Quote

You MUST have Catholic faith to be CATHOLIC.

I agree totally.  What I disagree with is the APPLICATION of this principle.

My point on Arianism (and any other doctrinally tumultuous time in Church history, like the Protestant revolt), is that (to my knowledge) the Church has never declared 'there were mass vacancies' in the cardinal, bishop or priestly offices.  Why not?  Because it really doesn't matter.

My point is this:  Nowhere in the history of the Church (even when there were 3 competing 'popes') has the Church said, inferred, or implied that a Catholic is BOUND in DUTY to MAKE A DETERMINATION or DECLARATION on who is or isn't pope.  

Nor is any catholic BOUND to sign any declaration on who they are/aren't following in regards to their Bishop/Pope.

Nor has there EVER been any teaching or theological theory that any Catholic is IN COMMUNION WITH an erroneous/heretical bishop/pope unless they formally declare their disapproval of them.

So, why in our day and age, does such an theoretical and illogical ERROR such as 'being in communion with' so-and-so bad bishop/pope find such a following?

What does 'in communion with' even mean?

If such a formal declaration is necessary, who decides what is formal and what isn't?  Who decides if such a declaration is sufficient or not?  Where in canon law, church history, the roman ritual, church law, can such an answer be found?  Name one theologian who taught such a thing?

Answer:  There is nothing in Church history to suggest anything of the sort.  The principles of sedevacantism are catholic.  The purpose of them is to teach the faithful to avoid bad clergy and their errors.  The problem is the APPLICATION of these principles, whereby certain groups are trying to FORCE catholics to make determinations which they are unqualified to do, and which are unnecessary.

Who is or isn't a heretic is a distraction when it's erroneously made into a 'litmus test' of catholicism; keeping the Faith is the ultimate goal and ultimate litmus test.  This can be accomplished regardless of one's opinion on the pope.

I think you have a very good post here.  Sedevacantists have drawn logical but unnecessary conclusions from good principles.

I do not know any sedevacantist organizations, excepting Michael Dimond, that believes in dogma qua dogma.  They all believe that dogma does not have to be taken literally.  Everyone holds that the 1949 Holy Office Letter sent to Cardinal Cushing in Boston censoring Fr. Feeney is a "magisterial" docuмent that must be accepted by every Catholic.  This docuмent overturned every dogma touching upon what is necessary as a necessity of means for salvation.  These sedevacantist organizations all hold that the good-willed Muslim, Jєω, Hindu, Protestant, etc., etc. can be in a state of grace and obtain salvation.  So why should they worry about Francis or anyone else?  All that is necessary for salvation is the 'desire to do the will of a god who rewards and punishes' which cannot even be denied to the "good-willed" modernist.  

The Letter presupposed the principle that there exists a distinction (or rather, disjunction) between dogma and the words used to express it.  The dogma is one thing, a divine truth, but the words that are used to define the truth are only a human approximation of that truth which necessarily must be continually revised and purged of human accretions to develop greater purity of expression.  This is the modernists principle of dogmatic evolution.  It was the first principle declared by Pope John XXIII at the opening bell of Vatican II as overriding theme of the Council.  It was quoted by Benedict XVI as the first principle of his "hermeneutic of reform," and Msgr. Thomas Rosica recently said in an address in New York that it is the first principle of Francis' theology and that which he holds in common with every one of his conciliar predecessors.  Unfortunately, excepting Michael Dimond, it is a first principle shared by all sedevacantists.  Rejecting the literal meaning of dogma, they have no grounds calling anyone a heretic.

Those who reject dogma replace it with the person of the pope who becomes the rule of faith.  And since no one knows what the pope believes, the rule of faith becomes whatever the pope does.  This means the pope must be free of even material heresy.  This is the common ground shared between most sedevacantists and conservative Catholics.  The conservative believes the pope is the rule of faith concludes everything he does must be acceptable and the sedevacantist concludes that he cannot be pope.  For faithful Catholics, the rule of faith is dogma.  

But aside for this, sedevacantists are parked on a dead-end street.  They hold that they are (or have) the only legitimate priests and bishops in the entire Church and yet, their Church does not have a pope.  They agree that the Church founded by Jesus Christ was and is constituted by a supreme pastor, the pope, and yet they have none and have no plans of ever getting one.  They should not discuss the question with anyone until they have their own council and elect their own pope.  The very term, "sedevacantist," is really a declaration in itself of manifest error.  They are sedevacantists because they cannot produce a pope which is a necessary attribute of the Church founded by Jesus Christ.  There have been many who have recognized this defect and have tried to produce their own pope but the results have in every instance been ridiculous.  There have more than a dozen claimants to the papacy since the 1970s but none of them have more than a handful of followers.  Does anyone think that they will ever get one that would be acceptable to a plurality of them?  They cannot even agree among themselves as to the legitimacy of each other's orders.  

Those that are bashful about electing a pope expect that God will directly intervene miraculously filling the office, or that we are in the end-times and there will be no more popes.  Either answer is painfully insufficient.  If they have the authority to declare the office empty then they have the authority and obligation to fill it.  Ultimately, the position is a theological conclusion of despair.  

I communicated with Michael Diamond indirectly several years ago.  I said to his representative that we can continue the discussion of sedevacantism when two things occur: one, he gets a pope, and secondly, when a conciliar pope engages the attribute of infallibility of the Church to bind the Catholic conscience to doctrinal and/or moral error.  Neither has happened.  And the fact that the conciliar popes, despite having complete control of the Church's administration, have never infallibly bound doctrinal or moral error upon the Church is prima facie evidence that they are at least legally holding the office because God has prevented them from binding error.  What is more to the point, they know it and have gone to extreme ends to give the impression of the legitimate exercise of papal authority, such as seen in Francis' recent synodial process to make his attack on sacramental marriage appear as the result of a collegial consensus.

There is no precedence for heretics losing their office by a declaration of the faithful in the old or new testament.  Caiaphas was heretic who denied the resurrection of the body and only accepted the Pentateuch as divinely inspired scripture.  He sat on the "chair of Moses" and the faithful were directed to obey him in the legitimate exercise of his office but that did not require the man born blind to obey him in opposition to revealed Truth.  

The attribute of indefectibility and exactly how it is preserved in the Church is open to theological speculation.  No matter what the conciliarists have done regarding doctrine, morals, worship or discipline, their errors have never been accepted by the universal Church.  I raised eight children and none of them ever attended a Novus Ordo service.  I have over 35 grandchildren and none of them have ever attended a Novus Ordo service.  I know many other faithful Catholics who can say the same thing.  This is the evidence of indefectibility.  The true faith and worship have never been entirely absent for those willing to look for it.

Lastly, this thread is titled, "The Ordinary Infallible Magisterium and the Authentic Magisterium." The article from Si Si No No quotes Fr. Salaverri, in his Sacrae Theologiae Summa saying, "Papal Magisterium that is mere authenticuм, that is, only "authentic" or "authorized" as regards the person himself, not as regards his infallibility."  I believe that it was Fr. Salaverri who actually coined the term.  The "authentic magisterium" or "authorized magisterium" only means that the persons acting actually is the person who holds the office.  Anything a legitimate pope does is an act of the "authentic magisterium."  The reason the term is very important is because it was incorporated Lumen Gentium and from there into the 1989 Profession of Faith as the third added proposition.  Those taking this profession vow unqualified obedience to the "authentic magisterium" without any qualifications whatsoever.  This obedience is enforced by canon law which imposes a "just penalty."  A vow of unqualified obedience can only be made to God alone.

Drew

I do not know any sedevacantist organizations, excepting Michael Dimond, that believes in dogma qua dogma.  They all believe that dogma does not have to be taken literally.  Everyone holds that the 1949 Holy Office Letter sent to Cardinal Cushing in Boston censoring Fr. Feeney is a "magisterial" docuмent that must be accepted by every Catholic.  This docuмent overturned every dogma touching upon what is necessary as a necessity of means for salvation.  These sedevacantist organizations all hold that the good-willed Muslim, Jєω, Hindu, Protestant, etc., etc. can be in a state of grace and obtain salvation.  So why should they worry about Francis or anyone else?  All that is necessary for salvation is the 'desire to do the will of a god who rewards and punishes' which cannot even be denied to the "good-willed" modernist. 

^^^^ True.

And this absurdity completely baffles my mind! It does not make any sense, whatsoever.

But aside for this, sedevacantists are parked on a dead-end street.  They hold that they are (or have) the only legitimate priests and bishops in the entire Church and yet, their Church does not have a pope.  They agree that the Church founded by Jesus Christ was and is constituted by a supreme pastor, the pope, and yet they have none and have no plans of ever getting one.  They should not discuss the question with anyone until they have their own council and elect their own pope.  The very term, "sedevacantist," is really a declaration in itself of manifest error.  They are sedevacantists because they cannot produce a pope which is a necessary attribute of the Church founded by Jesus Christ.  There have been many who have recognized this defect and have tried to produce their own pope but the results have in every instance been ridiculous.  There have more than a dozen claimants to the papacy since the 1970s but none of them have more than a handful of followers.  Does anyone think that they will ever get one that would be acceptable to a plurality of them?  They cannot even agree among themselves as to the legitimacy of each other's orders. 

Those that are bashful about electing a pope expect that God will directly intervene miraculously filling the office, or that we are in the end-times and there will be no more popes.  Either answer is painfully insufficient.  If they have the authority to declare the office empty then they have the authority and obligation to fill it.  Ultimately, the position is a theological conclusion of despair. 

I agree that this is the case for the strict sedevacantist; but may be not so, for the adherents of the Thesis of Des Lauries (Cassiciacuм, sedeprivationism) which the strict sedevacantists actually reject. In this Thesis, the cardinals and bishops (even the conciliar ones) still retain the power to legitimately elect a new Pontiff, once they return to the public and integral profession of the Faith. They still retain office. Therefore, the hierarchy is still there and electing of a Pope through legitimate means (not an illegitimate conclave) would be possible. Unfortunately, as it stands today, and this is quite incomprehensible to me, I do not know of any sedeprivationist priest of bishop who does not fall into the error of dissolving the EESN dogma (as you just described in your excellent post above), just as much as their conciliar counterparts.

But then again, so does the SSPX.

I don't why you think that I believe there are no Catholics in hell. Catholics in mortal sin believe as the Church does. They can simply go to confession. Heretics are not in the Church and cannot go to confession without first reconciling with the Church and abjuring their heresy.

This is a lie in most instances as you must agree to there having been countless souls who've left the faith, apostatized, became heretics, murderers, etc., then returned without any abjuration at all. They simply went to confession, which is something only Catholics can - and the Church teaches - must do.  

Your opinion above is most certainly not true if the heretic is in danger of death, and it's a flat out lie for those whom the Church has not officially imposed the censure upon, but even for those whom the censure was officially imposed:

Nevertheless, for fear lest any may perish on this account, it has always been very piously observed in the said Church of God, that there be no reservation at the point of death, and that therefore all priests may absolve all penitents whatsoever from every kind of sins and censures whatever: and as, save at that point of death, priests have no power in reserved cases, let this alone be their endeavour, to persuade penitents to repair to superior and lawful judges for the benefit of absolution.

Quote from: Stubborn

Quote from: An even Seven

Please tell me what it means to be subject to the Pope and where you get your opinion from.

It means that for our hope of salvation, we must be the pope's subject, but always God's first. Most (all?) sedevacantists leave the part out about being subject to God first, doing this serves only one purpose - as fuel for their "must blindly submit" ideas, but those ideas only work - and work well, only so long as they leave God out of the formula entirely.

So....being subject to the Pope means we must be the Pope's subject. Wow... that is...amazing.
 

Was not Christ subject to His parents? "And he went down with them, and came to Nazareth, and was subject to them. And his mother kept all these words in her heart. Luke 2:51
Are not subordinates subject to their superiors? Children to their parents? - in all things except sin?

Do you understand what the word "subject" in this context even means? I'm serious, I've come to believe that sedevacantists do not understand what that word even means, they seem to think it means "submit", or "blindly submit", or "mindlessly submit" - is that what you think too?

Do you have any understanding at all of the Catholic principle of being subject to our superiors in all things except sin?

Quote from: Trent

Nevertheless, for fear lest any may perish on this account, it has always been very piously observed in the said Church of God, that there be no reservation at the point of death, and that therefore all priests may absolve all penitents whatsoever from every kind of sins and censures whatever: and as, save at that point of death, priests have no power in reserved cases, let this alone be their endeavour, to persuade penitents to repair to superior and lawful judges for the benefit of absolution.

Trent's teaching applies to Catholics. To be Catholic you must be Baptized and Profess the True Faith. You would know this if you read the quote I gave you which you boldly declared you would not accept (or read my signature). Both of those things must be present if the priest is to give absolution (among the other dispositions for that Sacrament).

Yes, Trent's teaching applies to only Catholics. Your problem is that Trent's teaching does not meet your personal criteria of what a Catholic is.  

I told you why I do not accept using the Church's teachings whenever they are referenced in an effort to vindicate sedevacantism - sedevacantism simply cannot be vindicated by using Catholic teaching any more than Protestantism can be vindicated by using the bible.

You also have yet to provide any teaching at all from any sedevacantist saint, father or pope - which is absolutely necessary in order to vindicate sedevacantism.

Quote from: An even Seven

Please tell me what it means to be subject to the Pope and where you get your opinion from.

Was not Christ subject to His parents? "And he went down with them, and came to Nazareth, and was subject to them. And his mother kept all these words in her heart. Luke 2:51
Are not subordinates subject to their superiors? Children to their parents? - in all things except sin?

Do you understand what the word "subject" in this context even means? I'm serious, I've come to believe that sedevacantists do not understand what that word even means, they seem to think it means "submit", or "blindly submit", or "mindlessly submit" - is that what you think too?

Do you have any understanding at all of the Catholic principle of being subject to our superiors in all things except sin?

Do you have any understanding at all of the Catholic principle of being subject to our superiors in all things except sin?

Quote from: drew

The biggest problem with this is it is not true.  The next biggest problem for sedevacantists is that they have no pope, they have no rule of faith and they have no plans of ever getting one.

We have the office which is what Christ instituted through Peter. During every papal interregnum the Church is with out a Pope, the office does not cease to exist. Same as now.

A Catholic's rule of faith is Scripture and Tradition as interpreted, defined and explained by the Church. It exists while there is no Pope reigning at any given time.

It is not a Catholic's job to elect a new Pope. It is our job to keep and proclaim the faith and condemn errors injurious to souls.

Scripture and Tradition are the sources of revelation.  "Scripture and Tradition as interpreted, defined and explained by the Church" is what dogma is.  For Catholics, the rule of faith is dogma.  But anyone who accepts the 1949 Holy Office Letter as a magisterial docuмent has discarded dogma as the rule of faith and replaced it with the pope.  This includes most sedevacantists who conclude for this very reason that every Catholic who does not remove a heretical pope from his office participates in his heresy.  The 1949 Holy Office Letter introduced the belief that there exists a disjunction between dogma and the words by which it is expressed.  This modernist principle is the corner stone of Vatican II and all conciliarist popes.  It is also unfortunately a fundamental belief of most sedevacantists, the SSPX and members of the resistance.  It is absurd to appeal to "scripture and tradition as interpreted, defined and explained by the Church" while rejecting dogma as the rule of faith.  

Every Catholic possesses a right to appeal to the Holy Father for a judgment on any matter concerning the faith,

The holy Roman Church holds the highest and complete primacy and spiritual power over the universal Catholic Church which she truly and humbly recognizes herself to have received with fullness of power from the Lord Himself in Blessed Peter, the chief or head of the Apostles whose successor is the Roman Pontiff.  And just as to defend the truth of Faith she is held before all other things, so if any questions shall arise regarding faith they ought to be defined by her judgment.  And to her anyone burdened with affairs pertaining to the ecclesiastical world can appeal; and in all cases looking forward to an ecclesiastical examination, recourse can be had to her judgment.

And since the Roman Pontiff is at the head of the universal Church by the divine right of apostolic primacy, We teach and declare also that he is the supreme judge of the faithful, and that in all cases pertaining to ecclesiastical examination recourse can be had to his judgment.

§1. By reason of the primacy of the Roman Pontiff, any member of the faithful is free to bring or introduce his or her own contentious or penal case to the Holy See for adjudication in any grade of a trial and at any stage of the litigation.
§2. Recourse brought to the Apostolic See, however, does not suspend the exercise of jurisdiction by a judge who has already begun to adjudicate a case except in the case of an appeal. For this reason, the judge can prosecute a trial even to the definitive sentence unless the Apostolic See has informed the judge that it has called the case to itself.

Therefore, since every Catholic possesses a right of appeal to the Holy Father, those who are able have a grave obligation of duty to fill the office.  The Office of the Papacy cannot willfully be left vacant without grave sin.

You admit that you "have the office."  Then you have the duty to fill it.  It is not your responsibility but the duty of the pope to "proclaim the faith and condemn errors injurious to souls" because he alone can engage the attribute of infallibility that the Church possesses by nature.  If you possess the jurisdictional judicial authority to determine guilt and impose ipso facto penalties then you possess the authority to fill the office.

You are just begging the question.  The "church" you belong to is defective of a necessary attribute without which, it cannot be the Church founded by Jesus Christ.

Drew

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

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: 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.