I didn't write this, and I'm sorry I don't know where it came from. But it makes a very good point.


One of the sedevacantists strong arguments is this: they claim that if the Pope is the true Pope, then the docuмents of Vatican II are infallible. But since the docuмents contradict the teaching of the Church in her tradition and dogmatic proclamations that their only solution is to denounce the Pope as being a true Pope. On the surface this is an ironclad argument, but the sedevacantist missed one important point.

Consider the following quote from Bishop Gasser of Bressanone. Bishop Gasser was the official and chief editor of the “Constitution on Papal Infallibility” at Vatican I and he spoke to the bishops after the final drafting concerning the clear and exact meaning of this dogma. He says:

==========================================
"If the entire Church should ever face the danger of being led astray through the bad faith and negligence of a pope ... Christ's vigilance ... would prevent an infallible declaration [Si per malum fidem et negligentiam pontificis, universalis ecclesia in errorem induci possit ... tutela Christi ... iudicium tale impediretur,]” (Mansi 52, col. 1212-1214).
==========================================

So Papal Infallibility does not protect us from being exposed to the bad teachings of the Pope, but it guarantees that Christ will not allow the Pope to proclaim such teachings as infallible and thus bind Catholics to that which is not of the Faith.

And Bishop Gasser was absolutely correct, for that is exactly what happened at Vatican II.

In the text of the appendix to “Lumen Gentium”. There in, it says: “the docuмents of Vatican II are only to be considered the teaching of the ordinary magisterium unless a docuмent specifically states otherwise”. And none of them do, thanks to the vigilance of Christ.

So if the council is ordinary (universal) magisterium and not of the extraordinary (solemn) magisterium, then it lacks the form of a general council of the Church. After all Pope John XIII and Pope Paul VI both said it was only a pastoral council. Hence, the question of Papal infallibility (solemn magisterium) is not even an issue, only the principles regarding the teachings of the ordinary magisterium would apply and Vatican II would lose by a landslide, since it can not be proved by previous teachings of the ordinary magisterium and for the most part has already been condemned, by previous Popes.

So the sedevacantist lose this argument and they again show that they do not believe that Jesus Christ is really God, by insinuating that he has no control over who the Pope is. When the people turn back to God, HE will send them a good pastor after His own Heart.

For right now the words of St. Francis of Assisi seem to be appropriate: "for in those days Our Lord Jesus Christ will not send a true pastor but a destroyer". (page 250, Works of the Seraphic Father St. Francis of Assisi)

So no, the Pope is sent by Jesus Christ and as the Church believes and teaches no one can judge him as otherwise. Jesus Christ is the Head of the Church and the Holy Ghost is the soul of the Church. The Pope is the vicar of Christ, but he has a free will, if he does not want to show up at the office, no one can fire him.

"So Papal Infallibility does not protect us from being exposed to the bad teachings of the Pope, but it guarantees that Christ will not allow the Pope to proclaim such teachings as infallible and thus bind Catholics to that which is not of the Faith."



The straw-man reflected above is that Sedevacantists are always condemned as making too much of papal infallibility, as if we somehow think that every utterance of every pope is infallible.  On the other hand, anti-sedevacantists, such as the writer of the above quote, treat the ordinary and universal magisterium as nothing, as if it really doesn't matter what any pope (along with the body of bishops) teach as long as it has not been declared infallibly.

But what sedevacantists actually do is to reject both extremes because this is not what the Church has ever taught.  

Sedevacantism is not a desire.  It is not what we wish.  It is not even something that is "needed".  It is merely the public recognition of what is.  In fact, it is the public recognition to which all traditional Catholics actually adhere, for the "recognize and resist" Catholics treat the pope as a mere figurehead who can say and teach all manner of heresy, allow any profanation of God, and publicly deny God over and over again as long as he doesn't use the "magic words" of infallibility--always moving the bar when something goes wrong (like the canonizations as ggreg pointed out).  I shudder to think what the anti-sedevacantists are going to say when the October synod finishes its work and we actually have formal docuмents which will somehow give lip service to certain Catholic teachings while utterly destroying those same Catholic teachings in the name of pastoral care of souls; probably move the bar yet again.

It is a fact that the current hierarchy, en masse, are apostates.  Nearly all have rejected the Catholic faith and they teach others to do so.  The magisterium of the Conciliar sect does not teach the Catholic faith any more than the Lutheran, Anglican, or any other Protestant clergy does.  

No, Matthew, he doesn't make a very good point.  In fact, he really doesn't make a point at all.  He merely regurgitates the same anti-sedevacantist distortions in yet another unreasonable screed and ignores the reality of the situation we find ourselves in.

"So Papal Infallibility does not protect us from being exposed to the bad teachings of the Pope, but it guarantees that Christ will not allow the Pope to proclaim such teachings as infallible and thus bind Catholics to that which is not of the Faith."




Can someone please tell me all these "bad teachings of the Pope"  that we had prior to Vatican II?

Usually, we hear about exactly one example:  John XXIII once said that no one will see the Beatific Vision until the Final Judgment.  Of course, he wasn't even trying to address the whole Church but, rather, made this claim in a more theologically academic situation and he immediately recanted upon being corrected.

What are all the other examples of popes' "bad teachings"?  Surely, if the claim above has any merit, there has to be a number of examples from history!  Was it when the pope declared that the Jєωs can be saved through their covenant with God?  Oops, that's from Bergoglio.  Is it when the pope taught that all can be saved?  Oops, that's from Wojtyla.  Was it when the pope called for ecuмenical dialogue as equals with non-Catholics and even non-Christians?  Oops, that's from all the Vatican 2 popes.  Was it when the pope said that condoms can be a step towards holiness--and even had the record repeated when later questioned?  Oops, that's Ratzinger.

What are all these pre-Vatican 2 bad teachings of the popes?

I don't know where this came from, but it should go back there and never surface again.

edit

Sorry, but the OP is faulty circular logic.

EVERY CATHOLIC KNOWS AND BELIEVES THAT GOD WOULD NOT ALLOW AN ERROR TO BE DEFINED AS INFALLIBLE TRUTH.  So the argument is stupid and self-referential.

Question is whether the notes of infallibility would have been present with V2 and the New Mass assuming a legitimate Pope.

No, the sedevacantist does not lose any arguments  as the OP states.

I am not the only one on this forum that recognizes the chair of Peter to be vacant, believes whole and inviolate in the office of the Vicar of Christ, and waits on a true Catholic Pope or possibly for Francis to pubically abjure form his apostasy and acting by the spirit of truth correct those that are lead astray.

Hypothetically, if I were to attend the SSPX mass that recognizes the Novus Ordo as Catholic and believes that Francis is the true Pope, then I could never argue with a sedevacantist. I would have to accept their position as totally acceptable due to the teaching of my Pope.

Lumen Gentium clearly states that for several reasons the Church acknowledges that it is joined/linked to those, though baptized, do not profess the faith entirely or do not preserve communion under the successor of Peter. This is manifested in plain site by these so called Popes when they consider the Eastern Orthodox in unity with the Catholic Church.

The sedevacantist is accused of refusing to be subject to the Roman Pontiff, so my question is whats the problem???? The pope says we are linked, joined, amalgamated, etc.....

GJC, your sedevacantism resides in solid ground. Unlike the 99% of other sedevacantists, who fueled by the spirit of bitterness have been brain washed by yellow journalism, without really comprehending anything. There is consistency in your argument because the conciliar popes have fallen into the heresy of Universalism / Indifferentism via "invincible ignorance". In doing this, they have departed from the Faith of all ages.

The conciliar heresy has roots in the denial of EENS which ironically the 99% sedevacantists share. In doing this, they are no different from the liberals they condemn. If you don't believe me just ask ANY of them. They CANNOT point out the actual heresy (which officially it is the denial of a DOGMA) of the conciliar popes they reject. They have even gone further, where no conciliar pope has ever gone, to declare salvific invincible ignorance for the non Catholic as dogma.

The prev few posts illustrate why Sirism is the most probable solution to the un-elected, Roman v2 anti-popes since 1958.

Because we don't know who the Pope is doesn't necessarily mean that there isn't one  !!!  


 :smoke-pot:    :idea: