Author Topic: St. Thomas indirectly on SVism (Read 3626 times)

Cantarella · « **Reply #15 on:** October 14, 2014, 08:38:04 PM »

Quote from: Geremia

Quote from: Cantarella
And actually, st. Bellarmine, who sedevacantists are very fond of citing, is very clear to state that a Catholic, is one who professes the Catholic Faith, who submits to legitimate Pastors, principally the Roman Pontiff, and shares in common the seven Catholic Sacraments. Whoever does not meet these requisites, it is actually outside the Church as a heretic, apostate, or schismatic.
And if there is no Roman Pontiff to submit to…?

Who says that?

Geremia · « **Reply #16 on:** October 14, 2014, 09:08:55 PM »

Quote from: Cantarella

Quote from: Geremia
Quote from: Cantarella
And actually, st. Bellarmine, who sedevacantists are very fond of citing, is very clear to state that a Catholic, is one who professes the Catholic Faith, who submits to legitimate Pastors, principally the Roman Pontiff, and shares in common the seven Catholic Sacraments. Whoever does not meet these requisites, it is actually outside the Church as a heretic, apostate, or schismatic.
And if there is no Roman Pontiff to submit to…?

Who says that?

…we should submit to an anti-pope? Of course not.

Cantarella · « **Reply #17 on:** October 14, 2014, 09:36:11 PM »

Quote from: Geremia

Quote from: Cantarella
Quote from: Geremia
Quote from: Cantarella
And actually, st. Bellarmine, who sedevacantists are very fond of citing, is very clear to state that a Catholic, is one who professes the Catholic Faith, who submits to legitimate Pastors, principally the Roman Pontiff, and shares in common the seven Catholic Sacraments. Whoever does not meet these requisites, it is actually outside the Church as a heretic, apostate, or schismatic.
And if there is no Roman Pontiff to submit to…?

Who says that?
…we should submit to an anti-pope? Of course not.

There must be legitimate resistance without believing in absurdities or being outside the Church.

Who is outside the Church? According to st. Bellarmine, the following:

Quote

By reason of the first part are excluded all infidels, as much those who have never been in the Church, like the Jєωs, Turks and Pagans; as those who have been and have fallen away, like heretics and apostates.

By reason of the second, are excluded catechumens and excommunicates, because the former are not to be admitted to the communion of the sacraments, the latter have been cut off from it.

By reason of the third, are excluded schismatics, who have faith and the sacraments, but are not subject to the lawful pastor, and therefore they profess the Faith outside, and receive the Sacraments outside. However, all others are included, even if they be reprobate, sinful and wicked.

ThomisticPhilosopher · « **Reply #18 on:** October 15, 2014, 06:35:35 AM »

Quote

By the way, it is a Catholic DOGMA that no one is in his way of salvation unless submitted to the Roman Pontiff.

You do know that submission to the Roman Pontiff comes at baptism right? And that the submission applies whether there is currently a head living atm. For if what you are saying is true, no baptized babies can enter heaven because they can't submit to a Pope... Since there is not one at the moment, because of heresy or in most historical cases death of a Pope.

If you must "intellectually" submit to the Roman Pontiff it is impossible for babies who do not possess reason to submit to the Roman Pontiff, IF what you are suggesting is true. Rather, theologians have taken care of this "apparent problem" and we must remember that a lot of this applies to even protestant validly baptized babies. They too are in subjection to the Roman Pontiff until whenever the time comes that they submit to heresy, on their own accord. For they are not responsible for the heresies of their parents, as is obvious that no one is responsible for anything other then their own sins/belief/unbelief. This is why it might be possible for a Protestant who has never become a heretic, who might be 9 years old and of course never sullied their soul with a mortal sin. Now the main problem is that most protestants are so wicked that they do not even baptize until much later, so that this is why we can pretty much exclude even the remote possibility of them being saved because without baptism you cannot belong to the Mystical Body of Christ.

Consistently you show that you do not know what you are talking about, instead of humbly admitting you have been wrong. No, instead you make worse arguments then the previous ones.

You did not ever say that you abused St. Robert Bellarmine, people like you that are bad willed don't ever recognize that they can possibly be wrong. If I am proven wrong, I will more then gladly retract anything I have said, if it can be shown to contradict the teaching of the Church.

You must demonstrate that somehow what you seem to be quoting applies to any Sedevacantist that clearly shows no spirit of schism as Most Holy Family and other radical type of schismatics (home aloners, or papal deposers up to 100-1000 years). Now these men are Papal deposer's, because NO ONE previous to their own genius proof texting Sola Denzingerite studies concluded even remotely any of their conclusions. Some of the greatest Saints gave testimony of the other Popes, and men of such great wisdom + learning also never doubted the Orthodoxy of any previous Vatican II claimants.

As opposed to what we are doing is recognizing a manifest public fact that has happened... The fact you keep mentioning, that any of the laity have deposed a "Pope" just shows how completely ignorant you are of the arguments for/against the heretical pope thesis. Not even Cajetan, Suarez, or John of St. Thomas argue like how you are. All of them recognize that a Pope who would theoretically be deposed by the Church, would only do such a thing after the fact that Christ had already done such a thing in the first place... Which is what we have said, all this time. So, not even one theologian disputes this particular point... Yet, you somehow dishonestly KEEP making the claim that is somehow possible for even the Church to do such a thing! This is the heresy of Conciliarism, and all the previous theologians understood this heresy very well which is why it was so difficult for them to come up with a way of how to properly "depose" a heretical Pope.

At the end of the day, the disagreement even among the said theologians is not as much as most people think. The disagreement is between fine distinctions, nothing of the sort of the modern SSPX vs SV debate. Not even close, the chasm between both theological systems is not just a few distinctions, it is quite something different. Each day it grows even wider, because in their defense of heresy they become even more anti-Catholic in their view. Whereas before it was possible to say that something was not controversial, now it is becoming extremely controversial.

The line is being drawn in the sand between the disciples of the Lord, and false teachers. My hope is that all traditional Catholics, can be able to modify their Sedeplenism at least in such a way as not to embrace heresy in the process.

Ferdinand · « **Reply #19 on:** October 15, 2014, 10:38:30 AM »

Quote from: + PG +

...I am doubtful that catholics can formally depose a pope.

According to the Church, he "formally" deposes himself!

Quote from: St. Robert Bellarmine (1610)

“A Pope who is a manifest heretic automatically ceases to be a Pope and head, just as he ceases automatically to be a Christian and a member of the Church.”

Quote from: St. Antoninus (1459)

“In the case in which the Pope would become a heretic, he would find himself, by that very fact alone and without any other sentence, separated from the Church. A head separated from a body cannot, as long as it remains separated, be head of the same body from which it was cut off.”

Quote from: St. Francis de Sales (1622)

“Now when the Pope is explicitly a heretic, he falls ipso facto from his dignity and out of the Church ...”

“We are suspended a divinis by the Conciliar Church and for the Conciliar Church, to which we have no wish to belong. That Conciliar Church is a schismatic Church, because it breaks with the Catholic Church that has always been. It has its new dogmas, its new priesthood, its new institutions, its new worship, all already condemned by the Church in many a docuмent, official and definitive.... The Church that affirms such errors is at once schismatic and heretical. This Conciliar Church is, therefore, not Catholic. To whatever extent Pope, Bishops, priests, or faithful adhere to this new Church, they separate themselves from the Catholic Church....

~Archbishop Lefebvre, Reflections on Suspension a divinis, June 29, 1976

Cantarella · « **Reply #20 on:** October 15, 2014, 11:36:47 AM »

Quote from: ThomisticPhilosopher

Quote

By the way, it is a Catholic DOGMA that no one is in his way of salvation unless submitted to the Roman Pontiff.

You do know that submission to the Roman Pontiff comes at baptism right?

Yes, but one must persevere inside the unity of the Church, (this means juridical union with the Bishop of Rome). Otherwise, Orthodox and protestants could be saved without explicitly joining the Catholic Church.

There is a great misunderstanding on what the term "submission" means, indeed.

Cantarella · « **Reply #21 on:** October 15, 2014, 11:58:38 AM »

Quote from: Ferdinand

Quote from: + PG +
...I am doubtful that catholics can formally depose a pope.

According to the Church, he "formally" deposes himself!

Quote from: St. Robert Bellarmine (1610)
“A Pope who is a manifest heretic automatically ceases to be a Pope and head, just as he ceases automatically to be a Christian and a member of the Church.”

Quote from: St. Antoninus (1459)
“In the case in which the Pope would become a heretic, he would find himself, by that very fact alone and without any other sentence, separated from the Church. A head separated from a body cannot, as long as it remains separated, be head of the same body from which it was cut off.”

Quote from: St. Francis de Sales (1622)
“Now when the Pope is explicitly a heretic, he falls ipso facto from his dignity and out of the Church ...”

There is an error in this statement. Bellarmine, Antoninus, and Francis de Sales are not the Church. Saints and doctors do not represent the ultimate binding teaching authority of the Church and are fallible, whereas the Church cannot err.

Quote from: Pius XII

“The Church has never accepted even the most holy and most eminent Doctor, and does not now accept even a single one of them, as the principal source of truth. The Church certainly considers Thomas and Augustine great Doctors, and she accords them the highest praise; but she recognizes infallibility only in the inspired authors of the Sacred Scriptures. By divine mandate, the interpreter and guardian of the Sacred Scriptures, depository of Sacred Tradition living within her, the Church alone is the entrance to salvation; she alone, by herself, and under the protection and guidance of the Holy Ghost, is the source of truth.”

There is nowhere a Church teaching that defines what happens in the case of a heretical Pope and theologians are not in agreement. Most even think that it could never be possible.

Ferdinand · « **Reply #22 on:** October 15, 2014, 12:24:53 PM »

Quote from: Ferdinand

Quote from: + PG +
...I am doubtful that catholics can formally depose a pope.

According to the Church, he "formally" deposes himself!

Quote from: St. Robert Bellarmine (1610)
“A Pope who is a manifest heretic automatically ceases to be a Pope and head, just as he ceases automatically to be a Christian and a member of the Church.”

Quote from: St. Antoninus (1459)
“In the case in which the Pope would become a heretic, he would find himself, by that very fact alone and without any other sentence, separated from the Church. A head separated from a body cannot, as long as it remains separated, be head of the same body from which it was cut off.”

Quote from: St. Francis de Sales (1622)
“Now when the Pope is explicitly a heretic, he falls ipso facto from his dignity and out of the Church ...”

“We are suspended a divinis by the Conciliar Church and for the Conciliar Church, to which we have no wish to belong. That Conciliar Church is a schismatic Church, because it breaks with the Catholic Church that has always been. It has its new dogmas, its new priesthood, its new institutions, its new worship, all already condemned by the Church in many a docuмent, official and definitive.... The Church that affirms such errors is at once schismatic and heretical. This Conciliar Church is, therefore, not Catholic. To whatever extent Pope, Bishops, priests, or faithful adhere to this new Church, they separate themselves from the Catholic Church....

~Archbishop Lefebvre, Reflections on Suspension a divinis, June 29, 1976

Oops, I forgot Saint Alphonsus...

Quote from: Saint Alphonsus Maria Liguori, Doctor (1696-1787)

“If, however, God were to permit a pope to become a notorious and contumacious heretic, he would by such a fact cease to be pope, and the apostolic chair would be vacant.” (Verita della Fede, III, VIII. 9-10.)

Jehanne · « **Reply #23 on:** October 15, 2014, 12:38:05 PM »

Quote from: Cantarella

There is nowhere a Church teaching that defines what happens in the case of a heretical Pope and theologians are not in agreement. Most even think that it could never be possible.

Well, seeing is believing!

MyrnaM · « **Reply #24 on:** October 15, 2014, 01:09:38 PM »

Quote from: Cantarella

By the way, it is a Catholic DOGMA that no one is in his way of salvation unless submitted to the Roman Pontiff.

Do you suppose that the "no one" you mention would include your "pope" Francis when he is totally opposite of the Roman Pontiff.

IllyricumSacrum · « **Reply #25 on:** October 15, 2014, 10:16:28 PM »

Quote from: Geremia

Quote from: Cantarella
Kind of the same argument the Eastern Orthodox have given since 1054.
They don't believe in the papacy.

Yeah, what Geremia said

ThomisticPhilosopher · « **Reply #26 on:** October 19, 2014, 10:33:30 PM »

Quote from: Cantarella

Quote from: ThomisticPhilosopher
Quote

By the way, it is a Catholic DOGMA that no one is in his way of salvation unless submitted to the Roman Pontiff.

You do know that submission to the Roman Pontiff comes at baptism right?

Yes, but one must persevere inside the unity of the Church, (this means juridical union with the Bishop of Rome). Otherwise, Orthodox and protestants could be saved without explicitly joining the Catholic Church.

There is a great misunderstanding on what the term "submission" means, indeed.

There is no misunderstanding, theology is straightforward. It is your gobbledygook which only throws confusion into something that is already CLEAR teaching.

What are you trying to say by "persevere." Your either in or outside of the Church, not a muddled partial communion garbage theology. God knows, when someone is a Catholic and when they are not. Only reason why we can't always know is because sometimes there are such things as crypto-heretics, and since we can only make judgements based on the external forum it makes things difficult, since most of us are not given the gift of reading hearts. Even then that special charism is usually done for a very limited reason, and the Saints who had it, did not read every single thought of the person, but ONLY what God had permitted them to know. He gave them so to speak, a little sneak peak at the soul of a particular sinner.

Protestants and Orthodox children are CATHOLICS, up until the age that they formally adhere to heresies. Now if you are talking about adult orthoducks and protestants, since they adhere to heresy then they are clearly outside of the Church. Everyone who is baptized becomes a Catholic, unless there is an obstacle to their membership of the Church.

Quote

Rituale Romanum

Reception of Converts and Profession of Faith

APPENDIX: RECEPTION OF CONVERTS AND PROFESSION OF FAITH

(As prescribed by the Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office on July 20, 1859; with the new form for abjuration of errors and profession of faith, approved by the Holy Office for the use of converts, and communicated through the Apostolic Delegate to the U. S. on March 28, 1942.)

In the case of a convert from heresy, inquiry should first be made about the validity of his former baptism. If after careful investigation it is discovered that the party was never baptized or that the supposed baptism was invalid, he must now be baptized unconditionally. However, if the investigation leaves doubt about the validity of baptism, then it is to be repeated conditionally, using the ceremony for baptism of adults. Thirdly, if ascertained that the former baptism was valid, reception into the Church will consist only in abjuration of former errors and profession of faith. The reception of a convert will, consequently, take place in one of the following three ways:

I

If baptism is conferred unconditionally, neither abjuration of former errors nor absolution from censures will follow, since the sacrament of rebirth cleanses from all sin and fault.

II

If baptism is to be repeated conditionally, the order will be: (1) abjuration or profession of faith; (2) baptism with conditional form; (3) sacramental confession with conditional absolution.

III

If the former baptism has been judged valid, there will be only abjuration or profession of faith, followed by absolution from censures. But if the convert greatly desires that the full rites of baptism lacking hitherto be supplied on this occasion, the priest is certainly free to comply with his devout request. In this case he ought to use the form of baptism for adults, making those changes necessitated by the fact that baptism has already been validly conferred.

The priest vested in surplice and purple stole is seated in the middle of the altar predella, unless the Blessed Sacrament is reserved in the tabernacle--in which case he takes a place at the epistle side. The convert kneels before him, and with his right hand on the book of Gospels makes the profession of faith as given below. If the person is unable to read, the priest reads it for him slowly, so that he can understand and repeat the words after him.

Quote

John Lane http://sedevacantist.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=1662&hilit=profession+of+faith&sid=e9d9bb3f015c8277abee8731577d50a8
Membership in the Church is due to valid baptism, which imprints an ineradicable character on the soul, and this character conforms the subject to Christ, making him a member and part of the Church. This active principle causing membership can be impeded by an obstacle, such as external unbelief or external schism (or, rarely, total excommunication), in which case membership is lost. Or, more properly, membership ceases being brought about by the active principle, the character of baptism, because of the obstacle. Take away the obstacle, and the character of baptism, which is always active and tending to make the person a member of Christ, can once again complete its effect and make the man a member.

That's the theology of the matter. It's expressed in pithy terms by Canon 87 of the Code. "By baptism a person becomes a subject of the Church of Christ with all the rights and duties of a Christian, unless, in so far as rights as are concerned, there is some obstacle impeding the bond of communion with the Church, or a censure inflicted by the Church."

Anyone can see that according to this understanding all that is required for the restoration of membership once lost, is the removal of the obstacle that caused the loss. Or, again, to state the matter more theologically, the removal of the obstacle causing the loss. This means that if the obstacle is external heresy, then the removal of that obstacle is the abduration of error and a renewed profession of the faith. Since these things are required, the Church makes provision of them in her law, so as to ensure order, and she also takes occasion to bring about the lifting of any censures that have been incurred. But if there is no canonically established person to witness the abduration or the profession of faith, then other witnesses can certainly perform the fundamental function of such a witness - which is to make public the fact.

ThomisticPhilosopher · « **Reply #27 on:** October 19, 2014, 10:46:24 PM »

Quote from: Cantarella

There is nowhere a Church teaching that defines what happens in the case of a heretical Pope and theologians are not in agreement. Most even think that it could never be possible.

None of them agree with what you teach. So there you have it, moral unanimity against your opinion?

Its amazing how you attempt to proof-text Pius XII. How you demonstrate because there is an error that someone has. Somehow that now gives you credence to throw gobbledygook at everyone else now.

So by your logic, since an overwhelming majority of the Doctor's had a similar position to that of St. Thomas, with respect to the Immaculate conception. Even then the only difference between the Dogma of the IC, and the scholastic position. Is that they all believed that for an infinetismal of a second, she was conceived in original sin. As opposed from the VERY instant of her conception, and all of this was because of St. Anselm atonement theology. Now everything that they all say, should be ignored. Because they are "fallible", which is another way of you saying their opinion is just, an "opinion." This really leads to indifferentism, and relativism (my opinion is just as true as yours non-sense). What is even worse, you claim that the Church has somehow sided on your side. With 0 evidence...

You give no evidence, no proof, all you do is just give arguments in the negative. This is horrid... Its not just those three Doctor's but EVERY Doctor of the Church that has spoken on that issue, is on our side. Now the BURDEN of proof is on you, to prove how exactly the mind of the Church has shown that it has sided AGAINST their opinion.

No instead, we have them raised to be Doctor's precisely because of those treatises we are discussing against. St. Robert Bellarmine and St. Francis de Sales, have been universally recognized as the Master's of Controversies. Your a nobody, nothing, zilch. If you dare speak against learned men, you better have a really good reason to do so. And show beyond reasonable doubt, that the Church has definitely spoken against their teaching on this matter. No instead we see the same principles that they are teaching, enshrined in Canon Law and clearly the mind of the Church is on our side.

This is why the only defence of the sedeplenist position are a few theologians, who by the way I agree with 95% of the SV'ist premises. I will later be showing a post, of a diagram of where it is that they disagree. By the way none of these theologians agree with each other, on most things. Each of them has a total different theory. All of our Doctor's unanimously agree on the same matter. So you don't have moral unanimity on this question, because it is not simply the minority position it is the wrong position.