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

« previous next »
Pages: 1 ... 9 10 [11] 12 13 ... 23

Author Topic: The Heretical Pope Fallacy  (Read 57587 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Ladislaus

  • Supporter
  • *****
  • Posts: 46636
  • Reputation: +27490/-5102
  • Gender: Male
Re: The Heretical Pope Fallacy
« Reply #150 on: January 05, 2018, 10:45:00 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: 2Vermont on January 05, 2018, 10:44:01 AM
    So is your "private judgment" that he "may not be a legitimate pope" or "is not a legitimate pope"?  In your earlier post, you only include the latter as a possible "Catholic solution".

    My current judgment is that it's very unlikely that he was a legitimate pope.  I have to leave room for doubt because I could be wrong in some judgment I made in arriving at the conclusion.  It is my opinion (call it a pious belief) that Paul VI would have been protected by the Holy Spirit from publicly teaching error ... even if he had personally been a heretic ... if his election had been legitimate.  Worst case, I believe that God would have struck him dead.  But I personally think that Siri was elected and that the subsequent papal elections were therefore not legitimate.
    Logged

    Offline 2Vermont

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 11441
    • Reputation: +6400/-1149
    • Gender: Female
    Re: The Heretical Pope Fallacy
    « Reply #151 on: January 05, 2018, 10:45:09 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Cantarella on January 05, 2018, 10:41:17 AM
    Canon 228 / 1917:

    In other words, there is no appeal to Vatican II Council if a true pope in fact promulgated it, no matter how many bishops dispute it.
    ha, beat you by 16 seconds...lol
    Logged

    Offline TKGS

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 5843
    • Reputation: +4691/-490
    • Gender: Male
    Re: The Heretical Pope Fallacy
    « Reply #152 on: January 05, 2018, 10:51:32 AM »
  • Thanks!2
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Ladislaus on January 05, 2018, 09:40:50 AM
    There are only two possible Catholic solutions:

    1) Vatican II is substantially Catholic.

    2) Paul VI was not a legitimate pope.

    I have to question whether people who think like Stubborn even have Catholic faith anymore.

    I'm having a hard time reconciling the above with:

    Quote from: Ladislaus on January 05, 2018, 10:19:35 AM
    We decide between #1 and #2 based on our private judgment, and the legitimacy of a pope must be known with the certainty of faith.  Catholics may not simply decide the matter of papal legitimacy based on private judgment, so all we can do is act on the grave positive doubt until it's resolved by the authority of the Church.  Based on classic sedevacantism, there's absolutely nothing to stop a Catholic living during the time of a legitimate pope (say, Pius XII) from waking up one morning and just deciding that Pius XII isn't pope and that therefore the dogma of the Assumption isn't to be held de fide.

    I can't see how you can condemn Stubborn and post these two statements.
    Logged

    Offline 2Vermont

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 11441
    • Reputation: +6400/-1149
    • Gender: Female
    Re: The Heretical Pope Fallacy
    « Reply #153 on: January 05, 2018, 10:51:43 AM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Bellator Dei on January 05, 2018, 10:48:46 AM
    Absolutely correct, and clear as day from Canon Law.    

    However, Pax Vobis will now begin to lecture you on how you have no business interpreting Canon Law and that it is TOTALLY off limits to lay folks...

    (I don't really believe anything that he says)
    But it is okay for lay folks to interpret Ecuмenical Councils...even if they contradict what their popes say about them.
    Logged

    Offline Pax Vobis

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 12119
    • Reputation: +7646/-2330
    • Gender: Male
    Re: The Heretical Pope Fallacy
    « Reply #154 on: January 05, 2018, 10:53:20 AM »
  • Thanks!2
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote
    There are only two possible Catholic solutions:

    1) Vatican II is substantially Catholic.

    2) Paul VI was not a legitimate pope.
    If V2 was not binding, therefore it is not infallible, therefore indefectibility does not enter the equation.  So the 3rd option is that V2 must be looked upon as 'advisory' or a 'proposal' on how to deal with 'pastoral' matters.  It did not deal with 'faith and morals' directly but HOW TO APPLY faith and morals at the local level.  If you assume satanic trickery and word games from the modernists, then you can assume that this whole council was a legal farce.  Remember that the devil invented magic, which is the appearance of something which isn't really there.  Or the hiding of something that is there. 

    The only complicating factor is that all this was done at an ecuмenical council, which some think has an automatic 'rubber stamp' of approval of every period and comma.  No, you have to read the 'fine print' of the council docuмents, just like we did with Paul VI's 'new mass' constitution.  40 years later those who argued that Paul VI did NOT revoke Quo Primum have been vindicated.  At some point in the future, I am positively sure we will see the same result with V2 - it will be proven to be an non-binding, diabolical charade.

    Logged

    Offline 2Vermont

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 11441
    • Reputation: +6400/-1149
    • Gender: Female
    Re: The Heretical Pope Fallacy
    « Reply #155 on: January 05, 2018, 10:56:26 AM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!1
    • Quote from: Pax Vobis on January 05, 2018, 10:53:20 AM
    If V2 was not binding, therefore it is not infallible, therefore indefectibility does not enter the equation.  So the 3rd option is that V2 must be looked upon as 'advisory' or a 'proposal' on how to deal with 'pastoral' matters.  It did not deal with 'faith and morals' directly but HOW TO APPLY faith and morals at the local level.  If you assume satanic trickery and word games from the modernists, then you can assume that this whole council was a legal farce.  Remember that the devil invented magic, which is the appearance of something which isn't really there.  Or the hiding of something that is there.

    The only complicating factor is that all this was done at an ecuмenical council, which some think has an automatic 'rubber stamp' of approval of every period and comma.  No, you have to read the 'fine print' of the council docuмents, just like we did with Paul VI's 'new mass' constitution.  40 years later those who argued that Paul VI did NOT revoke Quo Primum have been vindicated.  At some point in the future, I am positively sure we will see the same result with V2 - it will be proven to be an non-binding, diabolical charade.
    Yes! It will be proven non-binding, because Paul VI was not a true pope!
    Logged

    Offline Pax Vobis

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 12119
    • Reputation: +7646/-2330
    • Gender: Male
    Re: The Heretical Pope Fallacy
    « Reply #156 on: January 05, 2018, 10:58:45 AM »
  • Thanks!2
  • No Thanks!2
    • Quote
    In other words, once it is confirmed by the Roman Pontiff, the decrees of an ecuмenical Council ARE indeed binding.
    Show me ONE decree from V2 that I must follow under pain of sin.

    Quote
    Pax Vobis will now begin to lecture you on how you have no business interpreting Canon Law and that it is TOTALLY off limits to lay folks...
    If you're using canon law to depose the pope, then yes, that activity is "above our pay grade".  Not a moral question; not our business.

    Quote
    But it is okay for lay folks to interpret Ecuмenical Councils
    If you are reading the council to find out what it obligates you to do morally, so as to follow Church law, then yes, that activity is a layman's business because it concerns a personal obligation.
    Logged

    Offline Pax Vobis

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 12119
    • Reputation: +7646/-2330
    • Gender: Male
    Re: The Heretical Pope Fallacy
    « Reply #157 on: January 05, 2018, 10:59:46 AM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote
    Yes! It will be proven non-binding, because Paul VI was not a true pope!
    I don't rule out that possibility.  I just can't say with certainty.
    Logged

    Offline Cantarella

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 7782
    • Reputation: +4579/-579
    • Gender: Female
    Re: The Heretical Pope Fallacy
    « Reply #158 on: January 05, 2018, 11:09:59 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Pax Vobis on January 05, 2018, 10:58:45 AM
    Show me ONE decree from V2 that I must follow under pain of sin.

    What is your understanding of the word "binding"?
    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 2Vermont

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 11441
    • Reputation: +6400/-1149
    • Gender: Female
    Re: The Heretical Pope Fallacy
    « Reply #159 on: January 05, 2018, 11:12:20 AM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Ladislaus on January 05, 2018, 10:45:00 AM
    My current judgment is that it's very unlikely that he was a legitimate pope.  I have to leave room for doubt because I could be wrong in some judgment I made in arriving at the conclusion.  It is my opinion (call it a pious belief) that Paul VI would have been protected by the Holy Spirit from publicly teaching error ... even if he had personally been a heretic ... if his election had been legitimate.  Worst case, I believe that God would have struck him dead.  But I personally think that Siri was elected and that the subsequent papal elections were therefore not legitimate.
    So, it appears that, in your view, there is a third possible Catholic solution:  not deciding on the other two solutions.
    Logged

    Offline Stubborn

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 14727
    • Reputation: +6068/-906
    • Gender: Male
    Re: The Heretical Pope Fallacy
    « Reply #160 on: January 05, 2018, 11:28:26 AM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: An even Seven on January 04, 2018, 10:45:06 AM
    You are trying to make a distinction where there is none. Vatican II has to be an act of the Magisterium. Yes, it appeared to be "hierarchy", but that "hierarchy" included the man you call "pope". A Popes approval of a Council is what makes it binding. You will not find any theologian, saint, Catholic writer etc... before Vatican II that would say that a General Council is not an act of the Magisterium. In fact, I would bet the only people that have said that it is not, are the people who adhere to the novel beliefs of the SSPX/R&R.
    The magisterium is always infallible just as popes have taught - do you disbelieve the popes who taught this? The reason it appeared to be the hierarchy is because it *was* the hierarchy (including the pope).

    You say a pope's approval of a council makes it binding - this is false, where did you learn this from? Post your source for this. You should know this is false by the fact that it is not only entirely ambiguous, it is the same blanket used to wrap the faithful into abandoning the true faith for the new faith +50 years ago. 
    Logged
    "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: 46636
    • Reputation: +27490/-5102
    • Gender: Male
    Re: The Heretical Pope Fallacy
    « Reply #161 on: January 05, 2018, 11:36:49 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: 2Vermont on January 05, 2018, 11:12:20 AM
    So, it appears that, in your view, there is a third possible Catholic solution:  not deciding on the other two solutions.

    There are only two actual / objective solutions, but what's at issue is the degree of certainty in selecting each solution.  Some in the Novus Ordo feel that they have certainty of faith with regard to #1.  Dogmatic SVs have certainty of faith regarding #2.  But someone could have varying degrees of certainty in picking the two.  So I'm talking about the actual / objective solutions vs. the degree of certainty in selecting between them (there could be a great range).

    If you were to COMBINE the objective solutions with the degree of certainty, then one might call these "approaches" to the problem.  Viewed that way, then, yes, one could have more "options" when you combine permutations of the actual solutions with varying degrees of certainty.

    I have argued that the dogmatic selection of #2 is not possible.
    Logged

    Offline Ladislaus

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 46636
    • Reputation: +27490/-5102
    • Gender: Male
    Re: The Heretical Pope Fallacy
    « Reply #162 on: January 05, 2018, 11:44:49 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Bishop Sanborn wrote an article many years ago condeming what he called "Opinionism".

    He based his certainty of faith on the fact that the proposition ... "The Church cannot teach error" ... is known with the certainty of faith.

    But his mistake was in not recognizing that when you break the entire thing down into its premises, some of these premises are arrived at through private judgment.

    Major:  Legitimate hierarchy cannot teach substantial error to the Universal Church.
    Minor:  Putative hierarchy taught substantial error to the Universal Church.
    Conclusion:  Hierarchy was not legitimate.

    Yes, the major has certainty of faith (which many R&R deny).  But the Minor does not have certainty of faith.  Consequently, according to the logical "weakest link" principle (peiorem partem sequitur conclusio) the conclusion cannot have greater certainty than ANY of its premises.  There are certain propositions in Vatican II which certainly appear to contradict previous Magisterium.  But what if there's some distinction I'm missing?  There are many in the Novus Ordo who have done various theological gymnastics to reconcile V2 with Tradition.  Just look here on CI how "certain" some people are that their theological opponents are promoting heresy (e.g. my accusation that Stubborn is a heretic).  [Ironically, the closest thing to heresy in V2 is their ecclesiology, and +Sanborn ultimately holds the same ecclesiology -- but I digress.]
    Logged

    Offline Stubborn

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 14727
    • Reputation: +6068/-906
    • Gender: Male
    Re: The Heretical Pope Fallacy
    « Reply #163 on: January 05, 2018, 11:54:12 AM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: An even Seven on January 05, 2018, 11:43:31 AM
    This source was already cited on this page or the last. Now moving on.


    Stubborn, This is part of the Trent Profession of Faith above. There are two questions you need to ask yourself right now. Your answers will determine whether you are Catholic or not.

    1. Was Vatican II one of the Councils of the Catholic Church?

    2. Do you accept and profess, without hesitation, everything taught in Vatican II?
    You can't use Trent's profession for V2. You have to use V2's profession - post that. Does V2's have this in it?----> "and at the same time all things contrary thereto, and whatever heresies have been condemned, and rejected, and anathematized by the Church, I likewise condemn, reject, and anathematize."

    1) Yes - this is an historical reality.
    2) No - see above profession I just posted in italics

    You're problem is that *you say* that you believe everything in all councils are automatically infallible while *at the same time* completely rejecting all parts that destroy your belief, aka the part I posted in italics is only one example.
    Logged
    "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: 14727
    • Reputation: +6068/-906
    • Gender: Male
    Re: The Heretical Pope Fallacy
    « Reply #164 on: January 05, 2018, 12:00:41 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Ladislaus on January 05, 2018, 11:44:49 AM
    Major:  Legitimate hierarchy cannot teach substantial error to the Universal Church.
    Why do you keep posting crap like this I wonder? Post your source for this idea.

    It sounds like it might be a Fentonism, certainly it must be a new theologian's idea of some sort, but whatever, post your source for this or accept the fact that this is so wrong that it has helped lead many people into losing their faith.
    Logged
    "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
    Pages: 1 ... 9 10 [11] 12 13 ... 23
    « previous next »