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

« previous next »
Pages: 1 ... 13 14 [15] 16 17 ... 23

Author Topic: The Heretical Pope Fallacy  (Read 44432 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Online Ladislaus

  • Supporter
  • *****
  • Posts: 46402
  • Reputation: +27308/-5045
  • Gender: Male
Re: The Heretical Pope Fallacy
« Reply #210 on: January 08, 2018, 04:12:29 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Pax Vobis on January 08, 2018, 03:59:27 PM
    The modernists issued a valid, legal missal (Paul VI's) which was promulgated (made law).  This missal did not violate Quo Primum (QP) because QP never outlawed a pope CREATING a new missal, it only outlawed USING any other missal than its own.  So, technically, Paul VI's missal was legal.  But...Paul VI could not FORCE anyone to use this missal (since QP was still in force).

    FORCING something is not a requirement that it be safe for faith and morals.  Promulgating it for use by the Universal Church is all that's needed.  You could make the same case for the Tridentine Rite, since the Church left intact any immemorial rites as well as Eastern Rites.  Would anyone dare say that the Tridentine Mass could have been harmful to faith?
    Logged

    Online Ladislaus

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 46402
    • Reputation: +27308/-5045
    • Gender: Male
    Re: The Heretical Pope Fallacy
    « Reply #211 on: January 08, 2018, 04:14:51 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Pax Vobis on January 08, 2018, 04:11:43 PM
    All trads are in complete (and perfect) submission to the laws of the Church and her Universal Discipline and thus, their crtiques are made from within the Church.

    Completely false.  Trads operate an entire apostolate outside the control of and submission to the hierarchy.  Trad priests to not trace their chain of command back to the pope in any way, shape, or form.
    Logged

    Offline Pax Vobis

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 12008
    • Reputation: +7544/-2273
    • Gender: Male
    Re: The Heretical Pope Fallacy
    « Reply #212 on: January 08, 2018, 04:15:59 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote
    You won't address that big picture, so you head right back down to the details and technicalities.
    I am addressing the big picture, but you don't like the answer.  Our Lady said that 'the Church will be in eclipse'.  In other words, the Church will APPEAR to be replaced, to have disappeared, to have gone away.  The truth is that the appearance was not true.  She was still there, still shining, had not changed.

    Much like the V2 'church', which APPEARS to have violated indefectibility, I say that technically, it did not.  Appearances can be deceiving...

    Logged

    Offline Pax Vobis

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 12008
    • Reputation: +7544/-2273
    • Gender: Male
    Re: The Heretical Pope Fallacy
    « Reply #213 on: January 08, 2018, 04:20:31 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote
    Promulgating it for use by the Universal Church is all that's needed.  
    Promulgate just means to pass a law.  The words of the law and the requirements (or lack thereof) are the only important facts.
    Logged

    Online 2Vermont

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 11335
    • Reputation: +6306/-1093
    • Gender: Female
    Re: The Heretical Pope Fallacy
    « Reply #214 on: January 08, 2018, 04:32:02 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Ladislaus on January 08, 2018, 04:11:07 PM
    But, that's my entire point.  It's only by getting mired down in technicalities can you lose sight of the big picture.  You won't address that big picture, so you head right back down to the details and technicalities.
    I think Pax once admitted that he enjoys the debate.  If he were to just address the big picture, there wouldn't be as much to debate.
    Logged

    Offline Pax Vobis

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 12008
    • Reputation: +7544/-2273
    • Gender: Male
    Re: The Heretical Pope Fallacy
    « Reply #215 on: January 08, 2018, 04:32:29 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote
    Trads operate an entire apostolate outside the control of and submission to the hierarchy. 
    They operate outside of the JURISDICTION of the hierarchy because said hierarchy is heretical and REQUIRES things against the faith (which V2 and the new mass do not).  The hierarchy have taken the 'teachings' of V2/new mass and made it obligatory, but the docuмents themselves not require such obligation.  Therefore, requiring such an obligation is, in fact, a violation of the law. 

    Quote
    Trad priests to not trace their chain of command back to the pope in any way, shape, or form.
    Trad priests follow the papal law of Quo Primum in saying the true mass, providing the true sacraments and following the true (and only legally allowed) breviary.  All other subsequent 'editions' of the missal, breviary and divine office are in violation of this law and hence, illicit.  Because the pope has never said that Quo Primum is revoked or revised (and it isn't) and because the 'new editions' are not obligatory, then by definition, the Holy See still commands that Quo Primum be followed, even if every other bishop in the world says otherwise.

    So, yes, Quo Primum is still law and to obey it means you are obeying the Church and pope.
    Logged

    Online Ladislaus

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 46402
    • Reputation: +27308/-5045
    • Gender: Male
    Re: The Heretical Pope Fallacy
    « Reply #216 on: January 08, 2018, 04:38:19 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Pax Vobis on January 08, 2018, 04:32:29 PM
    They operate outside of the JURISDICTION of the hierarchy because said hierarchy is heretical and REQUIRES things against the faith (which V2 and the new mass do not).

    Right, as I said, they're not in submission to this hierarchy because the teachings of Vatican II and the Universal Discipline promulgated by the pope make it impossible.  So these things are SO bad that it requires breaking from the hierarchy rather than submit to them.  So, in other words, these things are so bad that we are required to go as far as breaking from the hierarchy to reject them.  So how can an Ecuмenical Council teach things to the Church that are THAT bad.  I mean, I reject Pius XII's Allocution to the Midwives with regard to NFP, but it wouldn't have caused me to break from the hierarchy and create my own Society of Pope Pius XI (issuer of Casti Conubii).  I would have just respectfully questioned it from WITHIN the Church.
    Logged

    Offline Pax Vobis

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 12008
    • Reputation: +7544/-2273
    • Gender: Male
    Re: The Heretical Pope Fallacy
    « Reply #217 on: January 08, 2018, 04:42:16 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote
    If he were to just address the big picture, there wouldn't be as much to debate.
    You can't address the big picture without examining the underlying details because the 'big picture' is built on facts. 
    Let's just say that you agreed with me that
    1) V2 was fallible and erred and that did not violate indefectibility, because it didn't teach officially
    2) the new mass was a trick and not obligatory on anyone (this is 100% confirmed by Benedict in his "motu")

    If you believe this (as I do) what's the next step?  The next step is to say that:
    1) the pope and hierachy are still heretics ON THE PERSONAL LEVEL it's just that their heresy is not OFFICIAL church teaching
    In other words, they BELIEVE the heresies that V2 "proposed" in its indirect, ambiguous, non-binding way.
    2) the new mass is new, it's not obligatory and it's (probably) invalid, 100% illicit and 100% immoral.

    Ergo, Fr Chazal's argument about sedeprivationism still applies.  We must separate ourselves from the hierarchy because they are heretical.  I'll even say that sedevacantism is still in play but for the reason that the pope/bishops are personal heretics.

    All I'm arguing is that we cannot say that the pope/bishops are heretics because V2/new mass were OFFICIALLY errors.  We can say they are wrong for a 1,000 other reasons, but not for these 2.  The legal facts do not show that V2/new mass are binding, therefore it's not a matter of indefectibility.
    Logged

    Offline Pax Vobis

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 12008
    • Reputation: +7544/-2273
    • Gender: Male
    Re: The Heretical Pope Fallacy
    « Reply #218 on: January 08, 2018, 04:46:56 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote
    So these things are SO bad that it requires breaking from the hierarchy rather than submit to them.
    No!  We are required to break from our Bishops, but we are not breaking with Church law/Pope.  Nothing which the post-conciliar popes have issued are binding, but the Bishops ARE MAKING US ACCEPT THAT WHICH CHURCH LAW DOES NOT REQUIRE.  This is the distinction!

    I'll repeat:  The hierarchy have taken the 'teachings' of V2/new mass and made it obligatory, but the docuмents themselves not require such obligation.  Therefore, requiring such an obligation is, in fact, a violation of the law. 
    Logged

    Online 2Vermont

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 11335
    • Reputation: +6306/-1093
    • Gender: Female
    Re: The Heretical Pope Fallacy
    « Reply #219 on: January 08, 2018, 04:49:51 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Pax Vobis on January 08, 2018, 04:42:16 PM
    You can't address the big picture without examining the underlying details because the 'big picture' is built on facts.
    Let's just say that you agreed with me that
    1) V2 was fallible and erred and that did not violate indefectibility, because it didn't teach officially
    2) the new mass was a trick and not obligatory on anyone (this is 100% confirmed by Benedict in his "motu")

    If you believe this (as I do) what's the next step?  The next step is to say that:
    1) the pope and hierachy are still heretics ON THE PERSONAL LEVEL it's just that their heresy is not OFFICIAL church teaching
    In other words, they BELIEVE the heresies that V2 "proposed" in its indirect, ambiguous, non-binding way.
    2) the new mass is new, it's not obligatory and it's (probably) invalid, 100% illicit and 100% immoral.

    Ergo, Fr Chazal's argument about sedeprivationism still applies.  We must separate ourselves from the hierarchy because they are heretical.  I'll even say that sedevacantism is still in play but for the reason that the pope/bishops are personal heretics.

    All I'm arguing is that we cannot say that the pope/bishops are heretics because V2/new mass were OFFICIALLY errors.  We can say they are wrong for a 1,000 other reasons, but not for these 2.  The legal facts do not show that V2/new mass are binding, therefore it's not a matter of indefectibility.
    Your "beliefs" can not be correct given Vatican II was a general, ecuмenical council.  It is not Catholic to believe that a general, ecuмenical council can be fallible and promote universal error in faith and morals.  Your argument fails right out of the gate.  
    Logged

    Offline Pax Vobis

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 12008
    • Reputation: +7544/-2273
    • Gender: Male
    Re: The Heretical Pope Fallacy
    « Reply #220 on: January 08, 2018, 05:31:30 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Ok, we've been talking about these distinctions for pages now.  Your generalization doesn't answer the distinct questions nor has anyone proven that 'all ecuмenical councils are infallible without question'.  
    Logged

    Online 2Vermont

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 11335
    • Reputation: +6306/-1093
    • Gender: Female
    Re: The Heretical Pope Fallacy
    « Reply #221 on: January 08, 2018, 05:45:55 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Pax Vobis on January 08, 2018, 05:31:30 PM
    Ok, we've been talking about these distinctions for pages now.  Your generalization doesn't answer the distinct questions nor has anyone proven that 'all ecuмenical councils are infallible without question'.  
    You know that no one has stated in this thread that ecuмenical councils are infallible "without question", so why do you even say this?

    What folks have said is that an ecuмenical council is infallible in matters of faith and morals.  It can not teach error to the universal church in these matters once rubber stamped by the pope.  If there is error, it is not in these areas and certainly can not cause harm to the Universal Church.

    Show me where the Church teaches that an ecuмenical council (with the pope) can be fallible in matters of faith and morals.
    Logged

    Offline Pax Vobis

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 12008
    • Reputation: +7544/-2273
    • Gender: Male
    Re: The Heretical Pope Fallacy
    « Reply #222 on: January 08, 2018, 05:54:34 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • You are correct in a GENERAL sense.  What I keep repeating is that V1 defined the parameters and gave us the FORM for infallible statements.  So, if you agree that not every statement of faith/morals in a council is infallible, then how do you know which statements are?  Answer: if the statement follows the requirements of V1.

    Secondly, I've posted quotes which talk about an encyclical not being infallible.  The distinguishing factor in infallibility is that such power comes from the pope - and this applies to an encyclical, or papal bull or even a council - because a council of bishops without the pope cannot be infallible, right?  And an encyclical might be infallible or might not, depending on the language/form used, right?  Same applies to a council, because the fact that's 'ecuмenical' doesn't affect infallibility because the whether there are 2 or all bishops present, the only thing that matters is the pope.  He's the only one who is able to use infallibility.  

    Ergo, even at a council, a pope must use the language that V1 prescribed because this language is AUTHORITATIVE, it is CLEAR THE TEACHING MUST BE believed as divinely revealed, and BINDS ALL THE FAITHFUL.  Without these requirements infallibility is not present.  And these aren't present at V2.

    If you want to prove otherwise, I'm open to reading but it's yet to be proven.  
    Logged

    Offline Cantarella

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 7782
    • Reputation: +4579/-579
    • Gender: Female
    Re: The Heretical Pope Fallacy
    « Reply #223 on: January 08, 2018, 07:36:12 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Pax Vobis on January 08, 2018, 02:36:28 PM
    Also all other things taught, defined, and declared by the sacred canons and ecuмenical Councils, and especially by the sacred and holy Synod of Trent, I without hesitation accept and profess..."

    Did V2 formally teach anything? No.
    Did V2 define anything?  No.
    Did V2 declare anything to be believe with the 'certainty of faith'?  No.
    Did V2 have any sacred canons?  No.

    V2 is not like any other ecuмenical council in the history of the church (it's not even close) so your comparisons are apples-oranges.

    VII was the symptom of an underlying disease. It is not Vatican II itself which was the disease. The Council itself is not disease, but the symptom. The evidence by which it could be proven that there was no legitimate authority on the Seat of Peter in 1965, at the time of the Council because no legitimate authority could promulgate errors of such magnitude via a General Council. 
    Logged
    If anyone says that true and natural water is not necessary for baptism and thus twists into some metaphor the words of our Lord Jesus Christ" Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Spirit" (Jn 3:5) let him be anathema.

    Offline drew

    • Supporter
    • **
    • Posts: 399
    • Reputation: +1122/-239
    • Gender: Male
    Re: The Heretical Pope Fallacy
    « Reply #224 on: January 08, 2018, 07:54:26 PM »
  • Thanks!2
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Ladislaus on January 08, 2018, 11:25:03 AM
    To simplify, the faith is the WHAT believed while the rule is related to the WHY believed.

    What do I believe?  the Assumption.  Why do I believe it?  Because it was proposed as dogma by the authority of the teaching Church (proximately) and ultimately by God in revealing Himself (remotely).  So it's the proposal by the Church (viewed formally) that's the rule of what I believe.

    This is similar to the distinction between the faith itself (the contents of Revelation) and the faith viewed as supernatural virtue as moved by the formal MOTIVE of faith

    Like Ockham’s razor, this is very neat oversimplification trying drive a wedge between necessary elements of the virtue of faith.

    If the Rule of Faith only answered why we believe, then Scripture and Tradition, the remote rule of faith, would have nothing to say to the question of what. This is obviously mindless proposal. But, since faith is believing what God has revealed on the authority of God (why), the revealer, the rule of faith necessarily answers both the questions, why and what. What a Catholic believes and why a Catholic believes it are both attributes of the virtue of Faith. If you drive a wedge between these attributes, the faith is lost. The rule of faith must necessarily address both questions and it does so in both the remote and proximate rules.

    When the pope employing the teaching office of the Church engages the Church’s attribute of infallibility it is affirmed that God is the revealer answering both the questions of what and why. Such as in Vatican I Pastor Aeternus, on papal infallibility: “Therefore, faithfully adhering to the tradition received from the beginning of the Christian faith, for the glory of God Our Savior, the exaltation of the Catholic Religion, and the salvation of Christian people, the Sacred Council approving, We teach and define that it is a divinely-revealed dogma…”.  

    Your oversimplification makes the pope the revealer.  The pope is the necessary but insufficient material and efficient cause of Dogma.  God is the formal and final cause.  Dogma is the proximate rule of faith.  

    Drew
    Logged
    Pages: 1 ... 13 14 [15] 16 17 ... 23
    « previous next »