Quote

Aside from the priest in the confessional you mean? I certainly don't look to the pope as a sure guide - to be nice, he is an embarrassment to all things Catholic.

Before V2 no one would say that about a Pope.

Can you honestly tell me where you got your thoughts on BOD and SV?  Anyone else know?  Is he a Saint Benedict Center guy?

Before V2 no one would have had any reason to say that about a pope.

On the necessity of the sacraments for salvation I could not prove myself wrong. If a BOD is true, then Our Lord, Trent and all the catechisms are a lie. It is that simple. I understand why you believe what you believe, you don't, but I do. If that sounds rash of me, so be it, I do not know how else to put it bluntly.

The same can be said of sedevacantism. It boils down to you accepting the false teachings of certain 20th century theologians, who've promulgated the false doctrine of infallibility that far as I know, all sedevacantists - and nearly the entire world embrace, otherwise, there might not be a crisis.



 

 

I still don't understand the question of sedevacantism well enough to take a position. I don't see how it is possible for a true Pope to be a heretic, which Francis obviously is. And I also don't see how it is possible for the entire Church and all the Bishops to recognize an antipope as Pope as must be true if sedevacantism is true. So I am not satisfied with either position and consider it to be a mystery.

Maybe somebody on this thread can answer this question for me. I have asked many sedevacantist friends and acointancses over the years... if the Pope is not the Pope, why did Our Lady of Fatima command us to pray for the Pope, for he would have much too suffer. She didn't say anything about praying that a "True Pope" may be reinstated, or anything else for that matter. Not looking for an argument, this is a sincere question. Thanks.

Maybe somebody on this thread can answer this question for me. I have asked many sedevacantist friends and acointancses over the years... if the Pope is not the Pope, why did Our Lady of Fatima command us to pray for the Pope, for he would have much too suffer. She didn't say anything about praying that a "True Pope" may be reinstated, or anything else for that matter. Not looking for an argument, this is a sincere question. Thanks.

In 1917, when our Lady appeared to the children, there was a pope!

Quote from: Stubborn

The same can be said of sedevacantism. It boils down to you accepting the false teachings of certain 20th century theologians, who've promulgated the false doctrine of infallibility that far as I know, all sedevacantists - and nearly the entire world embrace, otherwise, there might not be a crisis.

That is simply not true. The problem is that even in her fallible capacity the Catholic Church cannot teach heresy. Errors can occur, of course, but they can be only relatively minor and they can never endanger one's soul. If the Catholic Church's teaching would lead souls to hell it would mean defection of the Church. So far you have refused no less than three or four times to answer my simple question: can the Catholic Church promulgate teachings which will lead souls to hell?

It simply is true. And no, the Catholic Church, which is Christ, cannot teach error. I thought I answered earlier, but maybe not.

Errors / heresies / false teachings / etc. of whatever gravity, occur from those within the Church whose commission is supposed to be to guide the faithful to heaven, but the Church itself cannot err because the Church is Christ, it is His Mystical Body, so if you say the Church can err at all, you are saying that Christ can err, which obviously is impossible.

"The teachings of the Pope that are not infallible are protected by the Holy Ghost from being harmful to the faithful" is a teaching some SV posters on SD attribute to Fenton, Noort and other popular 20th century theologians, as being what the Church infallibly teaches.

It is an error that most definitely is *not* a teaching of the Church - but it is a teaching that nearly everyone believes *is* a teaching of the Church. How did this happen? How did the population accept an invention from 20th century theologians as a teaching of the Church?

How did this particular teaching, which is not what the Church infallibly taught at V1 and is contradictory to what was taught at V1 ever make it into the theology manuals and pre-V2 seminaries? How is it that those 20th century theologians can teach error like that, yet are considered "respected" theologians?
   

Quote from: Lover of Truth

Quote

Aside from the priest in the confessional you mean? I certainly don't look to the pope as a sure guide - to be nice, he is an embarrassment to all things Catholic.

Before V2 no one would say that about a Pope.

Can you honestly tell me where you got your thoughts on BOD and SV?  Anyone else know?  Is he a Saint Benedict Center guy?

Before V2 no one would have had any reason to say that about a pope.

On the necessity of the sacraments for salvation I could not prove myself wrong. If a BOD is true, then Our Lord, Trent and all the catechisms are a lie. It is that simple. I understand why you believe what you believe, you don't, but I do. If that sounds rash of me, so be it, I do not know how else to put it bluntly.

The same can be said of sedevacantism. It boils down to you accepting the false teachings of certain 20th century theologians, who've promulgated the false doctrine of infallibility that far as I know, all sedevacantists - and nearly the entire world embrace, otherwise, there might not be a crisis.



 

 

Again Stubborn does not admit where he gets his ideas from.  Is this because he does not want to grant a legitimate point I make?  Are debates for him about appearance and saving face rather than reality?

Quote from: Stubborn

Quote from: Lover of Truth

Quote

Aside from the priest in the confessional you mean? I certainly don't look to the pope as a sure guide - to be nice, he is an embarrassment to all things Catholic.

Before V2 no one would say that about a Pope.

Can you honestly tell me where you got your thoughts on BOD and SV?  Anyone else know?  Is he a Saint Benedict Center guy?

Before V2 no one would have had any reason to say that about a pope.

On the necessity of the sacraments for salvation I could not prove myself wrong. If a BOD is true, then Our Lord, Trent and all the catechisms are a lie. It is that simple. I understand why you believe what you believe, you don't, but I do. If that sounds rash of me, so be it, I do not know how else to put it bluntly.

The same can be said of sedevacantism. It boils down to you accepting the false teachings of certain 20th century theologians, who've promulgated the false doctrine of infallibility that far as I know, all sedevacantists - and nearly the entire world embrace, otherwise, there might not be a crisis.



 

 

Again Stubborn does not admit where he gets his ideas from.  Is this because he does not want to grant a legitimate point I make?  Are debates for him about appearance and saving face rather than reality?

They are not my ideas, they are teachings of the Church. They are teachings the Church has always taught. You cannot accept this - that is your own problem.

Quote from: Stubborn

It simply is true. And no, the Catholic Church, which is Christ, cannot teach error. I thought I answered earlier, but maybe not.

But Vatican II did teach serious error. Therefore Vatican II's validity and validity of people who promulgated it must be questioned, because the Catholic Church cannot teach such an error.

Of course V2 taught error, is there a trad who denies this? I do not question the validity of V2, but if you want to, I guess no one will stop you.


 

Quote from: Stubborn

"The teachings of the Pope that are not infallible are protected by the Holy Ghost from being harmful to the faithful" is a teaching some SV posters on SD attribute to Fenton, Noort and other popular 20th century theologians, as being what the Church infallibly teaches.

It is an error that most definitely is *not* a teaching of the Church - but it is a teaching that nearly everyone believes *is* a teaching of the Church. How did this happen? How did the population accept an invention from 20th century theologians as a teaching of the Church?

It is not an error, it is truth which flow directly from the doctrine of indefectibility of the Church. If the non-infallible teachings were not safe to follow (even though they contain minor errors) that would mean that the Church can defect and lead its children into hell through her non-infallible teachings.

Also, it would mean that each faithful has to sift non-infallible teachings of the Church on his own test them through his private judgment to decide whether they are harmful or not. This is a completely non-Catholic approach.

Finally, you contradict yourself, for first you say that the Catholic Church cannot teach error, now you claim that the non-infallible teachings of the Church can be harmful to the faithul. Please make up your mind.

So you believe the false teaching of the 20th century theologians. Fine. You have a lot of company that believe the same lies you believe, but that being the case, your pope problem and V2 validity problem and Magisterium defecting problem remains. But you may add an additional problem of believing a teaching that contradicts V1's teaching.

Quote from: Stubborn

How did this particular teaching, which is not what the Church infallibly taught at V1 and is contradictory to what was taught at V1 ever make it into the theology manuals and pre-V2 seminaries? How is it that those 20th century theologians can teach error like that, yet are considered "respected" theologians?
   

Again, like many times before, you confuse the doctrines of Papal infallibility and indefectibility of the Church. It has nothing to do with Vatican I and Pastor Aeternus - Papal infallibility is in fact limited, but indefectibility of the Church means that also non-infallible teachings can never be harmful to souls and can contain only minor errors.

I am not confusing a thing. You are the one confusing things. It is quite simple actually, there are certain parameters which per V1, must be met for teachings to be infallible. Teachings that fall outside of those parameters are entirely fallible. Isn't that simple?

The indefectibility of the Church means simply, that no matter what anyone does from within or from without, they will never succeed in destroying the Church. Even heretical popes who are hell bent on destroying the Church will never succeed. That, in a nutshell, is the doctrine of the Church's indefectibility.

Those poor souls who adhere to the false teaching that "The teachings of the Pope that are not infallible are protected by the Holy Ghost from being harmful to the faithful" cling to teachings that are obviously not teachings of the Church, what they are, are teachings of 20th century theologians.