Catholic Info

Traditional Catholic Faith => Crisis in the Church => Topic started by: Geremia on October 04, 2014, 05:56:03 PM

Title: St. Thomas indirectly on SVism
Post by: Geremia on October 04, 2014, 05:56:03 PM
From St. Thomas's commentary on Matt. 16:18:
Quote
And I say to thee: That thou art Peter, etc. Here He gives the reward for his confession. For he had confessed His humanity and divinity, and, for that reason, the Lord gives him a reward. Firstly, He gives him a name; and secondly, He gives him power. About the first, to begin with, He gives him the name; and secondly, He gives the reason for the name, where it is said, And upon this rock I will build my church. And for this He came into this world, that He would found His Church. “Behold I will lay a stone in the foundations of Sion, a tried stone, a corner stone, a precious stone, founded in the foundation” (Is. 28, 16). This was signified by the stone that Jacob put under his head, and anointed, as it is stated in Genesis 28. This stone is Christ, and from this anointing all Christians are called Christians; hence, we are not only called Christians from Christ, but also from the rock.20 For that reason, He specially names him: Thou art Peter, from the rock which is Christ. Albeit, according to Augustine, it seems that this name was not given at this time, but was given at the beginning; “Thou shalt be called Cephas” (Jn. 1, 42). Or it can be said that it was then promised, and it was here given. As a sign of this, it is said, upon this rock I will build my church.21 A distinctive characteristic of a rock is that it is placed in a foundation; likewise, another characteristic of a rock is that it gives firmness. “He is likened to a wise man that built his house upon a rock” (above 7, 24). Hence, it can be expounded of Christ. And upon this rock, that is, Christ, so that He may be its foundation, and having been placed as the foundation, the Church may gain firmness. Augustine, in his book of Retractions, says that this passage may be explained in multiple ways, and he left to his listeners to adopt the explanation that they prefer. For instance, this passage may be expounded such that the words this rock signify Christ; “And the rock was Christ” (I Cor. 10, 4). And elsewhere, it is written: “Another foundation no man can lay, but that which is laid: which is Christ Jesus” (ibid. 3, 11). There is another exposition: Upon this rock, meaning upon you who are a rock, because you yourself draw from me that you are a rock. And just as I am a rock, so upon you who are a rock I will build my Church, etc.

But what is this? Are both Christ and Peter the foundation? It must be answered that Christ, in and of Himself, is the foundation, but Peter is the foundation insofar as he confesses Christ, and insofar as he is His vicar. “Built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone,” etc., (Eph. 2, 20). “There are twelve foundations of the city: And in them, the twelve names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb” (Apoc. 21, 14). Christ, in and of Himself, is the foundation; but the Apostles, not in and of themselves but through Christ’s delegation, and through the authority given them by Christ, are foundations as well; “The foundations thereof are the holy mountains” (Ps. 86, 1). But Peter’s house especially, which was founded upon the rock, shall not be demolished, as said above in chapter 7.22 Thus, this house can be assaulted, but it cannot be conquered.
Title: St. Thomas indirectly on SVism
Post by: Cantarella on October 04, 2014, 09:31:12 PM
Kind of the same argument the Eastern Orthodox have given since 1054.
Title: St. Thomas indirectly on SVism
Post by: Cantarella on October 04, 2014, 11:03:24 PM
Please do not try to twist the teaching of St Thomas to fit the sedevacantist agenda, just like they do with st. Bellarmine.  It is evident for all who have eyes to see (and that are actually well versed in Church history) that sedevacantism is a novelty, unheard before Vatican II. History just does not attest to it.

There is absolutely no precedence for abandoning the office of the papacy in the lives of the Saints or Church history; those who always did, it was always the first step on the gradual slope to schism and thus, Hell.

Be strong; stay with the Church of all Ages, and don't feed into the Jewish liberal mainstream press and their attempts to divide the church.



Title: St. Thomas indirectly on SVism
Post by: Jehanne on October 05, 2014, 07:46:19 AM
Quote from: Cantarella
Please do not try to twist the teaching of St Thomas to fit the sedevacantist agenda, just like they do with st. Bellarmine.  It is evident for all who have eyes to see (and that are actually well versed in Church history) that sedevacantism is a novelty, unheard before Vatican II. History just does not attest to it.

There is absolutely no precedence for abandoning the office of the papacy in the lives of the Saints or Church history; those who always did, it was always the first step on the gradual slope to schism and thus, Hell.

Be strong; stay with the Church of all Ages, and don't feed into the Jewish liberal mainstream press and their attempts to divide the church.


I don't think that the SSPV, CMRI, etc., have abandoned the Church; if they had, they would not be talking about Francis almost constantly.  I think that they are waiting, either for the Second Coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, or for a true Pope to ascend the Throne.
Title: St. Thomas indirectly on SVism
Post by: PG on October 05, 2014, 03:45:07 PM
There are valid arguments for sedevacantism.  Although, I am doubtful that catholics can formally depose a pope.  But, Geremia is pointing in the right direction.  "Peter is the foundation in so far as he confesses Christ".  

As for a pro sedevacantism argument.  I will draw from scripture.  In between Peter's denial and confession, Christ called out to to the apostles in the boat who were fishing; Peter covered himself because he was naked, and placed himself "outside of the boat"(the bark of peter).  It is symbolic and a legitimate parallel to what we are experiencing now.  

However, there also is an argument for R&R practical plenism.  In between Peter's denial and confession he said "I go a fishing".  And, the other apostles said "we go with thee".  The "I" spoken by Peter is important, and the fact that the apostles went with him is important.

What scars the vacantist movement is the practice of judging validity.  That is like the fountain head.      

Title: St. Thomas indirectly on SVism
Post by: Geremia on October 05, 2014, 06:13:17 PM
Quote from: Cantarella
Kind of the same argument the Eastern Orthodox have given since 1054.
They don't believe in the papacy.
Title: St. Thomas indirectly on SVism
Post by: OHCA on October 05, 2014, 07:00:52 PM
Quote from: Cantarella
It is evident for all who have eyes to see (and that are actually well versed in Church history) that sedevacantism is a novelty, unheard before Vatican II. History just does not attest to it.

There is absolutely no precedence for abandoning the office of the papacy in the lives of the Saints or Church history; those who always did, it was always the first step on the gradual slope to schism and thus, Hell.


Your argument is invalid, ma'am.  At its essence, it simply states that we are not in a state of sedevacantism because we never were in such a state before Vatican II.

Vatican II, it's false ecumenism, and it's fruits are unprecedented.  Kissing the koran, accepting pagan blessings, "worshipping" with heretics and infidels, and relegating abortion and sodomy to the level of "trivial social issues" is unprecedented.  How difficult is it to believe (or acknowledge) that the Church is in an unprecedented circumstance...

I find myself closely affiliated with R&Rers.  I agree with them on much and do not wish to bash them about that with which I do not agree.  But logically speaking, that position is as absurd as, or more so than, sedevacantism.

I know that you are a lady, and thus, with all due respect, it would be more becoming if you only read to learn on such matters rather than endeavor to "instruct."
Title: St. Thomas indirectly on SVism
Post by: Geremia on October 05, 2014, 11:00:24 PM
Quote from: + PG +
In between Peter's denial and confession, Christ called out to to the apostles in the boat who were fishing; Peter covered himself because he was naked, and placed himself "outside of the boat"(the bark of peter).  It is symbolic and a legitimate parallel to what we are experiencing now.
John 21?
Title: St. Thomas indirectly on SVism
Post by: ThomisticPhilosopher on October 08, 2014, 04:04:34 PM
I don't know whether you are aware but to call SV'ism a novelty is ignorance of history.

I have pointed out quite a while ago, and so have many others, not sure if you have read it or not. If you have not, well that is fine, but here it is so that you can stop claiming such ignorance.

St. Vincent Ferrer "deposed" anti-Pope Benedict XIII for the simple fact of wanting to refuse to resign for the good of the Church. He did it in front of religious superiors, Cardinals that were appointed by the one he thought was the true Pope. St. Vincent was a prodigy genius, plus a man who was gifted with prophecy, miracles and great holiness. He was already a professor of Logic at the early age of 20's. He came about this after a serious study of tradition, months of fasting and prayer. It was then and ONLY then that he was able to do such a thing once he verified the magisterial teaching of the Church on the topic.

We have had approx. 40 something anti-Popes (not including the modern anti Popes) depending on which historian you talk to, most of them agree on all the ones with a few disputed cases. So to think that it is "a novelty" is completely dishonest at best, and plain bad will at worse. This is especially true if you have been on the internet forums for quite a bit. You can't claim that sort of ignorance that a newcomer might be able to claim who knows nothing of the faith.

Instead of making claims, no matter how long it takes you. Go and read ANY book pre-vatican II on the history of the papacy. It is precisely history which is on our side, and to make the BOLD claim that SV'ist are twisting somehow St. Robert Bellarmine shows simply how ignorant you are on the matter at hand.

St. Robert Bellarmine CLEARLY teaches that a heretical pope loses his office, St. Thomas Aquinas is in the same boat if you examine his treatises on heresy, St. Vincent clearly had the same position (if you don't believe me then actually go read his books), . Quit being intellectually lazy and actually read the material you are discussing about, instead of getting brainwashed by arguments which have already been refuted. When I went and did the reading myself, I found to my amazement that it was the SV'ist who were right. It also best fits the current crisis of the Church and the root of the problem.

The vatican II sect represents the false bride of Christ, the anti-Church. There is a long line of anti-Popes, before the final culmination of the Man of Sin, a.k.a. THE Anti-Christ. This has been the commentary of many great Saints with respect to who will the anti-Christ be? And how he will take the reigns of power, how he will be able to deceive the elect. The only man who fits the perfect description is an anti-Pope, this is why in the original D-R commentary it said this, St. Bernard says this and many other Doctors + theologians (Card. Manning says the same). It is not far-fetched, it is not "novelty" as you seem to think. It is only a novelty to those who are too stupid to read what tradition has actually said on the modern crisis. No instead you want to rely, on your emotions, and put what you conceive as God's "mercy" in a box of your own doing. Ohh if SV'ism were true, "the gates of Hell have prevailed against her" and such intellectual gobbledygook that is constantly uttered as theological arguments. Or the famous, your good Dad and bad Dad argument.

Go ahead and attend the Novus Ordo or the masses of those false priest who have been ordained in the New Rites. At the end of the day, when you die you will see that we were right from abstaining from them. Instead of disdaining the opinion of men whom the Church has actually called as authorities on these matters, you defer to your own emotions as proof. St. Bellarmine was called as Master of Controversies (he was the head of that department in the College of Rome), the same goes with St. Francis de Sales, he was known as the Master of Controversies. St. Antoninus another famous Doctor, St. Cyprian and I can keep going on all day.

No instead you cling to a few men who can't even make a coherent arguments on the topic, who would turn over their graves if they saw the position of the SSPX on the matter. The SSPX claims to be the champion of Cajetan and the 4 other theologians who are in the minority on this point. Yet, Cajetan, Suarez and company don't even agree with each other + their position is not even the same as that of the SSPX. So go ahead and keep telling yourself that everything makes sense under the SSPX theological framework. Its okay if the Church gives you demons to worship such as Wojtyla and Roncalli. Intellectually its no problem for you, because the Church as you understand it can give you poison. BUT no my dear friends, the Church is the Bride of Christ which is protected by Infallibility. Keep telling yourself that a whore can somehow with its idolatry and ecumenism, be able to somehow be at the same time the True Church of Christ. But as for me and my SV'ist brothers we want to keep our sanity and logic in check. Non possumus, that simple.

Yes it is spiritually detrimental at this point which position you really hold. Does it make you a heretic, ipso facto. No, not necessarily but it really depends on the individual cases. If the individual defends in their mind intellectually that which is apostasy as licit, then they incur the same anathema's that the Vatican II sect has incurred, but if they resist these heresies intellectually then they keep the faith, but there are still consequences to holding these men who dress in white as true Popes. It will make all the difference who you go to confession to, where you go to mass, what laws you follow for fasting etc... Whether or not you go to actual Sunday mass or Saturday mass (Jewish worship as opposed to the concept of Catholic Sabbath worship a.k.a. Sunday).

Please do study the issues, it makes a huge difference when everyone is in the same page. Actual beneficial discussion can take place when everyone has done their reading and homework.
Title: St. Thomas indirectly on SVism
Post by: Cantarella on October 09, 2014, 12:16:28 AM
In the mentioned cases, it is the Church Herself only who can ever judge sede-vacante, not individual Catholics. The judgment of guilt on the Roman Pontiff and the condemnation for heresy belongs solely to the Church, not to the laity. Even if such condemnation is proclaimed, theologians are not in agreement of what happens in the case of a heretical Pope. Just because st. Bellarmine's opinion is that a heretical Pope loses office, that does not mean that in reality, it must occur so. St. Bellarmine does not represent the binding authority of the Church Herself and is not infallible.  

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.
Title: St. Thomas indirectly on SVism
Post by: songbird on October 09, 2014, 02:34:47 PM
Then this pope is a heretic, just as you say.  Law of the Church, states that to nominate, they must be showing outwardly that they are catholic.  So, this pope, was not catholic to begin with.  He is manifest heretic.
Title: St. Thomas indirectly on SVism
Post by: Disputaciones on October 11, 2014, 01:04:04 AM
Quote from: Cantarella
Please do not try to twist the teaching of St Thomas to fit the sedevacantist agenda, just like they do with st. Bellarmine.  It is evident for all who have eyes to see (and that are actually well versed in Church history) that sedevacantism is a novelty, unheard before Vatican II. History just does not attest to it.

There is absolutely no precedence for abandoning the office of the papacy in the lives of the Saints or Church history; those who always did, it was always the first step on the gradual slope to schism and thus, Hell.

Be strong; stay with the Church of all Ages, and don't feed into the Jewish liberal mainstream press and their attempts to divide the church.


Do you go to your local Novus Ordo Mass?

Do you use the New 90's Catechism as a sure norm of learning the Faith?
Title: St. Thomas indirectly on SVism
Post by: Cantarella on October 11, 2014, 01:40:54 AM
Quote from: Disputaciones
Quote from: Cantarella
Please do not try to twist the teaching of St Thomas to fit the sedevacantist agenda, just like they do with st. Bellarmine.  It is evident for all who have eyes to see (and that are actually well versed in Church history) that sedevacantism is a novelty, unheard before Vatican II. History just does not attest to it.

There is absolutely no precedence for abandoning the office of the papacy in the lives of the Saints or Church history; those who always did, it was always the first step on the gradual slope to schism and thus, Hell.

Be strong; stay with the Church of all Ages, and don't feed into the Jewish liberal mainstream press and their attempts to divide the church.


Do you go to your local Novus Ordo Mass?

Do you use the New 90's Catechism as a sure norm of learning the Faith?


The Novus Ordo Mass is not the real problem, or the real enemy. The Novus Ordo Mass is more a symptom than a cause of Modernism. The crisis is not a matter of the liturgy but the dogma. The root of the many heterodoxies and heresies that afflict Our Holy Mother Church is the de facto contradiction operated by the dominating progressive left of the solemnly defined dogma Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus. The Modernists are conducting their campaign of practically obliterating Dogma in the exact same manner that the Arians did 1700 years ago.

By the way, it is a Catholic DOGMA that no one is in his way of salvation unless submitted to the Roman Pontiff.  
Title: St. Thomas indirectly on SVism
Post by: Disputaciones on October 11, 2014, 11:26:18 AM
Quote from: Cantarella
Quote from: Disputaciones
Quote from: Cantarella
Please do not try to twist the teaching of St Thomas to fit the sedevacantist agenda, just like they do with st. Bellarmine.  It is evident for all who have eyes to see (and that are actually well versed in Church history) that sedevacantism is a novelty, unheard before Vatican II. History just does not attest to it.

There is absolutely no precedence for abandoning the office of the papacy in the lives of the Saints or Church history; those who always did, it was always the first step on the gradual slope to schism and thus, Hell.

Be strong; stay with the Church of all Ages, and don't feed into the Jewish liberal mainstream press and their attempts to divide the church.


Do you go to your local Novus Ordo Mass?

Do you use the New 90's Catechism as a sure norm of learning the Faith?


The Novus Ordo Mass is not the real problem, or the real enemy. The Novus Ordo Mass is more a symptom than a cause of Modernism. The crisis is not a matter of the liturgy but the dogma. The root of the many heterodoxies and heresies that afflict Our Holy Mother Church is the de facto contradiction operated by the dominating progressive left of the solemnly defined dogma Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus. The Modernists are conducting their campaign of practically obliterating Dogma in the exact same manner that the Arians did 1700 years ago.

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


You didn't answer any of my questions.

Sure it is Catholic dogma to be subject to the Pope. So where is your subjection? What are you doing in this forum? Is this forum approved by what you think is the Church? You should be over at "Catholic Answers". You must be an ecumenist and a modernist then if you claim to be subject to your popes? You believe in salvation outside the Church and preach freedom for all religions yes?
Title: St. Thomas indirectly on SVism
Post by: Geremia on October 14, 2014, 07:21:30 PM
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…?
Title: St. Thomas indirectly on SVism
Post by: Cantarella 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?
Title: St. Thomas indirectly on SVism
Post by: Geremia 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.
Title: St. Thomas indirectly on SVism
Post by: Cantarella 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 Jews, 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.  
Title: St. Thomas indirectly on SVism
Post by: ThomisticPhilosopher 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.
Title: St. Thomas indirectly on SVism
Post by: Ferdinand 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 document, 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



Title: St. Thomas indirectly on SVism
Post by: Cantarella 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.
Title: St. Thomas indirectly on SVism
Post by: Cantarella 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.
Title: St. Thomas indirectly on SVism
Post by: Ferdinand 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 document, 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.)

Title: St. Thomas indirectly on SVism
Post by: Jehanne 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!
Title: St. Thomas indirectly on SVism
Post by: MyrnaM 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.  
Title: St. Thomas indirectly on SVism
Post by: IllyricumSacrum 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
Title: St. Thomas indirectly on SVism
Post by: ThomisticPhilosopher 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 (http://null)
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.
Title: St. Thomas indirectly on SVism
Post by: ThomisticPhilosopher 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.