To sedes: If you truly believe Pope Ven. Pius XII was the last Pope of the Roman Catholic Church, why haven't you elected a new Pope yet? Better hurry, because time is running out. In fact, unless you are willing to change your opinion and admit that Pope John XXIII was the last Pope, it has already run out! The Bishops appointed by Pope Pius XII have died, the last one passing in July 2020. The Bishops appointed by Pope John XXIII may be alive for a short while longer.The "method" to elect a pope is not of Divine Law. Any other law, under certain conditions, that is impossible to follow is not enforceable. In the hypotetical scenario that all cardinals and bishops of the world die and the only one left is a sede bishop, he could become the pope or he could incardinate more bishops and then conduct a conclave under other rules for the good of the souls.
See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_oldest_living_Catholic_bishops_and_cardinals (Sort by Consecrated Bishop Year. There appear to be about 6 left currently. Why aren't Sedes contacing these Bishops?)
Now Fr. Suarez cites as the common opinion of the Doctors, that Bishops who are Ordinary Pastors, must pass a binding declaration of fact that the See is Vacant, before a new Pope can be elected.
The Doctors only envisioned one single Pope possibly becoming a heretic, and the Bishops taking against him in his lifetime, not an alleged indefinite series of 6+Popes to whom nothing is done.
"In the first place, who ought to pronounce such a sentence? Some say that it would be the Cardinals; and the Church would be able undoubtedly to attribute to them this faculty, above all if it were thus established by the consent or determination of the Supreme Pontiffs, as was done in regard to the ɛƖɛctıon. But up to today we do not read in any place that such a judgment has been confided to them. For this reason, one must affirm that, as such, it pertains to all the Bishops of the Church, for, being the ordinary pastors and the pillars of the Church, one must consider that such a case concerns them. And since by divine law there is no greater reason to affirm that the matter is of more interest to these bishops than to those, and since by human law nothing has been established in the matter, one must necessarily sustain that the case refers to all, and even to the general council. That is the common opinion among the Doctors”. https://gloria.tv/post/YdoivbvJEnUF4CC2EP4SzwXoV
Now, who are these "Ordinary Pastors of the Church"? The Bishops with Ordinary Jurisdiction, of course. They must pass the binding declaration. Otherwise, the ɛƖɛctıon of the new Pope will not be binding. See Pope Michael.
Who are they? As the "last Pope" himself taught, in the "last year" of the Papacy at that, "jurisdiction passes to bishops only through the Roman Pontiff as We admonished in the Encyclical Letter Mystici Corporis in the following words: ". . . As far as his own diocese is concerned each (bishop) feeds the flock entrusted to him as a true shepherd and rules it in the name of Christ. Yet in exercising this office they are not altogether independent but are subordinate to the lawful authority of the Roman Pontiff, although enjoying ordinary power of jurisdiction which they receive directly from the same Supreme Pontiff."[13]40. And when We later addressed to you the letter Ad Sinarum gentem, We again referred to this teaching in these words: "The power of jurisdiction which is conferred directly by divine right on the Supreme Pontiff comes to bishops by that same right, but only through the successor of Peter, to whom not only the faithful but also all bishops are bound to be constantly subject and to adhere both by the reverence of obedience and by the bond of unity."[14] http://www.vatican.va/content/pius-xii/en/encyclicals/docuмents/hf_p-xii_enc_29061958_ad-apostolorum-principis.htmlThe sede bishops know this, and admit it, and thus acknowledge they don't have Ordinary Jurisdiction, as no Pope appointed them. Ok. But what about those appointed by real Popes?If Pope Pius XII was the last Pope, it's game over. The required imperfect General Council, comprised of Ordinary Pastors, can never again be assembled. The Church is finished.If Pope John XXIII was the last Pope, you have some years left. But there are only a few Bishops still alive who were appointed by H.H. Why aren't sedes reaching out to them?Better hurry!
I think XavierSem has a recurring reminder in his Google Calendar app to remind him to post this same exact question on here on a regular basis. I've lost track how many times he's asked the same thing in different words, time and time again.I think you hit the nail on the head. Very good.
It follows that the separated Churches and Communities as such, though we believe them to be deficient in some respects, have been by no means deprived of significance and importance in the mystery of salvation. For the Spirit of Christ has not refrained from using them as means of salvation which derive their efficacy from the very fullness of grace and truth entrusted to the Church.
| bergoglio's teaching- lies and deceptions Hell | TEACHING OF the ONE, HOLY, CATHOLIC, and APOSTOLIC CHURCH and TRUTH |
| Interview with the Italian newspaper La Repubblica25, Mar 28, 2018: When asked where bad souls are punished, Francis replied: “They are not punished, those who repent obtain the forgiveness of God and enter the rank of souls who contemplate him, but those who do not repent and cannot therefore be forgiven disappear. There is no hell, there is the disappearance of sinful souls.” | "Moreover, we declare that according to the common arrangement of God, the souls of those who depart in actual mortal sin immєdιαtely after their death descend to hell where they are tortured by infernal punishments..." Pope Benedict XII, Benedictus Deus, 1336 |
| Contraception | |
| In-flight interview from Mexico15, Feb 17, 2016: “The great Paul VI, in a difficult situation in Africa, permitted nuns to use a form of artificial contraceptives in cases of rape.....On the other hand, avoiding pregnancy is not an absolute evil. In certain cases, as in this one (the Zika virus outbreak), or in the one I mentioned of Blessed Paul VI, it was clear.” | "But no reason, however grave, may be put forward by which anything intrinsically against nature may become conformable to nature and morally good. Since, therefore, the conjugal act is destined primarily by nature for the begetting of children, those who in exercising it deliberately frustrate its natural power and purpose sin against nature and commit a deed which is shameful and intrinsically vicious." "...any use whatsoever of matrimony exercised in such a way that the act is deliberately frustrated in its natural power to generate life is an offense against the law of God and of nature, and those who indulge in such are branded with the guilt of a grave sin." "...No difficulty can arise that justifies the putting aside of the law of God which forbids all acts intrinsically evil." Pope Pius XI, Encyclical On Christian Marriage, Dec 31, 1930 "A negative precept of natural law which prohibits a thing intrinsically evil can never be lawfully transgressed not even under the influence of the fear of death, (Lib. I, tr. ii, c. iv, dub. 2, n. 1) So that it is not lawful to do a thing which is wrong in itself, even to escape death" Catholic Encyclopedia, Hermann Busembaum |
Myrna, as you know, I don't believe in post-1958-sedevacantism. But if I did believe even in post-2013-sedevacantism, e.g. if I believed Pope Francis was invalidly elected, I would be doing everything I could to urge the Cardinals and Bishops to take action to end the crisis.
If I had believed in post-1958 or 63-year-SVism up to the very point the last Pope Pius XII appointed Bishop died, I would have changed my opinion on it the moment he did.
How can it be otherwise? I know we will perhaps disagree, but to me the dogma of St. Peter's Perpetual Successors is incompatible with the idea of a sede vacante lasting indefinitely. And yet the idea of an indefinite sede vacante is what some SVs have seemingly resigned themselves to. I am only saying one's actions must be consistent with one's beliefs. If one believes in SVism, one must act accordingly. One must urge those who can Judge - the Bishops with Jurisdiction - to do so.
Can anyone show any example of a Church Doctor who envisioned 6+Popes for 60 years being heretics without the Church taking action? Whenever the Doctors discussed the possibility, they spoke of the Church taking action immєdιαtely - and certainly within the lifetime of the Pope. Not after 60+ years.
May God bless and guide us all as we discern how best to remain faithful to Him. May we all live and die as faithful Roman Catholics. Amen.
Please show where Bergoglio ok'd birth control and denied hell.https://www.politico.com/story/2016/02/pope-francis-birth-control-zika-219437
God is NOT pleased when someone like you comes along and objects to His flock who are trying to KEEP THE FAITH. Where does it say, that we all have to become theologians these days, that we all must know the answer to end this crisis; we must as God said, "WATCH AND PRAY."
Did God tell you directly that he is not pleased when someone makes a case against sedeism?No one has ever made a case against sedevacantism, they condemn what they do not understand because it makes them feel uncomfortable.
Please show where the Church has ever taught that the Holy Ghost protects a Pope from teaching doctrinal or moral errors when he is not defining a doctrine ex cathedra, according to the precise conditions set forth in chapter IV of Pastor Aeternus.I feel like the burden of proof is on you at this point. You're trying to get us to change our minds.
No, I'm simply trying to determine why he believes a Pope cannot err on matters of faith and morals when he is not defining a doctrine.Because the Church is a DIVINE Institution and Jesus is Head, since it is DIVINE His representative on earth CAN NOT Deceive or be deceived, especially in matters of FAITH and MORALS.
Please show where the Church has ever taught that the Holy Ghost protects a Pope from teaching doctrinal or moral errors when he is not defining a doctrine ex cathedra, according to the precise conditions set forth in chapter IV of Pastor Aeternus..
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.
For the teaching authority of the Church, which in the divine wisdom was constituted on earth in order that revealed doctrines might remain intact for ever, and that they might be brought with ease and security to the knowledge of men, and which is daily exercised through the Roman Pontiff and the Bishops who are in communion with him, has also the office of defining, when it sees fit, any truth with solemn rites and decrees, whenever this is necessary either to oppose the errors or the attacks of heretics, or more clearly and in greater detail to stamp the minds of the faithful with the articles of sacred doctrine which have been explained.
…[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.
t is to give proof of a submission which is far from sincere to set up some kind of opposition between one Pontiff and another. Those who, faced with two differing directives, reject the present one to hold to the past, are not giving proof of obedience to the authority which has the right and duty to guide them; and in some ways they resemble those who, on receiving a condemnation, would wish to appeal to a future council, or to a Pope who is better informed.
No, I'm simply trying to determine why he believes a Pope cannot err on matters of faith and morals when he is not defining a doctrine.Can you give us some 3xmples of Popes in the 17 and 1800s erring in matters of faith and morals?
Please show where Bergoglio ok'd birth control and denied hell.I haven't seen anyone address the other side of the coin. Are there any examples of Francis clearly, unambiguously, in word and in action standing for any Catholic teaching?
And how do you think sedevacantists (and the SSPX) justify consecrating bishops without a papal mandate, when doing so is expressly forbidden in the 1917 Code of Canon law, and again later by Pius XII, who raised the penalty for doing so from suspension to excommunication?There, that's better.
No, I'm simply trying to determine why he believes a Pope cannot err on matters of faith and morals when he is not defining a doctrine.I don't know if he's sede or not, but in a nutshell, the reason he believes that, is because he believes the opinions of some of the theologians from the last few centuries who taught basically that "the pope is always infallibly safe to follow". Like many, he believes those theologians' erroneous (at best) teachings are indeed true and authentic teachings of the Church and that V1's ex cathedra definition is lacking.
Reading anything from the Vatican II popes and Vatican II, should be forbidden to the laity, and kept behind lock and key at seminaries, and limited to rare use by clergy in the study of sophism/ambiguity/error/heresy.Totally agree. I would simply say; to be used by the clergy strictly as evidence.
I keep repeating it - "Rat poison is 99% nutritious food". It's that 1% dispersed in every molecule of the nutritious food that will kill you just the same, no matter how nutritious and good it tastes.
Exactly!!!
Not only that, but they misunderstand Franzelin's teaching concerning infallible safety. He didn't mean anything a Pope says is necessarily infallibly safe. What he meant is if a Pope teaches that a doctrine is safe to follow, it is infallibly safe to follow.
To the Holy Father’s responsibility of caring for the sheep of Christ’s fold, there corresponds, on the part of the Church’s membership, the basic obligation of following his directions, in doctrinal as well as disciplinary matters. In this field, God has given the Holy Father a kind of infallibility distinct from the charism of doctrinal infallibility in the strict sense. He has so constructed and ordered the Church that those who follow the directives given to the entire kingdom of God on earth will never be brought into the position of ruining themselves spiritually through this obedience. Our Lord dwells within His Church in such a way that those who obey disciplinary and doctrinal directives of this society can never find themselves displeasing God through their adherence to the teachings and the commands given to the universal Church militant. Hence there can be no valid reason to discountenance even the non-infallible teaching authority of Christ’s vicar on earth.
...
It is, of course, possible that the Church might come to modify its stand on some detail of teaching presented as non-infallible matter in a papal encyclical. The nature of the auctoritas providentiae doctrinalis within the Church is such, however, that this fallibility extends to questions of relatively minute detail or of particular application. The body of doctrine on the rights and duties of labor, on the Church and State, or on any other subject treated extensively in a series of papal letters directed to and normative for the entire Church militant could not be radically or completely erroneous. The infallible security Christ wills that His disciples should enjoy within His Church is utterly incompatible with such a possibility.
I agree that such a person should be ignored, and I'm not defending Francis. I am not defending Francis of playing sick mental games. What I am doing is investigating the accusations objectively in order to determine what is true.
Did Francis approve contraception, as is claimed? Did he intentionally and deceptively make two true statements that gave the impression contraception was permissible, without actually saying it is permissible, which is another possibility? Or did advocates of contraception take his words taken out of context to promote their agenda? I think we can rule out number 1.
Nonsense, Walters. Only some dogmatic sedevacantists hold that "anything a Pope says is necessarily infallibly safe." What infallible safety basically means, however, and this is corroborated by a lot of Papal Magisterium, is that overall and, as a whole, the Magisterium cannot go badly off the rails on a substantial issue. Here is Msgr. Fenton's articulation of infallible safety. When Traditional Catholics claim that the Magisterium and Universal Discipline of the Church are so badly mistaken that we are effectively forced to sever communion with the putative hierarchy, then it's crossed the line. You're setting up fake strawman and yourself misunderstanding infallible safety. Infallible safety follows necessarily from the notion that the Church is indefectible in her mission.Now that we all know this, who among us will be the first to abandon the true faith for the new faith?
Msgr. Fenton:
To the Holy Father’s responsibility of caring for the sheep of Christ’s fold, there corresponds, on the part of the Church’s membership, the basic obligation of following his directions, in doctrinal as well as disciplinary matters. In this field, God has given the Holy Father a kind of infallibility distinct from the charism of doctrinal infallibility in the strict sense. He has so constructed and ordered the Church that those who follow the directives given to the entire kingdom of God on earth will never be brought into the position of ruining themselves spiritually through this obedience.
The difference is that the SSPX admits they believe violating a law promulgated by a Pope is permitted in circuмstances circuмstances, such as the present crisis. The sedevacantists insist that it is not permitted, and then do it anyway.LOL, that's a good real world example of "the pot calling the kettle black". That's funny. No insult intended. Maybe because I am a spectator on the sidelines I see it for what it is?
God cannot deceive or be deceive, but men can. The Pope is man, not God. The problem with sedevacantism is that they tend toward deifying the Pope, and then naturally reject any Pope who does not live up to their God-like expectations.When you pray the Act of Faith next time, pay attention to the words, it does not say men can be deceived by the Pope, because he is just a man.
All this says is that Catholics should not limit their obedience to their pastors to the acceptance of Catholic dogmas. Notice that he is not speaking only of the Pope, but to all pastors. Just as this teaching does not prove that other pastors are unable to error on faith or morals, neither does it prove that a Pope is unable to error in faith or morals when he is not defining a doctrine..
Once again, this does not say a Pope is unable to error when he is not defining a doctrine. What this quote is saying is that the magisterium was instituted so that deposit of faith could be perpetually retained by a body of living men, who could present them to men of all ages, and define dogmas when necessary to preserve it from the attacks of heretics.
So, my question to you is, where is this teaching authority today? Where is the body of “bishops who are in communion with” the Roman Pontiff that this papal teaching says will exist forever?
No where does this say a Pope cannot error in faith or morals when he is not defining a doctrine. And just as the 72 disciples from Luke 10:16, to whom Jesus said, “He who heareth you, heareth me,” were not infallible, neither is the Pope infallible when he exercises his ordinary teaching authority.
All this says is if two Popes issue contradictory directive, the one currently in force is to be obeyed, and cannot be disobeyed in favor of the latter. What it doesn’t say is that a Pope cannot err in faith or morals when he is not defining a dogma..
I agree that such a person should be ignored, and I'm not defending Francis. I am not defending Francis of playing sick mental games. What I am doing is investigating the accusations objectively in order to determine what is true.Thank you for the clarification W.
Did Francis approve contraception, as is claimed? Did he intentionally and deceptively make two true statements that gave the impression contraception was permissible, without actually saying it is permissible, which is another possibility?
When we profess to believe all the truths that the Church teaches, what we are professing to believe is the rule of the ecclesiastical magisterium, which consists of the body of truths that the Church has taught as de fide (of the faith) over the centuries; and all the truths that the Church has proposed as de fide are infallibly true.
I know there is no mention of the word Pope, you are the person who injected that word into my response to you.
There’s no mention of the Pope in the act of faith.
When we profess to believe all the truths that the Church teaches, what we are professing to believe is the rule of the ecclesiastical magisterium, which consists of the body of truths that the Church has taught as de fide (of the faith) over the centuries; and all the truths that the Church has proposed as de fide are infallibly true.
A papal mandate was not required during the days of Clement IV and Gregory, but it is today. That's the point. He is rejecting the present law in favor of a past law, which is precisely what Leo XIII forbids.
In past centuries, the Pope permitted Patriarchs and even secular princes to appoint bishops and consecrate them (or have them consecrated in the case of a secular prince) without explicit permission from Rome. They only had to notify Rome after the fact. That law was abandoned after the Council of Trent, and for the past four centuries a papal mandate has been required.
So, contrary to what Bishops Pivarunas would like his readers to believe, the interregnum between the papacy of Clement and Gregory had nothing do with the legitimacy of the episcopal consecration that took place at the time. They were legitimate because they were legal - in accord with ecclesiastical law.
But there’s more to it than that.
When bishops were (lawfully) consecrated without a papal mandate in past centuries, they were immєdιαtely appointed to an episcopal see that had been legitimately established by a Pope. They weren’t illicitly consecrated to be vagus bishops with no authority or canonical mission, who then established mass centers where they illicitly administered the sacraments. This has always been a no no.
Listen to what Cardinal Billot wrote about those who administer the sacraments without a canonical mission and hence illicitly.
Would you elaborate more? Seriously asking BTW not just looking for an argument.
But there's a difference between ambiguous partial truths and heresy, and in the current crisis, when the distinction is not made, it ends in disaster.
But there's a difference between ambiguous partial truths and heresy, and in the current crisis, when the distinction is not made, it ends in disaster.
In any case, I've never based the sedevacantist hypothesis on individual heresies of the papal claimants. It's based on the same Major that Archbishop Lefebvre articulated, that this degree of systematic destruction is not compatible with the promise that the Holy Spirit would guide the papacy and, though the papacy, the Church..
.
I'm not sure why people don't like to say that a public heretic can't be the pope when that is, according to St. Robert Bellarmine, the unanimous teaching of the Fathers, but in any case both arguments you mention are each independently more than sufficient to prove that Bergoglio is not the pope. Which one a person prefers to use is really little more than a matter of aesthetics and personal taste. :cowboy:
There’s no mention of the Pope in the act of faith.Of course you are correct here, it is the truth that matters because it is the truth that binds us, not the method. Nearly all of the truths we are bound to believe have never even been infallibly defined and we learned them from our immediate teachers, not the pope.
When we profess to believe all the truths that the Church teaches, what we are professing to believe is the rule of the ecclesiastical magisterium, which consists of the body of truths that the Church has taught as de fide (of the faith) over the centuries; and all the truths that the Church has proposed as de fide are infallibly true.
All your arguments prove that there is NO TRUE POPE, the Church ( and my definition of Church excludes Vatican II). The only victory of Vll is it successfully resulted in it being smaller. The Church began small and perhaps it will remain small in numbers as God told us.Well, the Perpetual Successors argument is not about numbers. It is about the dogmatic impossibility of going generations without a living Successor of Peter. Without Successors to St. Peter, the Church will eventually lose Successors to the Apostles, when every Bishop appointed by the last Pope dies. Thus the Church will lose Her Apostolicity and Her Four Marks.
Of course you are correct here, it is the truth that matters because it is the truth that binds us, not the method. Nearly all of the truths we are bound to believe have never even been infallibly defined and we learned them from our immєdιαte teachers, not the pope.
Poster Drew explains it repeatedly in depth and in a clear and concise manner in this thread (https://www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/is-father-ringrose-dumping-the-r-r-crowd/45/) (in case you don't know who Drew is.)
Well, the Perpetual Successors argument is not about numbers. It is about the dogmatic impossibility of going generations without a living Successor of Peter. Without Successors to St. Peter, the Church will eventually lose Successors to the Apostles, when every Bishop appointed by the last Pope dies. Thus the Church will lose Her Apostolicity and Her Four Marks.
Drew was debunked for fabricating theological principles out of thin air to replace Catholic ones ... to suit his agenda.:facepalm:
It's SVism that requires us to become our own theologians, and declare Popes recognized by the Apostolic Church to not be Popes ...
:facepalm:
All you need to know is that his rule of faith remains the same forever. Yours? - not so much.
No, WHAT we believe remains the same. As Drew did, you conflate the object of faith with the rule of faith. This term was clearly defined with citations from theologians that debunked Drew's fake definitions.No, his rule of faith, which are not only dogmas, but is also comprised of all the truths the Church has always taught, and will always teach, and will always remain the same forever. To reject any of them is to reject the rule of faith. It is the message that binds us, not the messenger. St. Augustine is correct, you are the one who has it wrong, popes are not the Church.
Dogmas/Doctrines are the WHAT of faith, whereas the authority of the Magisterium is the WHY. Rule of Faith refers to the WHY, not the WHAT.
As St. Augustine wrote, "I would not accept the Scriptures themselves had the Church not proposed them to me."
popes are not the Church."I am the Church!" -- Pope Pius IX
No, WHAT we believe remains the same. As Drew did, you conflate the object of faith with the rule of faith. This term was clearly defined with citations from theologians that debunked Drew's fake definitions.
Dogmas/Doctrines are the WHAT of faith, whereas the authority of the Magisterium is the WHY. Rule of Faith refers to the WHY, not the WHAT.
As St. Augustine wrote, "I would not accept the Scriptures themselves had the Church not proposed them to me."
But since Divine revelation is contained in the written books and unwritten traditions (Vatican Council, I, ii), the Bible and Divine tradition must be the rule of our faith; since, however, these are only silent witnesses and cannot interpret themselves, they are commonly termed "proximate but inanimate rules of faith". Unless, then, the Bible and tradition are to be profitless, we must look for some proximate rule which shall be animate or living.
I'm not defending Drew but theologians do call dogmas/doctrines the rule of faith. However, they distinguish between the living proximate rule of faith and the inanimate proximate rule of faith.
Yes, but on the very long thread with Drew, I cited theological texts which explained these these are the material objects of the faith, but what's actually mean is the authority of God revealing. CE was speaking loosely and routinely drifted back and forth between the authority and the content. Theologians actually distinguish the two. Now, as St. Augustine famously said, even this authority of God revealing is known to us only because of the authority of the Church proposing it as having been revealed by God.No, R&R do not claim we that we can bypass the very magisterium (teachings) that is our rule of faith.
What R&R claim, in effect, is that dogmas are their proximate rule of faith, in that they can bypass the Magisterium and have a direct line to them ... no different than what Protestants do with Scripture, except they also add Tradition as a second source of Revelation.
No, R&R do not claim we that we can bypass the very magisterium (teachings) that is our rule of faith.
Yeah, yeah, I know, you have redefined Magisterium into a tautology, where the "false" teachings of the papal claimants are not actually Magisterium. If it's true, then it's Magisterium; if it's false, then it's not.The definition of circular reasoning.
:facepalm:
Yeah, yeah, I know, you have redefined Magisterium into a tautology, where the "false" teachings of the papal claimants are not actually Magisterium. If it's true, then it's Magisterium; if it's false, then it's not.Wrong yet again.
:facepalm:
I just read through some of Drews posts. He affirms one truth but denies another. Dogmas are the material rule of faith - since they are the material object of faith - but the infallible authority of the Church is the formal rule, or at least the proximate formal rule.Agree 100%, as long as it is understood that here, it is the Church that is the Divinely instituted Teacher, not the pope. The pope(s) is the authority whose duty it is to defend, preserve and promulge all those teachings revealed from God the Revealer and not the originator of the revealed truths.
The formal object of the remote rule of faith is God the Revealer; the material object of the remote rule are all the truths God has publicly revealed, as contained in Scripture and Tradition.
God the Revealer is who we believe by faith; dogmas are what we believe by faith; and the infallible authority of the Divinely instituted Teacher of revealed truths is why we believe them by faith.
I just read through some of Drews posts. He affirms one truth but denies another. Dogmas are the material rule of faith - since they are the material object of faith - but the infallible authority of the Church is the formal rule, or at least the proximate formal rule.
The formal object of the remote rule of faith is God the Revealer; the material object of the remote rule are all the truths God has publicly revealed, as contained in Scripture and Tradition.
God the Revealer is who we believe by faith; dogmas are what we believe by faith; and the infallible authority of the Divinely instituted Teacher of revealed truths is why we believe them by faith.
Agree 100%, as long as it is understood that here, it is the Church that is the Divinely instituted Teacher, not the pope.
And so, supported by the clear witness of Holy Scripture, and adhering to the manifest and explicit decrees both of our predecessors the Roman Pontiffs and of general councils, we promulgate anew the definition of the ecuмenical Council of Florence, which must be believed by all faithful Christians, namely that the "holy Apostolic See and the Roman Pontiff hold a world-wide primacy, and that the Roman Pontiff is the successor of blessed Peter, the prince of the apostles, true vicar of Christ, head of the whole Church and father and teacher of all Christian people. To him, in blessed Peter, full power has been given by our lord Jesus Christ to tend, rule and govern the universal Church. All this is to be found in the acts of the ecuмenical councils and the sacred canons."
...
That apostolic primacy which the Roman Pontiff possesses as successor of Peter, the prince of the apostles, includes also the supreme power of teaching.
...
Then there is the definition of the Council of Florence: "The Roman Pontiff is the true vicar of Christ, the head of the whole Church and the father and teacher of all Christians; and to him was committed in blessed Peter, by our lord Jesus Christ, the full power of tending, ruling and governing the whole Church."
...
[T]heir [the Popes'] apostolic teaching was embraced by all the venerable fathers and reverenced and followed by all the holy orthodox doctors, 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 Savior 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."
:facepalm:No one has ever denied the pope is the teacher, your problem is that you believe him to be the originator of teachings. Sorry for snuffing out your "ah ha" moment.
Vatican I teaches otherwise.
So NOW you "agree", after rejecting my having said the very same thing. Of course, then you slap on that non-Catholic (aka heretical) qualifier.
Vatican I: Pastor Aeternus
So your opinion is heretical, the assertion that the Pope is not "the Divinely Instituted Teacher".
Note also the last part which states that the See of Peter remains "unblemished by any error". Good luck with that one, Stubborn.
This further backs up my repeated assertion that your ecclesiology is nothing short of heretical.
Can any R&R Catholic affirm with a straight face the teaching of Vatican I that the Holy See "remains unblemished by any error" after the disaster of Vatican II and the entire post-Vatican II Magisterium, including Amoris Laetitia?I can affirm it. Why? Because the Holy Ghost was promised to the successors of St. Peter whenever they define a doctrine ex cathedra - if you don't read the whole thing in context, you'll end up thinking it means, as you demonstrate, something it does not say.
THIS is the argument for sedevacantism, that this degree of error and corruption in the Magisterium is incompatible with the promises of Our Lord. THIS is the truth that Archbishop Lefebvre CLEARLY affirmed in that audio that was posted. Unfortunately, MOST modern R&R rejects it and is basically heretical on that account [I make exceptions for a position like that of Fr. Chazal or that articulated by the Archbishop himself].
No one has ever denied the pope is the teacher, your problem is that you believe him to be the originator of teachings. Sorry for snuffing out your "ah ha" moment.
it is the Church that is the Divinely instituted Teacher, not the pope.
I can affirm it. Why? Because the Holy Ghost was promised to the successors of St. Peter whenever they define a doctrine ex cathedra - if you don't read the whole thing in context, you'll end up thinking it means, as you demonstrate, something it does not say.
That is the argument for sedeism? Then they have no argument.
You make a bigger fool of yourself with every post. Your ecclesiology is heretical.You are ridiculous. I mean honestly, you confound your own belief by being a sede. Talk about confused.
:facepalm:Since you have nothing else, resorting to calumny as per your usual, I understand you will never comprehend the truth, but I said:
quote from Stubborn: it is the Church that is the Divinely instituted Teacher, not the pope.
With this sentence you are saying: "the pope is not the Divinely Instituted Teacher".
You are ridiculous. I mean honestly, you confound your own belief by being a sede. Talk about confused.
Since you have nothing else, resorting to calumny as per your usual, I understand you will never comprehend the truth, but I said:
"The pope(s) is the authority whose duty it is to defend, preserve and promulgate all those teachings..."
I agree that such a person should be ignored, and I'm not defending Francis. I am not defending Francis of playing sick mental games.If I am understanding your later posts correctly, you seem certain that Francis is the Pope. If this is correct, I am curious as to why you don't see it as at least possible that he may not be? Thank you.