Author Topic: Why I believe they Pope(s) is a heretic, but do not call myself a Sede (Read 22515 times)

Caminus · « **Reply #120 on:** June 14, 2011, 02:52:15 PM »

Quote from: gladius_veritatis

Quote from: Caminus
The sede has a much larger problem to deal with regarding the very divine constitution of the Church.

This is not a "sede" problem, Matthew -- it is THE bigger issue that ALL trads must face. Few realize this and even fewer want to touch it, but there it is.

There is a new, non-Catholic entity, with its own doctrine, worship, and discipline, that has more or less supplanted the Catholic Church. This is why all of us, including those who recognize-but-resist, use a different name when speaking of this alien body.

The enemies have used the material element of the Church to annihilate the faith of hundreds of millions.

What good is the structure, authority, etc., of the Church if they are being/can be used to ruin the faith of the members thereof? Or do you deny that this has, in fact, occurred?

The good of authority pertains to the essential nature of the Church itself, regardless of those who possess it. It is most certainly a "sede" problem, their basic premise is that all those in authority are formal heretics who have ceased to be members of the Catholic Church. What are you left with? A Church devoid of authority, a Church that has lost an essential characteristic, a Church that is impotent to fulfill its mission.

The restoration of the Church can only come about by means of recognized jurdisdiction. Catholics are not required to guess whether or not a certain body arising at some point in the future will come to repossess this lost authority. It is chimerical.

Caminus · « **Reply #121 on:** June 14, 2011, 02:54:48 PM »

Quote from: gladius_veritatis

Quote from: Caminus
The case of tacit resignation entails a certain evident nature, such as a priest marrying. But we are not dealing with your average heretic here my friend, your mere say so doesn't make it so. One of the most notable features is their distinct unwillingness to pertinaciously adhere to anything at all that could be construed as heretical.

So, they have NOT said ANYTHING that could even be construed as heretical, yet Bp W (among others) says they have clearly uttered heresy? Who is wrong, Matthew -- you or Bp W (et alii)?

Are you fine with a man going to Africa and, according to his own testimony, actively participating in the worship of animists? Nothing clear about that? Such actions indicate nothing of substance? Right...

Look, while you are free to believe that their heresies, etc., do not lead to automatic loss of office, etc., do not embarrass yourself by continuing with this nonsense that they have not said anything clearly heretical. MANY who recognize-but-resist, whose training far surpasses your own, readily ADMIT that these men have uttered clear-cut heresies for YEARS.

This is where the rubber meets the road. Let's start a separate thread and analyze the top five heresies and determine once for all their true note. Then from there we can determine whether they pertinaciously adhere to these errors knowing they contradict defined Catholic dogma.

SJB · « **Reply #122 on:** June 14, 2011, 03:26:43 PM »

Quote from: Caminus

Quote from: gladius_veritatis
Quote from: Caminus
The sede has a much larger problem to deal with regarding the very divine constitution of the Church.

This is not a "sede" problem, Matthew -- it is THE bigger issue that ALL trads must face. Few realize this and even fewer want to touch it, but there it is.

There is a new, non-Catholic entity, with its own doctrine, worship, and discipline, that has more or less supplanted the Catholic Church. This is why all of us, including those who recognize-but-resist, use a different name when speaking of this alien body.

The enemies have used the material element of the Church to annihilate the faith of hundreds of millions.

What good is the structure, authority, etc., of the Church if they are being/can be used to ruin the faith of the members thereof? Or do you deny that this has, in fact, occurred?

The good of authority pertains to the essential nature of the Church itself, regardless of those who possess it. It is most certainly a "sede" problem, their basic premise is that all those in authority are formal heretics who have ceased to be members of the Catholic Church. What are you left with? A Church devoid of authority, a Church that has lost an essential characteristic, a Church that is impotent to fulfill its mission.

The restoration of the Church can only come about by means of recognized jurdisdiction. Catholics are not required to guess whether or not a certain body arising at some point in the future will come to repossess this lost authority. It is chimerical.

SJB · « **Reply #123 on:** June 14, 2011, 03:50:54 PM »

Quote from: Caminus

The good of authority pertains to the essential nature of the Church itself, regardless of those who possess it.

But you can't have nobody properly using their true authority. The same way you cannot have everybody believing error.

Caminus · « **Reply #124 on:** June 14, 2011, 04:01:17 PM »

The fact that they don't properly use it or don't use it at all doesn't negate the fact that they might still possess it. And there is nothing in Catholic theology that states a large majority of Catholics cannot fall into error, at least for a short time.

SJB · « **Reply #125 on:** June 14, 2011, 04:21:01 PM »

Quote from: Caminus

The fact that they don't properly use it or don't use it at all doesn't negate the fact that they might still possess it. And there is nothing in Catholic theology that states a large majority of Catholics cannot fall into error, at least for a short time.

Yes, but only you are talking about ALL members not using authority, or improperly using their authority.

Yes, Caminus, the unknown authority ruling the Church.

gladius_veritatis · « **Reply #126 on:** June 14, 2011, 04:24:30 PM »

Quote from: Caminus

The good of authority pertains to the essential nature of the Church itself, regardless of those who possess it.

What good is authority if it is being used to pervert, rather than promote, the Faith?

Which comes first, faith or authority? Authority without faith is worse than nothing; it is harmful.

I totally agree there are big, unaddressed holes in the strict sede view, which is why I am not an SV, strictly so called. However, I also see big, unanswered holes in the recognize-but-resist view. That said, this is NOT your grandfather's crisis; it is like an ecclesiastical nuclear wasteland and there is no "simple" answer. Unfortunately, BOTH dogmatic SV-ism AND dogmatic recognize-but-resist-ism act as if all is clear and those who disagree are stupid non-Catholics. Not only are such attitudes wrong, they are insuperable obstacles to real progress and unity.

gladius_veritatis · « **Reply #127 on:** June 14, 2011, 04:27:16 PM »

Quote from: Caminus

Let's start a separate thread and analyze the top five heresies and determine once for all their true note.

In your view, this is radically impossible, as we are NEITHER theologians NOR the law.

gladius_veritatis · « **Reply #128 on:** June 14, 2011, 04:31:28 PM »

Quote from: Caminus

And there is nothing in Catholic theology that states a large majority of Catholics cannot fall into error, at least for a short time.

Well, there is nothing in Catholic theology that says a pope cannot lose the Faith and his office, nor that a counterfeit anti-church cannot come into existence. In fact, Abp. Sheen, when he was at the top of his game, predicted that this very thing would occur in the 20th C.

Caminus · « **Reply #129 on:** June 14, 2011, 05:17:05 PM »

Quote from: gladius_veritatis

Quote from: Caminus
Let's start a separate thread and analyze the top five heresies and determine once for all their true note.

In your view, this is radically impossible, as we are NEITHER theologians NOR the law.

That was a little hyperbole. But at any rate, I never said it was radically impossible to make a private determination that a proposition is heretical.

Caminus · « **Reply #130 on:** June 14, 2011, 05:17:58 PM »

Quote from: gladius_veritatis

Quote from: Caminus
And there is nothing in Catholic theology that states a large majority of Catholics cannot fall into error, at least for a short time.

Well, there is nothing in Catholic theology that says a pope cannot lose the Faith and his office, nor that a counterfeit anti-church cannot come into existence. In fact, Abp. Sheen, when he was at the top of his game, predicted that this very thing would occur in the 20th C.

If you read the text closely, he is referring to Communism. Abp. Sheen is no friend of traditionalists anyway.

Caminus · « **Reply #131 on:** June 14, 2011, 05:19:59 PM »

Quote from: SJB

Quote from: Caminus
The fact that they don't properly use it or don't use it at all doesn't negate the fact that they might still possess it. And there is nothing in Catholic theology that states a large majority of Catholics cannot fall into error, at least for a short time.

Yes, but only you are talking about ALL members not using authority, or improperly using their authority.

Yes, Caminus, the unknown authority ruling the Church.

Now refusal to exercise authority, or simple negligence, amounts to the juridical loss of office? Next you'll be telling me that truly evil men cannot be real Bishops ruling the Church of God (Huss).

gladius_veritatis · « **Reply #132 on:** June 14, 2011, 05:33:23 PM »

Quote from: Caminus

I never said it was radically impossible to make a private determination that a proposition is heretical.

Well, would such a thing matter in your view -- i.e., doesn't it mean nothing until the law has ruled on the matter of guilt? What if we proved a million heresies? What then?

FWIW, clerics more learned than we, many of whom agree with you on the essential nature of the crisis, have already stated that the V2 popes have uttered heresies. Why try to reinvent the wheel? On this point, do you think Bp W (for one) simply does not know what he is talking about?

SJB · « **Reply #133 on:** June 14, 2011, 05:54:40 PM »

Quote from: Caminus

The fact that they don't properly use it or don't use it at all doesn't negate the fact that they might still possess it. And there is nothing in Catholic theology that states a large majority of Catholics cannot fall into error, at least for a short time.

You admit you have no certainty here. Cristian mentioned this before, and it appears you believe a doubtful pope is a true pope here and now. This is why the person of the pope is considered to be a dogmatic fact.

Caminus · « **Reply #134 on:** June 14, 2011, 05:58:11 PM »

Quote from: gladius_veritatis

Quote from: Caminus
I never said it was radically impossible to make a private determination that a proposition is heretical.

Well, would such a thing matter in your view -- i.e., doesn't it mean nothing until the law has ruled on the matter of guilt? What if we proved a million heresies? What then?

FWIW, clerics more learned than we, many of whom agree with you on the essential nature of the crisis, have already stated that the V2 popes have uttered heresies. Why try to reinvent the wheel? On this point, do you think Bp W (for one) simply does not know what he is talking about?

I know that many learned theologians have disagreed in assigning a particular note to a given proposition. I know that the history of the Church and how Rome has dealt with true heretics doesn't really square with the how the sede judges things. I know that a Church devoid of true authority is no Church at all. I know the kind of men we are dealing with are oftentimes convinced that they truly hold the Catholic faith and do not see any problem with the manner in which they formulate it. I know that theological error is extremely destructive, nay many doctrinal errors combined, have a devastating aggregate affect but this does not render one a non-member of the Church. I know that a man can destroy the theological virtue of faith without adhering to heresy. I know that this situation is extremely complex and multi-layered and that the blanket, dogmatic sede thesis is simply not a solution, nor is it merely a pretended recognition of a fact.

There are a thousand deceiving spirits that surround us at any given time and I refuse to give them any ground by flying off into unsound territory, much less venturing an opinion outside of what I know to be absolutely true and certain. If doubts arise, I give them no heed if it does not pertain to my immediate state. The dogmatic sede theory has all the marks of a purely human solution to an incomprehensible problem. It is the same habit of mind that convinced Calvin to find a solution to the mystery of predestination. He fixated on his opinion, mocked the apparently contradictory Catholic doctrine, and fell into a simplistic heretical notion that he could grasp and satisfied his mind.