CathInfo.com

To say I need a declaration by the Church (that such and such is a heretic) when they clearly deny a Dogma already infallibly defined, means you don't really have 100% confidence in that Dogma.

This is absolutely NOT how the church works.  Canon law defines a process whereby the person is accused of heresy, given a chance to recant, and then formally declared excommunicated, etc.  Even Martin Luther, who made his heresies public, was given a trial and a chance to recant.  There is a reason it's called canon "law"...because law requires a PROCESS.

You are not the church and you cannot deem anyone a FORMAL heretic.

Quote from: Stubborn

Quote from: An even Seven

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.

 
LOL. You have no idea how to argue this because you are wrong. My definition of being a Catholic, which I got from Pius XII is someone who is Baptized and professes the true faith. It just so happens that my criteria is one and the same as the Catholic Church.

I really do not want to spell it all out for you again, all I can say is what Pope Pius XII wrote, is meant to be understood as written. His writings are not the ambiguous, multi-meaning, modernist anti-Catholic confusion put out by the conciliar popes, what he wrote means what it says. Read it that way if you want to understand it at all.

 

Quote from: Stubborn

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.

That’s something you will have to answer for. Your obstinate refusal to hear the Church. We are not arguing SV so good job on the straw man. We are arguing if a Catholic can cease to be Catholic, which the Church definitely declare that a Catholic can cease to be Catholic. These teachings are what you are refusing to believe.

We *are* arguing sedevacantism. Among it's doctrines, preached as if known via Divine Revelation, is "the pope is not Catholic therefore not pope because a non-Catholic cannot be head of that of which he is not a member."

But because the truth of the matter remains "Once a Catholic always a Catholic", it obliterates that particular sedevacantist doctrine and the whole position falls to pieces. There is simply no possible way that the sedevacantists can ever accept this truth, which explains why they absolutely and positively must wholly reject it.

Quote from: Stubborn

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

You are quite deceptive. I already gave you what the Vatican I explanation is. Then I asked what it meant to you. Your answer is to ask me the same question again? I answered it. But, oh yeah…you don’t accept Church teaching… I forgot. It’s hard to argue against a person who claims to be Catholic, like yourself, yet refuses to believe everything the Church teaches. Sad.

Ok, so instead of admitting you do not understand the difference between "subject" and "submit", you do the typical thing and accuse me of not believing Church teaching - as if by giving it the sede twist, you do, or do now lol.  

BTW, the First Vatican Council's decree does not answer the question I asked you.

Quote from: Stubborn

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

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[/u], 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.[/b]

Do you understand what; "and true obedience" means? - this as opposed to "and blind obedience", which is what you are apparently claiming it means.
 
I'm not even sure why you posted that decree in reply to my question since it has nothing to do with my question at all.

Submit- to accept or yield to the Authority of the Church.
Subject- to be under the control or jurisdiction of the Church.
These are my definitions of the terms. What are yours?

Quote from: Stubborn

Do you understand what; "and true obedience" means? - this as opposed to "and blind obedience", which is what you are apparently claiming it means.

True obedience means complying with the Church laws and submitting to the Church's authority. If one truly believes that the Church's Magisterium is free from error, then one could never say that She can universally promote erroneous laws and teachings.

Reflect on this please! From Denzinger:
PIUS IX
Naturalism, Communism, Socialism *

[From the Encyclical, "Quanta cura,'' Dec. 8, 1864]
1698 ... And, we cannot pass over in silence the boldness of those who "not enduring sound doctrine" [2 Tim. 4:3], contend that "without sin and with no loss of Catholic profession, one can withhold assent and obedience to those judgments and decrees of the Apostolic See, whose object is declared to relate to the general good of the Church and its rights and discipline, provided it does not touch dogmas of faith or morals." There is no one who does not see and understand clearly and openly how opposed this is to the Catholic dogma of the plenary power divinely bestowed on the Roman Pontiff by Christ the Lord Himself of feeding, ruling, and governing the universal Church.

Sec. VII. Errors Concerning Natural and Christian Ethics
1763 63. It is lawful to withhold obedience to legitimate rulers, indeed even to rebel (1, 2, 5, 20).

“Reflect upon this please.”  Your post would be correct if the pope was the rule of faith.  He is not.  This is a serious error.

Obedience is owed to those to whom we are subject.  We are first subject to God.  This is the only obedience that is unconditional.  All others to whom we are subject, we are subject to them for God’s sake, and all acts of obedience to those to whom we are subject for God’s sake are always conditional.  They are conditional to that obedience that is unconditionally owed to God.  As St. Peter, the first pope infallibly said, “We ought to obey God rather than man.”

Therefore every act of obedience to man, no matter the man’s office or grace of state, is conditional and proximally governed by the virtue of Religion, whereby, under the virtue of Justice we first “render to God the things that are God’s.”  No pope possesses the authority to command what is in violation to the virtue of Religion, which includes nearly everything from Vatican II to this day.  Every act of obedience that violates the virtue of Religion is a sin.

Very few examples exist of the infallible Ordinary and Universal Magisterium of the Church being engaged since John XXIII.  Examples are John Paul II’s declaration on the impossibility of women admitted to Holy Orders and Paul VI prohibition of artificial contraception.  There are no examples of the infallible Extra-ordinary Magisterium being engaged.  When it is a question of infallibility, that is, the attribute of infallibility which God has endowed His Church, is engaged it is God declaring the truth through his vicar and obedience is unconditionally rendered to God who declares His truth.  But that is not what we are faced with.  What we are talking about is obedience to the pope by virtue of his grace of state engaging the fallible authentic ordinary magisterium.  This prudent and conditional obedience is entirely governed by the virtue of Religion.

But for those who make the pope the rule of faith, all dogma is subject to his personal interpretation and never reaches its term as a definitive declaration of truth.  The pope as the rule of faith has its formal imposition upon the Church in the 1949 Holy Office Letter which after affirming the dogma that there is no salvation outside the Church  then said that this dogma was subject to however the Church (i.e.: the pope) wanted to interpret it.  It then took every dogma concerning salvation and interpreted them in a non-literal sense.  When the Letter was done, anyone who wanted to do the will of a god who rewards and punishes was a member of the Church, in the state of grace, and able to obtain salvation.  This teaching became the first principle in the new ecclesiology of Vatican II, the justification for Ecuмenism, the ground for Rahner’s Anonymous Christian, and eventually the Prayer Meeting at Assisi.

Your quote provided above refers to the question if “one can withhold assent and obedience to those judgments and decrees of the Apostolic See, whose object is declared to relate to the general good of the Church and its rights and discipline, provided it does not touch dogmas of faith or morals.”  This is addressing merely disciplinary questions. The problem is that Vatican II and its worldly spirit entirely “touch (upon) dogmas of faith and morals.”  Herein lays another problem with those who make the pope the rule of faith which includes the great majority of sedevacantists.  Matters that “touch upon dogmas of faith or morals” are treated as questions of mere discipline when they most certainly are not.

Divine worship is considered by SSPX, SSPV, the Resistance, etc., etc., as a subject of mere Church discipline governed by the independent will of the legislator.  Their objections are not with the pope changing the Mass but rather how he changed it.  None of these have appealed to the dogmas of the Church addressing the standing of immemorial ecclesiastical traditions which clearly deny that any pope has the legitimate authority to create a Novus Ordo of worship.  

In this respect there is no real difference between Conservative Catholics who say the pope is the rule of faith, therefore we must accept the Novus Ordo, and Sedevacantists who say the same thing therefore, they conclude the pope cannot be the pope.  Those faithful Catholics who hold dogma as the rule of faith reject the Novus Ordo because it is a direct violation of Catholic dogma.  Furthermore, it is harmful to the faith and the pope has no authority to harm the faith.  

Every Church father treating upon the parable of the cockle says that the cockle refers to heresy sown in the Church by her enemies.  The cockle is not wheat although by a miracle of grace it may so become.  The cockle is left and permitted to grow with the wheat until the harvest.  This is not always so.  In the judgment of Christ’s vicar, when the cockle is held to be more harmful to the wheat it can be and has been removed before the harvest.  St. Pius X in his condemnation of the heresy of Modernism identified it as a heresy within the bosom of the Church and very few of these heretics were uprooted before Vatican II.  Sedevacantist do not want to “suffer both to grow until the harvest.”  It is the “Lord of the harvest” or His vicar who will remove this cockle at its proper time.

Drew