Author Topic: So You Decided To Become A Sedevacantist (Read 47519 times)

Amakusa · « **Reply #210 on:** May 21, 2015, 05:06:05 AM »

Amakusa was a Catholic Japanese warrior.

Vatican II is not infallible, since it would be impossible that all bishops fall in collective heresy, as taught by the Church doctrine. Therefore, if you claim that Paul VI is an antipope because of Vatican II, you deny a doctrine of faith.

Concerning the new mass, there are several testimonies and private revelations which have shown that the Novus Ordo has been falsified, and that the true version was almost the same as the tridentine rite.

What I say is not a theory but a dogmatic fact, as explained previously.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #211 on:** May 21, 2015, 07:52:33 AM »

Quote from: Amakusa

Vatican II is not infallible, since it would be impossible that all bishops fall in collective heresy, as taught by the Church doctrine.

That's an absolute logical nonsequitur. Even if one were to grant that V2 is not infallible, that does not mean the bishops did not themselves EMBRACE heretical doctrine ... whether they taught it infallibly or not.

Amakusa · « **Reply #212 on:** May 21, 2015, 10:52:31 AM »

It is impossible that bishops teach heresy with a moral unanimity. The authentic magisterium is infallible when a doctrine is determined irrevocably, being defined properly speaking. Now, if the doctrine is defined, one can no longer say that it is merely an error, because it is taught as de fide. If an error is taught as de fide, it becomes a heresy, not a mere error.

It is impossible to say that Vatican II was infallible, for this very reason. The SSPX is right on that point. But the sedevacantists are right when they answer that one has to obey the Pope, whereas the SSPX does not obey Francis. If the SSPX does not obey Francis, it means it does not ackwnoledge him.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #213 on:** May 21, 2015, 11:46:53 AM »

Amakusa, your logic is hopelessly bungled; there's no point even trying to disentangle the mess.

Amakusa · « **Reply #214 on:** May 21, 2015, 12:10:00 PM »

It is simple...

There is a distinction between error and heresy. An error is a false statement regarding a truth which does not belong to Revelation. A heresy is a false statement regarding a truth which belongs to Revelation.

General councils are protected against collective heresy, but they are not protected against error. Now, when an error is taught as being de fide, it is no longer a mere error, but a heresy, because it is as though the statement corrupted the Revelation itself. Hence it is impossible to say that freedom of religion has been properly defined in Vatican II, when one considers that it is an error.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #215 on:** May 21, 2015, 12:21:11 PM »

Quote from: Amakusa

It is simple...

There is a distinction between error and heresy.

You've got this all wrong. Just because the bishops did not DEFINE any heresy infallibly does not mean that in the docuмents of Vatican II they did not fallibly teach something that's heretical (based on previous definition). Just because they did not define NEW heresy doesn't mean they didn't "embrace" OLD heresy.

Amakusa · « **Reply #216 on:** May 21, 2015, 01:23:04 PM »

No, it is impossible because bishops in a general council are protected against collective heresy.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #217 on:** May 21, 2015, 01:26:07 PM »

Quote from: Amakusa

No, it is impossible because bishops in a general council are protected against collective heresy.

I actually agree with this. Except that it has nothing to do with infallibility per se.

Amakusa · « **Reply #218 on:** May 21, 2015, 01:44:55 PM »

I don't know if you have understood what I have said.

When a doctrine is taught as something "de fide", it is a heresy, not a mere error. Therefore, if one says that Vatican II has defined freedom of religion, one says that bishops have taught collective heresy...

Even Gallicans admitted that bishops could not teach altogether an error as something "de fide", namely a heresy.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #219 on:** May 21, 2015, 01:49:58 PM »

Quote from: Amakusa

When a doctrine is taught as something "de fide", it is a heresy, not a mere error.

I know what you are saying, but your logic is completely backwards. I'll get back to this some other time.