http://www.dominicansavrille.us/is-there-a-conciliar-church/ (http://www.dominicansavrille.us/is-there-a-conciliar-church/)Fair enough. The question stands.
Umm, the study is merely introduced by Avrille, but written by +de Mallerais, and reflective of the position of +Lefebvre and the SSPX (until 2012, anyway).
Hilarious. Do they think the pope can also be the imam of a local mosque at the same time? :laugh1:They'll also tell you that the New Mass was never promulgated for the Catholic Church, but that the pope actually promulgated it for the Conciliar Church instead by accident, even though he said he was promulgating it for the Catholic Church. Easy resolution, no?
They'll also tell you that the New Mass was never promulgated for the Catholic Church, but that the pope actually promulgated it for the Conciliar Church instead by accident, even though he said he was promulgating it for the Catholic Church. Easy resolution, no?Huh? All I know is that Our Lord said you can’t serve two masters.
They'll also tell you that the New Mass was never promulgated for the Catholic Church, but that the pope actually promulgated it for the Conciliar Church instead by accident, even though he said he was promulgating it for the Catholic Church. Easy resolution, no?Sedes and Fellayists and conciliarists do not distinguish between the conciliar church and the Catholic Church.
Huh? All I know is that Our Lord said you can’t serve two masters.Which is why Lefebvre chose to serve the Catholic Church, and declare it a strict duty to separate from the conciliar church.
Sedes and Fellayists and conciliarists do not distinguish between the conciliar church and the Catholic Church.And Old Catholics could just as easily say that (V1) "conciliarists" do not distinguish between the (V1) conciliar church and the Catholic Church. It's unfalsifiable(and also unproveable) nonsense.
Nothing new there.
And Old Catholics could just as easily say that (V1) "conciliarists" do not distinguish between the (V1) conciliar church and the Catholic Church. It's unfalsifiable(and also unproveable) nonsense.Nonsense: Vatican 1 was infallible, and Vatican 2 was not.
Nonsense: Vatican 1 was infallible, and Vatican 2 was not."Ah, but you see, it was a council of the Conciliar Church. Not the Catholic Church."
"Ah, but you see, it was an council Conciliar Church. Not the Catholic Church."
You can come to any nonsensical conclusion you like if you can unilaterally declare any action of the Church to have actually been done by a parallel Church you claim exists. And it's completely unfalsifiable. Pope does anything I like? Done for the Catholic Church. Anything I don't like? Done for the parallel Church said pope doesn't even believe exists. No way to prove me wrong on that if I insist that even the pope saying he does it for the Catholic Church isn't enough.
Nonsense: The Catholic Church is infallible, and the conciliar church is not."The Catholic Church is infallible, and the conciliar church is not." - a hypothetical Old Catholic.
This sede attempt to lump in Vatican 2 with all other councils is embarrassing.
"The Catholic Church is infallible, and the conciliar church is not." - a hypothetical Old Catholic.Forlorn-
What's the difference in principle between you saying it and him saying it? Both of you are just inventing churches to dismiss acts of the Church at your pleasure.
… Vatican 2 was not [infallible].
Forlorn-:laugh1:
If you are too thick headed or dishonest to note the difference between infallible and infallible councils, I don’t think I can help you.
Good luck!
The argument still applies to Sedes too though. Old Catholics could just as easily say "Well Vatican I wasn't a *real* ecuмenical council because Pius IX was an antipope!It is a pet favourite of Sean's to appeal to sedevacantism whenever he can't defend his positions. If he can point out a similar issue in sedevacantism, then the issue with his own position is somehow not a problem. Your postion can be as ridiculous as you like so long as you can point to flaws in an opposing position, apparently.
I don't see how either side can point a finger here, at least on this point.
Just wanted to note before signing out that there are presently 11 members signed in, of whom 6 are sedes.
Cathinfo is the de facto sedevacantist headquarters (which tolerates the Resistance).
Traditional Catholic Forum
A message board for SSPX, Resistance and other Traditional
Catholics to discuss news and matters pertaining to the Catholic Faith.Since 2006
I’ve always had a problem with this theory as well. Unless I misunderstand it, which is very likely, it seems like an impossibility, and a contradiction of Our Lord’s exhortation that a man cannot serve two masters. Even so, it’s an interesting theory, because there clearly are two churches fighting for dominance. The Catholic Church and the anti-Church. I don’t believe that the Pope can be head of both of them. That being the case, a true Pope must be the head of the Catholic Church and not of the Novus Ordo. Does this make JPII and BXVI into anti-Popes? Not in my opinion. Just look at how much allegiance the modernists paid to them. Read Fr. Malachi Martin’s book the Jesuits. Read about how JPII was treated by his priests in Nicaragua. Read about the open revolt against him by these communists. They did not carry out his wishes. They contravened them. He was not their head. Who supported him? Catholics did. Then look at BXVI. You’ve got a similar thing going on. Both of these Popes were confused on a lot of things, but it doesn’t seem clear to me that either of them knowingly and intentionally taught contrary to the Faith. They were weak. Even cowardly. They convinced themselves somehow that they were being faithful sons of the Church. But they were not hostile to the Faith. Intention is important. They allowed the modernists to make headway by being bullied by them - not by leading them. That’s how this mess seems to me. They were true Popes who were total cowards, that did not do what was necessary to defend the Church. Always too little and always too late. In the future, all if this will be clarified. Right now it is unknown to us. However, I do not believe that a man can be the Pope of two churches.The problem with JPII was that he was the manifestation of what St Pius X described in Pascendi.
The problem with JPII was that he was the manifestation of what St Pius X described in Pascendi.The canonization is certainly a problem.
And yet he is considered a Saint by the Modernists.
The argument still applies to Sedes too though. Old Catholics could just as easily say "Well Vatican I wasn't a *real* ecuмenical council because Pius IX was an antipope!
I don't see how either side can point a finger here, at least on this point.
Of course it's not! And whose authority do we have for this assertion? None other than that of Pope Paul VI, who at the council's end reaffirmed the council-opening declaration of John XXIII that it was a pastoral council, not a dogmatic one.Notice this post goes conspicuously unaddressed??
Pastoral matters are ipso facto functions of time and place and hence not doctrinal in nature. They represent temporal applications in the sphere of quotidian human life of unchanging eternal verities.
The presentation of the council as a mandate for wholesale change in ecclesial practice and (effectively) belief has thus been, even by the establishment church's standards, a lie through and through. Why do R&R Trads see that but sedes don't?
Mr. Johnson, that's top right on every page.Could you cite a source for that?
Why whine everytime you run out of arguments?
What can you say to defend the ideas of Tissier de Mallerais?
I stopped to listen to Tissier, when I heard him preach that the SSPX is the Church. That's why he didn't leave for the Resistance. He couldn't leave his Church.
Notice this post goes conspicuously unaddressed??Because it doesn't address the 2 churches concept, which is what this whole thread is about.
Because it doesn't address the 2 churches concept, which is what this whole thread is about.Which church are you referring to?
No one says V2 defined dogma. There's nothing to dispute there. The only point of contention would be can the Church as a body can even fallibly teach things dangerous to souls, but that's completely off-topic.
To state that a true pope presides over different churches is to say that there are different, contradictory beliefs which are true. This is heresy. The catholic faith is one, not many or divided. There is no division in the true church of Christ. It doesn't make sense.Your objections are refuted in the article (which you obviously didn’t read).
870 Dz 468 "With Faith urging us we are forced to believe and to hold the one, holy, Catholic Church and that, apostolic, and we firmly believe and simply confess this (Church) outside which there is no salvation nor remission of sin, the Spouse in the Canticle proclaiming: "One is my dove, my perfect one. One she is of her mother, the chosen of her that bore her" (Ct 6,8 (http://www.clerus.org/bibliaclerusonline/en/dsa.htm#cy)); which represents the one mystical body whose head is Christ, of Christ indeed, as God. And in this, "one Lord, one faith, one baptism" (Ep 4,5 (http://www.clerus.org/bibliaclerusonline/en/dz0.htm#dm)). Certainly Noah had one ark at the time of the flood, prefiguring one Church which perfect on one cubit had one ruler and guide, namely Noah outside which we read all living things on the earth were destroyed." [From the Bull "Unam Sanctam" November 18, 1302] (Ex Cathedra)
Furthermore, Vatican II was absolutely infallible. There are three main reasons.
First, Antipope John XIII convoked the council in solemn language, enacting the unfailing magisterium;JOHN XXIII’S OPENING SPEECH AT VATICAN II, OCT. 11, 1962 (Translated by Timothy Johnson)“The most recent and lowly successor of the same Prince of the Apostles who is addressing you, in convoking this most imposing Assembly, has proposed this for himself, that the Ecclesiastical Magisterium, never failing and persevering even to the end of the times, be once again affirmed; which selfsame Magisterium, taking account of the errors, necessities and opportunities of our age, is, by means of this very Council, being presented to all men, as many as be in the world, in extraordinary form at the present time.”
Secondly, he even calls it "doctrinal in nature"
“These things having been established, sufficiently has been manifested, Venerable Brothers, the role that has been entrusted to the Ecuмenical Council in regard to what pertains to doctrine.” (IBID paragraph 6)
Lastly, Antipope Paul VI (who conferred Vatican II) wrote an encyclical to the entire church (meeting the criteria for infallibility, see Pius IX, Vatican I, Ch. 4, #9) teaching that the council dealt with "doctrine and defining it".
Antipope Paul VI, Ecclesiam Suam (# 30), Aug. 6, 1964: “It is precisely because the Second Vatican Council has the task of dealing once more with the doctrine de Ecclesia (of the Church) and of defining it, that it has been called the continuation and complement of the First Vatican Council.” (Ex Cathedra)
Furthermore, read how the council was closed.
Antipope Paul VI, “Papal” Brief declaring Council Closed, Dec. 8, 1965:
“At last all which regards the holy Ecuмenical Council has, with the help of God, been accomplished and ALL THE CONSTITUTIONS, DECREES, DECLARATIONS, AND VOTES HAVE BEEN APPROVED BY THE DELIBERATION OF THE SYNOD AND PROMULGATED BY US. Therefore, we decided to close for all intents and purposes, WITH OUR APOSTOLIC AUTHORITY, this same Ecuмenical Council called by our predecessor, Pope John XXIII, which opened October 11, 1962, and which was continued by us after his death. WE DECIDE, MOREOVER, THAT ALL THAT HAS BEEN ESTABLISHED SYNODALLY IS TO BE RELIGIOUSLY OBSERVED BY ALL THE FAITHFUL, for the glory of God and the dignity of the Church…
As to the reference that it was called "pastoral in nature", if we examine even just the full sentence, it shows that the application by heretics is incorrect.
"In other words, there will need to be introduced those methods of explaining things which are more in keeping with a Magisterium whose native character is primarily pastoral.” (Antipope John XIII, Opening Speech, 6)
He was stating that the way they wanted to PRESENT the doctrine in a modern way. In other words, they wanted to explain what was solemnly concluded to the world in a way that they believed it reflected how a pastor teaches his flock...
Also, even if I indulge you, saying something is primarily pastoral does not exclude it from also being doctrinal. It doesn't make sense. But he didn't even say this because as we read in the quote, he was referring to "methods of explaining things"
Vatican II was definitely infallible, but it was done so by the devil so that people are led into nonsensical positions which end up in schism while still acknowledging and accepting Vatican II and the all the antipopes, including francis...
Think about it, if you reject Vatican II even though the majority of the clergy and laypeople happily accept it and endorse it fervently, including the "pope" himself, what are you to them by dissenting? You effectively schism from your own antipope. You cant reject Peter, you cannot judge him, so if francis is truly the successor, what logic do you use to reject him, his teachings and his hierarchy?
https://www.mostholyfamilymonastery.com/catholicchurch/vatican-ii-infallible/
Your objections are refuted in the article (which you obviously didn’t read).Why would you even post on here if you would only refer me to the article and not discuss the issue? I can likewise say, "You didn't read the article which refutes your position and get convinced on your own."
Why would you even post on here if you would only refer me to the article and not discuss the issue? I can likewise say, "You didn't read the article which refutes your position and get convinced on your own."
I'm open to reading your refutation on my points specifically.
Which is more or less saying:Okay. I never said anything about spoon feeding, I simply wanted to see how you would apply what Bishop Tissier said specifically to the points I made, since Tissier vaguely, dishonestly and in one fell swoop brushes off the entire position of Sedevacantism.
“I’m going to waste everyone’s time by regurgitating arguments already refuted because I am too lazy to read a long article, but if nevertheless you refuse to spoon feed it back to me, I shall declare victory, and we can close the thread.”
Benedict XVI, Zenit News story, Sept. 5, 2000: “[W]e are in agreement that a Jєω, and this is true for believers of other religions, does not need to know or acknowledge Christ as the Son of God in order to be saved…”Are you a MHFM follower? I ask because most sedes I know who do not follow the Dimond brothers believe exactly what Ratzinger said in that quote. He is expressing the "implicit faith" idea here. So if this is "obscene heresy" you must condemn most sedes as well. And perhaps you could condemn Pope Pius XII also.
This is obscene heresy, and if "you can't judge it" then you must adhere to it.
Well that just goes to show the importance of correctly identifying the true Church of Christ. If you get it wrong, you go to hell. But if you are praying the Rosary every day and wearing the Brown Scapular and keeping the commandments, Our Lady will help you.I mean I won't judge the internal forum, but I definitely think someone who decided Pius IX was an antipope would be at least materially schismatic. But this is why I can't square any of the opinions. On the one hand, the man who's universally recognized as the Pope is the Pope, period. You're not supposed to question that. And there seems to be a moral unanimity on that point, one Archbishop (and I think Lefebvre is the only one that really counts because the rest of them for better or worse never had ordinary jurisdiction and were only consecrated *because* of the crisis in the Church, for better or worse) sometimes having doubts (but even then, never concluding that the See was Vacant) doesn't seem to undermine moral unanimity. On the other hand, these same bishops who are certain Francis (and his immediate predecessors) is the Pope are at least somewhat OK with Vatican II (on the conservative end maybe thinking its poorly worded, but not saying its like... necessarily a different religion), and the people who were certain V2 was a false religion at least seemed to have a bit of doubt about the conciliar claimants as well. On the flip side it doesn't seem that Vatican II fulfilled the standards for infallibility, but that doesn't necessarily mean a pastoral council that is *dangerous* to the faithful would fit the standards for infallibility. On the other hand, even *if* you bought into FSSP style Hemeneutic of Continuity rather than R and R or sede, Vatican II is *still* dangerous because most interpretations of it are clearly contrary to the past.
Are you a MHFM follower? I ask because most sedes I know who do not follow the Dimond brothers believe exactly what Ratzinger said in that quote. He is expressing the "implicit faith" idea here. So if this is "obscene heresy" you must condemn most sedes as well. And perhaps you could condemn Pope Pius XII also.There is no such thing as "implicit faith", if someone says that Antipope benedicts XVI's heresies are not heresy then they of course are heretics. He literally said the Jєωs can be saved without having faith in Jesus Christ, how can you spin that around?
I mean I won't judge the internal forum, but I definitely think someone who decided Pius IX was an antipope would be at least materially schismatic. But this is why I can't square any of the opinions. On the one hand, the man who's universally recognized as the Pope is the Pope, period. You're not supposed to question that. And there seems to be a moral unanimity on that point, one Archbishop (and I think Lefebvre is the only one that really counts because the rest of them for better or worse never had ordinary jurisdiction and were only consecrated *because* of the crisis in the Church, for better or worse) sometimes having doubts (but even then, never concluding that the See was Vacant) doesn't seem to undermine moral unanimity. On the other hand, these same bishops who are certain Francis (and his immediate predecessors) is the Pope are at least somewhat OK with Vatican II (on the conservative end maybe thinking its poorly worded, but not saying its like... necessarily a different religion), and the people who were certain V2 was a false religion at least seemed to have a bit of doubt about the conciliar claimants as well. On the flip side it doesn't seem that Vatican II fulfilled the standards for infallibility, but that doesn't necessarily mean a pastoral council that is *dangerous* to the faithful would fit the standards for infallibility. On the other hand, even *if* you bought into FSSP style Hemeneutic of Continuity rather than R and R or sede, Vatican II is *still* dangerous because most interpretations of it are clearly contrary to the past.You should really consider the material I posted, I'm open to refutations.
I have no idea how to resolve this, so for the most part I've just come to the conclusion that an SSPX *type* position at least seems to have the most common sense, and excludes the fewest people who are legitimately trying to figure out what's right on such matters. Well, maybe not conclusion. Very tentative.
I try to focus more on the daily rosary than on resolving this TBH
Are you a newbie, Xenophon? So you follow MHFM. That is fair. I found out about tradition in part because of their website.Matto, I suppose I am a bit of a newbie. Have you considered the position itself? If so, what are/were your objections?
You should really consider the material I posted, I'm open to refutations.First of all, I personally believe the new rites are valid. I realize most people here don't or at least have more doubts.
The SSPX does not have a sound position at all... Think about it, Archbishop Lefebvre was excommunicated by a pope who he believed was valid and believed the excommunication was invalid. He rejected an ecuмenical Council which he held as valid. He rejected the Novus Ordo Missae which he believed was valid. This is why he was schismatic.
Also, how do you feel about the new rite of ordination? Do you know the SSPX accepts it as valid and that your priests could very well be ordained in the new rite, meaning, they aren't priests?
Did you also know the SSPX holds that people in other religions can be saved in that religion due to ignorance (paganism, Buddhism, Islam, Shinto, etc.)?
Matto, I suppose I am a bit of a newbie. Have you considered the position itself? If so, what are/were your objections?My friend. From reading your posts you sounded like a fervent new convert. One of the main problems I have with MHFH is that they do not have clergy who agree with them and support them. I would be more supportive of them if they had a traditional Bishop who supported them and ordained one of them as a priest so that they could then have Mass and the sacraments at their monastery. And then they could better follow the rule of St. Benedict. My best friend is a follower of MHFM and I wouldn't call them schismatics or heretics, though I think they may flirt with schism in their condemnations of most of the traditional Catholic clergy. I liked their video on magicians having power from the demons.
Hilarious. Do they think the pope can also be the imam of a local mosque at the same time? :laugh1:You raise an interesting point. In the future, when the one-world government, economy and religion are set up; it's entirely possible that the anti-pope will be the head of the New Order Religion and the head of all co-opted religions. All the mask-wearing morons will be on board.
My friend. From reading your posts you sounded like a fervent new convert. One of the main problems I have with MHFH is that they do not have clergy who agree with them and support them. I would be more supportive of them if they had a traditional Bishop who supported them and ordained one of them as a priest so that they could then have Mass and the sacraments at their monastery. And then they could better follow the rule of St. Benedict. My best friend is a follower of MHFM and I wouldn't call them schismatics or heretics, though I think they may flirt with schism in their condemnations of most of the traditional Catholic clergy. I liked their video on magicians.I personally believe they are schismatic, materially speaking, because of their judgments on other Catholics, not their view of Non Catholics. But I won't presume their culpability anymore than I will anyone else. I'm pretty consistent about this. The idea you get from some TradCats that a Muslim or a Buddhist has an outside chance to make it but the Dimondites are just damned because they're annoying jerks seems a bit silly to me, personally.
Could you cite a source for that?
First of all, I personally believe the new rites are valid. I realize most people here don't or at least have more doubts.The new rite is most definitely invalid, there is a lot of evidence for this. Are you aware that the essential form and ceremonies have been changed? Also, did you know that Pius XII and Leo XIII addressed the validity of ordinations?
Second, I agree that those who die as visible members of false religions could be saved, as do *almost all* of the trad clergy including most sede clergy.
Which is really why the MHFM position is kind of absurd. It leaves the church basically consisting of only laity at this point.
My friend. From reading your posts you sounded like a fervent new convert. One of the main problems I have with MHFH is that they do not have clergy who agree with them and support them. I would be more supportive of them if they had a traditional Bishop who supported them and ordained one of them as a priest so that they could then have Mass and the sacraments at their monastery. And then they could better follow the rule of St. Benedict. My best friend is a follower of MHFM and I wouldn't call them schismatics or heretics, though I think they may flirt with schism in their condemnations of most of the traditional Catholic clergy. I liked their video on magicians having power from the demons.Matto, I also like that video. But what I would say to you in regard to there not being a hierarchy is this.
Because it doesn't address the 2 churches concept, which is what this whole thread is about.
I believe that there not being an external and pastoral hierarchy to MHFM makes sense because we are at the end. Nobody agrees on anything, even the SSPX and FSSP who accept heresy don't agree with each other. Look at how broken the SSPX resistance is! Look at Archbishop Thucs line, it has totally gone astray. I believe the nature of MHFM being simply apostolic makes sense. I don't see how we should stick to externals right now when there's no actual reason other than comfort and security!
"All the universe will be struck with terror and many will let themselves be lead astray because they have not worshipped the true Christ who lives among them. It is time; the sun is darkening; only faith will survive" Our Lady of La Sallette, 1846 (Click for full translation) (https://sourcebooks.fordham.edu/mod/1846sallette.asp)(https://sourcebooks.fordham.edu/mod/1846sallette.asp)
To state that a true pope presides over different churches is to say that there are different, contradictory beliefs which are true. This is heresy.
…
Furthermore, Vatican II was absolutely infallible. There are three main reasons.
First, Antipope John [XXIII] convoked the council in solemn language, enacting the unfailing magisterium;
…
Vatican II was definitely infallible, but it was done so by the devil in a certain way so that people are led into nonsensical positions which end up in schism while still acknowledging and accepting Vatican II and the all the antipopes, including francis …
Think about it …
… I shall not kid myself that the actual core issue is linked to the problem of evil …
The characterizing term that springs most readily to mind with reference to the misinformation and outright malice in this comment is "tendentious."
First and foremost, Xenophon—unlike the great Greek soldier and scholar whose name he sullies with this nonsense—makes the category error of confusing the legitimacy (i.e., lawfulness) of the council's summoning and meeting with the doctrinal or theological merit of the docuмents it produced. This error poisons everything that he advances as "reasoning" and renders any response to it as (1) a waste of time and (2) a morally inappropriate activity—the appropriate one being a fraternal rebuke.
Certainly the loving Mother is spotless in the Sacraments by which she gives birth to and nourishes her children; in the faith which she has always preserved inviolate; in her sacred laws imposed on all; in the evangelical counsels which she recommends; in those heavenly gifts and extraordinary grace through which with inexhaustible fecundity, she generates hosts of martyrs, virgins and confessors.
The notion of two churches has genuine utility in the sphere of discussion, especially with regard to distinguishing (1) those who adhere to the Faith handed down once for all time by the Apostles from (2) those who use the intentional ambiguities built into the conciliar docuмents to proclaim a new, better, up-to-date faith that at best resembles an image reflected in a carnival funhouse mirror. Alas for us, the latter group comprises the overwhelming mass of the laity, clergy, and prelature of the visible church.Using the term "Conciliar Church" to refer to those that embrace V2 and the New Mass, etc. is perfectly fine. It's a useful term. But referring to the Conciliar Church as if it's actually a different and entirely separate Church that the pope also leads, rather than just a part of the Church that is rife with heresy and error, is something different altogether and it's completely ridiculous. For example, when I asked "Can the Church as a body can even fallibly teach things dangerous to souls?", Sean asked "Which church?", as if the Conciliar Church and the Catholic Church are two actually distinct churches in the way the Catholic and Orthodox churches are. Yesterday he said Vatican 2 was a council of the Conciliar Church and not the Catholic Church. So again, the Conciliar Church is not just a liberal and heresy-ridden segment of the Catholic Church, but it's an entirely separate church with its own separate ecuмenical councils.
The dualistic mode of expression may be seen in such a sentence as "They have the buildings, but we have the Faith." Likewise, the old axiom "possession is nine-tenths of the law" similarly responds to the practical limits available to a legal system that genuinely aims at doing less harm than good. That is to say, it abandons a priori any attempt to determine whether the possession in question is even licit. In both quoted statements, what looks to be absolutely straightforward is merely formally so; that is, it is so within a context whose framework needs to be made plain.
To get back to two churches, the fundamental fact to be faced is that the truth that God sees in its entirety has no necessary rhetorical connection with human attempts to express or cope with that truth. Put otherwise, if there truly were two churches, all discussion would boil down to a claim that the second group described above was guilty of false advertising. The fact that this situation, were it to be so, would make nonsense of Revelation must simply be swept under the carpet (sedes do this a lot!).
I for one shall probably continue to speak and argue as if the core issue is that there are two churches—sense evidence surely seems to confirm this—but I shall not kid myself that the actual core issue is linked to the problem of evil, which remains what it has always been: the central problem of creation. Turning our ecclesiastical superiors in the One Church in which we and they are members away from the evil they have embraced and back to the True Faith that, by rights, they should be inculcating into us is a task as daunting now as it was fifty-five years ago. Wanting to transform the task into something entirely different is certainly an error, perhaps even an error of diabolical origin.
Using the term "Conciliar Church" to refer to those that embrace V2 and the New Mass, etc. is perfectly fine. It's a useful term. But referring to the Conciliar Church as if it's actually a different and entirely separate Church that the pope also leads, rather than just a part of the Church that is rife with heresy and error, is something different altogether and it's completely ridiculous. For example, when I asked "Can the Church as a body can even fallibly teach things dangerous to souls?", Sean asked "Which church?", as if the Conciliar Church and the Catholic Church are two actually distinct churches in the way the Catholic and Orthodox churches are. Yesterday he said Vatican 2 was a council of the Conciliar Church and not the Catholic Church. So again, the Conciliar Church is not just a liberal and heresy-ridden segment of the Catholic Church, but it's an entirely separate church with its own separate ecuмenical councils.
What it amounts to is that the pope is the leader of the true church and a false church at the same time. Not only that, but any of his actions, even when he explicitly states they're for the Catholic Church, may actually be for the false church. How do we know when he acts for the true church and when he acts for the false church? We have no way, except Sean's private judgement about whether the act is Catholic or not.
So, to reiterate, I have no issues whatsoever with using "Conciliar Church" as a rhetorical device to refer to non-Trads, etc. But when it's envisioned as a truly separate church, no different to the Anglican Church or the Orthodox Church, etc. and then say that the pope leads that false church and the Catholic Church at the same time--THAT is what I find absurd and untenable.
Nobody has made the argument that the conciliar church is ENTIRELY distinct from the Catholic Church (de Mallerais’ article explicitly denies this).Yes, yes, "materially linked" because one can appear to be a member of both. That doesn't change the fact that a "schismatic church" with its own ecuмenical councils must be an entirely separate church. The Catholic Church cannot be in schism with itself.
Proof you too have not read the article.
Like a parasite attached to the host, the conciliar church is distinct from the Catholic Church, but not separated from it.
As for your sede incomprehension (feigned and disingenuous, of course) about how to distinguish Catholic from conciliar teaching, and the dishonest claim that any such determination must result from private interpretation, I have already provided you the Catholic means contained in Scripture, popes, and saints:Except you also dismissed a change to fasting discipline as conciliar. The universality of fasting laws, right?
Universality (in time).
But if applying the universality test were tantamount to private interpretation, then St. Paul and St. Vincent were teaching Protestantism!
Yes, yes, "materially linked" because one can appear to be a member of both. That doesn't change the fact that a "schismatic church" with its own ecuмenical councils must be an entirely separate church. The Catholic Church cannot be in schism with itself.
Except you also dismissed a change to fasting discipline as conciliar. The universality of fasting laws, right?
And of course, I'd love to see where St. Paul and St. Vincent told laymen to question all the laws, decrees, promulgations, constitutions, etc. of the Church and dismiss them if we personally judge them to be novel.
1) A false ecuмenical council is no ecuмenical council at all. It merely has the form (method of promulgation), but not the substance (traditional Catholic doctrine);1) Is Vatican 2 an ecuмenical council of the Conciliar Church or is it not?
2) Every schismatic is separated from the Catholic Church;
3) Ahem, fasting laws are not doctrines/teachings, and therefore are not judged on the basis of universality, but upon whether they conduce to the common good or are detrimental to it;
4) The purpose of both the Pauline and Vincentian injunctions were to declare that any teaching not contained in antiquity was false, and implicit in their injunction therefore is the need to assess (otherwise, why warn of false shepherds, false doctrines, and doctrinal innovations if these can neither be deduced nor resisted?).
Yet, if the sede were not able to assess doctrinal orthodoxy, by what means does he depose 6 popes (and all the future popes until the end of time)?
Therein lies the irony of being lectured about (alleged) private interpretation, made all the more ironic in light of the fact the sedes themselves agree these teachings are errors.
Violating the principle of non-contradiction, the sede claims such teachings could not emanate from the Catholic Church (at least, he does so for the sake of deposing popes), but then objects to R&R agreeing with him that such teachings do not come from the Catholic Church!
You see: We can only make such conclusions to depose popes, but if the popes remain, those conclusions magically become private and subjective.
The legitimacy of the summoning and convocation (and of the summoning and convoking, and then ratifying, pope) is the guarantor of it's doctrinal and theological merit . . . such is the pre-Vatican II consensus and understanding. Hence, Pius XII in Mystici Corporis …
1) Is Vatican 2 an ecuмenical council of the Conciliar Church or is it not?
2) Bishop de Mallerais said the Conciliar Church is a "schismatic church", and here you are saying every schismatic is separate from the Catholic Church. So, therefore, by your words and the bishop's, all members of the "Conciliar Church" are separate from the Catholic Church. How then do you propose someone could be in both at once?
3) Obviously. But I asked you how you determine an act of the Catholic Church from an act of the Conciliar Church, and "universality" was all you gave. So now your stance is, when it comes to discipline and law, if laymen privately interpret laws to be contrary to the common good, they're actually laws of the Conciliar Church? So once again, every single act of the Church is down to every layman to determine for himself whether it's truly an act of the Church or not.
4) Because individuals can teach novelties, of course, and Catholics should be wary of that. But at the end of the day, it's the Church that decides if a doctrine is true or heretical, and when the Church proposes an article of faith then it says that it's traditional(since dogma cannot charge). Where does any Saint say we ought to question what the Church teaches?
And here we go with more random irrelevant screeching about sedevacantism.
1) In such measure as it teaches Catholicism, it is Catholic, and in such measure as it teaches novelty, it is conciliar.
1) In such measure as it teaches Catholicism, it is Catholic, and in such measure as it teaches novelty, it is conciliar.1) So now each individual clause of each and every thing the Church pronounces are to be criticised to see if they're Conciliar or Catholic, with perhaps one sentence being Catholic and the very next being Conciliar? Pick-Your-Own-Magisterium?
2) Materially, they are members of the Catholic Church; formally, they are members of the conciliar church;
3) Nope. Universality is all that’s required. There is no private interpretation involved when the Church has already decided.
4) Was Liberius merely an “individual” when he taught/signed/agreed to a semi-Arian formula? Was Athanasius exercising private interpretation when he refused to go along with it?
The only guarantee attendant upon the legitimacy of the process is the a priori one that something of merit could emerge from the process.*Thank you for that. It encapsulates your position nicely. Memorable.
1) So now each individual clause of each and every thing the Church pronounces are to be criticised to see if they're Conciliar or Catholic, with perhaps one sentence being Catholic and the very next being Conciliar? Pick-Your-Own-Magisterium?1) The conciliar pronouncements are not magisterial. There is only one magisterium;
2) And so formally, they are in schism with the Catholic Church. How can the hierarchy be in schism with itself?
3) :facepalm:. I'll go ahead and just quote you "fasting laws are not doctrines/teachings, and therefore are not judged on the basis of universality".
4) Those letters are most commonly believed to have either been forged. The remainder generally believe they were written under duress, and indeed he condemned the Arians and semi-Arians both before and after, even going into exile over it.
1) The conciliar pronouncements are not magisterial. There is only one magisterium;1) You said every pronouncement of the Church is Catholic insofar as it teaches Catholicism, and Conciliar insofar as it teaches novelty. So one has to go through each pronouncement clause by clause and use their private judgement to pick out what is Catholic(and therefore is part of the Magisterium) and what is Conciliar(and therefore is not). So it absolutely is Pick-Your-Own-Magisterium.
2) “To the extent they are conciliar...”
3) Much appreciated. :facepalm:
4) Only John Daly and the sedes believe that (naturally). Sounds like a bad rock band.
Thank you for that. It encapsulates your position nicely. Memorable.
Except you left out that from the legitimate process could - and has - emerged things spiritually noxious that endanger and even damn souls.
Just a thought that isn't fully formulated, but while "The Church" might *technically* say V2 is traditional (in a non infallible capacity) the idea that Florence, Trent, the Baltimore Catechism, and all the other old stuff are "what the Church used to teach" as opposed to Vatican II and "the Church's current position." I hear this *a lot*.
4) Because individuals can teach novelties, of course, and Catholics should be wary of that. But at the end of the day, it's the Church that decides if a doctrine is true or heretical, and when the Church proposes an article of faith then it says that it's traditional(since dogma cannot charge). Where does any Saint say we ought to question what the Church teaches?