Author Topic: Vatican Insider agrees with Sedevacantists Conservatives (Read 12831 times)

Pax Vobis · « **Reply #10 on:** February 13, 2017, 09:09:50 AM »

We've had this argument before. I disagree with your interpretation of Quanta Cura because you don't know how to distinguish.

JPaul · « **Reply #11 on:** February 13, 2017, 10:42:54 AM »

Quote

The Vatican Insider article is an exposition of the doctrine that the pope is the "rule of faith." This false doctrine has been taken as normative since the 1949 Holy Office Letter that censored Fr. Feeney whereby Dogma as the rule of faith was "formally" replaced with the "pope as the rule of faith." This false doctrine is held by conservative Catholics, all sedevacantists (except Br. Michael Dimond), and those priests and religious formed by the SSPX. It explains why they believe and do the things they do.

The article was posted so that those who hold this doctrine may better see its implications when it is used to overthrow the sacraments of marriage and penance leading to sacrilegious communions. Maybe they will begin to trace it back to the overthrowing of the Dogma that there is no salvation outside the Catholic Church.

Drew

Indeed, that pernicious letter is the gift that keeps on giving, with its corroded and faulty interpretations of the Church's mind.
Interpretations which are ascribed to by most of the neo-traditionl sects and the Novus Ordo clergy.
That is how they come to the contradictory conclusions that someone who clearly believes and espouses heresy is not a heretic, but due to the protection of the Church, such a one could not mean to be a heretic, though he acts and speaks as one.
That is at best, is cognitive dissonance, or as more popularly quoted, a diabolical disorientation of the Catholic sense.

drew · « **Reply #12 on:** February 13, 2017, 08:22:50 PM »

Quote from: GJC

Quote from: drew
So how is it that a Catholic becomes associated with the heresy of each of the conciliar popes by recognizing their papacy if they keep Dogma as the rule of faith? "Have you not read the scriptures"? Was Jesus Christ tainted by the sin of Caiaphas the heretic by acknowledging him as the high priest and worshiping at the temple?

But was Jesus united to the Sanhedrin? Did Jesus recognize the Sanhedrin as the Kingdom of God (the Church)?

You on the other hand recognize the modern day Sanhedrin a.k.a. the Novus Ordo/Concilar church as the Catholic Church and remain united to it.

Then Jesus spoke to the multitudes and to his disciples, Saying: The scribes and the Pharisees have sitten on the chair of Moses. All things therefore whatsoever they shall say to you, observe and do: but according to their works do ye not; for they say, and do not. Matt 23: 1-3

Throughout His entire life Jesus kept the routine and regulated temple worship from His Presentation with the Blessed Virgin’s Purification through the regular going-up to Jerusalem during His active ministry. Jesus called the temple, His “Father’s House” and declared to the Samaritan woman that “salvation was of the Jews.” He directed those He had worked miracles on to "show themselves to the priests" and make the offering commanded in the law by Moses.

All the sacrifices by the priests in the Old Testament were types prefiguring the sacrifice of Jesus Christ. Without going into much detail, it is absurd to believe that Jesus, who was the great Anti-type, would have a false priesthood responsible for his sacrificial offering. That would make the sacrifices of the Old Testament more real than the sacrifices of Jesus on the Cross. Absurd!

We know from scripture that Caiaphas was the “high priest” and that he was a heretic because he denied the resurrection and only accepted the authority of the Pentateuch. Jesus never declared the “chair of Moses” vacant.

No one here is arguing that Pope Francis is not a manifest heretic. That being the case the ipso facto laws that would remove a pope from office are part of the human law of the Church. They are not, as has been affirmed by others, part of divine law. No ipso facto penalty imposed by human law is suffered until there has been a determination of guilt through due process after which the penalty of the law is imposed by the law. Those who want to impose ipso facto penalties without due process are just making themselves the "lord of the harvest."

Those who hold the pope as the rule of faith have a problem because of his heresy. The great majority of sedevacantist believe that the pope is the rule of faith and they cannot abide a heretic as their rule of faith. Sedevacantism naturally follows from this error. Those who correctly hold that Dogma as the rule of faith do not have this problem because the heresy of any pope cannot touch them personally. Those who recognize Pope Francis as pope, acknowledging his open manifest heresy, are no more contaminated by his heresy than Jesus Christ was by the heresy of Caiaphas.

You should begin from what is known for certain. You are in a church that has no pope and can never get one and therefore the church you are in cannot be the Church founded by Jesus Christ. There is without doubt a fundamental error you have made that has taken you down the wrong road.

Drew

drew · « **Reply #13 on:** February 14, 2017, 07:53:18 AM »

Quote from: An even Seven

Quote from: drew quoting Scripture to try to prove heretics can be Popes
Then Jesus spoke to the multitudes and to his disciples, Saying: The scribes and the Pharisees have sitten on the chair of Moses. All things therefore whatsoever they shall say to you, observe and do: but according to their works do ye not; for they say, and do not. Matt 23: 1-3

First, Our Lord says to do what they command. You do not do what your "pope" commands (observe all the of the VII "council" and the N.O. etc...)
Second, This fits in well with what we've been saying, that a bad Pope, one who is personally sinful, still has the power to rule, so long as he's not a hereric

This is proof positive that An Even Seven believes that the pope is the rule of faith for it is impossible to say that unconditional obedience is owed to pope and the Vatican II unless this were true.

How mindless! As if Jesus Christ’s admonition to his disciples of obedience to those sitting on the chair of Moses was unconditional. Mindless of the necessary conditions that any act of obedience to man, any man, be governed by the virtue of Religion. St. Peter and the man born blind both knew very well that “we must obey God rather than man.”

With any error in principle at the beginning it is difficult to imagine its ramifications in the long run. Fr. Fenton defended the 1949 Holy Office Letter. He did not even figure it out after his removal from the editorship of AER and the victory of the neo-Modernists at Vatican II.

But this article from Vatican Insider should make the most rabid defender of the pope as the rule of faith error reconsider. Nearly every sedevacantist holds this error. Nearly every conservative Catholic holds this error. Nearly every priest formed by the SSPX holds this error. This error makes defense of the faith impossible and leads to hopeless dead end.

Drew

Cantarella · « **Reply #14 on:** February 14, 2017, 06:42:58 PM »

For those who make the Pope the "rule of Faith"; but reject the 1949 Holy Office Letter (a minority), how do they even come to terms with Pope Pius XII's pontificate?