The pope question, as it were, is but a distraction/red herring.Because the Church always was and always will be "one, holy, catholic, and apostolic, the spotless Bride of Christ, without blemish and the single, solitary means of sanctification and salvation," and because we know that the conciliar church is "a source of confusion, spiritual destruction, endless scandal, etc." we know that the conciliar church is not the Catholic Church.
The real problem is that -- regardless of who is or is not the legitimate head of the society that purports to be the Catholic Church -- a society that is supposed to be one, holy, catholic, and apostolic, the spotless Bride of Christ, without blemish and the single, solitary means of sanctification and salvation is, and has been for several decades, naught but a source of confusion, spiritual destruction, endless scandal, etc. Whether he is or is not legitimate, solving that issue doesn't alter the cold, hard, unspeakably-sad fact that what used to be Holy Mother Church has, to all appearances, become an absolutely shameless harlot leading millions to eternal misery.
Address that.
Not sure I'm saying this right but to place all of the blame on the pope(s) for V2 and etc. is wrong, because doing so ignores the multitudes who are also guilty of perpetrating it via their acceptance of it of their own free will.
The blame does belong primarily to the popes because the Church is a hierarchy and the average layman goes to church on Sundays and works and raises a family during the week. They don't (and shouldn't have to) have their heads buried deep in papal encyclicals. They were basically sold down the river by modernists, liberals, freemasons, heretics and apostates, etc.I don't disagree, but there are two players involved here, always. You have the wolves and the sheep. The sheep that were sold down the river by the wolves, i.e. modernists, liberals, freemasons, heretics and apostates, etc. - on that account themselves became modernists, liberals, freemasons, heretics and apostates, etc. - and remember this, they did so of their own free will. Nobody had a gun to their head, this may be the world's only revolution that was successful beyond belief without a single drop of blood being spilled.
I don't think the pope question is a distraction....
I think people have allowed the pope question to be a distraction.
The pope is our rule of faith, and the unity of the faith demands that we have this discussion.
According to Pope Leo XIII, the pope is the principle and center of the unity of the Church:
Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum
When the Divine founder decreed that the Church should be one in faith, in government, and in communion, He chose Peter and his successors as the principle and centre, as it were, of this unity.
...In this Peter, the head of all the Apostles (hence his name Cephas), has sat; in which chair alone unity was to be preserved for all...
...No one, therefore, unless in communion with Peter can share in his authority, since it is absurd to imagine that he who is outside can command in the Church.
Only a small, misguided minority deny that Bergoglio is a heretic...those who believe Bergoglio to be the pope, the principle and center of the unity of the Church, share in the unity of faith with a heretic.
This seems worthy of discussion...not distraction. There are serious implications for accepting a heretic as your rule of faith.
Of course Bergoglio is a manifest formal heretic, not merely a material heretic. If one doesn't believe so, then he or she is in complete denial. However, with that being said, I truly believe that if the heart of the Christian is "unity" then almighty God can be understanding of our schismatic situations of which we had no part in causing and of which our hearts want the end of.Show me the proof of his formal heresy, I don't follow him very closely. Thank you.
Who to blame for the Crisis is also a red herring. The Crisis happened because it was due to happen, in God's plan for the world.I think this is well said...and I agree. ie, Bishop Williamson's 1950's talk...comfortability, etc.
Let's face it, 90% of those suffering during the current Crisis weren't even alive in the 1950's to be worldly, ungrateful, Americanist, or whatever we collectively did to "deserve" it.
As I've said so many times, this isn't a 5 or 10 year old Crisis. More like 53 years old and counting. That's two whole generations.
The Crisis in the Church happened because it was God's will. He will bring greater good out of it. And He will end it when He pleases to, and not a moment before. God is fully in control and it's all in God's hands.
Unfortunately, for so many die hard Lefebvrists and Resisters of whatever flavor, no matter how compelling the evidence you provide from the Magisterium is, they will remain blind to the truth and obstinate in their errors.
Show me the proof of his formal heresy, I don't follow him very closely. Thank you.
Show me the proof of his formal heresy, I don't follow him very closely. Thank you.
If you believe he's the pope, why don't you follow him closely? He's your rule of faith...
The "formal" characteristic can be seen in Bergoglio's obstinacy/pertinacity in his public heresies (e.g. in Amoris Laetitia regarding unrepentant divorced and remarried being admitted to Holy Communion). One who refuses to change his position or explain himself when accused of heresy is assumed to "formally" embrace that heresy.
I really hate to step in to this kind of argument, but I *have* to interject --
Um.... that's not what "formal heresy" means. Your explanation SOUNDS good all right, I'll give you that. But with all due respect, it is the classic kind of error an "armchair theologian" makes.
What you describe is an "obstinate or incorrigible material heretic". Not a formal heretic.
A formal heretic is one who has been FORMALLY condemned for heresy. And part of that condemnation is an excommunication from the Church. That also normally takes place after some kind of canonical trial -- every condemned/excommunicated FORMAL heretic gets his day in court first. The Church is fair.
The Church also makes it clear -- it doesn't leave laymen to decide if this or that person is a formal heretic or not. Otherwise people could argue all the time about this-or-that person being a heretic. In the olden days, that would involve matters of secular authority as well, when all of Europe was Catholic.
See, if we talked about excommunicating someone, we'd instinctively agree that laymen can't do that. But we can say "he's a formal heretic if he's corrected and doesn't acknowledge his error" -- that sounds somewhat believable.
Part of the Crisis in the Church is the fact that "The first chair is judged by no one" or however that expression goes. There is no one above the Pope to keep him in check -- or excommunicate him.
Unfortunately, for so many die hard Lefebvrists and Resisters of whatever flavor, no matter how compelling the evidence you provide from the Magisterium is, they will remain blind to the truth and obstinate in their errors.Well, My Friend Colin, you certainly have not provided any compelling evidence against Archbishop Lefebvre nor the Resistance. It is absurd that someone outside can command, you emphasise from Pope Leo XIII. No doubt this is why St Robert Bellarmine teaches that the Pope, "unless he were first convicted by the legitimate judgement of a Council and is not the Supreme Pontiff... as long as he is not declared or judged to have legitimately been deprived of his rule, is always the supreme judge", that is, he remains on the inside. Now this is only the opinion of one theologian, obviously. Opinions vary, and the question of the heretic pope has never been settled by the Church. Some like you want to settle it definitively and force that opinion on the Catholic world, and herein lies the problem and the source of division.
You are using "formal" as a synonym for what the Church calls a "declared" heretic.We cannot judge the intention, Angelus, that is the issue. It requires admonitions from the authority to demonstrate pertinacity to make that formal intention manifest. St Robert Bellarmine holds that authority to be a Council. But here again, the issue is not settled and so it is not for us to create a new dogma obliging Catholics. Let us adhere to what is certain.
I am using the term "formal" as "intention" which Aquinas explains in the following passage:
There are also serious implications for rejecting the man held to be Pope by the entire Catholic world. That is why Archbishop Lefebvre, while he had the discussion, deemed it imprudent and unjust to draw the sedevacantist conclusion which he considered too simple and absolutely not certain.
This seems worthy of discussion...not distraction. There are serious implications for accepting a heretic as your rule of faith.
If you believe he's the pope, why don't you follow him closely? He's your rule of faith...Well, the pope is not our rule of faith, dogma is. Dogma is divinely revealed truth, it is the truth that is constant, that never changes, truth is what binds us all, even popes.
The evidence is pretty clear on this guy...do yourself a favor, and learn more about your Catholic Faith. You seem somewhat engaged on this forum, surely you can do some research on the man you consider the principle and center of the unity of faith...no?
Well, the pope is not our rule of faith, dogma is. Dogma is divinely revealed truth, it is the truth that is constant, that never changes, truth is what binds us all, even popes.
One of the things I don't understand is how sedes insist that the pope is their rule of faith, at the same time insist there is no pope. What happened to their rule? What happened to their faith? What happened to truth and dogma?
Outside of the fact that what you stated here is proximate to heresy, if not outright heretical, you asked “what happened to their rule?” It is the same thing that happens to our “rule” when a pope dies and we are in a state of interregnum.I think I've been charitable answering all of your questions in this thread and the other thread QV, how is it that you falsely accuse me being a heretic because I insist the pope is the pope?
You embrace error just so you can say that the swine in white is the reigning pope. You have nothing to do with him and you ignore everything he teaches you, but as long as he wears white and 99.9% of nonbelievers call him “the pope”, you believe it and you feel safe.
Incidentally, is it one of your dogmas that he is a real pope or is it doubtful he is the pope?
I think I've been charitable answering all of your questions in this thread and the other thread QV, how is it that you falsely accuse me being a heretic because I insist the pope is the pope?
You have done nothing in this and the other thread except ask me questions - and I have answered them all, but apparently, is it because that you cannot refute even one of my answers that in your frustration you accuse me of stating heresy?
I asked that without a pope, what happened to your rule, your dogma and your truth - and instead of answering, you come at me with the same old ridiculous ad hominem. I am letting you know just in case you didn't notice.
Fr Hesse, who has read a great many of ABL's sermons and such, concluded it safest to name the pope in the Canon, considering the judgment of God on his soul to be more severe if the pope (JPII at the time) really was pope and he didn't name him, vs the other way around.But that did happen, many times, Ratzinger stated it cannot be expected of the Eastern Schismatics to accept Vatican I and both him and Wojtyla promomted the Vatican-Lutheran agreement which states the canons of Trent no longer apply. That's blatant heresy and directly acknowledging that what was dogmatically taught before need not be accepted now.
He also taught that formal heresy of the pope would be known by the pope saying what the church has taught, but saying that he teaches differently.
If someone can converse with Pope Francis and get him to admit his belief that the church taught one thing, and admit his teaching or belief in something contrary, then you've got him in formal heresy, as best as I understand it. The the question is, who's going to do anything worth while about that formal heresy? Who's going to elect a non heretic pope to replace him? At least clear formal heresy would make it a lot easier for many to become sedevacantists.
If someone can converse with Pope Francis and get him to admit his belief that the church taught one thing, and admit his teaching or belief in something contrary, then you've got him in formal heresy, as best as I understand it. The the question is, who's going to do anything worth while about that formal heresy? Who's going to elect a non heretic pope to replace him? At least clear formal heresy would make it a lot easier for many to become sedevacantists.I don't see any reason to "become sedevacantist." I mean, aside from separating myself from non-sedevacantists and maybe joining the others who've done the same, declare "I'm a sedevacantist" and stop praying for the man, what would be the point?
I asked that without a pope, what happened to your rule, your dogma and your truth - and instead of answering, you come at me with the same old ridiculous ad hominem. I am letting you know just in case you didn't notice.
If you read again what I wrote, I never stated that you are a heretic. I suggested that what you promote is proximate to heresy or is heretical. Also, I never even alluded to the notion that if you believe that Bergoglio is a true pope that that makes you a heretic.Of course I understand that, by you saying "what you stated here is proximate to heresy, if not outright heretical" *to me* means that I believe / am preaching heresy = I am guilty of the sin of heresy = I am a heretic - whether you say it plain or not.
This is why I’m convinced that you really don’t understand or don’t want to understand the principles that are at stake here. You seem to have your mind made up, that Bergoglio is the pope, and you are willing to sacrifice any doctrine to make yourself right.
Before we go further, I want you to realize, understand, and acknowledge that there is a distinction of what I wrote in the first paragraph. Will you admit to that?
Again, if you read what wrote, I did answer your question: “It is the same thing that happens to our “rule” when a pope dies and we are in a state of interregnum.”But it's not the same. Nobody ever insisted any of the Pope Pius' was a heretic during his interregnum. Separated themselves from other Catholics on that account during his interregnum. Started their own chapels, seminaries etc, etc, etc., during his interregnum.
Well, the pope is not our rule of faith, dogma is. Dogma is divinely revealed truth, it is the truth that is constant, that never changes, truth is what binds us all, even popes.You are blind. Your understanding of the nature of the Church’s teaching authority is so deficient and grossly warped, one could not without great difficulty say you actually profess the Catholic Faith.
One of the things I don't understand is how sedes insist that the pope is their rule of faith, at the same time insist there is no pope. What happened to their rule? What happened to their faith? What happened to truth and dogma?
So there you have it. The rule of faith for Catholics is the Magisterium of the Vicar of Christ.
…[T]his sacred Office of Teacher in matters of faith and morals must be the proximate and universal criterion of truth for all theologians, since to it has been entrusted by Christ Our Lord the whole deposit of faith — Sacred Scripture and divine Tradition — to be preserved, guarded and interpreted…. Nor must it be thought that what is expounded in Encyclical Letters does not of itself demand consent, since in writing such Letters the Popes do not exercise the supreme power of their Teaching Authority. For these matters are taught with the ordinary teaching authority, of which it is true to say: “He who heareth you, heareth me” [Lk 10:16]; and generally what is expounded and inculcated in Encyclical Letters already for other reasons appertains to Catholic doctrine.
(Encyclical Humani Generis (http://www.papalencyclicals.net/pius12/p12human.htm), nn. 18, 20)
“The words which Christ said of Himself, 'He that gathers with me not, scatters' can be applied to the Roman Pontiff, who holds the place of God on earth. Ground your whole wisdom in an absolute obedience & constant adherence to this Chair."
Pope Pius IX
Per Tristissima
St. Thomas… (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14663b.htm) And still more explicitly when (Quodl., ix, art. 16) he asks whether canonized (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02364b.htm) saints (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04171a.htm) are necessarily in heaven (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07170a.htm), he says, "it is certain (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03539b.htm) that the judgment of the universal Church cannot possibly err (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05525a.htm) in matters pertaining to the faith (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05752c.htm); hence we must stand rather by the decisions which the pope (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12260a.htm) judicially pronounces than by the opinions of men, however learned they may be in Holy Scripture (https://www.newadvent.org/bible)."
Catholic Encyclopedia
Further, since the Church (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03744a.htm) is the kingdom (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08646a.htm) of the truth (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15073a.htm), so that an essential (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05543b.htm) note in all her members is the act (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01115a.htm)of submission by which they accept the doctrine (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05075b.htm) of Christ (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08374c.htm) in its entirety, supreme power in this kingdom (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08646a.htm)carries with it a supreme magisterium (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15006b.htm) — authority to declare that doctrine (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05075b.htm) and to prescribe a rule of faith (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05766b.htm)obligatory (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11189a.htm) on all. Here, too, Peter (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11744a.htm) is subordinated to none save his Master (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08374c.htm) alone; he is the supreme teacher as he is the supreme ruler.
Catholic Encyclopedia
I'm afraid that there's long been confusion about the term "formal heresy". No, it isn't the equivalent of formal / official condemnation by the Church. Nor is it an internal forum consideration that's tantamount to being "insincere". It's often said that those who are "sincere" are not formal heretics ... as a part of the over-200-year-old campaign to gut EENS dogma.Formal or material or just plain stupid - the pope is a heretic. He is guilty of the sin of heresy. He/they made it public so the whole world knows, the problem for some is that there is nothing anyone can do about it..
… for men are not bound, or able to read hearts; but when they see that someone is a heretic by his external works, they judge him to be a heretic pure and simple, and condemn him as a heretic.
You are blind. Your understanding of the nature of the Church’s teaching authority is so deficient and grossly warped, one could not without great difficulty say you actually profess the Catholic Faith.Please change your screen name to: "Your Enemy Colin."
So there you have it. The rule of faith for Catholics is the Magisterium of the Vicar of Christ.
Of course I understand that, by you saying "what you stated here is proximate to heresy, if not outright heretical" *to me* means that I believe / am preaching heresy = I am guilty of the sin of heresy = I am a heretic - whether you say it plain or not.
Formal or material or just plain stupid - the pope is a heretic. He is guilty of the sin of heresy. He/they made it public so the whole world knows, the problem for some is that there is nothing anyone can do about it..
THIS IS EXACTLY WHY YOU SHOULDN’T BE PUBLICLY WRITING ABOUT THESE MATTERS. There is a great difference and until you understand the difference, you should refrain from writing and spreading your erroneous beliefs.And the question remains unanswered.
Of course I understand that, by you saying "what you stated here is proximate to heresy, if not outright heretical" *to me* means that I believe / am preaching heresy = I am guilty of the sin of heresy = I am a heretic - whether you say it plain or not.
Most of my replies to you, far as I remember, are quoted or paraphrased from memory from papal teachings, Fr. Wathen, Fr. Hesse and a few other priests/bishops etc.
The principle I live by and have always lived by is the highest in the Church and is in my sig, every other idea, thought, mention and principle must not put a hole in that principle. The principles you are trying to demonstrate by your questions are a distant second to that principle.
For me, I reduce the issue to the most basic, simplest, and highest principle of the Church, I will always return to that principle as needed to check other principles, meanwhile you're questions completely ignore, or pay zero attention to this principle, as if it's either wrong or does not apply here as you needlessly complicate the whole issue.
Will you admit to that?
Further, since the Church (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03744a.htm) is the kingdom (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08646a.htm) of the truth (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15073a.htm), so that an essential (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05543b.htm) note in all her members is the act (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01115a.htm)of submission by which they accept the doctrine (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05075b.htm) of Christ (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08374c.htm) in its entirety, supreme power in this kingdom (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08646a.htm)carries with it a supreme magisterium (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15006b.htm) — authority to declare that doctrine (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05075b.htm) and to prescribe a rule of faith (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05766b.htm)obligatory (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11189a.htm) on all. Here, too, Peter (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11744a.htm) is subordinated to none save his Master (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08374c.htm) alone; he is the supreme teacher as he is the supreme ruler.
Catholic Encyclopedia
You have deliberately chosen to only cite Fr. Hesse or Fr. Wathen as your sources because you agree with their conclusions. The false teachings of those two priests have absolutely no weight.My Enemy Colin, sad to say but you have zero clue. In your quote below of HG, I have been the one in this thread defending this teaching - I have repeated many times: "the pope is infallible when he defines a doctrine concerning faith and morals to be held by the whole Church." Apparently you do not understand what it is you're reading.
The entire history of the Church, the Popes, the Fathers, Doctors, Saints, Theologians, indeed, the entire Catholic Magisterium stands in contradiction to your erroneous beliefs. If you actually had a desire for the truth, and put in a modest degree of effort in research, you would readily see this.
…[T]his sacred Office of Teacher in matters of faith and morals must be the proximate and universal criterion of truth for all theologians, since to it has been entrusted by Christ Our Lord the whole deposit of faith — Sacred Scripture and divine Tradition — to be preserved, guarded and interpreted….
The entire history of the Church, the Popes, the Fathers, Doctors, Saints, Theologians, indeed, the entire Catholic Magisterium stands in contradiction to your erroneous beliefs. If you actually had a desire for the truth, and put in a modest degree of effort in research, you would readily see this.
Please change your screen name to: "Your Enemy Colin."Everything I stated is true and I defended the divinely revealed truth concerning the authority of the Church’s Magisterium with her own teachings.
The Catholic doctrine touching the Church as the rule of faith
The term Church, in this connection, can only denote the teaching Church, as is clear from the passages already quoted from the New Testament (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14530a.htm) and the Fathers. But the teaching Church may be regarded either as the whole body of the episcopate, whether scattered throughout the world or collected in an ecuмenical council (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04423f.htm), or it may be synonymous with the successor of St. Peter (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12260a.htm), the Vicar of Christ. Now the teaching Church is the Apostolic body continuing to the end of time (Matthew 28:19-20 (https://www.newadvent.org/bible/mat028.htm#vrs19)); but only one of the bishops (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02581b.htm), viz., the Bishop of Rome (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12260a.htm), is the successor of St. Peter (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12260a.htm); he alone can be regarded as the living Apostle and Vicar of Christ, and it is only by union with him that the rest of the episcopate can be said to possess the Apostolic character (Vatican Council (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15303a.htm), Sess. IV, Prooemium). Hence, unless they be united with the Vicar of Christ, it is futile to appeal to the episcopate in general as the rule of faith
More evidence that, ultimately, the Pope is the rule of faith: :fryingpan:
St Peter’s successors = rule of faith
"...Criterion of truth for all" = dogma is the rule of faith.Who defines dogmas in the Church, Stubborn?
Have a pleasant evening.
…To determine, however, which are the doctrines divinely revealed belongs to the teaching Church, to whom God has entrusted the safekeeping and interpretation of His utterances. But the supreme teacher in the Church is the Roman Pontiff. Union of minds, therefore, requires, together with a perfect accord in the one faith, complete submission and obedience of will to the Church and to the Roman Pontiff, as to God Himself. This obedience should, however, be perfect, because it is enjoined by faith itself, and has this in common with faith, that it cannot be given in shreds; nay, were it not absolute and perfect in every particular, it might wear the name of obedience, but its essence would disappear….
“The faith of the whole Church should be one, according to the precept (1 Cor. 1:10): “Let all speak the same thing, and let there be no schisms among you”; and this cannot be observed save on condition that questions which arise touching faith should be determined by him who presides over the whole Church, whose sentence must consequently be accepted without wavering. And hence to the sole authority of the supreme Pontiff does it pertain to publish a new revision of the symbol, as also to decree all other matters that concern the universal Church.”
In defining the limits of the obedience owed to the pastors of souls, but most of all to the authority of the Roman Pontiff, it must not be supposed that it is only to be yielded in relation to dogmas of which the obstinate denial cannot be disjoined from the crime of heresy. Nay, further, it is not enough sincerely and firmly to assent to doctrines which, though not defined by any solemn pronouncement of the Church, are by her proposed to belief, as divinely revealed, in her common and universal teaching, and which the [First] Vatican Council declared are to be believed “with Catholic and divine faith.” But this likewise must be reckoned amongst the duties of Christians, that they allow themselves to be ruled and directed by the authority and leadership of bishops, and, above all, of the Apostolic See
Wherefore it belongs to the Pope to judge authoritatively what things the sacred oracles contain, as well as what doctrines are in harmony, and what in disagreement, with them; and also, for the same reason, to show forth what things are to be accepted as right, and what to be rejected as worthless; what it is necessary to do and what to avoid doing, in order to attain eternal salvation. For, otherwise, there would be no sure interpreter of the commands of God, nor would there be any safe guide showing man the way he should live.
(Encyclical Sapientiae Christianae (http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Leo13/l13sapie.htm), nn. 21-22, 24)
As regards opinion, whatever the Roman Pontiffs have hitherto taught, or shall hereafter teach, must be held with a firm grasp of mind, and, so often as occasion requires, must be openly professed.Again, more irrefutable evidence that you are wrong when you stated that the Pope is not the rule of faith.
(Encyclical Immortale Dei (http://www.papalencyclicals.net/leo13/l13sta.htm), n. 41)
My Enemy Colin,.
I had a huge debate with a poster name Drew who said that "Tradition" is the rule of faith ... as he failed to distinguish between remote and proximate.I should have been more precise.
Now, this does not mean that the Pope is infallible every time he breaks wind, but Msgr. Fenton's explanation provides the most balanced Catholic articulation between the extremes of considering everything he says infallible and allowing his Magisterium to become so corrupt that it's not only no longer a reliable r faith, but that it can even become harmful to souls.
I should have been more precise.If only the fathers of the Vatican Council I had you as adviser to improve the accuracy of their definition, Colin.
When the legitimate successor of St. Peter teaches the whole Church a doctrine concerning matters of faith and morals, that is the rule of faith.
If only the fathers of the Vatican Council I had you as adviser to improve the accuracy of their definition, Colin.That is how the subsequent theologians and Popes interpreted Vatican I. If you read the quotes I provided, you would see I only restated their conclusions.
If only the fathers of the Vatican Council I had you as adviser to improve the accuracy of their definition, Colin.If you disagree with that statement, you have to necessarily say that the Church’s Magisterium is capable of teaching pernicious error to the whole Church, which is absurd.
That is how the subsequent theologians and Popes interpreted Vatican I. If you read the quotes I provided, you would see I only restated their conclusions.That is false. Vatican I does not admit of interpretation, it defined very clearly when the Pope is infallible, under what conditions Peter enjoys that charism of 'never failing faith'.
If you disagree with that statement, you have to necessarily say that the Church’s Magisterium is capable of teaching pernicious error to the whole Church, which is absurd.There is nothing absurd about it. We cannot exclude that possibility, since the Church has never taught the contrary. What we can state with absolute certainty is that when the Pope engages his infallibility, as defined by Vatican I, then, and then only, is his infallibility guaranteed. When he is not infallible as defined by the Church, the possibility of his being fallible is obvious. Unless you want to be your own pope and construct your own dogmas. Here is Vatican I: accept it and submit as a good child of Holy Mother Church:
That is false. Vatican I does not admit of interpretation, it defined very clearly when the Pope is infallible, under what conditions Peter enjoys that charism of 'never failing faith'.Yes, PV. And the holy fathers of the Council of Trent also told us what the "firm and alone foundation" that would prevail against the gates of hell was - the truths enshrined in the Nicene Creed:
For which cause, this council has thought good, that the Symbol of faith which the holy Roman Church makes use of,–as being that principle wherein all who profess the faith of Christ necessarily agree, and that firm and alone foundation against which the gates of hell shall never prevail,–be expressed in the very same words in which it is read in all the churches. Which Symbol is as follows:
Council of Trent, Third Session, Decree Touching the Symbol of Faith
I believe in one God, the Father Almighty, maker of heaven and earth,
of all things visible and invisible; and in one Lord Jesus Christ,
the only-begotten Son of God, and born of the Father before all ages;
God of God, light of light, true God of true God; begotten, not made,
consubstantial with the Father, by whom all things were made:
who for us men, and for our salvation, came down from the heavens,
and was incarnate by the Holy Ghost of the Virgin Mary, and was made man:
crucified also for us under Pontius Pilate, he suffered and was buried;
and he rose again on the third day, according to the Scriptures;
and he ascended into heaven, sitteth at the right hand of the Father ;
and again he will come with glory to judge the living and the dead;
of whose kingdom there shall be no end: and in the Holy Ghost the Lord,
and the giver of life, who proceedeth from the Father and the Son;
who with the Father and the Son together is adored and glorified;
who spoke by the prophets and one holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.
I confess one baptism for the remission of sins;
and I look for the resurrection of the dead,
and the life of the world to come.
Amen.
https://www.papalencyclicals.net/councils/trent/third-session.htm
More evidence that, ultimately, the Pope is the rule of faith: :fryingpan:And what/who is the pope's rule of faith? According to you and the other sedes, he's his own rule of faith. All we can say to that, is :facepalm:
St Peter’s successors = rule of faith
I had a huge debate with a poster name Drew who said that "Tradition" is the rule of faith ... as he failed to distinguish between remote and proximate.Then per his explanation (which after V2 even he did not believe - but far as I know he never corrected himself), all trads should denounce tradism and convert to the NO, which is what the popes (and all the bishops in union with him) preach and on that account, not only can it not harm the faithful but is pleasing to God.
Now, this does not mean that the Pope is infallible every time he breaks wind, but Msgr. Fenton's explanation provides the most balanced Catholic articulation between the extremes of considering everything he says infallible and allowing his Magisterium to become so corrupt that it's not only no longer a reliable rule of faith, but that it can even become harmful to souls.
Then per his explanation (which after V2 even he did not believe - but far as I know he never corrected himself)...In the links below is a truly excellent Fr. Fenton rant from 1977 or so - and his rant gets better as the talk goes on until the end of part 2.
Then per his explanation (which after V2 even he did not believe - but far as I know he never corrected himself), all trads should denounce tradism and convert to the NO, which is what the popes (and all the bishops in union with him) preach and on that account, not only can it not harm the faithful but is pleasing to God.Ladislaus is referring to the theologian, Joseph Clifford Fenton who died in 1969. He is not Fr. Francis E Fenton, to whom you refer.
There is nothing absurd about it. We cannot exclude that possibility, since the Church has never taught the contrary. What we can state with absolute certainty is that when the Pope engages his infallibility, as defined by Vatican I, then, and then only, is his infallibility guaranteed. When he is not infallible as defined by the Church, the possibility of his being fallible is obvious. Unless you want to be your own pope and construct your own dogmas. Here is Vatican I: accept it and submit as a good child of Holy Mother Church:Just to clarify: you believe the Church is capable of teaching pernicious errors to all the faithful concerning matters of faith and morals?
- For the holy Spirit was promised to the successors of Peter
Indeed, their apostolic teaching was
- not so that they might, by his revelation, make known some new doctrine,
- but that, by his assistance, they might religiously guard and faithfully expound the revelation or deposit of faith transmitted by the apostles.
for they knew very well that this see of St. Peter always remains unblemished by any error, in accordance with the divine promise of our Lord and Saviour to the prince of his disciples: I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail; and when you have turned again, strengthen your brethren [60] .
- embraced by all the venerable fathers and
- reverenced and followed by all the holy orthodox doctors,
- This gift of truth and never-failing faith was therefore divinely conferred on Peter and his successors in this see so that they might discharge their exalted office for the salvation of all, and so that the whole flock of Christ might be kept away by them from the poisonous food of error and be nourished with the sustenance of heavenly doctrine. Thus the tendency to schism is removed and the whole church is preserved in unity, and, resting on its foundation, can stand firm against the gates of hell.
- But since in this very age when the salutary effectiveness of the apostolic office is most especially needed, not a few are to be found who disparage its authority, we judge it absolutely necessary to affirm solemnly the prerogative which the only-begotten Son of God was pleased to attach to the supreme pastoral office.
- Therefore,
So then, should anyone, which God forbid, have the temerity to reject this definition of ours: let him be anathema.
- faithfully adhering to the tradition received from the beginning of the christian faith,
- to the glory of God our saviour,
- for the exaltation of the catholic religion and
- for the salvation of the christian people,
- with the approval of the sacred council,
- we teach and define as a divinely revealed dogma that
- when the Roman pontiff speaks EX CATHEDRA,
- that is, when,
- in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians,
- in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority,
- he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole church,
- he possesses,
- by the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter,
- that infallibility which the divine Redeemer willed his church to enjoy in defining doctrine concerning faith or morals.
- Therefore, such definitions of the Roman pontiff are of themselves, and not by the consent of the church, irreformable.
Ladislaus is referring to the theologian, Joseph Clifford Fenton who died in 1969. He is not Fr. Francis E Fenton, to whom you refer.Ah thanks, I missed that completely.
• It would be unthinkable that the Vicar of Christ could speak, in his official capacity to the entire Church militant, on a matter of faith or morals, definitively settling a question by a decision which he wishes to constitute as irrevocable and which he commands the faithful to accept as irrevocably and absolutely true, without being protected by his charism of doctrinal infallibility.
Thus circuмstantial solemnity, as such, has no absolutely neces- sary connection with the infallibility of a pontifical definition.
Msg. Joseph Clifford FentonSince V2, it is no longer unthinkable - as the recordings of the other Fr. Fenton above say. His last sentence you quoted here, double talks what he just said prior in your quote. But what he ends up teaching in that last sentence, is the message everyone gets from that sentence, which is that the pope has additional infallibility not taught at V1, i.e. not only doctrinal, but also personal, (he more clearly articulates his error in this quote (https://www.cathinfo.com/crisis-in-the-church/cassiciacuм-thesis-vs-fr-chazal's-position/msg918137/#msg918137)) and most people believe his error to be an authentic teaching of the Church - and the sedes use this error of personal infallibility as their impetus for insisting popes are not popes.
Infallibility in the Encyclicals
American Ecclesiastical ReviewQuote• It would be unthinkable that the Vicar of Christ could speak, in his official capacity to the entire Church militant, on a matter of faith or morals, definitively settling a question by a decision which he wishes to constitute as irrevocable and which he commands the faithful to accept as irrevocably and absolutely true, without being protected by his charism of doctrinal infallibility.
Thus circuмstantial solemnity, as such, has no absolutely neces- sary connection with the infallibility of a pontifical definition.
Earlier in the article:
Since V2, it is no longer unthinkable - as the recordings of the other Fr. Fenton above say. His last sentence you quoted here, double talks what he just said prior in your quote. But what he ends up teaching in that last sentence, is the message everyone gets from that sentence, which is that the pope has additional infallibility not taught at V1, i.e. not only doctrinal, but also personal, (he more clearly articulates his error in this quote (https://www.cathinfo.com/crisis-in-the-church/cassiciacuм-thesis-vs-fr-chazal's-position/msg918137/#msg918137)) and most people believe his error to be an authentic teaching of the Church - and the sedes use this error of personal infallibility as their impetus for insisting popes are not popes.
V1 is quite clear on the conditions for papal infallibility, namely, 1) when he defines a doctrine 2)concerning faith or morals 3)to be held by the whole Church. As such, whenever the pope wants to settle a question by an irrevocable decision infallibly, then he must do so according to the requirements of papal infallibly as defined at V1.
The second reason commonly alleged against the existence of infallible teaching in the papal encyclicals is founded on the two- fold contention that the Holy Father speaks infallibly only when he issues a definition or declaration ex cathedra and that a state-the beginning of the article, Fenton states:
ment in a papal encyclical cannot be an ex cathedra pronouncement.
Both Cardinal Billot and Fr. Salaverri oppose the first of these statements. Both are convinced that there are infallible doctrinal statements issued by the Holy Father which do not lend themselves to classification as ex cathedra judgments. It is in line with this conviction that Cardinal Billot was willing to admit the existence of infallible teachings in the papal encyclicals, which he did not
consider to be ex cathedra docuмents.
Cardinal Louis Billot was certainly one of the greatest ecclesi- ologists of the generation just past. There are many who consider him the ablest writer on the treatise de ecclesia since the time of the Vatican Council. Fr. Joachim Salaverri, of the Jesuit faculty of theology in the Pontifical Institute of Comillas in Spain, holds very much the same position in the theological world of the mid- twentieth century that Cardinal Billot occupied in that of fifty years ago.So we have three heavy weight theologians holding that infallible teaching can be contained in Encyclicals not classified as ex cathedra. That can’t be dismissed.
The fact of the matter is that every doctrine taught by the Holy Father in his capacity as the Vicar of Christ must, by the very con- stitution of the Church militant of the New Testament, be accepted by the faithful for what it is. If it is an infallible declaration, it is to be accepted with an absolutely firm and irrevocable assent. If it is a non-infallible statement, it must be accepted with a firm but
conditional mental assent. Actually there is no such thing as a teaching issued by the Holy Father in his capacity as the spiritual ruler and teacher of all the followers of Jesus Christ which is other than authoritative. Our Lord did not teach in any way other than authoritatively, nor does His Vicar on earth when he teaches in the name and by the author- ity of his Master. Every doctrine proposed by the Holy Father to the entire Church militant is, by that very fact, imposed upon all the
faithful for their firm and sincere acceptance.
So we have three heavy weight theologians holding that infallible teaching can be contained in Encyclicals not classified as ex cathedra. That can’t be dismissed.Of course I agree, but this presumes they are quoting / explaining (defining) Scripture, or essentially repeating the Magisterium (what the Church has always taught), or what the Church has previously defined ex cathedra.
Continued:"For the holy Spirit was promised to the successors of Peter not so that they might, by his revelation, make known some new doctrine." - V1QuoteThe fact of the matter is that every doctrine taught by the Holy Father in his capacity as the Vicar of Christ must, by the very con- stitution of the Church militant of the New Testament, be accepted by the faithful for what it is. If it is an infallible declaration, it is to be accepted with an absolutely firm and irrevocable assent. If it is a non-infallible statement, it must be accepted with a firm but
conditional mental assent. Actually there is no such thing as a teaching issued by the Holy Father in his capacity as the spiritual ruler and teacher of all the followers of Jesus Christ which is other than authoritative. Our Lord did not teach in any way other than authoritatively, nor does His Vicar on earth when he teaches in the name and by the author- ity of his Master. Every doctrine proposed by the Holy Father to the entire Church militant is, by that very fact, imposed upon all the
faithful for their firm and sincere acceptance.
Agreed. But this definition need not necessarily be proclaimed in a grand solemnity such as the Assumption.
V1 is quite clear on the conditions for papal infallibility, namely, 1) when he defines a doctrine 2)concerning faith or morals 3)to be held by the whole Church. As such, whenever the pope wants to settle a question by an irrevocable decision infallibly, then he must do so according to the requirements of papal infallibly as defined at V1.
Can you show me where the church teaches a Pope can proclaim pernicious error or heresy to the whole world in his official teaching capacity?
"For the holy Spirit was promised to the successors of Peter not so that they might, by his revelation, make known some new doctrine." - V1
Note V1 does not say the pope cannot preach some new doctrine, or that the Holy Ghost will prevent popes from teaching new doctrines. Yet this is what is implied or meant in your Fr. Fenton quotes, as well as in the teachings of many other pre-V2 theologians.
In this matter, it is best to use V1 verbatim and exclusively, and either do not use theologians at all, or, if you can find any, use only theologians that agree with V1 without adding anything to it "under the pretext or in the name of a more profound understanding."
V1 also states: "Hence, too,that meaning of the sacred dogmas is ever to be maintained which has once been
declared by holy mother church, and there must never be any abandonment of this sense under the pretext or in the name of a more profound understanding."
Of course I agree, but this presumes they are quoting / explaining (defining) Scripture, or essentially repeating the Magisterium (what the Church has always taught), or what the Church has previously defined ex cathedra.The limitations you placed are directly contrary to what Fr Fenton, Salaverri and Billot asserted.
Even Quo Primum is not infallible, it is certainly not an infallible doctrine, what it is, is a Church law, binding on all Roman Rite Catholics, established via the *supreme authority of the pope,* St. Pius V.
Can you show me where the church teaches a Pope can proclaim pernicious error or heresy to the whole world in his official teaching capacity?There is no such teaching. The Church only teaches to beware of pernicious error or heresy whatever the source.
So far, I’ve cited a plethora of Magisterial docuмents to the contrary.You've cited theologians who've done what V1 condemns as far as abandoning the meaning of the dogma. Again, the pope is not the Church. The Church, which is Christ, will remain without blemish and last until the end of time.
Even without the quotes I’ve thus provided, this can simply be deduced from the Indefectibility of the Church, which teaches that she cannot become corrupt in matter and faith and morals and that she will remain substantially the same in her divine mission, doctrines, disciplines and liturgy. This is a divinely revealed truth.
The limitations you placed are directly contrary to what Fr Fenton, Salaverri and Billot asserted.Yes indeed! The limitations you correctly note are placed by V1, not me - and you are correct, those limitations are indeed contrary to what Fr Fenton, Salaverri and Billot asserted. Which is to say simply, they *all* contradict V1.
I don’t hold Quo Primum to be an irreformable decree. I’m not sure why you mentioned that.
Yes indeed! The limitations you correctly note are placed by V1, not me - and you are correct, those limitations are indeed contrary to what Fr Fenton, Salaverri and Billot asserted. Which is to say simply, they *all* contradict V1.So you’re asking me to disregard Billot, Franzelin, Salaverri, Fenton and the accompanying Magisterial docuмents since Vatican I they use to support their assertions? And I’m supposed to just believe you because you say they’re wrong and your interpretation of Papal infallibility is correct, even though you’ve cited no text in your favor?
I only mentioned Quo Primum as an example intended to demonstrate the difference between papal infallibility and papal authority. And yes, make no mistake about it, Quo Primum is indeed an irreformable decree on the Church's Liturgy of the Roman Rite - the pope, St. Pius V, intended to and actually made it irreformable. He can do that because as pope, he has that supreme authority, and he used his supreme authority to bind everyone, even future popes to this law.
Dogma is binding because of what it is, the pope binds us to it under pain of mortal sin - he binds us to it using the same supreme authority as was used for Quo Primum. But there is no mistake about it, it is the truth that we are bound to.
So you’re asking me to disregard Billot, Franzelin, Salaverri, Fenton and the accompanying Magisterial docuмents since Vatican I they use to support their assertions? And I’m supposed to just believe you because you say they’re wrong and your interpretation of Papal infallibility is correct, even though you’ve cited no text in your favor?No, you are not supposed to believe me, but you are bound to believe V1. Which is to say you are bound to reject everyone and everything contrary to V1.
No, you are not supposed to believe me, but you are bound to believe V1. Which is to say you are bound to reject everyone and everything contrary to V1.Who are the rightful interpreters of the decrees of Vatican I? Is it you?
It is elementary to see the above theologians contradict V1 if you read V1 and also read those theologians. OTOH, it is impossible for Magisterial docuмents to contradict V1. If you think otherwise then you are not correctly understanding either the Magisterial docuмents, or not understanding V1, or not understanding either.
Too many believe as apparently you also believe, that the theologian's teachings are Magisterial docuмents - they're not.
For it is quite foreign to everyone bearing the name of a Christian to trust his own mental powers with such pride as to agree only with those things which he can examine from their inner nature, and to imagine that the Church, sent by God to teach and guide all nations, is not conversant with present affairs and circuмstances; or even that they must obey only in those matters which she has decreed by solemn definition as though her other decisions might be presumed to be false or putting forward insufficient motive for truth and honesty. Quite to the contrary, a characteristic of all true followers of Christ, lettered or unlettered, is to suffer themselves to be guided and led in all things that touch upon faith or morals by the Holy Church of God through its Supreme Pastor the Roman Pontiff, who is himself guided by Jesus Christ Our Lord.
(Pope Pius XI, Encyclical Casti Connubii (http://www.papalencyclicals.net/pius11/p11casti.htm), n. 104)
And then there's this fwiw: (https://mail.sspx.ca/Communicantes/Dec2004/Is_That_Chair_Vacant.htm)
3.1. Can a pope be heretic? It has been taught by various popes that a pope can teach heresy against the Faith. Pope Adrian VI († 1523) stated that: "If by the Roman Church you mean its head or pontiff, it is beyond question that he can err even in matters touching the faith. He does this when he teaches heresy by his own judgment or decretal. In truth, many Roman pontiffs were heretics. The last of them was Pope John XXII († 1334)." Venerable Pope Pius IX († 1878) recognized the danger that a future pope would be a heretic and "teach […] contrary to the Catholic Faith", and he instructed, "do not follow him". He said: "If a future pope teaches anything contrary to the Catholic Faith, do not follow him." (Letter to Bishop Brizen).
Who are the rightful interpreters of the decrees of Vatican I? Is it you?Well, when V1 says the pope is infallible when he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole Church, and theologians turn that into "he cannot teach error to the whole Church," anyone with elementary reading comprehension can interpret that to see the theologians have changed the dogma.
To your last statement, even if they were Magisterial, you would ignore them anyway. In your system, the only mode of promulgating binding teachings are infallible, ex cathedra proclamations with grand solemnity, contrary to the entire history of the Church and common Catholic sense.Magisterial teachings can be and most often are binding. Ex cathedra decrees are merely doctrines, (which are beliefs the Church has always held), defined ex cathedra and are always binding. Both teachings are binding because we owe our religious assent to the truth, it is on that account that we owe our religious assent to all magisterial teachings whether infallible or not, albeit not always with the same degree of religious assent that we owe to dogmas.
You fail to recognize the distinction between teachings requiring divine, Catholic Faith and those requiring lower degrees of assent such as ecclesiastical faith or religious assent.No, this is false.
Stubborn, the following Magisterial teaching completely destroys your entire way of thinking. Will you humbly submit to the Roman Pontiff’s teaching authority, or audaciously resist, and accuse him of being erroneous, since it’s “nOt aN eX cAtHeDrA” pronouncementIt does not destroy my way of thinking, nor does it annihilate R&R.
Completely annihilates R&R
For it is quite foreign to everyone bearing the name of a Christian to trust his own mental powers with such pride as to agree only with those things which he can examine from their inner nature, and to imagine that the Church, sent by God to teach and guide all nations, is not conversant with present affairs and circuмstances; or even that they must obey only in those matters which she has decreed by solemn definition as though her other decisions might be presumed to be false or putting forward insufficient motive for truth and honesty. Quite to the contrary, a characteristic of all true followers of Christ, lettered or unlettered, is to suffer themselves to be guided and led in all things that touch upon faith or morals by the Holy Church of God through its Supreme Pastor the Roman Pontiff, who is himself guided by Jesus Christ Our Lord.Excellent quote.
(Pope Pius XI, Encyclical Casti Connubii (http://www.papalencyclicals.net/pius11/p11casti.htm), n. 104)
Completely annihilates R&R
Excellent quote.Yes, it certainly is!
Who are the rightful interpreters of the decrees of Vatican I? Is it you?No interpretation of Vatican I is required, the definition is clear beyond all doubt, it must be accepted not interpreted. Interpreting definitions is what modernists do.
For it is quite foreign to everyone bearing the name of a Christian to trust his own mental powers with such pride as to agree only with those things which he can examine from their inner nature, and to imagine that the Church, sent by God to teach and guide all nations, is not conversant with present affairs and circuмstances; or even that they must obey only in those matters which she has decreed by solemn definition as though her other decisions might be presumed to be false or putting forward insufficient motive for truth and honesty. Quite to the contrary, a characteristic of all true followers of Christ, lettered or unlettered, is to suffer themselves to be guided and led in all things that touch upon faith or morals by the Holy Church of God through its Supreme Pastor the Roman Pontiff, who is himself guided by Jesus Christ Our Lord.No, this doesn't annihilate R&R at all.
(Pope Pius XI, Encyclical Casti Connubii (http://www.papalencyclicals.net/pius11/p11casti.htm), n. 104)
Completely annihilates R&R
No, this doesn't annihilate R&R at all.Very well said PV!
Just like the quote from Pope Pius XII provided earlier in the thread by QVD, it is laying down the attitude a faithful Catholic ought to have towards the Magisterium.
It certainly is not teaching that the Roman Pontiff is infallibly guided by Our Lord Jesus Christ whenever he pronounces on faith and morals, thus dispensing with every condition for infallibility just laid down by the First Vatican Council in a solemn definition that it very clearly stated was in accord with the Tradition received.
It is utterly ludicrous and makes a mockery of the Magisterium to hold to such an absurdity.
If that were the intention of Popes Pius XI and Pius XII, to contradict what had just been defined (as if they could do so! - unless you use some kind of mental gymnastics to pretend it was not a contradiction, just an addition), then clearly they would have had to do so with equal force and solemnity.
Undoubtedly, in this context, it is to be understood that it is not without very serious reason that one may resist the Roman Pontiff, it would clearly be an extraordinary thing, it is not the ordinary attitude of a Catholic. Just as it is not the ordinary attitude of a child towards his parents. And a Pope teaching contrary to Tradition, as we have seen with since VII, is obviously just such an extraordinary situation.
It is fanciful indeed to interpret these quotes from Pius XI and XII as meaning that the Pope could never teach contrary to Tradition and if he did we would either have to
1. follow him anyway (Conciliar Catholics), or
2. declare him not to be Pope (Sedevacantists)
Yes VII and Colin, these are excellent quotes, but please understand them in the Catholic sense and do not pit them against the solemn definition of infallibility, as received from the Fathers and Tradition, of Vatican I.
Very well said PV!I know, Stubborn, some kind of security I guess. As Bishop Williamson says, if that is what you need to do to keep your faith, then so be it, so long as you come out the other end still in the Catholic Church and recognise a good Pope when we have one. The conclavists make more sense to me, as Matthew often remarks, at least it leads to something practical. However, I am glad that the non-conclavists at least have enough Catholic sense not to throw out everything of the official Church like the conclavists do.
So what do you think sedes believe is the point of turning sede? What is the advantage of becoming a sede?
Yes VII and Colin, these are excellent quotes, but please understand them in the Catholic sense and do not pit them against the solemn definition of infallibility, as received from the Fathers and Tradition, of Vatican I.Sorry, that was meant to read 2V, not VII!!!
I know, Stubborn, some kind of security I guess. As Bishop Williamson says, if that is what you need to do to keep your faith, then so be it, so long as you come out the other end still in the Catholic Church and recognise a good Pope when we have one. The conclavists make more sense to me, as Matthew often remarks, at least it leads to something practical. However, I am glad that the non-conclavists at least have enough Catholic sense not to throw out everything of the official Church like the conclavists do.I understand +Willimason's thoughts there and do not disagree entirely, but I'm not so sure that the theological gymnastics needed to become sede should be included in the "do what you need to do" idea. There is a whole lot more to sedeism than a vacant chair. I see no advantage at all, and I see no fruitful point in sedeism. If I am missing the point or advantage then I am missing something in all of this.
Sorry, that was meant to read 2V, not VII!!!Hahaha. At some point I noticed that my "name" is backwards of V2. It wasn't intentional, but I like it.
No, this doesn't annihilate R&R at all.No one is saying that it equates with "papal infallibility" as defined at Vatican I.
Just like the quote from Pope Pius XII provided earlier in the thread by QVD, it is laying down the attitude a faithful Catholic ought to have towards the Magisterium.
It certainly is not teaching that the Roman Pontiff is infallibly guided by Our Lord Jesus Christ whenever he pronounces on faith and morals, thus dispensing with every condition for infallibility just laid down by the First Vatican Council in a solemn definition that it very clearly stated was in accord with the Tradition received.
It is utterly ludicrous and makes a mockery of the Magisterium to hold to such an absurdity.
If that were the intention of Popes Pius XI and Pius XII, to contradict what had just been defined (as if they could do so! - unless you use some kind of mental gymnastics to pretend it was not a contradiction, just an addition), then clearly they would have had to do so with equal force and solemnity.
Undoubtedly, in this context, it is to be understood that it is not without very serious reason that one may resist the Roman Pontiff, it would clearly be an extraordinary thing, it is not the ordinary attitude of a Catholic. Just as it is not the ordinary attitude of a child towards his parents. And a Pope teaching contrary to Tradition, as we have seen with since VII, is obviously just such an extraordinary situation.
It is fanciful indeed to interpret these quotes from Pius XI and XII as meaning that the Pope could never teach contrary to Tradition and if he did we would either have to
1. follow him anyway (Conciliar Catholics), or
2. declare him not to be Pope (Sedevacantists)
Yes VII and Colin, these are excellent quotes, but please understand them in the Catholic sense and do not pit them against the solemn definition of infallibility, as received from the Fathers and Tradition, of Vatican I.
No one is saying that it equates with "papal infallibility" as defined at Vatican I.This is an excellent point 2V.
What it is saying is that we are to be "guided and led in all things that touch upon faith or morals by the Holy Church of God through its Supreme Pastor the Roman Pontiff".
As I said upthread (or maybe it was another thread), this isn't about "Papal infallibility". It's about the Church's infallibility. So, this quote is actually more support for the Church's infallibility regarding its teachings on faith and morals.
The Church cannot err in these matters through its Supreme Pastor. Otherwise, Pius XI would not command us to be guided and led in all things that touch upon faith and morals. Nowhere does Pope Pius XI even imply that we can pick and choose or to sift what we believe to be correct when dealing with Church teachings pertaining to faith and morals or anything that even touches upon them.
No one is saying that it equates with "papal infallibility" as defined at Vatican I.Please, 2Vermont, read again the solemn teaching of Vatican I about when we are infallibly guided by the Supreme Pastor, the Roman Pontiff, in faith and morals. If you dispense with the conditions laid down and 'improve' upon the definition of the Church, if you falsely interpret Pope Pius XI and Pius XII as doing this, you reject the definition and incur a very grave penalty. This definition is irreformable, as you can read. Please do not try to reform it. This is the INFALLIBILITY that by the divine assistance promised to the POPE in Blessed PETER, Our Divine Redeemer willed His CHURCH to enjoy: Here it is, from the dogmatic constitution Pastor Aeternus:
What it is saying is that we are to be "guided and led in all things that touch upon faith or morals by the Holy Church of God through its Supreme Pastor the Roman Pontiff".
As I said upthread (or maybe it was another thread), this isn't about "Papal infallibility". It's about the Church's infallibility. So, this quote is actually more support for the Church's infallibility regarding its teachings on faith and morals.
The Church cannot err in these matters through its Supreme Pastor. Otherwise, Pius XI would not command us to be guided and led in all things that touch upon faith and morals. Nowhere does Pope Pius XI even imply that we can pick and choose or to sift what we believe to be correct when dealing with Church teachings pertaining to faith and morals or anything that even touches upon them.
It's about the Church's infallibility.There’s no such thing. There aren’t 2 infallibility’s but only one. The pope has infallibility and that’s it. The Church is infallible because of the pope. The Church is an institution; an inanimate object; it can’t teach, except by way of the pope. “Church teaching” is just an expression which contains all historical authoritative teachings by prior popes.
Show me the proof of his formal heresy, I don't follow him very closely. Thank you.Gladly:"No one can be condemned for ever, because that is not the logic of the Gospel" - Amoris Laetitia #297 (2016) That is in complete contrast to what Christ taught in the Gospels. However, I'm not surprised at Bergoglio's formal teachings of error because he is a Jesuit and the Jesuits have done more to undermine the Church and the faith of its members (just in the last 100 years) than any Freemason has ever done. Why else do you think the Jesuit order was originally abolished? They never should've been reinstated.
Gladly:"No one can be condemned for ever, because that is not the logic of the Gospel" - Amoris Laetitia #297 (2016) That is in complete contrast to what Christ taught in the Gospels. However, I'm not surprised at Bergoglio's formal teachings of error because he is a Jesuit and the Jesuits have done more to undermine the Church and the faith of its members (just in the last 100 years) than any Freemason has ever done. Why else do you think the Jesuit order was originally abolished? They never should've been reinstated.Hank, what a terrible thing to say about the sons of St Ignatius. Do you not realise it is the Freemasons who have infiltrated the Jesuits that is the problem, and not the glorious order founded by this great saint? It is like saying the Catholic Church should never have been founded because of crisis that is currently afflicting Her. If the Jesuits were not there, the enemy would have used other means, which of course it has. The corruption of the best is the worst, therein lies part of the answer.
Read St Robert Bellarmine again, it is exactly the same teaching on infallibility as Vatican I. Understand Popes Pius XI and XII accordingly and you will not break with Tradition and the Catholic teaching:
"'I have prayed for thee that thy faith not fail; and when you have converted, strengthen your brethren' (Luke 22:31). From this text, St Bernard in letter 90 to Pope Innocent deduced that the Roman Pontiff teaching ex cathedra cannot err; and before him the same was said by Pope Lucius I in letter I to the Bishops of Spain and France, by Pope Felix I in a letter to Benignus, Pope Mark in a letter to Athanasius, Leo I in sermon 3..., Leo IX in a letter to Peter Patriarch of Antioch, Agatho in a letter to the Emperor Constantine IV which was read at the Sixth Council (act 4 and again act 8) and approved by the whole Council, Pope Paschal II at the Roman Council..., Innocent III in the chapter Majores on Baptism and its effect... Therefore, if the Roman Pontiff cannot err when he is teaching ex cathedra, certainly his judgement must be followed... For we read Acts ch 15 that the Council said: 'It has seemed good to the Holy Ghost and to us'; such also now is the Pontiff's teaching ex cathedra, whom we showed is always directed by the Holy Ghost so that he cannot err." - St Robert Bellarmine, On the Word of God, Lib 3, Cap 5
You do know what the term ex cathedra means, don't you? Before it became turned into a "short-hand" for meeting the notes of papal infallibility, it was actually just ONE of the notes of an infallible pronouncement, and it simply means "from the chair", i.e. teaching as Pope vs. as a private person. He could teach something "from the chair" that does not meet the other notes of infallibility.Hey Lad.
I'm still waiting for you to produce any teaching, from Pope, Doctor, or Catholic theologian (Old Catholics don't count) holding that the Pope can corrupt the Magisterium, the Mass, and the catalog of saints, so badly that Catholics have to break communion with him to remain Catholic.
You're a blasphemer against Holy Mother Church, and not merely a heretic. You'd be much better off for the sake of your faith to simply go back to the Conciliar Church, into some Motu type situation, like FSSP, and try the old "hermeneutics of continuity" with the post-V2 Magisterium that to become a schismatic and adopt Old Catholic heresies, denying the very foundations of Catholicism. At least those guys are mostly in material error, whereas you're in formal by rejecting the teaching authority of the Church and gutting the very foundations of Catholicism.
THE MEANING OF 'THE POPE AS A PRIVATE PERSON'
You raise an interesting point here. The phrase "the pope as a private person".
It is unclear to me precisely what is meant by this term.
It often seems to be opposed to the Pope invoking his full authority.
Do you have any authoritative clarification?
Hank, what a terrible thing to say about the sons of St Ignatius. Do you not realise it is the Freemasons who have infiltrated the Jesuits that is the problem, and not the glorious order founded by this great saint? It is like saying the Catholic Church should never have been founded because of crisis that is currently afflicting Her. If the Jesuits were not there, the enemy would have used other means, which of course it has. The corruption of the best is the worst, therein lies part of the answer.The days of St. Ignatius, St. Robert Bellarmine and Matteo Ricci are long gone when it comes to great Jesuits. I thought even you would've realize this. There must have been a very good reason why the Jesuit order was abolished in the 18th century. And what have the Jesuits given us in the past 100 years? Just a bunch of Teilhard de Chardins, Karl Rahners and Jorge Bergoglios. It was a clever attempt by you to try and argue that I was lumping all of the Jesuits together from the inception of their Order. Nice try but it's just not so.
Pope is acting as a private person when, say, he's giving interviews to Scalfari or speaking off the cuff or giving a sermon ... that's a loose way of understanding it. But Church law has established that if something appears in Acta Apostolicae Sedis, then it's to be considered authentic Magisterium, i.e. the Pope teaching as Pope (vs. as a private person).Thanks, Lad, I was thinking of its more ancient usage, like when St Robert Bellarmine and Cajetan talk about the Pope as a private person and seem to oppose to that when he is acting in a solemn capacity. I agree with you about its modern usage... perhaps that has always been the meaning, just curious to know if the subject has ever been treated of anywhere.
Now Vatican I adds other conditions to the notes of infallibility, i.e. that he must be teaching about a matter of faith and morals (vs. referring to scientific or historical matters, though the later can implicitly entail matters of faith) and that he must be defining something as having to be held by all the faithful. According to this last criterion, things like the Pope's letter to an individual bishop or diocese would not meet the notes of infallibility.
Thanks, Lad, I was thinking of its more ancient usage, like when St Robert Bellarmine and Cajetan talk about the Pope as a private person and seem to oppose to that when he is acting in a solemn capacity. I agree with you about its modern usage... perhaps that has always been the meaning, just curious to know if the subject has ever been treated of anywhere.
Wherefore, in order that all doubt may be removed regarding a matter of great importance, a matter which pertains to the Church's divine constitution itself, in virtue of my ministry of confirming the brethren (cf. Lk 22:32) I declare that the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women and that this judgment is to be definitively held by all the Church's faithful.
There must have been a very good reason why the Jesuit order was abolished in the 18th century. And what have the Jesuits given us in the past 100 years? Just a bunch of Teilhard de Chardins, Karl Rahners and Jorge Bergoglios.
It may have been, but I don't know. I have generally seen explanations of papal infallibility and a list of the notes of infallibility, but don't recall any explanation for the term ex cathedra. I think that in common parlance the term has become common shorthand for an "infallible" pronouncement, but my reading of Vatican I (and looking at the etymology), it's just one of the notes. He has to be teaching not only from the chair (in his official teaching capacity, as later known by the appearance of something in Acta Apostolicae Sedis), but also has to be defining a matter of faith and morals that must be held by all the faithful.Thanks, I agree.
Where it becomes tricky is that there are many times that the Pope seems to be defining a matter of faith and morals and insisting that the faithful accept the teaching, but without the solemn language. So, for instance, if you believe that Wojtyla was the pope, his teaching that only men could be ordained to the priesthood really does meet the notes of infallibility, even though it didn't appear in some formal dogmatic proclamation.
Here's Wojtyla from an "Apostolic Letter" Ordinatio Sacerdotalis addressed to all the bishops:
1) "a matter which pertains to the Church's divine constitution" = matter of faith and morals
2) "in virtue of my ministry of confirming the brethren" = Pope acting as Pope, from Vatican I, ex cathedra, that is as the teacher of all Christians
3) "I declare" = synonymous with define
4) "this judgment is to be definitively held by all the Church's faithful" = something to be held by all the faithful.
This meets all the notes of infallibility, since he was using nearly all the language of Vatican I.
Problem comes with the pre-Vatican I papal teaching, where they did not necessarily use the explicit language and one might have to INFER from the context whether he intended to teach as Pope and to definitively bind the faithful.