Author Topic: On SV (Read 13985 times)

Ladislaus · « **Reply #120 on:** July 08, 2014, 03:11:12 PM »

Quote from: Nishant

But what if the See was not vacant? What set of necessary and sufficient conditions would prove this, with the same infallible certainty, according to you? There must be some set of such conditions, otherwise the matter could not be resolved. If you consider this question, I think you'll see the answer, and only answer, can be the acceptance of the Church, the universal episcopate in particular.

I should think that an undoubtedly-legitimate future pope could authoritatively decide that question as well. He'll have a lot of theological explaining to do ... to unravel the theology of why it's OK to reject Vatican II and under what conditions Catholics might be free to reject other acts of the Magisterium and why now we should regard his opinion on the previous Popes to have any certainty or reliability?

I have given a lot of thought about to the criteria for establishing a priori the dogmatic fact of papal legitimacy, but I find myself in a theological Catch-22. Basically the same bishops who would be involved in the "acceptance" of a legitimate pope were the ones who also gave us a defective Ecuмenical Council and a defective/harmful Rite of Mass. If I had to accept the legitimacy of the papal claimants, then I would have no choice but to accept Vatican II and the NOM also as being substantially free from error or potential harm to souls. That's all tied to the indefectibility of the Church. How can we consistently say that, e.g. canonizations are infallible, that universal acceptance in infallible, but that universal discipline (e.g. Novus Ordo Missae) is not infallible and that an Ecuмenical Council can teach grave error to the Church and lead the Church into error?

So I think that the key lies in the illegitimate election. I don't see that such an election can be convalidated by universal acceptance. If Siri had been elected pope, accepted, and resigned under duress (therefore not validly), then Roncalli was put in his place, and unbeknownst to the broader Church (those outside the conclave) was rolled out with the papal regalia so that no one was the wiser. I don't see how, in such a scenario, "universal acceptance" can make it so that Siri / Gregory XVII was not still the pope.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #121 on:** July 08, 2014, 03:24:59 PM »

You see, Nishant, here's the conundrum; it's based on the indefectibility of the Church that the "entire Church" could not accept an illegitimate pope, but based on the same principle the "entire Church" cannot accept a false Council and harmful / Protestant / bastard Rite of Mass either.

By some accounts, up to 90% of the world's bishops had gone Arian during the time of that crisis. Had these 90% gone and elected an Arian pope, they would all have accepted him, barring the 10% who had kept the faith. To me, these 10%, however, are the majority and it would be THEIR universal consent that would be required, and the 90% Arians are disqualified from factoring into the equation in the first place. Similar forces are at work at Vatican II. Those 90% of bishops who jumped all over the Vatican II band wagon, did they really still have the faith? If not, then what does their acceptance of the V2 Papal Claimants really mean?

Think about this for a second. Imagine that Pope Francis had been elected instead of St. Pius X (back in that era). How long before millions of Catholics would have been up in arms declaring him a heretic and doubting his legitimacy? But the modernist-corrupted pseudo-Catholics of modern times do not have enough faith left to recognize this anymore. So, given their lack of faith, what does their universal acceptance mean? Most of them would accept Nancy Peℓσѕι as pope. 85-90% do not believe in the Real Presence, and 95% of the remaining 10% reject some OTHER Catholic dogma. If they do not have enough Catholic discernment to recognize and reject the errors of Vatican II, how do they have enough Catholic discernment to recognize a true of false Pope?

Cantarella · « **Reply #122 on:** July 08, 2014, 04:15:09 PM »

Quote from: Ladislaus

You see, Nishant, here's the conundrum; it's based on the indefectibility of the Church that the "entire Church" could not accept an illegitimate pope, but based on the same principle the "entire Church" cannot accept a false Council and harmful / Protestant / bastard Rite of Mass either.

But it has happened before in the history of the Church. The Ecuмenical Council of Constance (1415), for example, taught the heresy of Conciliarism. Such errors of the Council of Constance were disavowed by Pope Martin V and annulled by Pope Sixtus IV. The errors of Constance were reaffirmed and reinforced by the Ecuмenical Council of Basel (1431-1437). This council (at first considered legitimate) would later be declared schismatic and condemned by Pope Eugene IV. Vatican II has not been yet (perhaps never will be) condemned by the legitimate authority, meaning another Pope.

Anyone with some historical background can see that the simplistic idea that everything a Pope or a Council teaches is true and infallible, does not fit with the reality. History just does not attest to that.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #123 on:** July 08, 2014, 08:57:37 PM »

Quote from: Cantarella

But it has happened before in the history of the Church. The Ecuмenical Council of Constance (1415), for example, taught the heresy of Conciliarism. Such errors of the Council of Constance were disavowed by Pope Martin V and annulled by Pope Sixtus IV. The errors of Constance were reaffirmed and reinforced by the Ecuмenical Council of Basel (1431-1437). This council (at first considered legitimate) would later be declared schismatic and condemned by Pope Eugene IV. Vatican II has not been yet (perhaps never will be) condemned by the legitimate authority, meaning another Pope.

Anyone with some historical background can see that the simplistic idea that everything a Pope or a Council teaches is true and infallible, does not fit with the reality. History just does not attest to that.

Your understanding of the history of Constance is faulty. Constance was convened by and the heretical Haec Sancta ("Conciliarism") promulgated under Antipope John XXIII. Gregory XII, the true Pope, refused to ratify Haec Sancta. Martin V never ratified Haec Sancta either, declaring the entire first 13 sessions to be null and void. So the error of Conciliarism was never ratified by a legitimate pope.

Ironic isn't it that Roncalli was John XXIII and that Siri reportedly took the name Gregory?

Honestly I must say that I find it shocking that a Catholic could believe that a legitimate Ecuмenical Council could teach error to the Church.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #124 on:** July 08, 2014, 09:00:33 PM »

Quote

The Council of Constance was convoked in 1414 by the Anti-Pope John XXIII, one of three rival claimants to the papal throne, the other two being Gregory XII and Benedict XIII. The Council was called to resolve all doubts as to the true successor of Peter, and end the Great Schism. John agreed to resign if his rivals would do the same, then he fled the city. In the absence of a papal convenor, the Council enacted Haec Sancta (fifth session, 15 April 1415), which purported to subject even papal authority to the authority of the Council. John was brought back and deposed for scandalous conduct. Gregory convoked the Council anew, rejected all its prior proceedings (including Haec Sancta), and then resigned. The Council acquiesced in these actions, passed decrees on reform, condemned the heresies of Hus and Wyclif and, after deposing Benedict, elected Martin V, under whom unity was restored to the Church.

While no council, not even Ecuмenical, has authority to depose a Pope, the two men who were deposed were both Anti-Popes. The true Pope was Gregory XII, who resigned rather than being deposed. He it was who authorized the sessions beginning on 4 July 1415, and declared all previous sessions (the first thirteen) null and void. Martin V ratified the succeeding sessions at the conclusion of the Council.

Cantarella · « **Reply #125 on:** July 08, 2014, 10:35:46 PM »

Quote from: Ladislaus

Your understanding of the history of Constance is faulty. Constance was convened by and the heretical Haec Sancta ("Conciliarism") promulgated under Antipope John XXIII. Gregory XII, the true Pope, refused to ratify Haec Sancta. Martin V never ratified Haec Sancta either, declaring the entire first 13 sessions to be null and void. So the error of Conciliarism was never ratified by a legitimate pope.

That is a good point. The true Pope Martin ratified the council, except the decrees which proposed Conciliarism, but notice that it takes a true POPE, (not the common layman) to declare all the erroneous sessions "null and void". The same is true for the Council of Basel, which at first was considered legitimate but later declared schismatic and condemned by Pope Eugene IV.

Quote

Basel:

Council of the Roman Catholic church held in Basel, Switz. It addressed the question of ultimate authority in the church and the problem of the Hussite heresy. Its members renewed the decree Sacrosancta (issued by the Council of Constance), which declared the council's authority to be greater than the pope's, and voted to receive most Hussites back into the church on terms opposed by the pope. In 1437 Pope Eugenius IV transferred the council to Ferrara to negotiate reunion with the Orthodox church more effectively, but several members remained in Basel as a rump council and declared Eugenius deposed. They then elected a new pope, Felix V, and the renewed schism cost the council its prestige and popular support. On the death of Eugenius, his successor, Nicholas V, obliged the antipope Felix to abdicate, ended the rump council, and brought the conciliar movement to a close.

Reality is, that the only one in position to declare a Council invalid is another Roman Pontiff. Also, not even an Ecuмenical council can depose the Pope. Again what is the common layman to do during the times of great turbulence? Becoming a schismatic (therefore outside of Christ's Body and unable to enter Heaven) following his own conscience? It is Catholic practice to mistrust one's belief even when there is all evidence and wait for the truth dispensed solely by the Church.

Cantarella · « **Reply #126 on:** July 08, 2014, 10:54:07 PM »

And if one believes that the Church suddenly ceased to exist after Vatican II and refers to the Church pre - Vatican II as the real one and the Church post -Vatican II as a counterfeit and furthermore, refuses communion with other Catholics in submission to the visible reigning Pope, one is already a schismatic. Vatican II was the final triumph of Modernism over the Church hierarchy, which had been plaguing the Church long before, as history attests. The Church has been INFILTRATED by Her enemies. But it is the SAME Church that Christ founded more than 2000 years ago. There are not two separate Churches.

Sneakyticks · « **Reply #127 on:** July 08, 2014, 11:38:27 PM »

All i have ever seen and continue to see hurled at SV are strawmans, lies, distortions, ignorantia elenchi etc. In other words, all the dirty tricks in the book.

It's amazing, but then again, it's no surprise, since SV is firmly rooted in Catholic teaching and principles, as opposed to the "R&R" silliness and what the false conservatives in the novus ordo say, which isn't.

Quote from: Cantarella

Quote from: Ladislaus

Your understanding of the history of Constance is faulty. Constance was convened by and the heretical Haec Sancta ("Conciliarism") promulgated under Antipope John XXIII. Gregory XII, the true Pope, refused to ratify Haec Sancta. Martin V never ratified Haec Sancta either, declaring the entire first 13 sessions to be null and void. So the error of Conciliarism was never ratified by a legitimate pope.

That is a good point.

"Good point"? He just showed how what you said was plain false.

Quote from: Cantarella

...but notice that it takes a true POPE, (not the common layman) to declare all the erroneous sessions "null and void".

What in the world are you doing rejecting Vatican 2 and the New Mess then?

What in the world are you doing rejecting bod/bob?

It sure doesn't take the declaration of a true POPE to do that but the private judgment of the common layman eh?

Quote from: Cantarella

Again what is the common layman to do during the times of great turbulence? Becoming a schismatic (therefore outside of Christ's Body and unable to enter Heaven) following his own conscience?

And yet that is exactly what you're doing and then some.

Quote from: Cantarella

It is Catholic practice to mistrust one's belief even when there is all evidence and wait for the truth dispensed solely by the Church.

Indeed it is so why do you reject bod/bob and Vatican 2 and the New Mess?

Don't you know your "pope emeritus" DECREED the New Mass cannot be excluded nor Vatican 2 be questioned?

Quote from: Cantarella

And if one believes that the Church suddenly ceased to exist after Vatican II

Yet another strawman and distortion invented by you.

No SV says this.

Quote from: Cantarella

and refers to the Church pre - Vatican II as the real one and the Church post -Vatican II as a counterfeit and furthermore, refuses communion with other Catholics in submission to the visible reigning Pope, one is already a schismatic.

This is exactly what you demonstrate in practice so you condemn yourself out of your own mouth.

Quote from: Cantarella

Vatican II was the final triumph of Modernism over the Church hierarchy, which had been plaguing the Church long before, as history attests. The Church has been INFILTRATED by Her enemies. But it is the SAME Church that Christ founded more than 2000 years ago. There are not two separate Churches.

Heretical nonsense. This is to say the Church defected and the Gates of Hell prevailed.

Do yourself a favor and shut your ignorant trap.

Blind hypocrite headed for the ditch.

Sneakyticks · « **Reply #128 on:** July 08, 2014, 11:58:58 PM »

It is a FOUL thing for a woman to speak in the Church. -1 Corinthians 14:35

Let the woman learn in SILENCE, with all subjection. But I suffer NOT a woman to teach, NOR to use authority over the man: but to be in SILENCE. -1 Timothy 2:11

Cantarella: Shut up already.

Matto · « **Reply #129 on:** July 09, 2014, 12:02:26 AM »

Quote from: Sneakyticks

It is a FOUL thing for a woman to speak in the Church. -1 Corinthians 14:35

Let the woman learn in SILENCE, with all subjection. But I suffer NOT a woman to teach, NOR to use authority over the man: but to be in SILENCE. -1 Timothy 2:11

Cantarella: Shut up already.

You have a foul mouth. It must be charity. :smoke-pot:

Sneakyticks · « **Reply #130 on:** July 09, 2014, 01:48:04 AM »

Quote from: Matto

Quote from: Sneakyticks
It is a FOUL thing for a woman to speak in the Church. -1 Corinthians 14:35

Let the woman learn in SILENCE, with all subjection. But I suffer NOT a woman to teach, NOR to use authority over the man: but to be in SILENCE. -1 Timothy 2:11

Cantarella: Shut up already.

You have a foul mouth. It must be charity. :smoke-pot:

Quote

From which things some going astray, are turned aside unto vain babbling: [7] Desiring to be teachers of the law, understanding neither the things they say, nor whereof they affirm. [8] But we know that the law is good, if a man use it lawfully: [9] Knowing this, that the law is not made for the just man, but for the unjust and disobedient, for the ungodly, and for sinners, for the wicked and defiled, for murderers of fathers, and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, [10] For fornicators, for them who defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and whatever other thing is contrary to sound doctrine. -1 Timothy 1

Be not liars against the truth. -James 3:14

Thou canst not bear them that are evil, and thou hast tried them, who say they are apostles, and are not, and hast found them liars. -Apocalypse 2:2

But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, AND ALL LIARS, they shall have their portion in the pool burning with fire and brimstone, which is the second death. -Apocalypse 21:8

Treat not with the dishonest of honesty. -Ecclesiasticus 37:37

The Lord hateth all abomination of error, and they that fear Him shall not love it. -Ecclesiasticus 15:13

Six things there are, which the Lord hateth, and the seventh his soul detesteth: ...a lying tongue...A deceitful witness that uttereth lies. -Proverbs 6:16

The fear of the Lord hateth evil: I hate a mouth with a double tongue. -Proverbs 8:13

That all applies to what Cantarella says against SV.

2Vermont · « **Reply #131 on:** July 09, 2014, 06:30:25 AM »

Although I wouldn't use the words Sneaky is using, I do think he is making a good point. On the one hand the non-sedes (whether R&R or somewhere in-between) continue to state that we must have a pope to decide whether previous popes are illegitimate; as a result, they do not make this judgment. Some go even farther and condemn the SV's for making such a judgment.

And yet, they continue to judge Vatican II, the New Mass etc, etc without a pope making the judgment first. In fact, the pope that they say is true says just the opposite about these things. Unless of course some of them really don't think there is anything wrong with Vatican II, the New Mass, etc. If they didn't, then at least that would be consistent.

And Sneaky, although I disagree with Cantarella, I am also a woman. I'm pretty sure you don't mind my posts.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #132 on:** July 09, 2014, 08:06:11 AM »

Quote from: Hermenegild

Quote from: Ladislaus
Most of them would accept Nancy Peℓσѕι as pope.

And you would have to say that you're not 100% certain that she's not pope.

Uhm, no.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #133 on:** July 09, 2014, 08:12:16 AM »

Quote from: Cantarella

[Reality is, that the only one in position to declare a Council invalid is another Roman Pontiff.

Constance actually teaches us that the infallibility of an Ecuмenical Council derives from the papacy.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #134 on:** July 09, 2014, 08:18:47 AM »

Quote from: Sneakyticks

Quote from: Cantarella
And if one believes that the Church suddenly ceased to exist after Vatican II

Yet another strawman and distortion invented by you.

No SV says this.

She's making the case that the disruption of papal succession for well over 50 years now would constitute a defection of the hierarchy. It's certainly an issue that has to be addressed by the SV thesis and can't be just blown off as a "strawman" because you don't want to deal with it. Most of the other SVs on this board have tried to grapple with the subject, but you ignore it ... which demonstrates intellectual dishonesty on your part. I struggle with this one myself.

And I struggle with the angle that Nishant takes regarding the fact that it's the Universal Acceptance by the Church which establishes the dogmatic fact of papal legitimacy. It's a point well taken.

I just see that there's a big difference between the time of, say, St. Pius X, or Pius XI, or Pius XII where you had everyone universally accepting them as Popes and when there was peace in the Church and a state like today where you have almost universal apostasy, where 95% of all self-proclaimed Catholics are in fact heretics (based on polls which indicate that they reject one Church dogma or another), where there's massive confusion, upheaval, turmoil, decay, etc.