Author Topic: The Ordinary Infallible Magisterium and the Authentic Magisterium (Read 16681 times)

Pax Vobis · « **Reply #30 on:** January 15, 2017, 11:41:20 AM »

Quote

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.

Stubborn · « **Reply #31 on:** January 15, 2017, 12:47:03 PM »

Quote from: GJC

All I can decipher from this post is that you do not have total faith in what has already been defined. If anyone denies a Dogma, sacrament.... they are a heretic, or at a minimum an "erring Catholic" and whether they would be culpable (which would be hard to not believe in this age of information) would be outside the Catholic Church. See Pius XII

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.

I understand you cannot decipher what I said. The thing is, what I said is what the Church said, and what the Church said does not need deciphering, it needs to be understood as it is written.

To say that *you* get to decide the status of the pope because *you* do *not* need a declaration by the Church, does not mean that I lack faith in that Dogma - I would also ask, "which dogma"?

It means that you must think it's a Church teaching that She has given you the right to usurp an authority which, when it comes to the pope, no one on earth even has.

Stubborn · « **Reply #32 on:** January 16, 2017, 05:36:02 AM »

Quote from: An even Seven

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: An even Seven

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: An even Seven

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: An even Seven

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.

Stubborn · « **Reply #33 on:** January 16, 2017, 07:24:44 AM »

Quote from: An even Seven

Quote from: Stubborn
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.

He did mean it as it is written. Only those are to be numbered among the members of the Church who have received the laver of regeneration and profess the true faith. If one has the ability to think, one can deduce that one cannot be a member of the Church if one is not Baptized and does not profess the true faith. Very un-ambiguous. If one does not profess the true faith, one is not a member of the Church.
You cannot get around this.

Yes, you keep quoting that part, but you'd do better to concentrate on the the sentence that follows, which you conveniently keep neglecting: ....and who have not been so unfortunate as to separate themselves from the unity of the Body, or been excluded by legitimate authority for grave faults committed."

You are not a legitimate authority - just fyi.

Quote from: An even Seven

Quote from: Stubborn
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."

Sedevacantism is the idea that there are spaces of time where there is no Pope reigning.
What we are discussing is whether a Catholic can cease to become Catholic through heresy (i.e. diverting from the true faith). Which a Catholic can surely cease to be Catholic.

Again, you did not finish it off, I finished it off in bold for you........ "Sedevacantism is the idea that there are spaces of time where there is no Pope reigning while there is a pope reigning.

All I'm doing is being real.

Quote from: An even Seven

Quote from: Stubborn
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.

You cannot win a debate by merely stating that you are correct. You have no evidence (Church teaching) on your side.

I have Church teaching on my side, but you reject the teaching because you have to - in order to maintain your sedevacantism.

Quote from: An even Seven

Quote from: Stubborn
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.

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?

The pope is not "The Church". You still cannot admit that you do not know the difference so you replace "the pope" with "the Church".

As Drew already correctly stated, this is what happens when you make the pope the rule of faith.

Do you honestly need me to supply you a definition of being subject to our superiors in all things except sin?

Quote from: An even Seven

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.

The Church's present magisterium is full of error thanks mainly (but not entirely) to "the fifth column" as Fr. Wathen calls it. There is nothing complicated about this at all.

Quote from: An even Seven

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).

Ok, so you are apparently making me guess again at the reason for posting this so I'll take a stab at it.

I'm not the one *not* enduring sound doctrine, nor has the judgments and decrees of the Apostolic See object been for the general good of the Church, rather they have been for Her destruction. Even you don't deny this.

And yes, it goes against the error of withholding obedience against the Church's legitimate rulers, but does so because our obedience to God always comes first. Two wrongs do not make a right. We cannot obey the legitimate rulers as long as they want us to displease God, which is to say as long as they want us to sin - because our obedience to God always comes first. There is nothing complicated about this.

drew · « **Reply #34 on:** January 16, 2017, 08:38:10 AM »

Quote from: An even Seven

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

Stubborn · « **Reply #35 on:** January 16, 2017, 02:31:39 PM »

Quote from: GJC

Quote from: drew
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

FALSE!!! I will leave you a except from a sermon of St Augustine (Donatism) on this very topic to illustrate the point: "The words of our Lord are clear and explicit; for, when asked by His disciples to explain the parable, He said: The field is the world. And the good seed are the children of the kingdom. And the cockle are the children of the wicked one. And the enemy that sowed them, is the devil. But the harvest is the end of the world. And the reapers are the angels (Matt 13:38-39). After these words shall we believe, according to heretics, that the field spoken of is not the world, but only Africa? That the harvest will not take place at the end of the world, but in the present time, and that Donatus, the chief of the heretics, is the reaper? Ah! far from accepting such doctrines against the teaching of Jesus Christ Himself, let us patiently await the harvest which will take place in the whole world. We let the good seed, spread out in the world, grow up until the time appointed by the householder, and we suffer the cockle, oversowed among the good seed and growing up every where, to remain until the time of the harvest. But let us take heed, lest we be deceived by the language of these wicked men who, being as light as chaff, will be cast out of the barn, even before the Householder comes to separate them."

Clearly, in bold we see that heretics, apostates and in this case schismatics will be cast out of the barn (the Catholic Church) EVEN BEFORE the Householder comes to separate them from the world.

It never has been held, as some claim, that heretics are Catholics or in the Catholic Church. PERIOD!

The cockle were never "once Catholic".

Pax Vobis · « **Reply #36 on:** January 16, 2017, 02:47:22 PM »

Let's ask this simple question:
At what point does one lose his catholic membership card? Is it based on his interior thoughts only? Or is it based on his explicit, public actions/words, etc? If it's based externally, then what is the point of the coporal work of mercy such as 'admonishing the sinner'? Or 'instructing the ignorant'?

Does not the Church decide these matters? Does canon law not have a process whereby a scandalous person is examined and ordered to recant his errors? Then, if he does not, such error is declared a heresy?

Who gives any cleric or layman the authority to 'fastrack' an error into a formal heresy? What authority does anyone outside of the Church have of excommunicating anyone?

drew · « **Reply #37 on:** January 16, 2017, 03:56:42 PM »

Quote from: GJC

Quote from: drew
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

FALSE!!! I will leave you a except from a sermon of St Augustine (Donatism) on this very topic to illustrate the point: "The words of our Lord are clear and explicit; for, when asked by His disciples to explain the parable, He said: The field is the world. And the good seed are the children of the kingdom. And the cockle are the children of the wicked one. And the enemy that sowed them, is the devil. But the harvest is the end of the world. And the reapers are the angels (Matt 13:38-39). After these words shall we believe, according to heretics, that the field spoken of is not the world, but only Africa? That the harvest will not take place at the end of the world, but in the present time, and that Donatus, the chief of the heretics, is the reaper? Ah! far from accepting such doctrines against the teaching of Jesus Christ Himself, let us patiently await the harvest which will take place in the whole world. We let the good seed, spread out in the world, grow up until the time appointed by the householder, and we suffer the cockle, oversowed among the good seed and growing up every where, to remain until the time of the harvest. But let us take heed, lest we be deceived by the language of these wicked men who, being as light as chaff, will be cast out of the barn, even before the Householder comes to separate them."

Clearly, in bold we see that heretics, apostates and in this case schismatics will be cast out of the barn (the Catholic Church) EVEN BEFORE the Householder comes to separate them from the world.

It never has been held, as some claim, that heretics are Catholics or in the Catholic Church. PERIOD!

So what are you disputing? That the Church Fathers including St. Augustine did not consider heretics as cockle? I do not know of any example taken from Haydock's Commentary or Lapide's Great Commentary or St. Thomas' Commentary that do not include heretics among the cockle. Nor do I know any who have said that all heretics must necessarily be uprooted before the harvest. They have defended the opinion that it is appropriate for the Church authorities to uproot heretics before the harvest if it is considered better for the "wheat." This is all I have said.

The heresy of Modernism is a good example of this fact. Some were confronted and publically charged and eventually some were excommunicated, but the number heretics actually rooted up was very, very small. Sedevacantists want to make themselves the "Lord of the harverst" There is no reason why the "Lord of the harvest" cannot make a legitimate pope to replace the one they removed.

I contend that the reason for this is that most sedevacantists hold the pope as rule of faith which is a grave error. If I am mistaken in this, just say so and I will address whatever other grounds you may have.

Drew

drew · « **Reply #38 on:** January 16, 2017, 09:11:41 PM »

Quote from: GJC

Quote from: drew
Quote from: GJC
Quote from: drew
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

FALSE!!! I will leave you a except from a sermon of St Augustine (Donatism) on this very topic to illustrate the point: "The words of our Lord are clear and explicit; for, when asked by His disciples to explain the parable, He said: The field is the world. And the good seed are the children of the kingdom. And the cockle are the children of the wicked one. And the enemy that sowed them, is the devil. But the harvest is the end of the world. And the reapers are the angels (Matt 13:38-39). After these words shall we believe, according to heretics, that the field spoken of is not the world, but only Africa? That the harvest will not take place at the end of the world, but in the present time, and that Donatus, the chief of the heretics, is the reaper? Ah! far from accepting such doctrines against the teaching of Jesus Christ Himself, let us patiently await the harvest which will take place in the whole world. We let the good seed, spread out in the world, grow up until the time appointed by the householder, and we suffer the cockle, oversowed among the good seed and growing up every where, to remain until the time of the harvest. But let us take heed, lest we be deceived by the language of these wicked men who, being as light as chaff, will be cast out of the barn, even before the Householder comes to separate them."

Clearly, in bold we see that heretics, apostates and in this case schismatics will be cast out of the barn (the Catholic Church) EVEN BEFORE the Householder comes to separate them from the world.

It never has been held, as some claim, that heretics are Catholics or in the Catholic Church. PERIOD!

So what are you disputing? That the Church Fathers including St. Augustine did not consider heretics as cockle? I do not know of any example taken from Haydock's Commentary or Lapide's Great Commentary or St. Thomas' Commentary that do not include heretics among the cockle. Nor do I know any who have said that all heretics must necessarily be uprooted before the harvest. They have defended the opinion that it is appropriate for the Church authorities to uproot heretics before the harvest if it is considered better for the "wheat." This is all I have said.

The heresy of Modernism is a good example of this fact. Some were confronted and publically charged and eventually some were excommunicated, but the number heretics actually rooted up was very, very small. Sedevacantists want to make themselves the "Lord of the harverst" There is no reason why the "Lord of the harvest" cannot make a legitimate pope to replace the one they removed.

I contend that the reason for this is that most sedevacantists hold the pope as rule of faith which is a grave error. If I am mistaken in this, just say so and I will address whatever other grounds you may have.

Drew

I am disputing the fact that heretics are not Catholics or in the Church. I get the impression you are pushing this false idea.

The "false idea" is that you have the authority to impose ipso facto penalities and yet, do not have the authority to replace the pope you have deposed. Even ipso facto penalities require a legal determination of guilt. You apparently hold that the pope is the rule of faith. You should plainly say so for the record.

Also, for the record, is an occult heretic outside the Church? If not, why not? And if so, how do you know he is outside the Church? If an occult heretic is not outside the Church, then would you agree that it is not the heresy itself that puts him out of the Church? Is it then the public nature of the crime that does so?

Drew

Stubborn · « **Reply #39 on:** January 17, 2017, 05:47:06 AM »

Quote from: An even Seven

Quote from: Stubborn
Yes, you keep quoting that part, but you'd do better to concentrate on the the sentence that follows, which you conveniently keep neglecting: ....and who have not been so unfortunate as to separate themselves from the unity of the Body, or been excluded by legitimate authority for grave faults committed."

You are not a legitimate authority - just fyi.

Really???? You bolded the wrong portion. Right before it proves that Catholics can separate themselves from the Body. You are a deceiver.

You deceive yourself because you let your agenda blind you to what that means. Again, read what it says as it is written or you will never understand what he is saying.

Quote from: An even Seven

Quote from: Stubborn
I have Church teaching on my side, but you reject the teaching because you have to - in order to maintain your sedevacantism.

PLEASE, please, please, cite your Church teaching then that claims that the Magisterium can err and Once a Catholic always a Catholic. I keep asking for the quotes and you keep avoiding it.

I think it's best if you read the OP as the OP explains it beautifully.

Quote from: An even Seven

Quote from: Stubborn
The pope is not "The Church". You still cannot admit that you do not know the difference so you replace "the pope" with "the Church".

As Drew already correctly stated, this is what happens when you make the pope the rule of faith.

What does this mean. I want you to explain it to me. The rule of Faith is Dogma. The Papacy is the symbol of unity and unity doesn't cease to exist when there is not a Pope in office.

The dogma decrees that we must be subject to the Roman Pontiff, not to the papacy. There is a pope in office, he is a terrible, heretical pope like all the conciliar popes have been, so if you take the blinders off, you will see there actually is a pope in office, which you must be subject to or you will never make it to heaven - THAT is the dogma.

Perhaps if you or I made the dogma, we would have left in the proviso that we must be subject to him unless we don't believe he is pope, but we don't make the Divine Laws, we're the peons who are bound to follow them.

So the best way to discern the difference between "being subject to" and "must submit to", is to use the dogma itself, which itself alone, is infallible.

We must, are bound to, have got to and absolutely have no choice in the matter if we want to get to heaven - we must wholly and meticulously submit to what the infallible dogma says, because if we don't, we lose all hope for our own salvation. This means that whoever does not submit to the dogma, they will end up spending their eternity suffering in hell.

The dogma says we must be subject to the pope. We must submit ourselves unconditionally to this dogma, this Revealed Truth for our hope of salvation is what we must submit to unconditionally, not the pope.

Another example:

Quote from: Pope Paul VI

Source
....We wish that these Our decrees and prescriptions may be firm and effective now and in the future, notwithstanding, to the extent necessary, the apostolic constitutions and ordinances issued by Our predecessors, and other prescriptions, even those deserving particular mention and derogation.

It was the people's responsibility to deny the wishes of pope Paul VI, not submit to his wish as they did - but they wrongly thought as you think, that they were bound to submit to the pope, regardless of what he wants. We must and can deny his wishes when he wants us to do anything that displeases God as the new "mass" certainly does. Our denying his wishes in no way affects his status as pope.

Unlike Quo Primum, there were no censures or penalties attached to his wish - what were people thinking? Why did they submit? Yes the pope erred in this wish, and he has been judged for the scandal - woe to him, but had the people denied his scandalous wish as is expected of good subjects, the devil would have had to come up with another plan. But because they all thought as you think, that his authority equals blind submission to him as if he is Christ or the Church himself, they were fooled into taking the wide road they were offered and like him, will be judged for it.

Quote from: An even Seven

Quote from: Stubborn
The Church's present magisterium is full of error thanks mainly (but not entirely) to "the fifth column" as Fr. Wathen calls it. There is nothing complicated about this at all.

This is straight up heresy. The Magisterium cannot err. Again, cite a Church teaching that says it can. And while you are looking and coming up empty handed, start to really look at the issue and be honest.

See the OP, it explains it way better than I can.

The hierarchy is erring all over the place for the last 50 years at least, the teachings of conciliarists are either tainted with or are fully modernist. Either way, because of the errors and outright heresies taught, there is no denying the hierarchy is preaching error because the things taught contradict the OUM.

Quote from: An even Seven

Quote from: Stubborn
Ok, so you are apparently making me guess again at the reason for posting this so I'll take a stab at it.

I'm not the one *not* enduring sound doctrine, nor has the judgments and decrees of the Apostolic See object been for the general good of the Church, rather they have been for Her destruction. Even you don't deny this.

The Church cannot attempt to destroy Herself. I believe that the VII sect definitely promulgates things that are destructive for souls. This is why it cannot be the Catholic Church.

The conciliar church is not the Catholic Church, I know you do not agree with the fifth column described by Fr. Wathen, which agrees with Pope Pius X's Pascendi, but it's right there, big as day.

Quote from: An even Seven

Quote from: Stubborn
And yes, it goes against the error of withholding obedience against the Church's legitimate rulers, but does so because our obedience to God always comes first. Two wrongs do not make a right. We cannot obey the legitimate rulers as long as they want us to displease God, which is to say as long as they want us to sin - because our obedience to God always comes first. There is nothing complicated about this.

If they are the Church's legitimate rulers, one cannot withhold obedience to them in matters pertaining to the faith. I have listed the Church's teaching about this on this thread.

We owe no obedience to even saintly rulers if they want us to do something that displeases God. It is because they have been promoting the heretical new faith that we avoid them and their teachings entirely. Even a saintly hierarchy cannot bind us to heresy - and they have not tried to bind us to anything Catholic anyway - that's just not what they, as conciliarists, do.

Sedevacantists get stuck here. They apparently believe that saintly rulers are in some way prevented and protected from spreading error, as if the ones in positions of authority are granted personal infallibility by virtue of their office. But if that were true, then they are either hypocrites for claiming the loss of office due to heresy, or they have no faith whatsoever in their own idea of infallibility.

No, good priests, bishops etc. can become heretical priests, bishops etc. while in and retaining their office. The people are expected to remain faithful to God, not submit to the heretical wishes of their superiors - even if "we, or an angel from heaven, preach a gospel....."

Stubborn · « **Reply #40 on:** January 17, 2017, 06:59:54 AM »

An even Seven, you have embraced sedevacantism which obviously is a doctrine of man, same as Protestantism is a doctrine of man. Everything you read you make revolve around this doctrine which you've wholly embraced.

Best thing you can do is to find a sedevacantist pope or sedevacantist father or even a sedevacantist saint and quote them to vindicate your sedevacantism, but please, stop quoting from Catholic popes, fathers and saints - they do not teach sedevacantism, nor can one logically conclude sedevacantism from any of their teachings.

Pax Vobis · « **Reply #41 on:** January 17, 2017, 11:15:22 AM »

An Even Seven, your failure to distinguish causes you to err.

Quote

Stubborn's errors- "Once a Catholic Always a Catholic"

Church Teaching:
Pope Pius XII, Mystici Corporis Christi (# 23), June 29, 1943:
“For not every sin, however grave it may be, is such as of its own nature to sever a man from the Body of the Church, as does schism or heresy or apostasy.”

True, a heresy can sever a man from the Church. But...only AFTER the CHURCH has declared the man excommunicated, after DUE PROCESS.

Quote

Stubborn's errors- The Magisterium can err and be evil.

Church Teaching:
Pope Leo XIII, Caritatis Studium (#6) July 25, 1898: The Magisterium “could by no means commit itself to erroneous teaching.”

Define 'magisterium'. There are two different kinds. The universal (which is "what has always been taught") and the ordinary (which is the current ecclesiastical authorities). The ordinary is ONLY infallible if it AGREES with "what has always been taught".

Pt 2: We already have EVERY doctrine we NEED to be saved. THERE ARE NO NEW DOCTRINES; THERE ARE NO NEW ARTICLES OF FAITH; THERE ARE NO NEW CATHOLIC TEACHINGS. There are only refinements, reiterations and clarifications of doctrine.

The point is, if the ordinary, fallible magisterium veers off the doctrinal path, if any catholic knows his faith, he'll see it happen. If something differs, then it's wrong. The understanding of the magisterium is not rocket science.

Quote

Stubborn's errors- We only need to be subject to the Roman Pontiff when he is defining Dogma.

Church Teaching:
Pope Pius IX, "Quanta Cura" (#5) December 8, 1864:Nor can we pass over in silence the audacity of those who, not enduring sound doctrine, contend that "without sin and without any sacrifice of the Catholic profession assent and obedience may be refused to those judgments and decrees of the Apostolic See, whose object is declared to concern the Church's general good and her rights and discipline, so only it does not touch the dogmata of faith and morals." But no one can be found not clearly and distinctly to see and understand how grievously this is opposed to the Catholic dogma of the full power given from God by Christ our Lord Himself to the Roman Pontiff of feeding, ruling and guiding the Universal Church.

One must be subject to the Pope in all things, save sin. The novelties of V2 are not catholic, therefore they are rejected. V2 does not follow the universal magisterium, therefore it's rejected. V2 does not deal with dogma, or infallibility, or church law. It never claimed to. Anyone that follows the church leaders into error does so at their own volition. No one in Rome is forcing them into error.

Stubborn · « **Reply #42 on:** January 17, 2017, 12:42:43 PM »

Quote from: An even Seven

1) Stubborn's errors- "Once a Catholic Always a Catholic"

2) Stubborn's errors- The Magisterium can err and be evil.

3) Stubborn's errors- We only need to be subject to the Roman Pontiff when he is defining Dogma.

1) Any Catholic who ended up apostatizing or became a heretic can receive the sacrament of penance whereby the censure of excommunication is removed and the sin is forgiven. One who is not Catholic cannot receive the sacraments. This Catholic teaching is all you need to accept. This is how we understand once a Catholic always a Catholic.

Yes, there are times when by an official papal decree, only the pope or bishop can remove the censure - yet even under those circuмstances, if the heretic is in danger of death, that heretic can have any priest absolve him in the sacrament of penance or extreme unction. Again, one who is not Catholic cannot receive the sacraments.

But whatever the circuмstance, no one has sentenced any pope with the censure of excommunication for heresy or any other sin - and YOU saying heretics are not Catholics is like doing a rain dance for rain - it means nothing, absolutely nothing to everyone.

2) The Hierarchy can, has and continues to err - and from my perspective, every single one of them are evil. But you're using "the magisterium" in a context which makes no sense.

"The Magisterium" is nothing other than the Church teaching us, that is what the Church does. The Church was established by Christ to teach us how to get to heaven. So you need to replace "The Magisterium" with "The Hierarchy", then it's not only true, it actually makes sense when you say that I say: "The Hierarchy can err and be evil."

3) We need to be subject to the pope and obey him as the pope in all those religious matters under his authority always - UNLESS he should command something which is sinful. Pax Vobis spells it right out in plain English.........

Quote from: Pax Vobis

One must be subject to the Pope in all things, save sin. The novelties of V2 are not catholic, therefore they are rejected. V2 does not follow the universal magisterium, therefore it's rejected. V2 does not deal with dogma, or infallibility, or church law. It never claimed to. Anyone that follows the church leaders into error does so at their own volition. No one in Rome is forcing them into error.

Stubborn · « **Reply #43 on:** January 18, 2017, 05:53:01 AM »

Quote from: An even Seven

Quote from: Pax Vobis
True, a heresy can sever a man from the Church. But...only AFTER the CHURCH has declared the man excommunicated, after DUE PROCESS.

Pope Pius VI, Auctorem fidei, Aug. 28, 1794:
“47. Likewise, the proposition which teaches that it is necessary, according to the natural and divine laws, for either excommunication or for suspension, that a personal examination should precede, and that, therefore, sentences called ‘ipso facto’ have no other force than that of a serious threat without any actual effect” – false, rash, pernicious, injurious to the power of the Church, erroneous.

Please see Pope Pius VI's foot note for #47 below:

XLVII. Similarly, one that says to be necessary, according to the natural and divine laws, that the excommunication with regard to the suspension, should precede a personal examination, and that therefore, the so-called ipso facto judgments have no other force than a serious threat without any actual effect;

Quote from: An even Seven

Quote from: Pax Vobis
Define 'magisterium'. There are two different kinds. The universal (which is "what has always been taught") and the ordinary (which is the current ecclesiastical authorities). The ordinary is ONLY infallible if it AGREES with "what has always been taught".

Vatican Council Sess. 3 Ch. 3: Wherefore, by divine and catholic faith all those things are to be believed which are contained in the word of God as found in scripture and tradition, and which are proposed by the church as matters to be believed as divinely revealed, whether by her solemn judgment or in her ordinary and universal magisterium.
The Magisterium can never err. I challenge you to find a Church Teaching that uses any adjective whatsoever to describe the Magisterium, which says it can err. If we find an error in any source whatsoever, we know that it is not of the Magisterium.

Your quote from V1 is also erroneous since it does not say nor imply and is impossible to conclude from your quote that "the magisterium can never err". What you quoted is telling us is when the magisterium, that is, teachings of the Church, are infallible, binding under pain of mortal sin, which I made bold for you.

FYI, "her ordinary and universal magisterium" is the same as saying: "Church teachings that have been taught always and everywhere since the time of the Apostles." These are infallible.

And etc. ad nausem. Stop attempting to use Catholic teaching to vindicate sedevacantism - it can't be done.

Stubborn · « **Reply #44 on:** January 18, 2017, 06:26:04 AM »

Quote from: Stubborn

Quote from: An even Seven
Quote from: Pax Vobis
True, a heresy can sever a man from the Church. But...only AFTER the CHURCH has declared the man excommunicated, after DUE PROCESS.

Pope Pius VI, Auctorem fidei, Aug. 28, 1794:
“47. Likewise, the proposition which teaches that it is necessary, according to the natural and divine laws, for either excommunication or for suspension, that a personal examination should precede, and that, therefore, sentences called ‘ipso facto’ have no other force than that of a serious threat without any actual effect” – false, rash, pernicious, injurious to the power of the Church, erroneous.

Please see Pope Pius VI's foot note for #47 below:

XLVII. Similarly, one that says to be necessary, according to the natural and divine laws, that the excommunication with regard to the suspension, should precede a personal examination, and that therefore, the so-called ipso facto judgments have no other force than a serious threat without any actual effect;

Sorry about that. Posting while working I simply posted the same thing as you and while rushing, messed up the whole thing in the process.

This does not mean the pope is not the pope due to his supposed ipso facto excommunication. It simply means that ipso facto excommunication is indeed a serious censure per #46 which precedes this condemnation - which is why #47 begins with "Similarly".

XLVI: The proposition asserting that "the effect of excommunication is merely exterior, because by its nature it merely excludes from exterior communion with the Church"; as if excommunication were not a spiritual punishment, binding in heaven, obligating souls,—false, dangerous, etc.

All the excommunicated person needs to do to obtain removal from the censure and forgiveness - matters not whether the person is the pope or a pauper - is go to confession where the censure is first lifted, then the penitent is absolved.