Send CathInfo's owner Matthew a gift from his Amazon wish list:
https://www.amazon.com/hz/wishlist/ls/25M2B8RERL1UO

Poll

Sedevacantists:if you were convinced sede-ism was wrong, what would you do next?

Become an R&R Traditionalist
12 (36.4%)
Become an Indult Traditionalist
5 (15.2%)
Become an NO Cath Conservative
9 (27.3%)
Become a very liberal Catholic
1 (3%)
Cease to practice Catholicism
6 (18.2%)

Total Members Voted: 27

Author Topic: Sedevacantists:if you were convinced sede-ism was wrong, what would you do next?  (Read 22061 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Stubborn

  • Supporter
  • *****
  • Posts: 14760
  • Reputation: +6091/-908
  • Gender: Male
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.  

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


"But Peter and the apostles answering, said: We ought to obey God, rather than men." - Acts 5:29

The Highest Principle in the Church: "We are first of all under obedience to God, and only then under obedience to man" - Fr. Hesse

Offline Stubborn

  • Supporter
  • *****
  • Posts: 14760
  • Reputation: +6091/-908
  • Gender: Male
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".

"...we teach and define as a divinely revealed dogma that when the Roman pontiff speaks ex cathedra, that is, when, in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole church...."

"If and only if" implies that the pope might never define a doctrine ex cathedra at all, making the infallible definition of papal infallibility, indeed, the whole First Vatican Council, altogether erroneous.  
"But Peter and the apostles answering, said: We ought to obey God, rather than men." - Acts 5:29

The Highest Principle in the Church: "We are first of all under obedience to God, and only then under obedience to man" - Fr. Hesse


Offline Ladislaus

  • Supporter
  • *****
  • Posts: 46813
  • Reputation: +27672/-5138
  • Gender: Male
^^^ 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

Ridiculous.  You cite Lumen Gentium as your authority, from a Council that you reject as heterodox and/or heretical.

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.

Offline Stubborn

  • Supporter
  • *****
  • Posts: 14760
  • Reputation: +6091/-908
  • Gender: Male
Ridiculous.  You cite Lumen Gentium as your authority, from a Council that you reject as heterodox and/or heretical.

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.
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

What *you* claim is "the understanding of the Church" is not the understanding of the Church, it is a NO doctrine, found only in LG. It is not the understanding of the Church - if it were, then you must be NO because THAT is what the "moral universality of the bishops (i.e. nearly all of them) together teach in union with the Pope."
 
According to you, the Church understands that those teachings of V2 are "protected from any substantial grave error by the Holy Spirit". So why do you transgress this understanding of the Church for sedevacantism?

Here is your post, read it again since it seems you have already forgotten what you wrote only yesterday.



"But Peter and the apostles answering, said: We ought to obey God, rather than men." - Acts 5:29

The Highest Principle in the Church: "We are first of all under obedience to God, and only then under obedience to man" - Fr. Hesse

Online Pax Vobis

  • Supporter
  • *****
  • Posts: 12283
  • Reputation: +7782/-2370
  • Gender: Male
Quote
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?
.
Example:  You go to math class and learn "math doctrine" (facts and truths which must be believed, else you can't do math):  2+2=4, 10x10=100, etc.
.
You're saying that one can go to math class and learn non-fact/theory (does the number "Pi" go to infinity?  How many prime numbers are there?) and that such theory/opinion can't be wrong?  Yet, such theories/opinions aren't required to be learned to do math.  If they can't be wrong, why aren't they required?
.
In the context of Catholicism, you're arguing that the non-infallible magisterium can "teach" (to use the term loosely) but such "teachings" aren't required to be believed, even though they can't be wrong?  It makes no sense.  Seems like a whole waste of time.  Can you provide an example of any such "teaching" prior to V2?
.
The way I see it is the non-infallible Magisterium is supposed to re-iterate, re-teach and clarify the doctrines that have existed from Tradition/Scripture/Christ.  All doctrine was given to the Church in Christ's time, either explicitly or implicitly.  So the Magisterium's job is to "hand down that which has always been taught" and to clarify and re-teach when heresies and misunderstandings arise.  It does these jobs using either 1) solemn infallible statements (unusual), 2) non-solemn infallible statements (papal clarification that doctrine x is of Tradition/Scripture), or 3) through the ordinary teaching offices of orthodox bishops/priests/theologians who re-teach Truths which are the same "yesterday, today and tomorrow".
.
The Magisterium is composed of past apostles/saints/popes/clergy and also current pope/clergy.  Scripture/Tradition/History are the tools used, but since the Magisterium is an "office", so only men can fulfill its duties.  So, for example, St Alphonsus' writings or St Thomas' Summa is (generally) part of the magisterium because they have been proven to be orthodox by their peers and by saintly clergy and approved by popes.  But not everything coming from a pope/saint is correct, so God gave us Church history to double-check orthodoxy.  God also gave us the Church Fathers who in many areas, all agree on doctrine, which they received from the Apostles, so we can be confident that our Tradition is orthodox. 
.
When a pope is not acting in his official capacity as Authoritative Teacher 1) solemnly or 2) non-solemnly but still authoritatively, then he is 3) just a simple bishop giving us his theological opinion.  Same applies to all bishops/priests in the world.  If any cleric (including the pope) is not basing their "teachings" on orthodoxy from 1) prior doctrinal councils, 2) Tradition/Church Fathers, 3) non-conciliar dogmatic statements, or 4) confirmed Scriptural truths, then how can it be truly Catholic?  Where is this "teaching" coming from, that we must believe it?  What foundation is it based on? 
.
There is nothing new under the sun.  All Church doctrine has been revealed to us.  The Assumption dogma was not new by any means.  And the yet-to-be-defined truth of "Our Lady, Mediatrix of All Graces" is still implicitly part of the Faith, even though the Church has not defined it as such.  V2 didn't re-teach, clarify, or re-affirm orthodoxy, so its conclusions are novel and uncatholic.  This does not jeopardize the Magisterium's function or sublime nature at all, for the Magisterium (i.e. the men of today) are not protected from error, just like 98% of such fell into error during Arianism.  What is protected by the Holy Ghost, until the end of time, is the ETERNAL MAGISTERIUM, which is all orthodox/Divine Teachings of Scripture/Tradition/Doctrine that Christ gave to His Apostles and which their successors have guarded for 2,000 years.


Offline Nishant Xavier

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 2873
  • Reputation: +1894/-1751
  • Gender: Male
So, Stubborn, do you think the doctrine of Lumen Gentium is wrong? 

"25. Among the principal duties of bishops the preaching of the Gospel occupies an eminent place.(39*) For bishops are preachers of the faith, who lead new disciples to Christ, and they are authentic teachers, that is, teachers endowed with the authority of Christ, who preach to the people committed to them the faith they must believe and put into practice, and by the light of the Holy Spirit illustrate that faith. They bring forth from the treasury of Revelation new things and old,(164) making it bear fruit and vigilantly warding off any errors that threaten their flock.(165) Bishops, teaching in communion with the Roman Pontiff, are to be respected by all as witnesses to divine and Catholic truth. In matters of faith and morals, the bishops speak in the name of Christ and the faithful are to accept their teaching and adhere to it with a religious assent. This religious submission of mind and will must be shown in a special way to the authentic magisterium of the Roman Pontiff, even when he is not speaking ex cathedra; that is, it must be shown in such a way that his supreme magisterium is acknowledged with reverence, the judgments made by him are sincerely adhered to, according to his manifest mind and will. His mind and will in the matter may be known either from the character of the docuмents, from his frequent repetition of the same doctrine, or from his manner of speaking ...

But when either the Roman Pontiff or the Body of Bishops together with him defines a judgment, they pronounce it in accordance with Revelation itself, which all are obliged to abide by and be in conformity with, that is, the Revelation which as written or orally handed down is transmitted in its entirety through the legitimate succession of bishops and especially in care of the Roman Pontiff himself, and which under the guiding light of the Spirit of truth is religiously preserved and faithfully expounded in the Church.(45*) The Roman Pontiff and the bishops, in view of their office and the importance of the matter, by fitting means diligently strive to inquire properly into that revelation and to give apt expression to its contents;(46*) but a new public revelation they do not accept as pertaining to the divine deposit of faith.(47*)" https://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/docuмents/vat-ii_const_19641121_lumen-gentium_en.html

(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

(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

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. 

Offline Argentino

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 177
  • Reputation: +68/-62
  • Gender: Male
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 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.
You wrote, "in one sense it was a question of attempting to discern where the Church was"
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.

Offline Stubborn

  • Supporter
  • *****
  • Posts: 14760
  • Reputation: +6091/-908
  • Gender: Male
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.
It (25) starts out preaching truthfully what bishops and the principle duties of bishops are. If they are faithful and actually do their duty, only then will they "bring forth from the treasury of Revelation new things and old, making it bear fruit and vigilantly warding off any errors that threaten their flock..."

But as reality demonstrates, there is no divine promise or any guarantee they will do their duty, they can all preach heresy in unison with the pope as we have seen them all do.



Quote
(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

(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

#1) Yes, we *must not* limit our submission only to dogmas, but also to, as Pope Pius IX taught in Tuas Libenter: "..this submission must also be extended to all that has been handed down as divinely revealed by the ordinary teaching authority of the entire Church spread over the whole world, and which, for this reason, Catholic theologians, with a universal and constant consent, regard as being of the faith".

#2) The beginning of the quote, the part you did not post states: "Finally, I declare that I am completely opposed to the error of the modernists..." As such, we cannot accept or in any way go along with, follow or obey commands riddled with modernist error no matter where they come from. To obey, go along with or to follow the errors of modernists is to break the oath and contribute to the Modernists' efforts, and we will be judged for this contribution.

The other part you did not quote, is the sentence that follows your quote and is merely an affirmation of the decree of V1: "The purpose of this [oath] is, then, not that dogma may be tailored according to what seems better and more suited to the culture of each age; rather, that the absolute and immutable truth preached by the apostles from the beginning may never be believed to be different, may never be understood in any other way".

When put together, the oath swears to hold the same belief as the Fathers, which belief is the truth of dogmas as decreed by the pope. IOW, here he is talking about dogma, yes and the pope, but we are swearing to uphold truth because it is truth that binds us, not the pope. The truth of dogma binds us, and that is the thing we swear to uphold. It is saying that dogma is defined by the pope, the pope comes from the succession of the episcopacy 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. The purpose of this is, then, not that dogma may be tailored according to what seems better and more suited to the culture of each age; rather, that the absolute and immutable truth preached by the apostles from the beginning may never be believed to be different, may never be understood in any other way".

"But Peter and the apostles answering, said: We ought to obey God, rather than men." - Acts 5:29

The Highest Principle in the Church: "We are first of all under obedience to God, and only then under obedience to man" - Fr. Hesse


Offline forlorn

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 2521
  • Reputation: +1041/-1106
  • Gender: Male
You wrote, "in one sense it was a question of attempting to discern where the Church was"
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. 

Offline Argentino

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 177
  • Reputation: +68/-62
  • Gender: Male
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?

Offline forlorn

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 2521
  • Reputation: +1041/-1106
  • Gender: Male
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.


Offline Ladislaus

  • Supporter
  • *****
  • Posts: 46813
  • Reputation: +27672/-5138
  • Gender: Male
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.

Do you agree with +Athanasius and +Vigano that there are errors in Vatican II?  I believe that you used to be in favor of "hermeneutic of continuity".

And, then, which of them do you agree with, since they're at odds here?  +Athanasius holds that the erroneous statements need to be reformed or amended, whereas +Vigano holds that the entire Council is polluted and must be cast aside.

Offline Ladislaus

  • Supporter
  • *****
  • Posts: 46813
  • Reputation: +27672/-5138
  • Gender: Male
Giving it a bit of thought, if +Schneider and +Vigano are in good standing with the Church while holding that there are errors in Vatican II, then what is the obstacle for SSPX joining back in full communion with Rome?

Part of the obstacle beforehand had been that the SSPX had to accept all of Vatican II, at least by applying a hermeneutic of continuity.  Here we have two bishops in good standing agreeing with them that there are in fact errors in Vatican II (they probably have the same errors in mind that the SSPX does).

So either +Schneider and +Vigano need to get the boot, or else the SSPX needs to be let back in while being allowed to hold that there are errors in V2.

Offline Ladislaus

  • Supporter
  • *****
  • Posts: 46813
  • Reputation: +27672/-5138
  • Gender: Male
Yes, really. What history book have you seen it written in that they considered a false claimant and his followers to be another 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.

Offline Argentino

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 177
  • Reputation: +68/-62
  • Gender: Male
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.

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.