If Bergoglio is the pope of the Catholic Church, then the Catholic Church has defected and Christianity itself is a false religion.Only if you think there is no such thing as the “authentic magisterium “ (ie., teachings “promulgated” by those invested with office, but which are non-magisterial due to lacking universality of time; such teachings are ipso facto those of private doctors which have gained widespread assent and a counterfeit officiality by using the organs of the Church for diffusion).
When it comes down to it, it seems that some sedevacantists have simply lost faith in the Catholic Church.
Sedevacantism is at best an opinion only. It is not a dogma; ... Sedevacantists have forgotten what it means to say "to the best of my knowledge and judgment, such and such seems to have happened. Nevertheless, I am not infallible; and, if the Church judges otherwise, I retract my opinion and submit to the judgment of the Church
Garbage. It's R&R who have lost faith in the Catholic Church, believing that the Magisterium and the Universal Discipline of the Church can fail and lead souls to hell.Right. As John Lane says - the video link was attached to a post I recently made - the infallibility (indefectibility might be more accurate, but the point is valid) of the Church in her disciplines is part of the Catholic faith - this is a definite and beyond dispute. The R & R position entails a denial of that - this is clear and cannot be denied. For example, they say the NO liturgy is "evil."
Only if you think there is no such thing as the “authentic magisterium “ (ie., teachings “promulgated” by those invested with office, but which are non-magisterial due to lacking universality of time; such teachings are ipso facto those of private doctors which have gained widespread assent and a counterfeit officiality by using the organs of the Church for diffusion).
Fr. LeFloch (Lefebvre’s seminary rector in Rome) predicted the error of sedevacantism back in 1926:
“The heresy which is now being born will become the most dangerous of all; the exaggeration of the respect due to the pope and the illegitimate extension of his infallibility.”
http://archives.sspx.org/miscellaneous/infallible_magisterium.htm (http://archives.sspx.org/miscellaneous/infallible_magisterium.htm)
In this field, God has given the Holy Father a kind of infallibility distinct from the charism of doctrinal infallibility in the strict sense. He has so constructed and ordered the Church that those who follow the directives given to the entire kingdom of God on earth will never be brought into the position of ruining themselves spiritually through this obedience. Our Lord dwells within His Church in such a way that those who obey disciplinary and doctrinal directives of this society can never find themselves displeasing God through their adherence to the teachings and the commands given to the universal Church militant. Hence there can be no valid reason to discountenance even the non-infallible teaching authority of Christ’s vicar on earth.
...
It is, of course, possible that the Church might come to modify its stand on some detail of teaching presented as non-infallible matter in a papal encyclical. The nature of the auctoritas providentiae doctrinalis within the Church is such, however, that this fallibility extends to questions of relatively minute detail or of particular application. The body of doctrine on the rights and duties of labor, on the Church and State, or on any other subject treated extensively in a series of papal letters directed to and normative for the entire Church militant could not be radically or completely erroneous. The infallible security Christ wills that His disciples should enjoy within His Church is utterly incompatible with such a possibility.
Right. As John Lane says - the video link was attached to a post I recently made - the infallibility (indefectibility might be more accurate, but the point is valid) of the Church in her disciplines is part of the Catholic faith - this is a definite and beyond dispute. The R & R position entails a denial of that - this is clear and cannot be denied. For example, they say the NO liturgy is "evil."
Yet, for example, Xavier claims that Sedes are heretics for denying the apostolicity of the Church - without having proven a definition of "apostolic" that the Sedes violate, unlike the clearly defined principle above that is violated by the R & R position.
Indeed . . . garbage.
In fact, Bishop Sanborn wrote an entire article condemning what he called the "opinionist" sedevacantists.
I assume you mean "MERELY authentic" Magisterium. Infallible Magisterium is also authentic. That's the wrong question, Sean. Of course there's merely authentic, i.e. non-infallible Magisterium. And R&R vs. sedes have been arguing the wrong issue all these years. It isn't about infallibility in the narrow sense but about the overall indefectibility of the Catholic Church. If we were talking about a couple minor points here or there in Vatican II that required some amendment, I'd have little issue. But if that's what we were talking about, there would be no Traditional movement in the first place. If the Catholic Magisterium and Universal Discipline could go so badly off the rails as to justify and even require a Traditional movement, then the Magisterium and Universal Discipline of the Church would have failed. If the Magisterium, authentic or otherwise, were capable of leading souls to hell, then it's worthless and we might as well be Protestants. This is about indefectibility and not infallibility. By asserting that the official Church teaching (infallible or not) could fail on so grand a scale as to justify the Traditionalist response, you're undermining the Church's indefectibility.Why do you quote this bit from Fr. Fenton? This, in bold, is a Fr. Fentonism, a Fr. Fenton Original, it is heresy or at least grave error, it is most assuredly not a teaching of the Church, and does, in fact, change what the Church infallibly teaches as regards the infallibility of the pope.
The Magisterium and Universal Discipline of the Church must be considered infallibly safe:
Monsignor Fenton:QuoteIn this field, God has given the Holy Father a kind of infallibility distinct from the charism of doctrinal infallibility in the strict sense. He has so constructed and ordered the Church that those who follow the directives given to the entire kingdom of God on earth will never be brought into the position of ruining themselves spiritually through this obedience...
I assume you mean "MERELY authentic" Magisterium. Infallible Magisterium is also authentic. That's the wrong question, Sean. Of course there's merely authentic, i.e. non-infallible Magisterium. And R&R vs. sedes have been arguing the wrong issue all these years. It isn't about infallibility in the narrow sense but about the overall indefectibility of the Catholic Church. If we were talking about a couple minor points here or there in Vatican II that required some amendment, I'd have little issue. But if that's what we were talking about, there would be no Traditional movement in the first place. If the Catholic Magisterium and Universal Discipline could go so badly off the rails as to justify and even require a Traditional movement, then the Magisterium and Universal Discipline of the Church would have failed. If the Magisterium, authentic or otherwise, were capable of leading souls to hell, then it's worthless and we might as well be Protestants. This is about indefectibility and not infallibility. By asserting that the official Church teaching (infallible or not) could fail on so grand a scale as to justify the Traditionalist response, you're undermining the Church's indefectibility.
The Magisterium and Universal Discipline of the Church must be considered infallibly safe:
Monsignor Fenton:
In order to rebut the R&R position that the Magisterium and Universal Discipline of the Church can defect, many sedevacantists have exaggerated the scope of infallibility beyond what any Catholic theologians prior to Vatican II ever held. It's because they're arguing the wrong point and mistaking the broader indefectibility question with the notion of infallibility "in the strict sense" (as Mgr. Fenton referred to it).
How can we be sure that only sedevacantists have taken this poll?
This can easily lead to non-sedevacantists taking the poll just to click on and promote their own current positions.
Susceptible to vote fraud.
That's because, according to those with the principles of sedevacantism, either the Magisterium of the Church means something or it doesn't.One of the few threads I've seen where people seem to be grappling with the issues and not just talking past each other.
| |||
What worries Catholics most in the current crisis in the Church is precisely the "problem of the pope." We need very clear ideas on this question. We must avoid shipwreck to the right and to the left, either by the spirit of rebellion or, on the other hand, by an inappropriate and servile obedience. The serious error which is behind many current disasters is the belief that the "Authentic Magisterium" is nothing other than the "Ordinary Magisterium." The "Authentic Magisterium" cannot be so simply identified with the Ordinary Magisterium. In fact, the Ordinary Magisterium can be infallible and non-infallible, and it is only in this second case that it is called the "Authentic Magisterium." The Dictionnaire de Theologie Catholique [hereafter referred to as DTC - Ed.] under the heading of "papal infallibility" (vol. VII, col. 1699ff) makes the following distinctions: Similarly, Salaverri, in his Sacrae Theologiae Summa (vol. I, 5th ed., Madrid, B.A.C.) distinguishes the following: While he always has full and supreme doctrinal authority, the pope does not always exercise it at its highest level that is at the level of infallibility. As the theologians say, he is like a giant who does not always use his full strength. What follows is this: Error by Excess and/or By Defect Unfortunately this three-fold distinction between the Extraordinary Magisterium, the Ordinary Infallible Magisterium, and the authentic non-infallible Magisterium, has fallen into oblivion. This has resulted in two opposite errors in the crisis situation of the Church at the present time: the error by excess of those who extend papal infallibility to all acts of the pope, without distinction; and the error by defect of those who restrict infallibility to definitions that have been uttered ex cathedra. The error by excess actually eliminates the Ordinary Non-Infallible or "Authentic" Magisterium and inevitably leads either to Sedevacantism or to servile obedience. The attitude of the people of this second category is, "The pope is always infallible and so we always owe him blind obedience." The error by defect eliminates the Ordinary Infallible Magisterium. This is precisely the error of the neo-Modernists, who devalue the ordinary papal Magisterium and the "Roman tradition" which they find so inconvenient. They say, "The pope is infallible only in his Extraordinary Magisterium, so we can sweep away 2000 years of ordinary papal Magisterium." Both of these errors obscure the precise notion of the Ordinary Magisterium, which includes the Ordinary Infallible Magisterium and the ordinary, "authentic," non-infallible Magisterium. Confusion and Controversy These two opposing errors are not new. They were denounced even before Vatican II. In 1954, Fr. Labourdette, O.P., wrote: Quote
Dom Paul Nau has also written (http://archives.sspx.org/miscellaneous/infallible_magisterium.htm#pope%20or%20church) about the confusion that has arisen between the pope’s authority and his infallibility: Quote
On the temporary fading of a doctrine from Catholic consciousness, see the entry "dogme" in DTC (vol. IV). Dom Nau also mentioned the disastrous consequences which flow from this identification of the pope’s authority and his infallibility: Quote
Dom Nau considered from where this phenomenon had developed: Quote
This is partly true, but we should not forget that liberal theology had already been advertising its reductive agenda. That is why Pius IX, even before Vatican I (1870) felt obliged to warn German theologians that divine faith’s submission "must not be restricted only to those points which have been defined" (Letter to Archbishop of Munich, Dec. 21, 1863). The naive ideas entertained by many on the question of papal infallibility after Vatican I played into the hands of the liberal theology. In fact, while the two errors are diametrically opposed, they are at one in equating papal authority and papal infallibility. What is the difference between them? The error by excess, regarding as infallible everything that comes from papal authority, stretches the pope’s infallibility to the extent of his authority. The error by defect, considering only those things authorized that emanate from the ex cathedra infallibility, restricts papal authority to the scope of the infallibility of the pope’s Extraordinary Magisterium. Thus both errors have the same effect, namely, to obscure the very notion of the Ordinary Magisterium and, consequently, the particular nature of the Ordinary Infallible Magisterium. It is essential for us to rediscover this notion and its nature because they are of the greatest importance in helping us to get our bearings in the time of crisis. The Ordinary Magisterium in Shadow: Humanae Vitae and Ordinatio Sacerdotalis The lack of clear ideas on the pope’s Ordinary Magisterium appeared in full with Pope Paul VI’s encyclical, Humanae Vitae, and more recently with Ordinatio Sacerdotalis, in which Pope John Paul II repeated the Church’s refusal to ordain women. When Humanae Vitae came out, various theologians indicated that the notion of ordinary papal Magisterium was obscured. Generally speaking, those who supported the infallibility of Humanae Vitae deduced "the proof [of this infallibility - Ed.] on the basis of the Church’s constant and universal Authentic Magisterium, which has never been abandoned and therefore was already definitive in earlier centuries." In other words, on the basis of the Ordinary Infallible Magisterium (E. Lio, Humanae Vitae ed infallibilita, Libreria Ed. Vaticana, p.38). They should have noticed that even the notion of the Ordinary Infallible Magisterium and its particularity [its constancy and universality - Ed.] had been effaced from the minds not only of the ordinary faithful but also of the theologians. Cardinal Siri commented: Quote
The same "sophism of enumeration" was pointed out 30 years later by Archbishop Bertone, speaking against the opposition to Ordinatio Sacerdotalis. On this occasion he explicitly denounced the tendency "to substitute de facto the concept of authority for that of infallibility" (L’Osservatore Romano, Dec. 20, 1996). In fact, it is not only the Ordinary Infallible Magisterium which has fallen into oblivion, but, since authority and infallibility have been equated, the distinction between Ordinary Infallible Magisterium and the ordinary Authentic Magisterium has also been consigned to oblivion. After Vatican I, as Dom Nau wrote, Quote
Thus, we will devote ourselves, not to the Extraordinary Magisterium (whose infallibility is generally acknowledged), but to the Ordinary Magisterium. Once we have illustrated the conditions under which it is infallible, it will be clear that outside these conditions we are in the presence of the "authentic" Magisterium to which, in normal times, we should accord due consideration. In abnormal times, however, it would be a fatal error to equate this "authentic" Magisterium with the infallible Magisterium (whether "extraordinary" or "ordinary"). The Point of the Question Quote
Thus, the assent due to the Ordinary Magisterium "can range from simple respect right up to a true act of faith." (Archbishop Guerry, La Doctrine Sociale de l’Eglise, Paris, Bonne Presse 1957, p.172). It is most important, therefore, to know precisely when the Roman pope’s Ordinary Magisterium is endowed with the charism of infallibility. Since the pope alone possesses the same infallibility conferred by Jesus Christ upon his Church [i.e., the pope plus the bishops in communion with him, cf. Dz.1839), we must conclude that only the pope, in his Ordinary Magisterium, is infallible in the same degree and under the same conditions as the Ordinary Magisterium of the Church is. Thus the truth that is taught must be proposed as already defined, or as what has always been believed or accepted in the Church, or attested by the unanimous and constant agreement of theologians as being a Catholic truth [which is therefore] strictly obligatory for all the faithful (Infaillibilite du Pape, DTC, vol. VII, col. 1705). This condition was recalled by Cardinal Felici in the context of Humanae Vitae: Quote
No one, in fact, can refuse to believe what has certainly been revealed by God. And it is not only those things that have been defined as such that have certainly been revealed by God; the latter also include whatever has been always and everywhere taught by the Church’s Ordinary Magisterium as having been revealed by God. More recently, Archbishop Bertone reminded us that the Ordinary Pontifical Magisterium can teach a doctrine as definitive [bold emphasis in original] in virtue of the fact that it has been constantly preserved and held by Tradition. Such is the case with Ordinatio Sacerdotalis when it repeats the invalidity of the priestly ordination of women, which has always been held by the Church with "unanimity and stability" (L’Osservatore Romano, Dec. 20, 1996). Cardinal Siri, still speaking of Humanae Vitae in the issue of the review Renovatio to which we have referred, explains as follows: Quote
After giving a summary of the Church’s continuous tradition on contraception, from the Didache to the encyclical Casti Connubii of Pope Pius XI, Cardinal Siri concludes: Quote
It is an error, therefore, to extend infallibility unconditionally to the whole of the Ordinary Magisterium of the pope, whether he is speaking urbi et orbi or just addressing pilgrims. It is true that the infallibility of the Extraordinary Magisterium is not enough for the Church; the Extraordinary Magisterium is a rare event, whereas "faith needs infallibility and it needs it every day," as Cardinal Siri himself said (Renovatio, op.cit.). But Cardinal Siri is too good a theologian to forget that even the pope’s infallibility has conditions attached to it. If the Ordinary Magisterium is to be infallible, it must be traditional (cf. Salaverri, loc. cit.). If it breaks with Tradition, the Ordinary Magisterium cannot claim any infallibility. Here we see very clearly the very special nature of the Ordinary Infallible Magisterium, to which we must devote some attention. The Special Nature of the Ordinary Infallible Magisterium As we have seen, Cardinal Siri observes that the Humanae Vitae, even if it is not an act of the ex cathedra Magisterium, would still furnish the guarantee of infallibility, not "of itself," but insofar as it recapitulates "the ancient teaching and the habitual teaching of today" (Renovatio, op. cit.). In fact, in contrast to the Extraordinary Magisterium or the Solemn Judgment, the Ordinary Magisterium does not consist in an isolated proposition, pronouncing irrevocably on the Faith and containing its own guarantees of truth, but in a collection of acts which can concur in communicating a teaching. Quote
This is precisely why the DTC speaks of "infallible papal teaching which flows from the pope’s Ordinary Magisterium" (loc. cit.). So, while a simple doctrinal presentation [by the pope] can never claim the infallibility of a definition, [this infallibility] nonetheless is rigorously implied when there is a convergence on the same subject in a series of docuмents whose continuity, in itself, excludes all possibility of doubt on the authentic content of the Roman teaching (Dom Nau, Une source doctrinale: Les encycliques, p.75). If we fail to take account of this difference, we are obliterating all distinction between the Extraordinary Magisterium and the Ordinary Magisterium: Quote
It follows that 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). 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, OFM Conv., Infaillible meme 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 Civilta 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 Apostolatus: 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. Practical Application Because it declared itself to be non-dogmatic, the charism of infallibility cannot be claimed for the last Council, except insofar as it was re-iterating traditional teaching. Moreover, what is offered as the Ordinary Pontifical Magisterium of the recent popes -apart from certain acts - cannot claim the qualification of the "Ordinary Infallible Magisterium." The pontifical docuмents on the novelties which have troubled and confused the consciences of the faithful manifest no concern whatsoever to adhere to the teaching of "venerable predecessors." They cannot adhere to them because they have broken with them. Look at the footnotes of Dominus Jesus; it’s as if the Magisterium of the preceding popes did not exist. It is clear that when today’s popes contradict the traditional Magisterium of yesterday’s popes, our obedience is due to yesterday’s popes: this is a manifest sign of a period of grave ecclesial crisis, of abnormal times in the life of the Church. Finally, it is evident that the New Theology, which is so unscrupulous in contradicting the traditional teaching of the Roman Pontiffs, contradicts the Infallible Pontifical Magisterium; accordingly, a Catholic must in all conscience reject and actively attack it. The Almost Total Eclipse of the "Authentic" Magisterium The Church’s current crisis is not at the level of the Extraordinary or Ordinary Infallible Magisterium. This would be simply impossible. Furthermore, it is not at the level of the Extraordinary Infallible Magisterium because the Council did not wish to be a dogmatic one, and because Pope Paul VI himself indicated what theological "note" it carried: "Ordinary Magisterium; that is, it is clearly authentic" (General Audience of Dec. 1, 1966: Encycliques et discours de Paul VI, Ed. Paoline, 1966, pp.51, 52). Lastly, it is not at the level of the Ordinary Infallible Magisterium. The turmoil and division in the Catholic world have been provoked by a break with this doctrinal continuity. Such a break is the very opposite of the Ordinary Infallible Magisterium. Thus Paul VI’s Humanae Vitae, or John Paul II’s intervention against women’s ordination in Ordinatio Sacerdotalis caused no dismay to the Church’s obedient sons. The present crisis is at the level of what is presented as the simply "authentic" Magisterium, which, as Cardinal Siri reminds us, "does not of itself imply infallibility" (Renovatio, op.cit.). But are we really dealing with the "authentic" Magisterium? The author of Iota Unum (http://angeluspress.org/Iota-Unum?filter_name=iota%20unum) wrote: Quote
The Magisterium, however, even in its non-infallible form, should always be the teaching of the divine Word, even if uttered with a lesser degree of certitude. Nowadays, it is very often the case that "the pope does not manifest the divine word entrusted to him," but rather "expresses his personal views" which are those of the New Theology. Here we are faced with a "manifestation of the decadence of the Church’s Ordinary [‘authentic’] Magisterium," a decadence which "is creating a very grave crisis for the Church, because it is the Church’s central point which is suffering from it" (ibid.). Can one really speak of the "authentic" Pontifical Magisterium, or would it be more accurate to speak of an almost total eclipse of the Authentic Pontifical Magisterium in the face of an analogous crisis at the level of the episcopal Magisterium? The Danger of Being Drawn into Error Catholic are least prepared to meet the crisis of the Authentic Pontifical Magisterium because of the confusion in their minds regarding the distinction between the pope’s Ordinary Infallible Magisterium and his simply "authentic" Ordinary Magisterium. This problem was pointed out before Vatican II; it has caused and continues to cause Catholics to be drawn into error who wrongly believe that they should give equal assent to the pope’s every word, neglecting the distinctions and precise conditions which we now review. "The command to believe firmly and without examination of the matter in hand... can be truly binding only if the authority concerned is infallible" (Billot, De Ecclesia, thesis XVII). That is why a firm and unconditional assent is demanded in the case of the Infallible Magisterium (whether Extraordinary or Ordinary). Quote
This is why we owe the "authentic" Magisterium not a blind and unconditional assent but a prudent and conditional one: Quote
Unfortunately, all these truths have disappeared from Catholic consciousness, just as the notion of the "authentic" Magisterium has. The Catholic world is all the more in danger of being drawn into error, since it nourishes the naive and erroneous conviction that God has never permitted the popes to be mistaken, even in the Ordinary Magisterium (and here no distinctions are drawn), and so imagines that the same assent should always be given to the papal Magisterium -which in no way corresponds to the Church’s teaching. Infallibility and the "Grace of State" Our discussion of the "grace of state" of the sovereign pontiff proceeds in the context of the Authentic Magisterium. When the pope engages his infallibility, he enjoys a divine assistance that is entirely special, over and above the grace of state. Nonetheless, even infallibility does not reduce him to the level of an automaton. In fact: The Divine assistance does not relieve the bearer of the infallible doctrinal power of the obligation of taking pains to know the truth, especially by means of the study of the sources of Revelation (Dz 1836). That is why, in his Infallible Magisterium, the pope enjoys: This guarantee does not exist in the case of the Authentic Magisterium because it does not enjoy the charism of infallibility. That is why everything is entrusted to the grace of state alone, which impels the pope to act with that "high degree of prudence" which, normally, shines forth from the Authentic Magisterium of the successors of Peter. If, however, a pope were to fail to attain this, no divine promise guarantees God will intervene and stop him. In such a case, indeed, the Catholic world would run the risk of being drawn into error. But it would not be because the pope lacked infallibility; under the due conditions, he would enjoy infallibility just like his predecessors. Nor would it be because he was deprived of the grace of state, but rather that he had not laid hold of that grace. The risk of this is all the greater since the principles we are here setting forth have fallen into oblivion. When the Catholic world had a clear grasp of these principles the danger of being drawn into error was far less. In the history of the Church, we find it was the justified resistance of cardinals, Catholic universities, Catholic princes, religious, and simple faithful which blocked the faux pas of a number of popes, such as Popes John XXII and Sixtus V, concerning whom St. Robert Bellarmine wrote to Clement VIII: Quote
This danger was identified and rejected by the Catholic world. In reality, those who attribute infallibility always to the pope are doing a service neither to themselves, nor to the Church, nor to the pope himself, as the present times are plainly showing us. A pope’s faux pas are a severe trial for the entire Catholic world. Normal Times and Abnormal Times In normal times the faithful can rely on the "authentic" Pontifical Magisterium with the same confidence with which they rely on the Infallible Magisterium. In normal times, it would be a very grave error to fail to take due account of even the simply "authentic" Magisterium of the Roman pope. This is because if everyone were permitted, in the presence of an act of the teaching authority, to suspend his assent or even to doubt or positively reject it on the grounds that it did not imply an infallible definition, it would result in the ecclesiastical Magisterium becoming practically illusory in concrete terms, because the ecclesiastical Magisterium is only relatively rarely expressed in definitions of this kind (DTC, vol. III, col. 1110). It must not be forgotten (as it has been forgotten nowadays) that the security of the Authentic Magisterium is not linked to infallibility, but to the "high degree of prudence" with which the successors of Peter "habitually" proceed, and to the "habitual" care they take never to swerve from the explicit and tacit teaching of their predecessors. Once this prudence and care are missing, we are no longer in normal times. In such a situation it would be a fatal error to equate the Authentic Magisterium of the Roman pontiff with his Infallible Magisterium (Ordinary or Extraordinary). These abnormal times are rare, thanks be to God, but they are not impossible. If we are not to be drawn into error, we urgently need to remember that the assent due to the non-infallible Magisterium is Quote
Dom Nau makes it clear that this prudential assent does not apply in the case of a teaching that is "already traditional," which would belong to the sphere of the Ordinary Infallible Magisterium. However, in the case of a teaching which is not "already traditional," the reservation which interests us does apply: "unless the doctrine rejected... involved a manifest discordance between the pontifical affirmation and the doctrine which had hitherto been taught." Such a situation would legitimize the doctrine’s rejection and would imply no "mark of temerity." Is this kind of "discordance" an impossible hypothesis? Dom Nau, whose attachment to the papacy was without doubt, wrote: Quote
In such a case, refusing one’s assent does not only not manifest temerity: it is a positive duty. The "discordance" with "doctrine which had hitherto been taught" dispenses the Catholic from all obligation to obedience on this point: The general principle is that one owes obedience to the orders of a superior unless, in a particular case, the order appears manifestly unjust. Similarly, a Catholic is bound to adhere interiorly to the teachings of legitimate authority until it becomes evident to him that a particular assertion is erroneous (DTC, vol. III, col. 1110). In the case we are examining, evidence of error is provided where an act of the Authentic Magisterium is discordant with the Extraordinary or Ordinary Infallible Magisterium, i.e., discordant with the traditional doctrine, to which the Catholic conscience is bound for eternity. Faith Does Not Require the Abdication of Logic In conclusion we shall excerpt the text of a theologian, whose passing is much to be regretted, who had a very clear grasp of the doctrine we are recalling here, and who knew well that it had been brought into confusion by the New Theologians. In arguing against Joseph Kleiner on the manifest contradiction between Pope Pius VI’s Auctorem Fidei, which condemns concelebration, and Pope Paul VI’s Instructio, which encourages it, Fr. Joseph de Sainte-Marie, O.C.D., wrote: Quote
To this, nothing need be added, except perhaps to invite readers to pray to the Divine Mercy, through the intercession of the Immaculate Heart of Mary, to remove, as soon as possible, this exceedingly severe trial from the Catholic world. | |||
| |||
In that case, I would probably just go back to being a Protestant because it's so much easier; no Sunday obligation, no confession, no mandatory holy days. Maybe I'd be a Lutheran. Heck maybe I'd be a Buddhist. I mean if salvation can be obtained in any religion or in no religion at all, why not?It is absolutely and unambiguously clear that the Conciliar sect teaches that salvation can be obtained through any religion and even no religion. So, if Bergoglio is the pope, one can legitimately ditch all religion, lead an entirely secular life, just be a "good person", be environmentally conscientious, and one is pretty much assured heaven.
The heresy which is now being born will become the most dangerous of all; the exaggeration of the respect due to the pope and the illegitimate extension of his infallibility.
"You can bring a horse to water, but you can't make it drink."
Carry on!
I will never understand how someone can be R&R and certain Francis is the pope. It doesn't make sense. Accusing sedevacantists of mixing infallibility with indefectibility is just dodging the issue with the latter by attacking the strawman of the former. Fact of the matter is, if Vatican 2 is a legitimate Church council and Francis is a legitimate pope, then the Church has been taken over by non-Catholics and has promulgated teachings and rites which are harmful to faith - by definition, a defection.
Maybe your definition is wrong.Ok then Meg, I'll bite.
Ok then Meg, I'll bite.
What is a defection then? What would have to happen for it to constitute a defection?
Ok then Meg, I'll bite.Silly forlorn. :fryingpan:
Typical sede gibberish, showing you never bothered to read the article (probably because you intuit it would threaten your false faith).
Can we say Gallicanism? What a stupid and ridiculous statement. Yeah, the most “dangerous” heresy of all! 😂
Was modernism on his radar? Sean, you believe in the Church of the superfluous pope. In your bizarre idea of the Church, the pope is unnecessary, he actually has no function except on rare occasions he proclaims a dogma, otherwise he’s just a figurehead. You R&R people want your cake and eat it too, sorry the Church doesn’t work that way. You have to erroneously lower the status of the pope and the papacy in order to support your erroneous thesis. Back 20 years ago the confusion was understandable, it’s wearing a bit thin today.
Also, just because Archbishop Lefebvre did much good for the Church, didn’t mean he was perfect, he wasn’t, sorry.
Typical sede gibberish, showing you never bothered to read the article (probably because you intuit it would threaten your false faith).
Sedevacantism is its own liberal religion of papalotry:
Everything is infallible, or he isn’t the pope.
If I thought Bergoglio was a real pope, I would obey him unquestionably.That's not catholic at all.
That's not catholic at all.Oh really? So you don’t owe obedience to the pope? Is this what the R&R position has come down to? Why do I bother?
Here's what the sedes need to refute: http://archives.sspx.org/miscellaneous/infallible_magisterium.htm (http://archives.sspx.org/miscellaneous/infallible_magisterium.htm)
One of the few threads I've seen where people seem to be grappling with the issues and not just talking past each other.
I've read a fair amount from Francis. He writes differently than the pre-V2 popes did. He is often stating things ambiguously that admit of different interpretations, or talking about possibilities for consideration, without imposing much of anything definitely.
Is Francis being pope really incompatible with the magisterium meaning something, if he's not exactly teaching magisterially?
Ok. So, as I understand it, you're an "opinionist" sedevacantist. A sede-doubtist in other words, who believes neither position is dogmatically certain with the certainty of faith; as you explained, you believe defection is impossible and take the position that R&R contradicts Church indefectibility. You say Pope Paul VI could have been blackmailed, in theory, and this would save indefectibility. You mentioned that distinction between NO Catholics and Indult traditionalists etc that I discussed above. Did I leave anything out?
You and I agree to an extent, I think, on the non-infallible Magisterium. I'm surprised you would then in such a case disagree with Bp. Vigano and even Bp. Schneider. Bp. Schneider arguably is now saying what the Remnant, CFN, One Peter Five, Life Site News etc have argued for some time. I believe we agree Vatican II is non-infallible and defined no new dogma. But perhaps, as you quoted, we may disagree on how radically things have gone "off the rails" as you put it. I believe you once said that if it was only a question of Vatican II you would raise questions through the normal channels and go on with Catholic life as normally as possible. Well, I believe in something close to that. Regarding the Mass, I explained my thoughts earlier; not just a subjective preference but an objective superiority of the TLM. Your thoughts on that?
What if the Popes since 1958 have been anti-popes, since Cardinal Siri was canonically elected, white smoke went up, the crowd roared, it was announced that a new pope had been elected, he accepted the papacy, chose the name Pope Gregory XVII and then an outside source bnai brith, gave the order to threaten him with the deaths of all Catholic hierarchy behind the Iron Curtain. He capitulated and resigned, which was invalid according to cannon law because it was forced.
The Freemasons/ Communists wanted a Pope in exile (also in approved Catholic Prophecy) because they had had a bad experience when they put a Freemason on the Papal Throne previously -- it was Pius IX, who was converted to Catholicism by virtue of the office -- being on the throne of Peter.
So this time they got what they wanted. A true Pope in exile and neutralized, and a series of anti-popes in the Vatican.
Pope Gregory XVII was succeeded by Pope Gregory XVIII and after that they have been in hiding.
This view is not sede.
Fr. Le Floch, superior of the French Seminary in Rome, announced in 1926:Quote
Don't you know that if the R&R downplays infallibility, then they will then perceive the truth to be an exaggeration of infallibility?
Accusing sedevacantists of mixing infallibility with indefectibility is just dodging the issue with the latter by attacking the strawman of the former. Fact of the matter is, if Vatican 2 is a legitimate Church council and Francis is a legitimate pope, then the Church has been taken over by non-Catholics and has promulgated teachings and rites which are harmful to faith - by definition, a defection.
Can we say Gallicanism? What a stupid and ridiculous statement. Yeah, the most “dangerous” heresy of all! 😂
That's not catholic at all.
The article discusses alleged errors which allegedly lead to either sedevacantism or servile obedience.
No, BOTH sides are conflating infallibility and indefectibility. Your second sentence here is in fact the argument from indefectibility. There's no need to exaggerate the scope if "infallibility in the strict sense" (as Msgr. Fenton called it).Well aware. My point was that R&R types accusing sedevacantists of muddling infallibility with indefectibility is NOT a valid counter-argument for R&R's problem with indefectibility.
I'm fairly certain that you would not pay any attention to anything that I would say; except to refute it outright. Sedes haven't the ability to see beyond sedeism. Sedeism gets ahold of a person and imbeds itself so that no other view can even be remotely considered. Sedeism is insidious. No use trying to reason with a sede.Intelligent input, as always. Thanks Meg!
He's talking about with regard to his official papal acts, the Magisterium and Universal Discipline of the Church ... not private commands.Love the use of capital letters in “Universal Discipline,” as if to suggestively enhance the stature of this made-up term.
Love the use of capital letters in “Universal Discipline,” as if to suggestively enhance the stature of this made-up term.
Well aware. My point was that R&R types accusing sedevacantists of muddling infallibility with indefectibility is NOT a valid counter-argument for R&R's problem with indefectibility.
R&R doesn’t accuse sedes of muddling indefectibility with infallibility, but of muddling papal infallibility with papal authority (and of making the distinction between the ordinary and extraordinary magisterium pointless, ...
Yes, this is necessary because R&R polluted the notion of "discipline" to being merely a set of positive commands, coming up with the fake slogan "faith is greater than obedience." No, we're not talking about the obedience to positive commands, or a lower-case "discipline" but the Church's Universal Discipline. Faith is actually an act of obedience, a submission to the formal rule of faith. That slogan was coined to refer to commands from superiors and not mean to apply to Magisterium and the Sacred Rites of the Church. But R&R warps it for propaganda programming.
R&R would have it that Bergoglio's demand for his secretary to take out his dry cleaning is effectively the same thing as promulgating a new Rite of Mass.
I think you have your “muddling” wrong:You don't just owe submission to dogma, believe it or not. You still owe lesser degrees of religious submission to the fallible teachings of the Church, and you owe submission to the laws and disciplines of the Church. We've been through this before. SeanJohnson can't just veto a change to fasting law and declare that anyone who follows the new law is a sinner.
R&R doesn’t accuse sedes of muddling indefectibility with infallibility, but of muddling papal infallibility with papal authority (and of making the distinction between the ordinary and extraordinary magisterium pointless, since they say everything is irrelevant infallible).
Sedes also muddle the ordinary and authentic magisterium, by assigning acts of the latter to the former, in order to declare the particular teaching impossible by a true pope, and vacate the Holy See).
That’s a lot of muddling!
You don't just owe submission to dogma, believe it or not. You still owe lesser degrees of religious submission to the fallible teachings of the Church, and you owe submissions to the laws and disciplines of the Church. We've been through this before. SeanJohnson can't just veto a change to fasting law and declare that anyone who follows the new law is a sinner.
Take a step back and have a look at what you're saying. Based on your emphasis on strict infallibility, it's theoretically possible for 99% of the Magisterium (the fallible part) to be a total cesspool of error and harmful and leading souls to hell.
If you think that's compatible with Our Lord's promise that the Holy Spirit would guide the Church, then I'm not sure what religion you actually belong to, but it's not the Catholic one.
If 99% of the Magisterium can't be complete nonsense, then how much if it can be: 50%, 10%?
YOU render the NON-INFALLIBLE Magisterium absolutely pointless. It's nothing more than the private opining of the man who happens to have the Papacy as his day job. Pope by day, private doctor by night. In fact, private theologian for 99.9999999% of his papacy and teacher of the Church for the rest of the time, when he happens (if he happens) to make a solemn definition.
In other words, according to this logic, in the days of the Arian crisis, you would have become Arian (ie., since it is allegedly it incompatible with indefectibility for 99% of the hierarchy to defect).
In other words, according to this logic, in the days of the Arian crisis, you would have become Arian (ie., since it is allegedly it incompatible with indefectibility for 99% of the hierarchy to defect).
Huh? When exactly has Arianism been taught by the Magisterium, merely authentic or otherwise?When Pope Liberius signed a semi-Arian formulation (yeah, yeah, Daly disputes it, blah, blah...).
When Pope Liberius signed a semi-Arian formulation (yeah, yeah, Daly disputes it, blah, blah...).
It should be carefully noted that the question of the fall of Liberius is one that has been and can be freely debated among Catholics. No one pretends that, if Liberius signed the most Arian formulæ in exile, he did it freely; so that no question of his infallibility is involved. It is admitted on all sides that his noble attitude of resistance before his exile and during his exile was not belied by any act of his after his return, that he was in no way sullied when so many failed at the Council of Rimini, and that he acted vigorously for the healing of orthodoxy throughout the West from the grievous wound. If he really consorted with heretics, condemned Athanasius, or even denied the Son of God, it was a momentary human weakness which no more compromises the papacy than does that of St. Peter.Note that this Catholic Encyclopedia author implies that had he done so freely, it would have brought infallibility into question and would have "compromised the papacy". But R&R say that an Ecuмenical Council and Mass officially taught/promulgated to the Universal Church do not "compromise" the papacy.
It's not just Daly. It's been highly debated among Catholic scholars for a very long time....and the reason his infallibility was not involved was because it was an act of the authentic magisterium (not the OUM or EM).
https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09217a.htm (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09217a.htm)
...and the reason his infallibility was not involved was because it was an act of the authentic magisterium, not the OUM or EM.
Same thing with Vatican II.
Uhm, he (and his predecessors) are clearly teaching Magisterially. Their teaching is at least "merely authentic" Magisterium.I am sad to see this thread has become mostly people talking past each other.
If we consider the immense variety of concrete situations such as those I have mentioned, it is understandable that neither the Synod nor this Exhortation could be expected to provide a new set of general rules, canonical in nature and applicable to all cases. What is possible is simply a renewed encouragement to undertake a responsible personal and pastoral discernment of particular cases, one which would recognize that, since “the degree of responsibility is not equal in all cases”,335 the consequences or effects of a rule need not necessarily always be the same.336What exactly is magisterially taught to us here? There are no new rules, just an encouragement.
No. I just added a citation above. It's because, IF (and it's highly debated) he did sign the formulae, he did so under duress, and it was not a free act (akin to the Paul VI was being blackmailed over sodomy position).Same thing with Vatican II:
It was not an act of the Magisterium period. At best it was a personal act. Whatever he signed was in no way being taught to the Universal Church.
“…a grave problem confronts the conscience and the faith of all Catholics since the beginning of Paul VI’s pontificate: how can a pope who is truly successor of Peter, to whom the assistance of the Holy Ghost has been promised, preside over the most radical and far-reaching destruction of the Church ever known, in so short a time, beyond what any heresiarch has ever achieved?” (Le Figaro, August 4, 1976)
Same thing with Vatican II:
Archbishop himself articulates the problem this poses for indefectibility, and this consideration is what left him open to the sedevacantist hypothesis ...Nonsense:
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 ...
Ladislaus: Peace to you. I'm dropping out of this and saving 50 hours. You get the last word.
You guys are utterly hopeless. You are prepared to cast aspersions on and sully the reputation of Holy Mother Church to save the likes of Bergoglio. Shame on you. You basically claim that Holy Mother Church has become a whore.Ahh, and this, unfortunately, is what it amounts to. They would rather destroy the fundamental tenets of the papacy and concede that the Church can officially teach and promote error, just so they can say that a degenerate communist heretic is the pope? I don’t get it! Why? Cognitive dissonance?
Why?Because if sedevacantism is true, after sixty two years, there is no Church left on earth, having not only no pope, but no Bishops with authority from God through the pope. All that is left is a handful of laymen playing make believe and praying the rosary. Whenever the vocal sedes talk about how R&R would be a defection, I feel they are deaf, dumb, and blind, as if the Church for all intents and purposes ceasing to exist upon earth is not also a defection? And a greater one. For in the R&R model, faults as it may have, there is at least a Church to point to.
Because if sedevacantism is true, after sixty two years, there is no Church left on earth, having not only no pope, but no Bishops with authority from God through the pope. All that is left is a handful of laymen playing make believe and praying the rosary.
So you would rather embrace the erroneous notion that the Church can officially promote and teach error? That the pope is superfluous? There is *no* dogma that states that an interregnum can’t be 60, 70, or 100 years and I never contended that there are no bishops today that have ordinary jurisdiction. Have faith my friend and trust God.I have faith in God and I trust him. Let's be honest. You can not name one real Bishop who agrees with you. So the pope is not superfluous, but we can go for a hundred years without one? Where is the infallible and indefectible Church today? You can not point to it. There are problems with sedevacantism also if we are to be honest with ourselves. But can the Church teach error officially? Maybe if it is official but not infallible. Who knows? I don't have all the answers, but in my experience the sedes don't have them either.
"In this field, God has given the Holy Father a kind of infallibility distinct from the charism of doctrinal infallibility in the strict sense. He has so constructed and ordered the Church that those who follow the directives given to the entire kingdom of God on earth will never be brought into the position of ruining themselves spiritually through this obedience".- Fr. Fenton
No Sean, you don’t just lower the status of the papacy, you border on hating it. Frankly, I find it repulsive. If I thought Bergoglio was a real pope, I would obey him unquestionably. Obviously, I can’t because he’s a heretic and a heretic is not a Catholic and someone who is not a Catholic can’t possibly be the head of the Catholic Church.
There is *no* dogma that states that an interregnum can’t be 60, 70, or 100 years and I never contended that there are no bishops today that have ordinary jurisdiction.Well, the two are inter-connected. Loss of Papally Authorized Bishops=Loss of Ordinary Jurisdiction=Defection of the Church's Apostolicity.
Stubborn, but it is not just the Theologians. The Popes themselves say that the Ordinary Magisterium is to be regarded as being protected by the promise, "Whoever hears you, hears Me". This is the way it is explained by Pope Pius XII in Humani Generis. The theory that doctrine taught even by the non-infallible Magisterium of the Roman Pontiffs or of the teaching Church is nonetheless at least safe even if not immediately infallibly true dogma comes from that. Your thoughts on those words of the Holy Father Pope Pius XII?I have no problem in believing that bishops can and could legitimately be appointed by false shepherds under common error, especially in the Eastern Rite of the Church. I also have no problem in believing that some older bishops validly consecrated in the Roman Rite didn’t resign to lawful authority and thus still retain their office.
Well, the two are inter-connected. Loss of Papally Authorized Bishops=Loss of Ordinary Jurisdiction=Defection of the Church's Apostolicity.
Unless you wish to argue that Ordinary Jurisdiction can be transmitted to the Bishops apart from the Pope, but that seems to contradict doctrine of the Authentic Magisterium of Pope Pius XII, who taught, in Ad Apostolorum Principis, in 1958: "bishops who have been neither named nor confirmed by the Apostolic See, but who, on the contrary, have been elected and consecrated in defiance of its express orders, enjoy no powers of teaching or of jurisdiction since jurisdiction passes to bishops only through the Roman Pontiff as We admonished in the Encyclical Letter Mystici Corporis in the following words: ". . . As far as his own diocese is concerned each (bishop) feeds the flock entrusted to him as a true shepherd and rules it in the name of Christ. Yet in exercising this office they are not altogether independent but are subordinate to the lawful authority of the Roman Pontiff, although enjoying ordinary power of jurisdiction which they receive directly from the same Supreme Pontiff."[13]40. And when We later addressed to you the letter Ad Sinarum gentem, We again referred to this teaching in these words: "The power of jurisdiction which is conferred directly by divine right on the Supreme Pontiff comes to bishops by that same right, but only through the successor of Peter, to whom not only the faithful but also all bishops are bound to be constantly subject and to adhere both by the reverence of obedience and by the bond of unity."[14]"http://www.vatican.va/content/pius-xii/en/encyclicals/docuмents/hf_p-xii_enc_29061958_ad-apostolorum-principis.html No Pope in history perhaps had taught this doctrine as clearly as Pope Pius XII, whom sedevacantists now consider to be "the last Pope". Yet, if you agree (1) the Church cannot lose Apostolicity, and (2) at least some Bishops with Ordinary Jurisdiction are necessary for the Church's Apostolicity, then you must hold that (3) Ordinary Jurisdiction can be transmitted to Bishops other than through the Successor of St. Peter, which seems to contradict Pope Pius XII word-for-word. Cardinal Ottaviani and Msgr. Fenton also confirmed this doctrine of Pope Pius XII in their writings. If you want to discuss this in more detail, we can do that in the "Oldest living Bishops" thread.Ladislaus, I agree with Bp. Athanasius Schneider almost completely. Bp. Athanasius has also been very strong on the necessity of explicit faith in Christ for salvation, identifying that as one of the key issues of the day: yet I support Abp. Vigano also, and believe both Bishops are on the same side, fighting for the same end, trying to correct the abuses that have cropped up. These issues have to be discussed by the Church Authorities, especially Bishops, and I believe that will be done correctly at something like a future Third Vatican Council. One of the early traditionalists Priests - I forgot his name; he wasn't SSPX, though - was a proponent of a Vatican III. It is at such a future Council, which will be dogmatic and infallible, that some of these issues can be corrected/explicitly defined.
Stubborn, but it is not just the Theologians. The Popes themselves say that the Ordinary Magisterium is to be regarded as being protected by the promise, "Whoever hears you, hears Me". This is the way it is explained by Pope Pius XII in Humani Generis. The theory that doctrine taught even by the non-infallible Magisterium of the Roman Pontiffs or of the teaching Church is nonetheless at least safe even if not immediately infallibly true dogma comes from that. Your thoughts on those words of the Holy Father Pope Pius XII?You are way off the context of what I said. My point is that the dogma states in apodictic terms that the pope is infallible when he defines a doctrine ex cathedra - period.
It is absolutely and unambiguously clear that the Conciliar sect teaches that salvation can be obtained through any religion and even no religion. So, if Bergoglio is the pope, one can legitimately ditch all religion, lead an entirely secular life, just be a "good person", be environmentally conscientious, and one is pretty much assured heaven.I missed to respond to this. No, it isn't "absolutely and unambiguously clear". Here is CCC 161, "http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/para/161.htm
| 161 Believing in Jesus Christ and in the One who sent him for our salvation is necessary for obtaining that salvation. "Since "without faith it is impossible to please [God]" and to attain to the fellowship of his sons, therefore without faith no one has ever attained justification, nor will anyone obtain eternal life 'But he who endures to the end.'" |
Anyway I thought it was dogma that there would be popes until the end of time. But the sedes argue that one away as well. Except for a hundred years here or there.
Of course I agree.Stubborn, this is Humani Generis: "20. Nor must it be thought that what is expounded in Encyclical Letters does not of itself demand consent, since in writing such Letters the Popes do not exercise the supreme power of their Teaching Authority. For these matters are taught with the ordinary teaching authority, of which it is true to say: "He who heareth you, heareth me";[3] and generally what is expounded and inculcated in Encyclical Letters already for other reasons appertains to Catholic doctrine. But if the Supreme Pontiffs in their official docuмents purposely pass judgment on a matter up to that time under dispute, it is obvious that that matter, according to the mind and will of the Pontiffs, cannot be any longer considered a question open to discussion among theologians." Agree or disagree?
20. Nor must it be thought that what is expounded in Encyclical Letters does not of itself demand consent,
since in writing such Letters the Popes do not exercise the supreme power of their Teaching Authority.
For these matters are taught with the ordinary teaching authority, of which it is true to say: "He who heareth you, heareth me";[3]
and generally what is expounded and inculcated in Encyclical Letters already for other reasons appertains to Catholic doctrine.
Ahh, and this, unfortunately, is what it amounts to. They would rather destroy the fundamental tenets of the papacy and concede that the Church can officially teach and promote error, just so they can say that a degenerate communist heretic is the pope? I don’t get it! Why? Cognitive dissonance?
Because if sedevacantism is true, after sixty two years, there is no Church left on earth
So you would rather embrace the erroneous notion that the Church can officially promote and teach error? Would you rather believe that the papacy is superfluous? There is *no* dogma that states that an interregnum can’t be 60, 70, or 100 years and I never contended that there are no bishops today that have ordinary jurisdiction. Have faith my friend and *trust* God.
Yet ... if R&R is true, there might as well be "no Church left on earth". If the "Church" serves mostly to lead people to hell, then we'd be better off without one.You could argue that that Arian heresy is an example of a prolonged R&R situation (let's not get into the weeds on the "kind" of R&R, just a general point). You had a weak, ineffective, heretical-condoning pope, you had (according to historical accounts) 98-99% of the catholic clerics/population infected with the Arian heresy, you had self-espoused "arian-catholic priests" arguing with "I-agree-with-Arianism-but-not-your-kind" priests, and then you had "St Athanasius against the world", the only (maybe a handful of others) cleric who was truly orthodox.
And there's some precedent for this. The so-called Great Western Schism went on for NEARLY 40 YEARS. While there was a legitimate pope the whole time, Catholics were absolutely confused about where the TRUE CHURCH was. There was no obvious "Church to point to" during that time either. This did not compromise the indefectibility of the Church, nor would a prolonged vacancy. Now, a total corruption of the Magisterium and the Church's Rites of Worship, now THAT would compromise indefectibility.
You could argue that that Arian heresy is an example of a prolonged R&R situation (let's not get into the weeds on the "kind" of R&R, just a general point). You had a weak, ineffective, heretical-condoning pope, you had (according to historical accounts) 98-99% of the catholic clerics/population infected with the Arian heresy, you had self-espoused "arian-catholic priests" arguing with "I-agree-with-Arianism-but-not-your-kind" priests, and then you had "St Athanasius against the world", the only (maybe a handful of others) cleric who was truly orthodox.
.
After Arianism went away (remember, Arianism had already been condemned multiple times before the time of St Athanasius, just like the tenets of Modernism have been condemned previously), there was not a re-consecration of bishops, nor a re-election of Cardinals, nor a re-election of popes, nor a re-installation of bishops into dioceses...the heresy went away and orthodoxy return when a 100% orthodox pope was elected (who also censured Pope Honorius). You can easily argue that 98% of the clergy at the time (including the pope) led people into error because as it was said "the entire world groaned under the error of Arianism." Very similar circuмstances to V2 and indefectibility didn't apply.
Catholics didn't resist anything from a pope in teaching, liturgy or discipline.Neither do R&R Trads today, because there is nothing in V2 that is binding on anyone’s conscience. And the new mass is not obligatory. +Vigano’s view of new-Rome agrees.
Neither do R&R Trads today, because there is nothing in V2 that is binding on anyone’s conscience. And the new mass is not obligatory. +Vigano’s view of new-Rome agrees.They did command Catholic countries to secularise.
.
The period of Arianism is even MORE similar to today when you view that Honorius’ lack of condemning error (while never officially condoning it) created a chaos vacuum where the catholic faithful/clergy didn’t have a clear authority and guide. So what happened? This left the Arian clergy free reign to assert authority and declare Arianism to be true (I’m sure they used Honorius’ words against him), just like the Modernists bishops used V2’s ambiguity against the faithful and also Paul VI’s contradictory statements on everything. In the end, both then and now, the evil bishops/priests were the ones that corrupted the people. The popes created confusion by lack of leadership (Honorius) or by a contradiction (V2 popes). But OFFICIALLY neither Honorius nor the V2 popes have ever commanded sin or error to be accepted.
They did command Catholic countries to secularise.Is that the main gripe then? Was secularization commanded under pain of sin? If not, that has nothing to do with the magisterium but with political policy and the Vatican govt. You can be in a secularized country and still save your soul. Is it ideal? No, but secularization was already happening to all catholic countries since the 1600s, due to Protestantism and Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ.
Is that the main gripe then? Was secularization commanded under pain of sin? If not, that has nothing to do with the magisterium but with political policy and the Vatican govt. You can be in a secularized country and still save your soul. Is it ideal? No, but secularization was already happening to all catholic countries since the 1600s, due to Protestantism and Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ.
Consequently, in order that relationships of peace and harmony be established and maintained within the whole of mankind, it is necessary that religious freedom be everywhere provided with an effective constitutional guarantee and that respect be shown for the high duty and right of man freely to lead his religious life in society.
May the God and Father of all grant that the human family, through careful observance of the principle of religious freedom in society, may be brought by the grace of Christ and the power of the Holy Spirit to the sublime and unending and “glorious freedom of the sons of God” (Rom. 8:21).
Each and all these matters which are set forth in this Declaration have been favorably voted on by the Fathers of the Council. And We, by the apostolic authority given Us by Christ and in union with the Fathers, approve, decree and establish them in the Holy Spirit and command that they be promulgated for the glory of God.
I, Paul, Bishop of the Catholic Church
There follow the signatures of the Fathers.
Because if sedevacantism is true, after sixty two years, there is no Church left on earth, having not only no pope, but no Bishops with authority from God through the pope. All that is left is a handful of laymen playing make believe and praying the rosary. Whenever the vocal sedes talk about how R&R would be a defection, I feel they are deaf, dumb, and blind, as if the Church for all intents and purposes ceasing to exist upon earth is not also a defection? And a greater one. For in the R&R model, faults as it may have, there is at least a Church to point to.One of the doctrines the sedes have backwards is that Church, which is Christ, is in danger of defecting. This because the pope and hierarchy et al have defected. Since somewhere in their mind they know this is impossible, they concoct a theory that goes something along the lines of; "there must be at least one true living bishop somewhere in this world or the Church has defected". Altogether backwards.
Secularization was commanded "in the Holy Spirit" and "for the glory of God":
Quote from: The Magisterium of Antichrist,QuoteConsequently, in order that relationships of peace and harmony be established and maintained within the whole of mankind, it is necessary that religious freedom be everywhere provided with an effective constitutional guarantee and that respect be shown for the high duty and right of man freely to lead his religious life in society.
May the God and Father of all grant that the human family, through careful observance of the principle of religious freedom in society, may be brought by the grace of Christ and the power of the Holy Spirit to the sublime and unending and “glorious freedom of the sons of God” (Rom. 8:21).
Each and all these matters which are set forth in this Declaration have been favorably voted on by the Fathers of the Council. And We, by the apostolic authority given Us by Christ and in union with the Fathers, approve, decree and establish them in the Holy Spirit and command that they be promulgated for the glory of God.
I, Paul, Bishop of the Catholic Church
There follow the signatures of the Fathers.
stjosef.at (https://www.stjosef.at/index.php?id=konzil__suche&doc=DH15&la=lataas&lb=eng&ui=ger)
stjosef.at (https://www.stjosef.at/index.php?id=konzil__suche&doc=DH15&la=lataas&lb=eng&ui=ger)
We, by the apostolic authority given Us by Christ and in union with the Fathers, approve, decree and establish them in the Holy Spirit and command that they be promulgated for the glory of God.
I, Paul, Bishop of the Catholic Church
There follow the signatures of the Fathers.
Conciliar decrees approved by the pope have a double guarantee of infallibility: their own and that of the infallible pope.newadvent.org (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04423f.htm)
Secularization was commanded:facepalm: Reading comprehension...
Conciliar decreesA conciliar decree (an infallible doctrinal statement, which didn’t happen in V2) is different than the phrase “we decree” that you posted. :facepalm: Reading comprehension problem #1,004.
Infallibility of general councils
All the arguments which go to prove the infallibility (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07790a.htm) of the Church (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03744a.htm) apply with their fullest force to the infallible (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07790a.htm) authority of general councils in union with the pope (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12260a.htm). For conciliary decisions are the ripe fruit of the total life-energy of the teaching Church actuated and directed by the Holy Ghost (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07409a.htm). Such was the mind of the Apostles when, at the Council of Jerusalem (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08344a.htm) (Acts 15:28 (https://www.newadvent.org/bible/act015.htm#vrs28)), they put the seal of supreme authority on their decisions in attributing them to the joint action of the Spirit of God (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07409a.htm) and of themselves: Visum est Spiritui sancto et nobis (It hath seemed good to the Holy Ghost and to us). This formula and the dogma (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05089a.htm) it enshrines stand out brightly in the deposit of faith (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05752c.htm) and have been carefully guarded throughout the many storms raised in councils by the play of the human element. From the earliest times they who rejected the decisions of councils were themselves rejected by the Church (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03744a.htm). Emperor Constantine (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04295c.htm) saw in the decrees of Nicaea "a Divine commandment" and Athanasius (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02035a.htm) wrote to the bishops (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02581b.htm) of Africa: "What God (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06608a.htm) has spoken through the Council of Nicaea (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11044a.htm) endureth for ever." St. Ambrose (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01383c.htm) (Ep. xxi) pronounces himself ready to die by the sword rather than give up the Nicene decrees, and Pope Leo the Great (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09154b.htm) expressly declares that "whoso resists the Councils of Nicaea and Chalcedon cannot be numbered among Catholics (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03449a.htm)" (Ep. lxxviii, ad Leonem Augustum). In the same epistle he says that the decrees of Chalcedon were framed instruente Spiritu Sancto, i.e. under the guidance of the Holy Ghost. How the same doctrine (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05075b.htm) was embodied in many professions of faith (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05752c.htm) may be seen in Denzinger's (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04736b.htm) (ed. Stahl) "Enchiridion symbolorum et definitionum", under the heading (index) "Concilium generale representat ecclesiam universalem, eique absolute obediendum" (General councils represent the universal Church and demand absolute obedience). The Scripture texts on which this unshaken belief (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02408b.htm) is based are, among others: "But when he, the Spirit of truth (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15073a.htm), is come, he will teach you all truth (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15073a.htm) . . ." John 16:13 (https://www.newadvent.org/bible/joh016.htm#vrs13)) "Behold I am with you [teaching] all days even to the consummation of the world" (Matthew 28:20 (https://www.newadvent.org/bible/mat028.htm#vrs20)), "The gates of hell (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07207a.htm) shall not prevail against it [i.e. the Church (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03744a.htm)]" (Matthew 16:18 (https://www.newadvent.org/bible/mat016.htm#vrs18)).
Papal and conciliar infallibility
[...]
The Divine constitution of the Church and the promises of Divine assistance made by her Founder, guarantee her inerrancy, in matters pertaining to faith and morals, independently of the pope's infallibility
Because if sedevacantism is true, after sixty two years, there is no Church left on earth, having not only no pope, but no Bishops with authority from God through the pope. All that is left is a handful of laymen playing make believe and praying the rosary. Whenever the vocal sedes talk about how R&R would be a defection, I feel they are deaf, dumb, and blind, as if the Church for all intents and purposes ceasing to exist upon earth is not also a defection? And a greater one. For in the R&R model, faults as it may have, there is at least a Church to point to.
The Divine constitution of the Church and the promises of Divine assistance made by her Founder, guarantee her inerrancy, in matters pertaining to faith and morals, independently of the pope's infallibility
Just my opinion: the sedes and their fellow travellers don't care if there's a Church, or not.
You could argue that that Arian heresy is an example of a prolonged R&R situation (let's not get into the weeds on the "kind" of R&R, just a general point). You had a weak, ineffective, heretical-condoning pope, you had (according to historical accounts) 98-99% of the catholic clerics/population infected with the Arian heresy, you had self-espoused "arian-catholic priests" arguing with "I-agree-with-Arianism-but-not-your-kind" priests, and then you had "St Athanasius against the world", the only (maybe a handful of others) cleric who was truly orthodox.
During that time, it was not a question of where the true Church was any more than it was when the Roman See was vacant.
With Vatican II we have the putative Magisterium actively undermining the faith and we have public liturgical rites that are offensive to God.And Arianism didn’t actively undermine the Faith? Yes. Were there not Arian masses and sacrilegious communions that saints suffered martyrdom instead of participating in? Yes.
Therefore, it's not ecuмenical.
The infallibility proper to the pope is not, however, the only formal adequate ground of the council's infallibility. The Divine constitution of the Church and the promises of Divine assistance made by her Founder, guarantee her inerrancy, in matters pertaining to faith and morals, independently of the pope's infallibility: a fallible pope supporting, and supported by, a council, would still pronounce infallible decisions.
Well said.Hah! That's rich. R&R will happily ignore and reject everything the Church says or does, condemn it, deride it, say it's full of heretics, ignore all the laws and rites it promulgates, but then you have the audacity to accuse others of "not needing the Church"?
Just my opinion: the sedes and their fellow travellers don't care if there's a Church, or not. The Sedes have their private faith and their soapbox, and that seems good enough for them. No Church needed.
Hah! That's rich. R&R will happily ignore and reject everything the Church says or does, condemn it, deride it, say it's full of heretics, ignore all the laws and rites it promulgates, but then you have the audacity to accuse others of "not needing the Church"?
Ridiculous.
Yes, in one sense it was a question of attempting to discern where the Church was. We had not only competing popes, but each one set up a competing hierarchy. And of course, ubi petrus, ibi ecclesia ("where is Peter, there is the Church") turned into "Where is Peter? Where is the Church?"
Difference there was that we did not have any of the Popes undermining the faith itself during that time.
Do you have any imprimatured work that states what you are stating....that people were wondering if they were part of the Catholic Church or not?
Is that the main gripe then? Was secularization commanded under pain of sin? If not, that has nothing to do with the magisterium but with political policy and the Vatican govt. You can be in a secularized country and still save your soul. Is it ideal? No, but secularization was already happening to all catholic countries since the 1600s, due to Protestantism and Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ.Would it not be sinful for a politician to vote to secularise his (theretofore Catholic) country?
And We, by the apostolic authority given Us by Christ and in union with the Fathers, approve, decree and establish them in the Holy Spirit and command that they be promulgated for the glory of God.
the understanding of the Church has always been that when a moral universality of the bishops (i.e. nearly all of them) get together and teach in union with the Pope, that the teaching is protected from any substantial grave error by the Holy Spirit.Agree, but said "teaching" has always been (in 100% of past ecuмenical councils) in the form of infallible, dogmatic decrees. You can't imply "teaching" to V2, because it wasn't dogmatic, nor did it claim to be, nor did it "teach" anything binding.
R&R completely dismiss or ignore that the Magsiterium OVERALL is guided and protected by the Holy Spirit. That doesn't mean there can't be a slight error here or there, but nothing substantial that would ever endanger souls or the faith.The only proof you have ever provided for this is Fenton's opinion. I consider his opinion a novelty, non-traditional and unproven. If you can prove this, i'm all ears.
It's because of the overall "promises of Divine assitance made by her Founder" to the Church that a legitimate Ecuмenical Council is not capable of practically destroying the Church. It's because of the indefectiblity of the Church.This is, again, an opinion. Those who argue that a pope cannot fall into heresy (which is an opinion) usually also argue that the Church's indefectibility applies to fallible statements. 1) This is an opinion, which contradicts Church history. 2) This is an opinion which elevates indefectibility to a secondary infallibility, which further 3) waters down the primacy of the pope, by making his personal infallibility less relevant, because even if he's not speaking infallibly, "don't worry, the Church can't be wrong, because She's indefectible." I don't buy it (because of Fenton pushed it in the 50s) and the idea is only recent.
Would it not be sinful for a politician to vote to secularise his (theretofore Catholic) country?Catholicism is not defined by its political power, or lack thereof. The Vatican States itself once had much power and authority but was forced to give that up. Political change does not affect doctrine (in most cases). Secularization does not affect Truth or Church dogma. What you're describing is obviously not good, and not pro-Catholic but it's not necessarily anti-doctrine.
And yet that's what the pope ordered him to do. Not just by his private opinion, but by his apostolic authority.i would be interested to read more, but the above still applies.
That's not what I'm saying at all. They didn't know who the real pope was and to whom they had to owe obedience and whose Magisterium they would have to submit to if it were to teach.Excellent! Very nicely put.
You do realize that material error does not exclude from membership in the Church, right?
That's another reason, BTW, that R&R is much more pernicious and potentially harmful to the faith than sedevacantism. Sedevacantists at least formally acknowledge that they have a duty to submit to Church Magisterium, whereas the R&R dispute this. So, if they're wrong, the sedevacantists are in material error, but the R&R are in danger of formal error due to their attitudes toward Church authority.
Excellent! Very nicely put.
From earlier in your link. Guess you didn't like this part, or you didn't understand it.
.
.
Papal headship the formal element of councils
It is the action of the pope (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12260a.htm) that makes the councils ecuмenical. That action is the exercise of his office of supreme teacher and ruler of the Church (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03744a.htm).
.
Wait...so if the pope doesn't exercise his office as supreme teacher (which he didn't in V2), then is V2 even ecuмenical? According to this article, no.
The pope didn't speak ex cathedra, and nothing was binding on the whole Church (which is why they used the novel term 'pastoral' because V2 was a novel council). Therefore, it's not ecuмenical. V2 is the most unique council in history, except having parallels with the famous "Robber Council" that was afterwards condemned, as +Vigano pointed out.
Infallibility of general councils
All the arguments which go to prove the infallibility (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07790a.htm) of the Church (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03744a.htm) apply with their fullest force to the infallible (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07790a.htm) authority of general councils in union with the pope (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12260a.htm). For conciliary decisions are the ripe fruit of the total life-energy of the teaching Church actuated and directed by the Holy Ghost (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07409a.htm). Such was the mind of the Apostles when, at the Council of Jerusalem (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08344a.htm) (Acts 15:28 (https://www.newadvent.org/bible/act015.htm#vrs28)), they put the seal of supreme authority on their decisions in attributing them to the joint action of the Spirit of God (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07409a.htm) and of themselves: Visum est Spiritui sancto et nobis (It hath seemed good to the Holy Ghost and to us). This formula and the dogma (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05089a.htm) it enshrines stand out brightly in the deposit of faith (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05752c.htm) and have been carefully guarded throughout the many storms raised in councils by the play of the human element. From the earliest times they who rejected the decisions of councils were themselves rejected by the Church (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03744a.htm). Emperor Constantine (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04295c.htm) saw in the decrees of Nicaea "a Divine commandment" and Athanasius (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02035a.htm) wrote to the bishops (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02581b.htm) of Africa: "What God (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06608a.htm) has spoken through the Council of Nicaea (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11044a.htm) endureth for ever." St. Ambrose (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01383c.htm) (Ep. xxi) pronounces himself ready to die by the sword rather than give up the Nicene decrees, and Pope Leo the Great (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09154b.htm) expressly declares that "whoso resists the Councils of Nicaea and Chalcedon cannot be numbered among Catholics (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03449a.htm)" (Ep. lxxviii, ad Leonem Augustum). In the same epistle he says that the decrees of Chalcedon were framed instruente Spiritu Sancto, i.e. under the guidance of the Holy Ghost. How the same doctrine (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05075b.htm) was embodied in many professions of faith (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05752c.htm) may be seen in Denzinger's (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04736b.htm) (ed. Stahl) "Enchiridion symbolorum et definitionum", under the heading (index) "Concilium generale representat ecclesiam universalem, eique absolute obediendum" (General councils represent the universal Church and demand absolute obedience). The Scripture texts on which this unshaken belief (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02408b.htm) is based are, among others: "But when he, the Spirit of truth (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15073a.htm), is come, he will teach you all truth (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15073a.htm) . . ." John 16:13 (https://www.newadvent.org/bible/joh016.htm#vrs13)) "Behold I am with you [teaching] all days even to the consummation of the world" (Matthew 28:20 (https://www.newadvent.org/bible/mat028.htm#vrs20)), "The gates of hell (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07207a.htm) shall not prevail against it [i.e. the Church (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03744a.htm)]" (Matthew 16:18 (https://www.newadvent.org/bible/mat016.htm#vrs18)).
Papal and conciliar infallibility
[...]
The Divine constitution of the Church and the promises of Divine assistance made by her Founder, guarantee her inerrancy, in matters pertaining to faith and morals, independently of the pope's infallibility
With Vatican II we have the putative Magisterium actively undermining the faith and we have public liturgical rites that are offensive to God. This is not just a lot of heretic bishops with a weak pope. Of course, Bergoglio is a ring-leader and not just a weak pope who gives in to the Modernists out of weakness.So the difference between Liberius and Paul 6 or Francis is "intent"? I don't see that as viable. Because, practically, all 3 popes accomplished the same thing through their unorthodoxy. The common denominator, and the ultimate factor in the spread of both Arianism and Modernism, is from the bishops/priests, because neither Arianism nor Modernism was REQUIRED nor BINDING on the faithful, but only appeared so due to "false prophet" tactics.
Why do you say that Paul IV doesn't exercise his office as supreme teacher, when actually he explicitly invokes his apostolic authority? Do you want to deceive your readers? Do you think they didn't read the quotes and fall for your denial?There are various reasons why a pope invokes his apostolic authority, doctrine being only a subset. There are also governmental and canon law reasons.
The pope doesn't need to speak ex cathedra for a general Council to be infallible:Absolutely, positively, 100% ridiculous.
But when in the Third Century did one ever speak of "progressive" instead of Arian heretics and "conservative" instead of faithful to the Dogma?chiesaepostconcilio.blogspot.com (http://chiesaepostconcilio.blogspot.com/2020/07/lettere-da-babilonia-enrico-maria.html)
And when in the 16th century was there ever talk of "progressive" instead of Lutheran-Calvinist heretics and "conservative" instead of faithful to the laws of God taught by the Holy Roman Church?
[...]
It is the fact that the fake categories must be replaced with the true categories, no more subterfuges: heretics are heresy, the faithful are faithful.
The only categories acceptable in a doctrinal dispute in the Catholic Church of Rome are those of "heretic" for those who do not adhere to the Dogma and the pastoral Magisterium which is closely connected to it as taught by the Dogmatic Magisterium, and "Catholic" for those who adhere to it. There are no other categories. Those used are only lies.
If the pope is infallible beyond the definitions of Vatican 1, please let us all know.
And let the record confirm that +Vigano confirms that V2 was not infallible.
The only categories acceptable in a doctrinal dispute in the Catholic Church of Rome are those of "heretic" for those who do not adhere to the Dogma and the pastoral Magisterium which is closely connected to it as taught by the Dogmatic Magisterium, and "Catholic" for those who adhere to it. There are no other categories.Correction:
You got to check your logic. The Vatican Council does neither define that the Pope is infallible "if and only if" (but rather that the Pope is infallible "if"), nor does the Vatican Council define in which way a Pope has to confirm a general Council to be an infallible Council, nor does the Vatican Council define that nothing but a Pope or nothing but a Pope or a Council may be teaching infallibly.You may have a point, but until the Church says otherwise, it's just your opinion.
"Pastoral magisterium" (i.e. made up theological term) = fallible, not-protected-from-error=able-to-be-heresy theological opinion,
Viganò is a heretic. He talks about a heretical ecuмenical Council.+Vigano has multiple decades of Church study and knowledge greater than ourselves. Maybe it's possible he knows more than us?
You may have a point, but until the Church says otherwise, it's just your opinion.
The whole gibberish about fallible/infallible is superfluous. The point is, whether fallible or infallible, a general Council of the Church is never heretical.Ahhh. So earlier, you posted that an ecuмenical council was infallible, but I proved that wrong from actual article you posted. Now you're using the term "general council" as opposed to "ecuмenical" to avoid the contradiction with NewAdvent.com? I see your agenda.
+Vigano has multiple decades of Church study and knowledge greater than ourselves. Maybe it's possible he knows more than us?
So the difference between Liberius and Paul 6 or Francis is "intent"?
Ahhh. So earlier, you posted that an ecuмenical council was infallible, but I proved that wrong from actual article you posted. Now you're using the term "general council" as opposed to "ecuмenical" to avoid the contradiction with NewAdvent.com? I see your agenda.
You got to check your logic. The Vatican Council does neither define that the Pope is infallible "if and only if" (but rather that the Pope is infallible "if"), nor does the Vatican Council define in which way a Pope has to confirm a general Council to be an infallible Council, nor does the Vatican Council define that nothing but a Pope or nothing but a Pope or a Council may be teaching infallibly.A true council, guided by the Holy Ghost, such as Vatican 1, is not there to deceive, nor to be a legal quagmire of complexity. We must take an infallible council as the word of God: "If the pope fulfills x, y, and z, then he is infallible".
"Pastoral magisterium" (i.e. made up theological term) = fallible, not-protected-from-error=able-to-be-heresy theological opinion,
Viganò has confessed 50 years of worship of men! He even admits to have known that the Council is heretical, but suppressed his knowledge of truth out of love for men.
Formulae were a person act and was not some teaching issued to the Universal Church.Yet V2 was not a teaching/binding act of the Church, but a pastoral/advisory/novel/fallible magisterial legal trick.
I still hold that an ecuмenical council is infallible.New Advent disagrees with you. Your lack of theological distinctions sinks your arguments.
A true council, guided by the Holy Ghost, such as Vatican 1, is not there to deceive, nor to be a legal quagmire of complexity. We must take an infallible council as the word of God: "If the pope fulfills x, y, and z, then he is infallible".
.
It is not left to the laity or clerics to "second guess" or to "re-interpret" what the Holy Ghost "left out" or "forgot to say".
.
Any opinion or interpretation you have related to the above is of hubris alone. It's the height of arrogance that you can criticize a doctrine in the way you do. It is truly schismatic.
If any one shall say, that the ceremonies, vestments, and outward signs, of which the Catholic Church makes use in the celebration of masses, are incentives to impiety, rather than offices of piety; let him be anathema.
New Advent disagrees with you. Your lack of theological distinctions sinks your arguments.
New Advent disagrees with you. Your lack of theological distinctions sinks your arguments.
That's not what he said. He said that for years he believed that it was a question of ambiguity and that it could be interpreted in an orthodox manner applying the hermeneutic of continuity.
I confess it with serenity and without controversy: I was one of the many people who, despite many perplexities and fears which today have proven to be absolutely legitimate, trusted the authority of the Hierarchy with unconditional obedience. In reality, I think that many people, including myself, did not initially consider the possibility that there could be a conflict between obedience to an order of the Hierarchy and fidelity to the Church herself. What made tangible this unnatural, indeed I would even say perverse, separation between the Hierarchy and the Church, between obedience and fidelity, was certainly this most recent Pontificate.
And your distinction is equally "made up". And you keep harping on infallibility and completely ignoring the problem for indefectibility.There was never a "pastoral council" before V2. Ergo, V2 is a novelty, regardless of who was in attendance. As New Advent said, the ecuмenical nature of a council is not dependent upon the cardinals/bishops present but upon the pope being involved, in a dogmatic, infallible way.
I honestly have no idea what kind of HOLY Catholic Church you people believe in, that you can attribute grave error and destruction of souls to the Catholic Magisterium. This borders on blasphemy. Archbishop Lefebvre himself admitted the principle that this is not possible due to the protection of the Church and of the Papacy by the Holy Ghost. He simply didn't know what the answer was. Archbishop Lefebvre NEVER promoted this perverse R&R that we have today which attributes these horrors to the Catholic Magisterium.+Vigano explained it quit clearly. If you mix what he said with the above, it makes sense. 1) V2 was doctrinal so it was not ecuмenical. 2) Ecuмenical does not refer to "who was present at the council" but to what extent doctrine "is made present (i.e. binding) to all catholics". If doctrine is not involved in a definitive/binding way, then such teaching is not ecuмenical. 3) V2 was a novel/pastoral council which did not doctrinally/bindingly/definitively nor authoritatively command ANY catholic to follow error.
You also all arguably fall under Trent's anathema against those who claim that the Rites used by the Church can be defective.The V2 rites of the mass/sacraments are optional and are not protected by Trent's anathema's. I can't believe that you would even think they are.
I cited the part of CE which clearly states that an Ecuмenical Council must be considered infallible due to the protection of the Holy Ghost promised to the ChurchThis applies to all pre-V2 ecuмenical councils, but V2 flipped the script. Your quote is pre-V2, therefore it could not anticipate V2's theological, pastoral deception.
If a Council says "if X is greater than Y then X is an A" then that doesn't imply that X is not an A if X is equal or less than Y. Basic logic!There are plenty of theological debates in Catholic history that have arisen from "theological inconsistencies" due to logic. The only doctrine/dogma is what the Church has defined. All else is still theory.
Lawler: First, what are you saying about Vatican II? That things have gone downhill fast since then is certainly true. But if the whole Council is a problem, how did that happen? How do we reconcile that with what we believe about the inerrancy of the magisterium? How were all the Council fathers deceived? Even if only some parts of the Council (e.g. Nostra Aetate, Dignitatis Humanae) are problematical, we still face the same questions. Many of us have been saying for years that the “spirit of Vatican II” is in error. Are you now saying that this phony liberal “spirit” does accurately reflect the work of the Council?Vigano starts off by saying that V2 is the first, and only, pastoral council in Church history. It is the only ecuмenical council (i.e. in the sense that the pope and all bishops were present) that did not define doctrine. If you can't admit this anomaly, you're dishonest.
.
Archbishop Vigano: I do not think that it is necessary to demonstrate that the Council represents a problem: the simple fact that we are raising this question about Vatican II and not about Trent or Vatican I seems to me to confirm a fact that is obvious and recognized by everyone. In reality, even those who defend the Council with swords drawn find themselves doing so apart from all the other previous ecuмenical councils, of which not even one was ever said to be a pastoral council.
It is a council that, differently from all those that preceded it, called itself a pastoral council, declaring that it did not want to propose any new doctrine, but which in fact created a distinction between before and after, between a dogmatic council and a pastoral council, between unequivocal canons and empty talk, between anathema sit and winking at the world.Again, V2 was different than all other previous councils IN THE HISTORY OF THE CHURCH. So if you compare it to any others, you're wrong.
In this sense, I believe that the problem of the infallibility of the Magisterium (the inerrancy you mention is properly a quality of Sacred Scripture) does not even arise, because the Legislator, that is, the Roman Pontiff around whom the Council was convened, solemnly and clearly affirmed that he did not want to use the doctrinal authority which he could have exercised if he wanted.
There is another equivocation that must be clarified. If on the one hand John XXIII and Paul VI declared that they did not want to commit the Council to the definition of new doctrines and wanted it to limit itself to being only pastoral, on the other hand it is true that externally—mediatically or in the media, we would say today—the emphasis given to its acts was enormous. In other words, LEGALLY and DOCTRINALLY, the Church did not TEACH V2. But only through the MEDIA and through LIBERAL/COMMUNIST bishops/priests was the council given "emphasis...that was enormous".
This emphasis (...by the media...) served to convey the idea of a presumed doctrinal authority, of an implicit magisterial infallibility, even though these were clearly excluded right from the beginning.
If this emphasis occurred, it was in order to allow the more or less heterodox instances to be perceived as authoritative and thus to be accepted by the clergy and the faithful.
Let us recall that Catholics do not worship a Council, neither Vatican II nor Trent, but rather the Most Holy Trinity, the One True God; they do not venerate a conciliar declaration or a post-synodal exhortation, but rather the Truth that these acts of the Magisterium conveyA good conclusion by +Vigano. V2 is not some supra-council that can contradict all previous Church teaching. It was pastoral only; not protected by the Holy Ghost because only doctrine is protected.
Whether or not a Council decides to issue a solemn definition, the understanding of the Church has always been that when a moral universality of the bishops (i.e. nearly all of them) get together and teach in union with the Pope, that the teaching is protected from any substantial grave error by the Holy Spirit.^^^ False NO new doctrine. This is one of the diabolical new doctrines of V2, taught only in Lumen Gentium (#25.2) and is strictly the understanding of the V2 church, not the Catholic Church. This aberation of Pentecost is not to be found anywhere in Church teachings.
You got to check your logic. The Vatican Council does neither define that the Pope is infallible "if and only if" (but rather that the Pope is infallible "if"), nor does the Vatican Council define in which way a Pope has to confirm a general Council to be an infallible Council, nor does the Vatican Council define that nothing but a Pope or nothing but a Pope or a Council may be teaching infallibly.You have it wrong Struthio, The Vatican Council says "when and only when", not "if and only if".
^^^ False NO new doctrine. This is one of the diabolical new doctrines of V2, taught only in Lumen Gentium (#25.2) and is strictly the understanding of the V2 church, not the Catholic Church. This aberation of Pentecost is not to be found anywhere in Church teachings.
25.2 Although the individual bishops do not enjoy the prerogative of infallibility, they nevertheless proclaim Christ's doctrine infallibly whenever, even though dispersed through the world, but still maintaining the bond of communion among themselves and with the successor of Peter, and authentically teaching matters of faith and morals, they are in agreement on one position as definitively to be held. This is even more clearly verified when, gathered together in an ecuмenical council, they are teachers and judges of faith and morals for the universal Church, whose definitions must be adhered to with the submission of faith. - Pope Paul VI, Lumen Gentium (https://www.ewtn.com/library/councils/v2church.htm)
Ridiculous. You cite Lumen Gentium as your authority, from a Council that you reject as heterodox and/or heretical.I quoted *you* exclaiming the NO doctrine, quoting you again you wrote that; "the understanding of the Church has always been that when a moral universality of the bishops (i.e. nearly all of them) get together and teach in union with the Pope, that the teaching is protected from any substantial grave error by the Holy Spirit". - Ladisalaus (https://www.cathinfo.com/crisis-in-the-church/sedevacantistsif-you-were-convinced-sede-ism-was-wrong-what-would-you-do-next/msg706984/#msg706984)
Besides that, you need to do some work on your reading comprehension. This is merely saying that their solemn definitions must be accepted de fide and does not address the question of whether or not the Council can teach heresy and wreck the Church. I've cited a PRE-Vatican II source which says that it cannot due to the overall guidance of the Church by the Holy Spirit due to the promises of Our Lord.
Your position is heretical, Stubborn, without any question. You consider the Magisterium to be defectible.
does not address the question of whether or not the Council can teach heresy and wreck the Church. I've cited a PRE-Vatican II source which says that it cannot due to the overall guidance of the Church by the Holy Spirit due to the promises of Our Lord.But what does "teach" mean in the context of a council? Or when we say the magisterium has "taught", does that not imply binding, unchanging facts (i.e. doctrine)? What's the point of "teaching" something that isn't required to be believed?
That's not what I'm saying at all. They didn't know who the real pope was and to whom they had to owe obedience and whose Magisterium they would have to submit to if it were to teach.You wrote, "in one sense it was a question of attempting to discern where the Church was"
You do realize that material error does not exclude from membership in the Church, right?
That's another reason, BTW, that R&R is much more pernicious and potentially harmful to the faith than sedevacantism. Sedevacantists at least formally acknowledge that they have a duty to submit to Church Magisterium, whereas the R&R dispute this. So, if they're wrong, the sedevacantists are in material error, but the R&R are in danger of formal error due to their attitudes toward Church authority.
So, Stubborn, do you think the doctrine of Lumen Gentium is wrong?Absolutely. Although it states some truth, at it's core it is wrong, which means the whole thing is fit for the sewer.
(1) With regard to Humani Generis, the main point was the teaching of the Ordinary Magisterium (Teaching Authority) of the Roman Pontiffs also requires assent. This is called religious submission: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obsequium_religiosum (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obsequium_religiosum)
(2) As for the entire Hierarchy supposedly being able to defect, how do you reconcile such an Ecclesia-Vacantism-lite position with the doctrine taught in the Oath against Modernism, which says, among other things, that the Charism of Truth will always remain in the Catholic Hierarchy that has Succession from the Apostles? "I firmly hold, then, and shall hold to my dying breath the belief of the Fathers in the charism of truth, which certainly is, was, and always will be in the succession of the episcopacy from the apostles." https://www.papalencyclicals.net/pius10/p10moath.htm (https://www.papalencyclicals.net/pius10/p10moath.htm)
You wrote, "in one sense it was a question of attempting to discern where the Church was"No, not really. You had sides of the Great Western Schism practically declare holy war on each other, and countless common Catholics even moved city so they could be under who they viewed as the true pope. Among the monarchs, they all picked which pope to follow, and since the popes didn't recognise each other at all, their Churches were clearly separate entities, however similar they may have been.
This is wrong. Nobody of note at that time wondered "where" the Church was. Just as they don't wonder where it is when a pope dies.
No, not really. You had sides of the Great Western Schism practically declare holy war on each other, and countless common Catholics even moved city so they could be under who they viewed as the true pope. Among the monarchs, they all picked which pope to follow, and since the popes didn't recognise each other at all, their Churches were clearly separate entities, however similar they may have been.
Yes, really. What history book have you seen it written in that they considered a false claimant and his followers to be another Church?The papal claimants all excommunicated each other. Those who are excommunicated are outside of the Church. Therefore, when one picked a pope to follow, one had to decide where the Church was, since only one claimant was the true leader of the Church and the rest weren't even in it at all. It logically follows that they were making a judgement on where the Church was, whether they were explicitly saying that or not.
This is why, imo, good Bishops like e.g. +Athanasius, +Vigano etc should be supported and worked with. The Holy Spirit is working through them, and we know that, according to the Divine Promise, the Charism of Truth remains in the Catholic Hierarchy forever.
Yes, really. What history book have you seen it written in that they considered a false claimant and his followers to be another Church?
The papal claimants all excommunicated each other. Those who are excommunicated are outside of the Church. Therefore, when one picked a pope to follow, one had to decide where the Church was, since only one claimant was the true leader of the Church and the rest weren't even in it at all. It logically follows that they were making a judgement on where the Church was, whether they were explicitly saying that or not.
The raising of the Oriflamme etc. as I brought up also indicates that people saw followers of the other claimants as outside of the Church.
You're completely befuddled and missing the entire point. Some most likely did consider the others to be in a different Church. Others realized that they could be formally within the Church while materially outside.
But it remained true that people wondered where OBJECTIVELY the Church was, not merely formally. OBJECTIVELY, subjection to the actual objective pope is necessary to be within the Church.
Making a "point" is different than whether something was actually an historical fact and in the minds of those who lived that historical event. It's been a long time since the so-called Western Schism. No books have stated any such thing, which shows you are doing your own reasoning and claiming an historical fact that simply was not.The raising of the oriflamme is a historical fact.
The raising of the oriflamme is a historical fact.Caring who is the true pope is not equivalent to rejecting the other papal claimaints as being not a part of the Church.
People abandoning their towns so they could be under submission to a different pope is a historical fact.
Both of those things are clear recognitions that the opposing side(s) were viewed to not be part of the Church by many.
Caring who is the true pope is not equivalent to rejecting the other papal claimaints as being not a part of the Church.Hi Argentino,
Find me something in a pre-Vatican II book that you think supports you, and I will read it.
Caring who is the true pope is not equivalent to rejecting the other papal claimaints as being not a part of the Church.If the other claimants are part of the Church, you wouldn't raise a flag of holy war against them.
Find me something in a pre-Vatican II book that you think supports you, and I will read it.
Hi Argentino,
I posted this as a result of the discussion here regarding the Great Western Schism. I was surprised o read in this CE entry that the various anti-popes excommunicated each other. This would lead me to believe that there is at least some truth to what the others are saying here.
https://www.cathinfo.com/crisis-in-the-church/great-western-schism-(catholic-encyclopedia-1912)/msg707252/#msg707252 (https://www.cathinfo.com/crisis-in-the-church/great-western-schism-(catholic-encyclopedia-1912)/msg707252/#msg707252)
It was a major controversy in the Church, and so many centuries ago. If it were true, there would have been an historian reporting that people didn't know where "the Church" was. This is not the case. On the principle of "a doubtful pope is no pope" they just looked at it as the See being empty. And empty See does not make anyone wonder where the Catholic Church is.This is plain and simply not true.
This is plain and simply not true.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/52/Western_schism_1378-1417.svg/1280px-Western_schism_1378-1417.svg.png)
Every country picked their own pope, where's the evidence that the See was regarded as empty by anyone? What benefit do you get out of lying about a vary simple historical fact?
It was the final analysis at the end, not what was going on as far as people believing who was the true pope, as you show the map. But it wasn't a matter of not knowing where the Catholic Church was.One minute you're complaining about us giving an analysis that isn't in the words of the people alive at the time, and the next you're giving your own which the people's own actions directly contradict?
Fact of the matter is, when a pope excommunicates someone, they're out of the Church.Not so forlorn. The excommunicant has all the obligations of a Catholic, but none of the privileges. For example, they are still obligated to go to Mass on Sunday but they cannot receive communion - because they are in mortal sin. The reason for excommunication is due to certain mortal sin(s) to which the Church has attached the censure of excommunication.
Hi Argentino,This is inaccurate as no pope during GWS is considered an anti-pope. Catholics are free to recognise either the Fr or It faction because there was no heresy or homos present. :cowboy:
I posted this as a result of the discussion here regarding the Great Western Schism. I was surprised o read in this CE entry that the various anti-popes excommunicated each other. This would lead me to believe that there is at least some truth to what the others are saying here.
https://www.cathinfo.com/crisis-in-the-church/great-western-schism-(catholic-encyclopedia-1912)/msg707252/#msg707252 (https://www.cathinfo.com/crisis-in-the-church/great-western-schism-(catholic-encyclopedia-1912)/msg707252/#msg707252)
This is inaccurate as no pope during GWS is considered an anti-pope. Catholics are free to recognise either the Fr or It faction because there was no heresy or homos present. :cowboy:Wut? Since when were they not considered "anti-popes"? Only one was the true pope...all others were anti-popes.
Pedro De Luna fell into heresy for while but he retracted,
The Church's censures are *always* primarily medicinal in nature and are given with the intent of inducing the sinner to repent, censures are not infallible nor are they intended to be an infallible decree that kicks the poor bastard permanently out of the Church and condemn him to hell with no hope at all no matter how obstinate he is - although the excommunicant understands by this judgement of the Church that that will ultimately be their end if they do not repent.
Wut? Since when were they not considered "anti-popes"? Only one was the true pope...all others were anti-popes.Pls show source claiming any of GWS popes are anti-popes... :confused: w/ POSSIBLE exception of Pedro...
Pls show source claiming any of GWS popes are anti-popes... :confused: w/ POSSIBLE exception of Pedro...https://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/dictionary/index.cfm?id=31865 (https://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/dictionary/index.cfm?id=31865)
1 way to show that the above is inaccurate is that Pope Alex VI give legitimacy to Alex V by taking the name of Alex VI instead of Alex V...Given your popcorn icon, are you looking for a fight roscoe? I know I'm not.
See also Attwater's Catholic Dictionary which says on pg 26 that the popes of GWS are not anti-popes because of the 'uncertainty of their status..' :popcorn:
https://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/dictionary/index.cfm?id=31865 (https://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/dictionary/index.cfm?id=31865)The Church has flip-flopped on the issue in the past. The Pisan popes were widely regarded as valid popes until the 20th century and, as Roscoe pointed out, this is reflected in papal regnal numbering too. For example, Pope Alexander VI clearly recognised Alexander V as his legitimate predecessor.
ANTIPOPES OF THE WESTERN SCHISM:
CLEMENT VII (Robert of Geneva): September 20 (October 31), 1378 to September 16, 1394.
BENEDICT XII (Pedro de Luna): Aragon; September 28 (October 11), 1394 to May 23, 1423.
ALEXANDER V (Pietro Filargo): Crete; June 26 (July 7), 1409 to May 3, 1410.
JOHN XXIII (Baldassare Cossa): Naples; May 17 (25), 1410 to May 29, 1415.
FELIX V (Amadeus, Duke of Savoy): Savoy; November 5, 1439 (July 24, 1440) to April 7, 1449; d. 1451.
The Church has flip-flopped on the issue in the past. The Pisan popes were widely regarded as valid popes until the 20th century and, as Roscoe pointed out, this is reflected in papal regnal numbering too. For example, Pope Alexander VI clearly recognised Alexander V as his legitimate predecessor.Yes, according to the Annuncio Pontificio (the annual directory of the Holy See), there were 8 anti-popes of the Catholic Church during the time of the GWS:
It was only with Pope John XXIII(the 20th century one) that the official line on this appeared to change, as he ignored the 15th century John XXIII in his regnal numbering, saying there were only 22 certainly valid Johns before him(so still not saying the other John XXIII was certainly invalid).
Yes, according to the Annuncio Pontificio (the annual directory of the Holy See), there were 8 anti-popes of the Catholic Church during the time of the GWS:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antipope#List_of_historical_antipopes (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antipope#List_of_historical_antipopes)
If we don't want to include the changes made under John XXIII of Vatican II notoriety (and exclude the Pisan popes), it appears we're still looking at 6 anti-popes.
Given your popcorn icon, are you looking for a fight roscoe? I know I'm notI am curious to know how eating some popcorn can be conceived as looking for a fight???
LOL. This is Wikpedia, so people can edit articles. If I had a VPN connection, I'd log in and add Roncalli, Montini, Luciani, Wojtyla, and Bergoglio as antipopes.Yes it is. I guess one would need to go to the source given which is the Annuncio Pontificio to see if Wikipedia is accurate. I'm still scratching my head over the fact that there is a question whether there were antipopes in the Great Western Schism. I don't think I've ever heard anyone dispute this.
I am curious to know how eating some popcorn can be conceived as looking for a fight???Maybe fight is the wrong way to describe it. Perhaps, since popcorn is used to eat while enjoying the show, you were expecting to be entertained. You know like "pass the popcorn".
BTW-- Since Admin has eliminated 90% of emoticon's( including Wine, Beer & Mary Juanita) there is not mucho left to choose from. :popcorn:
1 way to show that the above is inaccurate is that Pope Alex VI give legitimacy to Alex V by taking the name of Alex VI instead of Alex V...
See also Attwater's Catholic Dictionary which says on pg 26 that the popes of GWS are not anti-popes because of the 'uncertainty of their status..' :popcorn:
LOL. This is Wikpedia, so people can edit articles. If I had a VPN connection, I'd log in and add Roncalli, Montini, Luciani, Wojtyla, and Bergoglio as antipopes.
One minute you're complaining about us giving an analysis that isn't in the words of the people alive at the time, and the next you're giving your own which the people's own actions directly contradict?
Fact of the matter is, when a pope excommunicates someone, they're out of the Church. So any follower of Pope Urban VI must've believed that Pope Clement VIII was outside of the Church, and so on, provided they were an educated Catholic. Therefore, by choosing a pope to follow, you are making an implicit statement on where the Church is. You are saying that Pope X is in the Church, and indeed leads it, and Pope Y is not. That the laws of Pope X are the laws of the Church, but those of Pope Y are not, etc. And we see people's understanding of this by their actions at the time, refusing to be under the hierarchy of who they viewed as the false pope, etc.
So it's obvious that people were making a decision as to where the Church was when they picked a pope, by virtue of the facts that the pope leads the Church and that excommunication renders one outside it. On the other hand, nowhere do we see evidence that people thought the Papal See was empty - that's just your own hypocritical conjecture.
Even the term "schism" makes it obvious that it was a matter of the Church being divided. Not totally divided, sure, but it's not called the "Great Western Vacancy" for a reason.
Even as somewhat hedged, the assertion above is still something of an overstatement of the case. Damnation as the ultimate and inevitable consequence can be reasonably assumed only when the excommunication is an effect of an actual mortal sin that is unconfessed and unrepented. An excommunication of the sort mentioned by forlorn—one imposed by a proper authority (ferendae sententiae), in this instance a pope—is an action in law, not in faith or morals. Thus, if it has been mistakenly or vindictively imposed, it would be blasphemous to suppose that God would second so terrible an injustice.I do not disagree. My point was merely to correct the error widely accepted as fact even by most trads, this error forlorn presented as though it is the truth when he said; "Fact of the matter is, when a pope excommunicates someone, they're out of the Church". Excommunication does not mean expulsion from the Church. That was the only point I was attempting to make.
Even some excommunications incurred automatically (latae sententiae) should not be regarded as ipso facto indicative of the certain loss of sanctifying grace. After all, John Paul II considered Archbishops Lefebvre and Castro Meyer and the four consecrated bishops excommunicated latae sententiae after June 1988, but most commenters here at CathInfo surely disagree, as did and do all involved with the consecrations.
Since A.D. 1860 there's the Pontifical Yearbook (Annuario Pontificio) including a list of all legitimate Popes*.I actually went to the 1860 book online and all of the non Pisan men were not included in the list of legitimate popes.
There may have been debates whether some Antipopes should not be called Antipopes in the strict sense of the word. But there never was a serious debate whether there can be more than one reigning bishop of Rome at any time.
*) some say that recent Yearbooks are inaccurate, though
Since A.D. 1860 there's the Pontifical Yearbook (Annuario Pontificio) including a list of all legitimate Popes*.PS. I apologize for continuing to call the book Annuncio Pontificio in my posts. It should be, as you correctly note, Annuario Pontificio.
There may have been debates whether some Antipopes should not be called Antipopes in the strict sense of the word. But there never was a serious debate whether there can be more than one reigning bishop of Rome at any time.
*) some say that recent Yearbooks are inaccurate, though
Excommunication does not mean expulsion from the Church.
St. Robert Bellarmine disagrees.I think it begs the question even talking about excommunications during the so-called Western Schism
I think it begs the question even talking about excommunications during the so-called Western Schism
If a doubtful pope is no pope, then an excommunication from a doubtful pope is also doubtful, and not considered legitimate.
Which means if nobody was to blame for choosing the wrong pope, then nobody was to blame for ignoring the excommunications.
But in the GWS these claimants were in opposition to true popes. Isn't that the definition of an anti-pope?
As the responses to this thread right from the very beginning clearly show, some sedevacantists have taken the term "dogmatic sedevacantism" to a whole new level. It's one thing even to say "I believe Pope Francis is not the Pope with the same certitude with which I believe in the Immaculate Conception, for the same authority assures me of both". It is another matter entirely to treat defection from the Catholic Faith, and apostasy into Protestantism or worldliness as a light matter, if SVism gets proved incorrect.
How can we be sure that only sedevacantists have taken this poll?We can't, especially given the tally currently shows 17 sedevacantists voted. I didn't vote, so exactly who are these other 17 sedevacantists on this forum?
This can easily lead to non-sedevacantists taking the poll just to click on and promote their own current positions.
Susceptible to vote fraud.
Dogmatic Sedevacantism (DS): SVism is dogma. If you don't believe it, you are in heresy!
Moderate Sedevacantism (MS): SVism is a personal opinion. The Church may confirm or reject it in future.
Ultra-Dogmatic SVism (UDS): If the "dogma" of SVism is proven incorrect, I will simply leave the Catholic Church.
Am I mistaken or are the persons here going even beyond DS to UDS? And I thought many were MSes.
Your DS and UDS are merely flip sides of the same coin. UDS is a logical corollary of DS.
An analogy would be someone writing AGAINST the Immaculate Conception the day before it was defined. He may think he has good theological arguments for the same. But if it were dogmatically defined by the Church, and he wanted to remain Catholic, he would have to say, "I retract my opinion and submit to the infallible judgment of the teaching Church".
Struthio is probably considered an example of a dogmatic sedevacantist. Yet in another thread when I asked him what if sufficiently many years passed, he answered:Proved by whom? You?
"I would (have to) admit that my current assessment of the situation is or was wrong, as soon as the generation of the Robber Council will have passed away (which cannot happen while I have to continue in this life)."
Edit: Just saw, "UDS is a logical corollary of DS." Ok. I would have thought the Dogmatic SVist would at least become non-dogmatic Svist in light of powerful evidence to the contrary. Also, a dogma can only be believed with infallible faith on the authority of the teaching Church. Otherwise, it would remain something like at most a theological conclusion only. But the Church has not ruled that Pope Francis is not the Pope. Ergo, there cannot be de fide certainty that such is the case.
An analogy would be someone writing AGAINST the Immaculate Conception the day before it was defined. He may think he has good theological arguments for the same. But if it were dogmatically defined by the Church, and he wanted to remain Catholic, he would have to say, "I retract my opinion and submit to the infallible judgment of the teaching Church".
In the same way, if it were proved, for e.g. (1) that SVism leads to EVism, and (2) EVism is heretical, a sedevacantist who intends to remain Catholic should retract what was never a dogma of faith, returning to the Authority of the Church that he thought had defected.
We can't, especially given the tally currently shows 17 sedevacantists voted. I didn't vote, so exactly who are these other 17 sedevacantists on this forum?
It would be interesting if those sedevacantists that voted posted who they are (no need to say how they voted, just that they voted).
Struthio is probably considered an example of a dogmatic sedevacantist.
Proved by whom? You?
So to continue with your analogy if you truly believe it, until the Church defines that sedevacantism is a heresy, you shouldn't be asserting that sedevacantists are not Catholic unless they retract their position.
Perhaps I am logically missing something---after all I am a woman.The V2 church is not the True Church. We know this because, as you said.... "the VII Church teaches that a person can be saved regardless of his faith.."
But if Francis is the Pope and if the VII church is the true church, then we all must accept and follow its teachings. Is that true?
We can't, especially given the tally currently shows 17 sedevacantists voted. I didn't vote, so exactly who are these other 17 sedevacantists on this forum?I didn't vote either. It's a stupid question.
It would be interesting if those sedevacantists that voted posted who they are (no need to say how they voted, just that they voted).
I didn't vote either. It's a stupid question.
I did respond because IF I found that to be the case, and I believe that the Holy Ghost guides the Church, I would become an NO Catholic fighting the excesses, abuses, and misinterpretations of Vatican II from within the Church.Why did you respond? You don't consider yourself a sedevacantist.
If someone sincerely believes this and would do those things upon being proved incorrect, I'm not going to try to dissaude him from SVism, until he admits he would become an Indult Traditionalist, if Svism were proved false. SVism is easily proved false, btw..
There are two rock solid arguments against it, both 62 year SVism and single Pope Svism. But I won't go there till sedes get this right.
Why did you respond? You don't consider yourself a sedevacantist.
There are two rock solid arguments against it, both 62 year SVism and single Pope Svism. But I won't go there till sedes get this right.
Dogmatic Sedevacantism (DS): SVism is dogma. If you don't believe it, you are in heresy!
Moderate Sedevacantism (MS): SVism is a personal opinion. The Church may confirm or reject it in future.
Ultra-Dogmatic SVism (UDS): If the "dogma" of SVism is proven incorrect, I will simply leave the Catholic Church.
Am I mistaken or are the persons here going even beyond DS to UDS? And I thought many were MSes.
But now with Frank it is even worse. The "pope" himself worshipped pagan gods in the Vatican.
There was Montini with the Ephod, not less bad.I have heard that there was a priest who called sede vacante during Roncalli's "reign". But I cannot find a reference for it. Yes, Montini with the Ephod and the Deuce and the Bhudda in Assisi. I guess the reason everyone is on Frank's case is that he is pro-abortion and pro-pervert as well. But Montini was a pervert (according to Randy Engel's research) and everyone knows the Deuce protected Marcial Maciel. So I don't know. Frank sure knows how to push everyone's buttons.
As far as I know, there were a few Catholics, who were in high alert since Roncalli's Pacem in terris (1963), and who warned others before the robber council was over in 1965.
What/who is "the Deuce"?John Paul Deuce
Ok "protected Maciel"? But why "Deuce"?
John Paul Deuce
Ok. Thank you. My dictionary said "Einstand" (both players same score), but it is more general: "two".
Ok. Thank you. My dictionary said "Einstand" (both players same score), but it is more general: "two".Yes. It is also used in the context of playing cards. Deuce of Spades, etc.
One would have to be completely detached from reality to claim that there is a dogma saying that all who don't hold to the sedevacantist position are condemned. There simply is none.Struthio, what you need to know is that the term dogmatic sedevacantist means whatever a non-sedevacantist (typically a rabid anti-sede, but not necessarily) wishes it to mean; typically it's whatever they judge to be "going too far". Hope that helps!
I don't know what to think about you, presenting your three alternatives DS, MS, UDS. Are you able to quote a single sedevacantist who says what your DS says?
Struthio, what you need to know is that the term dogmatic sedevacantist means whatever a non-sedevacantist (typically a rabid anti-sede, but not necessarily) wishes it to mean; typically it's whatever they judge to be "going too far". Hope that helps!
False. We clearly defined those terms earlier in this thread.Again, merely your opinion.
Examples of dogmatic sedevacantists: Dimond brothers, Bishop Sanborn
Examples of moderate sedevacantists (the opinionists, as Bishop Sanborn calls them): SSPV
So, for instance, the Dimonds claim that anyone who believes that Bergoglio is the pope is by that very fact a heretic. No allowance made for disagreements regarding the Cajetan vs. Bellarmine positions, or more of a sedeprivationist angle. Bishop Sanborn is a bit more moderate, but still a dogmatic sedevacantist, since he would hold that people could be excused from formal heresy due to confusion, etc. But he still holds that the conclusion that the See is vacant is dogmatically certain.
False. We clearly defined those terms earlier in this thread.Would it be considered "dogmatic" that we must believe a manifest, formal, but not yet declared heretic is not a member of the Catholic Church?
Examples of dogmatic sedevacantists: Dimond brothers, Bishop Sanborn
Examples of moderate sedevacantists (the opinionists, as Bishop Sanborn calls them): SSPV
So, for instance, the Dimonds claim that anyone who believes that Bergoglio is the pope is by that very fact a heretic. No allowance made for disagreements regarding the Cajetan vs. Bellarmine positions, or more of a sedeprivationist angle. Bishop Sanborn is a bit more moderate, but still a dogmatic sedevacantist, since he would hold that people could be excused from formal heresy due to confusion, etc. But he still holds that the conclusion that the See is vacant is dogmatically certain.
False. We clearly defined those terms earlier in this thread.Yes, let's take a look at the definition you and Xavier came up with:
Examples of dogmatic sedevacantists: Dimond brothers, Bishop Sanborn
Examples of moderate sedevacantists (the opinionists, as Bishop Sanborn calls them): SSPV
So, for instance, the Dimonds claim that anyone who believes that Bergoglio is the pope is by that very fact a heretic. No allowance made for disagreements regarding the Cajetan vs. Bellarmine positions, or more of a sedeprivationist angle. Bishop Sanborn is a bit more moderate, but still a dogmatic sedevacantist, since he would hold that people could be excused from formal heresy due to confusion, etc. But he still holds that the conclusion that the See is vacant is dogmatically certain.
Just because I believe that the Novus Ordo church is a non-Catholic sectSo what is the Catholic Church now? The CMRI or the SSPV or the SSG organization or other?
So what is the Catholic Church now? The CMRI or the SSPV or the SSG organization or other?I don't have all the answers Matto. I just know that the Novus Ordo can not possibly be the Catholic Church because it universally teaches and professes a false, non-Catholic religion.
I don't have all the answers Matto. I just know that the Novus Ordo can not possibly be the Catholic Church because it universally teaches and professes a false, non-Catholic religion.OK but it is a fair question. Outside of the Catholic Church there is no salvation. Unfortunately, we do not know what or where is the Catholic Church in the world today.
OK but it is a fair question. Outside of the Catholic Church there is no salvation. Unfortunately, we do not know what or where is the Catholic Church in the world today.Yes, it is fair as long as it is sincere. I'm not exactly feeling like any question to me right now would be anything but a gotcha however. I'm pretty done with the anti-sede attitude around these parts.
OK but it is a fair question. Outside of the Catholic Church there is no salvation. Unfortunately, we do not know what or where is the Catholic Church in the world today.
The Church is all Catholics. Catholics are baptized, confess the true faith in word and deed, and submit to their authorized superiors. Since there are no bishops with apostolic mandate left, there's none to submit to.This. Non-sedevacantists like to say "Is SSPV or whoever the Catholic Church?" The question is silly and makes no sense. The Catholic Church is the congregation of all those who are baptized, profess the Catholic Faith, and are submitted to its legitimate authority. Traditional Catholic organizations such as SSPV do not claim that only people who attend their chapels are Catholic. And the question "Where is the Catholic Church" is like asking "Where is the Pythagorean Theorem?" The Catholic Church isn't sitting in a box somewhere. It's a spiritual thing that does not exist in a place, so it's meaningless to ask for its location.
The Catholic Church isn't sitting in a box somewhere. It's a spiritual thing that does not exist in a place, so it's meaningless to ask for its location.But this is strange. Normally for two thousand years when one asked "where is the Catholic Church" the answer was to point to the Bishop in his Cathedral and say "there is the Catholic Church".
But this is strange. Normally for two thousand years when one asked "where is the Catholic Church" the answer was to point to the Bishop in his Cathedral and say "there is the Catholic Church".I think normally when people asked where the Catholic Church was they were asking for directions to the local building in which Mass is offered. I don't think people asked "Where is the Catholic Church" in the sense you mean, since, as I said, the question makes no sense.
Edit: Well for the first couple of centuries of persecution there weren't many Cathedrals because many of the Bishops were underground but you know what I mean.
The Church is all Catholics. Catholics are baptized, confess the true faith in word and deed, and submit to their authorized superiors. Since there are no bishops with apostolic mandate left, there's none to submit to.
But this is strange. Normally for two thousand years when one asked "where is the Catholic Church" the answer was to point to the Bishop in his Cathedral and say "there is the Catholic Church".
But this is strange. Normally for two thousand years when one asked "where is the Catholic Church" the answer was to point to the Bishop in his Cathedral and say "there is the Catholic Church".
What if the guy on the street you asked were an Arian or a Donatist? Wouldn't he have pointed to their Basilica, and said "there is the Catholic Church", and then added: "beware of those heretics, over there"? I'm not sure that it was as easy as you say, always and everywhere.You seem to have missed my point.
If someone asks me for my religion, I don't just answer "I am a Catholic". I add that I believe that most who call themselves Catholic aren't. There are those "who say they are apostles, and are not, and" I have "found them liars". (Rev 2:2 (http://www.drbo.org/cgi-bin/d?b=drb&bk=73&ch=2&l=2-#x))
Anna Foster, you can upload the PDF on CathInfo with any post you write as an attachment to the post.
What do you think of a "dogmatic fact"? Do you understand what that is, and its import?
Quote from: Argentino (https://www.cathinfo.com/index.php?topic=56905.msg708766#msg708766) on Sun Jul 26 2020 04:59:53 GMT+0530 (India Standard Time)A dogmatic fact is one declared as such by Church Authority. Theologians commonly give the example of a Papal Election or an Ecuмenical Council as being a dogmatic fact. Thus, the election of Pope Pius IX as the lawful Pope of the Catholic Church, or that Vatican I was a legitimate Ecuмenical Council, would be classified as dogmatic facts.
No response to my question?
Quote from: 2Vermont Proved by whom? You?For the purposes of the thread, proved to one's satisfaction as a sedevacantist. The question is asking whether one is a moderate sedevacantist or dogmatic sedevacantist as defined earlier.
Quote from: Struthio One would have to be completely detached from reality to claim that there is a dogma saying that all who don't hold to the sedevacantist position are condemned. There simply is none.Ibranyi is up there. He considers virtually the entire world to be heretics and has anathematized a hundred Popes as heretics as last count. Ibranyi would qualify as a dogmatic sedevacantist for the poll.
Quote I didn't vote either.The question is basically asking whether one considers SVism (1) a dogma or (2) an opinion. An opinion can be subject to further revision in light of new facts as they emerge. A dogma is not. So that's the reason for the question. The question of how something becomes dogma or even dogmatic fact (it obviously depends on some Church Authority) would be the next question to a sedevacantist who claimed sedevacantism was dogma.
Quote from: Ladislaus I consider a 62-year period of sedevacante to be problematic, but not theologically impossible.New thread for this.
Quote from: StruthioOne would have to be completely detached from reality to claim that there is a dogma saying that all who don't hold to the sedevacantist position are condemned. There simply is none.
Ibranyi is up there. He considers virtually the entire world to be heretics and has anathematized a hundred Popes as heretics as last count. Ibranyi would qualify as a dogmatic sedevacantist for the poll.
Dogmatic Sedevacantism (DS): SVism is dogma. If you don't believe it, you are in heresy!
Struthio is probably considered an example of a dogmatic sedevacantist.
A dogmatic fact is one declared as such by Church Authority. Theologians commonly give the example of a Papal Election or an Ecuмenical Council as being a dogmatic fact. Thus, the election of Pope Pius IX as the lawful Pope of the Catholic Church, or that Vatican I was a legitimate Ecuмenical Council, would be classified as dogmatic facts.What you say is contrary to what the second-to-last chapter of "Liberalism is a Sin" says. Read that again.
In order for a sedevacantist to argue the alleged non-Papacy of recent Popes was a dogmatic fact, he or she would need to show a dogmatic declaration by a Church Council to that effect. But no such Council exists.
There are those who argue (like Fr. Connell in 1965) that the Papacy of Pope Paul VI (and thus of Pope John XXIII also) were dogmatic facts. The reason they adduce for this was that those Papal elections were universally accepted.
As for the poll at hand: I would be a NO conservative. Because it is the only parallel position to sedevacantism without falling into schism like R&R.Yes, if we're wrong then pinesap and the AF types who are pushing 90% obedience to Bergoglio are right (they do still disobey him but have a "hermeneutic" for it) It seems very wrong but it is more consistent than RnR or Indult. If SP/SV is wrong there is a monstrous ecclesiology crisis and no NO apologists address UR in a convincing way
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DqgcCujfQF0Pray tell, why would you want to resurrect this stupid thread? :facepalm:
Valid priests, valid sacraments, that is where I go.Validity is not the end-all, songbird.
Pray tell, why would you want to resurrect this stupid thread? :facepalm:
As for the poll at hand: I would be a NO conservative. Because it is the only parallel position to sedevacantism without falling into schism like R&R.
Agreed. If I were to conclude that the Conciliar Papal Claimants and Conciliar Hierarchy are legitimate, I would make haste back into full communion with Rome ... though I would still mostly avoid the NOM ... out of personal preference rather than out of principle. Nevertheless, if the NOM was the only Sunday Mass near me, I would feel obligated to assist at it under pain of mortal sin to fulfill my Sunday obligation. And if I were to conclude that the Conciliar Papal Claimants are legitimate, I would abjure my schism and re-read the docuмents of Vatican II with the docility required of Catholics toward the Magisterium. God will not punish a Catholic who submits to the teaching of His Church, nor will He allow it to ruin his soul or lead to his damnation. But R&R don't believe that. They have in fact reduced the Magisterium to nothing more than opining on the part of the one who sits in the See of Peter. As such, it has no more authority or credibility than the work of any given theologian, and must be compared by our private judgment to Tradition. If we find it Traditional, then we agree with it (just like anything we might read that we agree with). Sorry, guys, but this is utterly preposterous and does not even resemble Roman Catholicism.I'm not sorry. It isn't Catholicism at all. There is no precedent for it outside of the opinions of a handful of theologians, it is a man-made edifice inspired by Satan to sow a spirit of rebellion within otherwise good Catholics.
It was an accident. I navigated to this thread to find an old post I had made so I could reference it in the other thread and then replied to the wrong one. So your assertion that I "want"ed to resurrect this thread is incorrect.Good. I'm glad I was wrong.
Valid priests, valid sacraments, that is where I go.(https://i.imgur.com/skNNzvQ.png)