I have already provided you with an authoritative quotations by a theologian considered to be the best of his time by Fr. Fenton defining the term "authentic magisterium" which is a relatively new theological term. I have already provided you with authoritative theologians regarding the possibility of error in the authentic ordinary magisterium where the pope teaches by his grace of state
I did not think you could prove your erroneous belief. That, not only do you not have any Magisterial teaching to back your claims, but you consider theologians part of the Magisterium. This shows your hypocrisy, that you are more willing to accept what a theologian says as Authoritative than what you consider a Pope says.
Your replies are nothing more than bromides that are endlessly and mindlessly repeated by sedevacantists. It is hoped that having arrived in a church that is missing a necessary attribute of the Catholic Church founded by Jesus Christ that you might try to rethink the problem but you have not thought about anything. You don't argue, you just repeat slogans. This reply is just parroting the same erroneous understanding you have of the meaning of the word "magisterium."
The theologian quoted was to provide a definition of the term "authentic magisterium."
You have been misusing the term constantly in your posting. Now you are asking for a "Magisterial teaching" to prove that the definition of the term "authentic magisterium" is correct! And because this, which does not exist, was not provided it "shows (my) hypocrisy."
Getting your definitions correct is the first job you have to address before you can even try to reason.
The second theologian with Fr. Fenton was to provide you with an expert opinion that teachings of the authentic ordinary magisterium, that is, the pope teaching by his grace of state have in the past and may in the future contain error and therefore admit of a "prudent" and "conditional" acceptance. Your bromide reply: It is "hypocrisy .... more willing to accept what a theologian says as Authoritative than what you consider a Pope says."
This reply is not just stupid, it is totally disconnected from what in fact was said. It is a mindless reply.
Furthermore, your quote of the Vatican II document on Religious Liberty, is improper for at least two important reasons. Firstly, the document is not even a decree claiming to be "dogmatic" within the context of the council. It is professed to be a merely pastoral decree admitted by all both during and after the council. Secondly, your quote taking out of context with the intention of implying that the document is claiming that doctrine of Religious Liberty has its source divine Revelation. That is false.
The decree in fact denies that Religious Liberty is directly found in divine Revelation and admits that the doctrine is deduced as an implication from the "dignity of the human person in its full dimensions." This is nothing other than churchmen teaching by their grace of state and nothing more.
Lastly, the Dogma from Vatican I infallibility states that the Church must intend to "define." In this document there is no formal definition and nothing is proposed as a formal object of divine and Catholic faith.
First, a decree does not have to claim to be dogmatic for it to be so. Show where the Magisterium says it has to. Let me add that to your list of made up "teachings".
Second, If a council claims something is of Divine Revelation (DR), and especially if the Pope declares it through his apostolic authority to the whole Church, it is infallible. Vatican II explicitly says in DH #9” this doctrine on liberty has its roots in divine Revelation” and in #12” The Church therefore, faithful to the truth of the Gospel, follows the way of Christ and the Apostles when it acknowledges the principle of religious liberty as in accord with human dignity and the revelation of God” I understand that you don’t want to admit it but it’s right there. And for you to say that it actually denies that it’s part of DR, is a lie.
Lastly, Proclaiming that something is part of DR, definitely constitutes infallibility in this circumstance. You have no valid response. Paul VI uses his apostolic authority and declares to the whole church that Rel. Lib. Is part of DR.
He is telling “catholics” that Rel. Lib. Is included in the Rule of Faith. You are making yourself the rule of faith by making up different rules, then contradicting them, about what is infallible. You said before that only the Canons in Trent were infallible. You skipped my question as to why that is. Then you claim that DH isn't infallible because it say it was Dogmatic. Then you tell me that the right to religious liberty is not to be considered infallible because you say it didn't intend to define. Rel. Lib. is not part of DR but Paul VI clearly taught that it is. He is saying that it was handed down from God and has always been believed. This is just as authoritative as the Canons in Trent were Paul VI actually the Pope.
You are all over the place and only want to consider infallible what fits your narrative.
Oh brother! Where to begin. Another bromide. Another mindless parroting of sedevacantist canned answers. You are like a talking doll with a handful possible answers, just pull the string and see what you get. You should begin be reading the Dogma from Vatican I on infallibility with the purpose of trying to understand it. I do not know of any Dogmatic definitions that begin by saying "This is a Dogma." A Dogmatic definition gives evidence of itself by meeting specific criteria. You must learn what those criteria are.
Vatican II never defined any doctrine and proposed it as a formal object of divine and Catholic faith. Dogma requires a formal definition on faith and/or morals with the intent to bind all the faithful for all time. This intent of Vatican II to define doctrine was explicitly denied by the pope who called the council and the pope who closed the council. After the council there were statements from Paul VI, JPII, and Benedict XVI that no dogma was defined in the council. Not only was it not done, there was not expressed intent ever to do so. Lacking intent, it is impossible to engage the Church's attribute of infallibility.
Of the 16 documents, two are called "dogmatic constitutions" and the others are "decrees" or "declarations." The document on Religious Liberty (DH) was called a "declaration." The term "dogmatic" that was incorporated in two council texts is used in the same sense that Ott entitled his book, Dogmatic Theology. Neither of these texts defined any doctrine as a formal of divine and Catholic faith. They produced no Dogma. Still the two constitutions establish the foundational principles that justify all the decrees and declarations that followed.
My complaint is that you took a quotation from DH out of context to imply that the teaching for Religious Liberty was from "divine Revelation." This is lie and now reply by repeating the lie. You are an ass if think anyone has to listed to your distortions.
Rather than reply again to you, which is clearly wasted effort. I invite anyone else to compare your claim with the actual text of paragraph nine. The declaration describes what is means by "roots in divine Revelation" and that description says explicitly that this novel doctrine is not taught in divine Revelation but extrapolated from what is calls, "dignity of the human person in its full dimensions."
From this paragraph you argue that DH has the same authority as the Extra-ordinary dogmatic degree of Pope Pius XII on the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary! Those who say, as you have, that DH claims that Religious Liberty is of divine Revelation are liars that intentionally distort the text out of context to deceive others.
But no matter how long a papal interregnum has been, at most a couple years, there has always been an intent from the death of one pope to the confirm his successor and always a mechanism to do so. Never has there been a situation where there exists no efficient cause nor instrumental cause to create a pope. Never has an interregnum lasted beyond a couple years. It is now 60 years since John XXIII's election and after 60 years you still have nothing to hope for. You are at a dead end.
Who says that Pope Pius XII didn’t intend to have a successor confirmed or that a single clergyman can’t elect a new Pope. The Cardinals haven’t always elected a Pope, nor has it always been clear how a certain Pope was elected. What has to be ABSOLUTELY true is that the Pope elected had to have the Catholic Faith prior to their election as per Dogma and “Cum Ex”.
So you have a "single clergyman" to "elect a new Pope." Good. Do it. It has been tried plenty of time since Vatican II. There must have been at least a dozen papal claimants. Which of these is your Pope? There is Michael I, two different Peter II, Gregory XVII, Gregory XVIII, Leo XIV, Innocent XIV, Alexander IX, Pius XIII, Clement XIV, Mathurin I, Linus II, etc., etc. Innocent XIV was elected after an international conclave of sorts. He walked away when the plan failed to gather any support. So which of these is your pope? If none, why not? Again, these are rhetorical questions. The point is that even if a group a sedevacantists got together and elected a pope he will not be received by other groups of sedevacantists. That is the historical record over the last sixty years.
Heresy is the rejection of Dogma. So since nearly every single sedevacantist holds that the pope is the rule of faith and that inconvenient Dogmas, such as that which says that there will always be "perpetual successors" in the Chair of Peter, need not be believed, how can a sedevacantist ever produce a pope when they are heretics by definition? Again, just a rhetorical question. Don't bother trying to answer.
What you are doing again is the corruption of Dogma twisting its clear meaning of words. This is what those who make the pope the rule of faith always do. They consider Dogma as general theoretical guide lines or approximations of truth that can be interpreted in a non-literal sense to serve the theological ends of whoever is playing "lord of the harvest."
That is not true. Dogma is the rule of faith not some guideline. You are making a straw man here. I adhere to Dogma while you claim that you are the arbiter of what Dogma is. I wish I could say what you consider Dogma and Infallible but your guidelines change so much, it's impossible. If you don’t like the response you're given, you claim, it’s not infallible, or imply that a Theologian is the rule of faith.
You do not even know what Dogma is! How is it then possible that it could be your rule of faith? Don't bother replying. The question is rhetorical because you cannot possible answer it. You are unable to distinguish between the authority of DH from Vatican II and the Extra-ordinary dogmatic declaration of the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary. That being said, any answer would only confuse you more.
This answer is absurd. A "theologian seemed to think" that the papal office could be indefinitely vacant and still have "perpetual succession"?
“We may here stop to inquire what is to be said of the position, at that time, of the three claimants, and their rights with regard to the Papacy. In the first place, there was all through, from the death of Gregory XI in 1378, a Pope – with the exception, of course, of the intervals between deaths and elections to fill up the vacancies thereby created. There was, I say, at every given time a Pope, really invested with the dignity of the Vicar of Christ and Head of the Church, whatever opinions might exist among many as to his genuineness; not that an interregnum covering the whole period would have been impossible or inconsistent with the promises of Christ, for this is by no means manifest, but that, as a matter of fact, there was not such an interregnum.”(Fr. Edmund James O’Reilly, The Relations of the Church to Society – Theological Essays, 1882)
Fr. O’Reilly spoke after Vatican I and was said to be considered the most important Theologian of his time. So it’s not absurd to think an Interregnum could last a very long time, nor is it contrary to any Dogma.
I do not know Fr. O'Reilly but if your reference is accurate and not out of context as you did with your reference to DH, what possible authority is this! When you read an article by Fr. Fenton in AER you will typically find references to a dozen or more expert theologians on both sides of any given question. In his article on the authority of papal encyclicals he references more than thirty different expert theologians of varying opinions.
Now this reference to some unknown character who postulates that if during the GWS there had been no pope at all, it would not mean that the "perpetual succession" had been lost. This is empty speculation. Empty because it never happened. Empty because even if it had, there still was a hierarchy present with the intent and power to select a pope. You have neither! Therefore you do not have an efficient and/or instrumental cause capable of creating a pope. For you the "perpetual succession" to the chair of Peter is broken! You cannot fix it. The church you belong to is without an essential attribute that Jesus Christ endowed His Church. The church you belong to is not, and cannot be, His church!
Pope Honorius was formally declared a heretic and no one ever suggested he lost his office. Caiaphas was a heretic and Jesus Christ never declared that he lost his office.
No one ever suggested that he retained his office. Were you there? Did the Council ever relate what the common thought was? Was Honorius’ heresy public and manifest?
To Caiaphas. Was he a heretic? Where is the evidence for that? What Church Dogmas did he deny? Evil and Sinful? Yes. Heretic? I don’t know and neither do you.
Because, if Honorius had lost his office, all his papal acts would have had to have been corrected. Never happened. That is the historical proof that he never lost his office. Honorius was formally declared to have been a heretic by an ecumenical council that was approved by the Pope. This act was both public and manifest which is the appropriate response to the crime.
Caiaphas was a Sadducee. We know from scripture that the Sadducees denied the resurrection of the body. We also know that they only accepted the Pentateuch for scriptural authority. That is why when the Sadducees presented the speculative theological problem of the multiple marriages to Jesus answered correcting their error with a reference from the Pentateuch. The denial of the resurrection of the body was a heresy. It is a doctrine directly affirmed by St. Martha to our Lord. Jesus affirmed that the rulers "sit on the chair of Moses" and therefore they were to be obeyed but not imitated. Still, when the man born blind was disobedient to the rules for proclaiming Jesus as a prophet and expelled from the Temple, Jesus rewarded his disobedience to the legitimate rulers by seeking him out to reveal to him His divinity.
Formal heresy will formally remove a Catholic formally from the Church just like every mortal sin.
Wow. Every mortal sin removes a Catholic from the Church? It’s amazing that you imply I’m so uneducated about Catholic Teaching and yet say things like this.
Not every Mortal sin removes one from the Church. Here is an extension of the quote already provided.
Pope Pius XII, Mystici Corp. Chris.:”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. Men may lose charity and divine grace through sin, thus becoming incapable of supernatural merit, and yet not be deprived of all life if they hold fast to faith and Christian hope, and if, illumined from above, they are spurred on by the interior promptings of the Holy Spirit to salutary fear and are moved to prayer and penance for their sins.”
No sin, no matter how GRAVE, severs a man from the Church as does heresy etc… He goes on to teach what happens when one is in mortal sin but still in the Church. That is, lose charity and divine grace, incapable of supernatural merit. Then says, but they are not deprived of all life implying that those in heresy etc… are deprived of all life. This has it’s basis in the Dogmatic Teaching that heretics are not in the Church.
You are the opposite extreme of Stubborn. He doesn’t think that any sin can sever a man from the Church, you think all mortal sins sever a man. This is too much, how can I argue with someone who has total disregard for the teachings of the Popes and Dogma.
You have already admitted that the sin of heresy in the internal forum would not remove anyone from their office. In this you are correct. So what does Pope Pius XII mean by saying that the "nature" of heresy, schism and apostasy to "sever a man from the body of the Church"? If it were the "nature" of the sin as you understand it, then itself heresy whether in the internal forum alone or the external forum would both cases would cause both the formal and material separation from the Church. It does not. It is the nature of these sins to destroy the virtue of faith without which repentance is impossible. That is the reason for the separation from the Church by these sins.
But the problem is different when examined from either a legal perspective or a moral perspective. From the legal perspective it is the human law of the Church the removes materially a heretic from the Church. These human laws have an ipso facto penalty of excommunication. The law imposes the penalty but the does not materially impose the guilt. The guilt must always be materially proven through due process. That is the nature of human law.
From a moral perspective it may be easier to understand. The Mystical Body of Christ and the Catholic Church are one and the same. The "soul of the Church" is the Holy Ghost. The soul is coextensive with every living part of every body. A Catholic in mortal sin no longer has sanctifying grace, no longer has the indwelling of the Holy Ghost, he is an enemy of God and has lost the right to eternal life in heaven. He has lost God's friendship. He is no longer is a member of the Mystical Body of Christ. He is a dead to the life of Christ. So how is still a member of the Church since the Church is the Mystical Body of Christ? Every mortal sin formally removes a Catholic from the Church but not materially. Just as a dead limb can still be part of a tree but the life of three is lost to the dead limb. The dead limb is formally removed from the life of the tree but is not materially removed. When the sin does not attack the virtue of Faith, the Church does not materially exclude the sinner from the Church. Schism, heresy and apostasy are sins against the virtue of Faith. They like all mortal sins formally separate the sinner from the Church. If the heresy is only in the internal forum, perhaps known only to a confessor and God, there is no ipso facto material separation from the Church. These sins by their nature can but not necessarily lead to material separation from the Church. It is the nature of these sins that when they are in the external forum they can lead to the Church to materially separate the heretic for the sake of the faithful. If heresy in and of itself always and everywhere caused material separation then the Church would not be invisible because sins of the internal forum unknown to all but God. It therefore is the nature of heresy, apostasy and schism to materially separate the sinner from the Church because they attack the virtue of Faith. That is the normal natural course of development but this is not absolute, it is not a necessary result. The moral and legal cause of material separation from the Church is the good of the Faithful and not the heresy itself.
I do not expect any reply from you on this question. You only have a fixed slogan for a pat answer.
I do not pretend to have definitive answers to these questions but my understanding of this question is in accord with Catholic dogma, principles of moral theology, and Church law and they do not lead to conclusions that a clearly and manifestly offensive to Catholic Faith.
You cannot say the same.
A heretic that is removed materially from the Church is done so by the human law of the Church which imposes ipso facto penalties by law that can only be imposed after due process determination of guilt.
Every time you talk about “ipso facto” penalties you show your ignorance of it more and more. Ipso facto and a penalty imposed after due process are opposite from each other. Ipso facto excommunicates by the act of the violation. This is done before due process or else it would have no meaning. If the act required due process, ipso facto could not be applied. This is easily understood if one were to only read the quotes provided before.
We are not trying to determine whether these claimants are heretics based on what we think they believe in their hearts. No one could do that so that assertion is irrelevant. They manifested their heresies through word/deed before their election and have done so ever since their false elevations.
Ipso facto laws will lead to immediate formal excommunication but not material excommunication. You already admitted this when you agreed that a heretic in the internal forum alone would not lose his office. For a legal ipso facto penalty to be imposed by the law in the external forum for heresy requires determination of guilt. The same is true for secular criminal laws. For example, a state may have a law that if a gun is used in an armed robbery then a mandatory sentence of ten years is imposed by the law. These laws impose ipso facto the penalty for the crime but they do not do so until there is a due process determination of guilt.
These laws are human laws of the Church. God has bound them in the internal forum but God does not always see that the criminal is brought to human justice.
Have you considered a name for your church?
How about you? Maybe the sometimes-catholic church? The fifth-pillar-catholic church? The material-catholic church? The defective-catholic church? The unable-to-legitimately-govern-because-the-pope-is-a-heretic-catholic church?
Your church cannot be the Catholic Church. You have no pope. As they say, 'better a leg that limps than no leg at all.'
Many saints and theologians have speculated that the Church would recapitulate in her life the life of Christ on earth. Jesus said that He was the "light of the world." And so He is. He then said that his Church would carry on this light after his Ascension. He told them that they would be the "light of the world." On occasions there were those who were scandalized by the doctrine and cross of Jesus and left him. In his passion it was nearly everyone. The Church seems to me to be still in the Garden of Olives where we say the first collective decision of the Apostolic College, "they all fled." Sedevacantism is just one a several directions to flee. But all those who have made the pope their rule of faith will fail this trial.
Lacking a public charge of heresy and an admission of guilt, the determination of guilt requires due process in the external forum for penalty of law to be imposed.
Then ipso facto has no meaning. If a Catholic hears another Baptized person saying that there are three Gods in the Trinity, even though he says he knows the Church teaches that there are three persons in One God, do we have to say that this statement is orthodox and this person is a Catholic until a court says that the statement is heretical and that person a heretic. Or can we say that statement is heresy and that person a heretic? This person is ipso facto severed from the Church without any further official Church Statement. That is, by that very fact. Therefore, he is unable to become Pope because he is not Catholic.
Take another witness with you to correct their error. If they will not hear either of you, take them to the Church. If they will not hear the Church then let me treated as the heathen and the publican. If the Church will not correct them, you have done all you are morally required to do. You do not have the authority to do what the Church has failed to do. You want to make yourself the "lord of the harvest." The pope is your rule of faith and since you reject his rule, you want to usurp an office that is not yours. You want to determine and enforce your own canonical process. You are a thief. You are scandalized by their sin a do not have the patience to suffer the cross. The cross that God offers, you reject. Like the disciples in the Garden, you have fled. But don't pretend to what you have fled is the Catholic Church. You are not one, you are not holy, you are not catholic, and you have no pope. And without your "pope," you have lost your rule of faith.
This reply is not intended for you. It is for anyone else who might think that the temptation of sedevacantism is an answer to the crisis in the Catholic Church.