CathInfo.com

Since you believe the Novus Ordo sect is the Catholic Church.

GJC...Look, Drew makes some great points and great distinctions.  And it reminds me to make this point:  The Church and the Truth are independent of men.  The Church was created by God and it is part Divine and part human.  Christ is the ultimate head of the Church, with the pope as His human right-hand man.  The pope is supposed to be a St Peter, not a Christ.  The Cardinals and Bishops are supposed to be St Athanasius' and St Augustine's, not Archangels with super powers.

The point is that the Church and Truth and Dogma are independent of our church leaders.  Many of you on here want to tie the Church to those who hold the offices.  This is not how it works.  Did the Church fail because St Peter denied Christ?  Because Judas committed sacrilege, betrayed Christ and committed ѕυιcιdє?  Because most of the Apostles lost the Faith and left Christ after the Garden of Eden?  No, no and no.

God does not need men to safeguard the Truth.  It's their job to, but if they fail, it doesn't mean they weren't part of the Church, it means they failed.  

THE CHURCH IS NOT DEFINED BY THE MEN WHO HOLD ITS OFFICES!!!!

Repeat that 10x and pray about it.

 

Quote from: Stubborn

Quote from: GJC

On the contrary, it is with Pope Leo XIII: ""No one who merely disbelieves in all (these heresies) can for that reason regard himself as a Catholic or call himself one. For there may be or may arise some other heresies, which are not set out in this work of ours, and, if any one holds to one single one of these he is not a Catholic"

This has been pointed out to you a few times now.

Yes, it has been repeated often enough, all you keep doing is misquoting it, along with the other popes and the fathers.

Pope Leo XIII begins.......
The practice of the Church has always been the same, as is shown by the unanimous teaching of the Fathers, who were wont to hold as outside Catholic communion, and alien to the Church, whoever would recede in the least degree from any point of doctrine proposed by her authoritative Magisterium.

Of course this is certainly true, I am of course in complete agreement with this. This has nothing to do with those already Catholic, he is speaking about those "outside Catholic communion, and alien to the Church."

The quote from Pope Leo XIII that you posted above is not saying what you want it to say either - please note that the pope is saying it takes more than disbelief in heresies to be Catholic. Certainly I am complete agreement with this as well. Again, he is speaking about those "outside Catholic communion, and alien to the Church."

Your post is another shining example of why I ask sedevacantists not to use Catholic teaching to vindicate sedevacantism.

Thank you.

Also, keep in mind that Epiphanius, Augustine, Theodoret, drew up a long list of the heresies of their times. Just simple knowledge of Church history will tell you they were not  rebuking Protestants since the reformation wasn't for another 10-11 centuries.  Could it be Catholics who began to recede from the magisterium this list of heresies were drawn up against?

True, they were not rebuking the prots, they were the "Authoritative Magisterium" of those times, helping build the Church while it was only three or four hundred years old, still in it's infancy at the time. They drew up a long list of heresies "of their times" and warned of others not on their list, because by and large, there were no such thing as "heresies" yet.

In the prior paragraph, pope Leo XIII states:

Hence she regarded as rebels and expelled from the ranks of her children all who held beliefs on any point of doctrine different from her own. The Arians, the Montanists, the Novatians, the Quartodecimans, the Eutychians, did not certainly reject all Catholic doctrine: they abandoned only a tertian portion of it. Still who does not know that they were declared heretics and banished from the bosom of the Church? In like manner were condemned all authors of heretical tenets who followed them in subsequent ages.

We see it is the Church who expelled the heretics, the Church made the declaration of heresy, the Church banished them and it was the Church who condemned the heretic authors. Neither you nor I nor every or any sedevacantist is "the Church". It is not within our right to usurp the authority of the Church and make the declaration only the Church can make.

This above point is ignored entirely every time this encyclical is quoted to show the sedevacantists' 'doctrine' that "heretics are not Catholic therefore out of the Church" in their zeal to use Catholic teaching to vindicate sedevacantism.  

Again, the Church has never taught sedevacantism, it is altogether futile to attempt to reference Catholic teaching in order to justify sedevacantism in any way.

It seems to me that if sedevacantists would investigate the Catholic teachings with the understanding that because the Church has never taught sedevacantism, there is no teaching they can possibly use in it's defense, that they would give up the whole idea and simply be the pope's good subject, but God's first.  

Quote from: drew

Quote from: An even Seven

Vatican I:Wherefore we teach and declare that, by divine ordinance, the Roman church possesses a pre-eminence of ordinary power over every other church, and that this jurisdictional power of the Roman pontiff is both episcopal and immediate. Both clergy and faithful, of whatever rite and dignity, both singly and collectively, are bound to submit to this power by the duty of hierarchical subordination and true obedience, and this not only in matters concerning faith and morals, but also in those which regard the discipline and government of the church throughout the world.

This is what it means to be subject. Obedience to Church, not only in faith and morals, but in discipline and government.
How exactly are you obedient? You call a "true"(according to you) Pope a heretic and will not attend a "lawful" "mass" promulgated by him.

This follows from making the pope the rule of faith.  It ends up in a perverse overturning of Catholic morality, doctrine, discipline, worship and law.  

You have no idea what it means to "subject."  Obedience is a subsidiary virtue of Justice owed to a superior which is itself directly governed by the virtue of Religion.  It is the virtue of Religion which determines if an act of obedience is meritorious or sinful.  When the pope becomes the rule of faith you end up with the 1989 Profession of Faith that imposes an unqualified obedience to the "authentic magisterium" as an article in a Catholic creed. It is the logic of sedevacantism Drew

I am pretty sure that sedevacantists do not know or cannot comprehend what "subject" means. They simply cannot differentiate between "subject" and "submit". There is some block they seem to have. This block apparently hinges on making the pope the rule of faith as you said.

Below you can see the sede believes that it is "my claim" and even that it "is absurd" that there is a difference, he sees the two as having the exact same meaning.    

From another forum's sede debate:

Quote from: Sede

Quote from: Stubborn

This is one reason the dogma, by Divine design, does not say we "must submit" and does say we must "be subject to".

These terms are synonymous.  Your claim is absurd.

It cannot be said often enough until it becomes the way everyone instinctively thinks.  I am subject to my husband; my children are subject to me.  I must submit to a lawful command (which presupposes that it is an command of reason for a good end) and my children must submit to me.  When the command of my husband is not lawful or my commands to my children are not lawful, there can be no submission because "we must obey God rather than man."  But the failure to submit to what is not lawful does not in any way alter my being subject to my husband or my children being subject to me.