince me I am wrong and you are right about Fr. Feeney and the whole salvation via NSAA subject, but so far, all you've done is prove you're wrong and I'm right. So that's where that stands.
I truly am amazed at the number of Catholics holding the sede vacante position that believe in salvation via NSAA.
Even more amazing, not to derail the thread, is the amount of Catholics holding the sede vacante position that recognize the "conciliar popes" as heretics, yet share the same belief with these heretics when it comes to salvation via NSAA.
It's unbelievable to me that Catholics do not recognize that 99% of the problems with the apostate church derive from the belief that there IS salvation outside the Catholic Church.
Precisely. There is no salvation outside the Catholic Church, the recognized Catholic Church -- not a parallel Catholic Church which has been created by men and given itself supernatural power and authority. In that respect, Rorate recently published this:
http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2015/12/radicati-editorial-grace-not-revoltion.html
The more the crisis in the Church gets deeper and more terrible, the more we have to love Her. The more the scandals in the House of God increase, the more we have to love the Church. And this love must be very concrete and effective.
The right [we have] to react should never be separated from a profound love of Holy Mother Church - the Bride of Christ; we cannot play around with this.
On the other hand, you have to react and ask the Church to turn back to Tradition, by referring to what you have received from the Church Herself: Tradition to be exact. Being a traditional Catholic means doing just that.
Tradition belongs to the Church, it is not yours. You couldn’t appeal to Tradition if you hadn’t first received it. Yet, who did you receive it from if not from the Church Herself? Since you cannot follow Christ without the Church, as the Protestant crisis teaches us, in the same way you cannot be a Traditional Catholic without the Church.
The Protestants imagined union with Christ by breaking away from the Catholic Church and history itself, as a consequence they lost Him in the haze of a mythological past. If Traditional Catholics don’t persist in loving the Church fervently( even to the shedding of blood) they will be left with a Tradition that is empty, made of bitterness and recriminations: besides, Tradition without the Church doesn’t have Christ in it.
The words of St. Paul to the Corinthians might apply to the “sour Traditional Catholics” the non-lovers of the Church: “Or what hast thou that thou hast not received, and if thou hast received, why dost thou glory, as if thou hadst not received it? (1 Cor. 4, 7).
If it’s true that those who ask for obedience to the Church err, by submitting things that go against faith, morals, the Gospel and dogma (or neglecting them); those who are attached to dogma and the Gospel equally err, when they use them against the one and only Church of Christ.
All those who start off defending traditional Catholicism, risk this second error. They begin to dissent whether the Pope really is the Pope, or where the Church of God truly subsists. They extend their defense of Tradition into a field which is not of their competence, risking the grave danger of placing themselves outside the Church.
Father Calmel says: “The Church is not an institution of this world: She descends from Heaven, directly from God (…) The Church is invincible, even when Her children are subject to defeat and frequently vanquished; nonetheless, as long as they remain within Her, they will never be irreparably vanquished. When they are, it is because they have separated themselves from Her (…). She remains the infallible dispenser of salvation, the Holy Temple of God. Those who abandon Her are lost, but She is never lost.” (R.T. Calmel, A Brief Apology of the Everlasting Church, pages 17-18).
In short, the Church is one and only one. There is no traditional Church and no modernist Church, there is only one Catholic Church, whose children will risk perdition if they abandon Her, even with the excuse of defending Her.
To understand this it would be sufficient to repeat: we received the Tradition we are fighting for - from the Church - nay - it is the Church.
Furthermore, you didn’t receive Tradition, the Gospel, dogma, the sacraments and discipline once, but continue receiving them from the Church, the Mystical Body of Christ. So, it’s clear that in every decision and approach, you need to keep this unity in the Church and with the Church, without questioning Her visibility. Whoever the Pope or Bishop is, is directly God’s business, not yours. Those of you who understand the crisis in the Church, have a fundamental duty to hold firm to Her Tradition i.e. what the Church has said and done outside these terrible times of apostasy.
God has revealed Himself, He has given you reason to recognize His revelation and to preserve it; He doesn’t require you to be involved in ecclesiastical politics.
We need to avoid two extremes which are lethal to the faith: “authoritarianism” or “submissivism” on the one hand and “sedevacantism” on the other: both, in the long term, bring about atheism and loss of faith.
The first makes you stay in the Church under a false obedience which doesn’t safeguard the Gospel or the Sacraments; the second makes you seek a false, alternative Church: both of these errors come from an overly human vision of the Church. Both lack supernatural vision.
We need to be authentically traditional: the traditional Catholic stands before God, lovingly preserving the treasure of the Church. The sedevacantist, who invents another church or doesn’t know where the true Church is anymore, stands before himself, using the things he received from God.
Again, Father Calmel speaks, in a touching way, of true Christians - Christians according to Tradition, who preserve the faith with an immense love for the Church:
“These Christians, who preserve Tradition with no concessions to the revolution, in order to be fully children of the Church, desire ardently that their fidelity be penetrated with humility and fervor; they do not love sectarianism or ostentation. Where they are in the Church, which is modest and barely tolerated, they try to preserve what the Church has transmitted to them, well assured that She has never revoked anything, and they strive, in preserving it, to defend the spirit of what they are preserving.” (R.T: Calmel, op. cit. p. 101).
Let us pray dear people, that our love for the one visible Church increases as the winds of apostasy become increasingly violent.
Food for thought, i.m.h.o.
Precisely why the Conciliar church doesn't make it:
It is man's Church, not Christs. It was created December 8th, 1965 by Paul VI, with an authority he did not have in an attempt to emulate the Protestants. It is the New High Anglican Church of our time, with the same moral depravity and doctrinal elasticity and liturgical poverty.
There will be no Catholic Pope until Vatican II is formally repudiated and removed from the Church.
-
I already told you there is only one way to convince me I am wrong and you are right about Fr. Feeney and the whole salvation via NSAA subject, but so far, all you've done is prove you're wrong and I'm right. So that's where that stands.
I truly am amazed at the number of Catholics holding the sede vacante position that believe in salvation via NSAA.
Even more amazing, not to derail the thread, is the amount of Catholics holding the sede vacante position that recognize the "conciliar popes" as heretics, yet share the same belief with these heretics when it comes to salvation via NSAA.
It's unbelievable to me that Catholics do not recognize that 99% of the problems with the apostate church derive from the belief that there IS salvation outside the Catholic Church.
Precisely. There is no salvation outside the Catholic Church, the recognized Catholic Church -- not a parallel Catholic Church which has been created by men and given itself supernatural power and authority. In that respect, Rorate recently published this:
http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2015/12/radicati-editorial-grace-not-revoltion.html
The more the crisis in the Church gets deeper and more terrible, the more we have to love Her. The more the scandals in the House of God increase, the more we have to love the Church. And this love must be very concrete and effective.
The right [we have] to react should never be separated from a profound love of Holy Mother Church - the Bride of Christ; we cannot play around with this.
On the other hand, you have to react and ask the Church to turn back to Tradition, by referring to what you have received from the Church Herself: Tradition to be exact. Being a traditional Catholic means doing just that.
Tradition belongs to the Church, it is not yours. You couldn’t appeal to Tradition if you hadn’t first received it. Yet, who did you receive it from if not from the Church Herself? Since you cannot follow Christ without the Church, as the Protestant crisis teaches us, in the same way you cannot be a Traditional Catholic without the Church.
The Protestants imagined union with Christ by breaking away from the Catholic Church and history itself, as a consequence they lost Him in the haze of a mythological past. If Traditional Catholics don’t persist in loving the Church fervently( even to the shedding of blood) they will be left with a Tradition that is empty, made of bitterness and recriminations: besides, Tradition without the Church doesn’t have Christ in it.
The words of St. Paul to the Corinthians might apply to the “sour Traditional Catholics” the non-lovers of the Church: “Or what hast thou that thou hast not received, and if thou hast received, why dost thou glory, as if thou hadst not received it? (1 Cor. 4, 7).
If it’s true that those who ask for obedience to the Church err, by submitting things that go against faith, morals, the Gospel and dogma (or neglecting them); those who are attached to dogma and the Gospel equally err, when they use them against the one and only Church of Christ.
All those who start off defending traditional Catholicism, risk this second error. They begin to dissent whether the Pope really is the Pope, or where the Church of God truly subsists. They extend their defense of Tradition into a field which is not of their competence, risking the grave danger of placing themselves outside the Church.
Father Calmel says: “The Church is not an institution of this world: She descends from Heaven, directly from God (…) The Church is invincible, even when Her children are subject to defeat and frequently vanquished; nonetheless, as long as they remain within Her, they will never be irreparably vanquished. When they are, it is because they have separated themselves from Her (…). She remains the infallible dispenser of salvation, the Holy Temple of God. Those who abandon Her are lost, but She is never lost.” (R.T. Calmel, A Brief Apology of the Everlasting Church, pages 17-18).
In short, the Church is one and only one. There is no traditional Church and no modernist Church, there is only one Catholic Church, whose children will risk perdition if they abandon Her, even with the excuse of defending Her.
To understand this it would be sufficient to repeat: we received the Tradition we are fighting for - from the Church - nay - it is the Church.
Furthermore, you didn’t receive Tradition, the Gospel, dogma, the sacraments and discipline once, but continue receiving them from the Church, the Mystical Body of Christ. So, it’s clear that in every decision and approach, you need to keep this unity in the Church and with the Church, without questioning Her visibility. Whoever the Pope or Bishop is, is directly God’s business, not yours. Those of you who understand the crisis in the Church, have a fundamental duty to hold firm to Her Tradition i.e. what the Church has said and done outside these terrible times of apostasy.
God has revealed Himself, He has given you reason to recognize His revelation and to preserve it; He doesn’t require you to be involved in ecclesiastical politics.
We need to avoid two extremes which are lethal to the faith: “authoritarianism” or “submissivism” on the one hand and “sedevacantism” on the other: both, in the long term, bring about atheism and loss of faith.
The first makes you stay in the Church under a false obedience which doesn’t safeguard the Gospel or the Sacraments; the second makes you seek a false, alternative Church: both of these errors come from an overly human vision of the Church. Both lack supernatural vision.
We need to be authentically traditional: the traditional Catholic stands before God, lovingly preserving the treasure of the Church. The sedevacantist, who invents another church or doesn’t know where the true Church is anymore, stands before himself, using the things he received from God.
Again, Father Calmel speaks, in a touching way, of true Christians - Christians according to Tradition, who preserve the faith with an immense love for the Church:
“These Christians, who preserve Tradition with no concessions to the revolution, in order to be fully children of the Church, desire ardently that their fidelity be penetrated with humility and fervor; they do not love sectarianism or ostentation. Where they are in the Church, which is modest and barely tolerated, they try to preserve what the Church has transmitted to them, well assured that She has never revoked anything, and they strive, in preserving it, to defend the spirit of what they are preserving.” (R.T: Calmel, op. cit. p. 101).
Let us pray dear people, that our love for the one visible Church increases as the winds of apostasy become increasingly violent.
Food for thought, i.m.h.o.
Precisely why the Conciliar church doesn't make it:
It is man's Church, not Christs. It was created December 8th, 1965 by Paul VI, with an authority he did not have in an attempt to emulate the Protestants. It is the New High Anglican Church of our time, with the same moral depravity and doctrinal elasticity and liturgical poverty.
Obviously the Conciliar Church is man's church. But so is the assumption of NSAA and the informal establishment of another parallel "church" through sedevacantism and the usurpation of authority. That was one of the points the author was making.
-
Which I have irrefutably demonstrated. Demonstrate the falsity of my argument. Please do!
You have not demonstrated anything. I already demonstrated the falsity of your argument.
Where is just one Catholic teaching that teaches you are permitted or otherwise required to declare the Chair Vacant, omit the pope's name from the Mass and obsess about "the pope problem"? At least by doing that, we can agree it is something the Church actually teaches. But you have not produced any such teaching, not even close.
And you refuse to start a thread promoting the necessity of the sacraments.
So all you've done is demonstrated that you cannot refute anything with Catholic teaching, only with your own opinion, which you cannot back up with Catholic teaching.
Again, it is you who must prove your opinion to be in line with the Catholic Church's teaching. You cannot find a teaching that teaches we are required to declare the Chair Vacant, omit the pope's name from the Mass and obsess about "the pope problem" - because the Catholic Church does not teach any such a thing.
There are numerous reasons the Church does not teach any such thing, first among them is because that teaching would necessarily HAVE to come via papal declaration. And to date, there has been no pope so stupid as to make such a declaration - because if he did, he would risk his own losing his own office when some group decided he was no longer pope.
-
Again, it is you who must prove your opinion to be in line with the Catholic Church's teaching. You cannot find a teaching that teaches we are required to declare the Chair Vacant, omit the pope's name from the Mass and obsess about "the pope problem" - because the Catholic Church does not teach any such a thing.
I haven't read every post here diligently and carefully (and many posts, not at all), so please identify a post in which anyone said Catholic teaching is that we are required to declare the Chair of Peter vacant. It would seem that this would be "dogmatic sedevacantism" which isn't even allowed on this forum.
Even the Dimond brothers, as far as I can tell, don't say that the Church teaches that we are required to do this.
Sedevacantists are trying to convince you to come to that conclusion based on reality. It is you who tell us that the Church absolutely forbids us to come to the sedevacantist conclusion.
-
Again, it is you who must prove your opinion to be in line with the Catholic Church's teaching. You cannot find a teaching that teaches we are required to declare the Chair Vacant, omit the pope's name from the Mass and obsess about "the pope problem" - because the Catholic Church does not teach any such a thing.
I haven't read every post here diligently and carefully (and many posts, not at all), so please identify a post in which anyone said Catholic teaching is that we are required to declare the Chair of Peter vacant. It would seem that this would be "dogmatic sedevacantism" which isn't even allowed on this forum.
Even the Dimond brothers, as far as I can tell, don't say that the Church teaches that we are required to do this.
Sedevacantists are trying to convince you to come to that conclusion based on reality. It is you who tell us that the Church absolutely forbids us to come to the sedevacantist conclusion.
If the Church does not require us to declare the Chair Vacant, then by whose authority do SVs omit the pope's name from the Mass?
Also, those exact words "are required", were not used, but more than once the opinion has become fact.......Stubborn! That's the whole point! He is NOT the Pope! It is a necessary theological conclusion based on reason!
You stated that the conclusion is based on reality - but the reality *actually is* that the pope is sitting in the chair - that *is* reality, because there he is, clown nose and all. I understand all the reasons why SVs claim otherwise, but those reasons do not change reality.
The conclusions of SVs are based off a premise of infallibility which is not a teaching of the Church. As such, basing conclusions off a premise which is not a teaching of the Church, leads to a conclusion which is not a teaching of the Church.
-
Again, it is you who must prove your opinion to be in line with the Catholic Church's teaching. You cannot find a teaching that teaches we are required to declare the Chair Vacant, omit the pope's name from the Mass and obsess about "the pope problem" - because the Catholic Church does not teach any such a thing.
I haven't read every post here diligently and carefully (and many posts, not at all), so please identify a post in which anyone said Catholic teaching is that we are required to declare the Chair of Peter vacant. It would seem that this would be "dogmatic sedevacantism" which isn't even allowed on this forum.
Even the Dimond brothers, as far as I can tell, don't say that the Church teaches that we are required to do this.
Sedevacantists are trying to convince you to come to that conclusion based on reality. It is you who tell us that the Church absolutely forbids us to come to the sedevacantist conclusion.
I would say it could be demonstrated theologically and is therefore certain. Insofar as it is certain it could oblige a person by reason to come to the same conclusion. Not because the Church declares it necessary, but because it is a certain conclusion from dogmatic facts and the consensus of theologians.
-
I would say it could be demonstrated theologically and is therefore certain. Insofar as it is certain it could oblige a person by reason to come to the same conclusion. Not because the Church declares it necessary, but because it is a certain conclusion from dogmatic facts and the consensus of theologians.
Re the bolded: Wrong. The Church would first have to declare that lay people are both permitted and required to interpret all the docuмents put forth by the magisterium (any level of magisterium), privately. And by that private interpretation to come to some "objectively" reasonable conclusion which other lay people have arbitrarily reached independently -- which same lay people have declared themselves authoritative sources of interpretation.
That's absurd. Why have a teaching office if Catholic Theology and Ecclesiology is merely DIY? That is also the Protestant approach.
-
I would say it could be demonstrated theologically and is therefore certain. Insofar as it is certain it could oblige a person by reason to come to the same conclusion. Not because the Church declares it necessary, but because it is a certain conclusion from dogmatic facts and the consensus of theologians.
Re the bolded: Wrong. The Church would first have to declare that lay people are both permitted and required to interpret all the docuмents put forth by the magisterium (any level of magisterium), privately. And by that private interpretation to come to some "objectively" reasonable conclusion which other lay people have arbitrarily reached independently -- which same lay people have declared themselves authoritative sources of interpretation.
That's absurd. Why have a teaching office if Catholic Theology and Ecclesiology is merely DIY? That is also the Protestant approach.
Bishop Sanborn Addressed this:
"That thesis is erroneous, even protestant, which places in the faithful the right of scrutinizing, by private judgment, the acts and magisterium of a general council and a pope. But in the thesis which you propose, the faithful scrutinize, by private judgment, the acts of the magisterium of a general council or pope. Therefore the thesis is erroneous, even protestant."
Resp. "I distinguish the major: the faithful do not have the right of scrutinizing, by private judgment, the acts and magisterium of a general council or pope, inasmuch as they (the faithful) are able to dissent from the magisterium of the Church, I concede; inasmuch as they are not able to compare the magisterium with preceding magisterium, I deny. And I counter distinguish the minor and I deny the conclusion. The faithful, in fact, must compare, because the Catholic Faith is one, and all its truths are consistent. Not even natural truth is able to tolerate contradiction, because it is unintelligible. Much more is contradiction repugnant to supernatural truth and to the supernatural habit by which one assents to these truths."
"If there is a contradiction between the magisterium of Vatican II and previous magisterium, the faithful must presume that the contradiction is merely apparent and not real. But in the thesis which you propose the faithful do not presume in such a way. Therefore the thesis is erroneous."
Resp. "I deny the major because it is absurd. It is metaphysically impossible to give assent to two dogmatic formulas which contradict each other. Therefore the faithful are not able to assent to the magisterium of the Second Vatican Council, and at the same time to previous magisterium because they contradict each other. In order, therefore, that the faithful assent to both at the same time, it would be necessary that they interpret, by means of their own private judgment, either one or the other act of magisterium, in order that they in some way become consistent. But in such a case the notion of magisterium is ruined, because the faithful relying on their own judgement, lose the supernatural motive of adherence to the magisterium. Furthermore, each one of the faithful would have his own personal interpretation, and would fall easily into error. To the contrary, the faithful are not able, by their private judgment to decide whether a contradiction in the magisterium is apparent or real, but they have a single duty with regard to a contradiction: to adhere to the previous magisterium and to reject the contradicting doctrine. To interpret the magisterium pertains only to the magisterium, and not to the faithful."
The faithful Magdala, have one job: Adhere to the prior magisterium and reject the innovation. That is the OPPOSITE of Protestant. It's exactly what the English Recusants did.
-
The faithful Magdala, have one job: Adhere to the prior magisterium and reject the innovation. That is the OPPOSITE of Protestant. It's exactly what the English Recusants did.
But first the faithful have to know what it is they are bound to believe, what is and is not infallible teaching, and what the ongoing deposit of faith actually is. Note that it is not only lay people who engage in unauthorized Private Interpretation of dogma, including encyclicals, apostolic letters, and much else. It is also random clerics who engage in rogue interpretations of all kinds.
Much of the argumentation on this thread pertains to disagreement about what Catholics are bound to believe from the non-prior (more recent) magisterium, and the assertion that lay Catholics are authorized to add their own voices to the list of mavericks doing what I described in the previous paragraph. That is not the opposite but the equivalent of Protestantism. Laymen have been shown how to do it by rogue bishops, cardinals, and priests by the legion. So now they feel free to, but it is no more Catholic when they do it.
-
There are numerous reasons the Church does not teach any such thing, first among them is because that teaching would necessarily HAVE to come via papal declaration. And to date, there has been no pope so stupid as to make such a declaration - because if he did, he would risk his own losing his own office when some group decided he was no longer pope.
This is where Stubborn shows that he opposes the teaching of Vatican Council 1870 by only accepting solemnly defined teaching.
-
The faithful Magdala, have one job: Adhere to the prior magisterium and reject the innovation. That is the OPPOSITE of Protestant. It's exactly what the English Recusants did.
But first the faithful have to know what it is they are bound to believe, what is and is not infallible teaching, and what the ongoing deposit of faith actually is. Note that it is not only lay people who engage in unauthorized Private Interpretation of dogma, including encyclicals, apostolic letters, and much else. It is also random clerics who engage in rogue interpretations of all kinds.
Much of the argumentation on this thread pertains to disagreement about what Catholics are bound to believe from the non-prior (more recent) magisterium, and the assertion that lay Catholics are authorized to add their own voices to the list of mavericks doing what I described in the previous paragraph. That is not the opposite but the equivalent of Protestantism. Laymen have been shown how to do it by rogue bishops, cardinals, and priests by the legion. So now they feel free to, but it is no more Catholic when they do it.
Church teaching is not "interpreted", only Scripture is. Church teaching is clear, at face value.
For you, and Stubborn, here is legislation from the 5th Lateran Council under Pope Julius II dealing with a pope who was invalidly elected by being guilty of heresy because of an act of simony pertaining to the election. Here are some excerpts from that legislation:
"...even if the election resulted in a majority of two-thirds or in the unanimous choice of all the cardinals, or even in a spontaneous agreement on the part of all, without a scrutiny being made, then not only is this election or choice itself null, and does not bestow on the person elected or chosen in this fashion any right of either spiritual or temporal administration, but also there can be alleged and presented, against the person elected or chosen in this manner, by any one of the cardinals who has taken part in the election, the charge of simony, as a true and unquestionable heresy, so that the one elected is not regarded by anyone as the Roman pontiff."
"A further consequence is that the person elected in this manner is automatically deprived, without the need of any other declaration, of his cardinal's rank and of all other honors whatsoever..."
"...the elected person is to be regarded as, and is in fact, not a follower of the apostles but an apostate and,....and a heresiarch..."
"It shall be lawful for.... all the clergy and the Roman people, ....to withdraw without penalty and at any time from obedience and loyalty to the person so elected even if he has been enthroned (while they themselves, notwithstanding this, remain fully committed to the faith of the Roman church and to obedience towards a future Roman pontiff entering office in accordance with the canons) and to avoid him as...a heresiarch."
"Those who break off obedience to him are not to be subject to any penalties and censures for the said separation..."
-
There are numerous reasons the Church does not teach any such thing, first among them is because that teaching would necessarily HAVE to come via papal declaration. And to date, there has been no pope so stupid as to make such a declaration - because if he did, he would risk his own losing his own office when some group decided he was no longer pope.
This is where Stubborn shows that he opposes the teaching of Vatican Council 1870 by only accepting solemnly defined teaching.
Actually McCork, this is just another subject where you demonstrate your own ignorance.
First, only the authority of a pope could declare it the duty of his own subjects to judge him and future popes - a Council could never lawfully do such a thing since they are the pope's subjects, not his superior, nor could the UOM bind anyone to such a thing, nor has any Catholic saint, father or theologian ever taught such a thing - that type of thing, as you should have learned by now, is strictly a prot or a sedevcantist teaching, taught by sedevacantists obsessed with "the pope problem".
Second, the pertinent point you actually missed is the rest of the post where I said; "And to date, there has been no pope so stupid as to make such a declaration - because if he did, he would risk losing his own office when some group decided he was no longer pope."
Now if YOU were pope, YOU might be stupid enough to teach such a thing, but that's only because you are a sedevacantist, which ipso facto would be all any group needs to promptly depose you officially within minutes after you made such a stupid declaration.
Do you understand how that works now?
And again, you need to stop using Catholic popes', councils' and theologians' teachings to support SVism and start using only teachings from sedevacantist popes', councils' and theologians' to support SVism. Otherwise you'll keep corrupting Catholic teaching to suit your opinion, which helps only to scandalize the unknowing into SVism.
-
There are numerous reasons the Church does not teach any such thing, first among them is because that teaching would necessarily HAVE to come via papal declaration. And to date, there has been no pope so stupid as to make such a declaration - because if he did, he would risk his own losing his own office when some group decided he was no longer pope.
This is where Stubborn shows that he opposes the teaching of Vatican Council 1870 by only accepting solemnly defined teaching.
Actually McCork, this is just another subject where you demonstrate your own ignorance.
First, only the authority of a pope could declare it the duty of his own subjects to judge him and future popes - a Council could never lawfully do such a thing since they are the pope's subjects, not his superior, nor could the UOM bind anyone to such a thing, nor has any Catholic saint, father or theologian ever taught such a thing - that type of thing, as you should have learned by now, is strictly a prot or a sedevcantist teaching, taught by sedevacantists obsessed with "the pope problem".
Second, the pertinent point you actually missed is the rest of the post where I said; "And to date, there has been no pope so stupid as to make such a declaration - because if he did, he would risk losing his own office when some group decided he was no longer pope."
Now if YOU were pope, YOU might be stupid enough to teach such a thing, but that's only because you are a sedevacantist, which ipso facto would be all any group needs to promptly depose you officially within minutes after you made such a stupid declaration.
Do you understand how that works now?
And again, you need to stop using Catholic popes', councils' and theologians' teachings to support SVism and start using only teachings from sedevacantist popes', councils' and theologians' to support SVism. Otherwise you'll keep corrupting Catholic teaching to suit your opinion, which helps only to scandalize the unknowing into SVism.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .(http://i.imgur.com/0UQrTWj.jpg)
-
Church teaching is not "interpreted", only Scripture is. Church teaching is clear, at face value.
For you, and Stubborn, here is legislation from the 5th Lateran Council under Pope Julius II dealing with a pope who was invalidly elected by being guilty of heresy because of an act of simony pertaining to the election. Here are some excerpts from that legislation:
Now see, here is yet another example of you taking a teaching of the Catholic Church from the supreme authority of Pope Julius II and the Council, and corrupting it in yet another attempt to use Catholic teaching to support your sv opinion - as you scandalously mis-interpret that which you say is not to be interpreted.
You said the encyclical is dealing with legislation from a pope about "a pope who was invalidly elected by being guilty of heresy because of an act of simony pertaining to the election"
Which pope are you referring to who was invalidly elected? Please name him. Also what heresy was he guilty of?
Hopefully, after you carefully study the above encyclical and discover you've made yet another SV blunder, you will understand why it is with very good reason that I keep imploring you to stop corrupting Catholic sources to support your sedevacantism. Again, start using only teachings from sedevacantists popes, saints and theologians to support sedevacantism for in so doing, you will no longer corrupt Catholic teaching to support your sedevacantism.
-
Church teaching is not "interpreted", only Scripture is. Church teaching is clear, at face value.
For you, and Stubborn, here is legislation from the 5th Lateran Council under Pope Julius II dealing with a pope who was invalidly elected by being guilty of heresy because of an act of simony pertaining to the election. Here are some excerpts from that legislation:
Now see, here is yet another example of you taking a teaching of the Catholic Church from the supreme authority of Pope Julius II and the Council, and corrupting it in yet another attempt to use Catholic teaching to support your sv opinion - as you scandalously mis-interpret that which you say is not to be interpreted.
You said the encyclical is dealing with legislation from a pope about "a pope who was invalidly elected by being guilty of heresy because of an act of simony pertaining to the election"
Which pope are you referring to who was invalidly elected? Please name him. Also what heresy was he guilty of?
Hopefully, after you carefully study the above encyclical and discover you've made yet another SV blunder, you will understand why it is with very good reason that I keep imploring you to stop corrupting Catholic sources to support your sedevacantism. Again, start using only teachings from sedevacantists popes, saints and theologians to support sedevacantism for in so doing, you will no longer corrupt Catholic teaching to support your sedevacantism.
You just corrupted that papal docuмent. The docuмent has nothing to do with it already having occurred. It has to do with the possibility of it occurring, and the rightful actions of those who experience it if it does happen.
-
Church teaching is not "interpreted", only Scripture is. Church teaching is clear, at face value.
For you, and Stubborn, here is legislation from the 5th Lateran Council under Pope Julius II dealing with a pope who was invalidly elected by being guilty of heresy because of an act of simony pertaining to the election. Here are some excerpts from that legislation:
Now see, here is yet another example of you taking a teaching of the Catholic Church from the supreme authority of Pope Julius II and the Council, and corrupting it in yet another attempt to use Catholic teaching to support your sv opinion - as you scandalously mis-interpret that which you say is not to be interpreted.
You said the encyclical is dealing with legislation from a pope about "a pope who was invalidly elected by being guilty of heresy because of an act of simony pertaining to the election"
Which pope are you referring to who was invalidly elected? Please name him. Also what heresy was he guilty of?
Hopefully, after you carefully study the above encyclical and discover you've made yet another SV blunder, you will understand why it is with very good reason that I keep imploring you to stop corrupting Catholic sources to support your sedevacantism. Again, start using only teachings from sedevacantists popes, saints and theologians to support sedevacantism for in so doing, you will no longer corrupt Catholic teaching to support your sedevacantism.
You just corrupted that papal docuмent. The docuмent has nothing to do with it already having occurred. It has to do with the possibility of it occurring, and the rightful actions of those who experience it if it does happen.
Here again, you are guilty of numerous offenses of adulterating the above teaching and the hits just keep on coming.
First you are guilty of falsely claiming that the Council's legislation was about "a pope who was invalidly elected" - which it was nothing of the sort. But now, after I pointed this out to you, suddenly you change your tune to "The docuмent has nothing to do with it already having occurred." This demonstrates that your dishonesty is multiplied.
Second, you imply the "rightful actions" are those same actions that sedevacantists practice, but this is wrong because "the docuмent" teaches nothing of the sort - so once again I will point out to you that the actions pope Julius II teaches, are first off, directed exclusively and only to Cardinals. Even then, the "rightful actions" which the pope numerates as:
1) "to withdraw without penalty and at any time from obedience and loyalty to the person so elected even if he has been enthroned"
2) "to avoid him"
3) "cardinals who wish to oppose the aforesaid election can ask for the help of the secular arm against him."
Again, it should be obvious to you by now as to why I keep imploring you to stop corrupting Catholic sources to support your sedevacantism and to start using only teachings from sedevacantists popes, saints and theologians to support sedevacantism.
-
Church teaching is not "interpreted", only Scripture is. Church teaching is clear, at face value.
For you, and Stubborn, here is legislation from the 5th Lateran Council under Pope Julius II dealing with a pope who was invalidly elected by being guilty of heresy because of an act of simony pertaining to the election. Here are some excerpts from that legislation:
Now see, here is yet another example of you taking a teaching of the Catholic Church from the supreme authority of Pope Julius II and the Council, and corrupting it in yet another attempt to use Catholic teaching to support your sv opinion - as you scandalously mis-interpret that which you say is not to be interpreted.
You said the encyclical is dealing with legislation from a pope about "a pope who was invalidly elected by being guilty of heresy because of an act of simony pertaining to the election"
Which pope are you referring to who was invalidly elected? Please name him. Also what heresy was he guilty of?
Hopefully, after you carefully study the above encyclical and discover you've made yet another SV blunder, you will understand why it is with very good reason that I keep imploring you to stop corrupting Catholic sources to support your sedevacantism. Again, start using only teachings from sedevacantists popes, saints and theologians to support sedevacantism for in so doing, you will no longer corrupt Catholic teaching to support your sedevacantism.
You just corrupted that papal docuмent. The docuмent has nothing to do with it already having occurred. It has to do with the possibility of it occurring, and the rightful actions of those who experience it if it does happen.
Here again, you are guilty of numerous offenses of adulterating the above teaching and the hits just keep on coming.
First you are guilty of falsely claiming that the Council's legislation was about "a pope who was invalidly elected" - which it was nothing of the sort. But now, after I pointed this out to you, suddenly you change your tune to "The docuмent has nothing to do with it already having occurred." This demonstrates that your dishonesty is multiplied.
Second, you imply the "rightful actions" are those same actions that sedevacantists practice, but this is wrong because "the docuмent" teaches nothing of the sort - so once again I will point out to you that the actions pope Julius II teaches, are first off, directed exclusively and only to Cardinals. Even then, the "rightful actions" which the pope numerates as:
1) "to withdraw without penalty and at any time from obedience and loyalty to the person so elected even if he has been enthroned"
2) "to avoid him"
3) "cardinals who wish to oppose the aforesaid election can ask for the help of the secular arm against him."
Again, it should be obvious to you by now as to why I keep imploring you to stop corrupting Catholic sources to support your sedevacantism and to start using only teachings from sedevacantists popes, saints and theologians to support sedevacantism.
You either have a deplorable reading comprehension, or you are a mental case.
-
:roll-laugh1: :roll-laugh1: :roll-laugh1: :roll-laugh1: :roll-laugh1:
Stubborn, please, please, enough.
Firstly, Sedevacantism is simply the current state of the Catholic Church. It isn't an ideology or a conspiracy, it is a theologically deducible reality, as I have stated many times, and which you cannot refute, at all. The depths of your misunderstanding are so precipitous, that you actually take the obvious and claim it is obscure.
The idea that whether the man who calls himself the Pope truly IS the pope cannot merely be a matter of "opinion." It really is not. Either he is, or he is not.
Consider what an opinion is: A thing may or may not be true, and you have no way to know for sure, but for some reason or other, you adopt a point of view which could inherently be wrong.
This is not possible in the current situation. The reason is that it is so theologically necessary that this man NOT be Pope, that it is a certain theological conclusion. This cannot therefore merely be a matter of opinion.
For example, there are certain elements that necessitate he NOT be Pope:
1. The Church is indefectible
2. Christ and his Vicar are a single head for the Church.
3. A True Pope cannot officially promulgate error in his magisterial teaching.
4. All the bishops of the world taken together can only be infallible if united to their head, the Pope (Which explains Vatican II's failure)
But Vatican II is full of heresies and errors. Paul VI promulgated Vatican II. It is therefore Necessary, that his papal authority be completely dissociated from Christ, therefore he never shared his headship or had his Divine assistance.
For this reason, Vatican II failed as a council, there was no papal authority to authentically guide all the bishops in their resolve to expound the truth.
These are necessary theological and logical conclusions. They do not admit the possibility of their opposite, they therefore do not admit the possibility of being mere opinions, but are certain, not on MY say so, but because of the very nature of dogma: Unchangeable, irreformable, inflexible.
Opinionsim is the bane of the devil, because it destroys Catholic dogma.
-
Church teaching is not "interpreted", only Scripture is. Church teaching is clear, at face value.
For you, and Stubborn, here is legislation from the 5th Lateran Council under Pope Julius II dealing with a pope who was invalidly elected by being guilty of heresy because of an act of simony pertaining to the election. Here are some excerpts from that legislation:
Now see, here is yet another example of you taking a teaching of the Catholic Church from the supreme authority of Pope Julius II and the Council, and corrupting it in yet another attempt to use Catholic teaching to support your sv opinion - as you scandalously mis-interpret that which you say is not to be interpreted.
You said the encyclical is dealing with legislation from a pope about "a pope who was invalidly elected by being guilty of heresy because of an act of simony pertaining to the election"
Which pope are you referring to who was invalidly elected? Please name him. Also what heresy was he guilty of?
Hopefully, after you carefully study the above encyclical and discover you've made yet another SV blunder, you will understand why it is with very good reason that I keep imploring you to stop corrupting Catholic sources to support your sedevacantism. Again, start using only teachings from sedevacantists popes, saints and theologians to support sedevacantism for in so doing, you will no longer corrupt Catholic teaching to support your sedevacantism.
You just corrupted that papal docuмent. The docuмent has nothing to do with it already having occurred. It has to do with the possibility of it occurring, and the rightful actions of those who experience it if it does happen.
Here again, you are guilty of numerous offenses of adulterating the above teaching and the hits just keep on coming.
First you are guilty of falsely claiming that the Council's legislation was about "a pope who was invalidly elected" - which it was nothing of the sort. But now, after I pointed this out to you, suddenly you change your tune to "The docuмent has nothing to do with it already having occurred." This demonstrates that your dishonesty is multiplied.
Second, you imply the "rightful actions" are those same actions that sedevacantists practice, but this is wrong because "the docuмent" teaches nothing of the sort - so once again I will point out to you that the actions pope Julius II teaches, are first off, directed exclusively and only to Cardinals. Even then, the "rightful actions" which the pope numerates as:
1) "to withdraw without penalty and at any time from obedience and loyalty to the person so elected even if he has been enthroned"
2) "to avoid him"
3) "cardinals who wish to oppose the aforesaid election can ask for the help of the secular arm against him."
Again, it should be obvious to you by now as to why I keep imploring you to stop corrupting Catholic sources to support your sedevacantism and to start using only teachings from sedevacantists popes, saints and theologians to support sedevacantism.
You either have a deplorable reading comprehension, or you are a mental case.
I understand you are confounded by Catholic Church teachings which I quoted just for you, however, if you will henceforth agree to only use the teachings of sedevacantist popes, councils and fathers, in time it should help clear up your confusion between Catholic teaching and sedevacantist teachings.
-
:roll-laugh1: :roll-laugh1: :roll-laugh1: :roll-laugh1: :roll-laugh1:
Stubborn, please, please, enough.
Firstly, Sedevacantism is simply the current state of the Catholic Church.
It isn't an ideology or a conspiracy, it is a theologically deducible reality, as I have stated many times, and which you cannot refute, at all. The depths of your misunderstanding are so precipitous, that you actually take the obvious and claim it is obscure.
The idea that whether the man who calls himself the Pope truly IS the pope cannot merely be a matter of "opinion." It really is not. Either he is, or he is not.
Consider what an opinion is: A thing may or may not be true, and you have no way to know for sure, but for some reason or other, you adopt a point of view which could inherently be wrong.
This is not possible in the current situation. The reason is that it is so theologically necessary that this man NOT be Pope, that it is a certain theological conclusion. This cannot therefore merely be a matter of opinion.
For example, there are certain elements that necessitate he NOT be Pope:
1. The Church is indefectible
2. Christ and his Vicar are a single head for the Church.
3. A True Pope cannot officially promulgate error in his magisterial teaching.
4. All the bishops of the world taken together can only be infallible if united to their head, the Pope (Which explains Vatican II's failure)
But Vatican II is full of heresies and errors. Paul VI promulgated Vatican II. It is therefore Necessary, that his papal authority be completely dissociated from Christ, therefore he never shared his headship or had his Divine assistance.
For this reason, Vatican II failed as a council, there was no papal authority to authentically guide all the bishops in their resolve to expound the truth.
These are necessary theological and logical conclusions. They do not admit the possibility of their opposite, they therefore do not admit the possibility of being mere opinions, but are certain, not on MY say so, but because of the very nature of dogma: Unchangeable, irreformable, inflexible.
Opinionsim is the bane of the devil, because it destroys Catholic dogma.
You really need to stop using Catholic Church teaching to support your sedevacantism.
Your conclusion is wrong because the premise you base your conclusion on is wrong. It is wrong because it corrupts Catholic teaching. This has been pointed out to you numerous times yet you refuse to accept that for the fact that it is.
-
For McCork, Gregory I and all SVs,
If the pope were to come out after V2 and say; "Attention all, I am out to destroy the Church, and toward that end along with my hierarchy, I have introduced the New Order and decided to call the new service, "the New mass" and I am hoping that you all will go along with it and participate in this effort."
This would not be something that as a pope, he is incapable of doing. There is nothing to stop him or any past pope from doing such a thing - nothing at all.
All the pope did was word it differently, the idiot sheeple are the ones who went along with it because like SVs, they believed that whatever the pope said was automatically infallible.
-
I understand you are confounded by Catholic Church teachings which I quoted just for you, however, if you will henceforth agree to only use the teachings of sedevacantist popes, councils and fathers, in time it should help clear up your confusion between Catholic teaching and sedevacantist teachings.
Pardon me, but what do you mean by "sedevacantist popes?"
-
I understand you are confounded by Catholic Church teachings which I quoted just for you, however, if you will henceforth agree to only use the teachings of sedevacantist popes, councils and fathers, in time it should help clear up your confusion between Catholic teaching and sedevacantist teachings.
Pardon me, but what do you mean by "sedevacantist popes?"
An example of a sedevacantist pope is like, say if Fr. Cekada, or +Sanborn or Richard Ibranyi, PaulFC, Gregory I or McCork or etc. won the papal election, we'd have a bonafide sedevacantist pope who would teach that we are permitted or otherwise required to declare the Chair Vacant, omit the pope's name from the Mass and obsess about "the pope problem".
The only problem with that is because they are sedevacantists, by that very fact would be all any group needs to promptly depose them officially within minutes. IOW, their own teaching authorizes us to declare they are not the pope, that the Chair is Vacant, omit his name from the Mass and obsess about "the pope problem".
-
I understand you are confounded by Catholic Church teachings which I quoted just for you, however, if you will henceforth agree to only use the teachings of sedevacantist popes, councils and fathers, in time it should help clear up your confusion between Catholic teaching and sedevacantist teachings.
Pardon me, but what do you mean by "sedevacantist popes?"
An example of a sedevacantist pope is like, say if Fr. Cekada, or +Sanborn or Richard Ibranyi, PaulFC, Gregory I or McCork or etc. won the papal election, we'd have a bonafide sedevacantist pope who would teach that we are permitted or otherwise required to declare the Chair Vacant, omit the pope's name from the Mass and obsess about "the pope problem".
The only problem with that is because they are sedevacantists, by that very fact would be all any group needs to promptly depose them officially within minutes. IOW, their own teaching authorizes us to declare they are not the pope, that the Chair is Vacant, omit his name from the Mass and obsess about "the pope problem".
Stubborn, Sedevacantism is not an ideology, it is a theological conclusion.
Sedevacantists ARE Roman Catholics. They are simply Roman Catholics who believe the man who claims to be Pope, cannot in fact be Pope. You have only NOW grabbed onto this ridiculous insistence that sedevacantists are NOT Catholic. THis is absurd. The position is simply that this man cannot be Pope, and the necessary theological conclusions as a result.
That's all.
Now, what is NOT Catholic is claiming, as you so erroneously do, that the POPE can fall into heresy, potentially in any Papal Magisterial text. YOu already have affirmed his potential for error is unlimited, and that the UOM MUST be extensive throughout time, not simply what all bishops in the world are teaching TODAY united to the Pope.
But this is stupid, because you posit a Magisterium that can be potentially unfaithful to itself and that needs to be constantly corrected by People such as you, This is EXACTLY what makes you a Feeneyite. You have taken the teaching of the UPM and made it a matter of private interpretation.
IN doing so you destroy the unity of the Church, you destroy the Solidity of the Papal office, and you subject everything to your own pet understandings, pet theology, and pet ideas.
This makes you a Protestant, not a Catholic.
-
I understand you are confounded by Catholic Church teachings which I quoted just for you, however, if you will henceforth agree to only use the teachings of sedevacantist popes, councils and fathers, in time it should help clear up your confusion between Catholic teaching and sedevacantist teachings.
Pardon me, but what do you mean by "sedevacantist popes?"
An example of a sedevacantist pope is like, say if Fr. Cekada, or +Sanborn or Richard Ibranyi, PaulFC, Gregory I or McCork or etc. won the papal election, we'd have a bonafide sedevacantist pope who would teach that we are permitted or otherwise required to declare the Chair Vacant, omit the pope's name from the Mass and obsess about "the pope problem".
The only problem with that is because they are sedevacantists, by that very fact would be all any group needs to promptly depose them officially within minutes. IOW, their own teaching authorizes us to declare they are not the pope, that the Chair is Vacant, omit his name from the Mass and obsess about "the pope problem".
Stubborn, Sedevacantism is not an ideology, it is a theological conclusion.
A conclusion which for most SVs, is based mainly on a false premise of infallibility and indefectibility, and for many other SVs, it's a combination of that false premise combined with "Francis’ outrageous public statements and madcap antics have led more and more traditionalists to embrace sedevacantism, and many more to consider doing the same."- Fr. Cekada
Sedevacantists ARE Roman Catholics. They are simply Roman Catholics who believe the man who claims to be Pope, cannot in fact be Pope. You have only NOW grabbed onto this ridiculous insistence that sedevacantists are NOT Catholic. THis is absurd. The position is simply that this man cannot be Pope, and the necessary theological conclusions as a result.
That's all.
Actually, I realized that some SVs' preach a religion that's not Catholic about a year ago - back in the days of Nado. Some of the things that guy tried to pass off as Catholic came right out of a SV comic book, but the really scary part is that many here agreed with him.
The problem as I see it, is that as a group, sedevacantists have a different Lex Orandi than Catholics, which means there are two different Lex Credendi's - this is one of the reasons for all the debates. No need to elaborate as I think this should be self explanatory.
Now, what is NOT Catholic is claiming, as you so erroneously do, that the POPE can fall into heresy, potentially in any Papal Magisterial text. YOu already have affirmed his potential for error is unlimited, and that the UOM MUST be extensive throughout time, not simply what all bishops in the world are teaching TODAY united to the Pope.
But this is stupid, because you posit a Magisterium that can be potentially unfaithful to itself and that needs to be constantly corrected by People such as you, This is EXACTLY what makes you a Feeneyite. You have taken the teaching of the UPM and made it a matter of private interpretation.
Here again, the disconnect between sede Lex Orandi and Catholic Lex Orandi means that we may as well be speaking two different languages. For example.......
A few posts ago, I posted direct quotes from Magisterial teachings that explicitly instructed us what it is that we are supposed to do about a heretical pope, yet the sede reply was I "either have a deplorable reading comprehension, or you are a mental case." You call this explicit rejection of clear papal teaching Catholic? I don't.
This is such a common occurrence played over repeatedly in this forum, that for sede's, Catholic teaching of a pope from the 5th Lateran Council is deemed insane. This is what YOU call Catholic. Why do sede's yearn for a "true" pope when they reject teachings from past popes?
Further, according to SV belief, the clear teaching of the above pope from the 5th Lateran Council is automatically infallible - so what the SV did was reject infallible teaching and did so by claiming ex cathedra teaching is insane. This is what YOU call Catholic?
And you say I am protestant? If it weren't so sad it would win awards for the best comedy of the year.
-
A few posts ago, I posted direct quotes from Magisterial teachings that explicitly instructed us what it is that we are supposed to do about a heretical pope, yet the sede reply was I "either have a deplorable reading comprehension, or you are a mental case." You call this explicit rejection of clear papal teaching Catholic? I don't.
The docuмented by pope Julius II and the 5th Lateran Council that I quoted said,
IF
It was all about "if" it happens. Yet, you responded with,
"Which pope are you referring to who was invalidly elected? Please name him. Also what heresy was he guilty of?”
This is clearly why I responded about you having a deplorable reading comprehension or being a mental case.
You said it was directed at only the cardinals, but it clearly wasn't. The docuмent says,
"the unanimous choice of all the cardinals, or even in a spontaneous agreement on the part of all"
meaning that all the cardinals could go along with the invalid election of the heresiarch, and that, "the one elected is not regarded by anyone as the Roman Pontiff".
Read again - can be regarded by "anyone" as not being the pope.
-
You need to read what I wrote. If you do that, you will see I quoted the pope exactly.
But what the pope states goes against your belief, so rather than submit to the clear teaching from the pope, you reject it by making lame excuses which all point to the pope not meaning what he said - which does not change the fact that you reject it.
-
http://www.novusordowatch.org/true-or-false-popes.htm
-
http://www.novusordowatch.org/true-or-false-popes.htm
Have you or has any SV ever considered, that if you were to be elected the "true" pope tomorrow, that based on your own beliefs literally any group or any one could and actually would be expected to immediately dethrone you via an Easy-to-Follow Syllogistic Argument (http://www.novusordowatch.org/wire/syllogism-of-sedevacantism.htm)?
I'm just curious if this thought has ever entered into the thinking of the sedevacantist.
-
http://www.novusordowatch.org/true-or-false-popes.htm
Thanks for that. From that page I followed the links to https://stevensperay.files.wordpress.com/2015/11/canon-10-of-the-fourth-council-of-constantinople7.pdf which contained a short refutation of one of Salza and Siscoe's arguments:
Canon 10 of the Fourth Council of Constantinople and Sedevacantism
Just when you think you’ve heard all the arguments against sedevacantism, Robert Siscoe emails me his private interpretation of canon 10 of the Fourth Council of Constantinople, and declared, “This is the nail in the coffin for Sedevacantism.”
Below is the relevant canon and Siscoe’s private interpretation...
The Fourth Council of Constantinople: “As divine scripture clearly proclaims, ‘Do not find fault before you investigate, and understand first and then find fault.’ And does our law judge a person without first giving him a hearing and learning what he does? Consequently this holy and universal synod justly and fittingly declares and lays down that no lay person or monk or cleric should separate himself from communion with his own patriarch before a careful inquiry and judgment in synod. If anyone shall be found defying this holy synod, he is to be debarred from all priestly functions and status if he is a bishop or cleric; if a monk or lay person, he must be excluded from all communion and meetings of the church [i.e. excommunicated] until he is converted by repentance and reconciled” (Canon 10).
The Fourth Council of Constantinople attached an excommunicated to any layman who separated himself from his patriarch before the Church itself rendered a judgment. There was no exception make for the layman who personally believed his patriarch had professed heresy. Even in that case, the Church must establish the crime...It condemns you and every other Sedevacantist...
If you arrive at your particular judgment damned for doing precisely what the Council attaches an excommunication to laymen for doing, you won’t be able to claim ignorance. And the fact that you would strive to get others to follow you into this misfortune, by trying to persuade them to also do precisely what the Council condemns, is even worse. It is one thing for you to publicly flaunt this teaching and do precisely what the council condemns, and another to try to persuade others to do the same. How will you answer for that on judgment day? Instead of attacking the one true Church, outside of which there is no salvation or remission of sin, you should further reflect on what this council teaches...
Constantinople Four buries the entire Sedevacantists position. Hopefully you will consider tht teaching, abandon the heretical sedevacantist sect, and convert to the true Church, outside of which there is no salvation. Only then will your eyes be opened. As the Fathers taught, those outside the Church simply cannot see. And those who spend their lives attacking the true Church as it endures its Passion (as do the Sedevacantists), reap the fruit of a special species of blindness. That is the only explanation I can come up with to explain the inability of Sedevacantists to see their way out of their glaring errors.
Siscoe presents what he thinks is another one of his be-all-end-all of arguments against sedevacantism. We’ve seen how he’s done this before with his “dogmatic facts” argument which I answer here: Robert Siscoe Caught in His Own Trap Against Sedevacantism (https://stevensperay.wordpress.com/2014/10/26/robert-siscoe-caught-in-his-own-trap-against-sedevacantism/) and “warning” argument answered here: Definitive Proof that St. Robert Bellarmine Supports the Sedevacantist Position (https://stevensperay.wordpress.com/2014/09/24/definitive-proof-that-st-robert-bellarmine-supports-the-sedevacantist-position/), and here: Steven Speray responds to Robert Siscoe and The Remnant (https://stevensperay.files.wordpress.com/2015/04/steven-speray-responds-to-robert-siscoe-and-the-remnan1.pdf). In both arguments, Siscoe grossly misrepresented St. Robert Bellarmine, Cardinal Billot, and Fr. Sylvester Berry. His latest is no different. Siscoe creates an argument that’s not there because his interpretation of canon 10 and his understanding of Catholic theology are severely flawed.
The reason Canon 10 was established is due to the fact that layman Photius usurped the office of Patriarch of Constantinople from the rightful Patriarch Ignatius. Theodora’s son,
Emperor Michael III, deposed Ignatius for refusing Communion (on the great Feast of the Epiphany) to Theodora’s brother, Bardas, for living in incest with his daughter-in-law Eudocia. Photius and the Emperor Michael III rashly judged and misrepresented the facts about Ignatius and gathered supporters, thereby withdrawing their allegiance to Ignatius. Photius also preached heresy.
Since history also tells us that emperors have the power to validly appoint patriarchs, Photius would appear to be a valid patriarch on that point alone. Yet, canon 10 couldn’t refer to usurpers to the throne such as Photius. Waiting around for some trial would only cause one to be condemned (as Photius’ supporters) for obedience to the canon, which would be absurd. Therefore, the canon is only referring to valid patriarchs, not usurpers. This is an important distinction.
Another important distinction in the canon is the fact that it’s referring to particular types of sins and/or crimes. Note the key words in the canon, “investigate”, “understand first” and “learning what he does.”
These words necessarily exclude manifest heresy, because manifest heresy is not something that needs to be investigated, or else it wouldn’t be manifest. It’s already understood because the facts are already established. There’s no need to learn what a manifest heretic does since he doesn’t profess the Faith, rather, he rejects it publicly. Manifest heresy is not merely a crime, but a sin against God.
Robert Siscoe (along with John Salza) repeatedly teaches the error that the sin of heresy belongs to the internal forum only. However, Pope Pius XII hammers the real nail in Siscoe and Salza’s coffin by declaring in Mystici Corporis Christi: “That the Church is a body is frequently asserted in the Sacred Scriptures. ‘Christ,’ says the Apostle, "is the Head of the Body of the Church." If the Church is a body, it must be an unbroken unity, according to those words of Paul: "Though many we are one body in Christ." But it is not enough that the body of the Church should be an unbroken unity; it must also be something definite and perceptible to the senses as Our predecessor of happy memory, Leo XIII, in his Encyclical Satis Cognitum asserts: 'the Church is visible because she is a body.’... .... For not every sin, however grave it may be, is such as of its own nature to sever a man from the Body of the Church , as does schism or heresy or apostasy.’” (emphasis mine).
If the sin of heresy was merely in the internal forum, then it wouldn’t be something perceptible to the senses. Therefore, contrary to Siscoe and Salza ’s assertion, public sin of heresy is in the external forum, which is why Pope Pius XII declared “Body” rather than “Soul” of the Church. Since the sin of heresy separates one from the Body of the Church by its very nature, a patriarch wouldn't be a patriarch during some trial to determine what the Church has already decreed. A patriarch who professed heresy would ipso facto cease to be patriarch without trial. Therefore, the canon couldn’t be referring to a patriarch who fell into manifest heresy, because such a person wouldn’t be a patriarch for the canon to apply.
We have historic precedent with another Patriarch of Constantinople, Nestorius, who was chosen to be the patriarch by Emperor Theodosius II in succession to Sisinnius. In 429, Nestorius preached heresy against Our Lord and Our Lady. Three years before Nestorius was condemned by the Council of Ephesus in 431, Pope St. Celestine I condemned Nestorius and his doctrine in 429.
St. Robert Bellarmine writes about it: “Pope St. Celestine I (epist. ad Jo. Antioch., which appears in Conc. Ephes., tom. I, cap. 19) wrote: ‘It is evident that he [who has been excommunicated by Nestorius] has remained and remains in communion with us, and that we do not consider destituted [i.e. deprived of office, by judgment of Nestorius], anyone who has been excommunicated or deprived of his charge, either episcopal or clerical, by Bishop Nestorius or by the others who followed him, after they commenced preaching heresy. For he who had already shown himself as deserving to be excommunicated, could not excommunicate anyone by his sentence.’
And in a letter to the clergy of Constantinople, Pope St. Celestine I says: ‘The authority of Our Apostolic See has determined that the bishop, cleric, or simple Christian who had been deposed or excommunicated by Nestorius or his followers, after the latter began to preach heresy shall not be considered deposed or excommunicated. For he who had defected from the faith with such preachings, cannot depose or remove anyone whatsoever.’
St. Nicholas I (epist. ad Michael) repeats and confirms the same. Finally, St. Thomas also teaches (S. Theol., II-II, q. 39, a. 3) that schismatics immediately lose all jurisdiction, and that anything they try to do on the basis of any jurisdiction will be null.
There is no basis for that which some respond to this: that these Fathers based themselves on ancient law, while nowadays, by decree of the Council of Constance, they alone lose their jurisdiction who are excommunicated by name or who assault clerics. This argument, I say, has no value at all, for those Fathers, in affirming that heretics lose jurisdiction, did not cite any human law, which furthermore perhaps did not exist in relation to the matter, but argued on the basis of the very nature of heresy. The Council of Constance only deals with the excommunicated, that is, those who have lost jurisdiction by sentence of the Church, while heretics already before being excommunicated are outside the Church and deprived of all jurisdiction. For they have already been condemned by their own sentence, as the Apostle teaches (Tit. 3:10-11), that is, they have been cut off from the body of the Church without excommunication, as St. Jerome affirms.”
There again, we see the phrase “body of the Church.” A patriarch manifestly professing heresy demands that you personally believe in the teaching of the Church that such a person is not member of the Body of the Church. A crime might be established later by the Church which in turn would constitute penalties, but the loss of office for public heresy is not a penalty. It happens immediately as St. Robert Bellarmine explains!
Siscoe and Salza’s position is to privately judge that manifest heretics are really part of the Church until the Church declares a second time what it already declared by law and decree. In fact, if we follow Siscoe and Salza’s rule, Photius would have to be recognized as patriarch until the council declared him never the patriarch, which Constantinope IV did with Photius. Not only would Siscoe and Salza be condemned as Photius’ supporters, but it shows that Siscoe and Salza need the Church to tell them that we sedevacantists were right all along. How ironic that they would use an argument against us that proves us right!
As we’ve seen, Siscoe and Salza necessarily reject the teaching of Pope Pius XII and insist
that canons be interpreted against the teachings of the Church so it fits their private judgment. Their hatred for sedevacantism causes them to reject the very Faith they’re trying to defend.
As demonstrated, Canon 10 has nothing to do with sedevacantism because sedevacantism is not a position of rash judgment, nor is it a position that condemns patriarchs for crimes. Sedevacantism is a position that recognizes the operation of law and follows all the teachings of the Church. Private judgment is never used against the Faith.
Lastly, Siscoe says we sedevacantists need to “abandon the heretical sedevacantist sect, and convert to the true Church, outside of which there is no salvation.” Yet, Siscoe already admits that his church is heretical. He wants us sedevacantists to abandon our heretical sect and to join his heretical sect. In other words, truth doesn’t really matter as long as you’re in the church. And he says we’re blind?
The primary difference between Siscoe and Salza and me is that they stay bound to a church they believe is heretical by law and decree with a pope who they personally believe is a total apostate. I stay bound to the Church which permits no errors, much less, teaches and promotes heresies by apostate popes.
In summary:
1. The Council and Canon 10 have nothing to do with sedevacantism.
2. The Council condemned usurpers to the throne AND their
supporters, which would, in principle, condemn Francis I, Siscoe, and Salza who represent the new Photius and his support group.
3. The Council deposed Photius and at the same time said he never had office which means being deposed doesn't presuppose one ever had office. Siscoe reads deposed as the time when one is actually deposed, but as we see from history, that’s not how it works. In fact, revisit Can. 4 of the Council of Ephesus: But if some of the clergy should rebel, and dare to hold the opinions of Nestorius or Celestius either in private or in public, it has been judged by the holy synod that they too are deposed. (emphasis mine)
4. The Catholic Encyclopedia states that, “By this act Photius committed three offences against canon law: he was ordained bishop without having kept the interstices, by an excommunicate consecrator, and to an already occupied see. To receive ordination from an excommunicate person made him too excommunicate ipso facto.” Yet, Siscoe and Salza don’t believe a person is excommunicated ipso facto by law, but only after warnings or a declaration.
5. Canon 10 condemns judging rashly a patriarch. It’s not about judging rightly about one who manifestly professes heresy whereby such individuals lose office ipso facto, because they ipso facto cease to members of the Body of the Church before trial, judgment, and excommunication.
6. Pope Pius XII undermines the entire position of Robert Siscoe and John Salza in one sentence.
-
Salza and Siscoe must not only hate sedevacantism but they must necessarily hate St. Robert Bellarmine since they come into conflict with him at every turn. And why do they hate sedevacantism? Why can they not recognize that sedevacantism is not a new religion. It is nothing more than Catholics who refuse to put themselves under obedience to heretics.
-
Salza and Siscoe must not only hate sedevacantism but they must necessarily hate St. Robert Bellarmine since they come into conflict with him at every turn. And why do they hate sedevacantism? Why can they not recognize that sedevacantism is not a new religion. It is nothing more than Catholics who refuse to put themselves under obedience to heretics.
If you read John Daly's book you will see why in regards to the intellectually dishonest among them (as opposed to those who are truly ignorant). Actually you won't see why but how. There is no doubt that they have a "anything but SV" mentality. If there is any "dogma" they would die for this is it. Strange, sad, and reprehensible.
Thanks to Mr. Francis more and more people are coming to the only conclusion currently possible in Catholic theology. Gratefully we do not have to depend on bloggers or self-proclaimed post V2 "experts" for this conclusion but the legitimate giants and authorities of the Roman Catholic Church.
-
http://www.novusordowatch.org/true-or-false-popes.htm
Thanks for that. From that page I followed the links to https://stevensperay.files.wordpress.com/2015/11/canon-10-of-the-fourth-council-of-constantinople7.pdf which contained a short refutation of one of Salza and Siscoe's arguments:
Canon 10 of the Fourth Council of Constantinople and Sedevacantism
Just when you think you’ve heard all the arguments against sedevacantism, Robert Siscoe emails me his private interpretation of canon 10 of the Fourth Council of Constantinople, and declared, “This is the nail in the coffin for Sedevacantism.”
Below is the relevant canon and Siscoe’s private interpretation...
The Fourth Council of Constantinople: “As divine scripture clearly proclaims, ‘Do not find fault before you investigate, and understand first and then find fault.’ And does our law judge a person without first giving him a hearing and learning what he does? Consequently this holy and universal synod justly and fittingly declares and lays down that no lay person or monk or cleric should separate himself from communion with his own patriarch before a careful inquiry and judgment in synod. If anyone shall be found defying this holy synod, he is to be debarred from all priestly functions and status if he is a bishop or cleric; if a monk or lay person, he must be excluded from all communion and meetings of the church [i.e. excommunicated] until he is converted by repentance and reconciled” (Canon 10).
The Fourth Council of Constantinople attached an excommunicated to any layman who separated himself from his patriarch before the Church itself rendered a judgment. There was no exception make for the layman who personally believed his patriarch had professed heresy. Even in that case, the Church must establish the crime...It condemns you and every other Sedevacantist...
If you arrive at your particular judgment damned for doing precisely what the Council attaches an excommunication to laymen for doing, you won’t be able to claim ignorance. And the fact that you would strive to get others to follow you into this misfortune, by trying to persuade them to also do precisely what the Council condemns, is even worse. It is one thing for you to publicly flaunt this teaching and do precisely what the council condemns, and another to try to persuade others to do the same. How will you answer for that on judgment day? Instead of attacking the one true Church, outside of which there is no salvation or remission of sin, you should further reflect on what this council teaches...
Constantinople Four buries the entire Sedevacantists position. Hopefully you will consider tht teaching, abandon the heretical sedevacantist sect, and convert to the true Church, outside of which there is no salvation. Only then will your eyes be opened. As the Fathers taught, those outside the Church simply cannot see. And those who spend their lives attacking the true Church as it endures its Passion (as do the Sedevacantists), reap the fruit of a special species of blindness. That is the only explanation I can come up with to explain the inability of Sedevacantists to see their way out of their glaring errors.
Siscoe presents what he thinks is another one of his be-all-end-all of arguments against sedevacantism. We’ve seen how he’s done this before with his “dogmatic facts” argument which I answer here: Robert Siscoe Caught in His Own Trap Against Sedevacantism (https://stevensperay.wordpress.com/2014/10/26/robert-siscoe-caught-in-his-own-trap-against-sedevacantism/) and “warning” argument answered here: Definitive Proof that St. Robert Bellarmine Supports the Sedevacantist Position (https://stevensperay.wordpress.com/2014/09/24/definitive-proof-that-st-robert-bellarmine-supports-the-sedevacantist-position/), and here: Steven Speray responds to Robert Siscoe and The Remnant (https://stevensperay.files.wordpress.com/2015/04/steven-speray-responds-to-robert-siscoe-and-the-remnan1.pdf). In both arguments, Siscoe grossly misrepresented St. Robert Bellarmine, Cardinal Billot, and Fr. Sylvester Berry. His latest is no different. Siscoe creates an argument that’s not there because his interpretation of canon 10 and his understanding of Catholic theology are severely flawed.
The reason Canon 10 was established is due to the fact that layman Photius usurped the office of Patriarch of Constantinople from the rightful Patriarch Ignatius. Theodora’s son,
Emperor Michael III, deposed Ignatius for refusing Communion (on the great Feast of the Epiphany) to Theodora’s brother, Bardas, for living in incest with his daughter-in-law Eudocia. Photius and the Emperor Michael III rashly judged and misrepresented the facts about Ignatius and gathered supporters, thereby withdrawing their allegiance to Ignatius. Photius also preached heresy.
Since history also tells us that emperors have the power to validly appoint patriarchs, Photius would appear to be a valid patriarch on that point alone. Yet, canon 10 couldn’t refer to usurpers to the throne such as Photius. Waiting around for some trial would only cause one to be condemned (as Photius’ supporters) for obedience to the canon, which would be absurd. Therefore, the canon is only referring to valid patriarchs, not usurpers. This is an important distinction.
Another important distinction in the canon is the fact that it’s referring to particular types of sins and/or crimes. Note the key words in the canon, “investigate”, “understand first” and “learning what he does.”
These words necessarily exclude manifest heresy, because manifest heresy is not something that needs to be investigated, or else it wouldn’t be manifest. It’s already understood because the facts are already established. There’s no need to learn what a manifest heretic does since he doesn’t profess the Faith, rather, he rejects it publicly. Manifest heresy is not merely a crime, but a sin against God.
Robert Siscoe (along with John Salza) repeatedly teaches the error that the sin of heresy belongs to the internal forum only. However, Pope Pius XII hammers the real nail in Siscoe and Salza’s coffin by declaring in Mystici Corporis Christi: “That the Church is a body is frequently asserted in the Sacred Scriptures. ‘Christ,’ says the Apostle, "is the Head of the Body of the Church." If the Church is a body, it must be an unbroken unity, according to those words of Paul: "Though many we are one body in Christ." But it is not enough that the body of the Church should be an unbroken unity; it must also be something definite and perceptible to the senses as Our predecessor of happy memory, Leo XIII, in his Encyclical Satis Cognitum asserts: 'the Church is visible because she is a body.’... .... For not every sin, however grave it may be, is such as of its own nature to sever a man from the Body of the Church , as does schism or heresy or apostasy.’” (emphasis mine).
If the sin of heresy was merely in the internal forum, then it wouldn’t be something perceptible to the senses. Therefore, contrary to Siscoe and Salza ’s assertion, public sin of heresy is in the external forum, which is why Pope Pius XII declared “Body” rather than “Soul” of the Church. Since the sin of heresy separates one from the Body of the Church by its very nature, a patriarch wouldn't be a patriarch during some trial to determine what the Church has already decreed. A patriarch who professed heresy would ipso facto cease to be patriarch without trial. Therefore, the canon couldn’t be referring to a patriarch who fell into manifest heresy, because such a person wouldn’t be a patriarch for the canon to apply.
We have historic precedent with another Patriarch of Constantinople, Nestorius, who was chosen to be the patriarch by Emperor Theodosius II in succession to Sisinnius. In 429, Nestorius preached heresy against Our Lord and Our Lady. Three years before Nestorius was condemned by the Council of Ephesus in 431, Pope St. Celestine I condemned Nestorius and his doctrine in 429.
St. Robert Bellarmine writes about it: “Pope St. Celestine I (epist. ad Jo. Antioch., which appears in Conc. Ephes., tom. I, cap. 19) wrote: ‘It is evident that he [who has been excommunicated by Nestorius] has remained and remains in communion with us, and that we do not consider destituted [i.e. deprived of office, by judgment of Nestorius], anyone who has been excommunicated or deprived of his charge, either episcopal or clerical, by Bishop Nestorius or by the others who followed him, after they commenced preaching heresy. For he who had already shown himself as deserving to be excommunicated, could not excommunicate anyone by his sentence.’
And in a letter to the clergy of Constantinople, Pope St. Celestine I says: ‘The authority of Our Apostolic See has determined that the bishop, cleric, or simple Christian who had been deposed or excommunicated by Nestorius or his followers, after the latter began to preach heresy shall not be considered deposed or excommunicated. For he who had defected from the faith with such preachings, cannot depose or remove anyone whatsoever.’
St. Nicholas I (epist. ad Michael) repeats and confirms the same. Finally, St. Thomas also teaches (S. Theol., II-II, q. 39, a. 3) that schismatics immediately lose all jurisdiction, and that anything they try to do on the basis of any jurisdiction will be null.
There is no basis for that which some respond to this: that these Fathers based themselves on ancient law, while nowadays, by decree of the Council of Constance, they alone lose their jurisdiction who are excommunicated by name or who assault clerics. This argument, I say, has no value at all, for those Fathers, in affirming that heretics lose jurisdiction, did not cite any human law, which furthermore perhaps did not exist in relation to the matter, but argued on the basis of the very nature of heresy. The Council of Constance only deals with the excommunicated, that is, those who have lost jurisdiction by sentence of the Church, while heretics already before being excommunicated are outside the Church and deprived of all jurisdiction. For they have already been condemned by their own sentence, as the Apostle teaches (Tit. 3:10-11), that is, they have been cut off from the body of the Church without excommunication, as St. Jerome affirms.”
There again, we see the phrase “body of the Church.” A patriarch manifestly professing heresy demands that you personally believe in the teaching of the Church that such a person is not member of the Body of the Church. A crime might be established later by the Church which in turn would constitute penalties, but the loss of office for public heresy is not a penalty. It happens immediately as St. Robert Bellarmine explains!
Siscoe and Salza’s position is to privately judge that manifest heretics are really part of the Church until the Church declares a second time what it already declared by law and decree. In fact, if we follow Siscoe and Salza’s rule, Photius would have to be recognized as patriarch until the council declared him never the patriarch, which Constantinope IV did with Photius. Not only would Siscoe and Salza be condemned as Photius’ supporters, but it shows that Siscoe and Salza need the Church to tell them that we sedevacantists were right all along. How ironic that they would use an argument against us that proves us right!
As we’ve seen, Siscoe and Salza necessarily reject the teaching of Pope Pius XII and insist
that canons be interpreted against the teachings of the Church so it fits their private judgment. Their hatred for sedevacantism causes them to reject the very Faith they’re trying to defend.
As demonstrated, Canon 10 has nothing to do with sedevacantism because sedevacantism is not a position of rash judgment, nor is it a position that condemns patriarchs for crimes. Sedevacantism is a position that recognizes the operation of law and follows all the teachings of the Church. Private judgment is never used against the Faith.
Lastly, Siscoe says we sedevacantists need to “abandon the heretical sedevacantist sect, and convert to the true Church, outside of which there is no salvation.” Yet, Siscoe already admits that his church is heretical. He wants us sedevacantists to abandon our heretical sect and to join his heretical sect. In other words, truth doesn’t really matter as long as you’re in the church. And he says we’re blind?
The primary difference between Siscoe and Salza and me is that they stay bound to a church they believe is heretical by law and decree with a pope who they personally believe is a total apostate. I stay bound to the Church which permits no errors, much less, teaches and promotes heresies by apostate popes.
In summary:
1. The Council and Canon 10 have nothing to do with sedevacantism.
2. The Council condemned usurpers to the throne AND their
supporters, which would, in principle, condemn Francis I, Siscoe, and Salza who represent the new Photius and his support group.
3. The Council deposed Photius and at the same time said he never had office which means being deposed doesn't presuppose one ever had office. Siscoe reads deposed as the time when one is actually deposed, but as we see from history, that’s not how it works. In fact, revisit Can. 4 of the Council of Ephesus: But if some of the clergy should rebel, and dare to hold the opinions of Nestorius or Celestius either in private or in public, it has been judged by the holy synod that they too are deposed. (emphasis mine)
4. The Catholic Encyclopedia states that, “By this act Photius committed three offences against canon law: he was ordained bishop without having kept the interstices, by an excommunicate consecrator, and to an already occupied see. To receive ordination from an excommunicate person made him too excommunicate ipso facto.” Yet, Siscoe and Salza don’t believe a person is excommunicated ipso facto by law, but only after warnings or a declaration.
5. Canon 10 condemns judging rashly a patriarch. It’s not about judging rightly about one who manifestly professes heresy whereby such individuals lose office ipso facto, because they ipso facto cease to members of the Body of the Church before trial, judgment, and excommunication.
6. Pope Pius XII undermines the entire position of Robert Siscoe and John Salza in one sentence.
It is a little more difficult than it should be to get to the actual article but the read is worth it.
-
I find it deeply disturbing that Siscoe has excommunicated Catholics for the "sin" of refusing to recognize a heretic as the occupant of the See of Peter. Evidently he recognizes the errors and heresies of Francis. But nevertheless, if we don't submit to the SSPX position we are condemned to be members of a sect outside the Church. Amazing. It makes me wonder who really is the sectarian? Maybe it is actually Siscoe himself?
-
Salza and Siscoe must not only hate sedevacantism but they must necessarily hate St. Robert Bellarmine since they come into conflict with him at every turn. And why do they hate sedevacantism? Why can they not recognize that sedevacantism is not a new religion. It is nothing more than Catholics who refuse to put themselves under obedience to heretics.
What do you mean it's not a new religion? It certainly has no tradition. There is no Church teaching that supports it.
Why can SVs not understand that if you were to be elected the "true" pope tomorrow, based on your own beliefs, literally any group or any one could and actually would be expected to immediately dethrone you via an Easy-to-Follow Syllogistic Argument. This is supposed to be Catholic?
-
Salza and Siscoe must not only hate sedevacantism but they must necessarily hate St. Robert Bellarmine since they come into conflict with him at every turn. And why do they hate sedevacantism? Why can they not recognize that sedevacantism is not a new religion. It is nothing more than Catholics who refuse to put themselves under obedience to heretics.
What do you mean it's not a new religion? It certainly has no tradition. There is no Church teaching that supports it.
Why can SVs not understand that if you were to be elected the "true" pope tomorrow, based on your own beliefs, literally any group or any one could and actually would be expected to immediately dethrone you via an Easy-to-Follow Syllogistic Argument. This is supposed to be Catholic?
You are dumbfounded.
-
Is that your answer?
You who falsely claim SVism is not a new religion can only offer "You are dumbfounded" as a rebuttal?
Well maybe you can answer this question.......if SVism was Catholic and you were elected to the papacy, how long do you think you would be pope till someone decided you were pope no longer?
A day, a week a month? Do you think you'd last longer than a month with the likes of an Ibranyi or a Fr. Cekada on your tail? How about a LoT knocking whatever he wanted to and broadcasting it all over the WWW a few dozen times a month about the shabby job he thinks you're doing?
Well, you claim it's Catholic so how long do you think you'd last before getting dethroned?
-
Salza and Siscoe must not only hate sedevacantism but they must necessarily hate St. Robert Bellarmine since they come into conflict with him at every turn. And why do they hate sedevacantism? Why can they not recognize that sedevacantism is not a new religion. It is nothing more than Catholics who refuse to put themselves under obedience to heretics.
What do you mean it's not a new religion? It certainly has no tradition. There is no Church teaching that supports it.
Why can SVs not understand that if you were to be elected the "true" pope tomorrow, based on your own beliefs, literally any group or any one could and actually would be expected to immediately dethrone you via an Easy-to-Follow Syllogistic Argument. This is supposed to be Catholic?
I would rather be a sedevacantist then to believe the Holy Father is the Antichrist.
Or that the Antichrist is my Holy Father.
-
Salza and Siscoe must not only hate sedevacantism but they must necessarily hate St. Robert Bellarmine since they come into conflict with him at every turn. And why do they hate sedevacantism? Why can they not recognize that sedevacantism is not a new religion. It is nothing more than Catholics who refuse to put themselves under obedience to heretics.
What do you mean it's not a new religion? It certainly has no tradition. There is no Church teaching that supports it.
Why can SVs not understand that if you were to be elected the "true" pope tomorrow, based on your own beliefs, literally any group or any one could and actually would be expected to immediately dethrone you via an Easy-to-Follow Syllogistic Argument. This is supposed to be Catholic?
I would rather be a sedevacantist then to believe the Holy Father is the Antichrist.
Or that the Antichrist is my Holy Father.
By the way, the Catholic Encyclopedia mentions that St. Bernard (a Doctor of the Church) believed that the Antichrist would most likely be a false pope! Think about it!! The Antichrist is predicted by Scripture to fool the majority of Catholics and clergy into a major apostasy from the faith.
Any coincidence that the 1928 encyclical Mortalium Animos calls ecuмenism "tantamount to apostasy"?
-
Salza and Siscoe must not only hate sedevacantism but they must necessarily hate St. Robert Bellarmine since they come into conflict with him at every turn. And why do they hate sedevacantism? Why can they not recognize that sedevacantism is not a new religion. It is nothing more than Catholics who refuse to put themselves under obedience to heretics.
What do you mean it's not a new religion? It certainly has no tradition. There is no Church teaching that supports it.
Why can SVs not understand that if you were to be elected the "true" pope tomorrow, based on your own beliefs, literally any group or any one could and actually would be expected to immediately dethrone you via an Easy-to-Follow Syllogistic Argument. This is supposed to be Catholic?
I would rather be a sedevacantist then to believe the Holy Father is the Antichrist.
Or that the Antichrist is my Holy Father.
By the way, the Catholic Encyclopedia mentions that St. Bernard (a Doctor of the Church) believed that the Antichrist would most likely be a false pope! Think about it!!
Did I say "false Holy Father" or Holy Father?
-
Salza and Siscoe must not only hate sedevacantism but they must necessarily hate St. Robert Bellarmine since they come into conflict with him at every turn. And why do they hate sedevacantism? Why can they not recognize that sedevacantism is not a new religion. It is nothing more than Catholics who refuse to put themselves under obedience to heretics.
What do you mean it's not a new religion? It certainly has no tradition. There is no Church teaching that supports it.
Why can SVs not understand that if you were to be elected the "true" pope tomorrow, based on your own beliefs, literally any group or any one could and actually would be expected to immediately dethrone you via an Easy-to-Follow Syllogistic Argument. This is supposed to be Catholic?
I would rather be a sedevacantist then to believe the Holy Father is the Antichrist.
Or that the Antichrist is my Holy Father.
By the way, the Catholic Encyclopedia mentions that St. Bernard (a Doctor of the Church) believed that the Antichrist would most likely be a false pope! Think about it!!
Did I say "false Holy Father" or Holy Father?
Just clarifying for the lurkers, not for you.
-
Is that your answer?
You who falsely claim SVism is not a new religion can only offer "You are dumbfounded" as a rebuttal?
Well maybe you can answer this question.......if SVism was Catholic and you were elected to the papacy, how long do you think you would be pope till someone decided you were pope no longer?
A day, a week a month? Do you think you'd last longer than a month with the likes of an Ibranyi or a Fr. Cekada on your tail? How about a LoT knocking whatever he wanted to and broadcasting it all over the WWW a few dozen times a month about the shabby job he thinks you're doing?
Well, you claim it's Catholic so how long do you think you'd last before getting dethroned?
Stubborn, just making things up doesn't make them true. I know you are used to it, being a Feeneyite and all, but try to step back and look at this objectively:
1. The Tehologians and saints of the Catholic Church have admitted the Possibility of an heretical Pope who ceases to be Pope. Were they or were they not Catholics?
2. If they were Catholics, how is it non-Catholic to simply say that what THEY admitted was possible, we say is no ACTUAL?
In what universe is that Non-Catholic? Especially when the "Pope" IS a heretic and notoriously so, and it can be theologically demonstrated that he is not Pope?
you are just making stuff up to sound discrediting, but it won't work. We are Roman Catholics, we acknowledge the Papacy, the Nicene Creed, all the dogmas, so much so in fact that we positively refuse to impute to our Lord Jesus Christ the utter BLASPHEMY that he be responsible for Vatican II and the Novus Ordo.
But if we say this man is POPE then we make CHRIST responsible, for the authority of the Holy Father and Jesus Christ are ONE SINGLE AUTHORITY.
This means all the official magisterial acts of the Pope are the acts of Jesus Christ reigning in his Church.
But These last Popes magisterial acts are heretical and officially promulgate heresy.
You wanna call Jesus a heretic to his face?
Then get onboard, otherwise, that is your de facto position, objectively and logically.
-
All you do is prove my point with another non-answer to a clear question. Originally, I asked the question because I was just curious if this thought has ever entered into the thinking of the sedevacantist.
But now I can see it is an arena sedevacantists want no part of, are afraid of and wholly confounds them. This in and of itself, SHOULD dictate to the conscience of any honest SV that they need to re-examine their opinion because their position is wrong.
So far, this demonstrates that sedevacantists, at least it's representatives here, do not care what the Church teaches at all.
Again, stop referencing Catholic teaching to support your sedevacantism. Use only teachings from sedevacantist popes saints and fathers to support sedevacantism.
-
I find it deeply disturbing that Siscoe has excommunicated Catholics for the "sin" of refusing to recognize a heretic as the occupant of the See of Peter. Evidently he recognizes the errors and heresies of Francis. But nevertheless, if we don't submit to the SSPX position we are condemned to be members of a sect outside the Church. Amazing. It makes me wonder who really is the sectarian? Maybe it is actually Siscoe himself?
That kinda makes Siscoe and or the SSPX Pope doesn't it? Perhaps he is worthy of more respect than I thought.
-
Does anyone know why Robert Sungenis' endorsement no longer appears on the web site?
-
I find it deeply disturbing that Siscoe has excommunicated Catholics for the "sin" of refusing to recognize a heretic as the occupant of the See of Peter.
Wait a minute, I thought Siscoe maintains that no one can simply declare anyone an excommunicate without a formal declaration from his Church's authorities. I've never formally excommunicated by the Conciliar church. Has anyone on CathInfo received a formal notice of excommunication?
What I find disturbing is the double standard that people like Siscoe have in regards to who is and is not Catholic.
-
All you do is prove my point with another non-answer to a clear question. Originally, I asked the question because I was just curious if this thought has ever entered into the thinking of the sedevacantist.
But now I can see it is an arena sedevacantists want no part of, are afraid of and wholly confounds them. This in and of itself, SHOULD dictate to the conscience of any honest SV that they need to re-examine their opinion because their position is wrong.
So far, this demonstrates that sedevacantists, at least it's representatives here, do not care what the Church teaches at all.
Again, stop referencing Catholic teaching to support your sedevacantism. Use only teachings from sedevacantist popes saints and fathers to support sedevacantism.
It goes like this, Greg1, you tell Stubborn we have a Catholic quote by St. Francis de Sales:
"Thus we do not say that the Pope cannot err in his private opinions, as did John XXII; or be altogether a heretic, as perhaps Honorius was. Now when he is explicitly a heretic, he falls ipso facto from his dignity and out of the Church, and the Church must either deprive him, or, as some say, declare him deprived, of his Apostolic See."
We remind Stubborn that St. Francis used it as Catholic teaching in his writings to convert Calvinists.
We remind Stubborn that when St. Francis was canonized the Church scrutinized his writings and approved.
We remind him that after Vatican I of 1870 (teaching prominently matters of infallbiility), Pius IX in 1877 made St. Francis a Doctor of the Church after another scrutiny of his writings. On that occassion the work in which the above quote is found, Pius IX called the work, "a full and complete demonstration of the Catholic religion"
We remind Stubborn that since then, muliple imprimatured Catholic books for the general public and laity contain the essence of that very quote as being the truth, and no other option.
The problem is, that in Stubborn's false religion, he only recognizes solemn papal declarations as being Catholic teaching, and then he repeats one of the most ignorant mantras I have seen in a long time,
"Use only teachings from sedevacantist popes saints and fathers to support sedevacantism."
As if there is such a thing!
As if Stubborn is 7 years old and having his Protestant uncle transcribe for him what he is thinking.
-
It goes like this:
I ask a question, question confounds sedevacantists, so instead of question getting answered, more Catholic sources are misused by sedevacantists in their attempt to support sedevacantism.
Nothing new.
-
The problem is, that in Stubborn's false religion, he only recognizes solemn papal declarations as being Catholic teaching, and then he repeats one of the most ignorant mantras I have seen in a long time,
"Use only teachings from sedevacantist popes saints and fathers to support sedevacantism."[/i]
As if there is such a thing!
If sedevacantism is Catholic, then you and every other sedevacantist out there should eagerly and promptly answer the question - but because I ask a sedevacantist to provide the answer that a Catholic should should know, I am the one who has the false religion?
Think about that.
Also, you are correct in saying, "as if there is such a thing". I'd like to think you are starting to get the clue, but we all know better.
-
It goes like this:
I ask a question, question confounds sedevacantists, so instead of question getting answered, more Catholic sources are misused by sedevacantists in their attempt to support sedevacantism.
Nothing new.
The only person you have ever confounded, Stubborn, is yourself.
-
It goes like this:
I ask a question, question confounds sedevacantists, so instead of question getting answered, more Catholic sources are misused by sedevacantists in their attempt to support sedevacantism.
Nothing new.
The only person you have ever confounded, Stubborn, is yourself.
No, he confounds me but not for the reason he alluded to above.
-
You can say whatever you want, but one thing seemingly you cannot face is to answer a simple question - because if you did, you would necessarily condemn your own belief.
-
You can say whatever you want, but one thing seemingly you cannot face is to answer a simple question - because if you did, you would necessarily condemn your own belief.
I've seen you make several statements in the form of a question in many topics. Could you restate your simple question once more?
-
No offense intended Stubborn. You would do well to take a couple of steps back and entertain the advice offered you by TKGS and others. You should immerse yourself in reliable pre-V2 sound writings by orthodox theologians along with entire infallible and authoritative works. If you spent the time you spend lurking and posting here doing the above reading you would be much improved intellectually, your belief system and in your understanding of Catholic theology.
Obviously I just wasted the past 5 minutes conveying it to you but there it is just in case.
-
It goes like this:
I ask a question, question confounds sedevacantists, so instead of question getting answered, more Catholic sources are misused by sedevacantists in their attempt to support sedevacantism.
Nothing new.
I agree. It goes like that, too. You make a claim of misuse, but you NEVER explain what that misuse is by analysis. Because you cannot. You are just stubborn. Claiming out of context, etc, without showing how, is utterly useless for your case.
-
Here is a quote from John Daly's book which touches on what we have been talking about:
On p. 63 Davies continues to rely on the same fallacy of “a priorism” – i.e. the rejection of a valid demonstration on the grounds that its conclusion is unacceptable, no matter how strong the evidence supporting it may be.
We witness here and in periodicals the above. People who first conclude that a certain conclusion cannot be made and then base all their comments on the topic on that premise. Since this is their conclusion evidence to the contrary need not apply.
-
You can say whatever you want, but one thing seemingly you cannot face is to answer a simple question - because if you did, you would necessarily condemn your own belief.
I've seen you make several statements in the form of a question in many topics. Could you restate your simple question once more?
From pg 113 I think, the question asked was - have you or any SV ever considered ............
http://www.novusordowatch.org/true-or-false-popes.htm
Have you or has any SV ever considered, that if you were to be elected the "true" pope tomorrow, that based on your own beliefs literally any group or any one could and actually would be expected to immediately dethrone you via an Easy-to-Follow Syllogistic Argument (http://www.novusordowatch.org/wire/syllogism-of-sedevacantism.htm)?
I'm just curious if this thought has ever entered into the thinking of the sedevacantist.
-
No offense intended Stubborn. You would do well to take a couple of steps back and entertain the advice offered you by TKGS and others. You should immerse yourself in reliable pre-V2 sound writings by orthodox theologians along with entire infallible and authoritative works. If you spent the time you spend lurking and posting here doing the above reading you would be much improved intellectually, your belief system and in your understanding of Catholic theology.
Obviously I just wasted the past 5 minutes conveying it to you but there it is just in case.
Believe it or not LoT, most of the time that I spend here on CI is spent reading and learning from other posts - particularly ones having to do with [new] SSPX and the Resistance. The reason I participate in the whole SV "pope problem" propaganda-turned-religion is with the hope that I can help some who are confused but not already addicted to SVism, to help them understand that the whole SV belief system is not Catholic no matter what those addicted to it say.
At any rate, I was born and raised a trad through it all, and by the grace of God have remained in the same faith that my parents were raised in, who were raised in the same faith as their parents, so I can say the stuff you post and the stuff the other SVs post promoting sedevacantism, is absolutely not a part of the Catholic faith, it is however, error according to the Catholic faith.
And don't bother quoting what this saint or that saint said, they are most likely right - but as a SV, it only makes sense that all SVs would strictly adhere to every word of instruction provided for us by past popes which explicitly tell us exactly what we are to do about it, but SVs do not obey past popes because if they did, they could not be sedevacantists.
-
It goes like this:
I ask a question, question confounds sedevacantists, so instead of question getting answered, more Catholic sources are misused by sedevacantists in their attempt to support sedevacantism.
Nothing new.
I agree. It goes like that, too. You make a claim of misuse, but you NEVER explain what that misuse is by analysis. Because you cannot. You are just stubborn. Claiming out of context, etc, without showing how, is utterly useless for your case.
This is false.
I quoted word for word teachings from encyclicals you provided that you took completely out of context- all you did was post a picture of an idiot for your reply.
-
You can say whatever you want, but one thing seemingly you cannot face is to answer a simple question - because if you did, you would necessarily condemn your own belief.
I've seen you make several statements in the form of a question in many topics. Could you restate your simple question once more?
From pg 113 I think, the question asked was - have you or any SV ever considered ............
http://www.novusordowatch.org/true-or-false-popes.htm
Have you or has any SV ever considered, that if you were to be elected the "true" pope tomorrow, that based on your own beliefs literally any group or any one could and actually would be expected to immediately dethrone you via an Easy-to-Follow Syllogistic Argument (http://www.novusordowatch.org/wire/syllogism-of-sedevacantism.htm)?
I'm just curious if this thought has ever entered into the thinking of the sedevacantist.
Firstly, If "I" were elected to be pope, I would not accept. So the question is moot.
To answer your question concerning any election, yes, I have considered what would happen if there was to be a "true" pope elected.
Obviously, you want a little more than just that. If there is ever a credible claimant to the Holy See, I doubt he will be universally accepted immediately. He will have to demonstrate that he is Catholic, something that is certainly not demonstrable in Bergoglio.
But you are wrong that "literally any group or any one could and actually would be expected to dethrone" the claimant. Sedevacantism is clearly not the desirable situation. We sedevacantists are not happy about the situation. Nor is sedevacantism as "solution" as so many people ignorantly (willfully or otherwise) claim that we believe. It is merely the identification of the problem in the Church.
I think it would take quite sometime before the Catholic world actually accepted him, but first the Novus Ordo world would denounce him as he started doing things like calling for the conversion of the Jews, preaching absolute moral precepts, unambiguously condemning ecuмenism, religious liberty, sɛҳuąƖ perversions, and contraception, and the reality of hell and the fact that most of mankind is destined to eternal damnation because they reject the Christ, His teachings, and His Church.
How that new and true pope will come about, I don't know. I don't have the solution. But pretending that Bergoglio is the pope, pretending that the Conciliar sect is the Catholic Church, pretending that all we have to do is to mouth our "support" for Bergoglio while rejecting everything he says and does, is certainly not the answer.
Now that I've answered your question, I expect now that you will claim that I have not answered because, frankly, this has been stated in many topics and many posts by numerous CathInfo Members in the past. As both Lover of Truth and McCork said above, you've already come to your conclusion and nothing you hear or read will mean anything to you. You have eyes but do not see and ears but do not hear.
If Bergoglio were to announce that there is but one God, Allah, and Muhammad is his prophet, you would condemn us for saying that he is an apostate.
P.S. I note that Bergoglio prayed in a Mosque, standing on a Muslim prayer rug facing east during his African adventure. I'm sure we should read nothing into this.
-
You can say whatever you want, but one thing seemingly you cannot face is to answer a simple question - because if you did, you would necessarily condemn your own belief.
I've seen you make several statements in the form of a question in many topics. Could you restate your simple question once more?
From pg 113 I think, the question asked was - have you or any SV ever considered ............
http://www.novusordowatch.org/true-or-false-popes.htm
Have you or has any SV ever considered, that if you were to be elected the "true" pope tomorrow, that based on your own beliefs literally any group or any one could and actually would be expected to immediately dethrone you via an Easy-to-Follow Syllogistic Argument (http://www.novusordowatch.org/wire/syllogism-of-sedevacantism.htm)?
I'm just curious if this thought has ever entered into the thinking of the sedevacantist.
Firstly, If "I" were elected to be pope, I would not accept. So the question is moot.
Once again a non-answer.
-
You can say whatever you want, but one thing seemingly you cannot face is to answer a simple question - because if you did, you would necessarily condemn your own belief.
I've seen you make several statements in the form of a question in many topics. Could you restate your simple question once more?
From pg 113 I think, the question asked was - have you or any SV ever considered ............
http://www.novusordowatch.org/true-or-false-popes.htm
Have you or has any SV ever considered, that if you were to be elected the "true" pope tomorrow, that based on your own beliefs literally any group or any one could and actually would be expected to immediately dethrone you via an Easy-to-Follow Syllogistic Argument (http://www.novusordowatch.org/wire/syllogism-of-sedevacantism.htm)?
I'm just curious if this thought has ever entered into the thinking of the sedevacantist.
Firstly, If "I" were elected to be pope, I would not accept. So the question is moot.
Once again a non-answer.
Once again, you ignore everything else written in order to ignore the answer. You most definitely picked your screen name well. Unfortunately, your brand of stubbornness is not a virtue. If ignorance is truly bliss, you must be a very happy man.
-
You can say whatever you want, but one thing seemingly you cannot face is to answer a simple question - because if you did, you would necessarily condemn your own belief.
I've seen you make several statements in the form of a question in many topics. Could you restate your simple question once more?
From pg 113 I think, the question asked was - have you or any SV ever considered ............
http://www.novusordowatch.org/true-or-false-popes.htm
Have you or has any SV ever considered, that if you were to be elected the "true" pope tomorrow, that based on your own beliefs literally any group or any one could and actually would be expected to immediately dethrone you via an Easy-to-Follow Syllogistic Argument (http://www.novusordowatch.org/wire/syllogism-of-sedevacantism.htm)?
I'm just curious if this thought has ever entered into the thinking of the sedevacantist.
Firstly, If "I" were elected to be pope, I would not accept. So the question is moot.
To answer your question concerning any election, yes, I have considered what would happen if there was to be a "true" pope elected.
Obviously, you want a little more than just that. If there is ever a credible claimant to the Holy See, I doubt he will be universally accepted immediately. He will have to demonstrate that he is Catholic, something that is certainly not demonstrable in Bergoglio.
But you are wrong that "literally any group or any one could and actually would be expected to dethrone" the claimant. Sedevacantism is clearly not the desirable situation. We sedevacantists are not happy about the situation. Nor is sedevacantism as "solution" as so many people ignorantly (willfully or otherwise) claim that we believe. It is merely the identification of the problem in the Church.
I think it would take quite sometime before the Catholic world actually accepted him, but first the Novus Ordo world would denounce him as he started doing things like calling for the conversion of the Jews, preaching absolute moral precepts, unambiguously condemning ecuмenism, religious liberty, sɛҳuąƖ perversions, and contraception, and the reality of hell and the fact that most of mankind is destined to eternal damnation because they reject the Christ, His teachings, and His Church.
How that new and true pope will come about, I don't know. I don't have the solution. But pretending that Bergoglio is the pope, pretending that the Conciliar sect is the Catholic Church, pretending that all we have to do is to mouth our "support" for Bergoglio while rejecting everything he says and does, is certainly not the answer.
Now that I've answered your question, I expect now that you will claim that I have not answered because, frankly, this has been stated in many topics and many posts by numerous CathInfo Members in the past. As both Lover of Truth and McCork said above, you've already come to your conclusion and nothing you hear or read will mean anything to you. You have eyes but do not see and ears but do not hear.
If Bergoglio were to announce that there is but one God, Allah, and Muhammad is his prophet, you would condemn us for saying that he is an apostate.
P.S. I note that Bergoglio prayed in a Mosque, standing on a Muslim prayer rug facing east during his African adventure. I'm sure we should read nothing into this.
Bravo! :applause:
-
You can say whatever you want, but one thing seemingly you cannot face is to answer a simple question - because if you did, you would necessarily condemn your own belief.
I've seen you make several statements in the form of a question in many topics. Could you restate your simple question once more?
From pg 113 I think, the question asked was - have you or any SV ever considered ............
http://www.novusordowatch.org/true-or-false-popes.htm
Have you or has any SV ever considered, that if you were to be elected the "true" pope tomorrow, that based on your own beliefs literally any group or any one could and actually would be expected to immediately dethrone you via an Easy-to-Follow Syllogistic Argument (http://www.novusordowatch.org/wire/syllogism-of-sedevacantism.htm)?
I'm just curious if this thought has ever entered into the thinking of the sedevacantist.
Firstly, If "I" were elected to be pope, I would not accept. So the question is moot.
Once again a non-answer.
Once again, you ignore everything else written in order to ignore the answer. You most definitely picked your screen name well. Unfortunately, your brand of stubbornness is not a virtue. If ignorance is truly bliss, you must be a very happy man.
Once again you explicitly fail to answer the simple question, so that makes me the stubborn one. Where did you learn your reasoning?
I did not ignore the rest of your post, it's just that it's the same tired old argument that goes on and on in circles because your position, the pro-SV position, is not Catholic - but you will not see it.
For example, you said:"If there is ever a credible claimant to the Holy See, I doubt he will be universally accepted immediately. He will have to demonstrate that he is Catholic, something that is certainly not demonstrable in Bergoglio.
I realize you cannot accept this simple fact, but this is not Catholic thinking. It is not in any way, shape or form Catholic to presume it your responsibility or any SV's duty to validate the Roman Pontiff, either before or after election, neither is it taught anywhere, at any time nor under any circuмstances that he needs to demonstrate or otherwise prove his validity to anyone, especially since he was just elected.
And look - 2Vermon applauds your post. She serves a good example of what happens to those relative neo-trads who've stumbled upon SVism and embraces it as if it's Catholic.
-
Stubborn ... so what you are saying, and others of your ilk ...
You are believing without doubt that Francis is truly Catholic, yes or no?
A simple question
P.S. I came to say that Bishop McKenna went to his Eternal Reward TODAY!
TODAY Robert Fidelis McKenna, O.P. (8 July 1927 – 16 December 2015) was a Dominican bishop. He was known for his traditionalist Catholic positions.
-
Stubborn ... so what you are saying, and others of your ilk ...
You are believing without doubt that Francis is truly Catholic, yes or no?
A simple question
P.S. I came to say that Bishop McKenna went to his Eternal Reward TODAY!
TODAY Robert Fidelis McKenna, O.P. (8 July 1927 – 16 December 2015) was a Dominican bishop. He was known for his traditionalist Catholic positions.
MyrnaM, yes, far as I am concerned, he is Catholic by virtue of his Baptismal Character and, far as I'm concerned that's the only thing that makes him truly Catholic - and for that matter, I am not concerned at all.
Do you know if Bishop McKenna happened to receive the Last Rites? :pray:
-
I am concerned, he is Catholic by virtue of his Baptismal Character and, far as I'm concerned that's the only thing that makes him truly Catholic - and for that matter, I am not concerned at all.
Martin Luther had that baptismal character and he was NOT a Catholic.
-
I am concerned, he is Catholic by virtue of his Baptismal Character and, far as I'm concerned that's the only thing that makes him truly Catholic - and for that matter, I am not concerned at all.
Martin Luther had that baptismal character and he was NOT a Catholic.
He was officially condemned as a formal heretic by the appropriate ecclesiastical authorities after given the opportunity to recant his 41 heresies, as it is the custom of the Church. Luther had 60 days to recant but he did not, and instead set in fire all the docuмents in open rebellion against the Pope and the Holy Roman Catholic Church. As a result, he was officially excommunicated and condemned as a heretic in the bull Decet Romanum Pontificem by Pope Leo X. Only formal heresy (where pertinacity is proven, after ecclesiastical warnings) places a soul outside the Church.
-
I am concerned, he is Catholic by virtue of his Baptismal Character and, far as I'm concerned that's the only thing that makes him truly Catholic - and for that matter, I am not concerned at all.
Martin Luther had that baptismal character and he was NOT a Catholic.
He was officially condemned as a formal heretic by the appropriate ecclesiastical authorities after given the opportunity to recant his 41 heresies, as it is the custom of the Church. Luther had 60 days to recant but he did not, and instead set in fire all the docuмents in open rebellion against the Pope and the Holy Roman Catholic Church. As a result, he was officially excommunicated and condemned as a heretic in the bull Decet Romanum Pontificem by Pope Leo X. Only formal heresy (where pertinacity is proven, after ecclesiastical warnings) places a soul outside the Church.
My point was that the baptismal character itself does NOT make one Catholic. Additionally, a "manifest heretic" includes the concept of pertinacity. Luther was not a manifest heretic. Popes can become manifest heretics because they are the only ones that infallibility is associated with.
-
Stubborn, sorry I do not know the details of the good Bishops death, he was sick for some time, therefore, I believe he was well ready to meet his Creator.
also:
The religion that you profess in that the pope does not have to be a practicing Catholic would be the new religion you are now united with. A religion NOT founded by God. You say well if he is baptized, but how do you know he was even baptized? Better check if that is your only point of him being your pope. Maybe he was baptized by one of the infiltrators who never had the intention “ to do as the Church does” but to destroy the Church.
Your problem is as your like-minded friends here are simply too fixed on the semantics of how the Church has been in normal times however, you can’t get your head out of the sand to see that we are not living in normal times.
You bring up silly questions about “what ifs” as if that proves the sedevacantist can’t be of God.
As it is today the sedevacantist will not elect a pope, although you wish they would. They will not because of reasons you disclose, the world would not recognize him. So your question put to us is silly and pointless.
There will come a day when the Church will rise again as Jesus was resurrected from the tomb and at that time maybe you will see the truth of the situation of today and hang your head in shame.
-
Stubborn, sorry I do not know the details of the good Bishops death, he was sick for some time, therefore, I believe he was well ready to meet his Creator.
also:
The religion that you profess in that the pope does not have to be a practicing Catholic would be the new religion you are now united with. A religion NOT founded by God. You say well if he is baptized, but how do you know he was even baptized? Better check if that is your only point of him being your pope. Maybe he was baptized by one of the infiltrators who never had the intention “ to do as the Church does” but to destroy the Church.
Your problem is as your like-minded friends here are simply too fixed on the semantics of how the Church has been in normal times however, you can’t get your head out of the sand to see that we are not living in normal times.
You bring up silly questions about “what ifs” as if that proves the sedevacantist can’t be of God.
As it is today the sedevacantist will not elect a pope, although you wish they would. They will not because of reasons you disclose, the world would not recognize him. So your question put to us is silly and pointless.
There will come a day when the Church will rise again as Jesus was resurrected from the tomb and at that time maybe you will see the truth of the situation of today and hang your head in shame.
Myrna, unfortunately, you are preaching sedevacantist opinions to me, a Roman Catholic, so I'm afraid that as long as those remain the conditions, we can never agree.
What you call semantics, Catholics call the teachings of the Catholic Church and yes, as a Catholic, I am simply too fixed on Her teachings and pray to remain so and grow in them till it's my turn to stand before the Judge.
I asked a simple question which remains unanswered. You asked a silly question yet I still gave you a clear answer.
It's really nothing difficult to do, so why is it that sedevacantists on this site are afraid of answering my silly question? Also, I did not ask if SVs will elect a pope or if some other pope were elected etc., I asked: "Have you or has any SV ever considered, that if you were to be elected the "true" pope tomorrow, that based on your own beliefs literally any group or any one could and actually would be expected to immediately dethrone you via an Easy-to-Follow Syllogistic Argument?"
It's actually a question that's just looking for a yes or no type answer, but it seems like no SV has ever considered it, least ways not till I asked it, and they are afraid to answer because they are afraid of the consequences if they answer it clearly and honestly.
-
So do you believe Stubborn that this Francis is a practicing Catholic? Yes or No?
Or do you believe that anyone these days can be pope as long as he was elected by his own ilk, mainly Modernists, Masons, infiltrators or any other wolf in sheep's clothing? Where is that in the Deposit of Faith.
The difference is a person such as myself, a Roman Catholic who is of the position of Sedevacantism believes the Vicar of Christ must be Catholic (not sinless but Catholic)
and elected by other Catholics.
Example: Someone who believes in the First Commandment of God for example. Now this too is a teaching of the Catholic Faith, not just semantics. Yet, you and your friends seem to sweep this teaching under the rug. It only takes one teaching to be denied and your OUT!
Your question: ""Have you or has any SV ever considered, that if you were to be elected the "true" pope tomorrow, that based on your own beliefs literally any group or any-one could and actually would be expected to immediately dethrone you via an Easy-to-Follow Syllogistic Argument?"
It won't happen and if it did you would love it, since you would then have a valid argument against sedevacantism, and wouldn't have to invent one.
-
I do not know if the pope is the pope or not, what I think doesn't matter anyway, but unlike you Myrna, and unlike those things that sedevacantism preaches, I do not need to know in order for me to keep the Catholic faith.
The crazy thing is that even though you cannot admit it, neither do you, neither does anyone these days. If you think I'm wrong, just look at yourself and look all the trads and all the neo trads and all the SVs, all, who per your own SV belief, have lived without a pope for the last +50 years and presumably have kept the faith!
So as Fr. Cekada says, you have a "pope problem", and he's right, yes, you do have a "pope problem", it is a problem which SVism continually grooms for the sake of having a "pope problem".
-
I do not know if the pope is the pope or not, what I think doesn't matter anyway, but unlike you Myrna, and unlike those things that sedevacantism preaches, I do not need to know in order for me to keep the Catholic faith.
The crazy thing is that even though you cannot admit it, neither do you, neither does anyone these days. If you think I'm wrong, just look at yourself and look all the trads and all the neo trads and all the SVs, all, who per your own SV belief, have lived without a pope for the last +50 years and presumably have kept the faith!
So as Fr. Cekada says, you have a "pope problem", and he's right, yes, you do have a "pope problem", it is a problem which SVism continually grooms for the sake of having a "pope problem".
How ironic. You say you doubt the pope is the pope. That right there admits there is a "pope problem". In fact, there is a Catholic principle that "a doubtful pope is no pope" (papa dubius papa nullus). Look it up.
Live "without" a pope, you say? One who completely ignores the man is living without him just as much, so get your standards straight. Ignoring a problem is only adding to the problem. The start of a solution is to NOT ignore a problem.
SV's only say that the men who claimed to be pope from Rome since 1965 (exactly 50 years) are not popes. It doesn't necessarily mean there wasn't a pope in a dungeon for a while somewhere, or that the men elected might have been pope for a very short time before rejecting their grace of state to promote Vatican II.
-
I do not know if the pope is the pope or not, what I think doesn't matter anyway, but unlike you Myrna, and unlike those things that sedevacantism preaches, I do not need to know in order for me to keep the Catholic faith.
The crazy thing is that even though you cannot admit it, neither do you, neither does anyone these days. If you think I'm wrong, just look at yourself and look all the trads and all the neo trads and all the SVs, all, who per your own SV belief, have lived without a pope for the last +50 years and presumably have kept the faith!
So as Fr. Cekada says, you have a "pope problem", and he's right, yes, you do have a "pope problem", it is a problem which SVism continually grooms for the sake of having a "pope problem".
How ironic. You say you doubt the pope is the pope. That right there admits there is a "pope problem". In fact, there is a Catholic principle that "a doubtful pope is no pope" (papa dubius papa nullus). Look it up.
Live "without" a pope, you say? One who completely ignores the man is living without him just as much, so get your standards straight. Ignoring a problem is only adding to the problem. The start of a solution is to NOT ignore a problem.
SV's only say that the men who claimed to be pope from Rome since 1965 (exactly 50 years) are not popes. It doesn't necessarily mean there wasn't a pope in a dungeon for a while somewhere, or that the men elected might have been pope for a very short time before rejecting their grace of state to promote Vatican II.
Let's conduct a thought experiment, conceding the SV position. The big question for every Catholic on the planet, equally, is So What? In terms of your mandate to live the authentically Catholic life (I'm not suggesting you aren't doing that; I'm questioning how it relates), why are you so concerned that there has supposedly been "no [active, visible] pope" for 50 years? How does it personally affect you? Not how it affects the Church as an institution. Of course it affects her as an institution. It affects the clarity of her message within the institution and outside of it, and thus her very credibility; it affects those who have not been properly catechized (i.e., most modern Catholics). But those are institutional concerns -- the jobs of bishops (who are commissioned specifically to teach), the jobs of Cardinals and parish priests who "have to explain/support/translate/reconcile-to-doctrine" a current pope with a poor grasp of theological concepts, to put it mildly. Those are not your concerns or my concerns, because we don't have to do their jobs for them, and no one on earth has mandated us to "follow Vatican 2," including what are deemed errors and ambiguities in those highly theoretical and highly romanticized and even visionary Conciliar docuмents.
Has any priest personally forced you to "celebrate" (accommodate to) the principles of the World? If not, then you have no excuse. Vatican 2 did not command us, in our personal Catholic lives, to "do" anything contrary to the Faith. No matter how much new theology was in there and new "possibilities" were in there, it did not command us to defy Tradition. We continue to be commanded to follow only the approved deposit of faith. Anything that seems to you or me to oppose the pre-v2 deposit of faith cannot be authentic because dogma cannot contradict itself.
It's a huge nuisance to be without a pope, or to be underneath someone who seems not to know the Faith or love the Faith. This is called a Cross. We all are required to deal with it and carry it.
-
Having invalid Popes giving us invalid Sacraments leads to the worship of a wafer in so called traditional communities such as the FSSP and indult/moto places. It can matter a whole lot I dare say. The Pope is our link to Christ and our salvation depends on submission to legitimate pontiffs.
-
Davies is so adamant in his refusal to admit heresy in the council docuмents that he is prepared to clutch at any straws to avoid this admission. Thus, on p. 96 of Pope John’s Council, in a valiant attempt to vindicate the orthodoxy of the decrees, he writes: “The true Catholic position can usually be found by those who look hard enough ....” He seems quite unaware of the folly of what he is saying – that a Catholic, looking through the docuмents of a general council of the Church, will, if he really racks his brains, generally speaking find some way of reconciling most of what the council teaches with the defined doctrines of the Church! Thus a general council, instead of being the source to which a Catholic turns to learn his Faith, becomes instead the object of a party game by which Catholics have to foist some wholly improbable interpretation on obviously heretical texts in order to “save the appearances” of the Conciliar Church. John Daly
-
But even aside from these facts, which I admit could have eluded a careless reader of this disgraceful docuмent, there remains a far more serious objection to Davies’s defence of Montini; one, indeed, so glaring that it can only be its very enormity that has caused it to be overlooked by so many Davies readers. It is the grotesqueness and absurdity of the prospect of a “pope” whose “orthodoxy” is such that it can only be traced by scholars who have hunted through the many thousands of pages of ecclesiastical docuмents promulgated by him and have found two (Mysterium Fidei and The Credo...) which they consider sufficiently innocuous to put them forward as evidence in his favour. Any reader who has yet to appreciate that the very fact that Davies can seriously offer such evidence in favour of Montini’s orthodoxy is the best proof of his lack of orthodoxy, is invited to consider how he would have reacted to a statement by a purportedly Catholic writer that Pope St. Pius X, or for that matter, Pope Pius XII were definitely Catholic in their belief, and his production, to attest the truth of this contention, of two docuмents which were claimed not to be open to heretical interpretations! John Daly
-
Having invalid Popes giving us invalid Sacraments leads to the worship of a wafer in so called traditional communities such as the FSSP and indult/moto places. It can matter a whole lot I dare say. The Pope is our link to Christ and our salvation depends on submission to legitimate pontiffs.
Priests, not popes directly (unless we're assisting at their Masses), administer Sacraments. So one would have to believe (Privately Interpret) all post-V2 ordained priests to have received ersatz ordinations (not inferior rites, but truly ersatz ones) and thus to be uttering useless words of "consecration" over bread which then remains bread -- in order to affirm what you just said in the paragraph above.
I don't buy it, because no lay person is above any priest, bishop, Cardinal, or pope -- and one would have to be considered or consider oneself above such authority figures to "declare" all post-V2 priests inauthentic priests.
In Argentina, prior to his election, was Jorge Bergoglio not an authentically ordained priest, however (obviously) poor and heterodox his training was?
All kinds of local parish priests spout theological nonsense, yet they remain ordained priests, administering valid sacraments. Just because I don't go to them and you don't go to them doesn't mean that the Eucharist is not being confected, necessarily.
If we no longer have the sacraments, anywhere, then the Church has lost her indefectibility, which is impossible, because Jesus Christ is Truth Itself.
-
The fact recorded in paragraph (a) above will surprise no one who is familiar with Davies’s writings, for his recognition of the Conciliar Church is openly avowed. The fact recorded in paragraph (b) is much less well known, for Davies is often thought of as an opponent, rather than a defender, of the leading revolutionaries of the Conciliar Church. But some readers may be tempted to wonder what relevance it has, even if it can be shown to be true. *Whether or not one acknowledges John-Paul II as pope, all will concede to be a matter of the highest importance, but exactly how a particular member of the Conciliar Church views the “ravening wolves” (Acts 20:29) responsible for all that Catholics rightly find objectionable in that sect might seem to be of slight moment. And if the individual in question were just a rank- and-file Novus Ordo attender, I should be inclined to agree. But the extraordinary favour Davies shows, despite his vaunted “traditionalism”, for the chief innovators is certainly not without significance, I submit; for, even if we allow that he may have a “blind spot” on the subject of the recent apparent occupants of the Holy See, this ought not to prevent a writer who professes to adhere to the traditional teaching of the Church, and is undertaking to expose the machinations of the Conciliar Church, from calling a spade a spade and apportioning responsibility where it lies. And yet this is certainly not what Davies does. On the contrary, he consistently refuses to go beyond a certain point in his criticisms of the Conciliar Church and its senior prelates, and no less consistently makes exceptional efforts to defend these monsters and minimize their evident complicity in, and responsibility for, the post-Conciliar debacle. John Daly
* At least pme would think that whether one who poses as Pope is the real deal or not was a matter of the highest importance. But lo and behold we come to a traditional blog and see those who style themselves as traditional Catholics claiming that it is a matter of little importance. These are the type of sentiments that could not be imagined were they not publicly uttered (Lover of Truth)
-
that in the most fundamental division that exists among those who call themselves Catholics today – namely, whether or not one acknowledges the religion of which Karol Wojtyła (John-Paul II) is head (with all its new rites, new catechisms, “lay ministers,” charismatics, ecuмenism, religious liberty and episcopal collegiality) as the Church founded by Jesus Christ upon the rock of St. Peter – Michael Davies is firmly with the “Conciliar Church”, and therefore opposed to the Catholic Church which – as is extensively demonstrated for the benefit of those not already aware of the fact throughout this Evaluation, and especially in Chapter 3 – is most certainly not the organization led by John-
Paul II, but rather a “sect of perdition” (2 Peter 2:1) John Daly
-
Davies compares those Catholics who reject Vatican II with Protestants who “decide which general councils they will or will not accept.” Of course this begs the question, since it presumes to begin with that Vatican II was a general council. There is nothing Protestant about following the laws and teachings of the Church in order to determine whether a given assembly of bishops was or was not a general council of the Catholic Church. For instance, of the two councils of Ephesus, the first was an orthodox general council of the Catholic Church, while the second was a heretical anti-council. In exactly the same way, the first council of the Vatican was a genuine general council, while the second was heretical and non-Catholic. There is nothing Protestant about recognizing this. John Daly
-
In summary, Davies is saying that, because Montini uses a little sheep’s clothing instead of revealing himself as a wolf in every word and deed, there is no need for us to accept the “improbable hypothesis” that he is deliberately doing what he is actually doing. Of course, the fact that Montini was “deliberately using his position to deceive the faithful and destroy the Church” is not a hypothesis at all. It is what he visibly did throughout his fifteen-year “pontificate”. His was the authority by which were passed all the directives which reduced what had been the institution of the Catholic Church to the rubble which remained at his death in 1978. However, Davies’s “charity” is such that, had he observed Montini careering through St. Peter’s wieldinga sledgehammer, desecrating the altars and smashing the statues with the hysterical abandon of a Cranmer or a Ridley, he would still have refused to entertain the “improbable hypothesis” that “the pope” was deliberately destroying the sacred edifice. John Daly
-
I do not know if the pope is the pope or not, what I think doesn't matter anyway, but unlike you Myrna, and unlike those things that sedevacantism preaches, I do not need to know in order for me to keep the Catholic faith.
The crazy thing is that even though you cannot admit it, neither do you, neither does anyone these days. If you think I'm wrong, just look at yourself and look all the trads and all the neo trads and all the SVs, all, who per your own SV belief, have lived without a pope for the last +50 years and presumably have kept the faith!
So as Fr. Cekada says, you have a "pope problem", and he's right, yes, you do have a "pope problem", it is a problem which SVism continually grooms for the sake of having a "pope problem".
How ironic. You say you doubt the pope is the pope. That right there admits there is a "pope problem". In fact, there is a Catholic principle that "a doubtful pope is no pope" (papa dubius papa nullus). Look it up.
Live "without" a pope, you say? One who completely ignores the man is living without him just as much, so get your standards straight. Ignoring a problem is only adding to the problem. The start of a solution is to NOT ignore a problem.
SV's only say that the men who claimed to be pope from Rome since 1965 (exactly 50 years) are not popes. It doesn't necessarily mean there wasn't a pope in a dungeon for a while somewhere, or that the men elected might have been pope for a very short time before rejecting their grace of state to promote Vatican II.
I said YOU have a pope problem - as in, YOU are concerned and obsess about it for no reason, and fyi, that is not Catholic.
-
God naturally knows whether the Pope is true or not and it is He, and not us, Who is ultimately in charge. Regardless whether the Seat is vacant or not, we still have this day:
1. To serve God by keeping His commandments.
2. To imitate Jesus Christ by practicing the Christian virtues.
3. To honor and invoke the angels and saints.
4. To save a soul.
5. To avoid Hell.
6. To gain Heaven.
7. To slight transitory things.
8. To expiate sins.
9. To subdue evil inclinations.
10. To perform good works.
11. To edify your neighbor.
12. Perhaps, to die and to stand before the judgment - seat of Jesus Christ.
-
that in the most fundamental division that exists among those who call themselves Catholics today – namely, whether or not one acknowledges the religion of which Karol Wojtyła (John-Paul II) is head (with all its new rites, new catechisms, “lay ministers,” charismatics, ecuмenism, religious liberty and episcopal collegiality) as the Church founded by Jesus Christ upon the rock of St. Peter – Michael Davies is firmly with the “Conciliar Church”, and therefore opposed to the Catholic Church which – as is extensively demonstrated for the benefit of those not already aware of the fact throughout this Evaluation, and especially in Chapter 3 – is most certainly not the organization led by John-
Paul II, but rather a “sect of perdition” (2 Peter 2:1) John Daly
I'm not talking about Michael Davies. I am talking about whether you believe you are in charge of decreeing who is and who is not a validly ordained priest for the purpose (merely) of administering the sacraments. Not whether any, or all, priests ordained since V2 are good theologians, poor theologians, do or do not understand and teach Tradition sufficiently well. (Few do, obviously, and most teach a diluted so-called Catholicism.) I am talking about their Orders.
Do not dare to imply ever, on any Catholic forum, that I merely "call myself" Catholic yet I am not. I doubt that your supposedly trad credentials even equal mine (should you be tempted to compare them; I am not tempted). I was not raised in the Conciliar Church, LofT, so cast your aspersions elsewhere.
-
Having invalid Popes giving us invalid Sacraments leads to the worship of a wafer in so called traditional communities such as the FSSP and indult/moto places. It can matter a whole lot I dare say. The Pope is our link to Christ and our salvation depends on submission to legitimate pontiffs.
That is going way too far for a simple lay Catholic. It is taking a sedevacantist opinion and descending rapidly into the slippery slope of ecclesia-vacantism, which is manifestly heretical. It is also a schismatic attitude towards other Catholics who attend Mass in other rites, besides the Latin. This concern coming from someone who pertinaciously believes that the Sacraments are optional and that people can be saved without them anyway, even those ignorant / rejecting of the Gospel, is very amusing, to say the least. Surely, these pious people blindly "stuck" in the FSSP belong to the Church by "desire" so they can be saved anyhow, even if they are indeed only receiving a "wafer" instead of the very Body and Blood of Our Lord, according to your own bizarre standards.
-
I do not know if the pope is the pope or not, what I think doesn't matter anyway, but unlike you Myrna, and unlike those things that sedevacantism preaches, I do not need to know in order for me to keep the Catholic faith.
The crazy thing is that even though you cannot admit it, neither do you, neither does anyone these days. If you think I'm wrong, just look at yourself and look all the trads and all the neo trads and all the SVs, all, who per your own SV belief, have lived without a pope for the last +50 years and presumably have kept the faith!
So as Fr. Cekada says, you have a "pope problem", and he's right, yes, you do have a "pope problem", it is a problem which SVism continually grooms for the sake of having a "pope problem".
How ironic. You say you doubt the pope is the pope. That right there admits there is a "pope problem". In fact, there is a Catholic principle that "a doubtful pope is no pope" (papa dubius papa nullus). Look it up.
Live "without" a pope, you say? One who completely ignores the man is living without him just as much, so get your standards straight. Ignoring a problem is only adding to the problem. The start of a solution is to NOT ignore a problem.
SV's only say that the men who claimed to be pope from Rome since 1965 (exactly 50 years) are not popes. It doesn't necessarily mean there wasn't a pope in a dungeon for a while somewhere, or that the men elected might have been pope for a very short time before rejecting their grace of state to promote Vatican II.
Let's conduct a thought experiment, conceding the SV position. The big question for every Catholic on the planet, equally, is So What? In terms of your mandate to live the authentically Catholic life (I'm not suggesting you aren't doing that; I'm questioning how it relates), why are you so concerned that there has supposedly been "no [active, visible] pope" for 50 years? How does it personally affect you? Not how it affects the Church as an institution. Of course it affects her as an institution. It affects the clarity of her message within the institution and outside of it, and thus her very credibility; it affects those who have not been properly catechized (i.e., most modern Catholics). But those are institutional concerns -- the jobs of bishops (who are commissioned specifically to teach), the jobs of Cardinals and parish priests who "have to explain/support/translate/reconcile-to-doctrine" a current pope with a poor grasp of theological concepts, to put it mildly. Those are not your concerns or my concerns, because we don't have to do their jobs for them, and no one on earth has mandated us to "follow Vatican 2," including what are deemed errors and ambiguities in those highly theoretical and highly romanticized and even visionary Conciliar docuмents.
Has any priest personally forced you to "celebrate" (accommodate to) the principles of the World? If not, then you have no excuse. Vatican 2 did not command us, in our personal Catholic lives, to "do" anything contrary to the Faith. No matter how much new theology was in there and new "possibilities" were in there, it did not command us to defy Tradition. We continue to be commanded to follow only the approved deposit of faith. Anything that seems to you or me to oppose the pre-v2 deposit of faith cannot be authentic because dogma cannot contradict itself.
It's a huge nuisance to be without a pope, or to be underneath someone who seems not to know the Faith or love the Faith. This is called a Cross. We all are required to deal with it and carry it.
Your conclusion I have highlighted.
You are wrong. Crosses we must bear WHILE we humanly fight them. Sickness is a cross. Do you fight sickness? Do you fight the sickness of your relative, or child? Do you fight it by getting a doctor's help? Of course you do. But we resign ourselves to the cross WHILE we do so. The Church has experienced heretics, and they fought them tooth and nail in lieu of higher authority. St. Athanasius and his followers fought the Arian heresy, and condemned and stayed away from it BEFORE the Church condemned it. They did so, and carried the cross, WHILE they did so. That is Catholic action.
-
I do not know if the pope is the pope or not, what I think doesn't matter anyway, but unlike you Myrna, and unlike those things that sedevacantism preaches, I do not need to know in order for me to keep the Catholic faith.
The crazy thing is that even though you cannot admit it, neither do you, neither does anyone these days. If you think I'm wrong, just look at yourself and look all the trads and all the neo trads and all the SVs, all, who per your own SV belief, have lived without a pope for the last +50 years and presumably have kept the faith!
So as Fr. Cekada says, you have a "pope problem", and he's right, yes, you do have a "pope problem", it is a problem which SVism continually grooms for the sake of having a "pope problem".
How ironic. You say you doubt the pope is the pope. That right there admits there is a "pope problem". In fact, there is a Catholic principle that "a doubtful pope is no pope" (papa dubius papa nullus). Look it up.
Live "without" a pope, you say? One who completely ignores the man is living without him just as much, so get your standards straight. Ignoring a problem is only adding to the problem. The start of a solution is to NOT ignore a problem.
SV's only say that the men who claimed to be pope from Rome since 1965 (exactly 50 years) are not popes. It doesn't necessarily mean there wasn't a pope in a dungeon for a while somewhere, or that the men elected might have been pope for a very short time before rejecting their grace of state to promote Vatican II.
Let's conduct a thought experiment, conceding the SV position. The big question for every Catholic on the planet, equally, is So What? In terms of your mandate to live the authentically Catholic life (I'm not suggesting you aren't doing that; I'm questioning how it relates), why are you so concerned that there has supposedly been "no [active, visible] pope" for 50 years? How does it personally affect you? Not how it affects the Church as an institution. Of course it affects her as an institution. It affects the clarity of her message within the institution and outside of it, and thus her very credibility; it affects those who have not been properly catechized (i.e., most modern Catholics). But those are institutional concerns -- the jobs of bishops (who are commissioned specifically to teach), the jobs of Cardinals and parish priests who "have to explain/support/translate/reconcile-to-doctrine" a current pope with a poor grasp of theological concepts, to put it mildly. Those are not your concerns or my concerns, because we don't have to do their jobs for them, and no one on earth has mandated us to "follow Vatican 2," including what are deemed errors and ambiguities in those highly theoretical and highly romanticized and even visionary Conciliar docuмents.
Has any priest personally forced you to "celebrate" (accommodate to) the principles of the World? If not, then you have no excuse. Vatican 2 did not command us, in our personal Catholic lives, to "do" anything contrary to the Faith. No matter how much new theology was in there and new "possibilities" were in there, it did not command us to defy Tradition. We continue to be commanded to follow only the approved deposit of faith. Anything that seems to you or me to oppose the pre-v2 deposit of faith cannot be authentic because dogma cannot contradict itself.
It's a huge nuisance to be without a pope, or to be underneath someone who seems not to know the Faith or love the Faith. This is called a Cross. We all are required to deal with it and carry it.
Your conclusion I have highlighted.
You are wrong. Crosses we must bear WHILE we humanly fight them. Sickness is a cross. Do you fight sickness? Do you fight the sickness of your relative, or child? Do you fight it by getting a doctor's help? Of course you do. But we resign ourselves to the cross WHILE we do so. The Church has experienced heretics, and they fought them tooth and nail in lieu of higher authority. St. Athanasius and his followers fought the Arian heresy, and condemned and stayed away from it BEFORE the Church condemned it. They did so, and carried the cross, WHILE they did so. That is Catholic action.
Incorrect. It is not either/or. It is both/and. Crosses include both what we can change and what we cannot change. A cross is merely a suffering. To suffer for righteousness' sake (which trads do when we are persecuted -- and I am, regularly -- for following the actual Faith) is something noble, and Jesus Christ Himself declared that so. The suffering doesn't preclude witnessing; it is its companion.
Lay people can do what they can to witness, to persist, but very often, in order for those efforts to be efficacious, sacrifice and suffering will be involved. This is basic, traditional Catholic spirituality. Nothing has changed that.
-
Having invalid Popes giving us invalid Sacraments leads to the worship of a wafer in so called traditional communities such as the FSSP and indult/moto places. It can matter a whole lot I dare say. The Pope is our link to Christ and our salvation depends on submission to legitimate pontiffs.
That is going way too far for a simple lay Catholic. It is taking a sedevacantist opinion and descending rapidly into the slippery slope of ecclesia-vacantism, which is manifestly heretical. It is also a schismatic attitude towards other Catholics who attend Mass in other rites, besides the Latin. This concern coming from someone who pertinaciously believes that the Sacraments are optional and that people can be saved without them anyway, even those ignorant / rejecting of the Gospel, is very amusing, to say the least. Surely, these pious people blindly "stuck" in the FSSP belong to the Church by "desire" so they can be saved anyhow, even if they are indeed only receiving a "wafer" instead of the very Body and Blood of Our Lord, according to your own bizarre standards.
Well, hang on Cantarella. I agree claiming too much unreasonably is a mistake. We don't KNOW infallibly whether the 1968 Episcopal Consecrations are Valid or not. I hear good reasons against it, but there is something to be said for it, namely that Paul Vi said the ENTIRE Consecration Prayer was the form of the Sacrament, although he did indicate the essential portion of that prayer, and that essential part seems vague. Nevertheless, the ENTIRE Consecration which he SPECIFICED as the form IS clear as to the order to which the person is being consecrated.
So, if you are not sure you have proof for, or against, then you have proof it is doubtful. But we must avoid all doubtful sacraments, we are not allowed opinionism regarding the sacraments, we must settle any positive probable doubt.
We also see that (Even though we don't theologize BASED on provate revelation, it I another thing if private revelation confirms theological reasoning) Anne Catherine Emmerich indicated a time in which people would seek to receive the body of Christ and receive only bread. Given that was mentioned in the context of a counterfeit Church, it is very likely we are NOW living in that time.
“I saw again the new and odd-looking Church which they were trying to build. There was nothing holy about it… People were kneading bread in the crypt below… but it would not rise, nor did they receive the body of Our Lord, but only bread. Those who were in error, through no fault of their own, and who piously and ardently longed for the Body of Jesus were spiritually consoled, but not by their communion. Then, my Guide [Jesus] said: ‘THIS IS BABEL.’"
We must acknowledge that the utter abandonment of the Church in favor of a false Church will happen, and if this is NOT that moment, it is most definitely the dress rehearsal;
“The Church is in great danger. We must pray so that the Pope may not leave Rome; countless evils would result if he did. They are now demanding something from him. The Protestant doctrine and that of the schismatic Greeks are to spread everywhere. I now see that in this place (Rome) the (Catholic) Church is being so cleverly undermined, that there hardly remain a hundred or so priests who have not been deceived. They all work for destruction, even the clergy. A great devastation is now near at hand.”
From my time in the Orthodox Church, I can tell you, the Orthodox are SPREADING like you would not believe. Orthodoxy is the fastest growing religion in Ireland. Guatemala had a recent mass conversion of Indians away from Roman Catholicism TO eastern orthodoxy. It is NOW the most orthodox country in the western hemisphere, proportionately. TO say nothing of Pentecostalism ravaging South America.
“I saw a strange church being built against every rule…No angels were supervising the building operations. In that church, nothing came from high above…There was only division and chaos. It is probably a church of human creation, following the latest fashion, as well as the new heterodox Church of Rome [one world church of the False Prophet], which seems of the same kind…”
“I saw again the strange big church that was being built there (in Rome). There was nothing holy in it.
I saw this just as I saw a movement led by Ecclesiastics to which contributed angels, saints and other Christians. But there (in the strange big church) all the work was being done mechanically (i.e., according to set rules and formula). Everything was being done, according to human reason. I saw all sorts of people, things, doctrines, and opinions. There was something proud, presumptuous, and violent about it, and they seemed to be very successful. I did not see a single Angel nor a single saint helping in the work. But far away in the background, I saw the seat of a cruel people armed with spears, and I saw a laughing figure which said: ‘Do build it as solid as you can; we will put it to the ground’.”
Isn't it interesting that the Angels are working to build up a movement in opposition to a counterfeit Church?
“Then I saw that everything pertaining to Protestantism was gradually gaining the upper hand, and the Catholic religion fell into complete decadence. Most priests were lured by the glittering but false knowledge of young school-teachers, and they all contributed to the work of destruction. In those days, Faith will fall very low, and it will be preserved in some places only, in a few cottages and in a few families which God has protected from disasters and wars…”
God has promised not to abandon the Church Cantarella, and he has promised to preserve her from the gates of Hell.
He has NOT promised though to keep her from being reduced to within an inch of her life...
Our Lady of Good Success indicates that this is indeed the truth:
"When everything shall seem paralyzed and lost, then will be the hour of my victory."
-
From my time in the Orthodox Church, I can tell you, the Orthodox are SPREADING like you would not believe. Orthodoxy is the fastest growing religion in Ireland. Guatemala had a recent mass conversion of Indians away from Roman Catholicism TO eastern orthodoxy. It is NOW the most orthodox country in the western hemisphere, proportionately. TO say nothing of Pentecostalism ravaging South America.
I attended the ROCOR (Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia) for a period of time as well. I know very well that they are bringing plenty of western converts who are quite fed up with the Holy Roman Catholic Church, or better yet, with what they perceive the Holy Roman Catholic Church is nowadays.
So, if you are not sure you have proof for, or against, then you have proof it is doubtful. But we must avoid all doubtful sacraments, we are not allowed opinionism regarding the sacraments, we must settle any positive probable doubt.
Well, the Church recognizes the Eastern Orthodox have valid Sacraments and even approve of them in cases of extreme necessity; so in the schismatic Divine Liturgies, the Holy Eucharist is undoubtfullly valid (although illicit). It is the very Body and Blood of Our Lord and there is no doubt about it. Are you attending Mass anywhere in a Roman or Bizantine Catholic Church then? if not, why not? Do you rather not receive a valid Holy Eucharist at all? Jesus said you will not have life in you, unless you do.
For me, it was precisely the supremacy of Blessed Peter and the Papal office as a foundation of unity for the Church Christ founded more than 2000 years ago, which made the difference. It is a historical infallible reality.
-
Let's conduct a thought experiment, conceding the SV position. The big question for every Catholic on the planet, equally, is So What?.
MMagdala,
Do you believe that Roncalli and Wojtyla are saints?
Both my belief and my opinion are of no consequence to my requirements -- or the scope of those -- to comply with Tradition. None whatsoever. The Church has never commanded, in any era, that we venerate particular declared saints within our individual spiritual practice. And since neither Roncalli nor Wojtyla are mentioned ever by my trad priests -- not in liturgical prayer, not in preaching, not in private direction -- it is not an issue for me one way or the other. Your question is non-responsive to the sentences you quoted above.
I have particular devotions to The Little Flower, to various male saints, to Teresa of Avila, to St. Augustine, St. John Vianney, and a few more. But by no means do I ask for the intercession of the great bulk of those canonized even before V2, such as the early saints of the Church, such as those of medieval times, etc. It is not out of disrespect, let alone "disbelief." Rather, the saints are there for our benefit, should we choose to avail ourselves of their intercessory powers.
If I do believe the 2 men named are saints, my requirements are no greater and no less than those Cantarella has listed several times, as have I (in less detail).
If I do not believe the 2 men named are saints, my requirements are no greater and no less than those Cantarella has listed several times, as have I (in less detail).
Given the splendors of writings, intercessory prayers, and devotions belonging to the traditional Saints, venerated for centuries, I have no idea why anyone would want to turn to some modern/modernistic men, hastily declared "saints" by a fast-track and dubious process, as opposed to those we've had in the Church long before anyone alive was born. It is not vaguely a sin or a lack in any Catholic to refuse to honor, privately, any particular named "saint" of any particular era.
-
“Do you believe that Roncalli and Wojtyla are saints?”
Their pope Francis does when he says of them at the moment of the proclamation, “decernimus e definimus” … “we decree and define”. Although the Modernist want The teaching now to be when the Pope canonizes a saint his judgment is infallible only.
According to the SSPX website Canonization is an infallible act and MMagdala or anyone who believes Francis is a Catholic pope shouldn't have any qualms about praying to Roncalli or Woytyla or Martin Luther if he is canonized by Francis or another Modernist.
This confusion is only another consequence of not having a Catholic "pope" sitting in the chair.
http://sspx.org/en/beatification-and-canonization-vatican-ii-2
-
“Do you believe that Roncalli and Wojtyla are saints?”
Their pope Francis does when he says of them at the moment of the proclamation, “decernimus e definimus” … “we decree and define”. Although the Modernist want The teaching now to be when the Pope canonizes a saint his judgment is infallible only.
According to the SSPX website Canonization is an infallible act and MMagdala or anyone who believes Francis is a Catholic pope shouldn't have any qualms about praying to Roncalli or Woytyla or Martin Luther if he is canonized by Francis or another Modernist.
This confusion is only another consequence of not having a Catholic "pope" sitting in the chair.
I do not believe they are saints, nor do I believe SVism.
I remind the reader that the Church, and the Pope as its chief spokesman, have three major offices: those of teaching, governing, and sanctifying. Infallibility inheres only in the teaching office of the Church, not in governing, which includes its legislation, nor in sanctifying, which includes its sacramental forms and liturgical books.
If this is true - and though I do not completely understand it, I think it is true. Since I believe it to be true then I do not believe Roncalli and Wojtyla are saints because the NO canonizations were, once again, not an act of papal infallibility and ipso facto, are therefore subject to error.
Aside from that, since SVs go around proclaiming there is no pope as if it is fact because that is what they believe, then they have zero room to correct Catholics who believes Roncalli and Wojtyla are not saints based on the canonizations not being infallible.
So here once again, regardless that you've never answered one of my silly questions - I once again answered your very, very silly question. Just want to point that fact out to remind you that you do not need to be afraid to answer questions, no matter how silly they may seem to you.
-
This thread is SO finished. Salza and SIscoe abandoned it very quickly. Best to branch off into new threads. I think I will grab something here and do so myself.
-
If this is true - and though I do not completely understand it, I think it is true. Since I believe it to be true then I do not believe Roncalli and Wojtyla are saints because the NO canonizations were, once again, not an act of papal infallibility and ipso facto, are therefore subject to error.
Congratulations you are coming closer to accept there is no Catholic pope in the Vatican unless of course he is held captive somewhere in the basement.
That is what the SV believe also, the NO canonizations are nothing more than an opinion. It takes a True Catholic pope to declare infallibility who is a Saint as the SSPX web site states and as I was taught in Catholic school prior to Vatican II.
-
If this is true - and though I do not completely understand it, I think it is true. Since I believe it to be true then I do not believe Roncalli and Wojtyla are saints because the NO canonizations were, once again, not an act of papal infallibility and ipso facto, are therefore subject to error.
Congratulations you are coming closer to accept there is no Catholic pope in the Vatican unless of course he is held captive somewhere in the basement.
That is what the SV believe also, the NO canonizations are nothing more than an opinion. It takes a True Catholic pope to declare infallibility who is a Saint as the SSPX web site states and as I was taught in Catholic school prior to Vatican II.
No, it's just that I simply understand the Catholic faith just a little bit better than you give me credit for.
It's simple actually and goes like this........
You must start with the doctrine of infallibility which through the Catholic faith, we know can never be violated. Now, you must always keep this as your foundation, believe in it with your whole heart and soul, bind yourself to it so you would die defending it.
If you can get yourself to do this, then you understand that whatever the popes have said or done, whatever they ever say or do, will not be a violation of the Church's attribute of infallibility.
The way to admit that you are incapable of doing this, is to believe either of the following: 1) the NO canonizations were infallible or 2) the pope was not the pope.
The difference between us, is Catholics wholly believe and have faith in the doctrine of infallibility, whereas sedevacantists have no faith in the doctrine, instead their faith is in an Empty Chair, I dubbed it ECS for Empty Chair Syndrome some months ago.
In a nutshell, we all know the crimes of PPVI and JP2 well enough and because the Catholic faith teaches us, we know that heretics cannot be canonized as saints. The act of canonization cannot make a heretic a saint. This is what we know.
Because we know the above, we know with the certainty of faith that the canonizations are not an act of papal infallibility. No matter what else we want to believe, regardless of whatever other opinions we have, this is what we know because this is what the Catholic faith teaches.
-
Not sure if this has been posted yet, but Louie Verrecchio posted a new article yesterday in which he interviewed both Salza and Siscoe on this new book of theirs on sedevacantism. I haven't read the entire article, but thought it might be useful:
https://akacatholic.com/interview-salza-siscoe-unmask-sedevacantism/
-
Second, those guilty of the crime of heresy lose their office, but only after the Church establishes the crime.
John,
What you have stated here is absolutely false, and there are many quotes from the Church that confirm otherwise. Here are a few of them that confirm loss of office is AUTOMATIC in the case of heresy, and the Church teaches this occurs BEFORE the Church establishes the crime. Notice especially the underlined parts. Please explain why all of these Church sources teach exactly the opposite of what you are going around preaching:
"In the case in which the pope would become a heretic, he would find himself, by that fact alone and without any other sentence, separated from the Church." Summa Theologica, cited in Actes de Vatican I. V. Frond pub. St. Antoninus (†1459)
“The Pope should not flatter himself about his power nor should he rashly glory in his honor and high estate, because the less he is judged by man, the more he is judged by God. Still the less can the Roman Pontiff glory because he can be judged by men, or rather, can be shown to be already judged, if for example he should wither away into heresy; because he who does not believe is already judged..." Pope Innocent III
"...a pope who is a manifest heretic by that fact ceases to be pope and head, just as he by that fact ceases to be a Christian and a member of the body of the Church; wherefore he can be judged and punished by the Church. This is the judgement of all the early fathers, who teach that manifest heretics immediately lose all jurisdiction." St. Robert Bellarmine, "On the Roman Pontiff"
"If God permitted a pope to be notoriously heretical and contumacious, he would then cease to be pope, and the Apostolic Chair would be vacant." St. Alphonsus de Liguori, "The Truths of the Faith"
"A heretical pope necessarily ceases to be head of the Church, for by his heresy he is no longer a member thereof; in the event of his still claiming the Roman see, a General Council, improperly so called because without the pope, could remove him. But this is not deposition, since by his own act is no longer pope." A Catholic Dictionary, Deposition
"The councils of Constance and Basle, and Gallican theologians, hold that a council may depose a pope...(2) /ob fidem/ (on account of his faith or rather want of faith, i.e. heresy). In point of fact however, heresy is the only legitimate ground. For a heretical pope has ceased to be a member of the Church, and cannot, therefore, be its head." Catholic Encyclopedia, 1913. [Vol. IV p.435] Councils
"The question was also raised by a Cardinal, “What is to be done with the Pope if he becomes a heretic?” It was answered that there has never been such a case; the Council of Bishops could depose him for heresy, for from the moment he becomes a heretic he is not the head or even a member of the Church. The Church would not be, for a moment, obliged to listen to him when he begins to teach a doctrine the Church knows to be a false doctrine, and he would cease to be Pope, being deposed by God Himself." (Abp. John B. Purcell, quoted in Rev. James J. McGovern, Life and Life Work of Pope Leo XIII [Chicago, IL: Allied Printing, 1903], p. 241; imprimatur by Abp. James Quigley of Chicago.)
It is good advice to steer clear of any subject one knows little about. Sedevacantism is one such subject I cannot solve, but I do have a connecting dilemma. I have no problem with the sedevacantists I have known and do know. It is a position they hold in order to avoid the 'gates of hell have prevailed.' They may be right, they may not. I do not believe I have the right to make such judgements.
Given one has to know what is in one's heart before one can be certain a person is a heretic. My own interest is in the Galileo case, the history of which concerns formal heresy, suspicion of heresy, and popes siding with heresy, which in turn have a sedevacantist connection.
Galileo wrote up what popes had defined as formal heresy against the Bible. Asked if he was a heretic he said no,. He probably lied. The best the Inquisition could find against him was 'suspicion of heresy.' I found that a lesson.
In 1741, 1820 and 1835, three popes sided with the formal heresy defined and declared in 1616.
Now that we know the 1616 heresy was never falsified, have we had sedevacantism in the Church since 1741 or 1820? This scenario is a no-no for sedevacantists, the Diamond Brothers especially, who wrote a synthesis trying to wiggle a way out of an early case of sedevacantism. Since I read that I have concluded there is so much theology in Catholicism that the arguments are endless and thus there can be no certainty in this matter for Catholics. For myself now, I believe what Christ said, the gates of hell will not prevail. But by that I believe He meant no pope will teach error WITH HIS INFALLIBLE PEROGATIVE.
-
Not sure if this has been posted yet, but Louie Verrecchio posted a new article yesterday in which he interviewed both Salza and Siscoe on this new book of theirs on sedevacantism. I haven't read the entire article, but thought it might be useful:
https://akacatholic.com/interview-salza-siscoe-unmask-sedevacantism/
It would be interesting to know when the actual interview took place. If it took place after the challenges they ran away from here, then .....well....I hope the interview was before.
-
Not sure if this has been posted yet, but Louie Verrecchio posted a new article yesterday in which he interviewed both Salza and Siscoe on this new book of theirs on sedevacantism. I haven't read the entire article, but thought it might be useful:
https://akacatholic.com/interview-salza-siscoe-unmask-sedevacantism/
It would be interesting to know when the actual interview took place. If it took place after the challenges they ran away from here, then .....well....I hope the interview was before.
We didn't run from any arguments presented here. If you read the book, you will see that it covers every question that you can think of thoroughly, which is why it is 700 pages.
If you still have questions after reading the book, submit them through the website (trueorfalsepope.com) and we will address them publicly in the mail section.
-
Just found this and don't know if it was posted in this thread yet:
https://stevensperay.files.wordpress.com/2015/12/the-gates-of-hell-and-the-gates-of-the-church1.pdf
-
Not sure if this has been posted yet, but Louie Verrecchio posted a new article yesterday in which he interviewed both Salza and Siscoe on this new book of theirs on sedevacantism. I haven't read the entire article, but thought it might be useful:
https://akacatholic.com/interview-salza-siscoe-unmask-sedevacantism/
It would be interesting to know when the actual interview took place. If it took place after the challenges they ran away from here, then .....well....I hope the interview was before.
We didn't run from any arguments presented here. If you read the book, you will see that it covers every question that you can think of thoroughly, which is why it is 700 pages.
If you still have questions after reading the book, submit them through the website (trueorfalsepope.com) and we will address them publicly in the mail section.
Well, that makes it clear you are really here only to promote your book. You really shouldn't have participated in any discussion only to abort it and expect people to purchase your book.
You know, nothing better puts your position to a test than to subject it to a one-on-one discussion in writing. Merely submitting questions through your website and (maybe) getting a dead-end answer is really showing a lack of confidence in your own position.
Furthermore, nobody necessarily has to read your whole book if you have already presented something crucial to your thesis that is debunked by the principle of the "argumentum ad absurdum". That's the same principle behind someone accused of a murder who has a solid alibi. An alibi absolutely trumps any other alleged evidence, even fingerprints on the murder weapon.
-
Just found this and don't know if it was posted in this thread yet:
https://stevensperay.files.wordpress.com/2015/12/the-gates-of-hell-and-the-gates-of-the-church1.pdf
Quote from said article: "Catholics are not permitted to personally believe such
blasphemies against Christ and His Church. Siscoe, Salza, and
company, not only believe in their blasphemous heresy, they promote it
as true, righteous, and the only position to hold. They hypocritically use
their “private judgment” against what they believe are official laws and
teachings of their own popes"
In other words, they believe that Jesus Christ and His Holy ChurchCAN DECEIVE. They should think about the words in the prayer known as the Act of Faith, where it clearly says that ... I believe these and all the truths which the holy catholic Church teaches because in revealing them you can neither deceive nor be deceived.
Not only do they blasphemy against God but promote lies, as does their new church with their heretical "popes". All people who endorsed their book possess their own agenda and it is based on PRIDE, like the fallen angels they refuse to accept God and His holy Church where the mission has always been to save souls, not as their new religion mission which is to destroy Gods, Church, His teachings, and lead the followers into a religion that worships man instead of God. Vengeance for this crime belongs to God and their time to repent is growing short.
-
Just found this and don't know if it was posted in this thread yet:
https://stevensperay.files.wordpress.com/2015/12/the-gates-of-hell-and-the-gates-of-the-church1.pdf
Quote from said article: "Catholics are not permitted to personally believe such
blasphemies against Christ and His Church. Siscoe, Salza, and
company, not only believe in their blasphemous heresy, they promote it
as true, righteous, and the only position to hold. They hypocritically use
their “private judgment” against what they believe are official laws and
teachings of their own popes"
In other words, they believe that Jesus Christ and His Holy ChurchCAN DECEIVE. They should think about the words in the prayer known as the Act of Faith, where it clearly says that ... I believe these and all the truths which the holy catholic Church teaches because in revealing them you can neither deceive nor be deceived.
Not only do they blasphemy against God but promote lies, as does their new church with their heretical "popes". All people who endorsed their book possess their own agenda and it is based on PRIDE, like the fallen angels they refuse to accept God and His holy Church where the mission has always been to save souls, not as their new religion mission which is to destroy Gods, Church, His teachings, and lead the followers into a religion that worships man instead of God. Vengeance for this crime belongs to God and their time to repent is growing short.
Yes, I find the "private judgment" argument against sedevacantists quite hypocritical.
-
Just found this and don't know if it was posted in this thread yet:
https://stevensperay.files.wordpress.com/2015/12/the-gates-of-hell-and-the-gates-of-the-church1.pdf
Quote from said article: "Catholics are not permitted to personally believe such
blasphemies against Christ and His Church. Siscoe, Salza, and
company, not only believe in their blasphemous heresy, they promote it
as true, righteous, and the only position to hold. They hypocritically use
their “private judgment” against what they believe are official laws and
teachings of their own popes"
You didn't quote the first part, which makes the part you quoted ambiguous. Had you quoted the first part, you would see the SS starts with a false, ECS inspired premise, so naturally it only follows that his conclusion is also false, which means you are agreeing with a false conclusion, and obviously so.
Too bad actually, one would think that the sedevacantist would strive to accept and welcome being proven that they are wrong and seek every opportunity toward that end when proven they are wrong.
-
"They" are nothing but hypocrites and I am sick of them and their armchair theologian degrees. The devil is very clever too!
They claim that these so-called popes can not be judged, but they judge them to be the Vicar of Christ. As if Christ can deceive!
Anyone reading this thread dares to purchase their book, are in league with Satan, unless the intention of the buy is to refute their lies. God promise that He will always be with us, that does not mean He will be with us in a false religion just because the enemy possesses the buildings. Their first lie was to say, they set out to prove sedevacantism when it was always their agenda to promote what was popular since that is where the $$$$$ is.
-
"They" are nothing but hypocrites and I am sick of them and their armchair theologian degrees. The devil is very clever too!
They claim that these so-called popes can not be judged, but they judge them to be the Vicar of Christ. As if Christ can deceive!
Myrna, the "claim" that the "so-called popes" cannot be judged, is not a "claim" at all, rather it is a bonifide teaching of the Catholic Church. Would it make any difference to you if I provided you with one of the actual magisterial teachings? - again?
-
Put a sock in it Stubborn, for your information in order to judge a pope we have to have one to be judged. Last I learned the Pope must be Catholic, and you yourself admitted you didn't know for sure if he was or not.
I suggest you study up on that first before you begin to teach Church doctrine.
-
Put a sock in it Stubborn, for your information in order to judge a pope we have to have one to be judged. Last I learned the Pope must be Catholic, and you yourself admitted you didn't know for sure if he was or not.
I suggest you study up on that first before you begin to teach Church doctrine.
The issue is the anti/non-sedevacantists already judge their popes. Don't get confused here.
-
Put a sock in it Stubborn, for your information in order to judge a pope we have to have one to be judged. Last I learned the Pope must be Catholic, and you yourself admitted you didn't know for sure if he was or not.
I suggest you study up on that first before you begin to teach Church doctrine.
The onus is on you Myrna, not me. You create the argument, you feed the argument, you promote the error, the onus is on you to prove that the pope is not the pope, therefore you are not judging a pope. You are only spewing stuff other sedevacantists teach, rest assured it is not what the Catholic Church teaches.
You never answered my questions before so I don't expect you to answer this one - but who cares if he is pope or not? You've presumably kept the faith without one for the last 30 years, so my question to you is - why do you need a pope at all?
-
Put a sock in it Stubborn, for your information in order to judge a pope we have to have one to be judged. Last I learned the Pope must be Catholic, and you yourself admitted you didn't know for sure if he was or not.
I suggest you study up on that first before you begin to teach Church doctrine.
The issue is the anti/non-sedevacantists already judge their popes. Don't get confused here.
Presumably, sedevacantists will do us the unsolicited service of informing us of the arrival of a pope whom they have validated once it happens.
-
Sedevacantists do not judge the pope. How could we? There is no pope to judge. Obviously.
-
After watching this video today:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vx4a0Szsawc
Siscoe is THOROUGHLY refuted.
-
After watching this video today:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vx4a0Szsawc
Siscoe is THOROUGHLY refuted.
That video is a over 1 and a half years old. I am sure Siscoe and Salza have some new things to add that were not addressed back then.
I can't bring myself to spend an hour and a half to watch a Dimond video. In the 3 minutes I did watch, I was already annoyed at how Dimond tries to make a point by saying his challenge for a debate was refused. The Dimonds have done this many times themselves having been challenged to written debates, and refusing. It means less when someone doesn't want a verbal debate, because it takes many skills of memory and quick recall to do it, so I would refuse that too. Refusing a written debate means a lot more!
-
Sedevacantists do not judge the pope. How could we? There is no pope to judge. Obviously.
Circular sedevacantist reasoning that is derived from ECS.
As I mentioned earlier, since she never has, I do not expect Myrna to answer any questions but perhaps you will answer it....... you've presumably kept the faith without a pope for the last 50 years, so my question to you is - why do you need a pope at all?
-
After watching this video today:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vx4a0Szsawc
Siscoe is THOROUGHLY refuted.
That video is a over 1 and a half years old. I am sure Siscoe and Salza have some new things to add that were not addressed back then.
I can't bring myself to spend an hour and a half to watch a Dimond video. In the 3 minutes I did watch, I was already annoyed at how Dimond tries to make a point by saying his challenge for a debate was refused. The Dimonds have done this many times themselves having been challenged to written debates, and refusing. It means less when someone doesn't want a verbal debate, because it takes many skills of memory and quick recall to do it, so I would refuse that too. Refusing a written debate means a lot more!
Fast forward then to 15 mins. The narrator is basically reading from written text. Maybe Siscoe doesn't want to debate because he would lose either way; verbally or written.
-
Sedevacantists do not judge the pope. How could we? There is no pope to judge. Obviously.
Circular sedevacantist reasoning that is derived from ECS.
As I mentioned earlier, since she never has, I do not expect Myrna to answer any questions but perhaps you will answer it....... you've presumably kept the faith without a pope for the last 50 years, so my question to you is - why do you need a pope at all?
The Church does not need a pope if God so chooses not to provide one. We see this through history.
Suppose we were both catechumens during an interregnum, and then sometime later we received the Sacrament of Baptism. Six months later we were both martyred before a pope was named. In fact, a pope would not be named until a year after we were martyred.
Would we both go to hell for not being subject to the Roman Pontiff? That is my question.
-
Sedevacantists do not judge the pope. How could we? There is no pope to judge. Obviously.
Circular sedevacantist reasoning that is derived from ECS.
As I mentioned earlier, since she never has, I do not expect Myrna to answer any questions but perhaps you will answer it....... you've presumably kept the faith without a pope for the last 50 years, so my question to you is - why do you need a pope at all?
Funny you should mention circular reasoning, when you have trouble reasoning!
The heart of that issue is that theologians have never even speculated how long of an interregnum is too long. Yet, you are treating this as though there is some limit. Where do you get that from? God knows the limit, it is simply for us to be united to the Faith of Rome with the prayer and desire towards getting one as soon as possible.
-
Put a sock in it Stubborn, for your information in order to judge a pope we have to have one to be judged. Last I learned the Pope must be Catholic, and you yourself admitted you didn't know for sure if he was or not.
I suggest you study up on that first before you begin to teach Church doctrine.
The issue is the anti/non-sedevacantists already judge their popes. Don't get confused here.
Presumably, sedevacantists will do us the unsolicited service of informing us of the arrival of a pope whom they have validated once it happens.
Meanwhile.......the hypocritical anti-/non sedevacantists still judge their popes.
-
The heart of that issue is that theologians have never even speculated how long of an interregnum is too long.
It is simple: an interregnum is too long when the last Bishop appointed by the last "true Pope" dies. No Pope = No more Bishops.
Look very carefully at Canon 332 from the 1917 Code of Canon Law.
.213 in the attached second page:
The only one to institute a bishop is the Pontiff
If there is no Roman Pontiff, then who sent your Bishops, sedevacantists?
There is no way to go around it. If you want to call yourself a Sedevacantist, then be true to the position, throughout consistent, and become a home aloner, instead of attending Mass at counterfeit sede sects such as the CMRI.
-
Sedevacantists do not judge the pope. How could we? There is no pope to judge. Obviously.
Circular sedevacantist reasoning that is derived from ECS.
As I mentioned earlier, since she never has, I do not expect Myrna to answer any questions but perhaps you will answer it....... you've presumably kept the faith without a pope for the last 50 years, so my question to you is - why do you need a pope at all?
The Church does not need a pope if God so chooses not to provide one. We see this through history.
Suppose we were both catechumens during an interregnum, and then sometime later we received the Sacrament of Baptism. Six months later we were both martyred before a pope was named. In fact, a pope would not be named until a year after we were martyred.
Would we both go to hell for not being subject to the Roman Pontiff? That is my question.
Looks like sede's in general can't get themselves to answer this simplest of questions.
I'll try one last time:
Why do you need a pope at all?
-
Put a sock in it Stubborn, for your information in order to judge a pope we have to have one to be judged. Last I learned the Pope must be Catholic, and you yourself admitted you didn't know for sure if he was or not.
I suggest you study up on that first before you begin to teach Church doctrine.
The issue is the anti/non-sedevacantists already judge their popes. Don't get confused here.
Presumably, sedevacantists will do us the unsolicited service of informing us of the arrival of a pope whom they have validated once it happens.
Meanwhile.......the hypocritical anti-/non sedevacantists still judge their popes.
I would say I am a non-sedevacantist and no, we non-sedevacantists do not judge the pope. I understand that you only say such things because of your "pope problem".
This is a problem that those effected with ECS have when they have no need for a pope themselves, yet are consumed with the fact that the pope in Rome does not meet up with their own personal idea of what a pope should be.
Because of ECS, they break away from traditional Catholics to open their own chapels so they can omit the pope's name from the canon of the mas, thereby employing a different Lex Orandi which of course drives their belief that it's their responsibility to promote ECS to others.
No 2Vermont, we anti-/non sedevacantists do not judge the pope, for the simple reason that he still gets elected in the same way all popes have been elected for the last 1500 years or so.
-
Sedevacantists do not judge the pope. How could we? There is no pope to judge. Obviously.
Circular sedevacantist reasoning that is derived from ECS.
As I mentioned earlier, since she never has, I do not expect Myrna to answer any questions but perhaps you will answer it....... you've presumably kept the faith without a pope for the last 50 years, so my question to you is - why do you need a pope at all?
Funny you should mention circular reasoning, when you have trouble reasoning!
The heart of that issue is that theologians have never even speculated how long of an interregnum is too long. Yet, you are treating this as though there is some limit. Where do you get that from? God knows the limit, it is simply for us to be united to the Faith of Rome with the prayer and desire towards getting one as soon as possible.
No, the heart of the issue is that though we may know well that the popes have committed sins, but this knowledge in no way qualifies us to declare him deprived of his office, or never to have been elected.
Besides, per your own stupid, circular reasoning, there have been no popes for the last +50 years - yet PRESUMABLY, you have kept the faith, ipso fact proves that YOU don't even need a pope to keep the faith - so why do you even need a pope at all? If it's not a syndrome, what is it?
-
I answered Stubborn, he just does not want to face the answer.
He wonders why we are troubled because of the pope crisis. The truth is, he is bothered by the very fact that yes, we can Keep the Faith and face the truth that the Chair is empty of a Catholic person sitting there, of his own admittance. The only difference between he and I is that I admit we have no Catholic Pope at this time, that I know of, and he believes it also, but won't admit it.
Cantarella = " If there is no Roman Pontiff, then who sent your Bishops, sedevacantists?"
So you believe that God sent your heretical Bishops who are nothing more than wolves in sheep's clothing, you thereby must believe that God in nothing more than a mere human person, if all He can produce is failing Bishops and His Church is not Divine after all just another human organization.
You have no faith in God, you Cantarella believe He failed, you believe His prayers for Peter failed and the devil won. You Cantarella believe the Pope today does not have to teach Catholic doctrine, as long as his name plate on his desk says, "Pope Francis". Cantarell thinks the First Commandment is old fashioned, belongs to the Old Testament. Her pope thinks so too. She acts as if her Fresh and Modern Pope who embraces all religions, no matter what they believe, is okay since she read that someplace. Those of her mind-set forget that Our Lord shed His blood for all, however, it matter not if the "all" accept His teachings or not these days because they/we are the enlightened ones. I deeply apologize to Cantarella if I am wrong about her beliefs and feelings yet, she posts over and over the same thing and eventually one can make a conclusion about her beliefs when her posts are so telling.
What matters to Cantarella is ... see OUR POPE, see good Francis see how he loves the Jews for one example. No need to pray for the Jєωιѕн people anymore or show them the truth of Jesus, they are fine where they are. Baptism, who needs it, really Cantarella, coming from you proves how hypocritical your views on Baptism really are.
-
Meanwhile.......the hypocritical anti-/non sedevacantists still judge their popes.
Yet another clear example of those spiteful, bitter toned, and quite predictable one - line sentences which make up about 99% of your "contributions" to this forum.
-
I answered Stubborn, he just does not want to face the answer.
He wonders why we are troubled because of the pope crisis. The truth is, he is bothered by the very fact that yes, we can Keep the Faith and face the truth that the Chair is empty of a Catholic person sitting there, of his own admittance. The only difference between he and I is that I admit we have no Catholic Pope at this time, that I know of, and he believes it also, but won't admit it.
You again gave no answer, which is typical. As I said, after you weaseling out of dozens of questions I've asked you over the years, I no longer expect you to answer publicly, though I hope you answer them privately to yourself. If you can get yourself to do this and if you can get yourself to do so honestly, I believe that one day you will figure it out. It hasn't worked yet, but I attribute that to your lex orandi, since that is what drives the way you believe.
I really do not wonder why you have a "pope problem", if you read my reply to 2Vermont you will see I understand clearly why you have a "pope problem".
The problem actually is Myrna, when we cut to the heart of the matter, sedevacantists do not understand of if they do, they do not accept what the Catholic Church teaches about what our role is in this crisis.
-
Meanwhile.......the hypocritical anti-/non sedevacantists still judge their popes.
Yet another clear example of those spiteful, bitter toned, and quite predictable one - line sentences which make up about 99% of your "contributions" to this forum.
Still not biting. :wink:
-
Put a sock in it Stubborn, for your information in order to judge a pope we have to have one to be judged. Last I learned the Pope must be Catholic, and you yourself admitted you didn't know for sure if he was or not.
I suggest you study up on that first before you begin to teach Church doctrine.
The issue is the anti/non-sedevacantists already judge their popes. Don't get confused here.
Presumably, sedevacantists will do us the unsolicited service of informing us of the arrival of a pope whom they have validated once it happens.
Meanwhile.......the hypocritical anti-/non sedevacantists still judge their popes.
I would say I am a non-sedevacantist and no, we non-sedevacantists do not judge the pope. I understand that you only say such things because of your "pope problem".
This is a problem that those effected with ECS have when they have no need for a pope themselves, yet are consumed with the fact that the pope in Rome does not meet up with their own personal idea of what a pope should be.
Because of ECS, they break away from traditional Catholics to open their own chapels so they can omit the pope's name from the canon of the mas, thereby employing a different Lex Orandi which of course drives their belief that it's their responsibility to promote ECS to others.
No 2Vermont, we anti-/non sedevacantists do not judge the pope, for the simple reason that he still gets elected in the same way all popes have been elected for the last 1500 years or so.
Actually you do...every time you judge his laws, his liturgy and his teachings.
-
blah blah blah
Merry Christmas.
-
Meanwhile.......the hypocritical anti-/non sedevacantists still judge their popes.
Yet another clear example of those spiteful, bitter toned, and quite predictable one - line sentences which make up about 99% of your "contributions" to this forum.
Still not biting. :wink:
Merry CHRISTmas for you too.
-
Actually you do...every time you judge his laws, his liturgy and his teachings.
Actually, no. But your reply is a good example of what sedevacantists do as a rule. What they do as a rule is, since they cannot refute the actual subject, they always weasel off the subject just a wee bit, then claim victory.
The fact is, Catholics do not judge the pope. Why do Catholics not judge the pope? - because the Church teaches that Catholics are not permitted to judge the pope. No further explanation is necessary.
The Catholic Church also teaches how we are to know who the pope is - The Catholic teaching is that the pope is the one who is elected pope by the cardinals who've gathered together strictly for the purpose of electing a new pope. This procedure has remained unchanged for many centuries and has produced many saintly popes.
-
Put a sock in it Stubborn, for your information in order to judge a pope we have to have one to be judged. Last I learned the Pope must be Catholic, and you yourself admitted you didn't know for sure if he was or not.
I suggest you study up on that first before you begin to teach Church doctrine.
The issue is the anti/non-sedevacantists already judge their popes. Don't get confused here.
Presumably, sedevacantists will do us the unsolicited service of informing us of the arrival of a pope whom they have validated once it happens.
Meanwhile.......the hypocritical anti-/non sedevacantists still judge their popes.
Wait. So the only non-hypocritical Catholics in the world are sedevacantists? (You included both "anti"- and "non" in your statement.)
Except that, by the way, we don't necessarily come to independent judgments about the current title holder. We accept that on a technical level he has been judged by our ecclesiastical superiors as Pope (not as a good pope or a bad pope, as sinful or saintly, as a genius or an idiot, as eloquent or clumsy, as a gentleman or a buffoon, but simply legitimately a title-holder), and that we have no separate, let alone superior, authority to depose him intellectually. Until told otherwise by our superiors, we accept that technical status, yet -- just as we would and we do with regard to priests, bishops, and cardinals post-V2, we do not accept any new pseudo-doctrine that conflicts with the deposit of faith, because such pseudo-doctrine would disqualify itself by definition.
That is what is common to all non-sedevacantists. From that point, differences among non-sede positions manifest themselves.
What's worse, I guess? Being told that your imperfections make you not your husband's wife (or me not my children's mother)? Would that not be a thoroughly uncharitable and disrespectful characterization of your and my imperfections? Or would you rather that your husband and my children honestly regard us, respectively, as a true wife and a true mother, while imperfect?
And before you say that the analogy does not hold, because neither your husband nor my children have been guaranteed indefectible relatives by God Himself, we have had several bad or mediocre popes while the Church has not lost her indefectibility. Sedevacantists seem to define indefectibility differently than the rest of us do, and it seems to me, that's the difference.
-
Sedevacantists do not judge the pope. How could we? There is no pope to judge. Obviously.
Circular sedevacantist reasoning that is derived from ECS.
As I mentioned earlier, since she never has, I do not expect Myrna to answer any questions but perhaps you will answer it....... you've presumably kept the faith without a pope for the last 50 years, so my question to you is - why do you need a pope at all?
The Church does not need a pope if God so chooses not to provide one. We see this through history.
Suppose we were both catechumens during an interregnum, and then sometime later we received the Sacrament of Baptism. Six months later we were both martyred before a pope was named. In fact, a pope would not be named until a year after we were martyred.
Would we both go to hell for not being subject to the Roman Pontiff? That is my question.
Looks like sede's in general can't get themselves to answer this simplest of questions.
I'll try one last time:
Why do you need a pope at all?
You have been answered. I don't need one. Now the Church has commanded me to be subject to the Roman pontiff, ....so do you claim that I don't because there isn't one? I guess all the poor souls living and dying during a interregnum weren't either then?
The pope isn't the reason I keep the faith, it is supernatural grace, glory be to God, that enables me to submit with 100% certainty to Dogmas of the Church which have been clarified VIA a valid pope/council.
Remember heretics are not Catholics. This may be your stumbling block.
-
Actually you do...every time you judge his laws, his liturgy and his teachings.
Actually, no. But your reply is a good example of what sedevacantists do as a rule. What they do as a rule is, since they cannot refute the actual subject, they always weasel off the subject just a wee bit, then claim victory.
The fact is, Catholics do not judge the pope. Why do Catholics not judge the pope? - because the Church teaches that Catholics are not permitted to judge the pope. No further explanation is necessary.
The Catholic Church also teaches how we are to know who the pope is - The Catholic teaching is that the pope is the one who is elected pope by the cardinals who've gathered together strictly for the purpose of electing a new pope. This procedure has remained unchanged for many centuries and has produced many saintly popes.
Then you and MMagdala and the rest have no right judging the laws, liturgy and teachings of your pope.
But you do. Hypocrisy.
-
My point is simply this: With regard to the charge of "hypocrisy" (or, if anyone here prefers, essential contradiction, cognitive dissonance, whatever), it seems to me that sedevacantism is, on a fundamental level, contradictory. That is, to declare that only sedevacantists truly respect the papacy makes no sense when they state that someone with a recognized office should be regarded as non-existent.
-
There is no way to go around it. If you want to call yourself a Sedevacantist, then be true to the position, throughout consistent, and become a home aloner, instead of attending Mass at counterfeit sede sects such as the CMRI.
I don't see many so-called home aloners "pushing" home alonerism.
I do see Traditionalists stubbornly railing Catholics who stay away from the chapels and various priestly societies with an ungrammatical and inaccurate label.
-
Sedevacantists do not judge the pope. How could we? There is no pope to judge. Obviously.
Circular sedevacantist reasoning that is derived from ECS.
As I mentioned earlier, since she never has, I do not expect Myrna to answer any questions but perhaps you will answer it....... you've presumably kept the faith without a pope for the last 50 years, so my question to you is - why do you need a pope at all?
The Church does not need a pope if God so chooses not to provide one. We see this through history.
Suppose we were both catechumens during an interregnum, and then sometime later we received the Sacrament of Baptism. Six months later we were both martyred before a pope was named. In fact, a pope would not be named until a year after we were martyred.
Would we both go to hell for not being subject to the Roman Pontiff? That is my question.
Looks like sede's in general can't get themselves to answer this simplest of questions.
I'll try one last time:
Why do you need a pope at all?
You have been answered. I don't need one. Now the Church has commanded me to be subject to the Roman pontiff, ....so do you claim that I don't because there isn't one? I guess all the poor souls living and dying during a interregnum weren't either then?
The pope isn't the reason I keep the faith, it is supernatural grace, glory be to God, that enables me to submit with 100% certainty to Dogmas of the Church which have been clarified VIA a valid pope/council.
Remember heretics are not Catholics. This may be your stumbling block.
You claim that "you don't need one", then you bring up "all the poor souls living and dying during a interregnum" as if sedevacantism is the same as an interregnum. So this is one way you justify promotion of there being no pope.
If the pope is not necessary for your salvation, and I agree with you there, then there is no real reason to bother practicing and promoting sedevacantism at all. Certainly there is no reason to open chapels, schools, seminaries and etc. to practice and promulgate sedevacantism if we do not need a pope for our salvation.
Then you answer almost correctly, the part you got wrong is the part about you submitting to the dogmas of the Church. Sedevacantists, ipso facto reject the dogmatic decree that personal submission to the pope is necessary for salvation.
Also, heretics, whatever you think they are is irrelevant when it comes to the pope, the reason for this is that in their teachings, previous popes gave us specific instructions about what we are to do should a heretic pope ever find his way to the papacy, I assure you, they never taught us to do what sedevacantists do - only other sedevacantists teach those things which sedevacantists do.
-
My point is simply this: With regard to the charge of "hypocrisy" (or, if anyone here prefers, essential contradiction, cognitive dissonance, whatever), it seems to me that sedevacantism is, on a fundamental level, contradictory. That is, to declare that only sedevacantists truly respect the papacy makes no sense when they state that someone with a recognized office should be regarded as non-existent.
I have no problem with folks disagreeing with my position on the crisis. But I do take issue when I hear those that take a different stance claiming sedes shouldn't be using their "private judgment" ....Because that is EXACTLY what they are doing when they judge the 1983 Canon Law, the Novus Ordo liturgy and the Vatican II teachings...all of which are followed by the current hierarchy, pope included. That is where the hypocrisy exists.
-
Actually you do...every time you judge his laws, his liturgy and his teachings.
Actually, no. But your reply is a good example of what sedevacantists do as a rule. What they do as a rule is, since they cannot refute the actual subject, they always weasel off the subject just a wee bit, then claim victory.
The fact is, Catholics do not judge the pope. Why do Catholics not judge the pope? - because the Church teaches that Catholics are not permitted to judge the pope. No further explanation is necessary.
The Catholic Church also teaches how we are to know who the pope is - The Catholic teaching is that the pope is the one who is elected pope by the cardinals who've gathered together strictly for the purpose of electing a new pope. This procedure has remained unchanged for many centuries and has produced many saintly popes.
Then you and MMagdala and the rest have no right judging the laws, liturgy and teachings of your pope.
But you do. Hypocrisy.
On the contrary, we are in a crisis and bad laws have been made and the liturgy has been corrupted - that is what happened in this crisis. Perhaps in the next crisis there will be good laws and the liturgy will be untouched, but in this crisis, there are bad laws and the liturgy has been corrupted.
Always, always, always remember 2Vermont, the bad laws and liturgy were an act of papal authority, but not an act of infallible papal authority.
You must always start with the doctrine of infallibility - which through the Catholic faith, we know can never be violated. Now, you must always keep this as your foundation, believe in it with your whole heart and soul, bind yourself to it so you would die defending it.
If you can get yourself to do this, then you will always accept and understand that whatever the popes have said or done, whatever they ever say or do, will not be a violation of the Church's attribute of infallibility.
Deo Gratias for the doctrine of infallibility!
-
My point is simply this: With regard to the charge of "hypocrisy" (or, if anyone here prefers, essential contradiction, cognitive dissonance, whatever), it seems to me that sedevacantism is, on a fundamental level, contradictory. That is, to declare that only sedevacantists truly respect the papacy makes no sense when they state that someone with a recognized office should be regarded as non-existent.
We do not apologize for believing what Christ taught, that His Church would always be Holy. If your pope who you say is recognized why is it that most of you do not attend his service, teach your children his new doctrine and disciplines, why is it you have to find other chapels if he is so recognized?
-
Sedevacantists do not judge the pope. How could we? There is no pope to judge. Obviously.
Circular sedevacantist reasoning that is derived from ECS.
As I mentioned earlier, since she never has, I do not expect Myrna to answer any questions but perhaps you will answer it....... you've presumably kept the faith without a pope for the last 50 years, so my question to you is - why do you need a pope at all?
The Church does not need a pope if God so chooses not to provide one. We see this through history.
Suppose we were both catechumens during an interregnum, and then sometime later we received the Sacrament of Baptism. Six months later we were both martyred before a pope was named. In fact, a pope would not be named until a year after we were martyred.
Would we both go to hell for not being subject to the Roman Pontiff? That is my question.
Looks like sede's in general can't get themselves to answer this simplest of questions.
I'll try one last time:
Why do you need a pope at all?
You have been answered. I don't need one. Now the Church has commanded me to be subject to the Roman pontiff, ....so do you claim that I don't because there isn't one? I guess all the poor souls living and dying during a interregnum weren't either then?
The pope isn't the reason I keep the faith, it is supernatural grace, glory be to God, that enables me to submit with 100% certainty to Dogmas of the Church which have been clarified VIA a valid pope/council.
Remember heretics are not Catholics. This may be your stumbling block.
You claim that "you don't need one", then you bring up "all the poor souls living and dying during a interregnum" as if sedevacantism is the same as an interregnum. So this is one way you justify promotion of there being no pope.
If the pope is not necessary for your salvation, and I agree with you there, then there is no real reason to bother practicing and promoting sedevacantism at all. Certainly there is no reason to open chapels, schools, seminaries and etc. to practice and promulgate sedevacantism if we do not need a pope for our salvation.
Then you answer almost correctly, the part you got wrong is the part about you submitting to the dogmas of the Church. Sedevacantists, ipso facto reject the dogmatic decree that personal submission to the pope is necessary for salvation.
Also, heretics, whatever you think they are is irrelevant when it comes to the pope, the reason for this is that in their teachings, previous popes gave us specific instructions about what we are to do should a heretic pope ever find his way to the papacy, I assure you, they never taught us to do what sedevacantists do - only other sedevacantists teach those things which sedevacantists do.
I get it now, you are labeling me with the inaccurate title of "sede".
But I get it though, the current pope is all messed up, he is a Liberal, a Modernist and Antichrist who is the head of the Catholic Church outside of which there is no salvation. Now that is really MESSED UP!
-
My point is simply this: With regard to the charge of "hypocrisy" (or, if anyone here prefers, essential contradiction, cognitive dissonance, whatever), it seems to me that sedevacantism is, on a fundamental level, contradictory. That is, to declare that only sedevacantists truly respect the papacy makes no sense when they state that someone with a recognized office should be regarded as non-existent.
We do not apologize for believing what Christ taught, that His Church would always be Holy.
He never said every member of the Church and every leader of the Church would always be Holy. No he did not. He said that the Gates of Hell would not prevail against the Church. Key word, prevail. Not that there wouldn't be scoundrels in the office, not that every representative of the Church, including the Pope, would always accept with compliance and true humility the graces afforded to the office. The holiness of the Church applies to her as an institution and as to her fundamental protection, not to the degree of holiness and the degree of orthodoxy of every leader.
The fundamental error of SV'ers is your belief that the promise of holiness applies to individuals. It applies to the institution. If you believe it applies to the person instead, then what you are saying is that non-pope/anti-pope (whatever) Francis (not to mention his predecessors) have, on their own, succeeded in making the Church unholy, which would directly contradict Our Lord. It is Christ's Church, not Francis' or JP2's or BXVI's Church.
-
My point is simply this: With regard to the charge of "hypocrisy" (or, if anyone here prefers, essential contradiction, cognitive dissonance, whatever), it seems to me that sedevacantism is, on a fundamental level, contradictory. That is, to declare that only sedevacantists truly respect the papacy makes no sense when they state that someone with a recognized office should be regarded as non-existent.
We do not apologize for believing what Christ taught, that His Church would always be Holy.
He never said every member of the Church and every leader of the Church would always be Holy. No he did not. He said that the Gates of Hell would not prevail against the Church. Key word, prevail. Not that there wouldn't be scoundrels in the office, not that every representative of the Church, including the Pope, would always accept with compliance and true humility the graces afforded to the office. The holiness of the Church applies to her as an institution and as to her fundamental protection, not to the degree of holiness and the degree of orthodoxy of every leader.
The fundamental error of SV'ers is your belief that the promise of holiness applies to individuals. It applies to the institution. If you believe it applies to the person instead, then what you are saying is that non-pope/anti-pope (whatever) Francis (not to mention his predecessors) have, on their own, succeeded in making the Church unholy, which would directly contradict Our Lord. It is Christ's Church, not Francis' or JP2's or BXVI's Church.
But, I was wondering if your pope is so recognized and by whom? Certainly not by SSPX or they wouldn't start their own chapels, and or schools (and rightly so). After all, if this Holyness need not apply to the pope as you say, chances are you won't encounter him there in your neighborhood Vatican II church anyway. By actions of many no doubt they think these neighborhood "Catholic churches" throughout the entire world are not holy, else you would attend there; that is much more than just one or two or even more, individuals, don't you agree? Therefore, since you won't attend you apparently think the Gates of Hell has prevailed.
-
previous popes gave us specific instructions about what we are to do should a heretic pope ever find his way to the papacy
There is no such thing as a heretic pope finding his way to the papacy. Heretics are not Catholics (no declarations needed), so they do not become pope and find their way anywhere except to hell, unless of course they were to abjure, which is the hope of all the faithful.
This principle was put into place so you could never be lead by a false Sheppard.
-
Sedevacantists do not judge the pope. How could we? There is no pope to judge. Obviously.
Circular sedevacantist reasoning that is derived from ECS.
As I mentioned earlier, since she never has, I do not expect Myrna to answer any questions but perhaps you will answer it....... you've presumably kept the faith without a pope for the last 50 years, so my question to you is - why do you need a pope at all?
Funny you should mention circular reasoning, when you have trouble reasoning!
The heart of that issue is that theologians have never even speculated how long of an interregnum is too long. Yet, you are treating this as though there is some limit. Where do you get that from? God knows the limit, it is simply for us to be united to the Faith of Rome with the prayer and desire towards getting one as soon as possible.
No, the heart of the issue is that though we may know well that the popes have committed sins, but this knowledge in no way qualifies us to declare him deprived of his office, or never to have been elected.
Besides, per your own stupid, circular reasoning, there have been no popes for the last +50 years - yet PRESUMABLY, you have kept the faith, ipso fact proves that YOU don't even need a pope to keep the faith - so why do you even need a pope at all? If it's not a syndrome, what is it?
You just dodged my whole point. If you cannot say what the limit is to an interregnum, you have no case. What is that limit?
-
But, I was wondering if your pope is so recognized and by whom? Certainly not by SSPX or they wouldn't start their own chapels, and or schools (and rightly so). After all, if this Holyness need not apply to the pope as you say, chances are you won't encounter him there in your neighborhood Vatican II church anyway. By actions of many no doubt they think these neighborhood "Catholic churches" throughout the entire world are not holy, else you would attend there; that is much more than just one or two or even more, individuals, don't you agree? Therefore, since you won't attend you apparently think the Gates of Hell has prevailed.
Because a portion of the Church, a [Conciliar] Sect of the Church (who thinks the Church began in about 1963, not in the ancient Mediterranean) is misguided, has gone astray, does not mean that the core of the Church is no longer holy.
I don't need to attend those "neighborhood" churches which are less recognizably Catholic and more like Protestant break-away sects, no. I attend a trad parish by choice, which is nevertheless recognized by the diocese as valid and licit. It is not a contradiction that the Church herself is allowing for these differences in worship and, as they euphemistically call it in the mainstream Church, "different emphases." Yeah, except our "emphasis" is an exclusivity. There's no V2 teaching. People who aren't trads are free to attend the N.O., which is offered at token times (once a day), and almost no one shows up. The TLM Masses dominate the schedule.
So no, the gates of Hell have not prevailed. None of us trads there believe that. We are free to worship as the Holy Roman Catholic Church has historically worshipped.
-
My point is simply this: With regard to the charge of "hypocrisy" (or, if anyone here prefers, essential contradiction, cognitive dissonance, whatever), it seems to me that sedevacantism is, on a fundamental level, contradictory. That is, to declare that only sedevacantists truly respect the papacy makes no sense when they state that someone with a recognized office should be regarded as non-existent.
We do not apologize for believing what Christ taught, that His Church would always be Holy.
He never said every member of the Church and every leader of the Church would always be Holy. No he did not. He said that the Gates of Hell would not prevail against the Church. Key word, prevail. Not that there wouldn't be scoundrels in the office, not that every representative of the Church, including the Pope, would always accept with compliance and true humility the graces afforded to the office. The holiness of the Church applies to her as an institution and as to her fundamental protection, not to the degree of holiness and the degree of orthodoxy of every leader.
The fundamental error of SV'ers is your belief that the promise of holiness applies to individuals. It applies to the institution. If you believe it applies to the person instead, then what you are saying is that non-pope/anti-pope (whatever) Francis (not to mention his predecessors) have, on their own, succeeded in making the Church unholy, which would directly contradict Our Lord. It is Christ's Church, not Francis' or JP2's or BXVI's Church.
I'm really surprised that you would even say this. Given your involvement on this forum and on TD, it seems to me that you would know that this is not what SV's believe at all (and therefore not post it). :scratchchin:
-
Besides, per your own stupid, circular reasoning, there have been no popes for the last +50 years - yet PRESUMABLY, you have kept the faith, ipso fact proves that YOU don't even need a pope to keep the faith - so why do you even need a pope at all? If it's not a syndrome, what is it?
You just dodged my whole point. If you cannot say what the limit is to an interregnum, you have no case. What is that limit?
Talk about dodging - you dodge answering questions as a matter of fact. Just for proof, I'll ask again for like the 5th time in this thread - Why do you even need a pope at all?
As for your question -and Myrna thinks I ask silly questions - HA!
There is no limit. The college of cardinals keep voting until a pope is elected. Once they stop voting, that's your clue, that, and they proclaim they are done voting because they elected a new pope.
Are you actually trying to say that cardinals hidden in a cave some where are still in disagreement and are still voting every day for the last +50 years? - Oops, there's another question.......Let me rephrase this: Hard to believe you or anyone believes they are still casting votes for the last +50 years.
-
MMagdala
Because a portion of the Church, a [Conciliar] Sect of the Church (who thinks the Church began in about 1963, not in the ancient Mediterranean) is misguided, has gone astray, does not mean that the core of the Church is no longer holy.
In other words, the mark known as Unity is also missing.
-
Besides, per your own stupid, circular reasoning, there have been no popes for the last +50 years - yet PRESUMABLY, you have kept the faith, ipso fact proves that YOU don't even need a pope to keep the faith - so why do you even need a pope at all? If it's not a syndrome, what is it?
You just dodged my whole point. If you cannot say what the limit is to an interregnum, you have no case. What is that limit?
Talk about dodging - you dodge answering questions as a matter of fact. Just for proof, I'll ask again for like the 5th time in this thread - Why do you even need a pope at all?
As for your question -and Myrna thinks I ask silly questions - HA!
There is no limit. The college of cardinals keep voting until a pope is elected. Once they stop voting, that's your clue, that, and they proclaim they are done voting because they elected a new pope.
Are you actually trying to say that cardinals hidden in a cave some where are still in disagreement and are still voting every day for the last +50 years? - Oops, there's another question.......Let me rephrase this: Hard to believe you or anyone believes they are still casting votes for the last +50 years.
We do need a pope, and traditionally Catholics have always regarded a lengthy interregnum as being a trial for the Church, and something to pray and work towards ending as soon as possible. This is EXACTLY what I am doing now. When it will actually end, God knows, and Christ is the actual "Head" of the Church. Trust Him.
Now, you tell me, what is the limit of an interregnum?
-
Besides, per your own stupid, circular reasoning, there have been no popes for the last +50 years - yet PRESUMABLY, you have kept the faith, ipso fact proves that YOU don't even need a pope to keep the faith - so why do you even need a pope at all? If it's not a syndrome, what is it?
You just dodged my whole point. If you cannot say what the limit is to an interregnum, you have no case. What is that limit?
Talk about dodging - you dodge answering questions as a matter of fact. Just for proof, I'll ask again for like the 5th time in this thread - Why do you even need a pope at all?
As for your question -and Myrna thinks I ask silly questions - HA!
There is no limit. The college of cardinals keep voting until a pope is elected. Once they stop voting, that's your clue, that, and they proclaim they are done voting because they elected a new pope.
Are you actually trying to say that cardinals hidden in a cave some where are still in disagreement and are still voting every day for the last +50 years? - Oops, there's another question.......Let me rephrase this: Hard to believe you or anyone believes they are still casting votes for the last +50 years.
We do need a pope,
You still dodged the question so I'll phrase it exactly the same and see if you can answer it this time - why do you even need a pope at all?
Now, you tell me, what is the limit of an interregnum?
There is no limit.
I said the Cardinals do not stop voting until they elect a pope.
Remember, I said that was your clue that a pope has been elected?
That, and they broadcast to the whole world this announcement and introduce the new pope.
Perhaps you missed it or won't accept it or don't believe it, but that's the way it's been done for many centuries and is still done today. It's one of the very few things within the NO that has remained untouched and unchanged.
-
Besides, per your own stupid, circular reasoning, there have been no popes for the last +50 years - yet PRESUMABLY, you have kept the faith, ipso fact proves that YOU don't even need a pope to keep the faith - so why do you even need a pope at all? If it's not a syndrome, what is it?
You just dodged my whole point. If you cannot say what the limit is to an interregnum, you have no case. What is that limit?
Talk about dodging - you dodge answering questions as a matter of fact. Just for proof, I'll ask again for like the 5th time in this thread - Why do you even need a pope at all?
As for your question -and Myrna thinks I ask silly questions - HA!
There is no limit. The college of cardinals keep voting until a pope is elected. Once they stop voting, that's your clue, that, and they proclaim they are done voting because they elected a new pope.
Are you actually trying to say that cardinals hidden in a cave some where are still in disagreement and are still voting every day for the last +50 years? - Oops, there's another question.......Let me rephrase this: Hard to believe you or anyone believes they are still casting votes for the last +50 years.
We do need a pope, and traditionally Catholics have always regarded a lengthy interregnum as being a trial for the Church, and something to pray and work towards ending as soon as possible. This is EXACTLY what I am doing now. When it will actually end, God knows, and Christ is the actual "Head" of the Church. Trust Him.
Now, you tell me, what is the limit of an interregnum?
I missed your attempt to answer the question by throwing in Myrna's name there.
Fine, there is no limit. And if the cardinals keep attempting to elect a man who immediately turns out to be a manifest heretic, then he automatically ceases to be pope.
Even though popes, Saints, Doctors of the Church, imprimatured works for the general clergy & laity repeatedly and categorically teach that a pope who becomes a manifest heretic ceases, by that very fact, to be pope....you reject what they say....just like a heretic would.
And it is no surprise that you cut out an important portion of my last response, namely, "and traditionally Catholics have always regarded a lengthy interregnum as being a trial for the Church, and something to pray and work towards ending as soon as possible. This is EXACTLY what I am doing now. When it will actually end, God knows, and Christ is the actual "Head" of the Church. Trust Him. "
-
We do need a pope, and traditionally Catholics have always regarded a lengthy interregnum as being a trial for the Church, and something to pray and work towards ending as soon as possible. This is EXACTLY what I am doing now. When it will actually end, God knows, and Christ is the actual "Head" of the Church. Trust Him.
It seems to me that the divisions between the various traditionalists is proof that we need a pope...and we don't have one. That doesn't mean that we don't do our best (and struggle) to keep the Catholic Faith in the mean time.
Merry Christmas!
-
Because a portion of the Church, a [Conciliar] Sect of the Church (who thinks the Church began in about 1963, not in the ancient Mediterranean) is misguided, has gone astray, does not mean that the core of the Church is no longer holy.
O% of the Catholic Church contains heretics. The Church has CLEARLY spoken in this matter:
The practice of the Church has always been the same, as is shown by the unanimous teaching of the Fathers, who were wont to hold as outside Catholic communion, and alien to the Church, whoever would recede in the least degree from any point of doctrine proposed by her authoritative Magisterium. Epiphanius, Augustine, Theodoret, drew up a long list of the heresies of their times. St. Augustine notes that other heresies may spring up, to a single one of which, should any one give his assent, he is by the very fact cut off from Catholic unity. "No one who merely disbelieves in all (these heresies) can for that reason regard himself as a Catholic or call himself one. For there may be or may arise some other heresies, which are not set out in this work of ours, and, if any one holds to one single one of these he is not a Catholic" (S. Augustinus, De Haeresibus, n. 88).
As many do in these days, they recognize heretics as misguided or as gone astray (still in the Church). No they are heretics (outside of the Church), because they CHOOSE not to believe what Christ has taught, but what their mind suggests to them. The remedy: Evangelize
Maybe the reluctance to point out a heretic is because they haven't been declared a heretic? Is this the reason so many of the "misguided" still see Protestants as Christians?
That is the argument Siscoe brings forward, but is TOTALLY refuted by the tradition of the Church and Magisterial docuмents.
For a complete understanding of Divine Law vs Ecclesiastical Law and their correct applications fast forward to 55:03 of the video below.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vx4a0Szsawc
-
Besides, per your own stupid, circular reasoning, there have been no popes for the last +50 years - yet PRESUMABLY, you have kept the faith, ipso fact proves that YOU don't even need a pope to keep the faith - so why do you even need a pope at all? If it's not a syndrome, what is it?
You just dodged my whole point. If you cannot say what the limit is to an interregnum, you have no case. What is that limit?
Talk about dodging - you dodge answering questions as a matter of fact. Just for proof, I'll ask again for like the 5th time in this thread - Why do you even need a pope at all?
As for your question -and Myrna thinks I ask silly questions - HA!
There is no limit. The college of cardinals keep voting until a pope is elected. Once they stop voting, that's your clue, that, and they proclaim they are done voting because they elected a new pope.
Are you actually trying to say that cardinals hidden in a cave some where are still in disagreement and are still voting every day for the last +50 years? - Oops, there's another question.......Let me rephrase this: Hard to believe you or anyone believes they are still casting votes for the last +50 years.
We do need a pope, and traditionally Catholics have always regarded a lengthy interregnum as being a trial for the Church, and something to pray and work towards ending as soon as possible. This is EXACTLY what I am doing now. When it will actually end, God knows, and Christ is the actual "Head" of the Church. Trust Him.
Now, you tell me, what is the limit of an interregnum?
I missed your attempt to answer the question by throwing in Myrna's name there.
You also must have missed the question I asked you. Why do you even need a pope at all?
Fine, there is no limit. And if the cardinals keep attempting to elect a man who immediately turns out to be a manifest heretic, then he automatically ceases to be pope.
Even though popes, Saints, Doctors of the Church, imprimatured works for the general clergy & laity repeatedly and categorically teach that a pope who becomes a manifest heretic ceases, by that very fact, to be pope....you reject what they say....just like a heretic would.
And it is no surprise that you cut out an important portion of my last response, namely, "and traditionally Catholics have always regarded a lengthy interregnum as being a trial for the Church, and something to pray and work towards ending as soon as possible. This is EXACTLY what I am doing now. When it will actually end, God knows, and Christ is the actual "Head" of the Church. Trust Him. "
This is what sedevacantists teach, this is not what the Catholic Church teaches. Just FYI.
Also FYI, your knowledge of the pope's sins play no part in the validity of his election, try to remember that from now on.
Heck, you've been without a pope for +50 years and you've presumably kept the faith, so why do you even need a pope anyway?
-
We do need a pope, and traditionally Catholics have always regarded a lengthy interregnum as being a trial for the Church, and something to pray and work towards ending as soon as possible. This is EXACTLY what I am doing now. When it will actually end, God knows, and Christ is the actual "Head" of the Church. Trust Him.
It seems to me that the divisions between the various traditionalists is proof that we need a pope...and we don't have one. That doesn't mean that we don't do our best (and struggle) to keep the Catholic Faith in the mean time.
Merry Christmas!
Ok, so you think we need a pope for unity - but why do YOU need a pope?
Is it that you cannot persevere in the faith you have without a pope? Are you concerned you cannot attain salvation without a pope in the Chair? Does a heretic in the Seat mean you'll never make it to heaven? Are you concerned the heretic pope will make you offend God?
Why do you need a pope?
-
MMagdala
Because a portion of the Church, a [Conciliar] Sect of the Church (who thinks the Church began in about 1963, not in the ancient Mediterranean) is misguided, has gone astray, does not mean that the core of the Church is no longer holy.
In other words, the mark known as Unity is also missing.
No. The mark known as Unity is incorrectly perceived by the Conciliar Sect as missing and unnecessary. It's part of the modernistic and heterodox concept of "diversity," as promulgated by Cardinals, bishops, and priests (especially) in the last about 25 years. N.O.'ers and most of their actively practice disunity from the deposit of faith and disunity within the Church. Trads who are not sedes are still very much in line with One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic.
Neither sedes nor N.O.'ers are in line with One (explained above). Sedes think it's both acceptable and necessary to start a parallel church. Sedes also seem to have a problem with some of the other marks.
-
Left out a word. Sorry.
N.O.'ers and most of their priests actively practice disunity from the deposit of faith and disunity within the Church.
-
It seems to me that the divisions between the various traditionalists is proof that we need a pope...and we don't have one. That doesn't mean that we don't do our best (and struggle) to keep the Catholic Faith in the mean time.
I agree. The Church needs a genuine head. And when the Church has a weak head she suffers tremendously, and her work of salvation is diminished. However, a weak or confused or gravely sinful pope does not impede the well-formed Catholic from following the traditional faith as truly and thoroughly as if the pope was a saint and magnificent leader.
-
Besides, per your own stupid, circular reasoning, there have been no popes for the last +50 years - yet PRESUMABLY, you have kept the faith, ipso fact proves that YOU don't even need a pope to keep the faith - so why do you even need a pope at all? If it's not a syndrome, what is it?
You just dodged my whole point. If you cannot say what the limit is to an interregnum, you have no case. What is that limit?
Talk about dodging - you dodge answering questions as a matter of fact. Just for proof, I'll ask again for like the 5th time in this thread - Why do you even need a pope at all?
As for your question -and Myrna thinks I ask silly questions - HA!
There is no limit. The college of cardinals keep voting until a pope is elected. Once they stop voting, that's your clue, that, and they proclaim they are done voting because they elected a new pope.
Are you actually trying to say that cardinals hidden in a cave some where are still in disagreement and are still voting every day for the last +50 years? - Oops, there's another question.......Let me rephrase this: Hard to believe you or anyone believes they are still casting votes for the last +50 years.
We do need a pope, and traditionally Catholics have always regarded a lengthy interregnum as being a trial for the Church, and something to pray and work towards ending as soon as possible. This is EXACTLY what I am doing now. When it will actually end, God knows, and Christ is the actual "Head" of the Church. Trust Him.
Now, you tell me, what is the limit of an interregnum?
What is the matter, McCork you keep ignoring me? The limit of an interregnum is when the last Bishop appointed by the "Last True Pope" dies because only Popes can constitute Bishops. That is Catholicism. Unless you want to re-invent the Catholic religion, it is what it is. In case you want to argue against the 1917 Code of Canon Law, which is very explicit upon this point, here is my previous post, showing you the exact relevant canons, in particular, Canon 332:
http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php?a=topic&t=38915&min=640&num=5
-
Besides, per your own stupid, circular reasoning, there have been no popes for the last +50 years - yet PRESUMABLY, you have kept the faith, ipso fact proves that YOU don't even need a pope to keep the faith - so why do you even need a pope at all? If it's not a syndrome, what is it?
You just dodged my whole point. If you cannot say what the limit is to an interregnum, you have no case. What is that limit?
Talk about dodging - you dodge answering questions as a matter of fact. Just for proof, I'll ask again for like the 5th time in this thread - Why do you even need a pope at all?
As for your question -and Myrna thinks I ask silly questions - HA!
There is no limit. The college of cardinals keep voting until a pope is elected. Once they stop voting, that's your clue, that, and they proclaim they are done voting because they elected a new pope.
Are you actually trying to say that cardinals hidden in a cave some where are still in disagreement and are still voting every day for the last +50 years? - Oops, there's another question.......Let me rephrase this: Hard to believe you or anyone believes they are still casting votes for the last +50 years.
We do need a pope, and traditionally Catholics have always regarded a lengthy interregnum as being a trial for the Church, and something to pray and work towards ending as soon as possible. This is EXACTLY what I am doing now. When it will actually end, God knows, and Christ is the actual "Head" of the Church. Trust Him.
Now, you tell me, what is the limit of an interregnum?
I missed your attempt to answer the question by throwing in Myrna's name there.
You also must have missed the question I asked you. Why do you even need a pope at all?
I have answered this already. We need a pope. We need a pope. "At all"? Yes! we work and pray for one as soon as possible, as was always done during any lengthy interregnum in history, some lasting years.
Fine, there is no limit. And if the cardinals keep attempting to elect a man who immediately turns out to be a manifest heretic, then he automatically ceases to be pope.
Even though popes, Saints, Doctors of the Church, imprimatured works for the general clergy & laity repeatedly and categorically teach that a pope who becomes a manifest heretic ceases, by that very fact, to be pope....you reject what they say....just like a heretic would.
And it is no surprise that you cut out an important portion of my last response, namely, "and traditionally Catholics have always regarded a lengthy interregnum as being a trial for the Church, and something to pray and work towards ending as soon as possible. This is EXACTLY what I am doing now. When it will actually end, God knows, and Christ is the actual "Head" of the Church. Trust Him. "
This is what sedevacantists teach, this is not what the Catholic Church teaches. Just FYI.
Also FYI, your knowledge of the pope's sins play no part in the validity of his election, try to remember that from now on.
Heck, you've been without a pope for +50 years and you've presumably kept the faith, so why do you even need a pope anyway?
People are losing the Faith left and right directly because of the men who promote Vatican II. Yes, we need a true pope because true popes simple don't do that.
Yes, the Catholic Church teaches what I mentioned. FYI. If you say the quotes I have presented to this forum are "taken out of context", then show us exactly what you mean. I have asked this of you many times in the past few weeks, and you have been running from it all the while. Church teaching is face value, Scripture is not. It is very difficult to take what the Church teaches out of context, and I don't think I have. I will even present to you, for your convenience, all the quotes again. Fair enough?
-
MMagdala
Because a portion of the Church, a [Conciliar] Sect of the Church (who thinks the Church began in about 1963, not in the ancient Mediterranean) is misguided, has gone astray, does not mean that the core of the Church is no longer holy.
In other words, the mark known as Unity is also missing.
No. The mark known as Unity is incorrectly perceived by the Conciliar Sect as missing and unnecessary. It's part of the modernistic and heterodox concept of "diversity," as promulgated by Cardinals, bishops, and priests (especially) in the last about 25 years. N.O.'ers and most of their actively practice disunity from the deposit of faith and disunity within the Church. Trads who are not sedes are still very much in line with One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic.
Neither sedes nor N.O.'ers are in line with One (explained above). Sedes think it's both acceptable and necessary to start a parallel church. Sedes also seem to have a problem with some of the other marks.
This isn't true, it's just trad cliche.
My Bishop and most of his priests believe in One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church. Said and done, this is just plain false calumny.
-
Besides, per your own stupid, circular reasoning, there have been no popes for the last +50 years - yet PRESUMABLY, you have kept the faith, ipso fact proves that YOU don't even need a pope to keep the faith - so why do you even need a pope at all? If it's not a syndrome, what is it?
You just dodged my whole point. If you cannot say what the limit is to an interregnum, you have no case. What is that limit?
Talk about dodging - you dodge answering questions as a matter of fact. Just for proof, I'll ask again for like the 5th time in this thread - Why do you even need a pope at all?
As for your question -and Myrna thinks I ask silly questions - HA!
There is no limit. The college of cardinals keep voting until a pope is elected. Once they stop voting, that's your clue, that, and they proclaim they are done voting because they elected a new pope.
Are you actually trying to say that cardinals hidden in a cave some where are still in disagreement and are still voting every day for the last +50 years? - Oops, there's another question.......Let me rephrase this: Hard to believe you or anyone believes they are still casting votes for the last +50 years.
We do need a pope, and traditionally Catholics have always regarded a lengthy interregnum as being a trial for the Church, and something to pray and work towards ending as soon as possible. This is EXACTLY what I am doing now. When it will actually end, God knows, and Christ is the actual "Head" of the Church. Trust Him.
Now, you tell me, what is the limit of an interregnum?
What is the matter, McCork you keep ignoring me? The limit of an interregnum is when the last Bishop appointed by the "Last True Pope" dies because only Popes can constitute Bishops. That is Catholicism. Unless you want to re-invent the Catholic religion, it is what it is. In case you want to argue against the 1917 Code of Canon Law, which is very explicit upon this point, here is my previous post, showing you the exact relevant canons, in particular, Canon 332:
http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php?a=topic&t=38915&min=640&num=5
You post so much ignorant stuff that I just don't pay attention to you unless you directly address me, as you just did. And you just did post more things out of ignorance.
Canon law is mostly human law, adding restrictions and more requirement to divine law. When the situation become abnormal, those human laws don't apply. This is the principle of epikeia applying always to law, both secular and Church law.
Divine law says that Catholic clergy of Rome, because they are citizens there, are the ones who elect their bishop. This is the way it was in the early Church.
-
Besides, per your own stupid, circular reasoning, there have been no popes for the last +50 years - yet PRESUMABLY, you have kept the faith, ipso fact proves that YOU don't even need a pope to keep the faith - so why do you even need a pope at all? If it's not a syndrome, what is it?
You just dodged my whole point. If you cannot say what the limit is to an interregnum, you have no case. What is that limit?
Talk about dodging - you dodge answering questions as a matter of fact. Just for proof, I'll ask again for like the 5th time in this thread - Why do you even need a pope at all?
As for your question -and Myrna thinks I ask silly questions - HA!
There is no limit. The college of cardinals keep voting until a pope is elected. Once they stop voting, that's your clue, that, and they proclaim they are done voting because they elected a new pope.
Are you actually trying to say that cardinals hidden in a cave some where are still in disagreement and are still voting every day for the last +50 years? - Oops, there's another question.......Let me rephrase this: Hard to believe you or anyone believes they are still casting votes for the last +50 years.
We do need a pope, and traditionally Catholics have always regarded a lengthy interregnum as being a trial for the Church, and something to pray and work towards ending as soon as possible. This is EXACTLY what I am doing now. When it will actually end, God knows, and Christ is the actual "Head" of the Church. Trust Him.
Now, you tell me, what is the limit of an interregnum?
What is the matter, McCork you keep ignoring me? The limit of an interregnum is when the last Bishop appointed by the "Last True Pope" dies because only Popes can constitute Bishops. That is Catholicism. Unless you want to re-invent the Catholic religion, it is what it is. In case you want to argue against the 1917 Code of Canon Law, which is very explicit upon this point, here is my previous post, showing you the exact relevant canons, in particular, Canon 332:
http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php?a=topic&t=38915&min=640&num=5
You post so much ignorant stuff that I just don't pay attention to you unless you directly address me, as you just did. And you just did post more things out of ignorance.
Canon law is mostly human law, adding restrictions and more requirement to divine law. When the situation become abnormal, those human laws don't apply. This is the principle of epikeia applying always to law, both secular and Church law.
Divine law says that Catholic clergy of Rome, because they are citizens there, are the ones who elect their bishop. This is the way it was in the early Church.
Catholicism is instituted in such a way that is not precisely the Catholic layman in the pew who gets to determine when the situation becomes such abnormal that Canonical Law no longer applies and acts schismatically upon it. Catholicism is a hierachical religion. "The state of emergency" is declared by competent ecclesiastical authority. Not "McCork", sorry.
I do recall having discussed the "epikeia" issue (and how the notion is highly abused by sedevacantists wanting to make up their own religion, which is far from being Catholicism) only one time in the past with a very eccentric poster. His name was Nado but he was justly banned over his views. Perhaps when I have more time at my disposal, I will find the relevant thread again.
-
You also must have missed the question I asked you. Why do you even need a pope at all?
I have answered this already. We need a pope. We need a pope. "At all"? Yes! we work and pray for one as soon as possible, as was always done during any lengthy interregnum in history, some lasting years.
No, no, "we" do not need a pope. I do not need a pope therefore "we" do not need one. I already know what I must do to make it to heaven and an evil pope will not make me evil any more than a saintly pope will make me a saint.
Apparently you cannot understand this so I ask yet again - why do YOU need a pope at all?
Your saying "we work and pray for one" is not an answer to the question; why do you need a pope?
Fine, there is no limit. And if the cardinals keep attempting to elect a man who immediately turns out to be a manifest heretic, then he automatically ceases to be pope.
Even though popes, Saints, Doctors of the Church, imprimatured works for the general clergy & laity repeatedly and categorically teach that a pope who becomes a manifest heretic ceases, by that very fact, to be pope....you reject what they say....just like a heretic would.
And it is no surprise that you cut out an important portion of my last response, namely, "and traditionally Catholics have always regarded a lengthy interregnum as being a trial for the Church, and something to pray and work towards ending as soon as possible. This is EXACTLY what I am doing now. When it will actually end, God knows, and Christ is the actual "Head" of the Church. Trust Him. "
This is what sedevacantists teach, this is not what the Catholic Church teaches. Just FYI.
Also FYI, your knowledge of the pope's sins play no part in the validity of his election, try to remember that from now on.
Heck, you've been without a pope for +50 years and you've presumably kept the faith, so why do you even need a pope anyway?
People are losing the Faith left and right directly because of the men who promote Vatican II. Yes, we need a true pope because true popes simple don't do that.
Yes, the Catholic Church teaches what I mentioned. FYI. If you say the quotes I have presented to this forum are "taken out of context", then show us exactly what you mean. I have asked this of you many times in the past few weeks, and you have been running from it all the while. Church teaching is face value, Scripture is not. It is very difficult to take what the Church teaches out of context, and I don't think I have. I will even present to you, for your convenience, all the quotes again. Fair enough?
No, a few saints and fathers and even a pope or two may have said a heretic ipso facto is not a pope etc., but there is no Church teaching giving anyone the right to declare the pope is not the pope.
Again, if it was a teaching of the Church, there would be absolutely nothing to stop anyone and everyone from declaring every pope since St. Peter a heretic and therefore not the pope.
You cannot see this plain fact, but this is fact.
For example, in the world of sedevacantism - You say; "but Pope Pius XII really was a heretic because he publicly taught the heresy of 'XYZ'". Now there will be those who agree and those who vehemently disagree.......it does not matter that you are lying or are just plain wrong, the accusations you started made ramifications that would never end no matter who the pope was.
Then look at all the wasted effort and time involved investigating and pursuing such a thing. Then what if you were lying, yet the pope got kicked out anyway on account of your lie? Now you have a "true pope" whose been dethroned - now what? Worse yet, on account of your shrewd ability to sell, you got the cardinals to nominate Bishop Cushing for pope and they actually elected him pope? We'd have the V2 and the NO 30 years sooner!.....assuming he did not get dethroned first.
If the Church taught what you say, then yes, it could be declared that Pope Francis is not the pope, but for some reason you don't understand that it just as easily could've applied to Pope Pius V or Pope Leo XIII or Pope Pius IX, and the next "true pope".
-
You post so much ignorant stuff that I just don't pay attention to you unless you directly address me, as you just did. And you just did post more things out of ignorance.
Canon law is mostly human law, adding restrictions and more requirement to divine law. When the situation become abnormal, those human laws don't apply. This is the principle of epikeia applying always to law, both secular and Church law.
Divine law says that Catholic clergy of Rome, because they are citizens there, are the ones who elect their bishop. This is the way it was in the early Church.
Really ? Where does the Church teach THAT ?
1. Canon law adds "restrictions" and "requirements" to Divine law ?
2. Who defines when the situation has become "abnormal" ?
3. Which human laws do no longer apply ? All of them ? Who decides ?
I have a very different understanding of Divine Law, Canon Law and Epikeia.
-
This is all so sad.
Francis is the Pope.
-
This is all so sad.
Francis is the Pope.
Francis is the Pope.
This is so sad.
-
No it's not.
It's blessed. All this talk of Unity. That comes with the Pope who is the point of unity and obedience to Him and his infallible magisterium. Thanks be to God, I am a Catholic united by the bond of charity in a Catholic diocese with people who do not have any of the problems posted on this thread, who have reverent Priests, and who do not need a book to be un-duped by a Mr. Daniel Dolan and Mr. Anthony Cekada.
-
Ugggh. Why did I re-enter this thread. It's Christmas and nothing changes.
-
Divine law says that Catholic clergy of Rome, because they are citizens there, are the ones who elect their bishop. This is the way it was in the early Church.
So can you name any clergy of Rome who are not heretics and who do not follow the conciliar antipopes?
-
but there is no Church teaching giving anyone the right to declare the pope is not the pope.
Does there need to be? Does having a certitude that a so-called pope could NOT be pope on the basis of Papal Magisterial tradition, right reasoning, Scripture... etc...be considered judging an ecclesiastical situation and making sound deductions.
The Church has spoke very CLEARLY, heretics are not Catholics. Is it lawful for anyone to reject any of those Truths without thereby sending himself headlong into open heresy....?
The argument that the ability to depose a pope would allow for the laymen to start deposing popes all the way back to St Peter is absurd.
How many popes/anti-popes dissented from the Catholic faith prior to Vatican II? None, obviously.
How many clergy dissented from the Catholic faith prior to Vatican II. Many, obviously.
-
Divine law says that Catholic clergy of Rome, because they are citizens there, are the ones who elect their bishop. This is the way it was in the early Church.
So can you name any clergy of Rome who are not heretics and who do not follow the conciliar antipopes?
I can. There are no conciliar antipopes. CNN is not the rule of Faith. So many Priests in Rome not only are perfectly orthodox, they are so very well trained in the Faith.
-
MMagdala
Because a portion of the Church, a [Conciliar] Sect of the Church (who thinks the Church began in about 1963, not in the ancient Mediterranean) is misguided, has gone astray, does not mean that the core of the Church is no longer holy.
In other words, the mark known as Unity is also missing.
No. The mark known as Unity is incorrectly perceived by the Conciliar Sect as missing and unnecessary. It's part of the modernistic and heterodox concept of "diversity," as promulgated by Cardinals, bishops, and priests (especially) in the last about 25 years. N.O.'ers and most of their actively practice disunity from the deposit of faith and disunity within the Church. Trads who are not sedes are still very much in line with One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic.
Neither sedes nor N.O.'ers are in line with One (explained above). Sedes think it's both acceptable and necessary to start a parallel church. Sedes also seem to have a problem with some of the other marks.
This isn't true, it's just trad cliche.
My Bishop and most of his priests believe in One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church. Said and done, this is just plain false calumny.
It is neither cliche nor calumny. It is a contradiction that so many bishops and priests ignore, in practice and in teaching, the Four Marks, regardless of what they say with their lips they "believe." "Your" bishop is not the entirety of the modern Church.
-
The Bishop of my Diocese is Catholic and believes in the four marks.
"Your Bishop" that you "read about on the diamond brothers websites" cast a "schismatic light" on the "Catholic Church."
-
Ugggh. Why did I re-enter this thread. It's Christmas and nothing changes.
Well...nobody is forcing you to post. Need a little attention, maybe?
-
MMagdala
Because a portion of the Church, a [Conciliar] Sect of the Church (who thinks the Church began in about 1963, not in the ancient Mediterranean) is misguided, has gone astray, does not mean that the core of the Church is no longer holy.
In other words, the mark known as Unity is also missing.
No. The mark known as Unity is incorrectly perceived by the Conciliar Sect as missing and unnecessary. It's part of the modernistic and heterodox concept of "diversity," as promulgated by Cardinals, bishops, and priests (especially) in the last about 25 years. N.O.'ers and most of their actively practice disunity from the deposit of faith and disunity within the Church. Trads who are not sedes are still very much in line with One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic.
Neither sedes nor N.O.'ers are in line with One (explained above). Sedes think it's both acceptable and necessary to start a parallel church. Sedes also seem to have a problem with some of the other marks.
This isn't true, it's just trad cliche.
My Bishop and most of his priests believe in One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church. Said and done, this is just plain false calumny.
It is neither cliche nor calumny. It is a contradiction that so many bishops and priests ignore, in practice and in teaching, the Four Marks, regardless of what they say with their lips they "believe." "Your" bishop is not the entirety of the modern Church.
The "entirely of the modern Church" is "not on the internet."
-
MMagdala
Because a portion of the Church, a [Conciliar] Sect of the Church (who thinks the Church began in about 1963, not in the ancient Mediterranean) is misguided, has gone astray, does not mean that the core of the Church is no longer holy.
In other words, the mark known as Unity is also missing.
No. The mark known as Unity is incorrectly perceived by the Conciliar Sect as missing and unnecessary. It's part of the modernistic and heterodox concept of "diversity," as promulgated by Cardinals, bishops, and priests (especially) in the last about 25 years. N.O.'ers and most of their actively practice disunity from the deposit of faith and disunity within the Church. Trads who are not sedes are still very much in line with One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic.
Neither sedes nor N.O.'ers are in line with One (explained above). Sedes think it's both acceptable and necessary to start a parallel church. Sedes also seem to have a problem with some of the other marks.
This isn't true, it's just trad cliche.
My Bishop and most of his priests believe in One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church. Said and done, this is just plain false calumny.
It is neither cliche nor calumny. It is a contradiction that so many bishops and priests ignore, in practice and in teaching, the Four Marks, regardless of what they say with their lips they "believe." "Your" bishop is not the entirety of the modern Church.
The "entirely of the modern Church" is "not on the internet."
'
If one Priest makes a mistake and says something heretical, it's reverberated around the internet in calumny. I'm sorry, but you'l just have to examine personally more Priests and speak with them. They may not all be trained on St. Thomas thoroughly, but they believe the Catholic Faith.
-
MMagdala
Because a portion of the Church, a [Conciliar] Sect of the Church (who thinks the Church began in about 1963, not in the ancient Mediterranean) is misguided, has gone astray, does not mean that the core of the Church is no longer holy.
In other words, the mark known as Unity is also missing.
No. The mark known as Unity is incorrectly perceived by the Conciliar Sect as missing and unnecessary. It's part of the modernistic and heterodox concept of "diversity," as promulgated by Cardinals, bishops, and priests (especially) in the last about 25 years. N.O.'ers and most of their actively practice disunity from the deposit of faith and disunity within the Church. Trads who are not sedes are still very much in line with One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic.
Neither sedes nor N.O.'ers are in line with One (explained above). Sedes think it's both acceptable and necessary to start a parallel church. Sedes also seem to have a problem with some of the other marks.
This isn't true, it's just trad cliche.
My Bishop and most of his priests believe in One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church. Said and done, this is just plain false calumny.
It is neither cliche nor calumny. It is a contradiction that so many bishops and priests ignore, in practice and in teaching, the Four Marks, regardless of what they say with their lips they "believe." "Your" bishop is not the entirety of the modern Church.
The "entirely of the modern Church" is "not on the internet."
'
If one Priest makes a mistake and says something heretical, it's reverberated around the internet in calumny. I'm sorry, but you'l just have to examine personally more Priests and speak with them. They may not all be trained on St. Thomas thoroughly, but they believe the Catholic Faith.
They can say all the Creeds in perfectly good conscience, adhere to all the Councils, and even can say that they are in union with a Pope which is one more dogma than a sedevacantist can say they adhere to faithfully.
-
MMagdala said: "It is a contradiction that so many bishops and priests ignore,"
No it's not, it's just the "so many bishops and priests you read about on the internet yesterday."
-
MMagdala
Because a portion of the Church, a [Conciliar] Sect of the Church (who thinks the Church began in about 1963, not in the ancient Mediterranean) is misguided, has gone astray, does not mean that the core of the Church is no longer holy.
In other words, the mark known as Unity is also missing.
No. The mark known as Unity is incorrectly perceived by the Conciliar Sect as missing and unnecessary. It's part of the modernistic and heterodox concept of "diversity," as promulgated by Cardinals, bishops, and priests (especially) in the last about 25 years. N.O.'ers and most of their actively practice disunity from the deposit of faith and disunity within the Church. Trads who are not sedes are still very much in line with One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic.
Neither sedes nor N.O.'ers are in line with One (explained above). Sedes think it's both acceptable and necessary to start a parallel church. Sedes also seem to have a problem with some of the other marks.
This isn't true, it's just trad cliche.
My Bishop and most of his priests believe in One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church. Said and done, this is just plain false calumny.
It is neither cliche nor calumny. It is a contradiction that so many bishops and priests ignore, in practice and in teaching, the Four Marks, regardless of what they say with their lips they "believe." "Your" bishop is not the entirety of the modern Church.
The "entirely of the modern Church" is "not on the internet."
You have trouble following a line of thought. I never said the entirety of the modern Church is on the Internet, nor did anyone else on this thread. I said, and will repeat, that the entirety of the modern Church is not represented by "your" bishop. (Nor mine.)
-
MMagdala said: "It is a contradiction that so many bishops and priests ignore,"
No it's not, it's just the "so many bishops and priests you read about on the internet yesterday."
Again, you don't get this: THIS IS NOT ABOUT THE INTERNET. It's about the thousands of parishes in the New World Church.
-
MMagdala
Because a portion of the Church, a [Conciliar] Sect of the Church (who thinks the Church began in about 1963, not in the ancient Mediterranean) is misguided, has gone astray, does not mean that the core of the Church is no longer holy.
In other words, the mark known as Unity is also missing.
No. The mark known as Unity is incorrectly perceived by the Conciliar Sect as missing and unnecessary. It's part of the modernistic and heterodox concept of "diversity," as promulgated by Cardinals, bishops, and priests (especially) in the last about 25 years. N.O.'ers and most of their actively practice disunity from the deposit of faith and disunity within the Church. Trads who are not sedes are still very much in line with One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic.
Neither sedes nor N.O.'ers are in line with One (explained above). Sedes think it's both acceptable and necessary to start a parallel church. Sedes also seem to have a problem with some of the other marks.
This isn't true, it's just trad cliche.
My Bishop and most of his priests believe in One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church. Said and done, this is just plain false calumny.
It is neither cliche nor calumny. It is a contradiction that so many bishops and priests ignore, in practice and in teaching, the Four Marks, regardless of what they say with their lips they "believe." "Your" bishop is not the entirety of the modern Church.
The "entirely of the modern Church" is "not on the internet."
You have trouble following a line of thought. I never said the entirety of the modern Church is on the Internet, nor did anyone else on this trehad. I said, and will repeat, that the entirety of the modern Church is not represented by "your" bishop. (Nor mine.)
:boxer:
Neither is your internet news purview.
-
MMagdala said: "It is a contradiction that so many bishops and priests ignore,"
No it's not, it's just the "so many bishops and priests you read about on the internet yesterday."
Again, you don't get this: THIS IS NOT ABOUT THE INTERNET. It's about the thousands of parishes in the New World Church.
Which you personally know about?
-
Ugggh. Why did I re-enter this thread. It's Christmas and nothing changes.
Well...nobody is forcing you to post. Need a little attention, maybe?
I was actually looking to myself here recognizing I had made a mistake. Are you sure you're not just trying to pick another fight with me..which I won't be picking up?
-
May you have the most sincerest merry Christmas.
-
but there is no Church teaching giving anyone the right to declare the pope is not the pope.
Does there need to be? Does having a certitude that a so-called pope could NOT be pope on the basis of Papal Magisterial tradition, right reasoning, Scripture... etc...be considered judging an ecclesiastical situation and making sound deductions.
Richard Ibranyi has the certitude of faith that the so-called popes could NOT be popes on the basis of Papal Magisterial tradition, right reasoning, Scripture and by his considered judging an ecclesiastical situation and making sound deductions declares that there have been no popes or cardinals since 1130.
What makes you think he is wrong and you're not?
The Church has spoke very CLEARLY, heretics are not Catholics. Is it lawful for anyone to reject any of those Truths without thereby sending himself headlong into open heresy....?
You confuse statements made by the Church with explicit papal instructions given us to follow.
The argument that the ability to depose a pope would allow for the laymen to start deposing popes all the way back to St Peter is absurd.
You think it absurd, yet you do not even consider that there is nothing to stop the Richard Ibranyi's or other crooks from doing exactly what you say is absurd.
Do you suppose everyone is a saint, that there are no Judas'? If you are so naive to think that it couldn't happen except to actual heretics, then you've got some pretty potent booze in the koolaid you're drinking.
How many popes/anti-popes dissented from the Catholic faith prior to Vatican II? None, obviously.
Sedevacantist Richard Ibranyi has docuмented that all the popes since 1130 dissented. Google it to see the docuмentation for yourself.
How many clergy dissented from the Catholic faith prior to Vatican II. Many, obviously.
Since the Church teaches we can declare the pope is not the pope - what does it matter? Let's just declare the pope is not the pope and....and.....Hmmmm, then what? We cannot elect another one so.......seems a bit odd that we can kick one out of office but there's no way to put a new one in. Now I don't know what to do.......I guess we just condemn the bastard and live without one till the end of time. :facepalm:
-
but there is no Church teaching giving anyone the right to declare the pope is not the pope.
Does there need to be? Does having a certitude that a so-called pope could NOT be pope on the basis of Papal Magisterial tradition, right reasoning, Scripture... etc...be considered judging an ecclesiastical situation and making sound deductions.
Richard Ibranyi has the certitude of faith that the so-called popes could NOT be popes on the basis of Papal Magisterial tradition, right reasoning, Scripture and by his considered judging an ecclesiastical situation and making sound deductions declares that there have been no popes or cardinals since 1130.
What makes you think he is wrong and you're not?
The Church has spoke very CLEARLY, heretics are not Catholics. Is it lawful for anyone to reject any of those Truths without thereby sending himself headlong into open heresy....?
You confuse statements made by the Church with explicit papal instructions given us to follow.
The argument that the ability to depose a pope would allow for the laymen to start deposing popes all the way back to St Peter is absurd.
You think it absurd, yet you do not even consider that there is nothing to stop the Richard Ibranyi's or other crooks from doing exactly what you say is absurd.
Do you suppose everyone is a saint, that there are no Judas'? If you are so naive to think that it couldn't happen except to actual heretics, then you've got some pretty potent booze in the koolaid you're drinking.
How many popes/anti-popes dissented from the Catholic faith prior to Vatican II? None, obviously.
Sedevacantist Richard Ibranyi has docuмented that all the popes since 1130 dissented. Google it to see the docuмentation for yourself.
How many clergy dissented from the Catholic faith prior to Vatican II. Many, obviously.
Since the Church teaches we can declare the pope is not the pope - what does it matter? Let's just declare the pope is not the pope and....and.....Hmmmm, then what? We cannot elect another one so.......seems a bit odd that we can kick one out of office but there's no way to put a new one in. Now I don't know what to do.......I guess we just condemn the bastard and live without one till the end of time. :facepalm:
Aren't you the guy who can't read the catechism? Peter will have successors until the end of time. (de fide) Not until 1130. Not until 1958. Not until 1572.
Viva Franciscus! Down with his calumniators and detractors!
People who don't believe that Peter will have successors are simplly not Roman Catholics.
-
MMagdala
: Because a portion of the Church, a [Conciliar] Sect of the Church (who thinks the Church began in about 1963, not in the ancient Mediterranean) is misguided, has gone astray, does not mean that the core of the Church is no longer holy.
I don't need to attend those "neighborhood" churches which are less recognizably Catholic and more like Protestant break-away sects, no. I attend a trad parish by choice, which is nevertheless recognized by the diocese as valid and licit. It is not a contradiction that the Church herself is allowing for these differences in worship and, as they euphemistically call it in the mainstream Church, "different emphases." Yeah, except our "emphasis" is an exclusivity. There's no V2 teaching. People who aren't trads are free to attend the N.O., which is offered at token times (once a day), and almost no one shows up. The TLM Masses dominate the schedule.
In other words, the mark known as Unity is also missing.
No. The mark known as Unity is incorrectly perceived by the Conciliar Sect as missing and unnecessary. It's part of the modernistic and heterodox concept of "diversity," as promulgated by Cardinals, bishops, and priests (especially) in the last about 25 years. N.O.'ers and most of their actively practice disunity from the deposit of faith and disunity within the Church. Trads who are not sedes are still very much in line with One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic.
Neither sedes nor N.O.'ers are in line with One (explained above). Sedes think it's both acceptable and necessary to start a parallel church. Sedes also seem to have a problem with some of the other marks.
BTW ... sedes didn't start a parallel church, we just remained where we were when Vatican II came to be and became the majority. Sedes became the minority ... Our Lord prophesied in the Gospel of Luke "when the Son of man cometh, shall he find faith on the earth?" In other words, we are right here where they left, and where the True Pope will find us when God allows His Church to rise again, as He did at His Resurrection.
And speaking of your posts here quoted above:
You are also very confused since you admit the V2 Church is still the church and is within the same circle as your trad Church that is recognized by your N.O. diocese, the same diocese that recognizes the N.O. Conciliar "Sect" which, according to your beliefs, Unity is unnecessary. Yet, you say Trads who are not sedes are still very much with One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic. So again where is your unity?
-
LittleFlowerGirl 29
People who don't believe that Peter will have successors are simplly not Roman Catholics.
Correction:
People who believe that Peter's successors will not hold to the Catholic Faith and NOT teach according to St. Peter are simply not Roman Catholics.
-
Aren't you the guy who can't read the catechism? Peter will have successors until the end of time. (de fide) Not until 1130. Not until 1958. Not until 1572.
Viva Franciscus! Down with his calumniators and detractors!
People who don't believe that Peter will have successors are simplly not Roman Catholics.
I can read the catechism just fine so no, I'm not the guy who can't read the catechism, you must be thinking of someone else.
-
Catholicism is instituted in such a way that is not precisely the Catholic layman in the pew who gets to determine when the situation becomes such abnormal that Canonical Law no longer applies and acts schismatically upon it. Catholicism is a hierachical religion. "The state of emergency" is declared by competent ecclesiastical authority. Not "McCork", sorry.
You don't even know what canon law is about and then you try to say "Catholicism is instituted in such a way....". You try to make yourself sound official, but you are just ignorant, and you just keep blabbing away in public and misleading souls, for which you will be held accountable.
The Church has ALWAYS allowed and required laymen to decide what a situation is and act upon it to protect themselves. ALWAYS. The "act upon" does not entail anything that forces other people to agree. They merely try to convince others, UNTIL the Church decides, and then that Church decision FORCES everyone to believe it who wouldn't be convinced before. Don't try to be like a modernist and revise history. That is the way it has always been. When something like 85% of the clergy in the east fell for the error of Bishop Arius, laymen JUDGED and ACTED on what they knew was right BEFORE the Church condemned Arianism. Go read the next-to-last short chapter of the booklet "LIBERALISM IS A SIN". It was a book of the late 1800's written by a priest, and some bishop sent it to Rome with the idea that Rome would condemn it. It turned out Rome praised the whole booklet, and that the Bishop who sent it was a Liberal. Read that very short chapter, it says precisely that REASON, ENLIGHTENED BY FAITH is an "AUTHORITY" that can judge before, and if, higher authority has to make a judgement. Go read it if you love truth. Everyone has the authority to judge and act in lieu of higher authority. Everyone has the authority to judge and act in lieu of higher authority. But I already said that, didn't I. But I need to repeat it.
And you know what the books calls it when people insist the layman needs to remain INACTIVE UNTIL HIGHER AUTHORITY MAKES THE JUDGEMENT???? This is what it is called:
"a species of brutal and satanic Jansenism"
That is what you are promoting, and a host of other so-called traditional Catholics are promoting it. Do you care? You are effacing a most fundamental moral principle in Catholicism that protects us from error.
I do recall having discussed the "epikeia" issue (and how the notion is highly abused by sedevacantists wanting to make up their own religion, which is far from being Catholicism) only one time in the past with a very eccentric poster. His name was Nado but he was justly banned over his views. Perhaps when I have more time at my disposal, I will find the relevant thread again.
No doubt epikeia is abused by some people. But the principle is "abuse does not argue against proper use" (I won't bother giving the Latin). It is for you to prove a particular action is an abuse, but epikeia is very real, and is in fact a virtue, so of course not everyone will practice it perfectly. Virtue is never instantly easy.
-
You are also very confused since you admit the V2 Church is still the church and is within the same circle as your trad Church that is recognized by your N.O. diocese, the same diocese that recognizes the N.O. Conciliar "Sect" which, according to your beliefs, Unity is unnecessary. Yet, you say Trads who are not sedes are still very much with One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic. So again where is your unity?
No, I am not "confused," Myrna. The Church herself claims that she is united by the same faith she has always professed, which faith embraces Tradition, and which Tradition existed both before and after the Council. No matter how weirdly the Conciliarists view the Church today, the official interpreters of the Catholic Faith -- the people who seem to matter exclusively to sedevacantists -- the post-V2 Popes -- have never declared the end of Tradition. Ever. Individual parishes may ignore Tradition in their formation programs, their liturgies, their style of informality, and their gross confusion about moral doctrine because so many of those parishes have been led by wayward bishops, or because those same parishes have been neglected by their bishops. However, OUR bishop promotes our trad priests and is now sending all of his diocesan seminarians to learn the Latin Mass and receive much of their formation from our priests. So you'll need to take it up with him about how he is supposedly not in line with the Council on the one hand, or not upholding the mark of Unity on the other.
-
MMagdala
However, OUR bishop promotes our trad priests and is now sending all of his diocesan seminarians to learn the Latin Mass and receive much of their formation from our priests. So you'll need to take it up with him about how he is supposedly not in line with the Council on the one hand, or not upholding the mark of Unity on the other.
Until your Bishop refutes the conciliarist and departs from them he is in danger of losing his soul. I am not judging him because I do not know his intent, perhaps that is his intention after so many of his seminarians learn the Latin Mass he will adjure.
For right now, however, "the proof is in the taste of the pudding" by your own words you said and therefore, believe that there is a difference between your trad section and your conciliar section which means no unity. It is as if your church thinks it's okay to mix truth and error together, and the Catholic church is without error when it comes to Faith and Morals. The Catholic Church must be united in Faith and Morals. Francis breaks the First Commandment of God by his interfaith actions and encourages the faithful to engage in acceptance of false religions. That is pure nonsense. The Vicar of Christ can not be the head of truth and error.
You are the one who should be talking to your Bishop, and his advice to you would be to stop talking to a sedevacantist because that is the advice given by anyone who runs to their superior after talking to a sedevacantist since your superior can not answer the objections.
-
Catholicism is instituted in such a way that is not precisely the Catholic layman in the pew who gets to determine when the situation becomes such abnormal that Canonical Law no longer applies and acts schismatically upon it. Catholicism is a hierachical religion. "The state of emergency" is declared by competent ecclesiastical authority. Not "McCork", sorry.
You don't even know what canon law is about and then you try to say "Catholicism is instituted in such a way....". You try to make yourself sound official, but you are just ignorant, and you just keep blabbing away in public and misleading souls, for which you will be held accountable.
The Church has ALWAYS allowed and required laymen to decide what a situation is and act upon it to protect themselves. ALWAYS. The "act upon" does not entail anything that forces other people to agree. They merely try to convince others, UNTIL the Church decides, and then that Church decision FORCES everyone to believe it who wouldn't be convinced before. Don't try to be like a modernist and revise history. That is the way it has always been. When something like 85% of the clergy in the east fell for the error of Bishop Arius, laymen JUDGED and ACTED on what they knew was right BEFORE the Church condemned Arianism. Go read the next-to-last short chapter of the booklet "LIBERALISM IS A SIN". It was a book of the late 1800's written by a priest, and some bishop sent it to Rome with the idea that Rome would condemn it. It turned out Rome praised the whole booklet, and that the Bishop who sent it was a Liberal. Read that very short chapter, it says precisely that REASON, ENLIGHTENED BY FAITH is an "AUTHORITY" that can judge before, and if, higher authority has to make a judgement. Go read it if you love truth. Everyone has the authority to judge and act in lieu of higher authority. Everyone has the authority to judge and act in lieu of higher authority. But I already said that, didn't I. But I need to repeat it.
And you know what the books calls it when people insist the layman needs to remain INACTIVE UNTIL HIGHER AUTHORITY MAKES THE JUDGEMENT???? This is what it is called:
"a species of brutal and satanic Jansenism"
That is what you are promoting, and a host of other so-called traditional Catholics are promoting it. Do you care? You are effacing a most fundamental moral principle in Catholicism that protects us from error.
This is just more sedevacantist teaching, used in an another feeble attempt to promote that it's everyone's responsibility to declare there is no pope, even immediately after a new pope is elected.
You criticize Cantarella for posting quotes of actual Catholic, this is only more evidence that you are wrong, not that she is wrong - FYI.
I do recall having discussed the "epikeia" issue (and how the notion is highly abused by sedevacantists wanting to make up their own religion, which is far from being Catholicism) only one time in the past with a very eccentric poster. His name was Nado but he was justly banned over his views. Perhaps when I have more time at my disposal, I will find the relevant thread again.
No doubt epikeia is abused by some people. But the principle is "abuse does not argue against proper use" (I won't bother giving the Latin). It is for you to prove a particular action is an abuse, but epikeia is very real, and is in fact a virtue, so of course not everyone will practice it perfectly. Virtue is never instantly easy.
FYI, St. Augustine teaches that epikeia is a vice, not a virtue.
And yes, many sedevacantists such as yourself abuse epikeia by claiming a situation that really does not exist (the state of sede vacante), then claim epikeia justifies you correcting the same situation by promoting sedevacantsm. This is abuse, not virtue.
Meanwhile, you cannot even answer why YOU even need a pope at all. By now is seems clear enough that you're "pleading the fifth" and refuse to answer on the grounds that you would incriminate yourself if you answered. This also is more evidence that you are wrong - FYI.
-
Stubborn, yesterday, Christmas Day, you asked "You also must have missed the question I asked you. Why do you even need a pope at all?"
Strange our priest recently suggest we all get a copy of "Radio Replies" in our home and read them. It so happens I have a set. Taking the advice of our priest I was skimming through my set and found this interesting question from a Protestant to Fathers Rumble & Carty.
Question: As a Protestant I question your statement that it is necessary to have a Pope.
Answer: You are not alone in doing so. In fact, if you did not do so, you would not still profess to be a Protestant.
Since YOU Stubborn are the one doing the questioning, you must be a Protestant.
-
Catholicism is instituted in such a way that is not precisely the Catholic layman in the pew who gets to determine when the situation becomes such abnormal that Canonical Law no longer applies and acts schismatically upon it. Catholicism is a hierachical religion. "The state of emergency" is declared by competent ecclesiastical authority. Not "McCork", sorry.
You don't even know what canon law is about and then you try to say "Catholicism is instituted in such a way....". You try to make yourself sound official, but you are just ignorant, and you just keep blabbing away in public and misleading souls, for which you will be held accountable.
The Church has ALWAYS allowed and required laymen to decide what a situation is and act upon it to protect themselves. ALWAYS. The "act upon" does not entail anything that forces other people to agree. They merely try to convince others, UNTIL the Church decides, and then that Church decision FORCES everyone to believe it who wouldn't be convinced before. Don't try to be like a modernist and revise history. That is the way it has always been. When something like 85% of the clergy in the east fell for the error of Bishop Arius, laymen JUDGED and ACTED on what they knew was right BEFORE the Church condemned Arianism. Go read the next-to-last short chapter of the booklet "LIBERALISM IS A SIN". It was a book of the late 1800's written by a priest, and some bishop sent it to Rome with the idea that Rome would condemn it. It turned out Rome praised the whole booklet, and that the Bishop who sent it was a Liberal. Read that very short chapter, it says precisely that REASON, ENLIGHTENED BY FAITH is an "AUTHORITY" that can judge before, and if, higher authority has to make a judgement. Go read it if you love truth. Everyone has the authority to judge and act in lieu of higher authority. Everyone has the authority to judge and act in lieu of higher authority. But I already said that, didn't I. But I need to repeat it.
And you know what the books calls it when people insist the layman needs to remain INACTIVE UNTIL HIGHER AUTHORITY MAKES THE JUDGEMENT???? This is what it is called:
"a species of brutal and satanic Jansenism"
That is what you are promoting, and a host of other so-called traditional Catholics are promoting it. Do you care? You are effacing a most fundamental moral principle in Catholicism that protects us from error.
This is just more sedevacantist teaching, used in an another feeble attempt to promote that it's everyone's responsibility to declare there is no pope, even immediately after a new pope is elected.
You criticize Cantarella for posting quotes of actual Catholic, this is only more evidence that you are wrong, not that she is wrong - FYI.
I do recall having discussed the "epikeia" issue (and how the notion is highly abused by sedevacantists wanting to make up their own religion, which is far from being Catholicism) only one time in the past with a very eccentric poster. His name was Nado but he was justly banned over his views. Perhaps when I have more time at my disposal, I will find the relevant thread again.
No doubt epikeia is abused by some people. But the principle is "abuse does not argue against proper use" (I won't bother giving the Latin). It is for you to prove a particular action is an abuse, but epikeia is very real, and is in fact a virtue, so of course not everyone will practice it perfectly. Virtue is never instantly easy.
FYI, St. Augustine teaches that epikeia is a vice, not a virtue.
And yes, many sedevacantists such as yourself abuse epikeia by claiming a situation that really does not exist (the state of sede vacante), then claim epikeia justifies you correcting the same situation by promoting sedevacantsm. This is abuse, not virtue.
Meanwhile, you cannot even answer why YOU even need a pope at all. By now is seems clear enough that you're "pleading the fifth" and refuse to answer on the grounds that you would incriminate yourself if you answered. This also is more evidence that you are wrong - FYI.
It is one thing to SAY someone is wrong, and another to SHOW he is wrong. You have NOT shown I am wrong. You just throw a lot of FYI's around, making claims without showing why something is wrong.
I quoted from a book approved and praised directly by Rome. Read more carefully.
No, epikeia is a virtue, that is what the Catholic books say.
As for whether "I" need a pope? You need more patience in waiting for an answer before patting yourself on your own back.
-
Stubborn, yesterday, Christmas Day, you asked "You also must have missed the question I asked you. Why do you even need a pope at all?"
Strange our priest recently suggest we all get a copy of "Radio Replies" in our home and read them. It so happens I have a set. Taking the advice of our priest I was skimming through my set and found this interesting question from a Protestant to Fathers Rumble & Carty.
Question: As a Protestant I question your statement that it is necessary to have a Pope.
Answer: You are not alone in doing so. In fact, if you did not do so, you would not still profess to be a Protestant.
Since YOU Stubborn are the one doing the questioning, you must be a Protestant.
Since YOU still have not answered the question, I won't say that you must be protestant, I will simply say that you do not know the Catholic faith.
BTW, the "question" in your quote was never answered.
-
It is one thing to SAY someone is wrong, and another to SHOW he is wrong. You have NOT shown I am wrong. You just throw a lot of FYI's around, making claims without showing why something is wrong.
I quoted from a book approved and praised directly by Rome. Read more carefully.
No, epikeia is a virtue, that is what the Catholic books say.
You KNOW you are wrong - heck, the longest interregnum in the last 50 years has only been 20 days. Yet you go on about your days as if we are in a 58 year interregnum with no end in sight while expecting everyone to agree with you.
And St. Augustine saying epikeia is a vice not a virtue, kills your whole idea about it.
As for whether "I" need a pope? You need more patience in waiting for an answer before patting yourself on your own back.
No, I ask a simple question - Myrna called it a silly question, but whatever. That was her answer, which is no answer, which is typical of how sedes ignore clear and direct questions.
The fact you and Myrna and 2Vermont and etc, who promotes sedevacantism in nearly every post, and even 2Vermont gets offended from people who disagree with sedevacantism, yet not one of you can answer the simple question, is a testament AGAINST sedevacantism, that it is at best, false.
-
It is one thing to SAY someone is wrong, and another to SHOW he is wrong. You have NOT shown I am wrong. You just throw a lot of FYI's around, making claims without showing why something is wrong.
I quoted from a book approved and praised directly by Rome. Read more carefully.
No, epikeia is a virtue, that is what the Catholic books say.
You KNOW you are wrong - heck, the longest interregnum in the last 50 years has only been 20 days. Yet you go on about your days as if we are in a 58 year interregnum with no end in sight while expecting everyone to agree with you.
And St. Augustine saying epikeia is a vice not a virtue, kills your whole idea about it.
As for whether "I" need a pope? You need more patience in waiting for an answer before patting yourself on your own back.
No, I ask a simple question - Myrna called it a silly question, but whatever. That was her answer, which is no answer, which is typical of how sedes ignore clear and direct questions.
The fact you and Myrna and 2Vermont and etc, who promotes sedevacantism in nearly every post, and even 2Vermont gets offended from people who disagree with sedevacantism, yet not one of you can answer the simple question, is a testament AGAINST sedevacantism, that it is at best, false.
Once again, claims, no show; no patience. Reason isn't big in your little world. Stop blowing, and start showing, otherwise you waste your time.
-
The Church has ALWAYS allowed and required laymen to decide what a situation is and act upon it to protect themselves. ALWAYS. The "act upon" does not entail anything that forces other people to agree. They merely try to convince others, UNTIL the Church decides, and then that Church decision FORCES everyone to believe it who wouldn't be convinced before. Don't try to be like a modernist and revise history. That is the way it has always been. When something like 85% of the clergy in the east fell for the error of Bishop Arius, laymen JUDGED and ACTED on what they knew was right BEFORE the Church condemned Arianism. Go read the next-to-last short chapter of the booklet "LIBERALISM IS A SIN". It was a book of the late 1800's written by a priest, and some bishop sent it to Rome with the idea that Rome would condemn it. It turned out Rome praised the whole booklet, and that the Bishop who sent it was a Liberal. Read that very short chapter, it says precisely that REASON, ENLIGHTENED BY FAITH is an "AUTHORITY" that can judge before, and if, higher authority has to make a judgement. Go read it if you love truth. Everyone has the authority to judge and act in lieu of higher authority. Everyone has the authority to judge and act in lieu of higher authority. But I already said that, didn't I. But I need to repeat it.
And you know what the books calls it when people insist the layman needs to remain INACTIVE UNTIL HIGHER AUTHORITY MAKES THE JUDGEMENT???? This is what it is called:
"a species of brutal and satanic Jansenism"
That is what you are promoting, and a host of other so-called traditional Catholics are promoting it. Do you care? You are effacing a most fundamental moral principle in Catholicism that protects us from error.
You and I have already discussed this long time ago; but in case you do not remember here it is:
http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php?a=topic&t=34761&min=80&num=5
From the text LIBERALISM IS A SIN:
5. The judgment of simple human reason, duly enlightened.
Yes, human reason, to speak after the manner of theologians, has a theological place in matters of religion. Faith dominates reason, which ought to be subordinated to faith in everything. But it is altogether false to pretend that reason can do nothing, that it has no function at all in matters of faith; it is false to pretend that the inferior light, illumined by God in the human understanding, cannot shine at all because it does not shine as powerfully or as clearly as the superior light. Yes, the faithful are permitted and even commanded to give a reason for their faith, to draw out its consequences, to make applications of it, to deduce parallels and analogies from it. It is thus by use of their reason that the faithful are enabled to suspect and measure the orthodoxy of any new doctrine presented to them, by comparing it with a doctrine already defined. If it be not in accord, they can combat it as bad, and justly stigmatize as bad the book or journal which sustains it. They cannot of course define it ex cathedra, but they can lawfully hold it as perverse and declare it such, warn others against it, raise the cry of alarm and strike the first blow against it. The faithful layman can do all this, and has done it at all times with the applause of the Church. Nor in so doing does he make himself the pastor of the flock, nor even its humblest attendant; he simply serves it as a watchdog who gives the alarm. Opportet allatrare canes "It behooves watchdogs to bark," very opportunely said a great Spanish Bishop in reference to such occasions.
"Reason Enlighten by Faith" has absolutely nothing to with adopting the sedevacantist position. This is because as said before, what is already been dogmatically defined is not up for discussion or individual reasoning. Catholics are not allowed to dissent or individually "reason" in what the word of God and the Church have already defined dogmatically, for example the perpetual succession of Blessed Peter or the existence of a visible Magisterium and Hierarchy. Differences, doubts, discussions, and "private reasonings" are only allowed in things that the Church has not defined yet. Individual Catholics are not allowed to privately reason upon dogma.
-
<oops>
-
The Church has ALWAYS allowed and required laymen to decide what a situation is and act upon it to protect themselves. ALWAYS. The "act upon" does not entail anything that forces other people to agree. They merely try to convince others, UNTIL the Church decides, and then that Church decision FORCES everyone to believe it who wouldn't be convinced before. Don't try to be like a modernist and revise history. That is the way it has always been. When something like 85% of the clergy in the east fell for the error of Bishop Arius, laymen JUDGED and ACTED on what they knew was right BEFORE the Church condemned Arianism. Go read the next-to-last short chapter of the booklet "LIBERALISM IS A SIN". It was a book of the late 1800's written by a priest, and some bishop sent it to Rome with the idea that Rome would condemn it. It turned out Rome praised the whole booklet, and that the Bishop who sent it was a Liberal. Read that very short chapter, it says precisely that REASON, ENLIGHTENED BY FAITH is an "AUTHORITY" that can judge before, and if, higher authority has to make a judgement. Go read it if you love truth. Everyone has the authority to judge and act in lieu of higher authority. Everyone has the authority to judge and act in lieu of higher authority. But I already said that, didn't I. But I need to repeat it.
And you know what the books calls it when people insist the layman needs to remain INACTIVE UNTIL HIGHER AUTHORITY MAKES THE JUDGEMENT???? This is what it is called:
"a species of brutal and satanic Jansenism"
That is what you are promoting, and a host of other so-called traditional Catholics are promoting it. Do you care? You are effacing a most fundamental moral principle in Catholicism that protects us from error.
You and I have already discussed this long time ago; but in case you do not remember here it is:
http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php?a=topic&t=34761&min=80&num=5
From the text LIBERALISM IS A SIN:
5. The judgment of simple human reason, duly enlightened.
Yes, human reason, to speak after the manner of theologians, has a theological place in matters of religion. Faith dominates reason, which ought to be subordinated to faith in everything. But it is altogether false to pretend that reason can do nothing, that it has no function at all in matters of faith; it is false to pretend that the inferior light, illumined by God in the human understanding, cannot shine at all because it does not shine as powerfully or as clearly as the superior light. Yes, the faithful are permitted and even commanded to give a reason for their faith, to draw out its consequences, to make applications of it, to deduce parallels and analogies from it. It is thus by use of their reason that the faithful are enabled to suspect and measure the orthodoxy of any new doctrine presented to them, by comparing it with a doctrine already defined. If it be not in accord, they can combat it as bad, and justly stigmatize as bad the book or journal which sustains it. They cannot of course define it ex cathedra, but they can lawfully hold it as perverse and declare it such, warn others against it, raise the cry of alarm and strike the first blow against it. The faithful layman can do all this, and has done it at all times with the applause of the Church. Nor in so doing does he make himself the pastor of the flock, nor even its humblest attendant; he simply serves it as a watchdog who gives the alarm. Opportet allatrare canes "It behooves watchdogs to bark," very opportunely said a great Spanish Bishop in reference to such occasions.
"Reason Enlighten by Faith" has absolutely nothing to with adopting the sedevacantist position. This is because as said before, what is already been dogmatically defined is not up for discussion or individual reasoning. Catholics are not allowed to dissent or individually "reason" in what the word of God and the Church have already defined dogmatically, for example the perpetual succession of Blessed Peter or the existence of a visible Magisterium and Hierarchy. Differences, doubts, discussions, and "private reasonings" are only allowed in things that the Church has not defined yet. Individual Catholics are not allowed to privately reason upon dogma.
The idea of being able to judge, doesn't entail that one can judge ANYTHING. Now you are switching from one to the other. Of course we cannot judge against any doctrine. But judging whether an individual man is the pope or not, is NOT a doctrine.
-
Besides, per your own stupid, circular reasoning, there have been no popes for the last +50 years - yet PRESUMABLY, you have kept the faith, ipso fact proves that YOU don't even need a pope to keep the faith - so why do you even need a pope at all? If it's not a syndrome, what is it?
By your own words the sedevacantist person holding that position has kept the Faith. We are Roman Catholics and as Roman Catholics we are united to the Will of God, it is His design we have a Catholic Pope. Yes, we have kept the faith as you say, because we are united to the Will of God. Unlike your version were the pope can be pope of truth and error and still be considered pope. That my friend is not Catholic but it is your belief. I wish I can say you kept the faith, but sorry!
And I said your questions are "silly" ...
Silly questions because they are immaterial, not pertinent, irrevelant, because they are designed to entrap and ensnare, grabbing at straws trying desparently to prove your erroneous position to have weight, but it doesn’t have any weight which is why you are searching the bottom of the barrel.
-
Besides, per your own stupid, circular reasoning, there have been no popes for the last +50 years - yet PRESUMABLY, you have kept the faith, ipso fact proves that YOU don't even need a pope to keep the faith - so why do you even need a pope at all? If it's not a syndrome, what is it?
By your own words the sedevacantist person holding that position has kept the Faith. We are Roman Catholics and as Roman Catholics we are united to the Will of God, it is His design we have a Catholic Pope. Yes, we have kept the faith as you say, because we are united to the Will of God. Unlike your version were the pope can be pope of truth and error and still be considered pope. That my friend is not Catholic but it is your belief. I wish I can say you kept the faith, but sorry!
And I said your questions are "silly" ...
Silly questions because they are immaterial, not pertinent, irrevelant, because they are designed to entrap and ensnare, grabbing at straws trying desparently to prove your erroneous position to have weight, but it doesn’t have any weight which is why you are searching the bottom of the barrel.
Again you demonstrate you cannot read what is written, in case you can re-read what I said, you will find the word "presumably" in capital letters. It is impossible for you to have kept the faith without a pope because the Church teaches this, so if you reject it, you reject the Church - that's just the way that works.
Now, if you sedes were honest sedes, you would already come out with the honest answer, like this:
QUESTION Besides, per your own stupid, circular reasoning, there have been no popes for the last +50 years - yet PRESUMABLY, you have kept the faith, ipso fact proves that YOU don't even need a pope to keep the faith - so why do you even need a pope at all? If it's not a syndrome, what is it?
ANSWER I don't know why I need a pope at all. I must need one for some reason but for the life of me, I have absolutely no idea why I need a pope at all. I must really have ECS because far as I know, I really don't need a pope at all.
THAT would be a clear answer to the clear question, IF YOU WERE HONEST.
Because it is so obvious, can we at least agree on that?
-
]That my friend is not Catholic but it is your belief. I wish I can say you kept the faith, but sorry!
Of all the silly things we see on internet forums here we have an eighty year old grandma and widow with no degrees in theology or any training from the church above basic catechism deciding who has and who does not have the faith, similar to how she decides who is and is not the Pope. I just think that is silly.
-
It is one thing to SAY someone is wrong, and another to SHOW he is wrong. You have NOT shown I am wrong. You just throw a lot of FYI's around, making claims without showing why something is wrong.
I quoted from a book approved and praised directly by Rome. Read more carefully.
No, epikeia is a virtue, that is what the Catholic books say.
You KNOW you are wrong - heck, the longest interregnum in the last 50 years has only been 20 days. Yet you go on about your days as if we are in a 58 year interregnum with no end in sight while expecting everyone to agree with you.
And St. Augustine saying epikeia is a vice not a virtue, kills your whole idea about it.
As for whether "I" need a pope? You need more patience in waiting for an answer before patting yourself on your own back.
No, I ask a simple question - Myrna called it a silly question, but whatever. That was her answer, which is no answer, which is typical of how sedes ignore clear and direct questions.
The fact you and Myrna and 2Vermont and etc, who promotes sedevacantism in nearly every post, and even 2Vermont gets offended from people who disagree with sedevacantism, yet not one of you can answer the simple question, is a testament AGAINST sedevacantism, that it is at best, false.
Once again, claims, no show; no patience. Reason isn't big in your little world. Stop blowing, and start showing, otherwise you waste your time.
I'm purposely asking for an honest answer to a question any Catholic could answer, and you say to have patience. I say you do not know the Catholic faith because you cannot answer the question - and that you can have patience dealing with that accusation for as long as you cannot answer the question.
-
]That my friend is not Catholic but it is your belief. I wish I can say you kept the faith, but sorry!
Of all the silly things we see on internet forums here we have an eighty year old grandma and widow with no degrees in theology or any training from the church above basic catechism deciding who has and who does not have the faith, similar to how she decides who is and is not the Pope. I just think that is silly.
The truth is that her education is in sedevacantism, which SVism is in the way sedes worship, which is what determines what Myrna and sedes believe, which is why trying to speak Catholic truths to sedevacantists is like speaking to them in a foreign language, Catholic truths are the language which is mostly foreign to them so they simply will not understand.
-
...the sin of heresy alone does not sever one from the Church.
What a bald-faced LIE.
-
...trying to speak Catholic truths to sedevacantists is like speaking to them in a foreign language, Catholic truths are the language which is mostly foreign to them so they simply will not understand.
Go ahead then, tell me what are these Catholic truths we don't understand.
Go on. I'm all ears.
-
It is one thing to SAY someone is wrong, and another to SHOW he is wrong. You have NOT shown I am wrong. You just throw a lot of FYI's around, making claims without showing why something is wrong.
I quoted from a book approved and praised directly by Rome. Read more carefully.
No, epikeia is a virtue, that is what the Catholic books say.
You KNOW you are wrong - heck, the longest interregnum in the last 50 years has only been 20 days. Yet you go on about your days as if we are in a 58 year interregnum with no end in sight while expecting everyone to agree with you.
And St. Augustine saying epikeia is a vice not a virtue, kills your whole idea about it.
As for whether "I" need a pope? You need more patience in waiting for an answer before patting yourself on your own back.
No, I ask a simple question - Myrna called it a silly question, but whatever. That was her answer, which is no answer, which is typical of how sedes ignore clear and direct questions.
The fact you and Myrna and 2Vermont and etc, who promotes sedevacantism in nearly every post, and even 2Vermont gets offended from people who disagree with sedevacantism, yet not one of you can answer the simple question, is a testament AGAINST sedevacantism, that it is at best, false.
Once again, claims, no show; no patience. Reason isn't big in your little world. Stop blowing, and start showing, otherwise you waste your time.
I'm purposely asking for an honest answer to a question any Catholic could answer, and you say to have patience. I say you do not know the Catholic faith because you cannot answer the question - and that you can have patience dealing with that accusation for as long as you cannot answer the question.
The longer I have patience with your false accusation, the sillier you are going to look when your accusation is proven false.
-
It is one thing to SAY someone is wrong, and another to SHOW he is wrong. You have NOT shown I am wrong. You just throw a lot of FYI's around, making claims without showing why something is wrong.
I quoted from a book approved and praised directly by Rome. Read more carefully.
No, epikeia is a virtue, that is what the Catholic books say.
You KNOW you are wrong - heck, the longest interregnum in the last 50 years has only been 20 days. Yet you go on about your days as if we are in a 58 year interregnum with no end in sight while expecting everyone to agree with you.
And St. Augustine saying epikeia is a vice not a virtue, kills your whole idea about it.
As for whether "I" need a pope? You need more patience in waiting for an answer before patting yourself on your own back.
No, I ask a simple question - Myrna called it a silly question, but whatever. That was her answer, which is no answer, which is typical of how sedes ignore clear and direct questions.
The fact you and Myrna and 2Vermont and etc, who promotes sedevacantism in nearly every post, and even 2Vermont gets offended from people who disagree with sedevacantism, yet not one of you can answer the simple question, is a testament AGAINST sedevacantism, that it is at best, false.
Once again, claims, no show; no patience. Reason isn't big in your little world. Stop blowing, and start showing, otherwise you waste your time.
I'm purposely asking for an honest answer to a question any Catholic could answer, and you say to have patience. I say you do not know the Catholic faith because you cannot answer the question - and that you can have patience dealing with that accusation for as long as you cannot answer the question.
The longer I have patience with your false accusation, the sillier you are going to look when your accusation is proven false.
You having patience with your own dishonesty, although prevalent among the sedes here, is not something to be proud of and is certainly not something that makes you look good, at least not to Catholics.
-
...trying to speak Catholic truths to sedevacantists is like speaking to them in a foreign language, Catholic truths are the language which is mostly foreign to them so they simply will not understand.
Go ahead then, tell me what are these Catholic truths we don't understand.
Go on. I'm all ears.
You can feel free to go back and read the posts in this thread, but it all boils down to:
The conclusions of SVs are based off a premise of infallibility which is not a teaching of the Church. As such, basing conclusions off a premise which is not a teaching of the Church, leads to a conclusion which is not a teaching of the Church. Sedevacantism is the opinion deemed factual truth by those who hold the opinion, but it is certain that there is no Church teaching, no papal or magisterial docuмent ever in the history of the Church that teaches we are permitted to declare popes are not popes no matter how strong of an opinion we hold - SVism IS NOT a teaching of the Church.
-
It is one thing to SAY someone is wrong, and another to SHOW he is wrong. You have NOT shown I am wrong. You just throw a lot of FYI's around, making claims without showing why something is wrong.
I quoted from a book approved and praised directly by Rome. Read more carefully.
No, epikeia is a virtue, that is what the Catholic books say.
You KNOW you are wrong - heck, the longest interregnum in the last 50 years has only been 20 days. Yet you go on about your days as if we are in a 58 year interregnum with no end in sight while expecting everyone to agree with you.
And St. Augustine saying epikeia is a vice not a virtue, kills your whole idea about it.
As for whether "I" need a pope? You need more patience in waiting for an answer before patting yourself on your own back.
No, I ask a simple question - Myrna called it a silly question, but whatever. That was her answer, which is no answer, which is typical of how sedes ignore clear and direct questions.
The fact you and Myrna and 2Vermont and etc, who promotes sedevacantism in nearly every post, and even 2Vermont gets offended from people who disagree with sedevacantism, yet not one of you can answer the simple question, is a testament AGAINST sedevacantism, that it is at best, false.
Once again, claims, no show; no patience. Reason isn't big in your little world. Stop blowing, and start showing, otherwise you waste your time.
I'm purposely asking for an honest answer to a question any Catholic could answer, and you say to have patience. I say you do not know the Catholic faith because you cannot answer the question - and that you can have patience dealing with that accusation for as long as you cannot answer the question.
The longer I have patience with your false accusation, the sillier you are going to look when your accusation is proven false.
You having patience with your own dishonesty, although prevalent among the sedes here, is not something to be proud of and is certainly not something that makes you look good, at least not to Catholics.
"Patience with your own dishonesty"?? What kind of stupid modernist terminology is that?! :roll-laugh1:
-
...trying to speak Catholic truths to sedevacantists is like speaking to them in a foreign language, Catholic truths are the language which is mostly foreign to them so they simply will not understand.
Go ahead then, tell me what are these Catholic truths we don't understand.
Go on. I'm all ears.
You can feel free to go back and read the posts in this thread, but it all boils down to:
The conclusions of SVs are based off a premise of infallibility which is not a teaching of the Church. As such, basing conclusions off a premise which is not a teaching of the Church, leads to a conclusion which is not a teaching of the Church.
And what premise of infallibility are you talking about?
Sedevacantism is the opinion deemed factual truth by those who hold the opinion, but it is certain that there is no Church teaching, no papal or magisterial docuмent ever in the history of the Church that teaches we are permitted to declare popes are not popes no matter how strong of an opinion we hold - SVism IS NOT a teaching of the Church.
Catholic teaching says that a manifestly heretical Pope deposes himself ipso facto, without the need for any declaration.
-
...trying to speak Catholic truths to sedevacantists is like speaking to them in a foreign language, Catholic truths are the language which is mostly foreign to them so they simply will not understand.
Go ahead then, tell me what are these Catholic truths we don't understand.
Go on. I'm all ears.
You can feel free to go back and read the posts in this thread, but it all boils down to:
The conclusions of SVs are based off a premise of infallibility which is not a teaching of the Church. As such, basing conclusions off a premise which is not a teaching of the Church, leads to a conclusion which is not a teaching of the Church.
And what premise of infallibility are you talking about?
Sedevacantism is the opinion deemed factual truth by those who hold the opinion, but it is certain that there is no Church teaching, no papal or magisterial docuмent ever in the history of the Church that teaches we are permitted to declare popes are not popes no matter how strong of an opinion we hold - SVism IS NOT a teaching of the Church.
Catholic teaching says that a manifestly heretical Pope deposes himself ipso facto, without the need for any declaration.
He will say that you took it "out of context", and then he will refuse to show you what he thinks the context really is. He persists with this dishonest course of discussion.
-
Besides, per your own stupid, circular reasoning, there have been no popes for the last +50 years - yet PRESUMABLY, you have kept the faith, ipso fact proves that YOU don't even need a pope to keep the faith - so why do you even need a pope at all? If it's not a syndrome, what is it?
By your own words the sedevacantist person holding that position has kept the Faith. We are Roman Catholics and as Roman Catholics we are united to the Will of God, it is His design we have a Catholic Pope. Yes, we have kept the faith as you say, because we are united to the Will of God. Unlike your version were the pope can be pope of truth and error and still be considered pope. That my friend is not Catholic but it is your belief. I wish I can say you kept the faith, but sorry!
And I said your questions are "silly" ...
Silly questions because they are immaterial, not pertinent, irrevelant, because they are designed to entrap and ensnare, grabbing at straws trying desparently to prove your erroneous position to have weight, but it doesn’t have any weight which is why you are searching the bottom of the barrel.
Again you demonstrate you cannot read what is written, in case you can re-read what I said, you will find the word "presumably" in capital letters. It is impossible for you to have kept the faith without a pope because the Church teaches this, so if you reject it, you reject the Church - that's just the way that works.
Now, if you sedes were honest sedes, you would already come out with the honest answer, like this:
QUESTION Besides, per your own stupid, circular reasoning, there have been no popes for the last +50 years - yet PRESUMABLY, you have kept the faith, ipso fact proves that YOU don't even need a pope to keep the faith - so why do you even need a pope at all? If it's not a syndrome, what is it?
ANSWER I don't know why I need a pope at all. I must need one for some reason but for the life of me, I have absolutely no idea why I need a pope at all. I must really have ECS because far as I know, I really don't need a pope at all.
THAT would be a clear answer to the clear question, IF YOU WERE HONEST.
Because it is so obvious, can we at least agree on that?
Stubborn: Look it up ... pre·sum·a·bly
prəˈz(y)o͞oməblē/
adverb
used to convey that what is asserted is very likely though not known for certain.
synonyms: I presume, I expect, I assume, I take it, I suppose, I imagine, I dare say, I guess, in all probability, probably, in all likelihood, as likely as not, doubtless, undoubtedly, no doubt
You even dare to ask us a question and tell us now how we should answer LOL!
-
]That my friend is not Catholic but it is your belief. I wish I can say you kept the faith, but sorry!
Of all the silly things we see on internet forums here we have an eighty year old grandma and widow with no degrees in theology or any training from the church above basic catechism deciding who has and who does not have the faith, similar to how she decides who is and is not the Pope. I just think that is silly.
I am only 75 years young and remember the Catholic religion as was taught in my Catholic schools and churches prior to Vatican II. For your information Matto, I have always loved my religion in school that was my favorite subject and took the good nuns advice when I was instructed to say a little prayer each night, that I would not die disunited to the Roman Catholic church.
Matto thinks it is okay for his friends to tell us that we are not Catholic, but when the shoe is on the other foot, he cries like a liberal, and that is pretty silly. Ha ha!
-
Besides, per your own stupid, circular reasoning, there have been no popes for the last +50 years - yet PRESUMABLY, you have kept the faith, ipso fact proves that YOU don't even need a pope to keep the faith - so why do you even need a pope at all? If it's not a syndrome, what is it?
By your own words the sedevacantist person holding that position has kept the Faith. We are Roman Catholics and as Roman Catholics we are united to the Will of God, it is His design we have a Catholic Pope. Yes, we have kept the faith as you say, because we are united to the Will of God. Unlike your version were the pope can be pope of truth and error and still be considered pope. That my friend is not Catholic but it is your belief. I wish I can say you kept the faith, but sorry!
And I said your questions are "silly" ...
Silly questions because they are immaterial, not pertinent, irrevelant, because they are designed to entrap and ensnare, grabbing at straws trying desparently to prove your erroneous position to have weight, but it doesn’t have any weight which is why you are searching the bottom of the barrel.
Again you demonstrate you cannot read what is written, in case you can re-read what I said, you will find the word "presumably" in capital letters. It is impossible for you to have kept the faith without a pope because the Church teaches this, so if you reject it, you reject the Church - that's just the way that works.
Now, if you sedes were honest sedes, you would already come out with the honest answer, like this:
QUESTION Besides, per your own stupid, circular reasoning, there have been no popes for the last +50 years - yet PRESUMABLY, you have kept the faith, ipso fact proves that YOU don't even need a pope to keep the faith - so why do you even need a pope at all? If it's not a syndrome, what is it?
ANSWER I don't know why I need a pope at all. I must need one for some reason but for the life of me, I have absolutely no idea why I need a pope at all. I must really have ECS because far as I know, I really don't need a pope at all.
THAT would be a clear answer to the clear question, IF YOU WERE HONEST.
Because it is so obvious, can we at least agree on that?
Stubborn: Look it up ... pre·sum·a·bly
prəˈz(y)o͞oməblē/
adverb
used to convey that what is asserted is very likely though not known for certain.
synonyms: I presume, I expect, I assume, I take it, I suppose, I imagine, I dare say, I guess, in all probability, probably, in all likelihood, as likely as not, doubtless, undoubtedly, no doubt
You even dare to ask us a question and tell us now how we should answer LOL!
Well, you show that you can post from a dictionary well enough, you also show that you, an avowed sedevacantist, do not even know why you need a pope.
That's like a pitcher not knowing why he needs a baseball.
How is it that sede's are able to remain sedes and how the heck are they able to recruit other sede's into their fold?
-
I already told you why we need a pope, because it is the Will of God, His design and to be a Catholic means united to God's Holy Will. You are the one who can't read, unless of course you missed my post back; if so, I apologize.
In fact, if you listen to yourself, you are the one who thinks we don't need a pope, otherwise, you wouldn't be so quick to call a non-Catholic man pope, forming an attitude of who cares who the pope is.
Stubborn: How is it that sede's are able to remain sedes and how the heck are they able to recruit other sede's into their fold?
Answer to both ... "able to remain" and "able to recruit" ...
because the truth will set you free. Try it!
-
I already told you why we need a pope, because it is the Will of God, His design and to be a Catholic means united to God's Holy Will. You are the one who can't read, unless of course you missed my post back; if so, I apologize.
In fact, if you listen to yourself, you are the one who thinks we don't need a pope, otherwise, you wouldn't be so quick to call a non-Catholic man pope, forming an attitude of who cares who the pope is.
Stubborn: How is it that sede's are able to remain sedes and how the heck are they able to recruit other sede's into their fold?
Answer to both ... "able to remain" and "able to recruit" ...
because the truth will set you free. Try it!
Try it? When you don't even know why YOU need a pope at all?
Note that I asked why YOU need a pope, not why WE need a pope.
I already posted I do not need a pope to save my soul, here, I will post it again just for you:
No, no, "we" do not need a pope. I do not need a pope therefore "we" do not need one. I already know what I must do to make it to heaven and an evil pope will not make me evil any more than a saintly pope will make me a saint.
Apparently you cannot understand this so I ask yet again - why do YOU need a pope at all?
-
Stubborn ... catch this!
I need a Pope, because it is God's design, and I am united to the Will of God, with the help of His grace.
Got it!
-
Stubborn ... catch this!
I need a Pope, because it is God's design, and I am united to the Will of God, with the help of His grace.
Got it!
So you need a pope because it is God's design? LOL Is that all you have? That's not even an answer.
FYI, sede's say there is no pope for the last 58 years, yet you say God designed something in a way that makes you need a pope, ergo, sedevacantism contradicts "God's design".
Just as I thought - you, a practicing sedevacantist have no idea why YOU even need a pope at all. You had best get back to googling for an actual answer. But there is still hope that perhaps one of the other sedevacantists will reply with an honest - and actual answer.
-
Stubborn, you are a sedevacantist stretched so far that you are no longer in league with the Sedevacantist position.
You really believe that it matters not to you personally to even hope for a pope. You believe in only your own will because it confuses you so much to admit that we do not have a Catholic pope at this time, you can not accept this fact. Therefore, you invent a scenario that it matters not to you since you can save your soul without a pope ever. Now to ease your erroneous conscience you want me or another sedevacantist to join you in your need to say, "no, no, who needs a pope anyway mind-set" That is Not Catholic.
Sorry, I have to put my personal "YOU" (as you put it aside) It is not my nature to put my will above the Will of God. Yes, there was a time in my life, when my will was more important to me than the Will of God, actually, it was when I was led into Vatican II for 20 years, from 1962 approx. till 1982, give or take a few years, when the changes were taking place and grace was leaving. If God took me at that time I would be in Hell today, however, God showed me His mercy and I pray He will show you the same mercy.
At least, I can accept the fact that today, we do not have a Catholic pope, that is something you can't face.
-
Hey Stubborn I'm still waiting for you to address this:
...trying to speak Catholic truths to sedevacantists is like speaking to them in a foreign language, Catholic truths are the language which is mostly foreign to them so they simply will not understand.
Go ahead then, tell me what are these Catholic truths we don't understand.
Go on. I'm all ears.
You can feel free to go back and read the posts in this thread, but it all boils down to:
The conclusions of SVs are based off a premise of infallibility which is not a teaching of the Church. As such, basing conclusions off a premise which is not a teaching of the Church, leads to a conclusion which is not a teaching of the Church.
And what premise of infallibility are you talking about?
Sedevacantism is the opinion deemed factual truth by those who hold the opinion, but it is certain that there is no Church teaching, no papal or magisterial docuмent ever in the history of the Church that teaches we are permitted to declare popes are not popes no matter how strong of an opinion we hold - SVism IS NOT a teaching of the Church.
Catholic teaching says that a manifestly heretical Pope deposes himself ipso facto, without the need for any declaration.
-
Stubborn, you are a sedevacantist stretched so far that you are no longer in league with the Sedevacantist position.
You really believe that it matters not to you personally to even hope for a pope. You believe in only your own will because it confuses you so much to admit that we do not have a Catholic pope at this time, you can not accept this fact. Therefore, you invent a scenario that it matters not to you since you can save your soul without a pope ever. Now to ease your erroneous conscience you want me or another sedevacantist to join you in your need to say, "no, no, who needs a pope anyway mind-set" That is Not Catholic.
Sorry, I have to put my personal "YOU" (as you put it aside) It is not my nature to put my will above the Will of God. Yes, there was a time in my life, when my will was more important to me than the Will of God, actually, it was when I was led into Vatican II for 20 years, from 1962 approx. till 1982, give or take a few years, when the changes were taking place and grace was leaving. If God took me at that time I would be in Hell today, however, God showed me His mercy and I pray He will show you the same mercy.
At least, I can accept the fact that today, we do not have a Catholic pope, that is something you can't face.
Why are you worrying about what I think? Keep this on the subject that YOU, a sedevacantist whose promoted sedevacantism for years does not even know why YOU need a pope. That is incredible.
You cannot face the fact that you have no idea why YOU even need a pope at all, so let's keep it on that subject, shall we?
If you didn't have a "pope problem", you would probably better see how incredible it is that an avid sedevacantist like yourself does not even know why she needs a pope.
-
Hey Stubborn I'm still waiting for you to address this:
...trying to speak Catholic truths to sedevacantists is like speaking to them in a foreign language, Catholic truths are the language which is mostly foreign to them so they simply will not understand.
Go ahead then, tell me what are these Catholic truths we don't understand.
Go on. I'm all ears.
You can feel free to go back and read the posts in this thread, but it all boils down to:
The conclusions of SVs are based off a premise of infallibility which is not a teaching of the Church. As such, basing conclusions off a premise which is not a teaching of the Church, leads to a conclusion which is not a teaching of the Church.
And what premise of infallibility are you talking about?
Sedevacantism is the opinion deemed factual truth by those who hold the opinion, but it is certain that there is no Church teaching, no papal or magisterial docuмent ever in the history of the Church that teaches we are permitted to declare popes are not popes no matter how strong of an opinion we hold - SVism IS NOT a teaching of the Church.
Catholic teaching says that a manifestly heretical Pope deposes himself ipso facto, without the need for any declaration.
I already asked for you to re-read the thread for a more complete reply - but in brief, the false premise is that of papal infallibility, the sede's here confuse impeccability with infallibility.
As for your second point, please read the second paragraph which is labeled #1 of Apostolic Constitution, cuм ex Apostolatus Officio (http://www.strobertbellarmine.net/encyclicals/Paul04/cuмex.html).
1) What does Pope Paul IV teach that we are *not* permitted to do to the Roman Pontiff?
2) What does Pope Paul IV instruct us to actually do about heretic popes, i.e. popes who deviate from the faith?
-
Stubborn, you are a sedevacantist stretched so far that you are no longer in league with the Sedevacantist position.
You really believe that it matters not to you personally to even hope for a pope. You believe in only your own will because it confuses you so much to admit that we do not have a Catholic pope at this time, you can not accept this fact. Therefore, you invent a scenario that it matters not to you since you can save your soul without a pope ever. Now to ease your erroneous conscience you want me or another sedevacantist to join you in your need to say, "no, no, who needs a pope anyway mind-set" That is Not Catholic.
Sorry, I have to put my personal "YOU" (as you put it aside) It is not my nature to put my will above the Will of God. Yes, there was a time in my life, when my will was more important to me than the Will of God, actually, it was when I was led into Vatican II for 20 years, from 1962 approx. till 1982, give or take a few years, when the changes were taking place and grace was leaving. If God took me at that time I would be in Hell today, however, God showed me His mercy and I pray He will show you the same mercy.
At least, I can accept the fact that today, we do not have a Catholic pope, that is something you can't face.
Why are you worrying about what I think? Keep this on the subject that YOU, a sedevacantist whose promoted sedevacantism for years does not even know why YOU need a pope. That is incredible.
You cannot face the fact that you have no idea why YOU even need a pope at all, so let's keep it on that subject, shall we?
If you didn't have a "pope problem", you would probably better see how incredible it is that an avid sedevacantist like yourself does not even know why she needs a pope.
She answered your question, and it is a valid answer for a Catholic to give, though I will give another valid answer more in depth. Sorry to see you have a problem with why you yourself don't know why you need a pope so you ignore him completely. Better to know you don't have one than to think you have one and then utterly ignore him!
-
I already asked for you to re-read the thread for a more complete reply
I'm not going to read 700+ posts when you can just tell me yourself.
- but in brief, the false premise is that of papal infallibility, the sede's here confuse impeccability with infallibility.
I have never seen such a confusion. Can you point out one specific example of this?
As for your second point, please read the second paragraph which is labeled #1 of Apostolic Constitution, cuм ex Apostolatus Officio (http://www.strobertbellarmine.net/encyclicals/Paul04/cuмex.html).
1) What does Pope Paul IV teach that we are *not* permitted to do to the Roman Pontiff?
Why don't you just quote what you're referring to? There is no "second paragraph labeled #1".
2) What does Pope Paul IV instruct us to actually do about heretic popes, i.e. popes who deviate from the faith?
Avoid them, AFTER declaring them to be excommunicated ipso facto without any declaration and their election being void and worthless.
-
I already told you why we need a pope, because it is the Will of God, His design and to be a Catholic means united to God's Holy Will. You are the one who can't read, unless of course you missed my post back; if so, I apologize.
In fact, if you listen to yourself, you are the one who thinks we don't need a pope, otherwise, you wouldn't be so quick to call a non-Catholic man pope, forming an attitude of who cares who the pope is.
Stubborn: How is it that sede's are able to remain sedes and how the heck are they able to recruit other sede's into their fold?
Answer to both ... "able to remain" and "able to recruit" ...
because the truth will set you free. Try it!
Try it? When you don't even know why YOU need a pope at all?
Note that I asked why YOU need a pope, not why WE need a pope.
I already posted I do not need a pope to save my soul, here, I will post it again just for you:
No, no, "we" do not need a pope. I do not need a pope therefore "we" do not need one. I already know what I must do to make it to heaven and an evil pope will not make me evil any more than a saintly pope will make me a saint.
Apparently you cannot understand this so I ask yet again - why do YOU need a pope at all?
"Furthermore, we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff."
So much for accepting that dogma, huh Stubborn??
-
She answered your question, and it is a valid answer for a Catholic to give, though I will give another valid answer more in depth. Sorry to see you have a problem with why you yourself don't know why you need a pope so you ignore him completely. Better to know you don't have one than to think you have one and then utterly ignore him!
No, it is a reply a sedevacantist gives, it is not an answer in any way, shape or form a Catholic would give.
-
She answered your question, and it is a valid answer for a Catholic to give, though I will give another valid answer more in depth. Sorry to see you have a problem with why you yourself don't know why you need a pope so you ignore him completely. Better to know you don't have one than to think you have one and then utterly ignore him!
No, it is a reply a sedevacantist gives, it is not an answer in any way, shape or form a Catholic would give.
It is a valid answer for someone who has the faith, and evaluated as invalid by someone who doesn't.
-
I already asked for you to re-read the thread for a more complete reply
I'm not going to read 700+ posts when you can just tell me yourself.
- but in brief, the false premise is that of papal infallibility, the sede's here confuse impeccability with infallibility.
I have never seen such a confusion. Can you point out one specific example of this?
As for your second point, please read the second paragraph which is labeled #1 of Apostolic Constitution, cuм ex Apostolatus Officio (http://www.strobertbellarmine.net/encyclicals/Paul04/cuмex.html).
1) What does Pope Paul IV teach that we are *not* permitted to do to the Roman Pontiff?
Why don't you just quote what you're referring to? There is no "second paragraph labeled #1".
2) What does Pope Paul IV instruct us to actually do about heretic popes, i.e. popes who deviate from the faith?
Avoid them, AFTER declaring them to be excommunicated ipso facto without any declaration and their election being void and worthless.
Show us where it says that - also note the second paragraph labeled #1
-
She answered your question, and it is a valid answer for a Catholic to give, though I will give another valid answer more in depth. Sorry to see you have a problem with why you yourself don't know why you need a pope so you ignore him completely. Better to know you don't have one than to think you have one and then utterly ignore him!
No, it is a reply a sedevacantist gives, it is not an answer in any way, shape or form a Catholic would give.
It is a valid answer for someone who has the faith, and evaluated as invalid by someone who doesn't.
No need for you to remain dishonest here, you saying it is a valid answer just proves you do not know why YOU need a pope either.
Just admit that any Catholic who feels bound and determined to pursue sedevacantism, regardless of what the Church says, is neither sensible, nor pious, nor humble, nor Catholic no matter how well-intentioned he credits himself with being. Neither is he seriously desirous of growing in virtue and loving union with Christ; instead, he wants something to distract him from his prayers and pursuit of spiritual intimacy.
-
She answered your question, and it is a valid answer for a Catholic to give, though I will give another valid answer more in depth. Sorry to see you have a problem with why you yourself don't know why you need a pope so you ignore him completely. Better to know you don't have one than to think you have one and then utterly ignore him!
No, it is a reply a sedevacantist gives, it is not an answer in any way, shape or form a Catholic would give.
It is a valid answer for someone who has the faith, and evaluated as invalid by someone who doesn't.
No need for you to remain dishonest here, you saying it is a valid answer just proves you do not know why YOU need a pope either.
Just admit that any Catholic who feels bound and determined to pursue this matter, regardless of what the Church says, is neither sensible, nor pious, nor humble, nor Catholic no matter how well-intentioned he credits himself with being. Neither is he seriously desirous of growing in virtue and loving union with Christ; instead, he wants something to distract him from his prayers and pursuit of spiritual intimacy.
It is clear that YOU deny the dogma I just quoted, and like a stinking heretic are here to try to infect others.
-
She answered your question, and it is a valid answer for a Catholic to give, though I will give another valid answer more in depth. Sorry to see you have a problem with why you yourself don't know why you need a pope so you ignore him completely. Better to know you don't have one than to think you have one and then utterly ignore him!
No, it is a reply a sedevacantist gives, it is not an answer in any way, shape or form a Catholic would give.
It is a valid answer for someone who has the faith, and evaluated as invalid by someone who doesn't.
No need for you to remain dishonest here, you saying it is a valid answer just proves you do not know why YOU need a pope either.
Just admit that any Catholic who feels bound and determined to pursue this matter, regardless of what the Church says, is neither sensible, nor pious, nor humble, nor Catholic no matter how well-intentioned he credits himself with being. Neither is he seriously desirous of growing in virtue and loving union with Christ; instead, he wants something to distract him from his prayers and pursuit of spiritual intimacy.
It is clear that YOU deny the dogma I just quoted, and like a stinking heretic are here to try to infect others.
HA HA!
You are not only wrong, you do not even know why you even need a pope at all. WTH kind of sedevacantists are you guys anyway - someone should take your sede cards away till you can answer why you even need a pope at all.
-
She answered your question, and it is a valid answer for a Catholic to give, though I will give another valid answer more in depth. Sorry to see you have a problem with why you yourself don't know why you need a pope so you ignore him completely. Better to know you don't have one than to think you have one and then utterly ignore him!
No, it is a reply a sedevacantist gives, it is not an answer in any way, shape or form a Catholic would give.
It is a valid answer for someone who has the faith, and evaluated as invalid by someone who doesn't.
No need for you to remain dishonest here, you saying it is a valid answer just proves you do not know why YOU need a pope either.
Just admit that any Catholic who feels bound and determined to pursue this matter, regardless of what the Church says, is neither sensible, nor pious, nor humble, nor Catholic no matter how well-intentioned he credits himself with being. Neither is he seriously desirous of growing in virtue and loving union with Christ; instead, he wants something to distract him from his prayers and pursuit of spiritual intimacy.
It is clear that YOU deny the dogma I just quoted, and like a stinking heretic are here to try to infect others.
HA HA!
You are not only wrong, you do not even know why you even need a pope at all. WTH kind of sedevacantists are you guys anyway - someone should take your sede cards away till you can answer why you even need a pope at all.
A typical heretic response dodging your clear denial of the dogma I quoted. You come here railing againt SV, and then say you doubt that Francis is a pope, and then say you don't believe a most solid dogma, and then try to turn the tables. Are you a mental case or on the Communist payroll from Vatican City?
-
Your puerile accusations are not even laughable.
You have no idea why you even need a pope or you would have answered the question quicker than you try to change the subject.
You prove you have no idea why you need a pope with each attempted sidetracking post filled with false accusations that you make. Well I am not letting up, I will keep on this subject till you either answer it or admit you have no flaming idea why YOU need a pope.
The heck of it is, you carry on in your error knowing full well that you have no idea why. It's a sede thing.
Get it through your head that the legitimacy of the pope is not your concern; it is the concern of Christ only, because He alone has authority over the pope and He has the power to solve any problems that may arise from his being illegitimate, should the case ever occur. It's especially not your concern when you don't even know why you even need a pope at all.
-
Your puerile accusations are not even laughable.
You have no idea why you even need a pope or you would have answered the question quicker than you try to change the subject.
You prove you have no idea why you need a pope with each attempted sidetracking post filled with false accusations that you make. Well I am not letting up, I will keep on this subject till you either answer it or admit you have no flaming idea why YOU need a pope.
The heck of it is, you carry on in your error knowing full well that you have no idea why. It's a sede thing.
Get it through your head that the legitimacy of the pope is not your concern; it is the concern of Christ only, because He alone has authority over the pope and He has the power to solve any problems that may arise from his being illegitimate, should the case ever occur. It's especially not your concern when you don't even know why you even need a pope at all.
I know the accusation is not laughable, because it is serious and true. It may also be puerile because I think it is child's play to see that you denied the dogma I quoted. Compare the quote of the dogma, and then your quote saying you don't need a pope. It is so easy even a cave woman can see it.
-
You see through sedevacantist glasses, which is why you have no idea why YOU need a pope.
Please keep on topic. The topic being, you have no idea why YOU even need a pope.
-
You see through sedevacantist glasses, which is why you have no idea why YOU need a pope.
Please keep on topic. The topic being, you have no idea why YOU even need a pope.
Actually, the book by Salsa and Siscoe is the topic, so your dodge really isn't valid. And if you think it is....well, I started a new thread so it will definitely be on topic.
-
Your desperation is apparent, you need to avoid answering the clear question at all costs, but that does not change the indisputable fact that you have no idea why YOU even need a pope at all.
-
Your desperation is apparent, you need to avoid answering the clear question at all costs, but that does not change the indisputable fact that you have no idea why YOU even need a pope at all.
I said I would answer, and I will. And it is easy. But I will allow you to insert your foot further and further into your own mouth first.
The dogma says what it says, and no Catholic need answer any more than to profess that solemn dogma that they need to be subject to the pope, and that we must pray and work always to have a pope despite interregnums.
-
You do not even believe in Dogma, I told you before to use only SV teaching to support SV - trying to use Catholic dogma when it seems convenient to suit your twisted purpose only adds to more scandal.
Now, back to the current topic:
Per your own sedevacantist belief, there have been no popes for the last 58 years - yet PRESUMABLY, you have kept the faith, ipso facto proves that YOU don't even need a pope to keep the faith - so why do you even need a pope at all?
Why do you, an avowed sedevacantist, even need a pope at all?
-
Stubborn who is trolling down the river on a Sunday afternoon :heretic:
-
You do not even believe in Dogma, I told you before to use only SV teaching to support SV - trying to use Catholic dogma when it seems convenient to suit your twisted purpose only adds to more scandal.
Now, back to the current topic:
Per your own sedevacantist belief, there have been no popes for the last 58 years - yet PRESUMABLY, you have kept the faith, ipso facto proves that YOU don't even need a pope to keep the faith - so why do you even need a pope at all?
Why do you, an avowed sedevacantist, even need a pope at all?
Very good point, Stubborn.
When (or if, the possibility is acknowledged by the theologians who even say "can't happen") we are confronted with what we are confronted, to what does one turn?
This is why St. Paul said to hold to the teachings, to Tradition - and not simply to do whatever Peter did or said, and be done with it.
If one did whatever Peter did, one would have followed him into schism. Galatians 2.
But they will say, there is a distinction between doing and saying - which is obliterated by the recent regimes.
Oh, but they are not really popes, bishops . . . right. Our consciences and beliefs being assuaged by a simple negation - no matter the correspondence with what happened or exists out there in the real world - we go on.
Not.
I'm with you, Stubborn.
-
We need a pope so we do not set up false sects, or, as doctor and St. Francis de Sales said, set up "other altars."
The horror of schism leads to the horror of heresy, without fail and inevitably. We hold the ground against heresy here, here, on the sacred ground of the Church. And do not run off and splinter the body of Christ into pieces which cannot be put back together. A crack can be fixed; a shattered vessel is irretrievably lost . . . forever.
There is one body, one Church of Christ. We suffer with it, and tell the pope he is off when he departs from Tradition and the faith "once delivered to the saints."