CathInfo.com

So the authority of Fr. Hesse is equal to that of yourself, a mere layman? You remind me of the laypreachers on EWTN, who spout off their modern theology as if they are an authority with whom we must all agree.

No, I speak confidently when I see false arguments and emotional non-arguments.  They annoy me to no end.  I see bad will there rather than someone actually seeking the truth.  I've had people here I don't agree with but for whom I have a great deal of respect because I sense in them intellectual honesty and a desire to seek truth rather than to promote an agenda.  I'll be blunt, Meg, that I don't see this quality in you.

You may not have noticed but I've been attacked by BOTH SVs AND R&R.  I went after a number of dogmatic SVs on a different thread, and a few of them got so colorful in their language about me that Matthew banned them.  Now it's the R&R who are coming after me.  I've had both sides tell me they think I'm in the other "camp".  What I see is that there are both VALID and INVALID arguments on both sides, and I honestly acknowledge these ... and have personally landed in the "sede-doubtist" position (most similar to the one articulated by Father Chazal).  I try to go where faith and reason take me.  I have no dog in this fight and don't really care where the truth ends up.  I'm just trying to get as close to it as I can.

Perhaps you are not aware that Fr. Hesse is deceased?

We were discussing the issue as to whether or not the Vll Council was a true Council of the Church, or did you forget the subject that we were actually discussing? I think you did. Or you were never interested in the first place.

Father Hesse makes a good case for the Vll not being a Council of the Church. If you want to learn something, I suggest that you watch it.

I do not look to my own self for answers, as you do. I look to Fr. Hesse, who was a traditional canonist, and Archbishop Lefebvre, as well as other clergy and bishops. Who do you look to, who holds your exact sedewhatever position? It seems that only Fr. Chazal actually holds your particular POV. Otherwise, you have to cite other sources that do not hold your specific position, and then you are consigned to interpret any Church teaching with your own unusual POV. You are an authority unto yourself. I have no interest in that for myself.

I know only very little of Fr. Hesse but will hopefully have time later to watch that video.

Lad being formally Fentonized, looks to Fr. Fenton to maintain the opinion that the magisterium can err but only little isty bitsy errors. However, when the magisterium does what he says they cannot do, i.e. when they teach great big fat errors, well, though that's not possible, it is actually ok too, because as he said: "those who submit to erroneous teachings of the Magisterium are NOT guilty of sin; individual Catholics are not required as their duty of state to be theologians.  Sin is on those who issued said false teaching, and they bear the sins of all those whom they in turn have led into sin."

There is your Fentonism and from it, Lad effectively shoots the whole sede argument, possibly the whole crisis argument right in the face, and doesn't even realize it - because if those who submit to the false teachings of the magisterium do not sin by submitting, then why did "the magisterium" ever bother to teach error at all? and what is the purpose of this crisis? and why did Our Lord warn us to beware of false teachings?

I know only very little of Fr. Hesse but will hopefully have time later to watch that video.

Lad being formally Fentonized, looks to Fr. Fenton to maintain the opinion that the magisterium can err but only little isty bitsy errors. However, when the magisterium does what he says they cannot do, i.e. when they teach great big fat errors, well, though that's not possible, it is actually ok too, because as he said: "those who submit to erroneous teachings of the Magisterium are NOT guilty of sin; individual Catholics are not required as their duty of state to be theologians.  Sin is on those who issued said false teaching, and they bear the sins of all those whom they in turn have led into sin."

There is your Fentonism and from it, Lad effectively shoots the whole sede argument, possibly the whole crisis argument right in the face, and doesn't even realize it - because if those who submit to the false teachings of the magisterium do not sin by submitting, then why did "the magisterium" ever bother to teach error at all? and what is the purpose of this crisis? and why did Our Lord warn us to beware of false teachings?

I've not herd of Fr. Fenton before this. It would seem that Fr. Fenton believes that the magisterium cannot err in large matters, but even if it does, it's not a big deal, and the faithful are not to be held accountable because it's the fault of those who issued the false teaching (if I understand this correctly). But you're right - since Our Lord warned us to beware of false teachings, then we may indeed be held accountable, especially these days, when we have access to true Church teachings.

I do hope that you get a chance to watch the Fr. Hesse video on the Vll Council not being a Council of the Church. He says himself that he's not infallible. He may not be correct about everything he says, but he knows Church teaching quite well.