Author Topic: New book arguing against Sedevacantism (Read 80926 times)

Gregory I · « **Reply #255 on:** December 01, 2015, 02:00:14 AM »

Quote from: Cantarella

Quote from: Gregory I
Quote
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":

Quote
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.

Stubborn · « **Reply #256 on:** December 01, 2015, 04:31:36 AM »

Quote from: PaulFC

Quote from: Stubborn

I responded to this question already in this Post 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.

Quote from: PaulFC

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.

2Vermont · « **Reply #257 on:** December 01, 2015, 04:35:34 AM »

Quote from: PaulFC

Quote from: Stubborn

I responded to this question already in this Post 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.

Stubborn · « **Reply #258 on:** December 01, 2015, 04:39:32 AM »

Quote from: Gregory I

Quote from: PaulFC
Quote from: Stubborn

I responded to this question already in this Post 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.

Lover of Truth · « **Reply #259 on:** December 01, 2015, 05:39:43 AM »

Quote from: ubipetrus

Quote from: TKGS
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.