Author Topic: The Ordinary Infallible Magisterium and the Authentic Magisterium (Read 36806 times)

Stubborn · « **Reply #20 on:** January 12, 2017, 05:40:18 AM »

Quote from: An even Seven

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:

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.

Quote from: An even Seven

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?

Pax Vobis · « **Reply #21 on:** January 12, 2017, 08:28:53 AM »

Quote

P V said:
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.

It does matter. These men when they lose the faith lose jurisdiction. They fall out of communion with the Church. Here is a quote from Pope Celestine I from St. Robert’s “On the Roman Pontiff”:
Pope St. Celestine:
“The authority of Our Apostolic See has determined that the bishop, cleric, or simple Christian who had been deposed or excommunicated by Nestorius or his followers, after the latter began to preach heresy shall not be considered deposed or excommunicated. For he who had defected from the faith with such preachings, cannot depose or remove anyone whatsoever.”

If it matters so much, then why hasn't the Church declared that so-and-so lost his office on x day because he said x? I'm unaware of ANYTIME the Church has ever said such a thing. Please enlighten me.

Quote

P V said:
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.

We are bound to avoid heretics in Sacred Scripture (Titus 3:10). If a man is a heretic and is unanimously elected Pope, that election is null and void (Pope Paul IV). It is because they are not Catholic and they have nothing in common with Catholics. We must always be aware of errors and condemn them when we see them.

You didn't answer the question. Show me 1) where has the church declared Paul VI to be a heretic? 2) where has the Church authorized anyone but Herself to declare Paul VI a heretic? 3)Where has the Church made it a LAW that I must decide such matters, in the absense of Her decision?

Quote

P V said:
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 agree that someone else’s faith does not matter to the individual. He must keep the faith regardless if there is a pope or not. What matters is when one starts saying that Catholics are in the same Church as heretics. If a person believes that Bishop/Priest/Pope are/is a heretic and considers them a catholic, then that means they don’t believe in the unity of faith. Every Catholic must have the same faith as the next Catholic. No Catholic can disbelieve in even one Doctrine. If the heretic is Catholic, why not the Protestant who has been validly Baptized?

There are numerous quotes from saints and Scripture that we must never be in communion with people who do not share the same faith.

Define 'in communion with'. That's a modernist term; it's only been around since vatican2.

Show me one theologian's opinion or example from Church history where a lay catholic was REQUIRED to make a determination on the pope's status when such status had not been declared by the Church.

It doesn't exist. All that exists are quotes from popes, saints, and theologians who say that 'heretics lose office' or 'unbelievers are not part of the church'. This is all well and good. But, practically, it's not mentioned in canon law or anywhere else on HOW TO APPLY these principles. Therefore, until the CHURCH decides, we have no authority to do so. If you disagree, show me ONE church docuмent that says otherwise.

Stubborn · « **Reply #22 on:** January 12, 2017, 11:54:25 AM »

Quote from: An even Seven

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: 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.

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?

Stubborn · « **Reply #23 on:** January 12, 2017, 01:27:40 PM »

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.

drew · « **Reply #24 on:** January 12, 2017, 08:25:24 PM »

Quote from: An even Seven

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,

Quote from: Second Council of Lyons, Denz. 466

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.

Quote from: First Vatican Council, Denz. 1830

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.

Quote from: Can. 1417

§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