Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => Crisis in the Church => Topic started by: RomanTheo on May 19, 2022, 10:19:47 AM
-
Transferred from another thread and slightly revised.
Ladislaus: I already said that DL's list is missing one criterion. I didn't get into it because I was going after you for declaring it heretical. It is not even heretical to claim that Baptism alone suffices.
The reason his definition is heretical is because he defines “the visible Catholic Church” as consisting of the body of individuals who meet his (incomplete) definition of a member of the Church. That is exactly how the Protestants define the visible Catholic Church. Here is how DL defined the Church:
Digital Logos:
To be a member of the Catholic Church one must be:
1. Validly baptized.
2. Profess the Catholic Faith.
The visible Catholic Church is that body of individuals and clergy who do 1 and 2 above.
He equates the visible Catholic Church with those who meet his incomplete definition of members of the Church. In reality, the Church is distinct from its members, just as a corporation is distinct from its employees. The members are an essential part of the Church (the matter), but they are not identical with the Church.
The Roman Catholic Church is a visible society – a perfect society - comprised of the local church of Rome and the diocese throughout the world in union with it. This visible organization is the subject in which the four marks adhere, and it is the object of the promises that Christ made to his Church. When Christ promised that the gates of hell would not prevail against his Church, He didn’t mean there will always be baptized individuals somewhere in the world who profess the true faith. He meant the visible ecclesiastical society He founded would never defect. And as Franzelin explains, the church of Rome and the episcopal sees throughout the world in union with it are indefectible even when there is no Pope. The reason this organization is indefectible even when there is no Pope, is because, contrary to what NO Watch claims in one of their articles, the efficient cause of indefectibility is not the Pope, it is the Holy Ghost, and the Holy Ghost remains with the Church even during interregnums.
The Protestants of course deny that the visible organization based on Rome is the true Church. They maintain that the Pope and bishops in union with him defected from the Faith years ago and were ipso facto deposed, after which, the Roman Catholic Church become a New Church that teaches a New Religion. Sound familiar?
Moreover, Protestant ecclesiology rejects the very idea that the true Church is a visible indefectible organization, and instead defines the Church according to their (incomplete) definition of members of the Church. The Westminster Confession, for example, defines "the visible Catholic Church" as "those who profess the true religion and their children." What is missing from this definition of the Church is unity of government, and what is missing from this definition if it applies to members of the Church, is “submission to legitimate pastors” – both of which are also missing from DL’s definition of the Church/members.
According to this Protestant ecclesiology, it doesn’t matter what group or sect a person belongs to. As long as he “professes the true religion” he is part of the body of the visible Catholic Church. Put differently, what the Protestants deny is that being a member of the visible organization commonly known as the Roman Catholic Church is necessary to be a member of the “visible Catholic Church."
Here is how the 19th century Calvanist scholar, William Cunningham, describes the difference between the Protestant and Catholic definition of the Church:
The Reformers and the Theology of the Reformation, William, Cunningham, 1862:
.
THE questions as to what the church is, what is the proper definition of it, and what are its qualities, prerogatives, marks, or distinguishing characters … enter very deeply and influentially into the controversy between the Church of Rome and the Protestant churches…
.
The substance of the Romish doctrine upon this general subject is, that Christ has established on earth the church as a distinct society, which is not only to continue always indefectible or without ceasing to exist, but to stand out visibly and palpably — distinguished from all other societies, civil or ecclesiastical — that it is not liable to error, but will always continue to promulgate the truth, and the truth alone. When they have proved this, they then try to prove that this one church of Christ, always visible and infallible, must of necessity be in communion with the Church of Rome, the mother and mistress of all churches, and in subjection to the Bishop of Rome, the vicar of Christ and the monarch of His church. …
.
Protestants, while conceding the existence of visible churches, not composed exclusively of elect or believing persons, and even of “a catholic visible church, consisting of all those throughout the world that profess the true religion, together with their children,” [Westminster Confession] deny that there is anything in Scripture which guarantees the constant existence at all times, or in any one particular country, of an organized ecclesiastical society standing out visibly and palpably to the eyes of men as the true church of Christ;
Do sedevacantists believe the Church is an organized ecclesiastical society that is indefectible and stands out visibly as the true church of Christ, or do they believe “the visible Catholic Church” is the body of those who are baptized and profess the true religion (true faith), regardless of which group or sect they belong to? Obviously, it is the latter. That is because Sedevacantist ecclesiology and Protestant ecclesiology are identical.
The Calvanist scholar goes on to explain another feature of Protestant ecclesiology that differs from Catholic ecclesiology:
The Reformers and the Theology of the Reformation, William, Cunningham, 1862:
.
“Subjection to lawful pastors, and to the Pope, as Christ's vicar, form, as we have seen, a component part of the Popish definition of the church. But Protestants regarded not only the Pope, but even the lawful, i.e., regular pastors, as not being an essential feature of the church, of such intrinsic and paramount importance as to form an indispensable part of the standard by which to settle at once and conclusively, in all circuмstances, whether a particular society of professing Christians did or did not form a church of Christ.”
Do Sedevacantists believe legitimate pastors are an indispensable part of the standard by which to judge if a group of professing Christians are part of Christ’s church? How could they when every Sedevacantist sect lacks a legitimate pastor, and the only Church that can possibly have them (since legitimate Pastors are those appointed by the Pope) is the universal Church based in Rome, which they claim is a false Church?
Another defect in DL’s definition of “the visible Catholic Church” is that "baptized persons who profess that true faith" doesn't suffice to make the Church visible, in the Catholic understanding of visibility.
When we say the Church is visible, we don’t simply mean its members can be seen (material visibility). We mean the visible organization can be known (formally visible) as the true Church. What makes the Church formally visible are the four marks, of which the members only constitute one (i.e., catholicity). The four marks do not abide in the members; they are properties of the visible society as such. Fr. Berry explains:
Fr. Berry: “When we say that the Church of Christ is visible, we mean, primarily, that it is a society of men with external rites and ceremonies and all the external machinery of government by which it can easily be recognized as a true society. But we further maintain that the Church of Christ also has certain marks by which it may be recognized as the one true Church founded by Christ when He commissioned the apostles to convert all nations. In other words, we maintain that the Church of Christ is formally visible, not only as a society known as a Christian Church, but also as the one true Church of Christ.” (Fr. Berry, The Church of Christ).
Apostolicity, which is the mark that most clearly identifies the true Church, requires a hierarchy consisting of a body of legitimate pastors (bishops with ordinary jurisdiction), which form one juridical person with the apostolic college. Now, since there is only one “organized ecclesiastical society standing out visibly and palpably to the eyes of men” that can possibly have a legitimate hierarchy, it follows that there is only one organized ecclesiastical society that can be formally visible as the true Church. And that organized ecclesiastical is the one that is comprised of the local church of Rome and the diocese throughout the world in union with it.
Protestants ecclesiology doesn’t deny that the body of men who make up the Church are materially visible. This material visibility is what they mean by the visible Catholic Church. What the Protestant doctrine of the “invisible Church” denies, is that the Church is a distinct visible organization that can be known (formal visible) as the true Church of Christ. They realized vey quickly that if they admitted this notion of visibility, it would prove that their sects are not part of the true Church. Let us again hear from the Calvanist scholar:
The Reformers and the Theology of the Reformation, William, Cunningham, 1862:
.
“The reason which led Protestants to give prominence to this idea of the invisible church as now explained, was, that the Church of Rome maintains visibility, as including external organization, to be an essential property of the Church, and founds important conclusions upon this position. If visibility be an essential property of the church, then it would seem to follow that a public and unbroken succession of a continuous society from the time of the apostles must have existed upon earth, and been distinctly traceable as the true church of Christ; and on this position they have always laboured to rest much in establishing the claims of the Church of Rome. Besides, it is chiefly by means of the statements made in Scripture which Protestants think applicable only to the whole number of the elect viewed as one body, or the invisible church, that Papists expect to be able to establish their peculiar views of the dignity, authority, and infallibility of the church as visible."
It is also worth noting that the Protestants don’t exclude the possibility that members of the Roman Catholic Church could also be part of the true invisible Church. If a member of the Roman Catholic Church professes the true religion, or true faith, the Protestants would consider him to be just as much a member of the true invisible Church as those who belong externally to one of their sects.
In light of this ecuмenical aspect of their ecclesiology, let us see how the Sedevacantist, John Lane, describes the Catholic Church and who he says belong to it. He begins by saying the Catholic Church, consider as “the body of traditional Catholics, is one in the profession of the same faith by all of her members; she is one in the sacrificial and sacramental worship her members offer and assist in offering; she is one in her laws which they seek to obey.”
What this “body of traditional Catholics” that Mr. Lane identifies as the Catholic Church is missing, however, is the all-important unity of government, which, coincidentally, is the same thing that is missing from Protestant's definition of the "visible Catholic Church."
Mr. Lane then offers the following criticism of the “Conciliar Church,” which is what he calls the visible society that is comprised of the church of Rome and the diocese throughout the world in union with it:
John Lane: “it is a plain fact that any “body” which consists of the Conciliar hierarchy and laity, as well as the traditional Catholic clergy and laity, has no unity whatsoever, in Faith or Charity. We do not share the official beliefs of the Conciliar Church or the actual beliefs of most of the members of the Conciliar Church and we do not share in the same sacraments and we are not subject to the same pastors. Their laymen will no more assist at our traditional Masses than we will assist at their Modernist ones.”
Now, if the “conciliar Church” lacks unity of faith, which is an essential aspect of the mark of oneness, it follows that the Conciliar Church is a false Church, since the true Church has all four marks. Moreover, since the marks are interconnected, if one mark is lacking, they are all lacing. So, if Mr. Lane were right, the “Conciliar Church would have no marks. Of course, the same is true for “the body of traditional Catholics” that Mr. Lane identified above as “the Catholic Churchm,” since it lacks unity of government.
But here's the important part. In spite of the fact that Mr. Lane believes the Conciliar Church lacks the four marks, notice who he includes a belonging to the Catholic Church:
John Lane: “the Catholic Church consists of the traditional Catholics, as well as those of the faithful still mired in the Novus Ordo who continue to profess the true Faith.”
You see, according to Protestant and Sedevacantist ecclesiology, it doesn't matter what sect or false Church a person belongs to. As long as they “professes the true faith” they consider them part of the Catholic Church.
The problem with this ecuмenical "subsistit in" ecclesiology, is that it constitutes a denial of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, which itself an article of faith that all Catholics are bound to believe with divine and Catholic faith.
The irony is that the extremely liberal sedevacantist ecclesiology that Mr. Lane articulated above is so heretical, that those who profess it do not meet their own definition of a member of the Catholic Church (i.e., one who professes the true faith).
-
Digital Logos: I'm still waiting to hear what heresy I professed by stating that baptism and profession of the true Faith are required to be Catholic. Pope Pius XII says the exact same thing in Mystici Corporus #22:
22. Actually only those are to be included as members of the Church who have been baptized and profess the true faith, and who have not been so unfortunate as to separate themselves from the unity of the Body, or been excluded by legitimate authority for grave faults committed. "For in one spirit" says the Apostle, "were we all baptized into one Body, whether Jєωs or Gentiles, whether bond or free."[17] As therefore in the true Christian community there is only one Body, one Spirit, one Lord, and one Baptism, so there can be only one faith.[18] And therefore, if a man refuse to hear the Church, let him be considered - so the Lord commands - as a heathen and a publican. [19] It follows that those who are divided in faith or government cannot be living in the unity of such a Body, nor can they be living the life of its one Divine Spirit.
You only paraphrased half of the first sentence, and then equated your incomplete definition of members of the Church with "the visible Catholic Church" itself. Here again is how you paraphrased it.
Digital Logos: To be a member of the Catholic Church one must be:
1. Validly baptized.
2. Profess the Catholic Faith.
The visible Catholic Church is that body of individuals and clergy who do 1 and 2 above.
The Catholic Church is a visible organization, which one must actually join and remain within to be a member of the Church. The visible organization and those who belong to it constitute the "body" of the Church. In light of that, notice again what Pius XII said it required to be a member of the Church:
22. Actually only those are to be included as members of the Church who have been baptized and profess the true faith, and who have not been so unfortunate as to separate themselves from the unity of the Body, or been excluded by legitimate authority for grave faults committed.
The body of the Church is the hierarchical structure of the Church as Fr. Fenton explains:
"Certainly the Mystici Corporis Christi statement about membership in the Church is quite in line with the teaching of the De ecclesia militante. According to Pope Pius XII, four factors alone are necessary in order that a man be counted as a member of the true Church. These are (1) the reception of baptism, and thus the possession of the baptismal character, (2) the profession of the true faith, which is, of course, the faith of the Catholic Church, (3) the fact that a person has not cut himself away from the structure or the fabric of the "Body," which is, of course, the Church itself, and (4) the fact that a person has not been expelled from the membership of the Church by competent ecclesiastical authority. ...
Your definition of "members" of the Church, and of what constitutes the Church itself, only includes nos. 1 and 2. Number 3 is what you should be focusing on, since it explains why those who attend a Sedevacantist sect are not members of the Catholic Church.
The problem, as explained in the earlier post, is that Sedevacantists have all embraced Protestant ecclesiology, according to which, the true Church is not a visible organization, but the body of those who "profession of the faith" (and have received baptism), regardless of which sect or denomination they belong to.
EDITED to add the following:
This Protestant/Sedevacantist ecclesiology directly contradicts by the last sentence of Mystici Corporis Christi, No. 22:
22. Actually only those are to be included as members of the Church who have been baptized and profess the true faith, and who have not been so unfortunate as to separate themselves from the unity of the Body, or been excluded by legitimate authority for grave faults committed. "For in one spirit" says the Apostle, "were we all baptized into one Body, whether Jєωs or Gentiles, whether bond or free."[17] As therefore in the true Christian community there is only one Body, one Spirit, one Lord, and one Baptism, so there can be only one faith.[18] And therefore, if a man refuse to hear the Church, let him be considered - so the Lord commands - as a heathen and a publican. [19] It follows that those who are divided in faith or government cannot be living in the unity of such a Body, nor can they be living the life of its one Divine Spirit.
Do you agree with Pius XII that those who are separated in government cannot be living in the unity of the body? Or do you believe, along with John Lane, that those who are baptized (condition 1) and "profess the true faith" (condition 2) are the body of the Catholic Church, even if they are separated in government?
-
Do you agree with Pius XII that those who are separated in government cannot be living in the unity of the body? No, you believe those who are separated in government are the body, as long as they have been baptized and "profess the true faith."
Doesn't matter what Pius XII said because V2 clarified that those who are "spiritually" part of the mystical body can be saved (even if not visibly united). SVs "desire" to be part of (your definition) of the Church, in good faith, but believe they can't (momentarily). You can't condemn SVs just like the V2 church doesn't condemn good-willed Hindus, muslims, pagans, etc.
Actually, since you argue that Pius XII's definition is correct, you are denying multiple V2 beliefs, which puts you at odds with the "government of new-rome" the visible Church today. So by your own definition, you are also outside of the visible V2 church. :laugh1:
RT, you can't have it both ways...Tradition is at odds with V2. It's one or the other.
-
Doesn't matter what Pius XII said because V2 clarified that those who are "spiritually" part of the mystical body can be saved (even if not visibly united). SVs "desire" to be part of (your definition) of the Church, in good faith, but believe they can't (momentarily). You can't condemn SVs just like the V2 church doesn't condemn good-willed Hindus, muslims, pagans, etc.
Actually, since you argue that Pius XII's definition is correct, you are denying multiple V2 beliefs, which puts you at odds with the "government of new-rome" the visible Church today. So by your own definition, you are also outside of the visible V2 church. :laugh1:
RT, you can't have it both ways...Tradition is at odds with V2. It's one or the other.
Novus Ordo conservatives, like Mr. Salza here, must admit that either SVists are part of the Church as defined by V2 or deny the teaching of V2 and say they are not.
Either pagans, Jєωs, Hindus and SVists (implying they are our own religion) can be "part" of the Church by "desire" or none of them can.
-
Doesn't matter what Pius XII said because V2 clarified that those who are "spiritually" part of the mystical body can be saved (even if not visibly united).
Here's what Vatican II teaches:
They cannot be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or remain in it (cf. LG 14).
Sedevacantists know the Catholic Church was founded by Christ, yet they refuse to enter it. Why? Because they they think they already belong to it, since 1) they define he Church as "the baptized who profess the true faith" and 2) they (mistakenly) believe they meet both those condition.
Actually, since you argue that Pius XII's definition is correct, you are denying multiple V2 beliefs, which puts you at odds with the "government of new-rome" the visible Church today. So by your own definition, you are also outside of the visible V2 church. :laugh1:
Quote the teaching of Vatican II you are referring to and let's see what it says.
RT, you can't have it both ways...Tradition is at odds with V2. It's one or the other.
According to Tradition, the Church is a visible society with four marks united under a single hierarchy, not a body of individuals who have been baptized and profess the true faith, regardless of which sect they belong to. It is not I, but you who has departed - and departed VERY FAR - from Tradition.
-
Novus Ordo conservatives, like Mr. Salza here, must admit that either SVists are part of the Church as defined by V2 or deny the teaching of V2 and say they are not.
First, I am not Mr. Salza. Second, please quote the teaching of Vatican II that you believe "defined" that Sedevacantists are part of the Church.
-
RT, the docuмents of V2 regularly contradict each other and also the doctrine of EENS. If the below quotes apply to protestants, they also apply to SVs. Hence, both can be saved, which is contrary to Pius XII, and which you, as part of the V2 church, must believe and put into practice. Therefore, your condemnations of SVs is contrary to V2. Here are just a few quotes:
Decree on Ecuмenism: Unitatis Redintegratio
"The children who are born into these Communities, and who grow up believing in Christ, cannot be accused of the sin involved in the separation, and the Catholic Church embraces upon them as brothers, with respect and affection. For men who believe in Christ and have been truly baptized are in communion with the Catholic Church even though this communion is imperfect. ...it remains true that all who have been justified by faith in Baptism are members of Christ's body, and have a right to be called Christian, and so are correctly accepted as brothers by the children of the Catholic Church."
"Moreover, some and even very many of the significant elements and endowments which together go to build up and give life to the Church itself, can exist outside the visible boundaries of the Catholic Church: the written word of God; the life of grace; faith, hope and charity, with the other interior gifts of the Holy Spirit, and visible elements too. All of these, which come from Christ and lead back to Christ, belong by right to the one Church of Christ."
"The brethren divided from us also use many liturgical actions of the Christian religion. These most certainly can truly engender a life of grace in ways that vary according to the condition of each Church or Community. These liturgical actions must be regarded as capable of giving access to the community of salvation."
"It follows that the separated Churches and Communities as such, though we believe them to be deficient in some respects, have been by no means deprived of significance and importance in the mystery of salvation. For the Spirit of Christ has not refrained from using them as means of salvation which derive their efficacy from the very fullness of grace and truth entrusted to the Church."
-
First, I am not Mr. Salza. Second, please quote the teaching of Vatican II that you believe "defined" that Sedevacantists are part of the Church.
First, I don't know, you sure hold to the same position as him and believe SVists aren't Catholics. Maybe you're Mr. Siscoe... :clown:
Second, see Pax's response above.
-
Here's what Vatican II teaches:
Sedevacantists know the Catholic Church was founded by Christ, yet they refuse to enter it. Why? Because they they think they already belong to it, since 1) they define he Church as "the baptized who profess the true faith" and 2) they (mistakenly) believe they meet both those condition.
Quote the teaching of Vatican II you are referring to and let's see what it says.
According to Tradition, the Church is a visible society with four marks united under a single hierarchy, not a body of individuals who have been baptized and profess the true faith, regardless of which sect they belong to. It is not I, but you who has departed - and departed VERY FAR - from Tradition.
I am not a Sede.
but they aren’t refusing to enter in it. They do in fact believe they are in it. In one sense it’s similar to a lot of Protestants or the Eastern Orthodox, except unlike these the sede denies no dogmas. Thus not heretics. At most you could get them with pure schism, but presumably they’d only be culpable for this based on the line you cited in V2 if they knew sedevacantism wasn’t the church but didn’t leave anyway
-
I am not a Sede.
but they aren’t refusing to enter in it. They do in fact believe they are in it. In one sense it’s similar to a lot of Protestants or the Eastern Orthodox, except unlike these the sede denies no dogmas. Thus not heretics. At most you could get them with pure schism, but presumably they’d only be culpable for this based on the line you cited in V2 if they knew sedevacantism wasn’t the church but didn’t leave anyway
Exactly. We are sedes because we do not believe that abomination preaching heresy could ever possibly be the Catholic Church
If you were able to convince a sede without a doubt that Francis-Bergoglio is the Supreme Pontiff of the Catholic Church, and they still remained outside of it, THEN you would have a case for schism. But, this hasn't been proven, therefore accusing them of schism is erroneous and stating they are not Catholic and outside of the Catholic Church is a damnable lie.
-
I don’t understand the point of this conversation. All you’re doing, RomanTheo, is saving one aspect of the indefectibility of Mother Church while destroying another. It is true that Sedevacantist ecclesiology is extremely problematic. I don’t blame them though. The situation we are in was never envisioned before.
Your approach doesn’t exactly solve the issues. Yes, you retain Traditional ecclesiology, but you destroy indefectibility in another way by allowing that the Church has been teaching previously infallibly condemned heresies in Her authentic magisterium, promoting blasphemies & sacrileges universally, instigating pernicious disciplines & liturgical worship universally, and leading hundreds of millions of souls to hell by the aforementioned and many others means.
The clown in the Vatican and his post-Conciliar predecessors of unhappy memory are objectively assassinators of souls.
There is a way to retain both Traditional ecclesiology and indefectibility in Faith: Msgr. des Lauriers’ Cassiciacuм thesis or certain variations of Msgr. Lefebvre’s Conciliar Church theory/eclipse thesis. Your Conciliar conservatism is not one of them.
-
I am not a Sede.
but they aren’t refusing to enter in it.
They refuse to enter the Roman Catholic Church, which is the visible society based on Rome.
They do in fact believe they are in it.
The reason they believe they are in the Church is because they have embraced Protestant ecclesiology. They believe the Church consists of the body of individuals who have been baptized and profess the true faith, regardless of what sect they belong to.
In one sense it’s similar to a lot of Protestants...
Exactly like Protestants since they share the same ecclesiology.
...except unlike these the sede denies no dogmas.
How about the dogma that the Church is a visible society that is One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic? And how about the dogma that the visible society with four marks is indefectible? They deny the first by believing they are the Church, when they know their sects lack the four marks. They deny the latter by maintaining that the universal Church based in Rome was the true Church up to the time of Pius XII death, and them became a false Church during the pontificate of John XXIII (or Paul VI).
Thus not heretics.
Those who belong to a non-Catholic sect are public heretics. Sedevacantist chapels are all non-Catholics sects. Therefore...
At most you could get them with pure schism, but presumably they’d only be culpable for this based on the line you cited in V2 if they knew sedevacantism wasn’t the church but didn’t leave anyway
Sedevacantists realize that their sects lack the four marks. If they believe Sedevacantism constitutes the true Church in spite of that, they are guilty of denying a dogma right out of the Creed, namely, that the Church is One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic.
-
They refuse to enter the Roman Catholic Church, which is the visible society based on Rome.
:facepalm: You keep ignoring what V2 says, which contradicts your above statement.
-
:facepalm:
-
I read your response, and will try to respond later, but it's complete horseshit.
To the main point, your accusation of DL's definition of the requirements for membership in the Church, has nowhere been proven and I accuse you of slander.
Please cite the actual defined dogma that DL has rejected in his definition or retract your slander. You spend paragraphs of incredibly weak arguments full of holes trying to back up your slander, but your arguments and paragraphs are not the Magisterium.
I actually disagree with DL's definition, adding one additional criterion, and I will not speak of any distinction between a "visible" and (implied) invisible Church, since the two are co-extensive. Nevertheless, there's a lot of theological disagreement and a range of opinions on this subject that the Church has not yet condemned, so I would not have the temerity to accuse DL of heresy.
-
First, I don't know, you sure hold to the same position as him and believe SVists aren't Catholics. Maybe you're Mr. Siscoe... :clown:
Second, see Pax's response above.
:laugh1:
-
They refuse to enter the Roman Catholic Church, which is the visible society based on Rome.
The reason they believe they are in the Church is because they have embraced Protestant ecclesiology. They believe the Church consists of the body of individuals who have been baptized and profess the true faith, regardless of what sect they belong to.
Exactly like Protestants since they share the same ecclesiology.
How about the dogma that the Church is a visible society that is One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic? And how about the dogma that the visible society with four marks is indefectible? They deny the first by believing they are the Church, when they know their sects lack the four marks. They deny the latter by maintaining that the universal Church based in Rome was the true Church up to the time of Pius XII death, and them became a false Church during the pontificate of John XXIII (or Paul VI).
Those who belong to a non-Catholic sect are public heretics. Sedevacantist chapels are all non-Catholics sects. Therefore...
Sedevacantists realize that their sects lack the four marks. If they believe Sedevacantism constitutes the true Church in spite of that, they are guilty of denying a dogma right out of the Creed, namely, that the Church is One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic.
So you've double-downed despite Matthew's warning in the "And Yet Another Novus Ordo Sacrilege" thread.
Subjective enough for you ByzCat?
-
I read your response, and will try to respond later, but it's complete horseshit.
To the main point, your accusation of DL's definition of the requirements for membership in the Church, has nowhere been proven and I accuse you of slander.
Please cite the actual defined dogma that DL has rejected in his definition or retract your slander. You spend paragraphs of incredibly weak arguments full of holes trying to back up your slander, but your arguments and paragraphs are not the Magisterium.
I actually disagree with DL's definition, adding one additional criterion, and I will not speak of any distinction between a "visible" and (implied) invisible Church, since the two are co-extensive. Nevertheless, there's a lot of theological disagreement and a range of opinions on this subject that the Church has not yet condemned, so I would not have the temerity to accuse DL of heresy.
Terio Millenio Adveniente:
At the end of the second millennium, the Church has once again become a Church of martyrs. The persecutions of believers —priests, Religious and laity—has caused a great sowing of martyrdom in different parts of the world. The witness to Christ borne even to the shedding of blood has become a common inheritance of Catholics, Orthodox, Anglicans and Protestants (JPII)
I don't even understand how he can choose ecclesiology as his angle of attack vs SV. We don't deny any dogmas but those who do can be martyrs? If FEMA, ZOG or whatever kills DL I am expecting you to call him a martyr, RT.
Will you?
-
I don't even understand how he can choose ecclesiology as his angle of attack vs SV.
Because it's the weakest point of the SV position. But, that doesn't disprove the position as non-Catholic. It just shows how grave this situation is, from the perspective of the SVist.
-
Because it's the weakest point of the SV position. But, that doesn't disprove the position as non-Catholic. It just shows how grave this situation is, from the perspective of the SVist.
UR makes it :jester::jester: for the NO at the end of the day though because it says sanctifying grace exists outside the Catholic Church. Faith, Hope and Charity don't simply pertain to grace, but rather sanctifying grace.
-
How about the dogma that the Church is a visible society that is One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic? And how about the dogma that the visible society with four marks is indefectible? They deny the first by believing they are the Church, when they know their sects lack the four marks. They deny the latter by maintaining that the universal Church based in Rome was the true Church up to the time of Pius XII death, and them became a false Church during the pontificate of John XXIII (or Paul VI).
Those who belong to a non-Catholic sect are public heretics. Sedevacantist chapels are all non-Catholics sects. Therefore...
Sedevacantists realize that their sects lack the four marks. If they believe Sedevacantism constitutes the true Church in spite of that, they are guilty of denying a dogma right out of the Creed, namely, that the Church is One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic.
Sedevacantists realize NO SUCH THING. You are imputing ill will and malice that isn't there.
You are COMPLETELY ignoring the elephant in the room -- the UNPRECEDENTED CRISIS IN THE CHURCH which would justify things that would normally be unjustifiable.
You are aware there is a Crisis in the Church, right? None of us have message(s) from God how we should keep our Faith during this Crisis. The fact of the matter is, there is no position or strategy that is without any downside(s). It's a classic case of "pick your poison".
Yes, if someone went "sede" in 1950, they would be a heretic. But we're talking about the Crisis popes, not those before Vatican II.
I'm not a sedevacantist myself, but I won't have you calling them literal heretics, claiming that ALL of them willfully embrace heresy. That is patently false.
I don't know if a sedevacantist ran over your dog when you were a kid or what, but you're banned.
Frankly, when it comes to actions touching on the Crisis in the Church, just about ANYTHING GOES as long as no sin is committed. One must LIBERALLY apply "Benefit of the doubt" to our fellow-Catholics who are only trying to deal with this Crisis of diabolical confusion, disorientation and destruction of the Church.
-
All you’re doing, RomanTheo, is saving one aspect of the indefectibility of Mother Church while destroying another.
Traddieland in a nutshell, all while blasting anyone who disagrees with your take (which can, and often does, change at any moment based upon new info). Traddieland's unspoken-yet-grotesque motto is "Endless latitude for me, none for thee."
-
Here's what Vatican II teaches:
Sedevacantists know the Catholic Church was founded by Christ, yet they refuse to enter it. Why? Because they they think they already belong to it, since 1) they define he Church as "the baptized who profess the true faith" and 2) they (mistakenly) believe they meet both those condition.
Quote the teaching of Vatican II you are referring to and let's see what it says.
According to Tradition, the Church is a visible society with four marks united under a single hierarchy, not a body of individuals who have been baptized and profess the true faith, regardless of which sect they belong to. It is not I, but you who has departed - and departed VERY FAR - from Tradition.
According to tradition the four marks of the church which you have conveniently omitted are that the church is one, holy, catholic and apostolic, which thus you believe the novus ordo sect to be all 4 of these. According to tradition the pope is the proximate rule of faith, thus if you believe francis to be pope you must have the same faith as him and to not would be schismatic (and heretical if he were an actual catholic pope). Do you believe francis is catholic? Do you have the same faith as him? Do you believe the novus ordo sect to be one, holy, catholic and apostolic, including all the sodomite pro tranny, pro abortion "bishops" whom are not excommunicated but promoted by francis?
-
Sedevacantists realize NO SUCH THING. You are imputing ill will and malice that isn't there.
You are COMPLETELY ignoring the elephant in the room -- the UNPRECEDENTED CRISIS IN THE CHURCH which would justify things that would normally be unjustifiable.
As I said before, there's NO ONE HERE (that I know of) who holds a Protestant ecclesiology. At best you can argue that some of their principles might imply a Prot ecclesiology or lead toward it implicitly.
That's why I got so angry with his imputation of heresy to DL. There was nothing even close to heretical in the statement he made. In fact, if I wanted to take the time to dissect RomanTheo's OP, I could call out a dozen errors in his logic. I read Msgr. Fenton's article detailing the range of opinions regarding what constitues membership in the Church, and the opinions were all over the map, including one CATHOLIC theologian who said that the Sacrament of Baptism was all that was required.
This criticism is the same that I have had of the Dimonds, where they make some arguments based on dogma and then hold that their conclusion is dogmatic. It's the same error that Bishop Sanborn made in his dogmatic SV treatise on a rejection of "Opinionism". As soon as you start reasoning from dogma, often even if BOTH presmises are de fide (hint, they rarely are), the conclusion cannot be de fide unless you're dealing with nearly a direct contradiction. There can always be a missing distinction somewhere or a false application or interpretation of one of the premises.
There is no one here who pertinaciously adheres to any kind of heresy. Yes, there are some bad principles and bad thinking that may, when taken to their logical conclusions, lead to heresy. I've had my own issues with certain articulations of R&R (not all of them), which I believe are extremely dangerous, but if I were a priest, I would never dream of withholding the Sacraments from someeone who held that position or considering them to be non-Catholics. What's actually more prevalent is a schismatic mentality ... that comes precisely from imputing formal and pretinacious heresy to others and holding them to be outside the Church, which is what RomanTheo is doing.
Both Avrille and Bishop Williamson have recently stated that sedevacantism is "understandable" given what's taking place during this Crisis ... even if they don't themselves agree with it. Those comments came as a breath of fresh air. This dogmatism regarding conclusions made about the Crisis has been one of my greatest pet peeves. It's OK to argue tooth and nail for your position, but the line is crossed when you start denouncing people you disagree with as non-Catholics. There's no one here who if we had a normal situation in the Church would not simply be attending his local Catholic parish ... or spending so much time posting on CathInfo.
-
Exactly. We are sedes because we do not believe that abomination preaching heresy could ever possibly be the Catholic Church
Is it heresy to teach something which goes beyond the Word of God and in fact denies it?
Jesus said of the Pharisees that they were legitimate rulers in Israel (the OT covenant people of God):
Matthew 23:1-3
[1] (http://drbo.org/cgi-bin/d?b=drb&bk=47&ch=23&l=1-#x) Then Jesus spoke to the multitudes and to his disciples, [2] (http://drbo.org/cgi-bin/d?b=drb&bk=47&ch=23&l=2-#x) Saying: The scribes and the Pharisees have sitten on the chair of Moses. [3] (http://drbo.org/cgi-bin/d?b=drb&bk=47&ch=23&l=3-#x) All things therefore whatsoever they shall say to you, observe and do: but according to their works do ye not; for they say, and do not.
And yet:
Matthew 15:1-3
[1] (http://drbo.org/cgi-bin/d?b=drb&bk=47&ch=15&l=1-#x) Then came to him from Jerusalem scribes and Pharisees, saying: [2] (http://drbo.org/cgi-bin/d?b=drb&bk=47&ch=15&l=2-#x) Why do thy disciples transgress the tradition of the ancients? For they wash not their hands when they eat bread. [3] (http://drbo.org/cgi-bin/d?b=drb&bk=47&ch=15&l=3-#x) But he answering, said to them: Why do you also transgress the commandment of God for your tradition?
Mark 7:7-9
[7] (http://drbo.org/cgi-bin/d?b=drb&bk=48&ch=7&l=7-#x) And in vain do they worship me, teaching doctrines and precepts of men. [8] (http://drbo.org/cgi-bin/d?b=drb&bk=48&ch=7&l=8-#x) For leaving the commandment of God, you hold the tradition of men, the washing of pots and of cups: and many other things you do like to these. [9] (http://drbo.org/cgi-bin/d?b=drb&bk=48&ch=7&l=9-#x) And he said to them: Well do you make void the commandment of God, that you may keep your own tradition.
The Catholic Church is the Israel of the New Covenant. The annotators of the original Douay Rheims reminds us that, under the New Covenant, the Catholic Church "answereth to the seat of Moses" (I'll track down the quote later) - i.e., the hierarchy of the RCC replaced the Pharisees as the legitimate authority.
Question for all - DL, Lad, Roman Theo, anyone: Where in Scripture does it say that our popes and bishops cannot teach error, error that might even "make void the commandment of God"?
I know the hierarchy (cf. the Pharisees) teaches it can't, and that it is "infallible" and "indefectible" under certain conditions, but where does Scripture teach it?
Interesting discussion.
Thank you,
DR
-
Sedevacantists realize NO SUCH THING. You are imputing ill will and malice that isn't there.
You are COMPLETELY ignoring the elephant in the room -- the UNPRECEDENTED CRISIS IN THE CHURCH which would justify things that would normally be unjustifiable.
Yes Matthew, what you say here is certain. I think we all agree that the reason for this is because the true faith is our foundation which remains unchanged, and preserving, persevering and handing it down means doing whatever must be done in order to keep the true faith.
The debate revolves around sedeism being one of those "things" unnecessary to justify in order to keep the faith. To many of those who've rejected the sede position, they see the idea as being at the very least unnecessary, which, they believe, renders sedesim one of those things that are unjustifiable, which is something that will apparently, keep the whole idea of sedeism debatable for as long as this crisis lasts.
-
Question for all - DL, Lad, Roman Theo, anyone: Where in Scripture does it say that our popes and bishops cannot teach error, error that might even "make void the commandment of God"?
Are we Prots now? There are lots of things that Scripture doesn't detail regarding ecclesiology, but which are in the Church's Tradition. Early in Church history, expression that "Peter has spoken; the matter is closed" was very widely used, and the teachings of the Church Fathers are that the Roman See can not err or be polluted with error.
This isn't about the strict limits of infallibility, as I have repeatedly pointed out. It is about the question of whether the Catholic Church can change so drastically that it would be unrecognizable to Catholics living 100 years ago and mistaken for a Protestant sect. This Conciliar Church lacks the marks of the Catholic Church, as Archbishop Lefebvre has repeatedly stated, and, agreeing with the Catholic Encyclopedia and pretty much every Catholic theologian in history, we hold that this is not possible, as it would be tantamount to a defection of the Church.
What the exact legal disposition is of the man sitting on the Chair in Rome, that can be debated, and frankly it's a sideshow distraction. Whether the see is vacant or "impounded" (Father Chazal) or whatever, that's not for us to dispose of. We simply know that we cannot be part of this institution. We don't belong there. We do not hear from Rome the "Voice of the Shepherd" and do not recognize their Magisterium as the Catholic Magisterium. That's why we're Traditional Catholics. If I thought that Conciliar Church was the Church, I'd never dream of abandoning it but would rather be at some FSSP chapel smelling the smells and hearing the bells.
See, when you have an institution that Catholics simply don't recognize as Catholic and that you must stay away from to please God and keep the faith, if that wouldn't constitute a defection of the Church, then nothing would.
Catholic Encyclopedia:
Among the prerogatives conferred on His Church by Christ is the gift of indefectibility. By this term is signified, not merely that the Church will persist to the end of time, but further, that it will preserve unimpaired its essential characteristics. The Church can never undergo any constitutional change which will make it, as a social organism, something different from what it was originally. It can never become corrupt in faith or in morals; nor can it ever lose the Apostolic hierarchy, or the sacraments through which Christ communicates grace to men. The gift of indefectibility is expressly promised to the Church by Christ, in the words in which He declares that the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. It is manifest that, could the storms which the Church encounters so shake it as to alter its essential characteristics and make it other than Christ intended it to be, the gates of hell, i.e. the powers of evil, would have prevailed. It is clear, too, that could the Church suffer substantial change, it would no longer be an instrument capable of accomplishing the work for which God called it in to being.
We see a Conciliar Church that has corrupted doctrine (both of faith and, with Bergoglio, also now of morals), that has an official public worship that displeases God and is worse than a lot of what the Prots came up with in terms of Liturgy, that has a huge pool of bogus saints, including the destroyers themselves (the greatest uninterrupted line of saint popes since the early martyr popes, despite their responsibility for the greatest decay of the Church in history) ... and you are trying to tell me that's the Catholic Church. You might as well be calling my mother a whore ... and you are.
So please take your nonsense somewhere else. Stop playing your game with splitting hairs about the strict limits of infallibility. This goes WAY BEYOND THAT. If there hadn't been a New Mass and new Sacraments and all the bogus saints, there likely would be only a very small Traditional movement. But the overall perception we have of the Conciliar Church ... that monstrosity is simply unrecognizable as the Church.
-
Are we Prots now? There are lots of things that Scripture doesn't detail regarding ecclesiology, but which are in the Church's Tradition. Early in Church history, expression that "Peter has spoken; the matter is closed" was very widely used, and the teachings of the Church Fathers are that the Roman See can not err or be polluted with error.
This isn't about the strict limits of infallibility, as I have repeatedly pointed out. It is about the question of whether the Catholic Church can change so drastically that it would be unrecognizable to Catholics living 100 years ago and mistaken for a Protestant sect. This Conciliar Church lacks the marks of the Catholic Church, as Archbishop Lefebvre has repeatedly stated, and, agreeing with the Catholic Encyclopedia and pretty much every Catholic theologian in history, we hold that this is not possible, as it would be tantamount to a defection of the Church.
What the exact legal disposition is of the man sitting on the Chair in Rome, that can be debated, and frankly it's a sideshow distraction. Whether the see is vacant or "impounded" (Father Chazal) or whatever, that's not for us to dispose of. We simply know that we cannot be part of this institution. We don't belong there. We do not hear from Rome the "Voice of the Shepherd" and do not recognize their Magisterium as the Catholic Magisterium. That's why we're Traditional Catholics. If I thought that Conciliar Church was the Church, I'd never dream of abandoning it but would rather be at some FSSP chapel smelling the smells and hearing the bells.
See, when you have an institution that Catholics simply don't recognize as Catholic and that you must stay away from to please God and keep the faith, if that wouldn't constitute a defection of the Church, then nothing would.
Catholic Encyclopedia:
We see a Conciliar Church that has corrupted doctrine (both of faith and, with Bergoglio, also now of morals), that has an official public worship that displeases God and is worse than a lot of what the Prots came up with in terms of Liturgy, that has a huge pool of bogus saints, including the destroyers themselves (the greatest uninterrupted line of saint popes since the early martyr popes, despite their responsibility for the greatest decay of the Church in history) ... and you are trying to tell me that's the Catholic Church. You might as well be calling my mother a whore ... and you are.
So please take your nonsense somewhere else. Stop playing your game with splitting hairs about the strict limits of infallibility. This goes WAY BEYOND THAT. If there hadn't been a New Mass and new Sacraments and all the bogus saints, there likely would be only a very small Traditional movement. But the overall perception we have of the Conciliar Church ... that monstrosity is simply unrecognizable as the Church.
Lots of rhetorical slashing and thrashing.
I hope someone will mention some Scripture here.
-
Question for all - DL, Lad, Roman Theo, anyone: Where in Scripture does it say that our popes and bishops cannot teach error, error that might even "make void the commandment of God"?
Considering Scripture does not use the term "Pope" anywhere, you'd be hard-pressed to find what you're looking for.
But here's a few on heresy and heretics from A Textual Concordance on the Scriptures:
But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach a gospel to you besides that which we have preached to you, let him be anathema. [9] As we said before, so now I say again: If any one preach to you a gospel, besides that which you have received, let him be anathema. - Gal. 1:8, 9
Beware lest any man cheat you by philosophy, and vain deceit; according to the tradition of men, according to the elements of the world, and not according to Christ: - Col. 2:8
[18] Let no man seduce you, willing in humility, and religion of angels, walking in the things which he hath not seen, in vain puffed up by the sense of his flesh, [19] And not holding the head, from which the whole body, by joints and bands, being supplied with nourishment and compacted, groweth unto the increase of God. - Col. 2:18, 19
O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding the profane novelties of words, and oppositions of knowledge falsely so called. [21] Which some promising, have erred concerning the faith. - 1 Tim. 6:20, 21
A man that is a heretic, after the first and second admonition, avoid: [11] Knowing that he, that is such an one, is subverted, and sinneth, being condemned by his own judgment. -Titus 3:10, 11
Whosoever revolteth, and continueth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that continueth in the doctrine, the same hath both the Father and the Son. [10] If any man come to you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into the house nor say to him, God speed you. For he that saith unto him, God speed you, communicateth with his wicked works. - 2 John 1:9-11
Also, the term "sedeism" comes across as retarded. What is it even supposed to mean? Seatism? See-ism? Chair-ism? What does it even imply? One who believes in the Holy See? The Chair? Does it mean sedeplenism or sedevacantism or sedeimpoundism?
It implies, to me, that it is an error to believe in the See of Rome or the Chair of St. Peter. Rather than the reality of sedevacantism: belief that the See is currently vacant, which has precedent in the Church every single time a Pope dies, only this time that it is of an unprecedented length. That is no heresy, maybe an error, but applying a stupid term like "sedeism" to it is unnecessary and misleading.
-
Lots of rhetorical slashing and thrashing.
I hope someone will mention some Scripture here.
"The senseless man shall not know: nor will the fool understand these things."
[Psalms 91:7 (http://drbo.org/cgi-bin/d?b=drb&bk=21&ch=91&l=7#x)]
You left yourself wide open, DR. ;)
-
Considering Scripture does not use the term "Pope" anywhere, you'd be hard-pressed to find what you're looking for.
Ah, no. Where is the concept in Scripture? Is it there?
-
Ah, no. Where is the concept in Scripture? Is it there?
Considering you're attempting to use subterfuge to box me into your conclusion, how about you tell me?
-
Considering you're attempting to use subterfuge to box me into your conclusion, how about you tell me?
Actually I'm not trying to do anything. You likely won't believe me, but I simply asked a question.
As I think you can see, I'm asserting the absence of the concept. I don't have to show what I say is not there.
-
Also, the term "sedeism" comes across as retarded. What is it even supposed to mean? Seatism? See-ism? Chair-ism? What does it even imply? One who believes in the Holy See? The Chair? Does it mean sedeplenism or sedevacantism or sedeimpoundism?
Normally sedeism is short for sedevacantism, but since you mention it I guess one could also say it often means sedewhateverism, since all of the various ideas having to do with the status of popes are at the very least, unnecessary in order to keep the faith.
-
Where in Scripture does it say that our popes and bishops cannot teach error, error that might even "make void the commandment of God"?
(http://drbo.org/cgi-bin/d?b=drb&bk=49&ch=22&l=31-#x)
31] (http://drbo.org/cgi-bin/d?b=drb&bk=49&ch=22&l=31-#x) And the Lord said: Simon, Simon, behold Satan hath desired to have you, that he may sift you as wheat: [32] (http://drbo.org/cgi-bin/d?b=drb&bk=49&ch=22&l=32-#x) But I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not: and thou, being once converted, confirm thy brethren. (Luke 22:31-32)
Obviously the prayer of Christ is efficacious and guaranteed to be answered in the way it is asked, unlike our prayers. And this applies not just to Peter, but to all his successors, since this is for the benefit of the office that Peter holds (or will soon hold), not for Peter personally as a man.
-
Obviously the prayer of Christ is efficacious and guaranteed to be answered in the way it is asked, unlike our prayers. And this applies not just to Peter, but to all his successors, since this is for the benefit of the office that Peter holds (or will soon hold), not for Peter personally as a man.
Don't forget that it was almost immediately after that, St. Peter denied Him 3 times. Luke 22:57-60
-
So you've double-downed despite Matthew's warning in the "And Yet Another Novus Ordo Sacrilege" thread.
Subjective enough for you ByzCat?
Yeah. You were straight up right here and I was wrong. I apologize
I really don’t understand the irrational NO hatred for Sedes. Like I get some very vocal ones are jerks online, but all of the priests seem like pretty good people. I do find some of the petty squabbling petty. But I’m still closer to a sede that thinks I or even Lefebvre is a heretic than I am some Protestant let alone someone who isn’t even Christian.
like I DO understand why a conservative NO would think sspv and cmri aren’t Catholic Churches but to subjectively say the people who go there are certainly damned is insane for an NO
-
Don't forget that it was almost immediately after that, St. Peter denied Him 3 times. Luke 22:57-60
St. Peter's denial of Christ wasn't a failure in his faith, though. He believed interiorly while denying outwardly. Arguably this would include professing the faith as well as believing it interiorly, but in any case, this applies to St. Peter as pope, though, and he wasn't pope yet when he denied Christ.
-
Is it heresy to teach something which goes beyond the Word of God and in fact denies it?
Jesus said of the Pharisees that they were legitimate rulers in Israel (the OT covenant people of God):
And yet:
The Catholic Church is the Israel of the New Covenant. The annotators of the original Douay Rheims reminds us that, under the New Covenant, the Catholic Church "answereth to the seat of Moses" (I'll track down the quote later) - i.e., the hierarchy of the RCC replaced the Pharisees as the legitimate authority.
Question for all - DL, Lad, Roman Theo, anyone: Where in Scripture does it say that our popes and bishops cannot teach error, error that might even "make void the commandment of God"?
I know the hierarchy (cf. the Pharisees) teaches it can't, and that it is "infallible" and "indefectible" under certain conditions, but where does Scripture teach it?
Interesting discussion.
Thank you,
DR
Catholicism 101: Scripture:
Protestant: The Bible is our sole guide!!!!
Catholic: Umm, who decided what books would constitute scripture?
Answer: The Church.
To answer your question directly. A verse that comes to mind is Luke 10:16
"He that heareth you, heareth me; and he that despiseth you, despiseth me; and he that despiseth me, despiseth him that sent me."
[Luke 10:16] (http://drbo.org/cgi-bin/d?b=drb&bk=49&ch=10&l=16#x) (http://"Luke 10:16)
-
To answer your question directly. A verse that comes to mind is Luke 10:16
"He that heareth you, heareth me; and he that despiseth you, despiseth me; and he that despiseth me, despiseth him that sent me."
[Luke 10:16] (http://drbo.org/cgi-bin/d?b=drb&bk=49&ch=10&l=16#x) (http://"Luke 10:16)
That's a good quote. There's hardly a Traditional Catholic who doesn't "despise" Jorge Bergoglio (what he teaches and stands for anyway). So should really hope that Bergoglio is not Peter.
-
Don't forget that it was almost immediately after that, St. Peter denied Him 3 times. Luke 22:57-60
He was not yet the Pope at that time. He wasn't Pope until after the Resurrection when Christ undoes his threefold denial:
When therefore they had dined, Jesus saith to Simon Peter: Simon, son of John, lovest thou me more than these? He saith to him: Yea, Lord, thou knowest that I love thee. He saith to him: Feed my lambs. 16 He saith to him again: Simon, son of John, lovest thou me? He saith to him: yea, Lord, thou knowest that I love thee. He saith to him: Feed my lambs. 17 He said to him the third time: Simon, son of John, lovest thou me? Peter was grieved because he had said to him the third time: Lovest thou me? And he said to him: Lord, thou knowest all things: thou knowest that I love thee. He said to him: Feed my sheep. -John 21:15-17
Edit: I missed this, but 100% agreed
St. Peter's denial of Christ wasn't a failure in his faith, though. He believed interiorly while denying outwardly. Arguably this would include professing the faith as well as believing it interiorly, but in any case, this applies to St. Peter as pope, though, and he wasn't pope yet when he denied Christ.
-
St. Peter's denial of Christ wasn't a failure in his faith, though. He believed interiorly while denying outwardly. Arguably this would include professing the faith as well as believing it interiorly, but in any case, this applies to St. Peter as pope, though, and he wasn't pope yet when he denied Christ.
Understood. Certainly yes, it does apply to the successors of St. Peter, per V1 when he speaks ex cathedra.
-
To answer your question directly. A verse that comes to mind is Luke 10:16
"He that heareth you, heareth me; and he that despiseth you, despiseth me; and he that despiseth me, despiseth him that sent me."
[Luke 10:16] (http://drbo.org/cgi-bin/d?b=drb&bk=49&ch=10&l=16#x) (http://"Luke 10:16)
Sure, the pope and the bishops have and are legitimate authority, and are to be treated as legitimate authority. That is all that says. And I say the same thing.
I could refer you to numerous passages in the OT where the same or similar is said of the priests, the Levites, etc. - the successors to Moses's and Aaron's authority. In fact, I can recall a passage where God accuses them of idolatry and in the next breath proclaims, nonetheless, that they remain the legitimate ministers in his Church.
Having legitimate authority does not equal infallibility, nor indefectibility.
-
(http://drbo.org/cgi-bin/d?b=drb&bk=49&ch=22&l=31-#x)
Obviously the prayer of Christ is efficacious and guaranteed to be answered in the way it is asked, unlike our prayers. And this applies not just to Peter, but to all his successors, since this is for the benefit of the office that Peter holds (or will soon hold), not for Peter personally as a man.
Yeti,
Thank you.
It is not obvious from the verse that this applies beyond Peter. It requires an extraneous (to what the text says) reasoning and inference to get to Peter's successors, as evidenced by you saying it does "since this is for the benefit . . ." Nowhere is that indicated in the text. Our Lord said, prayed for "thee," i.e Peter.
And that's without even wandering into the hole of what "faith faileth not" means.
DR
-
Sure, the pope and the bishops have and are legitimate authority, and are to be treated as legitimate authority. That is all that says. And I say the same thing.
I could refer you to numerous passages in the OT where the same or similar is said of the priests, the Levites, etc. - the successors to Moses's and Aaron's authority. In fact, I can recall a passage where God accuses them of idolatry and in the next breath proclaims, nonetheless, that they remain the legitimate ministers in his Church.
Having legitimate authority does not equal infallibility, nor indefectibility.
You didn't bother to quote the first part:
Catholicism 101: Scripture:
Protestant: The Bible is our sole guide!!!!
Catholic: Umm, who decided what books would constitute scripture?
Answer: The Church.
God did NOT give us the Bible ALONE. As written, you seem to be setting up the Bible against The Church; they are NOT to be separated. His Church has clarified when His minister's teaching is infallible and when it is not. If and when the present disaster is over, She will have some more clarification to do.
-
And that's without even wandering into the hole of what "faith faileth not" means.
DR
Maybe we should read some Scripture commentaries by the Fathers and Doctors rather than try and figure it out for ourselves?
Cornelius a Lapide on Luke 22:31
Another and a certain privilege was common to Peter with all his successors, that he and all the other bishops of Rome (for Peter, as Christ willed, founded and confirmed the Pontifical Church at Rome), should never openly fall from this faith, so as to teach the Church heresy, or any error, contrary to the faith. So S. Leo (serm. xxii.), on Natalis of SS. Peter and Paul; S. Cyprian (Lib. i. ep. 3), to Cornelius; Lucius I., Felix I., Agatho, Nicolas I., Leo IX., Innocent III., Bernard and others, whom Bellarmine cites and follows (Lib. i. de Pontif. Roman). For it was necessary that Christ, by His most wise providence, should provide for His Church, which is ever being sifted and tempted by the devil, and that not only in the time of Peter, but at all times henceforth, even to the end of the world, an oracle of the true faith which she might consult in every doubt, and by which she might be taught and confirmed in the faith, otherwise the Church might err in faith, quod absit! For she is, as S. Paul said to Timothy, “the pillar and ground of the truth” (1 Tim. 3:15). This oracle of the Church then is Peter, and all successive bishops of Rome. This promise made to Peter and his successors, most especially applies to the time when Peter, as the successor of Christ, began to be the head of the Church, that is, after the death of Christ.
Note how it says nothing about infallibility or ex cathedra, but his teaching in general.
-
Maybe we should read some Scripture commentaries by the Fathers and Doctors rather than try and figure it out for ourselves?
Cornelius a Lapide on Luke 22:31Note how it says nothing about infallibility or ex cathedra, but his teaching in general.
Yessiree. The Church cannot teach major error or heresy in Her authentic magisterium, but she also cannot defect in the way that some Sedevacantists imply; especially Totalists.
As Papa Pio NoNo said about the heretical & schismatic Old Catholics:
“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. They assert the necessity of restoring a legitimate episcopacy in the person of their pseudo-bishop, who has entered not by the gate but from elsewhere like a thief or robber and calls the damnation of Christ upon his head.”
Totalists Sedevacantist ecclesiology is simply not tenable. In fact, it’s impossible.
The only way to reconcile Traditional ecclesiology with indefectibility in teaching is by adhering to a variation of Msgr. Lefebvre’s Conciliar church/eclipse hypothesis like Fr. Chazal’s Sedeimpoundism or Msgr. Des Lauriers’ Cassiciacuм Thesis.
Objectively considered, Recognize and Resist outside of the above paradigm and Totalist Sedevacantism are both worthy of being condemned as heretical comedy bordering on the insane.
-
Totalists Sedevacantist ecclesiology is simply not tenable. In fact, it’s impossible.
The only way to reconcile Traditional ecclesiology with indefectibility in teaching is by adhering to a variation of Msgr. Lefebvre’s Conciliar church/eclipse hypothesis like Fr. Chazal’s Sedeimpoundism or Msgr. Des Lauriers’ Cassiciacuм Thesis.
Objectively considered, Recognize and Resist outside of the above paradigm and Totalist Sedevacantism are both worthy of being condemned as heretical comedy bordering on the insane.
Completely agree. Hence why I hold to the Cassiciacuм thesis.
-
Lots of rhetorical slashing and thrashing.
I hope someone will mention some Scripture here.
No, it wasn't. Catholic teaching is based on Scripture AND Sacred Tradition.
-
Yessiree. The Church cannot teach major error or heresy in Her authentic magisterium, but she also cannot defect in the way that some Sedevacantists imply; especially Totalists.
As Papa Pio NoNo said about the heretical & schismatic Old Catholics:
“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. They assert the necessity of restoring a legitimate episcopacy in the person of their pseudo-bishop, who has entered not by the gate but from elsewhere like a thief or robber and calls the damnation of Christ upon his head.”
Totalists Sedevacantist ecclesiology is simply not tenable. In fact, it’s impossible.
The only way to reconcile Traditional ecclesiology with indefectibility in teaching is by adhering to a variation of Msgr. Lefebvre’s Conciliar church/eclipse hypothesis like Fr. Chazal’s Sedeimpoundism or Msgr. Des Lauriers’ Cassiciacuм Thesis.
Objectively considered, Recognize and Resist outside of the above paradigm and Totalist Sedevacantism are both worthy of being condemned as heretical comedy bordering on the insane.
Vatican II and the "Conciliar revolution" should have taught us that the Emperor has no clothes.
Yet the Emperor sans his clothes is still the Emperor of an Empire.
-
Vatican II and the "Conciliar revolution" should have taught us that the Emperor has no clothes.
Yet the Emperor sans his clothes is still the Emperor of an Empire.
Nah. Analogy doesn’t work. Two different paradigms of operation. Reminds me of the bad dad analogy.
Here’s a better one instead: Imagine your dad telling you that he is unable to teach you error all of your life from the day you reach the age of reason. You grow up believing this and as you look around you, all of the other dads are manifestly in major error while your dad has never taught you anything except what is in accord with right reason. Even your friends and acquaintances can attest to this; indeed, anyone who sees your dad says the same.
One day, your always beautiful and strong father comes in to your room, but he looks much different. Darkened, ugly, and putrified you can’t tell that it’s him. The stench alone makes it difficult to be in the same room and his sight so hideous that you feel nauseous to gaze at him. Suddenly, in an ugly and painful voice to hear, he tells you that what he taught you before was wrong. What he conveyed to you a few years ago was simply not true and that he is not able to teach error was a lie. You are confused because you are not sure that it’s him. In fact, you are sure that it cannot be him. Everything is different on one random day. So manifestly different that you are certain it cannot be the same man. No sickness can produce such a grotesque phenomenon. Nothing has remained similar; not countenance, nor voice, nor smell, nor action, nor speech, nor anything you were accustomed to. It is an essential & substantial change to his very nature; not accidental. Indeed, not even lore can explain it. No mere man to werewolf or human to vampire. The thing itself is something else in itself.
Here you have two options: Believe the clear imposter that he is your dad simply because he had the key to come in to your room or come to the rational conclusion that he is a fake and phony menace who wishes to harm you.
Sanely, I take the latter option.
-
Nah. Analogy doesn’t work. Two different paradigms of operation. Reminds me of the bad dad analogy.
Here’s a better one instead: Imagine your dad telling you that he is unable to teach you error all of your life from the day you reach the age of reason. You grow up believing this and as you look around you, all of the other dads are manifestly in major error while your dad has never taught you anything except what is in accord with right reason. Even your friends and acquaintances can attest to this; indeed, anyone who sees your dad says the same.
One day, your always beautiful and strong father comes in to your room, but he looks much different. Darkened, ugly, and putrified you can’t tell that it’s him. The stench alone makes it difficult to be in the same room and his sight so hideous that you feel nauseous to gaze at him. Suddenly, in an ugly and painful voice to hear, he tells you that what he taught you before was wrong. What he conveyed to you a few years ago was simply not true and that he is not able to teach error was a lie. You are confused because you are not sure that it’s him. In fact, you are sure that it cannot be him. Everything is different on one random day. So manifestly different that you are certain it cannot be the same man. No sickness can produce such a grotesque phenomenon. Nothing has remained similar; not countenance, nor voice, nor smell, nor action, nor speech, nor anything you were accustomed to. It is an essential change to his very nature; not accidental.
Here you have two options: Believe the clear imposter that he is your dad simply because he had the key to come in to your room or come to the rational conclusion that he is a fake and phony menace who wishes to harm you.
Sanely, I take the latter option.
It works as to indefectibility and infallibility I think.
Your analogy's not bad. I'll give you one as well.
A man sells you a car and says, "this car will NEVER get a flat." You buy the car.
A few thousand miles later, you notice the right front tire is really worn and needs to be replaced. You take it in to a mechanic, and he puts a new tire on.
The next day, you're on your way to an important meeting, and you get a flat in the new right tire.
You go back to the man who sold you the car, and you say, "Hey, I got a new tire on the car and I got a flat the next day."
The guy tells you, "that mechanic didn't put a real tire on the car."
But he simply told you that "this car will NEVER get a flat."
He has an explanation, but he sold you a car that got a flat, a car that he told you would never get a flat.
-
Completely agree. Hence why I hold to the Cassiciacuм thesis.
Yes, Cassiciacuм makes perfect sense and solves nearly all the legitimate difficulties with straight sedevacantism. Father Chazal's position is also strong ... and only different in subtle nuance from sedeprivationism. Father Chazal emphasizes the material possession of office, whereas most sedeprivationists emphasize the formal vacancy. But it's just two views of the same thing. Bergoglio (et al.) deprived of all teaching authority while remaining in possession of the office and possibly some aspects of jurisdiction (able to make appointments, etc.) If Bergoglio can make appointments and those who hold the office can have formal authority if not impeded by their own heresy, eccelsiavacantism problem with (objection to) SV completely evaporates.
NOTE: Father Chazal denies this because he does not want to be seen as "sedevacantist", but I have seen no convincing argument that his position is any different other than in emphasis. In his video introducing Sede-impoundism, he emphasizes that Bergoglio is indeed a manifest heretic and thereby is impounded and has NO authority, that he can and must be entirely ignored. Classic R&R holds that he still has authority, which must be obeyed when it's not in opposition to Tradition. It's more of an ad hoc disobedience to specific commannds, whereas both SPism and Sedeimpoundism hold that he categorically lacks the authority.
Both classic R&R and (what LOT called) "pure" Sedevacantism have legitimate serious issues, which these groups have been fond of pointing out about one another. SPism solves both sets of complaints. Beside that, Bishop Guerard was a if not THE top theologian in the Church prior to Vatican II, so I love it when people attack him and characterize his theory as "idiotic". Nor did he invent the formal vs. material distinction regarding the papacy; it can be found in St. Robert Bellarmine and many other theologians.
I actually believe that Archbishop Lefebvre was closer to impoundism than to what R&R has morphed into. He emphatically stated that this degree of destruction cannot happen, since the Papacy is guided by the Holy Spirit (which most modern R&R reject), thinks SVism is possible, but defers to the Church for the final solution and filled with hostility toward the other side, often moreso than toward the Modernist occupiers of the Church.
When Father Chazal came out with his position, I was hoping that it might be a bridge between the SV and R&R camps, but it hasn't worked out that way as many SVs and R&Rs are dogmatically entrenched in their respective positions.
-
When Father Chazal came out with his position, I was hoping that it might be a bridge between the SV and R&R camps, but it hasn't worked out that way as many SVs and R&Rs are dogmatically entrenched in their respective positions.
This right here is the problem preventing any sort of trad unity among trad clergy.
-
In his video introducing Sede-impoundism, he emphasizes that Bergoglio is indeed a manifest heretic and thereby is impounded and has NO authority, that he can and must be entirely ignored. Classic R&R holds that he still has authority, which must be obeyed when it's not in opposition to Tradition. It's more of an ad hoc disobedience to specific commannds, whereas both SPism and Sedeimpoundism hold that he categorically lacks the authority.
[...] Archbishop Lefebvre was closer to impoundism than to what R&R has morphed into. He emphatically stated that
(http://www.quickmeme.com/img/64/64eb28ada92be4fa0067845b1db5e2669cce9b0594700a23ed1abca7e205d3c0.jpg)
-
Yes, Cassiciacuм makes perfect sense and solves nearly all the legitimate difficulties with straight sedevacantism. Father Chazal's position is also strong ... and only different in subtle nuance from sedeprivationism. Father Chazal emphasizes the material possession of office, whereas most sedeprivationists emphasize the formal vacancy. But it's just two views of the same thing. Bergoglio (et al.) deprived of all teaching authority while remaining in possession of the office and possibly some aspects of jurisdiction (able to make appointments, etc.) If Bergoglio can make appointments and those who hold the office can have formal authority if not impeded by their own heresy, eccelsiavacantism problem with (objection to) SV completely evaporates.
NOTE: Father Chazal denies this because he does not want to be seen as "sedevacantist", but I have seen no convincing argument that his position is any different other than in emphasis. In his video introducing Sede-impoundism, he emphasizes that Bergoglio is indeed a manifest heretic and thereby is impounded and has NO authority, that he can and must be entirely ignored. Classic R&R holds that he still has authority, which must be obeyed when it's not in opposition to Tradition. It's more of an ad hoc disobedience to specific commannds, whereas both SPism and Sedeimpoundism hold that he categorically lacks the authority.
Both classic R&R and (what LOT called) "pure" Sedevacantism have legitimate serious issues, which these groups have been fond of pointing out about one another. SPism solves both sets of complaints. Beside that, Bishop Guerard was a if not THE top theologian in the Church prior to Vatican II, so I love it when people attack him and characterize his theory as "idiotic". Nor did he invent the formal vs. material distinction regarding the papacy; it can be found in St. Robert Bellarmine and many other theologians.
I actually believe that Archbishop Lefebvre was closer to impoundism than to what R&R has morphed into. He emphatically stated that this degree of destruction cannot happen, since the Papacy is guided by the Holy Spirit (which most modern R&R reject), thinks SVism is possible, but defers to the Church for the final solution and filled with hostility toward the other side, often moreso than toward the Modernist occupiers of the Church.
When Father Chazal came out with his position, I was hoping that it might be a bridge between the SV and R&R camps, but it hasn't worked out that way as many SVs and R&Rs are dogmatically entrenched in their respective positions.
It sounds a lot like supplied jurisdiction through common error of the identity of the holder of the office that was applied particularily in the great western schism. That is, as long as you believed a claimant do be the office holder and they gave you jurisdiction, then the church would directly supply the jurisdiction to you for the common good. I think theres more nuance to it. One potential application i could see is for the greek, syrian and coptic schismatics who hold their respective "patriarchs" to be the head/first/prince of the church/bishops, the greeks even directly usurping the pope's office and calling themselves new and third rome. Such a sub bishop/priest/lay person, if free of heresy and not schismatic in heart, i believe would have supplied jurisdiction through common error over the identity of the pope (antipope bartholomew). I imagine this in reality would only apply to laity as all the schismatic clergy of the east profess some manner of heresy.
-
It sounds a lot like supplied jurisdiction through common error of the identity of the holder of the office that was applied particularily in the great western schism. That is, as long as you believed a claimant do be the office holder and they gave you jurisdiction, then the church would directly supply the jurisdiction to you for the common good. I think theres more nuance to it. One potential application i could see is for the greek, syrian and coptic schismatics who hold their respective "patriarchs" to be the head/first/prince of the church/bishops, the greeks even directly usurping the pope's office and calling themselves new and third rome. Such a sub bishop/priest/lay person, if free of heresy and not schismatic in heart, i believe would have supplied jurisdiction through common error over the identity of the pope (antipope bartholomew). I imagine this in reality would only apply to laity as all the schismatic clergy of the east profess some manner of heresy.
Except the orthodoxy of officeholders/claimants was not under question during the Western Schism.
-
I was going to make a huge post engaging the points about the misunderstanding of the sedevacantist position especially in regards to the 4 Marks and Visible Church but instead I will link the Dimonds "Answers to the most common objections of Sedevacantism." The whole thing is a good read but number 15 addressed the Visible Church issue.
https://schismatic-home-aloner.com/21_Objections.pdf