Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => Crisis in the Church => Topic started by: RandomFish on September 28, 2023, 07:47:15 PM
-
For the purpose of this post, I define Sedevacantism as the general belief that the purported Roman pontiff starting from John XXIII or Paul VI, the hierarchy in communion with him, and the people adjoined to them fell into error, or more grievously heresy, in the promulgation of Vatican II resulting in a new “religion” and “ecclesia” in discontinuity with the past and resulting in the immediate loss of office for all ecclesiastics involved and the objective sin, not necessarily culpability, of heresy for non-ecclesiastics.
Here is my argument:
I. Sedevacantists use ordinary (non-definitive or non-ex cathedra) Papal magisterium of varying degrees of authority to posit a discontinuity between pre-conciliar and post-conciliar teachings.
II. Etsi Multa is a generally agreed upon ordinary (non-definitive) Papal encyclical of high authority condemning the Old Catholics.
III. Etsi Multa condemns the Old Catholics for the same premises to which Secevacantists hold: Denial of indefectibility vis a vis the proposition that it is possible for the Roman Pontiff, the Bishops in communion with him, and the people adjoined to them to fall into heresy; denial of the visibility of the Church as a consequence; the consecration of bishops without Papal mandate.
III appendix - “Incredibly, they boldly affirm that the Roman Pontiff and all the bishops, the priests and the people conjoined with him in the unity of faith and communion fell into heresy when they approved and professed the definitions of the Ecuмenical Vatican Council. Therefore they deny also the indefectibility of the Church and blasphemously declare that it has perished throughout the world and that its visible Head and the bishops have erred. They assert the necessity of restoring a legitimate episcopacy in the person of their pseudo-bishop, who has entered not by the gate but from elsewhere like a thief or robber and calls the damnation of Christ upon his head.”
IV. If the Sedevacantists are right then Etsi Multa was wrong and therefore papal encyclicals of equal weight used to justify departure from Vatican II can also be argued to be wrong.
V. If the Sedevacantists are wrong then they have fallen into grave error, heresy, and schism based on the same principles which they use to justify their departure from the material communion of the Church.
V. Conclusion: Whether or not the Sedevacantists are right or wrong, their ecclesiology fails the test of internal coherency and non-contradiction.
-
Utterly idiotic. R&R is Old Catholicism in a nutshell. It's R&R that adhere to and promote "the proposition that it is possible for the Roman Pontiff, the Bishops in communion with him, and the people adjoined to them to fall into heresy". You have it absolutely reversed.
But, then, perhaps you're Salza again with a different account that claim that the Conciliar Church has not erred.
-
Utterly idiotic. R&R is Old Catholicism in a nutshell. It's R&R that adhere to and promote "the proposition that it is possible for the Roman Pontiff, the Bishops in communion with him, and the people adjoined to them to fall into heresy". You have it absolutely reversed.
Your response does not address any of the points raised in my initial post. All it does is raise an objection against the R&R position while engaging in an implicit exercise of “whataboutism.”
-
III. Appendix strengthened by interpretation.
Relatio of Vatican I.
Gasser: “This prerogative granted to Saint Peter by the Lord Jesus Christ was supposed to pass to all Peter’s successors because the chair of Peter is the center of unity in the Church. But if the Pontiff should fall into an error of faith, the Church would dissolve, deprived of the bond of unity. The Bishop of Meaux [French Bishop Auguste Allou] speaks very well on this point, saying: ‘If this Roman See could fall and be no longer the See of truth but of error and pestilence, then the Catholic Church herself would not have the bond of a society and would be schismatic and scattered — which in fact is impossible.’
Gasser: “As far as the doctrine set forth in the Draft goes, the Deputation is unjustly accused of wanting to raise an extreme opinion, viz., that of Albert Pighius, to the dignity of a dogma. For the opinion of Albert Pighius, which Bellarmine indeed calls pious and probable, was that the Pope, as an individual person or a private teacher, was able to err from a type of ignorance but was never able to fall into heresy or teach heresy. To say nothing of the other points, let me say that this is clear from the very words of Bellarmine, both in the citation made by the reverend speaker and also from Bellarmine himself who, in book 4, chapter 6, pronounces on the opinion of Pighius in the following words: ‘It can be believed probably and piously that the supreme Pontiff is not only not able to err as Pontiff but that even as a particular person he is not able to be heretical, by pertinaciously believing something contrary to the faith.’ From this, it appears that the doctrine in the proposed chapter is not that of Albert Pighius or the extreme opinion of any school, but rather that it is one and the same which Bellarmine teaches in the place cited by the reverend speaker and which Bellarmine adduces in the fourth place and calls most certain and assured, or rather, correcting himself, the most common and certain opinion.”
-
I. Sedevacantists use ordinary (non-definitive or non-ex cathedra) Papal magisterium of varying degrees of authority to posit a discontinuity between pre-conciliar and post-conciliar teachings.
Your premise is false. Post conciliar teachings contradict dogmatic beliefs, an example of which is religious liberty.
-
Your premise is false. Post conciliar teachings contradict dogmatic beliefs, an example of which is religious liberty.
Please provide proof for your assertion as follows:
1. That the condemnation of religious liberty is a dogma (divinely revealed article of faith or connected to a dogma such that the denial of it would be a denial of another dogma) under pain of heresy in pre-conciliar teaching.
2. That Vatican II, or post conciliar doctrine, taught to the contrary.
-
Your response does not address any of the points raised in my initial post. All it does is raise an objection against the R&R position while engaging in an implicit exercise of “whataboutism.”
It addresses everything about it. SVism does not hold that there's a discontinuity between Traditional Magisterium and Conciliar "Magisterium," because it holds that the Conciliar Magisterium is illegitimate and bogus, emanating as it does from non-popes, imposter usurpers. You call out and target SVism, but the criticism pertains to R&R.
As Vatican I taught, there's on place where human reason factors in with regard to supernatural faith, and that's in ascertaining the credibility of the authority. Through an intellectual recognition (motivated by grace) that the Catholic Church is the True Church founded by Our Lord, there's a submission made to that authority. It's very clear that the Conciliar Church is the prophesied Whore of Babylon, the Counter-Church foretold in a massive body of Catholic prophecy. Conciliar Church lacks the marks of the One True Church of Christ and is a cesspool of heresy.
Nice try, John.
-
It addresses everything about it. SVism does not hold that there's a discontinuity between Traditional Magisterium and Conciliar "Magisterium," because it holds that the Conciliar Magisterium is illegitimate and bogus, emanating as it does from non-popes, imposter usurpers. You call out and target SVism, but the criticism pertains to R&R.
As Vatican I taught, there's on place where human reason factors in with regard to supernatural faith, and that's in ascertaining the credibility of the authority. Through an intellectual recognition (motivated by grace) that the Catholic Church is the True Church founded by Our Lord, there's a submission made to that authority. It's very clear that the Conciliar Church is the prophesied Whore of Babylon, the Counter-Church foretold in a massive body of Catholic prophecy. Conciliar Church lacks the marks of the One True Church of Christ and is a cesspool of heresy.
Nice try, John.
Sedevacantism only posits that they are usurpers, illegitimate, et al. and non-popes because of a perceived discontinuity in teaching. I think you and I both would agree that if the Sedevacantists perceived the post-conciliar Popes as entirely orthodox, there would be little to no question of their legitimacy as regards election (especially John XXIII and Paul VI).
As for your second point, that’s beyond the scope of the topic pertaining to my initial post.
-
Argumentum Ad Absurdum
According to Salzarianism, Joe Biden, Nancy Peℓσѕι, and Jorge Bergoglio are Catholics, whereas Archbishop Lefebvre, Bishop de Castro Mayer, and Archbishop Thuc were outside the Church.
According to Salzarianism, St. Athanasius and the anti-Arian bishops who went around consecrating bishops for dioceses that had had their episcopal sees usurped by Arians, were schismatics (lacking "mission") outside the Church, while the Arian heretic bishops were inside the Church.
Q.E.D.
-
Argumentum Ad Absurdum
According to Salzarianism, Joe Biden, Nancy Peℓσѕι, and Jorge Bergoglio are Catholics, whereas Archbishop Lefebvre, Bishop de Castro Mayer, and Archbishop Thuc were outside the Church.
According to Salzarianism, St. Athanasius and the anti-Arian bishops who went around consecrating bishops for dioceses that had had their episcopal sees usurped by Arians, were schismatics (lacking "mission") outside the Church, while the Arian heretic bishops were inside the Church.
Q.E.D.
Strawman argument.
The topic does not address the question of church membership; only the inconsistency of sedevacantist conclusions reached from contradictory and mutually exclusive foundations.
The sedevacantist must choose one of the following to remain consistent:
1. The Catholic Church is false.
2. Ordinary Papal magisterium is reversible and as such can be incorrect.
There is no other option.
-
Sedevacantism only posits that they are usurpers, illegitimate, et al. and non-popes because of a perceived discontinuity in teaching.
That's not correct. SVism holds that they are usurpers, illegitimate, etc. because the Conciliar Church lacks the marks of the One True Church of Christ, and the papacy is protected by the Holy Ghost from substantially altering the Church into something that lacks these marks.
We have a corrupt Magisterium, an entirely novel and non-Catholic system of theology (not just a few isolated statement in Vatican II), a novel non-Catholic ecclesiology where the schismatic and heretical "Churches" can be part of the Church of Christ, a complete and consistent rejection of EENS dogma (culminating in Jorge's recent declaration of schismatic "martyrs", verbatim contradicting the teaching of the Council of Florence that there can be no salvation outside the Church even if one were to shed his blood for Christ), the promotion of religious indifferentism.
We have a "Mass" that differs not a lick from Cranmer's abomination and is consistent with Luther's butchery of the Catholic Mass, complete with a replacement of the Catholic Offertory (which Luther hated with a passion), replacing it with a тαℓмυdic "table blessing".
We have masses of obviously bogus canonizations, and popes are also prevented by the Holy Ghost from issuing bogus canonizations.
There's nothing in the Conciliar Church that resembles the mark of "Holiness" nor "Oneness", as there as as many heresies floating out there as there are Conciliar bishops. Jorge promotes the heretics and Modernists and punishes the relatively-faithful bishops like Strickland.
If St. Pius X had been time-warped forward to today and been shown the Conciliar Church, would he have recognized it as the Catholic Church had he not been told that it was? Absolutely not. Ergo, the Conciliar Church is not the Catholic Church. It's as simple as that, and one need not have a degree in theology to dissect the propositions of Vatican II. Simple faithful can see that. When I first became a Traditional Catholic, I read a book by St. Alphonsus Liguori and realized, without any theological analysis, that the faith this man exhibits in his books is not the same faith and the same religion that the Conciliar Church puts into practice.
-
Strawman argument.
The topic does not address the question of church membership; only the inconsistency of sedevacantist conclusions reached from contradictory and mutually exclusive foundations.
The sedevacantist must choose one of the following to remain consistent:
1. The Catholic Church is false.
2. Ordinary Papal magisterium is reversible and as such can be incorrect.
There is no other option.
That's the absurd strawman and false dilemma. SVism chooses neither. #2 admits of nuances but is actually a product of R&R and NOT sedevacantism. This is the second time that you've falsely attributed an R&R position to sedevacantism. And this false dilemma rests upon several layers of petitio principii where you beg the question.
As for #2, distinguo. Not everything in the Ordinary Papal Magisterium is infallible and irreversible. Your statement is way too generic. YOU talk about strawmen?
And there's no strawman here. Salza stated in an interview that Joe Biden is a Catholic while holding that Traditional Catholics are not Catholics. Where's the strawman, John?
-
That's not correct. SVism holds that they are usurpers, illegitimate, etc. because the Conciliar Church lacks the marks of the One True Church of Christ, and the papacy is protected by the Holy Ghost from substantially altering the Church into something that lacks these marks.
While the marks of the church are somewhat relevant to an aspect of the discussion at hand, they are ultimately ancillary. Sedevacantism would not exist even if the majority of the bishops and priests were heretics proposing novelties along what you mentioned, but the Pope was orthodox and a stalwart defender of the Faith as understood by the sedevacantists.
As to the rest of what you mentioned, most of the early Church Fathers would not have recognized what the medieval church let alone the Tridentine church of St. Pius V or the Ultramontane church of Pope Pius IX. The Church developed substantially since the early centuries. In fact, that’s precisely the whole point of the original Protestant movement. It is to cast away all of the Roman accretions and return or perhaps restore the apostolic identity as they perceive it. Hence irrelevant to the discussion and not very effective point.
-
That's the absurd strawman and false dilemma. SVism chooses neither. #2 admits of nuances but is actually a product of R&R and NOT sedevacantism. This is the second time that you've falsely attributed an R&R position to sedevacantism. And this false dilemma rests upon several layers of petitio principii where you beg the question.
As for #2, distinguo. Not everything in the Ordinary Papal Magisterium is infallible and irreversible. Your statement is way too generic. YOU talk about strawmen?
And there's no strawman here. Salza stated in an interview that Joe Biden is a Catholic while holding that Traditional Catholics are not Catholics. Where's the strawman, John?
I agree there are nuances that can be granted to #2.
Under such nuances, sedevacantists would have to concede that the questionable doctrines which they use to reject the legitimacy of Vatican II have no basis in revealed religion in the sense understood by their own principles. There are no dogmas pertaining to freedom of religion as understood in the modern era, nor are there directly revealed dogmas related to ecuмenism as understood in its moderate sense propounded in the council docuмents, nor are there barriers to ecclesiastical communion outside the Church (as evidenced by the Sedevacantist rejection of Feeneyism and employment of ecclesiology which allows for Protestants, Jєωs, Muslims, and pagans to be saved which even Lefebvre and modern Sedevacantist bishops like Sanborn believe). Therefore, there is no discontinuity in matters essential. Thusly, the rejection of Vatican II and its promulgators is incoherent for Sedevacantists.
-
The Vatican 2 church certainly violates teachings that were taught dogmatically.
The consecration of the wine in the Novus Ordo Mass says "pro omnibus" where Scripture says "pro multis". Now, every word of Scripture is de fide. Therefore the Novus Ordo contradicts Scripture. And that's before you get into the question of the sacrament being made invalid thereby.
The Council of Trent defined dogmatically (https://www.ewtn.com/catholicism/library/twentysecond-session-of-the-council-of-trent-1489): "Canon 9. If anyone says that the rite of the Roman Church, according to which a part of the canon and the words of consecration are pronounced in a low tone, is to be condemned; or that the mass ought to be celebrated in the vernacular tongue only;[28] or that water ought not to be mixed with the wine that is to be offered in the chalice because it is contrary to the institution of Christ,[29] let him be anathema."
The Novus Ordo goes against the underlined parts. (And the expression "Let him be anathema" means the condemnation is dogmatic and de fide.)
Adultery has always been taught dogmatically to be a mortal sin. Receiving Holy Communion in mortal sin has always been taught dogmatically to be a mortal sin. But in Amoris Laetitia it says that adulterers can receive Holy Communion.
False worship has always been taught to be a mortal sin and a violation of the 1st commandment. Now, the 1st commandment is de fide. Christians in the early Church died glorious martyrdoms rather than sacrifice to a pagan deity. And yet the people you claim are the pope have all worshiped in false rites many times each, with pagans, Muslims, Jєωs, animists, Buddhists, etc.
Vatican 2 teaches that schismatics, heretics et al. are "in partial communion" with the Catholic Church. This contradicts the words of the Nicene Creed: "I believe in ... the one, holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church." If the Church is one, it cannot be partially in non-Catholic sects.
Dignitatis Humanae in Vatican 2 contradicts the Syllabus of Errors almost verbatim.
This is just off the top of my head, but these are just a few of the numerous ways in which the Vatican 2 church contradicts dogmatic teaching of the Catholic Church and therefore must be a false religion.
-
For the purpose of this post, I …
RandomFish, are you John Salza?
-
Mr. Salsa, please debate Peter Dimond. Thank you.
-
Please provide proof for your assertion as follows:
1. That the condemnation of religious liberty is a dogma (divinely revealed article of faith or connected to a dogma such that the denial of it would be a denial of another dogma) under pain of heresy in pre-conciliar teaching.
2. That Vatican II, or post conciliar doctrine, taught to the contrary.
1) The heresy of religious liberty is condemned by Pope Pius IX in his encyclical Quanta Cura. He also references Pope Gregory XVI calling religious liberty, insanity. But please keep in mind that True councils of the Catholic Church can’t contain any error whatsoever, so if you want to argue that the condemnation of RL is not necessarily dogmatic, it still would be contradicting past teaching of the Church.
2) Vatican II’s Dignitatis Humae.
-
Strawman argument.
The topic does not address the question of church membership; only the inconsistency of sedevacantist conclusions reached from contradictory and mutually exclusive foundations.
The sedevacantist must choose one of the following to remain consistent:
1. The Catholic Church is false.
2. Ordinary Papal magisterium is reversible and as such can be incorrect.
There is no other option.
Can’t be Salza. There is no way anyone who wrote a huge book against sedevacantism is this clueless about what it’s adherents believe.
-
That's not correct. SVism holds that they are usurpers, illegitimate, etc. because the Conciliar Church lacks the marks of the One True Church of Christ, and the papacy is protected by the Holy Ghost from substantially altering the Church into something that lacks these marks.
We have a corrupt Magisterium, an entirely novel and non-Catholic system of theology (not just a few isolated statement in Vatican II), a novel non-Catholic ecclesiology where the schismatic and heretical "Churches" can be part of the Church of Christ, a complete and consistent rejection of EENS dogma (culminating in Jorge's recent declaration of schismatic "martyrs", verbatim contradicting the teaching of the Council of Florence that there can be no salvation outside the Church even if one were to shed his blood for Christ), the promotion of religious indifferentism.
We have a "Mass" that differs not a lick from Cranmer's abomination and is consistent with Luther's butchery of the Catholic Mass, complete with a replacement of the Catholic Offertory (which Luther hated with a passion), replacing it with a тαℓмυdic "table blessing".
We have masses of obviously bogus canonizations, and popes are also prevented by the Holy Ghost from issuing bogus canonizations.
There's nothing in the Conciliar Church that resembles the mark of "Holiness" nor "Oneness", as there as as many heresies floating out there as there are Conciliar bishops. Jorge promotes the heretics and Modernists and punishes the relatively-faithful bishops like Strickland.
If St. Pius X had been time-warped forward to today and been shown the Conciliar Church, would he have recognized it as the Catholic Church had he not been told that it was? Absolutely not. Ergo, the Conciliar Church is not the Catholic Church. It's as simple as that, and one need not have a degree in theology to dissect the propositions of Vatican II. Simple faithful can see that. When I first became a Traditional Catholic, I read a book by St. Alphonsus Liguori and realized, without any theological analysis, that the faith this man exhibits in his books is not the same faith and the same religion that the Conciliar Church puts into practice.
Great post!
-
Great post!
I've always felt that there's this misconception that the recognition of the Conciliar Church depends on a careful theological analysis of various passages in Vatican II. God does not require the faithful to be theologians, and very few Traditional Catholics start their journey toward it for theological reasons. It's because the sensus Catholicus indicates that this Conciliar Church is something other than the Catholic Church. You put the pre-V2 Church (going back to the early Church) side by side with the Conciliar Church, and they are substantially different, not the same thing. That's why I apply the little thought experiment of time-warping St. Pius X or a St. Pius V to today and asking them what the Conciliar Church is. They wouldn't recognize it as the Catholic Church, but would think it to be some Protestant sect.
Our Lord says that His sheep know His voice, and we do not recognize the Voice of the Shepherd in Jorge Bergoglio. It's as simple as that.
And of course we put all the prophetic dots together. We have Our Lady warning that something was going to happen around 1960, we have the words of the Church's enemies that they're going to attempt to infiltrate and subvert the Church, we have one prophecy after another about a false Church, an anti-Church, a false Pope, an uncanonically elected pope, and Pope Leo XIII's prophetic words in the longer prayer to St. Michael about their attempts to set up their own throne in place of the See of St. Peter.
Even Stevie Wonder can see that the Conciliar Church is not the Catholic Church. Protestants and other non-Catholics have noticed the substantial change. Protestants denounce Jorge as a heretic.
-
1) The heresy of religious liberty is condemned by Pope Pius IX in his encyclical Quanta Cura. He also references Pope Gregory XVI calling religious liberty, insanity. But please keep in mind that True councils of the Catholic Church can’t contain any error whatsoever, so if you want to argue that the condemnation of RL is not necessarily dogmatic, it still would be contradicting past teaching of the Church.
2) Vatican II’s Dignitatis Humae.
You failed to demonstrate what I asked of you.
Where in Quanta Cura is it stated that religious liberty is heretical?
Pope Gregory XVI referring to religious liberty as insanity is also not tantamount to the same thing as heresy.
Heresy, strictly, defined is the denial of a divinely revealed truth in revelation mediated by the magisterium or taught in the ordinary and universal faith.
Religious liberty is not condemned in the early church and there is no revelation in scripture or tradition directly pertaining to it. In fact, the patriotic evidence is to the contrary!
Tertullian wrote:
“It is only just and a privilege inherent in human nature that every person should be able to worship according to his own convictions; the religious practice of one person neither harms nor helps another.”
Let one man worship God, another Jupiter; let one lift suppliant hands to the heavens, another to the altar of Fides; let one — if you choose to take this view of it — count in prayer the clouds, and another the ceiling panels; let one consecrate his own life to his God, and another that of a goat. For see that you do not give a further ground for the charge of irreligion, by taking away religious liberty, and forbidding free choice of deity, so that I may no longer worship according to my inclination, but am compelled to worship against it. Not even a human being would care to have unwilling homage rendered him.”
The other patristic figures do not even mention it.
Regarding what you mentioned of ecuмenical councils not containing error whatsoever; distinguished. For dogmas, granted. For anything else, denied. Ecuмenical councils regularly reversed or contradicted ordinary Papal teachings and even other ecuмenical doctrines not definitively settled. Even Popes regularly contradicted each other and their own teachings in ordinary Papal magisterium. See Bellarmine’s “On Councils” for further details on the matter on councils and the various editions of Denzinger since publication for examples of non-definitive papal error.
Lastly, you failed to demonstrate how Dignitatis Humanae contradicts Quanta Cura even if we grant that the former is infallible which it is not and cannot be because it is not rooted in revelation or tradition prior to the pre-modern era.
-
You failed to demonstrate what I asked of you.
Where in Quanta Cura is it stated that religious liberty is heretical?
Pope Gregory XVI referring to religious liberty as insanity is also not tantamount to the same thing as heresy.
Heresy, strictly, defined is the denial of a divinely revealed truth in revelation mediated by the magisterium or taught in the ordinary and universal faith.
Religious liberty is not condemned in the early church and there is no revelation in scripture or tradition directly pertaining to it. In fact, the patriotic evidence is to the contrary!
Tertullian wrote:
“It is only just and a privilege inherent in human nature that every person should be able to worship according to his own convictions; the religious practice of one person neither harms nor helps another.”
Let one man worship God, another Jupiter; let one lift suppliant hands to the heavens, another to the altar of Fides; let one — if you choose to take this view of it — count in prayer the clouds, and another the ceiling panels; let one consecrate his own life to his God, and another that of a goat. For see that you do not give a further ground for the charge of irreligion, by taking away religious liberty, and forbidding free choice of deity, so that I may no longer worship according to my inclination, but am compelled to worship against it. Not even a human being would care to have unwilling homage rendered him.”
The other patristic figures do not even mention it.
Regarding what you mentioned of ecuмenical councils not containing error whatsoever; distinguished. For dogmas, granted. For anything else, denied. Ecuмenical councils regularly reversed or contradicted ordinary Papal teachings and even other ecuмenical doctrines not definitively settled. Even Popes regularly contradicted each other and their own teachings in ordinary Papal magisterium. See Bellarmine’s “On Councils” for further details on the matter on councils and the various editions of Denzinger since publication for examples of non-definitive papal error.
Lastly, you failed to demonstrate how Dignitatis Humanae contradicts Quanta Cura even if we grant that the former is infallible which it is not and cannot be because it is not rooted in revelation or tradition prior to the pre-modern era.
All I needed to read was: “Lastly, you failed to demonstrate how Dignitatis Humanae contradicts Quanta Cura”. You apparently never read the two, but if you actually did, you have absolutely no business debating anything, let alone religion. This is tantamount to asking me to demonstrate that the Sun gives light. I don’t waist my time with modernists.
😂
-
The Vatican 2 church certainly violates teachings that were taught dogmatically.
The consecration of the wine in the Novus Ordo Mass says "pro omnibus" where Scripture says "pro multis". Now, every word of Scripture is de fide. Therefore the Novus Ordo contradicts Scripture. And that's before you get into the question of the sacrament being made invalid thereby.
The Council of Trent defined dogmatically (https://www.ewtn.com/catholicism/library/twentysecond-session-of-the-council-of-trent-1489): "Canon 9. If anyone says that the rite of the Roman Church, according to which a part of the canon and the words of consecration are pronounced in a low tone, is to be condemned; or that the mass ought to be celebrated in the vernacular tongue only;[28] or that water ought not to be mixed with the wine that is to be offered in the chalice because it is contrary to the institution of Christ,[29] let him be anathema."
The Novus Ordo goes against the underlined parts. (And the expression "Let him be anathema" means the condemnation is dogmatic and de fide.)
Adultery has always been taught dogmatically to be a mortal sin. Receiving Holy Communion in mortal sin has always been taught dogmatically to be a mortal sin. But in Amoris Laetitia it says that adulterers can receive Holy Communion.
False worship has always been taught to be a mortal sin and a violation of the 1st commandment. Now, the 1st commandment is de fide. Christians in the early Church died glorious martyrdoms rather than sacrifice to a pagan deity. And yet the people you claim are the pope have all worshiped in false rites many times each, with pagans, Muslims, Jєωs, animists, Buddhists, etc.
Vatican 2 teaches that schismatics, heretics et al. are "in partial communion" with the Catholic Church. This contradicts the words of the Nicene Creed: "I believe in ... the one, holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church." If the Church is one, it cannot be partially in non-Catholic sects.
Dignitatis Humanae in Vatican 2 contradicts the Syllabus of Errors almost verbatim.
This is just off the top of my head, but these are just a few of the numerous ways in which the Vatican 2 church contradicts dogmatic teaching of the Catholic Church and therefore must be a false religion.
There are a few errors and inconsistencies in your post:
1. “Many” is a Biblical idiom that sometimes means “all.” Daniel 12:2 is written of the general resurrection and states, “And many of those who sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt.” Here “many” means “all.”
Moreover cuм Occasione in condemnation of the Jansenists: "It is Semi-Pelagian to say that Christ died or shed His blood for all men." - Condemned.
2. Trent not only didn't anathematize the use of the vernacular in the Roman rite (it only anathematized those who condemned the use of Latin) actually allowed Rome to permit the use of the vernacular, and it was allowed for a while in the Roman rite in central Europe in the wake of Trent. Moreover, the NOM does not condemn the silent canon.
3. As for Amoris Laetitia and communion to those in objective mortal sin, see here: https://reducedculpability.blog/2018/02/13/amoris-laetitia-and-the-1917-code-of-canon-law/
4. Personal false worship by individual Popes is not a new matter. The Synod of Rome of 963 accused John XII drinking a toast to the Devil, and while playing at dice invoked the name of Jupiter, Venus and other pagan gods. So personal piety is not related to the magisterial power of the Pope.
5. What you claim Vatican II teaches regarding partial communion is the same thing taught by Pius IX in Quartus Supra and Pius XII in Mystici Corporis 22 . Do you consider them heretics?
6. See my response QVD regarding religious liberty.
-
All I needed to read was: “Lastly, you failed to demonstrate how Dignitatis Humanae contradicts Quanta Cura”. You apparently never read the two, but if you actually did, you have absolutely no business debating anything, let alone religion. This is tantamount to asking me to demonstrate that the Sun gives light. I don’t waist my time with modernists.
😂
Thanks for the discussion.
In case you ever decide to expand your breadth of knowledge beyond name calling:
https://thejosias.com/2014/12/31/religious-liberty-and-tradition-i/
-
Not one person addressed the crux of the initial post. If Etsi Multa is right then Sedevacantism cannot be true. If Etsi Multa is wrong then why not Quanta Cura and all the rest?
-
OK let's address Etsi Multa. I don't believe the Pope fell into heresy, only that no Pope has been elected for some time.
Regarding the bishops, all of those who fell into heresy lost their office and are no longer bishops.
We don't hold that the Church, the Pope or an Ecuмenical Council has taught error.
On the other hand, Etsi Multa applies very nicely to the Lefebvrites who stand defenseless against their indictment for calling an ecuмenical council erroneous.
Likewise, we're not the ones blindly following a bishop who entered not by the gate.
-
Not one person addressed the crux of the initial post. If Etsi Multa is right then Sedevacantism cannot be true. If Etsi Multa is wrong then why not Quanta Cura and all the rest?
Random,
Hi. I agree that no one has really addressed the "crux" of your post. That happens often around here, but it is understandable, concerning the topics of discussion, their significance. The subject matters we discuss naturally call forth passion and strong emotions. If I have more time, I'll try to engage the "crux" of your initial post.
As to the religious liberty issue, John Daly advanced the Sede argument with brevity and concision, so I'll just paste it here. I'd be interested in your response:
Is there a contradiction between Vatican II’s declaration on religious liberty (Dignitatis Humanae) and traditional Catholic doctrine as expressed in numerous encyclicals, and most especially in Pope Pius IX’s Quanta Cura? In recent years some intellectual conservatives have audaciously denied that there is any such contradiction. Before commenting on their attempts, let us remind ourselves of the texts:
Quanta Cura: “…against the doctrine of Scripture, of the Church, and of the Holy Fathers, they do not hesitate to assert that ‘the best condition of civil society is that in which no duty is attributed to the civil power of restraining by enacted penalties, offenders against the Catholic religion, except insofar as public peace may require.’
“From which totally false idea of social government they do not fear to foster that erroneous opinion, most fatal to the Catholic Church and the salvation of souls, called by Our Predecessor, Gregory XVI, insanity, viz., that ‘liberty of conscience and worship is the proper right of every man and ought to be legally proclaimed and asserted in every rightly constituted society’.”
Dignitatis Humanae (Vatican II): “This Vatican Council declares that the human person has a right to religious liberty. Such liberty consists in this: that all men must be immune to coercion whether on the part of individuals, social bodies or any human power so that in religious matters no one is constrained to act against his conscience or prevented from acting in accordance with his conscience in private and in public, alone or with others, within due limits [these due limits are defined in paragraph 7 as being those of public peace and morality].
“It further declares that the right to religious liberty is truly founded on the very dignity of the human person as known by the revealed word of God and reason itself.
“This right of the human person to religious liberty in the juridical ordering of society is to be recognised so as to become a civil right.”
Now to all appearances these texts are in radical contradiction on three points. Pope Pius IX condemns the following ideas: 1. all men have a right to liberty of conscience and of worship; 2. this right of religious liberty should be made a civil right in every well-ordered society; 3. the best state of society is that in which men’s civil right to religious liberty is limited only by the demands of public peace.
These three points condemned by Pius IX are all three apparently taught by the Vatican II text. Moreover Pope Pius IX is exercising the Extraordinary Magisterium and teaches that these propositions are opposed to Holy Scripture (written divine revelation) while Vatican II declares its opposing doctrine to be founded on the revealed word of God and requires all Catholics to observe its teaching religiously.
https://romeward.com/articles/239750983/religious-liberty-the-failed-attempts-to-defend-vatican-ii
Daly seems to be arguing that one of these views must be heretical, since they are contradictory (again, in his view) and both say their views are "divinely revealed." If they are both revealed, and opposed to one another, one of them is contrary to divine revelation, and necessarily heretical. That appears to be the reasoning.
As I said, I'd like to hear your response.
DR
-
Random,
Hi. I agree that no one has really addressed the "crux" of your post. That happens often around here, but it is understandable, concerning the topics of discussion, their significance.
No, the problem is that his attribution of this problem to SVism is a strawman. SVs do not, as per etsi multa claim that the Catholic hierarchy has fallen into heresy. That accusation is more against R&R than anyone else. As Salza usually does, he begs the question that these men are the popes, and uses circular reasoning.
-
Not one person addressed the crux of the initial post. If Etsi Multa is right then Sedevacantism cannot be true. If Etsi Multa is wrong then why not Quanta Cura and all the rest?
I've addressed it by explaining that no SV holds the propositions that are condemned in etsi multa and that it's more a problem for R&R.
What part of this do you not understand? You talk about strawmen and yet falsely attribute propositions to SVs.
You can CLAIM that it's the end result, based on a set of arguments, but you assume the validity of how you've patched it together (incorrectly) in your brain, yet what you've pushed here is ...
a strawman false dilemma layered on top of several begged questions
So talk about the mother of all logical fallacies.
-
There are a few errors and inconsistencies in your post:
1. “Many” is a Biblical idiom that sometimes means “all.” Daniel 12:2 is written of the general resurrection and states, “And many of those who sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt.” Here “many” means “all.”
Moreover cuм Occasione in condemnation of the Jansenists: "It is Semi-Pelagian to say that Christ died or shed His blood for all men." - Condemned.
2. Trent not only didn't anathematize the use of the vernacular in the Roman rite (it only anathematized those who condemned the use of Latin) actually allowed Rome to permit the use of the vernacular, and it was allowed for a while in the Roman rite in central Europe in the wake of Trent. Moreover, the NOM does not condemn the silent canon.
3. As for Amoris Laetitia and communion to those in objective mortal sin, see here: https://reducedculpability.blog/2018/02/13/amoris-laetitia-and-the-1917-code-of-canon-law/
4. Personal false worship by individual Popes is not a new matter. The Synod of Rome of 963 accused John XII drinking a toast to the Devil, and while playing at dice invoked the name of Jupiter, Venus and other pagan gods. So personal piety is not related to the magisterial power of the Pope.
5. What you claim Vatican II teaches regarding partial communion is the same thing taught by Pius IX in Quartus Supra and Pius XII in Mystici Corporis 22 . Do you consider them heretics?
6. See my response QVD regarding religious liberty.
.
1. Your response is irrelevant. Scripture says "for many". The Novus Ordo changes that to say "for all". What it says in the Book of Daniel is not what it says in the institution narrative of the Holy Eucharist. Also, "many" and "all" are two different words, and the New Testament was written in Greek which has two separate words for "many" and "all", and was translated into Latin (which is used in the Mass) which likewise has two separate words for "many" and "all". So the Novus Ordo lies about what Scripture says.
3. That post is about 20 pages long. Can you give us the gist of the argument?
-
OK let's address Etsi Multa. I don't believe the Pope fell into heresy, only that no Pope has been elected for some time.
Regarding the bishops, all of those who fell into heresy lost their office and are no longer bishops.
We don't hold that the Church, the Pope or an Ecuмenical Council has taught error.
On the other hand, Etsi Multa applies very nicely to the Lefebvrites who stand defenseless against their indictment for calling an ecuмenical council erroneous.
Likewise, we're not the ones blindly following a bishop who entered not by the gate.
Was not John XXIII or Paul VI universally and peacefully elected? What led to the revaluation of their pontificates except that they were supposedly teaching heresy? After which, it was decided that they were not Popes and therefore the Popes dis not teach heresy.
What made them lose their office? Is it not heresy? The same accusation which led the Old Catholics leveled against Vatican I.
You don’t hold that the Church, the Pope, or an ecuмenical council taught error because you believe they were illegitimate after the fact of promulgating heresy by those very acts.
This is all indistinguishable from Old Catholicism’s attitude towards the first Vatican Council.
-
Explain WHY you believe / claim / assert that SVs run afoul of Etsi Multa?
No SV holds that the Pope and bishops have fallen into heresy, since we don't believe that the Conciliar Popes are true popes in the first place. To claim we believe the Pope and bishops have fallen into heresy is to beg the question that these V2 papal claimants have been popes.
Some R&R do hold that the Conciliars are in heresy (while some might say it's error less than the notes of heresy), and those that do hold the Conciliars to be heretics would in fact be running afoul of EM. In fact, I've often criticized a number of R&R here for promoting a thinly-veiled Old Catholicism.
You just hurl an allegation out there and assume (but never demonstrate) that SVs run afoul of EM.
You're making the allegation, so at least attempt a logical demonstration of it instead of assuming the truth of multiple layers of propositions and implied syllogism, eh?
-
No, the problem is that his attribution of this problem to SVism is a strawman. SVs do not, as per etsi multa claim that the Catholic hierarchy has fallen into heresy. That accusation is more against R&R than anyone else. As Salza usually does, he begs the question that these men are the popes, and uses circular reasoning.
The distinction is non-existent and imaginary. Pope Pius IX claims that the Old Catholics said this about the hierarchy since Pius IX believed he was the hierarchy along with those in communion with him whereas the Old Catholics did not believe they were the hierarchy. The distinction is in the perception of the accuser and not the accused. To Francis and those in communion with him, they are the hierarchy whereas Sedevacantists reject this. Tit for tat Old Catholic attitude towards the Vatican I era.
In other words, Sedevacantists believe that the post-conciliar hierarchy is not the hierarchy precisely because of their teachings after the fact of an event. This is indistinguishable from Old Catholic views which held to the same after Vatican I; that they were no longer the hierarchy or never were in the first place because of the event which shined light on their true identity vis a vis teaching heresy.
-
Was not John XXIII or Paul VI universally and peacefully elected?
OK, so now we're retreating to one of your assumptions. In the allegation you made in the OP, you begged the question that these men are popes. We dispute that. So now you have to backtrack and explicitly mention Universal Acceptance. At least we can begin to unravel this mess that you presented in the OP.
I hold that Roncalli et al. were not legitimately elected, but that Siri was the legitimately elected pope. I don't believe that universal acceptance can "sanate" an illegitimate election. This principle is held by some theologians but is nowhere proven. As for UAP in general even ensuring a legitimate pope, I reject that as well, for reasons I've articulated. Firstly, we have historical examples that falsify the principle, and secondly, Paul IV in cuм ex Apostolatus implicitly rejects the principle of UAP.
-
Explain WHY you believe / claim / assert that SVs run afoul of Etsi Multa?
No SV holds that the Pope and bishops have fallen into heresy, since we don't believe that the Conciliar Popes are true popes in the first place. To claim we believe the Pope and bishops have fallen into heresy is to beg the question that these V2 papal claimants have been popes.
Some R&R do hold that the Conciliars are in heresy (while some might say it's error less than the notes of heresy), and those that do hold the Conciliars to be heretics would in fact be running afoul of EM. In fact, I've often criticized a number of R&R here for promoting a thinly-veiled Old Catholicism.
You just hurl an allegation out there and assume (but never demonstrate) that SVs run afoul of EM.
You're making the allegation, so at least attempt a logical demonstration of it instead of assuming the truth of multiple layers of propositions and implied syllogism, eh?
I’ve addressed this in my previous post. Please see there.
-
The distinction is non-existent and imaginary.
Absurd. Have you even taken a single course in logic, John Salza? Your posts are a logical disaster and an intellectual nightmare.
-
OK, so now we're retreating to one of your assumptions. In the allegation you made in the OP, you begged the question that these men are popes. We dispute that. So now you have to backtrack and explicitly mention Universal Acceptance. At least we can begin to unravel this mess that you presented in the OP.
I hold that Roncalli et al. were not legitimately elected, but that Siri was the legitimately elected pope. I don't believe that universal acceptance can "sanate" an illegitimate election. This principle is held by some theologians but is nowhere proven. As for UAP in general even ensuring a legitimate pope, I reject that as well, for reasons I've articulated. Firstly, we have historical examples that falsify the principle, and secondly, Paul IV in cuм ex Apostolatus implicitly rejects the principle of UAP.
Your paradigm is subjective to the point of absurdity. There is no epistemological basis on which to base who is Pope at any given time.
-
Random,
Hi. I agree that no one has really addressed the "crux" of your post. That happens often around here, but it is understandable, concerning the topics of discussion, their significance. The subject matters we discuss naturally call forth passion and strong emotions. If I have more time, I'll try to engage the "crux" of your initial post.
As to the religious liberty issue, John Daly advanced the Sede argument with brevity and concision, so I'll just paste it here. I'd be interested in your response:
Daly seems to be arguing that one of these views must be heretical, since they are contradictory (again, in his view) and both say their views are "divinely revealed." If they are both revealed, and opposed to one another, one of them is contrary to divine revelation, and necessarily heretical. That appears to be the reasoning.
As I said, I'd like to hear your response.
DR
Thank you for posting this, but RF seems not to be in good faith.
-
Your paradigm is subjective to the point of absurdity. There is no epistemological basis on which to base who is Pope at any given time.
You have yet to present a single logical structured argument, but have piled on a hodge podge of false-dilemma strawmen layered on top of several begged questions.
You completely ignored my arguments for why UAP fails and just claim that it's absurd.
There's nothing absurd about it. There's a disagreement regarding the nature of certitude regarding papal legitimacy. Some hold UAP makes it dogmatically certain, while others hold that can only be at a level of moral certitude. So your allegation reduces to your claim that it's dogmatically certain that UAP makes papal elections dogmatic fact. This is clearly untrue, as some theologians hold to the moral certitude theory, and their opinion hasn't been condemned as heretical.
Back to my arguments (which you ignored) regarding why UAP is a false principle.
1) Two different historial episodes where a living pope went into exile, a new "Pope" was elected and universally accepted. That would be tantamount to the deposition of a pope.
2) Paul IV in cuм ex Apostolatus decrees that heretics cannot be legitimate Popes even if they "are accepted by all.". If UAP is a thing, this decree would be nonsensical, since "acceptance by all" would trump any heresy the individual may be guilty of.
Let's say that we had a "Pope Joan" scenario where some transgender (especially in these days of hormonal and/or surgical interventions, where it may be impossible to tell) gets elected pope and become accepted by all. Would UAP sanate this election? It can't. All that's preventing such a scenario is God's Providence in not permitting it to happen. But UAP cannot sanate a defective election.
-
…blah, blah, blah…
RandomFish, are you John Salza?
-
The distinction is non-existent and imaginary. Pope Pius IX claims that the Old Catholics said this about the hierarchy since Pius IX believed he was the hierarchy along with those in communion with him whereas the Old Catholics did not believe they were the hierarchy. The distinction is in the perception of the accuser and not the accused. To Francis and those in communion with him, they are the hierarchy whereas Sedevacantists reject this. Tit for tat Old Catholic attitude towards the Vatican I era.
In other words, Sedevacantists believe that the post-conciliar hierarchy is not the hierarchy precisely because of their teachings after the fact of an event. This is indistinguishable from Old Catholic views which held to the same after Vatican I; that they were no longer the hierarchy or never were in the first place because of the event which shined light on their true identity vis a vis teaching heresy.
A good observation. The Old Catholics (who are schismatic) believed that the Catholic hierarchy after V1 were not the Catholic hierarchy. The current sedevacantists believe the same about the hierarchy during and after Vll. So it would seem that the sedevacantists today who believe that there is no longer a Catholic hierarchy (based in Rome) are also schismatics.
-
No, the problem is that his attribution of this problem to SVism is a strawman. SVs do not, as per etsi multa claim that the Catholic hierarchy has fallen into heresy. That accusation is more against R&R than anyone else. As Salza usually does, he begs the question that these men are the popes, and uses circular reasoning.
Lad,
You haven't addressed his argument, but side stepped it. You miss the point that Pius IX is making. Here's the quote:
“Incredibly, they boldly affirm that the Roman Pontiff and all the bishops, the priests and the people conjoined with him in the unity of faith and communion fell into heresy when they approved and professed the definitions of the Ecuмenical Vatican Council. Therefore they deny also the indefectibility of the Church and blasphemously declare that it has perished throughout the world and that its visible Head and the bishops have erred. They assert the necessity of restoring a legitimate episcopacy in the person of their pseudo-bishop, who has entered not by the gate but from elsewhere like a thief or robber and calls the damnation of Christ upon his head.”
According to you, all that the Old Catholic would have to say in response is, "not so, you, and the bishops in union with you, are heretics, and not part of the Catholic Church. The Catholic Church - of which you are not - remains indefectible, and your defection from the faith is not attributable to the Church, which remains indefectible with us."
Until the late 20th Century and Sedevacantism, the idea that the pope and all the bishops in union with him would lose the faith would be unthinkable. Catholics believed, like Pius IX, that the Holy Ghost would not have permitted such a total and radical usurpation of the hierarchy. That is the protection of indefectibility identified, and referred to, by Pius IX in Etsi Multi: that there could not be such a radical usurpation of the hierarchy such that it becomes a total seat of pestilence, such that it could be taken over by Satan. A bishop here or there, or even possibly a heretic pope, who would be opposed by legitimate bishops who were successors to the apostles - even if that nightmare was a possibility, that would not destroy indefectibility as understood. But indefectibility, as understood by Pius IX, would not be compatible with such a total usurpation.
You morph this into a circular, tautological argument swirling around terminology: the pope and all the bishops in union with him in the Catholic Church cannot be heretics, and so if they are heretics, they aren't the pope and the bishops of the Catholic Church. That's a total evasion of Pius IX's point: if the pope and the all Catholic bishops in union with him joined to issue heresy in an ecuмenical council, the Church would have defected. Period. The Old Catholics could not, and you can not, evade that point by saying, "but the pope and all the bishops who did so were not Catholic."
But that is what you are doing. You are evading the "crux" of the argument: the Holy Ghost would not allow that to happen, i.e., that any "person" sitting in the seat of Peter could have all the "persons" possessing Catholic sees or bishoprics joining him in union to do such a thing.
You haven't addressed Random's post, or the "crux" of the issue.
-
Lol. Reading Decem's post is like peeking into a different reality. Decem, you're talking about the conciliar counter-church's apostasy as if it didn't happen.
It did happen, now we know it can happen.
Just as a Catholic before the Great Western Schism would say it could never happen, however, you've actually seen the Great Apostasy with your own two eyes and are pretending it isn't there.
One thing is perfectly clear to me, the Pope must be a Catholic and these antichrists aren't. From the moment I saw Bergoglio and Wojtyla promoting demon worship I knew they were non-catholic antipopes. I don't know what you have to see them do to reach the same conclusion, especially considering they already did every heretical and apostate act imaginable.
Here are some prophetic words from Fr. O'Reilly:
“There had been anti-popes before from time to time, but never for such a continuance… nor ever with such a following…
“The great schism of the West suggests to me a reflection which I take the liberty of expressing here. If this schism had not occurred, the hypothesis of such a thing happening would appear to many chimerical. They would say it could not be; God would not permit the Church to come into so unhappy a situation. Heresies might spring up and spread and last painfully long, through the fault and to the perdition of their authors and abettors, to the great distress too of the faithful, increased by actual persecution in many places where the heretics were dominant. But that the true Church should remain between thirty and forty years without a thoroughly ascertained Head, and representative of Christ on earth, this would not be. Yet it has been; and we have no guarantee that it will not be again, though we may fervently hope otherwise. What I would infer is, that we must not be too ready to pronounce on what God may permit. We know with absolute certainty that He will fulfil His promises; not allow anything to occur at variance with them; that He will sustain His Church and enable her to triumph over all enemies and difficulties; that He will give to each of the faithful those graces which are needed for each one’s service of Him and attainment of salvation, as He did during the great schism we have been considering, and in all the sufferings and trials which the Church has passed through from the beginning. We may also trust He will do a great deal more than what He has bound Himself to by His promises. We may look forward with a cheering probability to exemption for the future from some of the troubles and misfortunes that have befallen in the past. But we, or our successors in future generations of Christians, shall perhaps see stranger evils than have yet been experienced, even before the immediate approach of that great winding up of all things on earth that will precede the day of judgment. I am not setting up for a prophet, nor pretending to see unhappy wonders, of which I have no knowledge whatever. All I mean to convey is that contingencies regarding the Church, not excluded by the Divine promises, cannot be regarded as practically impossible, just because they would be terrible and distressing in a very high degree.”
There are only three answers to the problem: deny the facts, deny the papacy or deny the claimant.
RandomFish started from the assumption that the Jєωιѕн satanists were popes and that led him to the only possible conclusion that Vatican II wasn't erroneous.
He forgot to read Galatians it seems.
What about you Decem? Do you have the same faith as Francis? If you don't, you're not in the Church where he's Pope. If you do, you're going to the same place he is. Simple as.
-
Lol. Reading Decem's post is like peeking into a different reality. Decem, you're talking about the conciliar counter-church's apostasy as if it didn't happen.
It did happen, now we know it can happen.
Just as a Catholic before the Great Western Schism would say it could never happen, however, you've actually seen the Great Apostasy with your own two eyes and are pretending it isn't there.
One thing is perfectly clear to me, the Pope must be a Catholic and these antichrists aren't. From the moment I saw Bergoglio and Wojtyla promoting demon worship I knew they were non-catholic antipopes. I don't know what you have to see them do to reach the same conclusion, especially considering they already did every heretical and apostate act imaginable.
Here are some prophetic words from Fr. O'Reilly:
There are only three answers to the problem: deny the facts, deny the papacy or deny the claimant.
RandomFish started from the assumption that the Jєωιѕн satanists were popes and that led him to the only possible conclusion that Vatican II wasn't erroneous.
He forgot to read Galatians it seems.
What about you Decem? Do you have the same faith as Francis? If you don't, you're not in the Church where he's Pope. If you do, you're going to the same place he is. Simple as.
Marulus,
Please do calm down and take a break from your Holy Crusade.
I believe we are in the Great Apostasy. Just FYI. Part of the reason I believe it is being visited upon the Church is its arrogance and pride, just like the Jєωs. For example, the claim of the hierarchy to be "indefectible."
Jer. 8:8 - How do you say: We are wise, and the law of the Lord is with us? Indeed the lying pen of the scribes hath wrought falsehood.
Jer. 18:18 - And they said: Come, and let us invent devices against Jeremias: for the law shall not perish from the priest, nor counsel from the wise, nor the word from the prophet: come, and let us strike him with the tongue, and let us give no heed to all his words.
Isa. 28:15 - For you have said: We have entered into a league with death, and we have made a covenant with hell. When the overflowing scourge shall pass through, it shall not come upon us: for we have placed our hope in lies, and by falsehood we are protected.
Rom. 11:17-22 - And if some of the branches be broken, and thou, being a wild olive, art ingrafted in them, and art made partaker of the root, and of the fatness of the olive tree, 18 Boast not against the branches. But if thou boast, thou bearest not the root, but the root thee. 19 Thou wilt say then: The branches were broken off, that I might be grafted in. 20 Well: because of unbelief they were broken off. But thou standest by faith: be not highminded, but fear. For if God hath not spared the natural branches, fear lest perhaps he also spare not thee. 22 See then the goodness and the severity of God: towards them indeed that are fallen, the severity; but towards thee, the goodness of God, if thou abide in goodness, otherwise thou also shalt be cut off.
For your further FYI - I believe that Vatican II and the Conciliar consquence proves the hierarchy not "indefectible," at least on its own arrogant terms, as it defined it.
I believe a variation of what Stubborn maintains: the Church is indefectible.
DR
-
Lol. Reading Decem's post is like peeking into a different reality. Decem, you're talking about the conciliar counter-church's apostasy as if it didn't happen.
Marulus,
A bit of advice that I am sure you will not take: before you start mocking someone, take pause to make sure you understand them. You might not, and show your . . . never mind.
I'll just stick with that likely to be unheeded advice.
DR
-
RandomFish, are you John Salza?
I suspect this in my first response, and the fact that he has ignored this question suggests that he is, or else someone associated with him.
So, of late, when an account shows up that denounces Traditional Catholicism entirely, claiming that there's nothing wrong with Vatican II and the NOM, it's more than likely another John Salza account.
He opened by making it sound like he's attacking just SVism, trolling in order to get R&R riled up against the sedevacantists, hoping that R&R would remain oblivious to the fact that he also condemns them. To this day, we have R&R folks continuing to promote S&S attacks against SVism while paying no attention to the fact that it's a double-edged sword since S&S also attack R&R Traditional Catholics based on the same purely-legalistic view of the Church.
Not only that, but Salza repeatedly attributed to SVs propositions that are actually held by no sedevacantists, but, rather, by some R&R, and over which sedevacantists themselves criticize R&R.
But, if this poster is John Salza, I lost even more respect for him, because his logic was so sloppy (and even non-existent) that it was almost mind-boggling. For someone who doesn't have a grasp of basic logic (having taken 0 courses in the subject) to posture as some kind of theologian or theological leader is beyond me.
His attacks (when unraveled) entailed a strawman false dilemma layered on top of numerous begged questions, so about a half dozen fallacies in one.
-
Please provide proof for your assertion as follows:
1. That the condemnation of religious liberty is a dogma (divinely revealed article of faith or connected to a dogma such that the denial of it would be a denial of another dogma) under pain of heresy in pre-conciliar teaching.
2. That Vatican II, or post conciliar doctrine, taught to the contrary.
OH kay --
You're not a Trad. This is a Trad forum. And you're John Salza (who I've banned before).
That's two reasons to ban you.
Good bye --
-
His attacks (when unraveled) entailed a strawman false dilemma layered on top of numerous begged questions, so about a half dozen fallacies in one.
So, eventually having pried out of him the assumptions he was making, i.e. the begged questions, we do finally get to the core argument upon which his entire house of cards rests.
Basically, the argument goes that Catholics cannot make modo tollentis or modus tollens rejections of popes based on perceived erroneous teaching.
While he's incorrect that the Old Catholics claimed that Pius IX wasn't a pope, the point there is not a bad one, namely, the authority of the Magisterium is uprooted if Catholics can sit there and argue backwards (modo tollentis) from a perceived erroneous teaching to a non-papacy. There needs to be some independent a priori evidence that someone is a pope BEFORE a teaching is issued in order to guarantee the truth of said teaching. Otherwise, there's nothing stopping someone from rejecting any pope.
Let's say Pius IX was defining the Immaculate Conception. Some Catholics decide that the Immaculate Conception is erroneous or even heretical. From there they conclude that Pius IX was not the pope. With this process, no dogmatic teaching is safe. This is actually the same problem I raised in my 1995 "paper" (that was not meant to be a paper but the Angelus published without my knowledge or permission ... and it was nothing more than a rough draft outline).
So this is a legitimate argument once someone drills down several layers underneath the logical mess that was the OP of this thread. I have an answer for it, but let's take the debate down to this level, where we can actually address it rationally.
-
While the marks of the church are somewhat relevant to an aspect of the discussion at hand, they are ultimately ancillary. Sedevacantism would not exist even if the majority of the bishops and priests were heretics proposing novelties along what you mentioned, but the Pope was orthodox and a stalwart defender of the Faith as understood by the sedevacantists.
As to the rest of what you mentioned, most of the early Church Fathers would not have recognized what the medieval church let alone the Tridentine church of St. Pius V or the Ultramontane church of Pope Pius IX. The Church developed substantially since the early centuries. In fact, that’s precisely the whole point of the original Protestant movement. It is to cast away all of the Roman accretions and return or perhaps restore the apostolic identity as they perceive it. Hence irrelevant to the discussion and not very effective point.
So, the Conciliar Novus Ordo church is just your average development of the Church that we should expect; completely legitimate?
UGH how can men be so STUPID. Is there no error that men can't grasp as a firmly held belief or opinion?
Is human reason and the human mind THAT fragile, that it can so easily seize upon error as the truth?
Woe to mankind for his feeble, weak powers of reason and tenuous grasp of the truth.
It would seem that a man finding the truth is about as lucky as a paraplegic with no wheelchair escaping a burning movie theater full of people.
-
So, the Conciliar Novus Ordo church is just your average development of the Church that we should expect; completely legitimate?
This argument actually speaks to my response to the previous post, the previous question that I had finally distilled from Salza's post.
-
I notice John Salza is trying to be clever.
In titling his post, "The Impossibility of Sedevacantism", the R&R owner/moderator saw it and said, "whatever..." and didn't even click on it.
It's not like I haven't seen debates about Sedevacantism before. And this post appeared to be attacking a position I don't hold, so I wasn't even interested in it. Especially with my busy self.
In short, there's nothing in that title that screams, "The anti-Traditional Movement John Salza is back with another account!"
But if he had been more honest, he would have titled it,
"All you so-called Traditional Catholics are going to hell!"
And I might have clicked on it, and reacted, a bit sooner.
P.S. I'll admit: I don't read every post. I can't. CathInfo is way too high-traffic, and I have way too many other duties of state. So I *browse* CathInfo each morning like Baby Boomers used to "read" the entire newspaper. What % do you suppose they actually read? Most was skipped over, the headlines browsed, etc.
P.P.S. No one told me we had an anti-Traditional Movement, pro-Conciliar poster here on CathInfo. I discovered it eventually, but NO THANKS TO ANY OF YOU. You're my Catholic brothers and I appreciate all the good you've done in the past, but man! You couldn't have said something?
It's annoying that people bug me with fights and issues I don't care about, then when there's someone that really needs to be banned, no one says anything.
-
Traditional Catholics generally become Traditional Catholics not because they analyze specific teachings of Vatican II and determine that they're in error. They become Traditional Catholics because their sensus Catholicus tells them that the Conciliar Church is something substantially different than the Catholic Church. I've done this thought experiment before. Let's say that St. Pius V or St. Pius X had been time-warped forward in time to today and were shown the Conciliar Church in all its "glory". Would they recognize it as the Catholic Church, the One True Church founded by Our Lord Jesus Christ? Most certainly not.
Vatican I taught about supernatural faith that it depends upon a submission to authority. BUT the initial determination of the credibility of that authority does from from the use of reason, moved by grace. It's based on these motives of credibility that people determine, "Yes, this is the Church founded by Christ and it does have His authority."
Traditional Catholics have come to the realization that Bergoglio (and his predecessors) do not speak with the voice of the Shepherd. Our Lord taught that His sheep know His voice and obey it. We do not recognize the voice of Our Lord in the Conciliar Church. Our Lord also taught that we would know things by their fruits, and one could write many volumes about the fruits of the Conciliar Church.
We're not talking about an individual proposition in the docuмents of Vatican II. We're talking about an entirely new religion that was created that bears little resemblance (except in a few residual trappings) to the Catholic Church of Tradition.
What we see in Vatican II isn't just a handful of problematic statements (the 5% of Bishop Fellay), but we see an entirely new Modernist and subjectivist theological system that has manifested itself in 60+ years of "Magisterium". Vatican II cannot simply be "corrected," as per +Schneider, by simply amending one or two sentences. But it's radically defective throughout.
At the core of the Vatican II errors rests the Modernist-reimagined ecclesiology, an anti-Tridentine ecclesiology, where there's a "Church of Christ" that reaches beyond the Catholic Church. While the Catholic Church remains its "subsistent core," various schismatic sects are referred to as Churches. So then Vatican II details varying degrees of separation from this subsistent core, this "fullness of truth".
Thus, V2 concludes the equivalent of, Orthodox are 99% Catholic, Protestants (depending on the sect) can be 75%-90% Catholic, and even Jews and Muslims are at least, say, 25% Catholic. While I'm throwing arbitrary numbers out here, this illustrates the V2 approach to ecclesiology. Ironically, this is the same mentality +Fellay adopts when speaking of V2 being 95% Catholic.
This is a shift from the prior 1900+ years of Catholic theology, where you were either 100% Catholic or you were non-Catholic, a binary or discrete view, vs. this notion of a continuum of truth promoted by V2. Why? That's because supernatural motive of faith depends upon submitting in principle to the authority of Christ's Church. And that is why it's said that if you deny one dogma, you deny them all, because you're denying the very authority behind ALL dogmas. So even though certain "Churches" may MATERIALLY overlap with a significant percentage of Catholic dogmas, they're still radically separated from the Church based on this criterion. This is the Traditional teaching that's now replaced by Vatican II.
How does V2 do this? Well, it's rooted in subjectivizing the formal motive of faith, and transmuting it from a disposition of the intellect and the will to accept the Church's teaching into some strange form of "sincerity", where if you really believe that you're right, then you have the formal motive of faith and are only in material error with regard to whatever errors you hold. So the supernatural motive of faith, which used to be, "I recognize that the Catholic Church teaches with the authority of Christ and therefore accept everything it teaches," into "I want to believe what God wants me to believe." Supernatural Faith now depends not on some objective disposition of the intellect and will, but rather on some subjectivist "sincerity" and "intention". This is also the root of Religious Liberty. If I can have faith and please God by sincerely following my (even materially erroneous) beliefs, then, since I have a right to please God, then I have a right to follow my (even materially erroneous) beliefs.
This is the crux of the V2 problem, and the root of the entire V2 theological framework. And THIS is why the so-called "Feeneyism" question is so important. Rejection of Vatican II as non-Catholic is inseparable from the same problems that Father Feeney et al. are addressing.
Soteriology and ecclesiology are inextricably joined. We know as dogma that there's no salvation outside the Church. So if we want Orthodox and Prots and Jews and Muslims to be saved, we have to find a way to include them IN the Church. There's no other way to do that than by redefining Church.
MAJOR: There's no salvation outside the Church (dogma).
MINOR: Orthodox, Prots, Muslims, Jews can be saved.
CONCLUSION: Orthodox, Prots, Muslims, Jews can be IN the Church.
So you have to redefine "Church," which is precisely what Vatican II did.
Karl Rahner realized that this was THE fundamental shift at Vatican II (of course he was delighted with it), and he marveled that more of the conservative V2 Fathers didn't so much as make a peep about it. That's because this erosion of EENS and therefore of ecclesiology had been under way for a couple hundred years at least, and so it was already well entrenched. Vatican II didn't just come out of nowhere.
So this is the new theological system upon which the Conciliar Church has been established. We're not talking about one or two problematic statements, but upon a new ecclesiology and new soteriology, a new subjectivist theological system.
So, on top of that, we see a New Mass that's not a lick different from Cranmer's abomination and different very little from Luther's. Some of the English martyrs proclaimed that they would give their lives for the slightest ceremony in the Catholic Mass. Conciliar Church spits on their graves and adopts the liturgical theology of the heretical Protestants.
In addition, we have the myriad bogus canonizations (for political reasons) by the Conciliar Church ... applying the criterion of "sincerity", or "nitheness", as Bishop Williamson famously refers to it, rather than objective heroic virtue.
With the new theological system (radically different and not just consisting of a couple propositions), a new Protestantized form of Public Worship (Mass), and a new cult of the saints ... the Conciliar Church is in fact an entirely brand new religion that breaks continuity with the Traditional Catholic Church.
So THIS is how Traditional Catholics have come to a recognition that the Conciliar Church is not the Catholic Church, as their sensus Catholicus has determined that there is a substantial discontinuity and disconnect from the Catholic Church prior to Vatican II, and not based on some modo tollentis argument regarding this, that, or another Vatican II proposition. We find that this Conciliar Church lacks the motives of credibility, that it lacks the Notes of the One True Church of Christ, and is therefore not recognizable as such. St. Pius V and St. Pius X would not recognize it as such ... and neither do we.
-
I notice John Salza is trying to be clever.
In titling his post, "The Impossibility of Sedevacantism", the R&R owner/moderator saw it and said, "whatever..." and didn't even click on it.
It's not like I haven't seen debates about Sedevacantism before. And this post appeared to be attacking a position I don't hold, so I wasn't even interested in it. Especially with my busy self.
In short, there's nothing in that title that screams, "The anti-Traditional Movement John Salza is back with another account!"
But if he had been more honest, he would have titled it,
"All you so-called Traditional Catholics are going to hell!"
And I might have clicked on it, and reacted, a bit sooner.
P.S. I'll admit: I don't read every post. I can't. CathInfo is way too high-traffic, and I have way too many other duties of state. So I *browse* CathInfo each morning like Baby Boomers used to "read" the entire newspaper. What % do you suppose they actually read? Most was skipped over, the headlines browsed, etc.
P.P.S. No one told me we had an anti-Traditional Movement, pro-Conciliar poster here on CathInfo. I discovered it eventually, but NO THANKS TO ANY OF YOU. You're my Catholic brothers and I appreciate all the good you've done in the past, but man! You couldn't have said something?
It's annoying that people bug me with fights and issues I don't care about, then when there's someone that really needs to be banned, no one says anything.
That's exactly right, Matthew, and I sniffed him out in my first response: "But, then, perhaps you're Salza again with a different account [claiming] that the Conciliar Church has not erred."
This was a troll job. Using the ostensibly motive of attacking sedevacantists, he was working up R&R folks against sedevacantists, hoping to mobilize them against sedevacantism, whereas he was actually attacking all Traditional Catholics, and hoping to fly under the radar, getting R&R and SV to battle against each other, and then, after the bodies had fallen where they did, he would execute the R&R folks who remained standing by turning on them. It's the old divide and conquer tactic, where you get your enemies to fight each other, and after both sides are decimated, you mop up what's left.
-
P.P.S. No one told me we had an anti-Traditional Movement, pro-Conciliar poster here on CathInfo. I discovered it eventually, but NO THANKS TO ANY OF YOU. You're my Catholic brothers and I appreciate all the good you've done in the past, but man! You couldn't have said something?
Well, I tend not to contact you about individual posters, and it took me a few posts to sniff him out. I suspected it was him from the beginning, and quite frankly I didn't mind mixing it up with him on the forum, provided that I had first exposed who he was and what his intent and motivations were. I kindof liked arguing with John Salza and exposing his sloppy logic. As you all have likely noticed, I enjoy mixing it up and debating issues, even with an anti-Traditional poster. In the case of John Salza, he's doing a lot of damage out there, having become a turncoat, and so I thought it was a decent opportunity to discredit him some.
But ... if I spot him again, I'll be sure to let you know. I've been criticized before for making guesses about individuals' identifies, and very often I'm fishing. Had he just responded, "I am not John Salza.", I would have accepted that, since I give Catholics the benefit of the doubt that they would not lie ... unless evidence shows the contrary. There was another account here some time ago that I also suspected him of being John Salza, but he denied it, so I guess that he was Robert Siscoe or else someone associated with S&S.
-
This wasn't Salza, IMO. It was John Pontrello.
-
That's exactly right, Matthew, and I sniffed him out in my first response: "But, then, perhaps you're Salza again with a different account [claiming] that the Conciliar Church has not erred."
This was a troll job. Using the ostensibly motive of attacking sedevacantists, he was working up R&R folks against sedevacantists, hoping to mobilize them against sedevacantism, whereas he was actually attacking all Traditional Catholics, and hoping to fly under the radar, getting R&R and SV to battle against each other, and then, after the bodies had fallen where they did, he would execute the R&R folks who remained standing by turning on them. It's the old divide and conquer tactic, where you get your enemies to fight each other, and after both sides are decimated, you mop up what's left.
I didn't see R&R attacked by this Random Fish guy. But now that he's banned (which is a good idea, even though he was right about a few things), we can now get back to certain sedevacantists who attack R&R traditionalism. Obviously, it's not a problem that sedevacantists are anti-R&R trad here.
Trads here are very much divided even without the additional presence of someone like Salza.
-
This wasn't Salza, IMO. It was John Pontrello.
Are their views pretty much the same, do you know?
-
This wasn't Salza, IMO. It was John Pontrello.
Had had several opportunities to deny that he was John Salza. There were a few things he posted that did not sound like they could have come from Pontrello.
-
I didn't see R&R attacked by this Random Fish guy ...
That's precisely what the troll was attempting to do, escape unnoticed. Matthew cited his anti-Traditional-Catholic views in the post where he banned him. He never used the word R&R and pretended to be targetting SVs in particular precisely in order to sneak in and get some support, but you have to read what he was actually saying and know what John Salza's positions are.
-
Are their views pretty much the same, do you know?
Pontrello has gone off the deep end and has basically become Orthodox.
-
Pontrello has gone off the deep end and has basically become Orthodox.
Okay, good to know. I wonder if he was himself a sede at one time. Sometimes they go over to the EO in order to get away from whole pope issue.
-
Okay, good to know. I wonder if he was himself a sede at one time. Sometimes they go over to the EO in order to get away from whole pope issue.
Pontrello's been all over the map and, yes, a sedevacantist at one point, and everywhere in between and then some. But each time he ends up at any position, he writes books and publishes content promoting his latest one.
-
Okay, good to know. I wonder if he was himself a sede at one time. Sometimes they go over to the EO in order to get away from whole pope issue.
Just to be clear: one can't escape the Pope and stay a good Catholic on the path to salvation by becoming a Schismatic (Orthodox).
So you might as well "escape" to Protestantism or Islam. You avoid the Pope question -- and eternal salvation -- there as well.
Eastern Rite Catholics are still under the Pope, just as much as Roman Rite or any other Rite in the Catholic Church.
-
Just to be clear: one can't escape the Pope and stay a good Catholic on the path to salvation by becoming a Schismatic (Orthodox).
So you might as well "escape" to Protestantism or Islam. You avoid the Pope question -- and eternal salvation -- there as well.
Eastern Rite Catholics are still under the Pope, just as much as Roman Rite or any other Rite in the Catholic Church.
A good clarification above, and I agree. One cannot really avoid the Pope question just because one goes over to the EO. They will still have to held accountable when they face judgment. I was just pointing out that it has occasionally happened that a sedevacantist, tiring of dealing with the issue of a heretical pope, goes over to the EO. It shows that one can burnout when focusing too much on the pope question.
Ultimately, the bottom line is that as Bp. Williamson and others have pointed out...."when the shepherd is struck, the sheep are scattered." And yet God has allowed the Crisis by His Permissive Will. And that is why, IMO, it's not prudent to take an extreme position.
-
Your objections are nothing but ''ex cathedra'' onlyism.
Please, anti sedevacantism has long been refuted.
-
Pontrello was in the CMRI seminary at one time. I have read his book on sedevacantistism and he raises some some very good points that have not been adequately answered by the traditional clergy.
-
Pontrello was in the CMRI seminary at one time. I have read his book on sedevacantistism and he raises some some very good points that have not been adequately answered by the traditional clergy.
He raises no good points, and his stuff is utter garbage. Everything he's ever blathered about has been repeatedly addressed and refuted by the "Traditional clergy" myriad times. So are you promoting heretical/schismatic Eastern Orthodoxy along with Pontrello?
-
He raises no good points, and his stuff is utter garbage. Everything he's ever blathered about has been repeatedly addressed and refuted by the "Traditional clergy" myriad times. So are you promoting heretical/schismatic Eastern Orthodoxy along with Pontrello?
Calm down, turbo. No one is promoting anything.
Can always count on overreacting here.::)
-
Calm down, turbo. No one is promoting anything.
Can always count on overreacting here.::)
There's no overreacting to your having promoted a schismatic/heretic as having raised questions that have not been answered by Traditional Catholics. You would be accounted as suspect of heresy for doing that. This is no light matter or some casual post. If you don't think heresy is a big deal and objecting to it is overreacting, then you're more suspect than before this post. Pontrello has raised no good points ... it's all trash. Sure, maybe the Church was overreacting in putting heretics to death too. Heresy is no triviality, and it's worse than bodily murder.
Pontrello is just another run-of-the-mill schismatic and heretic.
(https://m.media-amazon.com/images/I/71TPMdacH6L._SY466_.jpg)
-
There's no overreacting to your having promoted a schismatic/heretic as having raised questions that have not been answered by Traditional Catholics. You would be accounted as suspect of heresy for doing that. This is no light matter or some casual post. If you don't think heresy is a big deal and objecting to it is overreacting, then you're more suspect than before this post. Pontrello has raised no good points ... it's all trash. Sure, maybe the Church was overreacting in putting heretics to death too. Heresy is no triviality, and it's worse than bodily murder.
Pontrello is just another run-of-the-mill schismatic and heretic.
(https://m.media-amazon.com/images/I/71TPMdacH6L._SY466_.jpg)
Just reading the title "why... supports eastern orthodoxy" yikes.
-
Just reading the title "why... supports eastern orthodoxy" yikes.
He's been pushing and promoting Eastern Orthodoxy for years now.
This is the guy that LeDeg claims has been making great points that Trad Catholics haven't addressed (on his blog post from earlier this year):
(https://i.ibb.co/zh1F1Q8/pontrello.png)
Uh, yeah. I'd love to see the Dimonds release a full video ripping this guy to shreds.
He basically opened his foray into Orthodoxy by claiming that Pius IX supported heresy due to his one grossly-misinterpreted mention of "invincible ignorance" (totally buffooning what Pius IX actually wrote) and then denying papal infallibility. That's his "unanswered" challenge to Catholicism.
This guy is a joke, and a bad-willed heretic.
-
Here's another good one:
(https://i.ibb.co/WsBRxJX/pontrello2.png)
Of course he's trying to appropriate DR's point as a defense of Orthodoxy, but his dismissal of the distinction between potency and act (which he obviously knows nothing about) for him reduces to "imaginary". This discredits him immediately.
Analogy is that same as between the body and soul. Souls in Heaven still have it of their essence to have a body, even though they currently lack one. This then translates into their having "imaginary" bodies? What an idiot ... but then heresy does that to people. They have bodies in potency, thought not currently in act. This does not mean they have "imaginary" bodies.
:facepalm:
-
One could also argue that the hierarchy still remains in Traditional circles, with Trad Bishops.
How does this guy explain the Arian heresy, then? You had St Athanasius and everyone else was a heretic. Yet the Church survived. The only answer is those few priests/bishops who kept the Faith were the hierarchy.
-
He's been pushing and promoting Eastern Orthodoxy for years now.
This is the guy that LeDeg claims has been making great points that Trad Catholics haven't addressed (on his blog post from earlier this year):
(https://i.ibb.co/zh1F1Q8/pontrello.png)
Uh, yeah. I'd love to see the Dimonds release a full video ripping this guy to shreds.
He basically opened his foray into Orthodoxy by claiming that Pius IX supported heresy due to his one grossly-misinterpreted mention of "invincible ignorance" (totally buffooning what Pius IX actually wrote) and then denying papal infallibility. That's his "unanswered" challenge to Catholicism.
This guy is a joke, and a bad-willed heretic.
That quote is typical projection by the unorthodox, who were caught forging/altering docuмents in the past. Clearly calumny against the Catholic Church.
-
Here's another good one:
(https://i.ibb.co/WsBRxJX/pontrello2.png)
Of course he's trying to appropriate DR's point as a defense of Orthodoxy, but his dismissal of the distinction between potency and act (which he obviously knows nothing about) for him reduces to "imaginary". This discredits him immediately.
Analogy is that same as between the body and soul. Souls in Heaven still have it of their essence to have a body, even though they currently lack one. This then translates into their having "imaginary" bodies? What an idiot ... but then heresy does that to people. They have bodies in potency, thought not currently in act. This does not mean they have "imaginary" bodies.
:facepalm:
Of course, this doesn't address the real distinction between a potentiality and an actuality. Obviously, a potentiality is not an actuality; something that is currently a potentiality is not currently an actuality. The indefectibility of the Church as a body includes the teaching that it would always be a physical or material actuality with a governing hierarchy in every "present" time until Our Lord's return. And a governing hierarchy doesn't require a pope always alive on the seat, so times of sede vacante can't be used as precedent for a situation where there is no ordinary with jurisdiction with a real power of governing who possesses the Catholic faith and is not in schism with an antipope and heresiarchs.
And can't you make a point or argument without tossing off labels like "idiot" (or "heretic" - when addressing some of us fellow Catholics here)? I'd be careful about at whom you toss that particular "idiot" label, as it appears to be a boomerang term for you.
-
The Crisis is rather easily understood if you simply don't insist on putting square pegs in round holes.
2 Thessalonians 2
6 And now you know what withholdeth, that he may be revealed in his time. 7 For the mystery of iniquity already worketh; only that he who now holdeth, do hold, until he be taken out of the way. 8 And then that wicked one shall be revealed whom the Lord Jesus shall kill with the spirit of his mouth . . .
As Cardinal Manning accurately read the Scriptures, the "withholder" of the darkness was the Church/pope/hierarchy. God told us it would be "taken out of the way," and it has been. When it was there during the time God willed it to be there, it was Truth, Light, the restrainer of Darkness, indefectible, infallible in its guidance. IT'S GONE. We were told it would be GONE one day. Behold, this is the day.
To carry forth the analogy, the peg is no longer of the same dimensions as the hole . . . as revealed and promised. Don't try to fit what won't fit.
Have eyes and ears, and see and hear.
-
The Crisis is rather easily understood if you simply don't insist on putting square pegs in round holes.
As Cardinal Manning accurately read the Scriptures, the "withholder" of the darkness was the Church/pope/hierarchy. God told us it would be "taken out of the way," and it has been. When it was there during the time God willed it to be there, it was Truth, Light, the restrainer of Darkness, indefectible, infallible in its guidance. IT'S GONE. We were told it would be GONE one day. Behold, this is the day.
To carry forth the analogy, the peg is no longer of the same dimensions as the hole . . . as revealed and promised. Don't try to fit what won't fit.
Have eyes and ears, and see and hear.
Or rather, the Holy Ghost in and working through the Church/pope/hierarchy - the soul united with the spiritually living body.
-
The Crisis is rather easily understood if you simply don't insist on putting square pegs in round holes.
As Cardinal Manning accurately read the Scriptures, the "withholder" of the darkness was the Church/pope/hierarchy. God told us it would be "taken out of the way," and it has been. When it was there during the time God willed it to be there, it was Truth, Light, the restrainer of Darkness, indefectible, infallible in its guidance. IT'S GONE. We were told it would be GONE one day. Behold, this is the day.
To carry forth the analogy, the peg is no longer of the same dimensions as the hole . . . as revealed and promised. Don't try to fit what won't fit.
Have eyes and ears, and see and hear.
And this is why Pontrello himself is wrong and in error for rejecting the Catholic Church as a result of, or in light of, the present crisis. He sees the contradiction between the Church at present and what was said about her - infallible, indefectible, etc. - and therefore rejects the Catholic Church and her claims as false - since they no longer hold true. But, again, God said a time would come when they would not hold true: the abomination of desolation would stand "in the holy place."
In light of God's word, it is a false move to insist, or have an understanding, of the Church or the "holy place" as one that would never have defect, or, as Scripture says, have an abomination in it. God says otherwise.
Pontrello is essentially rejecting the "holy place" (the Catholic Church) because it fulfills the Word of God by having an abomination stand within it. Say what??????
The "holy place" was indeed "holy" before the standing of the abomination in it, thus the designation "holy."
Now, he can argue that at various times the Catholic Church departed from truth on various doctrinal points, but that's a different argument than one that the Catholic Church is in contradiction to the word of God by its present state of being overrun by the Conciliar heresies. Such a present state would, as stated, be in accordance with what God said and predicted.
-
And this is why Pontrello himself is wrong and in error for rejecting the Catholic Church as a result of, or in light of, the present crisis. He sees the contradiction between the Church at present and what was said about her - infallible, indefectible, etc. - and therefore rejects the Catholic Church and her claims as false - since they no longer hold true. But, again, God said a time would come when they would not hold true: the abomination of desolation would stand "in the holy place."
In light of God's word, it is a false move to insist, or have an understanding, of the Church or the "holy place" as one that would never have defect, or, as Scripture says, have an abomination in it. God says otherwise.
Pontrello is essentially rejecting the "holy place" (the Catholic Church) because it fulfills the Word of God by having an abomination stand within it. Say what??????
The "holy place" was indeed "holy" before the standing of the abomination in it, thus the designation "holy."
Now, he can argue that at various times the Catholic Church departed from truth on various doctrinal points, but that's a different argument than one that the Catholic Church is in contradiction to the word of God by its present state of being overrun by the Conciliar heresies. Such a present state would, as stated, be in accordance with what God said and predicted.
From what I can tell, Pontrello started his journey into heresy by falsely claiming that Pius IX taught salvation by invincible ignorance. I actually knew a guy, a sedevacantist, who decided that Pius IX was a non-pope for this same (misinterpretation of his) teaching. That's what actually gave me pause about dogmatic sedevacantism and led me ultimately toward sedeprivationism, which finds the right balance between a heretic being disqualified from papal office and the need for the intervention of Church authority. In any case, though, Pontrello took it to the next step, rejecting papal infallibility, and then ended up in Eastern Orthodoxy.
But, yes, this great apostasy has been foretold from the early days of the Church and is to be expected. If you acknowledge this, and then examine the claims of the Catholic Church to be the True Church of Christ objectively up until the great apostasy time of Vatican II (which was also foretold short term by Our Lady of Fatima), the claims of Eastern Orthodoxy don't stand up. EO is a joke, where they have fragmented "doctrine", make up stupidity out of thin air like about how people can get divorced 3 times, etc. And the Patristic evidence is overwhelming in support of the Primacy of the See of St. Peter over the other Sees. If one objectively examines the evidence, Eastern Orthodoxy is a joke.
Since Pontrello seems to read CathInfo, I appeal to you, John, to put aside your heresy. You cannot save your soul as Eastern Orthodox. And what's making it worse is that you're attempting to spread this heresy publicly to others. Please recant and return to the True Faith established by Our Lord Jesus Christ.
-
Of course, this doesn't address the real distinction between a potentiality and an actuality. Obviously, a potentiality is not an actuality; something that is currently a potentiality is not currently an actuality. The indefectibility of the Church as a body includes the teaching that it would always be a physical or material actuality with a governing hierarchy in every "present" time until Our Lord's return. And a governing hierarchy doesn't require a pope always alive on the seat, so times of sede vacante can't be used as precedent for a situation where there is no ordinary with jurisdiction with a real power of governing who possesses the Catholic faith and is not in schism with an antipope and heresiarchs.
And can't you make a point or argument without tossing off labels like "idiot" (or "heretic" - when addressing some of us fellow Catholics here)? I'd be careful about at whom you toss that particular "idiot" label, as it appears to be a boomerang term for you.
You can argue about whether the distinction between potency and act applies to this scenario, as as you do here, but equating potency to being "imaginary" is in fact "idiotic". There's no mincing words there, and St. Jerome used much harsher terms for heretics like Pontrello in his day. We need to call a spade a spade and not pussy-foot around people like Pontrello, like the poster here who claimed that Pontrello has some legitimate points.
This distinction between act and potency as applied to the Church is seen also in periods of sedevacante. While there's a perpetual succession, and the papal office always remains in potency, it isn't always and at all times actualized as having A pope. This is why neither the papacy nor the perpetual succession is compromised by the death of a pope.
-
I would like to ask Pontrello if he thinks the "Orthodox Church" can have the "abomination of desolation" standing in it. If he says "no," he's essentially denying it's the Church ("the holy place" of Matthew 24:15), or limiting its application to a past historical event, like the destruction of the Jєωιѕн Temple. I believe that would be an error that rejects the clear link between, e.g, the "abomination of desolation" of Matthew 24:15 and the Antichrist led "Great Apostasy" of
2 Th. 2:3-4 Let no man deceive you by any means, for unless there come a revolt first, and the man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition, 4 Who opposeth, and is lifted up above all that is called God, or that is worshipped, so that he sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself as if he were God.
The Orthodox have their own problems in also rejecting the Scriptural truth of an abomination of desolation "in the holy place" before Christ's return. And as I've said before, another problem for Orthodoxy is, where do you locate the "holy place" for purposes of understanding Mt 24:15. They have no central "holy place.""
If Pontrello says "yes," the Orthodox Church will one day have the "abomination of desolation" standing in the "holy place," that would be an interesting conversation indeed, because it is my understanding that the Orthodox likewise believe the Church to be indefectible. As I said above, I think they would make the prophecy of Mt 24:15 a past event, and in that I would say they deny the Scriptures.
I've read his book, and think Mr. Pontrello certainly a sincere and thoughtful guy who it'd be interesting to talk to. I'd have to go back and read his book, but I recall that he thinks Vatican I shows the pre-V2 Church itself to be false mainly because he claims that errors in the V2 ecuмenical council would belie the V1 claims about papal infallibility. I don't think so. I would agree with him that the claims of Catholic theologians pre-V2, ostensibly applying V1s teachings about papal infallibility, about what an ecuмenical council can and can't do would show a contradiction between V1 and the V2 event. But does V1 on its own terms itself show such a contradiction? I don't think so. But that's a ground for legitimate discussion.
-
I've read his book, and think Mr. Pontrello certainly a sincere and thoughtful guy who it'd be interesting to talk to. I'd have to go back and read his book, but I recall that he thinks Vatican I shows the pre-V2 Church itself to be false mainly because he claims that errors in the V2 ecuмenical council would belie the V1 claims about papal infallibility. I don't think so. I would agree with him that the claims of Catholic theologians pre-V2, ostensibly applying V1s teachings about papal infallibility, about what an ecuмenical council can and can't do would show a contradiction between V1 and the V2 event. But does V1 on its own terms itself show such a contradiction? I don't think so. But that's a ground for legitimate discussion.
For example, Vatican I says this, which Pontrello cites at one point:
DZ 1792 [The object of faith] .Further, by divine and Catholic faith, all those things must be believed which are contained in the written word of God and in tradition, and those which are proposed by the Church, either in a solemn pronouncement or in her ordinary and universal teaching power, to be believed as divinely revealed.
Where did V2 do that in contradiction to something also previously "proposed by the Church . . . to be believed as divinely revealed"?
John, come on over. I don't think Matthew would mind, as long as you treated Catholicism with respect and engaged in respectful argument.
-
And this is why Pontrello himself is wrong and in error for rejecting the Catholic Church as a result of, or in light of, the present crisis.
We can't understate this, even for his own good. Pontrello is a heretic, and a non-Catholic, outside the Church of Christ and cannot be saved until he converts back to the True Church founded by Christ. Charity requires that we not soft-pedal this and let him remain complacent ... unto the damnation of his soul. You said also above that he's "sincere". No, he's not. He had the Catholic faith or at least professed it at one time, and there's no case for sincerity that could be made there. It would be one thing if someone had been raised Eastern Orthodox to argue sincerity, but that can never be the case for someone who had been a Catholic.
-
John, come on over. I don't think Matthew would mind, as long as you treated Catholicism with respect and engaged in respectful argument.
He has no business here if he'll be prosletyzing for his heresy. We're not about dialoging with heretics here, ala the spirit of Vatican II. And with Pontrello, it's not a question of objective heresy, but formal heresy, since denies the foundations for the formal motive of faith, the very principles on which supernatural faith rests, the teaching authority of the Church as centralized in the Holy See.