R&R, please explain why the Old Catholics were wrong. This should be interesting.
Old Catholics rejected the definition of papal infallibility because they decided it was contrary to Tradition. Before you rely upon the notion that a Pope is infallible when solemnly defining a dogma, recall that papal infallibility was the dogma in question and thus it's a circular argument. Pope was infallible in defining papal infallibility because papal infallibility is a dogma. So you can't use that.
Please explain why the Old Catholics were wrong to do what they did.
Heck, the Old Catholic "Declaration of Utrecht" opens with the exact same appeal to St. Vincent of Lerins that Traditional Catholics use.
R&R, please explain why the Old Catholics were wrong. This should be interesting.Well, it is a very novel way of explaining to us why you reject the dogma of Papal Infallibility as defined by the Church. And look at the gallery of heretics surrounding him, egging him on and upvoting his post.
Old Catholics rejected the definition of papal infallibility because they decided it was contrary to Tradition. Before you rely upon the notion that a Pope is infallible when solemnly defining a dogma, recall that papal infallibility was the dogma in question and thus it's a circular argument. Pope was infallible in defining papal infallibility because papal infallibility is a dogma. So you can't use that.
Please explain why the Old Catholics were wrong to do what they did.
Heck, the Old Catholic "Declaration of Utrecht" opens with the exact same appeal to St. Vincent of Lerins that Traditional Catholics use.
Well, it is a very novel way of explaining to us why you reject the dogma of Papal Infallibility as defined by the Church. And look at the gallery of heretics surrounding him, egging him on and upvoting his post.
The Old Catholic Churches (https://www.mysaintmiriam.org/parish-life/about-2/a-brief-overview-of-the-old-catholic-church-franciscan-community/) came into being as a result of the Pope’s claim to authority beyond his own diocese of Rome.
Took three seconds to google it.
Well, it is a very novel way of explaining to us why you reject the dogma of Papal Infallibility as defined by the Church. And look at the gallery of heretics surrounding him, egging him on and upvoting his post.A cowardly downvote from one of the heretics. Why do you not rather respond and tell me why you reject the solemn definition of Papal Infallibility by Vatican I, a definition which is irreformable, which is the tradition received, which states the conditions required for the Pope to have this divine assistance thus giving the Church that infallibility that Our Divine Redeemer willed it to enjoy. It is all right there in the definition that you reject, just like the Old Catholics, for a different reason, but you reject it just as surely and come under the same condemnation by your will to reform it.
They have no logical response.Give us the logic, Hank, or one of your friends. Why are you waiting for us to tell you? What is your point? How does it change the Church's definition? How does it prop up sedevacantism? We are all ears. Please tell us why you are not condemned like the Old Catholics for rejecting the conditions of the Church's definition.
Answer the question. ;)Come on, QVD, please break the suspense. I give in. What is the answer? Let us see if Lad likes your explanation.
Not an answer as usual.Looking in the mirror?
Would've expected this to be active but one only hears crickets.MOS, can you answer me please? I'm hearing nothing but crickets.... You do hold that the Magisterium is infallible when it teaches on faith and morals don't you? The Vatican I definition is infallible right? Except the conditions perhaps...???? Selective picking and choosing perhaps by sedes??? How does it work????
Come on, QVD, please break the suspense. I give in. What is the answer? Let us see if Lad likes your explanation.
Remember, it has to justify why you reject the definition of Vatican I and hold that the Pope is infallible every time he teaches on faith and morals. You need to be able to reform the definition with your answer so as to be able to get rid of all those conditions that make the sedes uncomfortable, without incurring the anathema that the Council pronounces against those who do not accept the irreformable definition. Not a difficult ask is it, I mean for a sede who accepts everything the Magisterium tells him on faith and morals? There is no contradiction here is there QVD? Is there Hank? Is there Ladislaus? Is there Miracle of the Sun?
Who needs to answer a question? Please don't keep us waiting. Nice simple straight forward answer please.
Looking in the mirror?
Here, I will give you an example:
Do you think R&R is the result of the Pope’s claim to authority beyond his own diocese of Rome?
It’s really amusing how you try to corner those of us who hold the sedevacantist position into an argument that’s not actually our argument. Good try! :laugh1: Now you really should answer Lads question….There go those sedes taking over the forum again!
But, I will appease you first.
1) No one is denying the definition of Papal Infallibility as expressed at the Vatican Council, the most you can accuse us of is *expanding* the definition, which is not the case and wouldn’t be heretical.
2) Infallibility is *not* limited to excathadra pronouncements. In other words, everything that is infallible does not necessarily have a dogmatic pronouncement.
3) Any official teaching coming from the Church via her normal channels or directly from the pope himself is, at the very least, infallibly safe.
4) *Nothing* in those teachings can, in any way, be harmful to souls. In other words, they are ALL infallibly safe.
Now your turn, answer Lad’s question…..
There go those sedes taking over the forum again!:laugh1::laugh1::laugh1: Is that you, Meg?
The Old Catholic Churches (https://www.mysaintmiriam.org/parish-life/about-2/a-brief-overview-of-the-old-catholic-church-franciscan-community/) came into being as a result of the Pope’s claim to authority beyond his own diocese of Rome.Although I admit that I find the OP a bit confusing, the question was "Why were they wrong?" not "Why did they come into being"?
Took three seconds to google it.
R&R, please explain why the Old Catholics were wrong. This should be interesting.
Old Catholics rejected the definition of papal infallibility because they decided it was contrary to Tradition. Before you rely upon the notion that a Pope is infallible when solemnly defining a dogma, recall that papal infallibility was the dogma in question and thus it's a circular argument. Pope was infallible in defining papal infallibility because papal infallibility is a dogma. So you can't use that.
Please explain why the Old Catholics were wrong to do what they did.
Heck, the Old Catholic "Declaration of Utrecht" opens with the exact same appeal to St. Vincent of Lerins that Traditional Catholics use.
1 Cor. 4:7 - For who distinguisheth thee? And what hast thou that thou hast not received? And if thou hast received, why dost thou glory as if thou hadst not received?
Haydock Commentary: Ver. 7. For who distinguisheth, or hath distinguished thee from another? He speaks particularly to those proud, vain preachers: if thou hast greater talents than another man, who hath given them to thee, or to any one, but God, who is the giver, and the author of every gift and perfection? This is not only true of the gift of preaching, but of all gifts and graces; so that St. Augustine makes use of it in several places against the Pelagians, to shew that it is by grace only, that one man is preferred before another, and not by, or for his own merits. (Witham)
Eph. 1:15-19
15Wherefore I also, hearing of your faith that is in the Lord Jesus, and of your love towards all the saints, 16Cease not to give thanks for you, making commemoration of you in my prayers, 17That the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory, may give unto you the spirit of wisdom and of revelation, in the knowledge of him: 18The eyes of your heart enlightened, that you may know what the hope is of the glory of his inheritance in the saints. 19And what is the exceeding greatness of his power towards us, who believe according to the operation of the might of his power,
It’s really amusing how you try to corner those of us who hold the sedevacantist position into an argument that’s not actually our argument. Good try! :laugh1: Now you really should answer Lads question….
Give us the logic, Hank, or one of your friends. Why are you waiting for us to tell you? What is your point? How does it change the Church's definition? How does it prop up sedevacantism? We are all ears. Please tell us why you are not condemned like the Old Catholics for rejecting the conditions of the Church's definition.Gladly. The reason why Sedevacantists are not condemned like the Old Catholics is simply because the Old Catholics refused to submit to Pope Pius IX: A True Pope. Sedevacantists, on the other hand, refuse to submit to A False Pope.
It's extremely interesting, profound, and draws us deep into the mystery of God.
And surely what these sons of perdition intend is quite clear from their other writings, especially that impious and most imprudent one which has only recently been published by the person whom they recently constituted as a pseudo-bishop. For these writings attack and pervert the true power of jurisdiction of the Roman Pontiff and the bishops, who are the successors of blessed Peter and the apostles; they transfer it instead to the people, or, as they say, to the community. They obstinately reject and oppose the infallible magisterium both of the Roman Pontiff and of the whole Church in teaching matters. 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.
1. We adhere faithfully to the Rule of Faith laid down by St. Vincent of Lerins in these terms: "Id teneamus, quod ubique, quod semper, quod ab omnibus creditum est; hoc est etenim vere proprieque catholicuм." For this reason we preserve in professing the faith of the primitive Church, as formulated in the oecuмenical symbols and specified precisely by the unanimously accepted decisions of the Oecuмenical Councils held in the undivided Church of the first thousand years.
2. We therefore reject the decrees of the so-called Council of the Vatican, which were promulgated July 18th, 1870, concerning the infallibility and the universal Episcopate of the Bishop of Rome, decrees which are in contradiction with the faith of the ancient Church, and which destroy its ancient canonical constitution by attributing to the Pope the plentitude of ecclesiastical powers over all Dioceses and over all the faithful.
Why do you not rather respond and tell me why you reject the solemn definition of Papal Infallibility by Vatican I, a definition which is irreformable, which is the tradition received, which states the conditions required for the Pope to have this divine assistance thus giving the Church that infallibility that Our Divine Redeemer willed it to enjoy. It is all right there in the definition that you reject, just like the Old Catholics, for a different reason, but you reject it just as surely and come under the same condemnation by your will to reform it.
Better than having me answer, it, let Pope Pius IX answer it in his condemnation of the Old Catholics, Etsi MultaHow do you post such manure with a clear conscience?QuoteAnd surely what these sons of perdition intend is quite clear from their other writings, especially that impious and most imprudent one which has only recently been published by the person whom they recently constituted as a pseudo-bishop. For these writings attack and pervert the true power of jurisdiction of the Roman Pontiff and the bishops, who are the successors of blessed Peter and the apostles; they transfer it instead to the people, or, as they say, to the community. They obstinately reject and oppose the infallible magisterium both of the Roman Pontiff and of the whole Church in teaching matters. 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.
But, then, since this teaching of Pius IX wasn't "infallible", then maybe he was wrong here too, no? Maybe Pius IX was wrong in his Syllabus and other Encyclicals. Maybe St. Pius X was wrong to condemn Modernism (perhaps it he just misunderstood it). Aren't all these papal teachings what constitute Tradition? But since they weren't technically infallible, maybe they were all wrong, and Vatican II was the proper course correction?
As Vatican I taught about papal infallibility, it's actually ROOTED IN the indefectibility of the entire Church. Pope Pius IX affirms this here, that the reason the dogmatic definition of papal infallibility is dogmatically certain is because the entire teaching Church, meaning the entire body of bishops in union with the Pope, cannot error in such a matter ... since that would constitute a defection of the Church.
Here Pius IX effectively teaches the indefectibility of the Church (and some aspects of it) ... which R&R claim has never been taught by the Church.
If there's no indefectibility of the Church, then there's no dogma of papal infallibility and, who knows?, perhaps the Old Catholics were right in their claim that papal infallibility is not Traditional, right?
Here's the Old Catholic Declaration of Utrecht. Sound familiar?
How do you post such manure with a clear conscience?
A reply to indisputably refute this BS post would be TLDR and would fall on deaf ears.
1) No one is denying the definition of Papal Infallibility as expressed at the Vatican Council, the most you can accuse us of is *expanding* the definition, which is not the case and wouldn’t be heretical.
:laugh1: :jester: :laugh1:You're a bad joke. Read Etsi Multa and tell us all where we "boldly affirm that the Roman Pontiff and all the bishops, the priests and the people [and the protestant ministers] 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.
This is one of the most hilarious responses I've ever seen. You won't refute "this BS" (aka you call the teaching of Pius IX BS) because it would "fall on deaf ears" (not because you can't) ... and it suffices for you to declare it manure.
You're a bad joke. Read Etsi Multa and tell us all where we "boldly affirm that the Roman Pontiff and all the bishops, the priests and the people [and the protestant ministers] 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.
You can start by posting the definitions approved and professed at V2. :facepalm:
Stubborn, you miss the entire point. Etsi Multa affirms the indefectibility of the Church as the reason why the Old Catholics were heretics for rejecting the definition of papal infallibility. Nor did I ask you about Vatican II.They were wrong because they wrongfully did not believe that the doctrine being defined ex cathedra, was always the doctrine of the Church. They wrongfully believed it to be a new doctrine.
I asked you WHY (in principle) the Old Catholics were wrong to reject the definition of papal infallibility. It can't because this was an infallible definition due to the infallible definition. There must be some criterion for infallibility in place a priori to the Vatican I definition to guarantee it with dogmatic certainty. That criterion Pius IX declares to be the indefectibility of the Church ... something which I was told that I "made up" and which doesn't exist.
They were wrong because they wrongfully did not believe that the doctrine being defined ex cathedra, was always the doctrine of the Church. They wrongfully believed it to be a new doctrine.
Who determines whether they were right or wrong, Stubborn, you?The Magisterium. What the Church has always taught determines right from wrong.
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 Savior to the prince of his disciples
It's for the Pope and no one else to be the ultimate arbiter of what is and what is not Traditional. In this passage here, routinely distorted by R&R, Vatican I teaches:If the pope was St. Paul himself and preached contrary to what the Church has always taught as happened at V2, St. Paul himself told us that we are not to listen to him.
So Vatican I teaches that "the Holy Spirit was promised to the successors of Peter ... so that they might ... by his assistance ... religiously guard and faithfully expound the revelation or deposit of faith transmitted by the apostles".
This is the very role of the Papal Magisterium, to expound or explain the Deposit or Faith (in Scripture and Tradition) ... it's not your job or your authority, Stubborn et al.
Now, R&R warp the expression that the Popes were not promised the assistance of the Holy Spirit to "make known some new doctrine" into meaning that, "If the Pope makes some new doctrine, he doesn't have the assistance of the Holy Spirit." But this passage merely distinguishes the Magisterium from the initial Revelation or Deposit. At no point does the Pope add to the Deposit, i.e., is not adding to Revelation, but is merely expounding the Revelation, but the assistance of the Holy Spirit is promised in order to have him do it "faithfully".
Archbishop Lefebvre reiterated this teaching, that the promises of Christ for the Papacy preclude the destruction we've seen with the Conciliar Church. Do you reject or refute Archbishop Lefebvre?
The Magisterium. What the Church has always taught determines right from wrong.
If the pope was St. Paul himself and preached contrary to what the Church has always taught as happened at V2, St. Paul himself told us that we are not to listen to him.
Right, the same appeal to the St. Vincent of Lerins formula that the Old Catholics made. They appealed to "what the Church has always taught" to reject infallibility, but you appeal to "what the Church has always taught" to accept infallibility.It is not I who is my own magisterium, I do not teach, I go by what the Magisterium, i.e. the what Church has always taught. You do not understand it because you have a NO understanding of what the Church's Magisterium even is. The fact is, you have the identical understanding of what it is that pope Francis has.
Right up to Vatican I, there were many Catholics who rejected papal infallibility, including some approved Catechisms. Maybe it wasn't as clear as you claim. If it were objectively clear, there would be no need for a definition in the first place. But that's why the Church defines dogmas, not because they haven't "always been taught" objectively, i.e. weren't always objectively part of the Deposit of Revelation, because they were, but because Catholics did not have dogmatic certainty about it, or it was being disputed among Catholics.
Ultimately, you are your own Magisterium, since you discern and decide "what the Church has always taught".
Except that St. Paul was not the pope, so this does not apply.He had the same infallibility and responsibility as St. Peter and the rest of the Apostles.
It is not I who is my own magisterium, I do not teach, I go by what the Magisterium, i.e. the what Church has always taught. You do not understand it because you have a NO understanding of what the Church's Magisterium even is. The fact is, you have the identical understanding of what it is that pope Francis has.
The Old Catholics were wrong in their belief. You are wrong in your belief. How do you keep the faith without ever having had a pope?
Ladislaus, I will pray for your conversion, because, as it stands, you are a pertinacious manifest heretic. You've been corrected repeatedly that you promote heresy, but you obstinately refuse to retract it. Of course you're your own Magisterium. YOU decide what is and what is not in conformity with Tradition, just like the Old Catholics did. St. Thomas taught this clearly that when you reject the Magisterium as your proximate rule of faith, you effectively make your own private judgment your own Magisterium.I fixed it.
So Ladislaus is right and the Old Catholics were wrong, because Ladislaus says so ... not because Pius IX and the Vatican Council said so ... but because Ladislaus said so. Got it. Can you even begin to grasp the absurdity of this?
.
How do you post such manure with a clear conscience?
A reply to indisputably refute this BS post would be TLDR and would fall on deaf ears.
Stubborn, I will pray for your conversion, because, as it stands, you are a pertinacious manifest heretic. You've been corrected repeatedly that you promote heresy, but you obstinately refuse to retract it. Of course you're your own Magisterium. YOU decide what is and what is not in conformity with Tradition, just like the Old Catholics did. St. Thomas taught this clearly that when you reject the Magisterium as your proximate rule of faith, you effectively make your own private judgment your own Magisterium.
So Stubborn is right and the Old Catholics were wrong, because Stubborn says so ... not because Pius IX and the Vatican Council said so ... but because Stubborn said so. Got it. Can you even begin to grasp the absurdity of this?
Unfortunately for him, I think you are right. This is a prime example of pertinacity. Too much self trust, too much confidence in his own judgement. This discussion should make us all humble ourselves because we are all capable of losing the Faith but for God’s grace.Yes, a Catholic understanding of Catholicism must seem entirely heretical through sede eyes.
When I see people like Stubborn it makes me think of these passages from Scripture:
Quote from: Stubborn on Today at 11:40:59 AM (https://www.cathinfo.com/crisis-in-the-church/rr-explain-why-the-old-catholics-were-wrong/msg919919/#msg919919)QuoteThey were wrong because they wrongfully did not believe that the doctrine being defined ex cathedra, was always the doctrine of the Church. They wrongfully believed it to be a new doctrine.
Who determines whether they were right or wrong, Stubborn, you?
Matthew 16:6-7
6 Simon Peter answered and said: Thou art Christ, the Son of the living God.
Respondens Simon Petrus dixit : Tu es Christus, Filius Dei vivi.
17 And Jesus answering, said to him: Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-Jona: because flesh and blood hath not revealed it to thee, but my Father who is in heaven.
Respondens autem Jesus, dixit ei : Beatus es Simon Bar Jona : quia caro et sanguis non revelavit tibi, sed Pater meus, qui in caelis est.
https://www.drbo.org/drl/chapter/47016.htm
Acts 17:11-12
11 Now these were more noble than those in Thessalonica, who received the word with all eagerness, daily searching the scriptures, whether these things were so.
Hi autem erant nobiliores eorum qui sunt Thessalonicae, qui susceperunt verbum cuм omni aviditate, quotidie scrutantes Scripturas, si haec ita se haberent.
12 And many indeed of them believed, and of honourable women that were Gentiles, and of men not a few.
Et multi quidem crediderunt ex eis, et mulierum gentilium honestarum, et viri non pauci.
Matthew 24:15
15 When therefore you shall see the abomination of desolation, which was spoken of by Daniel the prophet, standing in the holy place: he that readeth let him understand.
cuм ergo videritis abominationem desolationis, quae dicta est a Daniele propheta, stantem in loco sancto, qui legit, intelligat :
16 Then they that are in Judea, let them flee to the mountains:
tunc qui in Judaea sunt, fugiant ad montes :
https://www.drbo.org/drl/chapter/47024.htm
2 Timothy 2:17-19
17 And their speech spreadeth like a canker: of whom are Hymeneus and Philetus:
et sermo eorum ut cancer serpit : ex quibus est Hymenaeus et Philetus,
18 Who have erred from the truth, saying, that the resurrection is past already, and have subverted the faith of some.
qui a veritate exciderunt, dicentes resurrectionem esse jam factam, et subverterunt quorumdam fidem.
19 But the sure foundation of God standeth firm, having this seal: the Lord knoweth who are his; and let every one depart from iniquity who nameth the name of the Lord.
Sed firmum fundamentum Dei stat, habens signaculum hoc : cognovit Dominus qui sunt ejus, et discedat ab iniquitate omnis qui nominat nomen Domini.
John 19:37
Pilate therefore said to him: Art thou a king then? Jesus answered: Thou sayest that I am a king. For this was I born, and for this came I into the world; that I should give testimony to the truth. Every one that is of the truth, heareth my voice.
Dixit itaque ei Pilatus : Ergo rex es tu? Respondit Jesus : Tu dicis quia rex sum ego. Ego in hoc natus sum, et ad hoc veni in mundum, ut testimonium perhibeam veritati : omnis qui est ex veritate, audit vocem meam.
It’s getting harder and harder for me to make excuses for your heretical beliefs. You seriously need to take a step back and question your thought process.Although sedes like you label this declaration as "heretical beliefs," this declaration sufficiently sums up what you call my "heretical beliefs."
It’s really amusing how you try to corner those of us who hold the sedevacantist position into an argument that’s not actually our argument. Good try! :laugh1: Now you really should answer Lads question….Thank you for the answer QVD. As I thought, you are making everything the Pope says 'officially' via the Church's 'normal channels' infallible. That is simply not Catholic and undermines the dogma of Infallibility. Please read it again.
But, I will appease you first.
1) No one is denying the definition of Papal Infallibility as expressed at the Vatican Council, the most you can accuse us of is *expanding* the definition, which is not the case and wouldn’t be heretical.
2) Infallibility is *not* limited to excathadra pronouncements. In other words, everything that is infallible does not necessarily have a dogmatic pronouncement.
3) Any official teaching coming from the Church via her normal channels or directly from the pope himself is, at the very least, infallibly safe.
4) *Nothing* in those teachings can, in any way, be harmful to souls. In other words, they are ALL infallibly safe.
Now your turn, answer Lad’s question…..
Folks keep bringing up the downvotes on all these threads. Just to be clear, my downvoting was disabled. Which I do not complain about. I also don’t mind racking up the downvotes. It doesn’t even matter. At least I got my old account back. You can’t downvote the immutable truth.That's good to know, Centro, we'll keep it a level playing field in that case. You can't downvote me, so I won't downvote you. We'll just tell each other what we think! As you say, it's not about us, it's about the truth.
Gladly. The reason why Sedevacantists are not condemned like the Old Catholics is simply because the Old Catholics refused to submit to Pope Pius IX: A True Pope. Sedevacantists, on the other hand, refuse to submit to A False Pope.But that's not the issue.
Thank you for the answer QVD. As I thought, you are making everything the Pope says 'officially' via the Church's 'normal channels' infallible. That is simply not Catholic and undermines the dogma of Infallibility. Please read it again.
Yes, it's a profound question that I got to thinking about some time ago. You can say that we must accept the definition of papal infallibility because it was an infallible pronouncement. But, since papal infallibility was only defined by Vatican I, it would constitute circular reasoning ... unless there was some other criterion already there to prevent Vatican I from having erred, as the Old Catholics claimed. You have to believe in some kind of infallibility before believing that Vatican I was unable to err in its definition.True Ladislaus and Decem, evidently faith is a grace from God. How can we ever thank God enough for such a precious gift, and let us do it every day!
True Ladislaus and Decem, evidently faith is a grace from God. How can we ever thank God enough for such a precious gift, and let us do it every day!
But the Faith eminently conforms to reason.
Every Protestant who ever converted to the Faith understood that Our Lord Jesus Christ, who proved that He was God, founded a TEACHING CHURCH, an INFALLIBLE teaching Church, which He commanded us to HEAR under pain of damnation: He who believeth not shall be condemned! He who hears you, hears Me, and he who hears Me, heareth Him that sent Me.
Thou art Peter and upon this Rock I will build my Church and to thee do I give the keys of the kingdom of Heaven... whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound also in Heaven.
Going therefore TEACH all things whatsoever I have commanded... and BEHOLD I AM WITH YOU all days even to the consummation of the world.
Our Lord gave infallible teaching authority to Peter to ensure that His Church would continue its mission of preaching the truth upon which our salvation depends to the point where we can be certain that by hearing the Church we are hearing Our Father in Heaven.
We have it all right there in Holy Scripture, and we find it then passed down through Sacred Tradition.
If the Church does not have the infallible power to decree when it is infallible, then there can be no infallibility at all and ultimately it undermines all religion and God, who it Truth itself, has given us no way to know Him, therefore no way to love Him.
As I heard Bishop Williamson put it so well, many years ago: How could the Lord God put us on this earth, require us to leave by the truth, and then leave the truth inaccessible to us? There is a truth, and that truth is accessible to everybody... Now my words: it could not be so, if we did not have an infallible teaching authority, which is the Church, obviously.
Thank you for the answer QVD. As I thought, you are making everything the Pope says 'officially' via the Church's 'normal channels' infallible. That is simply not Catholic and undermines the dogma of Infallibility. Please read it again.
No, I'm asking you to explain why you ACCEPT the solemn definition of papal infallibility. You can't say that it's because it was a teaching that met the notes of infallibility defined by Vatican I, since that's circular reasoning.So there is your answer to this above, Lad.
While I don't want the thread to derailed, you make a logically false assertion that simply because I hold that the Church enjoys an infallibility outside of the strict limits of papal infallibility that I REJECT the dogma of papal infallibility? Uhm, Pius IX said that the reason that the Old Catholics must accept papal infallibility is BECAUSE OF THE CHURCH'S INDEFECTIBILITY. That which you claim to be contradicted by Vatican I is actually the very reason that Pius IX gives as to why Catholics must accept it to remain Catholic. So, the authority of Vatican I's definition of papal infallibility is rooted in the indefectibility of the Church's teaching. You claim that Vatican I defined something that precluded the very foundation on which its authority rests?
You've also never refuted the quote from Archbishop Lefebvre where he stated that the papacy is guided by the Holy Ghost and protected in such a way as to preclude the degree of destruction perpetrated by the Conciliar Church.
In other words you are claiming that the NO church is synonymous with the Catholic Church and is actually the same “infallible teaching authority” for nearly 2000 years?The Pope, while he remains Pope, can use that charism to settle disputed matters. Read the Catholic commentaries, that is what it is for.
If this is the correct understanding of what you are trying to convey, then the Church has no real teaching function other than making dogmatic pronouncements every hundred years or so. If this is the correct understanding, the Church can have councils that contradict previous infallible teachings, give dubious sacraments, give encyclicals, bulls and other docuмents that promote not only error, but encourage sin.
Are you sure that’s the road you want to go down?
In other words you are claiming that the NO church is synonymous with the Catholic Church and is actually the same “infallible teaching authority” for nearly 2000 years?"Woe to the shepherds that destroy and scatter the sheep of my pasture sayeth the Lord"
If this is the correct understanding of what you are trying to convey, then the Church has no real teaching function other than making dogmatic pronouncements every hundred years or so. If this is the correct understanding, the Church can have councils that contradict previous infallible teachings, give dubious sacraments, give encyclicals, bulls and other docuмents that promote not only error, but encourage sin.
Are you sure that’s the road you want to go down?
Do you agree with this?: Infallibility is not limited to excathadra pronouncements. .You think to trap me, you devil QVD, by then turning the tables and telling me I reject the definition.
Do you agree with this?: Everything that is infallible does not necessarily have a dogmatic definition.
You think to trap me, you devil QVD, by then turning the tables and telling me I reject the definition.
However, this definition refers to the charism of infallibility by which the Pope, by a special assistance from the Holy Ghost, which is both positive and negative assistance, that assistance which was promised to him by Our Lord in the person of Peter, is infallible when defining questions of faith and morals. Outside of that, infallibility is only guaranteed by Tradition, that which is held everywhere and by all in space and in time. The pope does not enjoy this assistance outside of the Extraordinary Magisterium,
"The Pope is infallible when he speaks ex cathedra. (De fide.)... the Vatican Council defined: 'The Roman Pontiff, when he speaks ex cathedra - that is, when in discharge of the office of Pastor and Doctor of all Christians, by virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine regarding Faith or Morals to be held by the Universal Church - by the Divine assistance promised to him in Blessed Peter, is possessed of that infallibility with which the Divine Redeemer willed that His Church should be endowed in defining doctrine regarding Faith or Morals; and therefore such definitions of the Roman Pontiff are irreformable of themselves, and not in virtue of the consent of the Church. D 1839 cf D 466, 694, 1833-35'. For the proper understanding of the dogma the following points must be noted:... (b) the object of his infallibility is his teaching concerning Faith and Morals... (c) The condition of the Infallibility is that the Pope speaks ex cathedra. For this is required: a. That he speak as pastor and teacher of all the faithful with the full weight of his supreme apostolic authority; if he speaks as private theologian or as the bishop of his diocese, he is not infallible; b. That he have the intention of deciding finally a teaching of Faith or Morals, so that it is to be held by all the faithful. Without this intention, which must be made clear in the formulation, or by the circuмstances, a decision ex cathedra is not complete. Most of the doctrinal expressions made by the Popes in their encyclicals are not decisions ex cathedra. d. The source of his assistance is the supernatural assistance of the Holy Ghost, Who protects the supreme teacher of the Church from error... The Holy Ghost preserves the bearer of the supreme teaching office of the Church from a false decision (negative assistance) and leads him, where necessary, by external and internal grace to the right knowledge and correct statement of the truth (positive assistance)... cf D 1836" - Ludwig Ott, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, Part II, Ch 2, No 8.
Do you have to use ad hominem attacks?Oh, sorry about that QVD, I meant it good naturedly, sorry if that didn't come across, no attack meant at all.
You didn’t answer the questions, you just attacked me and called me a devil.
I never suggested that you denied the definition of Papal Infallibility. I was trying to make you understand that it’s not only ex cathedra pronouncments that are infallible and that we must obey all teachings (fallible or infallible) coming from the Church. All teachings coming from the Church are, at the very least, infallibly safe.
Do you have to use ad hominem attacks?Not a surprise given that's how PV started to "answer" the OP right from the start:
You didn’t answer the questions, you just attacked me and called me a devil.
I never suggested that you denied the definition of Papal Infallibility. I was trying to make you understand that it’s not only ex cathedra pronouncments that are infallible and that we must obey all teachings (fallible or infallible) coming from the Church. All teachings coming from the Church are, at the very least, infallibly safe.
You've also never refuted the quote from Archbishop Lefebvre where he stated that the papacy is guided by the Holy Ghost and protected in such a way as to preclude the degree of destruction perpetrated by the Conciliar Church.To be honest, I'm having trouble keeping up with it all! Would you give me that reference again please Lad. Also, please explain to me why the Archbishop did not reach your conclusion if this is what he said. That is, why did he continue to presume in favour of the validity of the Pope right up to his dying day?
Oh, sorry about that QVD, I meant it good naturedly, sorry if that didn't come across, no attack meant at all.
I thought I answered the question though.
I would just add that if it is not infallible teaching, then it is by that very fact fallible, and that means it can be downright wrong!!!
Yes, indeed, we must not refuse papal teaching simply because it is not infallible, as you have quoted Pope Pius XII as saying, but that is not to say that we may not, if we have serious grounds, 'resist Peter to his face'.
So we obviously disagree on your last statement about 'infallibly safe', which is why, I guess, you say he's not Pope, and Archbishop Lefebvre said that we can't go that far, that that is not what Vatican I taught, that is not the meaning of Infallibility. I, for one, cannot understand why some of the sedevacantists do not have more respect for the Archbishop on this question of Papal Infallibility. He was no modernist. He was a champion of Tradition. He trained in Rome in an antimodernist seminary in the wake of the Vatican I Council and the papacy of St Pius X. It is a mystery to me that so many think they understand this question better than he. And yet one does not have to look far to verify that what he held to was the teaching of the Church.
Why is there still a focus on Papal Infallibility when Pius IX speaks of Church infallibility/indefectibility as the reason why Old Catholics were condemned? And why is there still the accusation that sedes do not accept Papal Infallibility when it's just not true?
I was wondering something after reading these posts about R & R, papal infalibility, Church infalibility, sedevacantism.Ok, first, PPXII condemned antiquarianism, which far as I can see means something along the lines of "antiquity above everything" and if we said it was condemned by the Church, then that condemnation has history, iow, it's either been explicitly condemned previously, and/or the condemnation is universal, which is to say "condemned for the whole Church always and everywhere."
When we say "Church condemned antiquarianism", that means it was pope Pius XII. that condemn that as error or heresy in one of his encyclical. I didn't find anywhere that Catholic Chruch condemned it before Pius XII. Maybe some of members could know about it, or find some older docuмent.
Do all R & R and sedevacantist conclude that this was infalible teaching? Is it teaching of a pope or Catholic Church? I think it was both, but it's not "ex cathedra". Ladislaus does have a point that if one day we would have a pope like Pius X. or Leo XIII., the same argument could use neomodernists, liberal bishops to reject that teaching about antiquarianism, or "Syllabus of Errors". Or when future holy pope (Angelic Pontiff maybe), condems Vatican II, New Mass, new Canon law, rites of sacraments, etc.
They would be in error as they are now. They would intepret Magisterium and not the pope. I'm not sedevacantist, but every position has "pro et contra" arguments.
Let's not call someone a heretic because of that. I believe that fr. Chazal is trying to point out. Many traditionalist lack charity, understanding the other persons when engaging these discussions. We need to do more prayer and penance than debates.
This crisis has no theological, moral or any kind of manual to follow.
The issue is why sedevacantists, just like the Old Catholics, refuse the definition of Papal Infallibility of Vatican I and try to make the Pope infallible without any conditions.I wasn't aware that sedevacantists refuse the definition of Papal Infallibility of Vatican I. I know that the Old Catholics outright reject it, however, I'm not sure exactly how sedevacantists refuse said definition. I didn't know you actually cornered Ladislaus on this issue.
You may have missed the other thread where I cornered Ladislaus and he started this thread as a ruse to dodge the question.
I wasn't aware that sedevacantists refuse the definition of Papal Infallibility of Vatican I. I know that the Old Catholics outright reject it, however, I'm not sure exactly how sedevacantists refuse said definition. I didn't know you actually cornered Ladislaus on this issue.
I wasn't aware that sedevacantists refuse the definition of Papal Infallibility of Vatican I. I know that the Old Catholics outright reject it, however, I'm not sure exactly how sedevacantists refuse said definition. I didn't know you actually cornered Ladislaus on this issue.
This Sedevacantist "X" account writes that some Sedevacantists misunderstand what is meant by "infallibly safe":
Ladislaus does have a point that if one day we would have a pope like Pius X. or Leo XIII., the same argument could use neomodernists, liberal bishops to reject that teaching about antiquarianism, or "Syllabus of Errors". Or when future holy pope (Angelic Pontiff maybe), condems Vatican II, New Mass, new Canon law, rites of sacraments, etc.
Precisely. "Well, St. Pius X did not engage infallibility when condemning Modernism. Neither did Pius IX." Based on the R&R position, what says that Vatican II wasn't right in effecting a course correction to "fix" these "errors" by Pius IX, St. Pius X, Gregory XVI, Pius XI, etc.
This Sedevacantist "X" account writes that some Sedevacantists misunderstand what is meant by "infallibly safe":
Source (https://x.com/TheWMReview/status/1706585578165145727?s=20)
And this in essence is what it comes down to, doesn’t it? :facepalm:
If you read the text of Cardinal Franzelin, it doesn’t seem to say what this “X” fellow says it means. It seems to me that it supports our position. (See attachment)
The following is from Canon George Smith in an article in the Clergy Review expressing what Catholic’s have to believe:
“…that much of the authoritative teaching of the Church, whether in the form of Papal encyclicals, decisions, condemnations, replies from Roman Congregations -such as the Holy office - or from the Biblical Commission, is not an exercise of the infallible Magisterium. And here once again our cautious believer raises his voice:
“Must I believe it?”
The answer is implicit in the principles already established. We have seen that the source of the obligation to believe is not the infallibility of the Church but her divine commission to teach. Therefore, whether her teaching is guaranteed by infallibility or not, the Church is always the divinely appointed teacher and guardian of revealed truth, and consequently the supreme authority of the Church, even when it does not intervene to make an infallible and definitive decision on matters of faith or morals, has the right, in virtue of the divine commission, to command the obedient assent of the faithful.
In the absence of infallibility the assent thus demanded cannot be that of faith, whether Catholic or ecclesiastical; it will be an assent of a lower order, proportioned to its ground or motive. But whatever name be given to it - for the present we may call it belief - it is obligatory; obligatory not because the teaching is infallible - it is not - but because it is the teaching of the divinely appointed Church. It is the duty of the Church, as Franzelin has pointed out, not only to teach revealed doctrine but also to protect it, and therefore the Holy See “may prescribe as to be followed or proscribe as to be avoided theological opinions or opinions connected with theology, not only with the intention of infallibly deciding the truth by a definitive pronouncement, but also - without any such intention - merely for the purpose of safeguarding the security of Catholic doctrine.” If it is the duty of the Church, even though non-infallibly, to “prescribe or proscribe” doctrines to this end, then it is evidently also the duty of the faithful to accept them or reject them accordingly.”
How does this work? St Alphonsus taught that BoD does not remit ALL temporal punishment for sin, while Trent teaches initial justification does. And that's assuming BoD is a real doctrine and not a mistake.
Ok, no worries about the “devil” “attack”.
So, what is meant by “infallibly safe” is that the object *can’t* be detrimental to ones salvation. For instance, Pope Gregory XVI gave the approbation of Saint Alphonsus’ teachings when he decreed that professors of theology could safely teach any opinion of St. Alphonsus, and that confessors, without weighting reasons, could safely follow him. Obviously, there could conceivably be error in them, but they are infallibly safe to follow. Does this make sense?
My argument for sedevacantism is not based solely on what we’ve been hashing out, but also on the fact that a pertinacious and manifest heretic is not a member of the Catholic Church and thus a nonmember cannot be the head of which he is not a member of. Incidentally, the Archbishop, understood this and at one point, at least, was ready to declare the see vacant. This is a fact that cannot be denied.
How does this work? St Alphonsus taught that BoD does not remit ALL temporal punishment for sin, while Trent teaches initial justification does. And that's assuming BoD is a real doctrine and not a mistake.
Which attachment?
Can you take a break from the Pseudo Feeneyite stuff? Start a new thread and don’t derail this one.
At the very bottom of my post.
Okay. You were just reposting what I posted. Thanks.
Here's his (absurd) argument.That indeed is quite an asinine argument :facepalm:
VI defined that the Pope is infallible when A (notes of infallibility) and that this also defines that the Pope is not infallible EXCEPT for A. So all the theologians that hold to disciplinary infallibility, infallibility of canonizations, infallibility regarding the Mass (which includes the vast majority of theologians), and infallible safety ... that these are all heretics for rejecting Vatican I. It's rare to find so fallacious an argument, even coming from R&R.
Not a surprise given that's how PV started to "answer" the OP right from the start:Maybe, like Hank, you missed the fact, 2V, that this thread was not a start of a discussion, but an attempt by Ladislaus to justify his refusing to accept the unreformed definition of Papal Infallibility on another thread where we were discussing it. But you should know, because you did exactly the same thing on yet another thread again, when confronted with the definition. A Catholic is required under pain of damnation to accept the dogma exactly as it is promulgated by the Church, not explain it away by historical circuмstances or any other devious means.
Well, it is a very novel way of explaining to us why you reject the dogma of Papal Infallibility as defined by the Church. And look at the gallery of heretics surrounding him, egging him on and upvoting his post.
Maybe, like Hank, you missed the fact, 2V, that this thread was not a start of a discussion, but an attempt by Ladislaus to justify his refusing to accept the unreformed definition of Papal Infallibility on another thread where we were discussing it. But you should know, because you did exactly the same thing on yet another thread again, when confronted with the definition. A Catholic is required under pain of damnation to accept the dogma exactly as it is promulgated by the Church, not explain it away by historical circuмstances or any other devious means.
I've been repeatedly accused of just "making up" some notion that the Church's Magisterium is indefectible, but we clearly see Pope Pius IX teaching it here. Without an a priori dogmatic understanding that the teaching of the entire Church (meaning all the world's bishops teaching in union with the Pope) cannot err, the dogma of papal infallibility has nothing to stand on, and the Old Catholics MAY have been right. But, since Etsi Multa wasn't infallible, maybe he was wrong about that too, no?There is no problem here to resolve, Ladislaus, except an imaginary one on your part.
So, we say that we have dogmatic certainty about solemn papal definitions because of the dogma of papal infallibility. But what about BEFORE infallibility was defined? Did Catholics before Vatican I have no dogmatic certainty about authoritative papal teaching? In fact, how can we be dogmatically (absolutely) certain that papal infallibility is true unless we're ALREADY dogmatically certain that the entire Church (Pope and Bishops) cannot err in teaching the entire Church? Answer is that without such an understanding of the indefectibility of the Church's Magisterium, we can't be, and it's not dogmatically certain that the Old Catholics were wrong. Heck, if an Ecuмenical Council could go off the rails as it did at Vatican II, what says Vatican II didn't already go off the rails before it?
There's really only two ways out of it, R&R:
1) Either accept that Vatican II was essentially Catholics (perhaps abused, misinterpreted, with some ambiguities that need to be properly resolved by the Church's authority.
2) Or two, assert that the teachings of Vatican II were not those of the Pope and the Bishops teaching in union with him, which would mean that Montini was not the Pope.
There's simply no other way to resolve this problem in a Catholic manner, except in one of the two answers above.
No, I'm asking you to explain why you ACCEPT the solemn definition of papal infallibility. You can't say that it's because it was a teaching that met the notes of infallibility defined by Vatican I, since that's circular reasoning.I ACCEPT the solemn definition of Papal Infallibility, Lad, because it is clear from Scripture and Tradition, that Our Lord Jesus Christ established an infallible teaching Church that we are to hear under pain of damnation, as I explained above. It clearly exists to teach us what we have to believe and how we have to act. Faith and morals. If the Church cannot tell us when it is infallible, how can it teach infallibly on anything? When the Church teaches us that it is teaching infallibly, it is teaching infallibly or words have no meaning and it is the end of the Church. We see that St Robert Bellarmine held exactly the same teaching as the Council defined and he quoted ancient authorities in this very same understanding of infallibility. The Council of Trent very clearly taught infallibly well before Vatican I, because it very clearly revealed its intention to teach infallibly. To teach us infallibly, the Pope has to want to be infallible. Vatican II very specifically refused to teach infallibly.
While I don't want the thread to derailed, you make a logically false assertion that simply because I hold that the Church enjoys an infallibility outside of the strict limits of papal infallibility that I REJECT the dogma of papal infallibility? Uhm, Pius IX said that the reason that the Old Catholics must accept papal infallibility is BECAUSE OF THE CHURCH'S INDEFECTIBILITY. That which you claim to be contradicted by Vatican I is actually the very reason that Pius IX gives as to why Catholics must accept it to remain Catholic. So, the authority of Vatican I's definition of papal infallibility is rooted in the indefectibility of the Church's teaching. You claim that Vatican I defined something that precluded the very foundation on which its authority rests?
You've also never refuted the quote from Archbishop Lefebvre where he stated that the papacy is guided by the Holy Ghost and protected in such a way as to preclude the degree of destruction perpetrated by the Conciliar Church.
Yes, QVD, I do, as we have already discussed.
I believe exactly and unequivocally the dogma of Papal Infallibility as defined by the Church.
Now, do you believe that there are other avenues which the Church’s Magisterium (Extraordinary or Ordinary and Universal) uses to make infallible statements or practices such as the canonization of saints?
So, the bottom line here is that papal infallibility itself is rooted in and founded on the indefectibility of the Church, as taught by Pope Pius IX, and is not something Ladislaus "made up" and which has never been taught by the Church.I hope you can see from my previous posting that your error is that Pope Pius IX was relating it to the Infallible Magisterium, whereas you want to relate it to every pronouncement of the Ordinary Magiesterium.
Maybe, like Hank, you missed the fact, 2V, that this thread was not a start of a discussion, but an attempt by Ladislaus to justify his refusing to accept the unreformed definition of Papal Infallibility on another thread where we were discussing it. But you should know, because you did exactly the same thing on yet another thread again, when confronted with the definition. A Catholic is required under pain of damnation to accept the dogma exactly as it is promulgated by the Church, not explain it away by historical circuмstances or any other devious means.So you're accusing me of denying Papal Infallibilty? Where exactly was that? Provide the link.
I understand what you mean, yes, but I don't believe we can say that, and neither did Archbishop Lefebvre when it comes to the Ordinary Magisterium. Which is why he said of the Second Vatican Council that we must ask investigate to what extent Pope Paul VI wished to engage his infallibility. I know there are other arguments for sedevacantism but I believe that every single one of them comes up short, there is always a question of trying to affirm too much, taking an argument that has some merit and making it absolutely certain when it is not. Sure, the Archbishop was shocked by the actions of modern popes, especially Pope John Paul II and Assisi. Who can forget the cartoons he sent to the Pope? Yet, in spite of askin the question, he never adopted the sedevacantist position. He continued to pray for the Pope and presume in favour of the papacy, precisely because it is not certain that he is not pope. Would that change now? I don't see any reason to believe that. This current papacy has more of the shock factor, but the errors of his predecessors were none the less grave.
Ok, no worries about the “devil” “attack”.
So, what is meant by “infallibly safe” is that the object *can’t* be detrimental to ones salvation. For instance, Pope Gregory XVI gave the approbation of Saint Alphonsus’ teachings when he decreed that professors of theology could safely teach any opinion of St. Alphonsus, and that confessors, without weighting reasons, could safely follow him. Obviously, there could conceivably be error in them, but they are infallibly safe to follow. Does this make sense?
My argument for sedevacantism is not based solely on what we’ve been hashing out, but also on the fact that a pertinacious and manifest heretic is not a member of the Catholic Church and thus a nonmember cannot be the head of which he is not a member of. Incidentally, the Archbishop, understood this and at one point, at least, was ready to declare the see vacant. This is a fact that cannot be denied.
He cornered nothing. He's making that gratuitous claim because he has no actual Catholic argument to offer.In the 10 years on this forum I've never seen a R&R poster make this false accusation against sedevacantists. Why now?
Nor has he ever refuted Archbishop Lefebvre's statement that the Holy Ghost's protection over the papacy precludes this level of destruction.
He keeps making the absurd claim (based on logical fallacy) that we reject papal infallibility because we believe that there are other protections over the Papacy and the Church than the strict limits of infallibility defined at Vatican I. There's also disciplinary infallibility, covering the Mass, Canon Law, and the canonization of saints that the vast majority of theologians teach, and Cardinal Franzelin (along with Msgr. Fenton) both taught the notion of infallible safety ... so I guess all those theologians are also heretics.
Plenus here pretends that because it's all that VI defined, VI was implicitly defining that there's no OTHER type of infallibility besides that which was defined at VI.
This thread was about the larger indefectibility of the Church, in which papal infallibility is actually rooted. R&R were claiming that the Magisterium has never taught indefectibility and that it was something I basically made up ... except that Pius IX taught that indefectibility of the Church was the reason that the Old Catholics were heretics for rejecting papal infallibility (since it can't be because of papal infallibility).
In the 10 years on this forum I've never seen a R&R poster make this false accusation against sedevacantists. Why now?I'm not sure what you mean by false accusation, 2V.
So you're accusing me of denying Papal Infallibilty? Where exactly was that? Provide the link.No, you exaggerate it like many a sedevacantist, you empty out the definition of its conditions, you thereby reform it which is forbidden.
Excellent posts, Ladislaus and QVD, very much to the point.
If you read the text of Cardinal Franzelin, it doesn’t seem to say what this “X” fellow says it means. It seems to me that it supports our position. (See attachment)
The following is from Canon George Smith in an article in the Clergy Review expressing what Catholic’s have to believe:
“…that much of the authoritative teaching of the Church, whether in the form of Papal encyclicals, decisions, condemnations, replies from Roman Congregations -such as the Holy office - or from the Biblical Commission, is not an exercise of the infallible Magisterium. And here once again our cautious believer raises his voice:
“Must I believe it?”
The answer is implicit in the principles already established. We have seen that the source of the obligation to believe is not the infallibility of the Church but her divine commission to teach. Therefore, whether her teaching is guaranteed by infallibility or not, the Church is always the divinely appointed teacher and guardian of revealed truth, and consequently the supreme authority of the Church, even when it does not intervene to make an infallible and definitive decision on matters of faith or morals, has the right, in virtue of the divine commission, to command the obedient assent of the faithful.
In the absence of infallibility the assent thus demanded cannot be that of faith, whether Catholic or ecclesiastical; it will be an assent of a lower order, proportioned to its ground or motive. But whatever name be given to it - for the present we may call it belief - it is obligatory; obligatory not because the teaching is infallible - it is not - but because it is the teaching of the divinely appointed Church. It is the duty of the Church, as Franzelin has pointed out, not only to teach revealed doctrine but also to protect it, and therefore the Holy See “may prescribe as to be followed or proscribe as to be avoided theological opinions or opinions connected with theology, not only with the intention of infallibly deciding the truth by a definitive pronouncement, but also - without any such intention - merely for the purpose of safeguarding the security of Catholic doctrine.” If it is the duty of the Church, even though non-infallibly, to “prescribe or proscribe” doctrines to this end, then it is evidently also the duty of the faithful to accept them or reject them accordingly.”
Yes, QVD, I do, as we have already discussed.
Infallible papal teaching is either:
1. Extraordinary Magisterium (according to the definition of Vatican I). Such teaching is infallible in and of itself, "by the divine assistance promised to Him in Blessed Peter" so that the Church may have that infallibility "which the divine Redeemer willed" Her to enjoy; or
2. Ordinary Magisterium. This is not infallible in and of itself, but only when it is universal, that is, Tradition. What was held always and everywhere by all in space and in time. Tradition is the yardstick by which its infallibility is guaranteed, hence "Universal Ordinary Magisterium".
Other things you mention like canonisation of saints are secondary objects of infallibility, and also require scrutinisation in light of Tradition, intention of the Pope etc. Again, they are not necessarily automatically infallible, as is a teaching of the Extraordinary Magisterium.
Thus we cannot say that everytime the Pope teaches on faith and morals he is infallible. That is a false statement.
You might be right Quo Vadis!
PV, I think this is a major problem for your argument: “space and time”
I have never seen a pre VII reference for this, do you have one?
No act of the Ordinary Magisterium as such, taken in isolation, could claim the prerogative which belongs to the supreme judgment. If it did so, it would cease to be the Ordinary Magisterium. An isolated act is infallible only if the supreme Judge engages his whole authority in it so that he cannot go back on it. Such an act cannot be "reversible" without being plainly subject to error. But it is precisely this kind of act, against which there can be no appeal, which constitutes the Solemn [or Extraordinary] Judgment, and which thus differs from the Ordinary Magisterium" (ibid., note 1).
the infallibility of the Ordinary Magisterium, whether of the Universal Church or that of the See of Rome, is not that of a judgment, not that of an act to be considered in isolation, as if it could itself provide all the light necessary for it to be clearly seen. It is that of the guarantee bestowed on a doctrine by the simultaneous or continuous convergence of a plurality of affirmations or explanations, none of which could bring positive certitude if it were taken by itself alone. Certitude can be expected only from the whole complex, but all the parts concur in making up that whole (Pope or Church? op. cit., p.18).
In the case of the [Ordinary] universal Magisterium, this whole complex is that of the concordant teaching of the bishops in communion with Rome; in the case of the Ordinary pontifical Magisterium [i.e., the pope alone - Ed.], it is the continuity of teaching of the successors of Peter: in other words, it is the "tradition of the Church of Rome," to which Msgr. Gasser appealed at Vatican I (Collana Lacensis, col.404).
Bossuet's error consisted in rejecting the infallibility of the pope's Extraordinary Magisterium; but he performed the signal service of affirming most clearly the infallibility of the Ordinary Magisterium [of the pope] and its specific nature, which means that every particular act bears the risk of error ....To sum up: according to the Bishop of Meaux, what applies to the series of Roman popes over time is the same as what applies to the episcopal college dispersed across the world (Le Gallicanisme de Bossuet, Paris, 1953, p.558).
We ask Fr. Gratry, in all serenity, whether he believes that the Bull of Paul IV is an isolated act, so to speak, or an act that is comparable to others of the same kind in the series of Roman popes. If he replies that it is an isolated act, his argument proves nothing, for he himself affirms that the Bull of Paul IV contains no dogmatic definition. If he replies, as he must, that this Bull is, in substance, conformable to countless other similar acts of the Holy See, his argument says far more than he would wish. In other words, he is saying that a long succession of Roman popes have made public and solemn acts of immorality and injustice against the principles of human reason, of impiety towards God, and of apostasy against the Gospel (vol.X, series VII, 1870, p.54).
No, you exaggerate it like many a sedevacantist, you empty out the definition of its conditions, you thereby reform it which is forbidden.You gave me a link to a thread. Show me the post where I "reformed the definition of Papal Infallibility".
Here is the thread:
https://www.cathinfo.com/crisis-in-the-church/the-pope-question-is-a-red-herring/90/
I'm not sure what you mean by false accusation, 2V.Actually most sedevacantists I know think all of the V2 popes are not popes because of Vatican 2. Anything Bergoglio does is just icing on the cake and more proof he isnt a Catholic.
I can't remember exactly how the issue came up with Ladislaus myself now, but surely you are aware that many sedevacantists hold that the Pope cannot err when teaching on faith and morals, period! But this Pope has erred when teaching of faith and morals. Therefore, they say, he cannot be Pope.
Now that is false, because that is not what Vatican I taught, as Archbishop Lefebvre said.
So the argument is as old as sedevacantism, and the rejection of it is just as old.
Sounds like Paul VI is very clear that Vatican II is binding, an Ecuмenical Council, the Will of God, and must be obeyed or one is not in communion with the Successor of Peter and the Church:
"On the one hand, there are those who, under the pretext of greater fidelity to the Church and to the Magisterium, systematically reject the teachings of the Council itself, its application and the reforms that flow from it, its gradual application by the Apostolic See and the Episcopal Conferences, under our authority, willed by Christ. The authority of the Church is discredited in the name of a Tradition, respect for which is attested only materially and verbally; the faithful are turned away from the bonds of obedience to the See of Peter as well as to their legitimate Bishops; Today's authority is rejected in the name of yesterday's. And the fact is all the more serious because the opposition of which we are speaking is not only encouraged by a few priests, but headed by a Bishop, whom We have always venerated, Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre.It is so painful to note this: but how can we fail to see in such an attitude - whatever the intentions of these people may be - placing oneself outside obedience and communion with the Successor of Peter and therefore of the Church?For this, unfortunately, is the logical consequence, that is, when it is maintained that it is preferable to disobey under the pretext of keeping one's faith intact, of working in one's own way for the preservation of the Catholic Church, while at the same time denying her effective obedience. And it's said openly! One dares to affirm that the Second Vatican Council is not binding; that the faith would also be endangered because of the post-conciliar reforms and orientations, that one has the duty to disobey in order to preserve certain traditions. What traditions? It is this group, and not the Pope, not the College of Bishops, not the Ecuмenical Council, that determines which of the innumerable traditions are to be considered as a norm of faith. As you see, venerable Brethren, this attitude stands as a judge of that divine will which placed Peter and his legitimate Successors at the head of the Church to confirm the brethren in the faith and to shepherd the universal flock (cf. Lk 22:32; I. 21:15 ff.), which established him as guarantor and guardian of the deposit of the Faith."Secret Consistory for the appointment of twenty Cardinals (May 24, 1976) | Paul VI (vatican.va) (https://www.vatican.va/content/paul-vi/it/speeches/1976/docuмents/hf_p-vi_spe_19760524_concistoro.html)
You might be right Quo Vadis!
This is the rule given by St Vincent of Lerins in his commonitorium: quod ubique, quod semper et ab omnibus. That is, we hold fast to that which has been believed everywhere (space), always (time) and by all. That defines unviversality or catholicity.
Hence the Universal Ordinary Magisterium is the Ordinary Magisterium possessed of that quality of universality. I'm not sure how correct that is in every technicality.
Here is an excerpt from the thread I just started on the Infallible Magisterium: listen to it rather than me!
It follows that
Quote
Dom Paul Nau explains further:
Quote
About this subject, A.C. Martimort wrote:
Quote
In fact, we know that the bishops, individually, are not infallible. Yet the totality of bishops, throughout time and space, in their moral unanimity, do enjoy infallibility. So if one wishes to ascertain the Church's infallible teaching one must not take the teaching of one particular bishop: it is necessary to look at the "common and continuous teaching" of the episcopate united to the pope, which "cannot deviate from the teaching of Jesus Christ" (E. Piacentini, O.F.M. Conv., Infaillible même dans les causes de canonisation? ENMI, Rome 1994, p.37).
The same thing applies to the Ordinary Infallible Magisterium of the Roman pope on his own: this Ordinary Magisterium is infallible not because each act is uttered by the pope, but because the particular teaching of which the pope's act consists "is inserted into a totality and a continuity" (Dom P.Nau, Le encycliques, op.cit.), which is that of the "series of Roman popes over time" (Martimort, op.cit.).
We can understand why, in their Ordinary Magisterium, the Roman popes have always been careful to associate themselves with their "venerable predecessors," often quoting them at length. "The Church speaks by Our mouth," said Pope Pius XI in the Casti Connubii. Pope Pius XII in Humani Generis, emphasized that "most of the time what is set forth and taught in the encyclicals is already, for other reasons, part of the patrimony of Catholic doctrine."
The very particular nature of the pope's Ordinary Infallible Magisterium was quite clear until Vatican I. While this Council was in session, La Civiltà Cattolica, which published (and still publishes) under the direct control of the Holy See, replied in these words to Fr. Gratry, who had criticized Pope Paul IV's Bull cuм ex Apostolus:
Quote
This means, in effect, that an "isolated act" of the pope is infallible only in the context of a "dogmatic definition"; outside dogmatic definitions, i.e., in the Ordinary Magisterium, infallibility is guaranteed by the complex of "countless other similar acts of the Holy See," or of a "long succession" of the successors of Peter.
Cardinal Franzelin refutes the SSPX’s and, by extension, your inaccurate interpretation of Saint Vincent regarding space *and* time:
https://novusordowatch.org/wp-content/uploads/franzelin-vincentian-canon.pdf
You gave me a link to a thread. Show me the post where I "reformed the definition of Papal Infallibility".If you accept that the Pope must teach on faith and morals under all the conditions defined by the Council for his teaching to be in and of itself infallible, then I apologise for misunderstanding your position. I thought I recalled a post to the contrary, but I stand corrected.
Actually most sedevacantists I know think all of the V2 popes are not popes because of Vatican 2. Anything Bergoglio does is just icing on the cake and more proof he isnt a Catholic.Yes, I know. That was the logic I was demonstrating. It all relates to the understanding of Infallibility. I didn't mean to apply it only to the current Pope. That's why it so important that we understand Infallibility.
Sounds like Paul VI is very clear that Vatican II is binding, an Ecuмenical Council, the Will of God, and must be obeyed or one is not in communion with the Successor of Peter and the Church:I can only repeat, 2V, that this "lamentation" forms neither part of the Extraordinary Infallible Magisterium, nor part of the Universal Ordinary Magisterium. So too, the Council itself, certainly the novelties. Please read the studies of Dom Paul Nau and Canon Berthod.
"On the one hand, there are those who, under the pretext of greater fidelity to the Church and to the Magisterium, systematically reject the teachings of the Council itself, its application and the reforms that flow from it, its gradual application by the Apostolic See and the Episcopal Conferences, under our authority, willed by Christ. The authority of the Church is discredited in the name of a Tradition, respect for which is attested only materially and verbally; the faithful are turned away from the bonds of obedience to the See of Peter as well as to their legitimate Bishops; Today's authority is rejected in the name of yesterday's. And the fact is all the more serious because the opposition of which we are speaking is not only encouraged by a few priests, but headed by a Bishop, whom We have always venerated, Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre.It is so painful to note this: but how can we fail to see in such an attitude - whatever the intentions of these people may be - placing oneself outside obedience and communion with the Successor of Peter and therefore of the Church?For this, unfortunately, is the logical consequence, that is, when it is maintained that it is preferable to disobey under the pretext of keeping one's faith intact, of working in one's own way for the preservation of the Catholic Church, while at the same time denying her effective obedience. And it's said openly! One dares to affirm that the Second Vatican Council is not binding; that the faith would also be endangered because of the post-conciliar reforms and orientations, that one has the duty to disobey in order to preserve certain traditions. What traditions? It is this group, and not the Pope, not the College of Bishops, not the Ecuмenical Council, that determines which of the innumerable traditions are to be considered as a norm of faith. As you see, venerable Brethren, this attitude stands as a judge of that divine will which placed Peter and his legitimate Successors at the head of the Church to confirm the brethren in the faith and to shepherd the universal flock (cf. Lk 22:32; I. 21:15 ff.), which established him as guarantor and guardian of the deposit of the Faith."Secret Consistory for the appointment of twenty Cardinals (May 24, 1976) | Paul VI (vatican.va) (https://www.vatican.va/content/paul-vi/it/speeches/1976/docuмents/hf_p-vi_spe_19760524_concistoro.html)
See, Vatican I explained the roots in Tradition for the doctrine of infallibility, namely, the constant tradition that the Papacy was intended by Our Lord to be the source of unity in faith (in addition to mere governance) as well as the rock upon which the Church's faith rests as if on a solid foudation.
Yes, but you don't seem to see that the Council gives this as the very explanation of the Extraordinary Magisterium that Our Divine Redeemer willed His Church to have for this purpose. It doesn't say this is why the Church can never teach error in faith and morals, but under these very strict conditions.
One can debate the strict infallibility of any given papal pronouncement, but when the Vatican II and post-V2 Conciliar Magisterium and the New Mass have become so unacceptable to Catholics and so contrary to the Catholic faith that we are required to sever communion with and subjection to the Holy See, clearly the line has been crossed, and this degree of destruction ("systematic destruction", as Archbishop Lefebvre rightly characterized it) would be tantamount to a defection of the Church in her core mission to preserve / safeguard the faith and to sanctify souls.
Unity is one of the core notes of the Catholic Church, unity in faith and governance. But if you posit that groups of Catholics can both be in the same Church and yet completely split off from faith and governance because we hold the faith of the other group to be incompatible with Catholicism, then that's essentially to say that the Unity is not an essential note of the Catholic Church. It's almost like the same error that V2 teaches regarding Ecuмenism and the divided/separated Churches within the Church of Christ and consistent with the errors condemned in Mortalium Animos.
Here's another way to look at the core question: difference of degree vs. difference of kind.
If we just have a bunch of individual errors in the Conciliar Church (because, after all, nothing they taught was taught infallibly ... granting this now for the sake of argument), then there's only a difference of degree and there just happens to be more individual errors now than there may have been in the past with regard to the fallible Magisterium.
Or is the Conciliar Church so infested with error that it represents a difference in kind? Is it something other than the Catholic Church. Archbishop Lefebvre (IMO rightly) held that the Conciliar Church lacks the notes of the Catholic Church, which means that it's something other, a difference in kind, since notes define the essence of something. And one aspect of the Church's indefectibility is that it cannot transform essentially into something else. Cf. the Catholic Encyclopedia article on indefectibility. Would St. Pius X, if he had been time-warped forward to our day, recognize the Conciliar Church as the Catholic Church? No, he would most certainly not.
No doubt, but the official church is a mysterious hybrid of the Catholic Church and Conciliar Church. Most Catholics alive on the face of the earth today, those who really have the faith, are certainly in this official church and not in 'Tradition'. It is a great mystery. Proclaiming that he cannot be Pope changes nothing as to unity or anything else, and it is simply not certain that we can do that, and that is why the Archbishop never did.
If the Conciliar Church just represented a collection of discrete errors (more than before), then we should rightly remain within the Church while working to help correct these errors. But once this collection of errors become tantamount to making this effectively a non-Catholic religion, so much so that we're required to sever Communion from the Church, the line has been crossed.
Let's say I'm a priest during the 1940s and feel that Pius XII erred regarding evolution, regarding NFP, and got it wrong with the 1955 Holy Week changes. Would I have been entitled to separate from the Catholic Church, and start my own chapel, calling myself the "Orthodox Roman Catholic Movement"? Absolutely not. I'd be rightly regarded as a schismatic. No, the proper approach there would be to respectfully disagree (internal assent does not require absolute philosophical acceptance) and work to have the error corrected through the appropriate channels.
Cardinal Franzelin refutes the SSPX’s and, by extension, your inaccurate interpretation of Saint Vincent regarding space *and* time:
https://novusordowatch.org/wp-content/uploads/franzelin-vincentian-canon.pdf
Finally, Saint Vincent of Lerins everywhere clearly teaches that either one of these two marks—i.e. universal consent and the agreement of antiquity—suffices to demonstrate the apostolicity of a doctrine. Thus in Chapter 3 he writes : i) “What then will a Catholic Christian do if a small portion of the Church have cut itself off from the communion of the universal faith? What, surely, but prefer the soundness of the whole body to the unsoundness of a pestilent and corrupt member?” Here universal consent is opposed to local error. ii) “What, if some novel contagion seek to infect not merely an insignificant portion of the Church, but the whole? Then it will be his care to cleave to antiquity.” Here antiquity is appealed to in the event that contemporary controversies should have muddied the waters and made it hard to establish for the time being the belief of the universal Church.
Well, I do have a bit of an issue with people calling people here "heretics." I don't think "heretics" would be here - except for the occasional troll who is usually quickly dispatched.I agree, I would modify my posts and remove those comments if I could. Apologies all round!
Anyway, the main point is that there seems to be a drift in tenor such that it prompted me to comment on, which is something that would not have occurred to me before.
And....he did poo poo it ...because Paul VI wasn't speaking ex cathedra. No shocker there.
Don’t worry Vermont, PV will just poo poo it like he does with everything that doesn’t fit his Gallican agenda.
Yes, I know. That was the logic I was demonstrating. It all relates to the understanding of Infallibility. I didn't mean to apply it only to the current Pope. That's why it so important that we understand Infallibility.But the point is ....the reason sedevacantists think the Vatican II popes are not popes does not have to do with "Papal Infallibility". And you keep asserting that it does! And then asserting that we deny or reform the definition of it! And then calling us heretics for it!
If you accept that the Pope must teach on faith and morals under all the conditions defined by the Council for his teaching to be in and of itself infallible, then I apologise for misunderstanding your position. I thought I recalled a post to the contrary, but I stand corrected.I appreciate the apology, but I actually think you misunderstand other sedevacantists on this issue, not just me.
I will take some time to review this again after reading it, but I see the following as a problem with the Cardinal's argument. He quotes St. Vincent as follows from Chapter 3:Good post DR, I'll have to take a closer look at that.
The contrast discussed by St. Vincent is an infection of part/whole. In "i)" a part of the Church "has cut itself off from the communion of the universal faith." While St. Vincent says the "novel contagion seek(s)" to infect the whole, it does not appear to me that the Cardinal is accurately reflecting the point and the contrast when he says the infection merely "made it hard to establish for the time being the belief of the universal Church," when the contrast seems to be infection of part v. infection of whole.
It would seem that St. Vincent is talking about a situation such as exists in the Church now, when there is an infection of the "whole" hierarchy with jurisdiction. If it were just confusion and not an actual infection of the whole, why would one resolve it by going to "antiquity"? Wouldn't one simply go to the pope or a council to address and clarify, to correct the confusion?
Cardinal Franzelin appears to me to avoid St. Vincent's point, and to mischaracterize the contrast.
I post this as an observation for comment and discussion. I am not being polemical here.
I am disheartened by the course that the forum is taking in these recent discussions, particuarly with terms "Gallican" being tossed around in terse responses. While Lad has called me and others Old Catholics and heretics, he has always done so while giving his reasons and putting forward a substantive argument. While I have engaged him in kind, I never took personal offense or had a problem with his name calling, except for engaging him on the merits, and having problems with what I see as his inconsistencies (and hence hypocrisy) - thus my rather vigorous opposition to his attacks on those who oppose the "Magisterium" and who, in his mind, reject the Church's indefectibility (my seeing him as hypocritical, for example, being informed by his own position on BoD versus the theological consensus of every theologian and pope/bishop in the hierarchy since Trent at least).
Anyway, I just wanted to air that sense I have about recent negative developments that I see as a departure from past practice that I find a bit troubling - in addition to my main purpose in seeking comments on the Cardinal Franzelin's handling of the above.
And....he did poo poo it ...because Paul VI wasn't speaking ex cathedra. No shocker there.I'll have to return to that at a later time.
Apparently, even Paul VI (the supposed true pope who approved each and every decree of the Council) doesn't know that Vatican II is not binding, not an Ecuмenical Council, not the Will of God, and must not be obeyed to be in communion with the legitimate successor of Peter and the Church.
Only the R&R's know that.
But the point is ....the reason sedevacantists think the Vatican II popes are not popes does not have to do with "Papal Infallibility". And you keep asserting that it does! And then asserting that we deny or reform the definition of it! And then calling us heretics for it!Okay, sorry about the heretics!
But the point is ....the reason sedevacantists think the Vatican II popes are not popes does not have to do with "Papal Infallibility".Let's not pretend that there is some unified sede-explanation for the crisis. There isn't. How many sedes have been on this site over the years? At least 50 that i've encountered, and *almost* everyone of those 50 had a different reason for why/how the pope wasn't the pope.
Let's not pretend that there is some unified sede-explanation for the crisis. There isn't. How many sedes have been on this site over the years? At least 50 that i've encountered, and *almost* everyone of those 50 had a different reason for why/how the pope wasn't the pope.I'm not pretending anything, TYVM. However, I have never encountered a sede that uses "Papal Infallibility" as the reasoning (whether IRL or on this site)....which was the point of my post because this is what PV is asserting. In my experience, sedes either point to the promulgation and profession of Vatican II or personal heresy. Not because of "Papal Infallibility".
Add in the many, many sedes i've encountered in real life and the explanations increase.
I'm not saying that these numerous explanations alter the theory of Sedeism (I lean towards it) but it's not a unified theory and it doesn't answer everything. But the people who loudly claim the theory is unified and it does answer everything -- they are the problem. They are running around calling every non-Sede a heretic; which is just as bad as +Fellay selling out the new-sspx to new-rome. Both are crimes against catholicism.
However, I have never encountered a sede that uses "Papal Infallibility"The use of V2 as an argument, necessarily includes the argument that Papal Infallibility would've prevented a true pope from approving V2. Ladislaus uses this argument all the time. It's not a bad argument, but it's not 100% full-proof either.
The use of V2 as an argument, necessarily includes the argument that Papal Infallibility would've prevented a true pope from approving V2. Ladislaus uses this argument all the time. It's not a bad argument, but it's not 100% full-proof either.No, that's not Papal Infallibility. The Vatican II argument is based on the Church's Infallibility through an Ecuмenical Council. Yes, the pope needs to approve the decrees to make it infallible, but that is not the same thing as the Vatican I definition of Papal Infallibility.
Let's not pretend that there is some unified sede-explanation for the crisis. There isn't. How many sedes have been on this site over the years? At least 50 that i've encountered, and *almost* everyone of those 50 had a different reason for why/how the pope wasn't the pope.
And I have said that I don't really care so much about the "why/how". I only know that he's either not the Pope or is in a state of suspension (impounded) or deprived of office, or else somehow not freely exercising papal authority (e.g. blackmailed). I know this because of the protection of the Holy Spirit over the Papacy precludes the Popes transforming the Church into an unrecognizable new religion that lacks the marks of the Catholic Church.Yeah, I don't mind this approach and I understand it. The problem is, not every Trad is able to operate in such a theoretical mindset. They need more practical answers (which obviously don't exist). Invariably, they get called 'heretics' for not being a sede, simply because they ask questions. Rinse, wash, repeat. It happens all the time on this site.
Yeah, I don't mind this approach and I understand it. The problem is, not every Trad is able to operate in such a theoretical mindset. They need more practical answers (which obviously don't exist). Invariably, they get called 'heretics' for not being a sede, simply because they ask questions. Rinse, wash, repeat. It happens all the time on this site.
The devil has pushed Traddom into 2 opposing camps (as he so often does on many issues). The Sede camp is more theoretical, while the R&R is more practical. Neither is 100% right, nor 100% wrong. Both have good points and both have limitations. It's an unsolvable problem.
I do think you exaggerate about sedevacantists calling people heretics for not being sede, simply because they ask questions.Based on this site, it's no exaggeration. This last week, i've seen the use of the word 'heretic' more than the last 6 months.
Where the heresy comes in is in denying the indefectibility of the Church and claiming that the Papal Magisterium and the Mass of the Catholic Church can become corrupt, so much so that Catholics are require to break unity with the hierarchy to remain Catholic. That is in fact heretical.Again, no Trad disagrees with the above, in theory. But in practice, it's difficult to explain, because...we Trads aren't the Church.
I don't understand why such R&R don't consider Fr. Chazal's sedeimpoundism.This generation of Trads will never agree. The divide between "The Nine" and the sspx/Resistance is too great. It will take a Catholic pope, or some great persecution, to get people to come to their senses and work together.
Based on this site, it's no exaggeration. This last week, i've seen the use of the word 'heretic' more than the last 6 months.Why do you keep referring to "The Nine"? About half of them are dead now. And as far as the other half, is there really that great of a divide? Is there a great divide between Fr Jenkins/other SSPV "Nine" priests and the SSPX? I would argue that the SSPV priests have a greater divide with the Thuc groups. The SSPX can at least receive communion at a SSPV chapel.
Again, no Trad disagrees with the above, in theory. But in practice, it's difficult to explain, because...we Trads aren't the Church.
Where the disagreement comes in is on the definitions of 'indefectibility' and 'papal magisterium'. Sedes argue as if the problem is easy to understand (but that's because they already have a pre-conceived solution). R&R (not +Fellay's R&R, but +ABL's) see the complexities of these mysteries (since, ultimately, they are of Divine origin) and see the problem as more nuanced.
Most sedes want a black-n-white answer to a complex problem, which is short-sighted. ABL's style of R&R is an overly-complex answer to a complex problem...the evils of analysis paralysis.
This generation of Trads will never agree. The divide between "The Nine" and the sspx/Resistance is too great. It will take a Catholic pope, or some great persecution, to get people to come to their senses and work together.
Why do you keep referring to "The Nine"? About half of them are dead now.You're missing the point. The division between the Sedes and the ssxp/Resistance started with the Nine. The Nine had issues and +ABL didn't address them properly. So they split.
what matters is that the division in Trad-land between Sedes and the sspx/resistance all had it roots in "The Nine" controversy.Does anyone think that, say 50 or more years from now, "The Nine" will be remembered as a significant event in Catholic History among those who are not even Traditional?
Okay, sorry about the heretics!I did see your other apology re "heretics" - thank you. So, no need to repeat yourself.
But the sedevacantist argument from papal infallibility is certainly one that is used: a pope is infallible when teaching of faith and morals. The pope has taught heresy. Therefore he is not a true pope.
Do you want to give me a quick summary of your argument?
Have to go now sorry.
Does anyone think that, say 50 or more years from now, "The Nine" will be remembered as a significant event in Catholic History among those who are not even Traditional?Non-Trads have no idea about +ABL or the Nine now. Why would 50 years in the future be worse?
Based on this site, it's no exaggeration. This last week, i've seen the use of the word 'heretic' more than the last 6 months.I would agree that the name calling has been more prevalent lately; however, it's not always a sede doing it and I don't think it's multiple sedes when it is a sede doing it. I'd have to go back to see, but my sense is that it's more likely that one or two are doing all of the name calling.
I did see your other apology re "heretics" - thank you. So, no need to repeat yourself.Sure, no prob, I know the feeling...
I think if you read some of my recent posts, you'll have a better grasp of my "argument". I honestly don't want to get into a back and forth on it though. I've got much more pressing things to deal with right now which has sapped much of my energy.
Either the Conciliar Church's theology, worship, etc. is reconcilable with Tradition (at least applying some hermeneutic of continuity) or else it could not have been created by legitimate papal authority.It was created by illegitimate exercise of that papal authority which should be refused without necessarily requiring you to deny the authority of the one so abusing it. That is the crucial distinction which Archbishop Lefebvre did make.
Cardinal Franzelin refutes the SSPX’s and, by extension, your inaccurate interpretation of Saint Vincent regarding space *and* time:You can read yourself below, QV, that St Vincent certainly talks about space (universality) and time (antiquity) and uses them as the rule for adhering to what is Catholic. Cardinal Franzelin, in discussing the infallibility of the Ordinary Magisterium, separates the two terms, yet he requires the use of antiquity, nonetheless, if in 'universality' there is found controversy, just as St Vincent obviously does here. Thus in the study by Dom Nau, both of these marks are included in the concept of 'universal'. There is not too much in the way of practical difference, and as you see from my post on the other thread, Cardinal Franzelin's doctrine is absolutely in line with Archbishop Lefebvre's.
https://novusordowatch.org/wp-content/uploads/franzelin-vincentian-canon.pdf
You can read yourself below, QV, that St Vincent certainly talks about space (universality) and time (antiquity) and uses them as the rule for adhering to what is Catholic. Cardinal Franzelin, in discussing the infallibility of the Ordinary Magisterium, separates the two terms, yet he requires the use of antiquity, nonetheless, if in 'universality' there is found controversy, just as St Vincent obviously does here. Thus in the study by Dom Nau, both of these marks are included in the concept of 'universal'. There is not too much in the way of practical difference, and as you see from my post on the other thread, Cardinal Franzelin's doctrine is absolutely in line with Archbishop Lefebvre's.I like the way Fr. Wathen sums up the Vincentian Canon in one of his sermons....
Excerpt From St Vincent of Lerins:
“Now in the Catholic Church itself we take the greatest care to hold that which has been believed everywhere, always and by all. That is truly and properly ‘Catholic,’ as is shown by the very force and meaning of the word, which comprehends everything almost universally. We shall hold to this rule if we follow universality, antiquity, and consent. We shall follow universality if we acknowledge that one Faith to be true which the whole Church throughout the world confesses; antiquity if we in no wise depart from those interpretations which it is clear that our ancestors and fathers proclaimed; consent, if in antiquity itself, we keep following the definitions and opinions of all, or certainly nearly all, Bishops and Doctors alike.
“What then will the Catholic Christian do, if a small part of the Church has cut itself off from the communion of the universal Faith? The answer is sure. He will prefer the healthiness of the whole body to the morbid and corrupt limb.
“But what if some novel contagions try to infect the whole Church, and not merely a tiny part of it? Then he will take care to cleave to antiquity, which cannot now be led astray by any deceit of novelty.
“What if in antiquity itself two or three men, or it may be a city, or even a whole province be detected in error? Then he will take the greatest care to prefer the decrees of the ancient General Councils, if there are such, to the irresponsible ignorance of a few men.
“But what if some error arises regarding which nothing of this sort is to be found? Then he must do his best to compare the opinions of the Fathers and inquire their meaning, provided always that, though they belonged to diverse times and places, they yet continued in the faith and communion of the one Catholic Church; and let them be teachers approved and outstanding. And whatever he shall find to have been held, approved and taught, not by one or two only but by all equally and with one consent, openly, frequently, and persistently, let him take this as to be held by him without the slightest hesitation.”
(The Vincentian Canon, in Commonitorium, chap IV, 434, ed. Moxon, Cambridge Patristic Texts
It was created by illegitimate exercise of that papal authority which should be refused without necessarily requiring you to deny the authority of the one so abusing it. That is the crucial distinction which Archbishop Lefebvre did make.
ultimately I agree with you; it's not possible that the Pope, who is protected by the Holy Ghost, could do things like this. There we agree; it's not possible, it doesn't fit, this destruction of the Church ...
I should think +Williamson, Avrille, and Fr. Chazal are more representative of "the Resistance".Now there I agree with you 100% Ladislaus. Don't listen to me, listen to these faithful shepherds. Even Archbishop Lefebvre said it was possible and that the position was understandable. Understandable doesn't mean right, nor good, and none of these Resistance figures you mention held that.
+Williamson and Avrille have both said it's possible Jorge's not the pope and that the SV position is "understandable".
Archbishop Lefebvre agrees with us here:I don't have the context of these words. But you know as well as I do how dishonest it is to present this as the Archbishop's ultimate conclusion, which is known to all and which I have demonstrated with his words years after this quote, but which you don't wish to consider.
He affirms the very point we're arguing here and that you reject.
So please reject/refute this statement from Archbishop Lefebvre.