But you guys DO REALIZE, of course, that the Catholic Church has no official teaching about what happens when a Pope falls into heresy. Right?
The crisis of the Church today is a mystery as you say, and each individual sede has their own answer which satisfies them, the same as you do. It seems to me that what we have here is a conflict between the people on both sides who don't really believe what they preach, or else they would not be so sensitive.
What does this mean? I think it is only these sensitive people who feel a need to keep harping on the subject of sedevacantes on one side or the other. There are people who would have a complete breakdown if they didn't have these crutches of the strict R&R and the strict sedevacantes positions.
Fr. Jenkins has the right attitude.
Maybe I should change my quote below to "Tradhican, creating enemies of everyone since 1950."
I can see where you would interpret what I wrote that way, and you are 100% correct in your response. What I meant to say was:QuoteLast Tradhican said: What does this mean? I think it is only these sensitive people who feel a need to keep harping on the subject of sedevacantes on one side or the other. There are people who would have a complete breakdown if they didn't have these crutches of the strict R&R and the strict sedevacantes positions
History shows no such thing about holding back important truths and exposing doctrinal error just for the hypothetical chance some unbalanced person may have a mental problem when he finds out he is wrong. That's basically a touch of ecuмenism.
But you guys DO REALIZE, of course, that the Catholic Church has no official teaching about what happens when a Pope falls into heresy. Right?
All the St. Robert Bellarmine quotes in the world won't make it a dogma or official teaching of the Church. His opinion on whether the Pope could fall into heresy, and what would happen if a pope DID theoretically fall into heresy, was just his personal opinion, nothing more. Other theologians -- his equals, I must point out -- disagreed with him. St. Robert Bellarmine wasn't some kind of universal, eternal mega-pope whose opinion gets precedence over all others.
Why are we still discussing the pros and cons of sedevacantism in 2017, when this Crisis has been going on since the 1960's?
Either concrete proof, dogma, doctrine has been impossible to find, or there are a LOT of
A) ignorant, uneducated, dull of mind, and/or
B) sellout, compromisers, wanting ease, human respect and unwilling to fight, and/or
C) malicious sinners who don't want to be Catholic
people out there. Just look at all the Traditional Catholics even (who see the problems) who fail to become Sedevacantist. They look at the arguments and they say, "Meh. I'll pass."
Now there are some sedevacantists -- the dogmatic kind -- who think sedevacantism itself is a dogma of the Catholic Faith: if you deny it, you aren't Catholic. This sort of sedevacantist isn't allowed on CathInfo, because they believe that every non-sedevacantist fits into category A, B, or C (above) -- or even more than one category. This is simply not true, and CathInfo is a message board for the truth and those trying to seek, share and expose the truth.
If Sedevacantism had a silver bullet, a conclusive proof or argument, it would have prevailed by now.
My conclusion is that the Catholic Church HAS nothing "on the books" for a situation like the Vatican II Crisis in the Church. My conclusion is that the Crisis is a mystery, which can't be reduced to any simple explanation.
The Church does provide justification for the Traditional Catholic movement, but it doesn't explain away every facet of the Crisis, and it certainly doesn't insist on Sedevacantism. It takes care of our souls, while leaving us shrouded in mystery.
If the Crisis could be reduced to a simple explanation, there would only be one true solution, and all the others would be IN ERROR, just like protestants and other non-Catholics.
I don't have time to respond to each of your replies, and I probably shouldn't.:applause:That's the spirit!
Can someone please explain to me what PRACTICAL changes in my life I have to make to become a sedevacantist? If I decide to become one tomorrow, what would change? I'm already a trad, I don't go the novus ordo, or the indult. Don't bother mentioning the 'una cuм' issue; i'll never go along with that. What else do I have to do to avoid damnation? I honestly don't know.
I have many friends and family in the SSPX, and in my experience nearly all of them cannot defend their position - they stay where they are primarily out of convenience. They primarily don't want to risk upsetting/losing family and friends, having to change parishes, change jobs, sell their homes etc by switching to a sedevacantist chapel.Perhaps that could be true for some, but I don't see how becoming sedevacantist would necessitate to switch chapels (unless you hold to absurd dogmatic non-una cuм position) - Resistance and SSPX priests also offer valid sacraments and Catholic teaching. In our SSPX chapel we have sedevacantists who are perfectly happy to attend the Mass and actively support the parish even though they disagree with the SSPX on the status of V2 claimants. There are also perfectly good and rational reasons for not embracing sedevacantist position, such as the problem of Apostolic succession and Ecclesia-vacantism which is a logical conclusion of sedevacantism (even if sedes deny that).
Perhaps that could be true for some, but I don't see how becoming sedevacantist would necessitate to switch chapels (unless you hold to absurd dogmatic non-una cuм position) - Resistance and SSPX priests also offer valid sacraments and Catholic teaching. In our SSPX chapel we have sedevacantists who are perfectly happy to attend the Mass and actively support the parish even though they disagree with the SSPX on the status of V2 claimants. There are also perfectly good and rational reasons for not embracing sedevacantist position, such as the problem of Apostolic succession and Ecclesia-vacantism which is a logical conclusion of sedevacantism (even if sedes deny that).
I agree with Matthew that the current crisis is a mystery and no theologian ever proposed a satisfying explanation for what is going on today. Both R&R and sedevacantist positions have their weaknesses, they both deny indefectibility of the Church, although in different ways (R&R through asserting that an Ecuмenical Council can teach grave error to the Universal Church, sedevacantists through asserting that all episcopal sees are vacant, which means Ecclesia-vacantism and the end of Apostolic succession).
However, it is not quite true that the Church never taught anything relevant to the current crisis. The Church most certainly teaches that a formal heretic loses membership in the Church and is outside the Church. Thus, if V2 claimants to the Papacy are formal heretics, they cannot be Popes, unless you want to argue that one can be outside the Church and remain Pope.
The sedevacantismo is only a theological opinion, it is not heresy nor dogma. It is permissible to doubt who claims to be pope and by heresy scandalizes the Church.
Bergoglio is 32 ° of the masonry, as were Roncalli and Montini.
When discussing the immaculate conception of the Virgin Mary there were those who were against and gave their arguments. They were not condemned for this, they only gave their opinion with arguments. Today something similar happens ...
I am Sedevacantista and I do not condemn those who think differently ... unfortunately there are sedevacantistas who do it and the same thing happens in reverse.
Omitting to name the pope and just pray for all Catholics and the needs of the church is enough. Just pray for the conversion of Bergoglio ... I do ...
Bishop Castro Mayer was sedevacantista. Many first priests of the FSSPX were, for example: Mathet, Méramo, Sanchez Abelenda (friendly priest of FSSPX in Argentina, RIP).
Catholic imprimatured books have categorically taught this as a simple truth.
So, if you reject this, is it because you don't consider it "official" teaching?
The Church most certainly teaches that a formal heretic loses membership in the Church and is outside the Church. Thus, if V2 claimants to the Papacy are formal heretics, they cannot be Popes, unless you want to argue that one can be outside the Church and remain Pope.
Yikes, this post is just oooozing with trad-cuмenism!
You act as if it's a given that "trad-cuмenism" is a bad thing.Are you willing to read and respond to what I last wrote you in this thread?
Are you willing to first define "trad-cuмenism", and then explain to us why "trad-cuмenism" is as bad as the false ecuмenism of the Conciliar Church?
Can someone please explain to me what PRACTICAL changes in my life I have to make to become a sedevacantist? If I decide to become one tomorrow, what would change? I'm already a trad, I don't go the novus ordo, or the indult. Don't bother mentioning the 'una cuм' issue; i'll never go along with that. What else do I have to do to avoid damnation? I honestly don't know.
Are you willing to read and respond to what I last wrote you in this thread?I don't think I'd respond to you, even if I wanted to respond to everyone. You're too stubborn, you think you're right (and everyone else is wrong), and plus you've re-joined CI after being banned as "Nado". I'm surprised you're still here.
It really is beginning to feel like CathInfo is getting ready to ban sedevacantists for that reason alone. You're not judging anything as if you are above it all...you are judging something as if you have invested too much to accept any other possibility.
There's no such thing as Nadoism, right Roscoe?You forgot the :fryingpan:.
Matthew, I think you are in denial. You really need to face the reality of some posts, and respond seriously and patiently. Nobody is rushing you.I might have serious discussions, but at my semi-mature age I learned long ago who to discuss with, and who to ignore. You fit into the latter category.
I am not a sedevacantist, but would like to know what the informed opinion is on whether someone can attend a Mass and receive Holy Communion in a sedevacantist chapel.
Let me know when you consider yourself "mature". It should have been easily 10 years ago. If you have a biological handicap, I will certainly comply.
Everyone should note that it was precisely for this kind of thing that Nado was banned in the first place, and not for sedevacantism. Just for the record ... lest people think that Matthew bans sedevacantists for that reason alone.TKGS has been here for years and he has not been banned.
For starters: No doubts on the validity of the priest, hence, no doubts about the most Blessed Sacrament being present.
I can picture you 5 years from now, sitting in your old-man rocking chair, at every rock forward, uttering, "Nado..."
Sounds pretty sick to me.
I know. Specifically, the Thuc line bishops.
That is why I mentioned "valid order are non-negotiable". Folks have to do their homework. But it doesn't take long to find out if a priest was validly ordained via valid succession.
You act as if it's a given that "trad-cuмenism" is a bad thing.
Are you willing to first define "trad-cuмenism", and then explain to us why "trad-cuмenism" is as bad as the false ecuмenism of the Conciliar Church?
I might have serious discussions, but at my semi-mature age I learned long ago who to discuss with, and who to ignore. You fit into the latter category.By debating with someone online we empower them, acknowledge them. Unfortunately, we can't see them, so it takes a while to get to know them and during that time that we respond to them out of charity to them and others, they get puffed up. "I'm important, Matthew and Ladislaus responds to me."
Some people dispute the Thuc line. I personally believe that most of that line is valid. Some of them veer off into weirdness, but the main des Lauriers and Carmona/Zamora lines seem pretty solid. In fact, there's no doubt at all regarding the Palmar de Toya line either ... unless you argue that Dominguez was insane. Yet most people don't know that +Thuc consecrated two others. And these were done in public with competent priests as witnesses and participating in the ceremony (so that the SSPV criticism fails there). One of the consecrations +Thuc did was of a priest ordained prior to Vatican II. So no doubts whatsoever.That is good to hear, doubts about sede clergy validity is the #1 reason why I would not attend those chapels. I would still have doubts about the truth about whether the priest really was ordained as he claims, but I'll deal with that the day I move away from where I live.
Catechism of the Council of Trent page 399 and 400. (30) The Apostle also teaches that they are entitled to obedience: “Obey our prelates, and be subject to them; for they watch as being to render an account of your souls.” (31) Nay more, Christ himself commands obedience even to wicked pastors: ” Upon the chair of Moses have sitten the Scribes and Pharisees: all things, therefore, whatsoever they shall say to you, observe ye and do ye: but according to their works do ye not, for they say and do not.” (32)
The Passion of Our Lord completely obliterates modern sedevacantism because Jesus Himself recognized wicked Church authority and subjected both His Humanity and Divinity to it. Jesus willingly subjected Himself to some of the most despicable and heretical church authorities in history. Our Lord did not demand that Caiaphas resign before allowing him to manhandle Him. Some will respond: “wickedness isn’t heresy”. That is a ridiculous notion because heresy IS wickedness. No one can prove the rulers of Christ's day weren’t heretics. Our Lord didn't usurp Annas’ authority because of the man’s corruption, or deviancy from the truth, or heresy. Rather, Our Lord Jesus Christ went as a Lamb to the slaughter. Some say, 'that was Jesus', 'he was God, it doesn’t count'. Sorry, that won’t do because Jesus also never admonished Mary for her silence in the face of heretics run amok. Jesus never said, “do not recognize their authority, Woman. They do not officially hold office or power over us, let us wait for a true leader with the Faith.” Rather, Our Lord even takes special care to explain to the world that Pilate’s authority (over Him) came from God above. In order to honor His Father, Jesus submitted to a variety of authorities, both religious and secular, not just in day to day matters, but even unto death. And Mary imitated Her Son. As our premiere role models, Jesus and Mary show by example that all Catholics should do as they did, knowing Our Lord and Our Lady were properly obedient without committing a single sin.
I agree that there is no practical change for an existing trad to make, if he were to become a sede overnight. I just wanted to see what the actual sedes on this site thought. Judging from the lack of responses, I guess the answer is the same as you received "nothing, really...".QuoteCan someone please explain to me what PRACTICAL changes in my life I have to make to become a sedevacantist? If I decide to become one tomorrow, what would change? I'm already a trad, I don't go the novus ordo, or the indult. Don't bother mentioning the 'una cuм' issue; i'll never go along with that. What else do I have to do to avoid damnation? I honestly don't know.
Matthew said:
I asked this same question to a sedevacantist nicknamed "gladius_veritatis" about 9 years ago. He basically answered, "nothing, really..."
In my post/question, I elaborated on a few details of what it means to be Trad, for example: daily rosary, no meat on Fridays, practice fasting/abstinence on Ember days, practice Advent during Advent, ladies wear skirts/dresses, and so forth.
Matthew said:
I asked this same question to a sedevacantist nicknamed "gladius_veritatis" about 9 years ago. He basically answered, "nothing, really..."
In my post/question, I elaborated on a few details of what it means to be Trad, for example: daily rosary, no meat on Fridays, practice fasting/abstinence on Ember days, practice Advent during Advent, ladies wear skirts/dresses, and so forth.
I agree that there is no practical change for an existing trad to make, if he were to become a sede overnight. I just wanted to see what the actual sedes on this site thought. Judging from the lack of responses, I guess the answer is the same as you received "nothing, really...".
We know that ecuмenism refers to the belief that one religion is as good as another. With "trad-cuмenism", the belief seems to be that one view on traditional Catholicism is as good as another view.
My point is that if one view believes the pope is true and valid, and another view believes the pope is false and an imposter (the opposite), then how can both views be true at the same time? Catholicism is ONE Church with ONE doctrine.
You assume that Sede chapels are available 1:1 with recognize and resist chapels. That is simply not true, so it's a foolish assumption to make. Perhaps a few areas of the country have a wide variety of chapels available for all Traditional "tastes", but such places are few and far between.
A few things would change. The new sede would obviously switch to a sede chapel, plus get educated through the new pastor to make sure he/she has the correct understanding on the situation in the Church. Plus the new sede would avoid any other chapels that don't teach Catholic doctrines correctly or that have doubtful clergy. That's the routine I have always seen. Most else would probably remain the same.
I am not a sedevacantist, but would like to know what the informed opinion is on whether someone can attend a Mass and receive Holy Communion in a sedevacantist chapel.If the only chapel available is sedevacantist, then our obligation to assist at the Holy Sacrifice dictates that we must attend the Holy Sacrifice at the sedevacantist chapel - the exception is, unless the chapel or priest requires us to pledge or sign something saying the pope is not the pope as a condition to participate at the Mass.
1. I wouldn't say that "one view on traditional Catholicism is as good as another", but I WOULD say that we can't know the truth with certainty. There might be a "favorite" from Our Lord's point of view, but as I've said a hundred times, Our Lord hasn't personally appeared and weighed in on the issue.
The best you and I can hope for is to make a good, prayerful, informed PRUDENTIAL decision. Our decision will only be as good as our prudence.
2. We know there is one true Church: the Catholic Church. We know this with the certainty of Faith. So every other so-called religion is objectively wrong, period. But we do not have ANYTHING CLOSE to such certainty regarding which Trad group is best. We're talking about lifeboats here, not the Church. We all agree that the Catholic Church is the One True Church. So the arguments against false ecuмenism do not apply, when discussing the various Trad flavors.
Therefore it is ERRONEOUS and even EVIL to pretend that only "my" trad group is legit, and everyone else is objectively in error and/or mortal sin, just as we consider all the protestants to all be in error and/or mortal sin.
First, the SSPX accepts Novus ordo priests into their ranks without conditional ordination. The new rite of ordination is doubtful at best, so these "priests" are providing doubtful sacraments, and they are scattered all throughout the SSPX. I would switch for this reason ALONE. Second, the SSPX tells their congregations to disregard the man they think is the Pope, which is schismatic by definition. Another reason to switch. Third, the SSPX teaches General Councils (always infallible) can teach error. I could go on.Regarding the first paragraph - what you are talking about is not strictly related to sedevacantism and becoming a sedevacantist. One can have doubts about the new rite of ordination and be a sedeplenist. Or one can simply attend these SSPX chapels which have validly ordained priests. If a priest has unquestionable ordination I still do not see a necessity of switching chapels after one becomes a sedevacantist. Regarding indefectibility of the Church - yes, they are in error, but one can simply disagree and keep attending SSPX/Resistance chapel. I reject R&R position, yet I have no problem attending the SSPX chapel, because I know that SSPX teaches this error in good faith and otherwise provides solid Catholic teaching and valid sacraments.
You admit the Church teaches a heretical Pope loses membership in the Church, then in the same post you say the current crisis is a mystery with no satisfying explanation. Major contradiction. If you know the Church has taught this, why are you resisting the Church? Francis has taught even against the Natural Law which no one can claim ignorance of, so this can only be labeled formal heresy. This means the teaching of the Church takes effect; Francis has lost membership.
You also say both R&R and sedevacantist positions "have their weaknesses". ONE and only ONE position has to be true, which leaves any others false. 2+2=4 is true, and all other answers are false, but no one in their right mind would say, "2+2=4 has its weaknesses" - it's either true or it's not. If R&R is true, sedevacantism is false, and vice versa.
Indeed, but the question is: when does formal heresy become sufficiently known for ipso facto defection to occur? You could have 3 Cardinals accuse a pope of heresy. But then others might disagree. So if 10% of Catholics believe that a pope is a manifest heretic, but 90% don't, what is that Pope's status? Even if the 10% are correct, who has the authority to say that they are correct? This correctness must be known with the certainty of faith, and regardless of how strong the syllogisms of the 10% might be, they do not rise to that level. Papal legitimacy must be known with the certainty of faith. Consequently, his illegitimacy must be known with the certainty of faith. Consequently, it must be known with the certainty of faith that the man is a formal heretic. Only a judgment of the Universal Church can rise to that level.I never denied any of that - to the contrary, I absolutely agree, which is why I'm not a sedevacantist. A private judgment of laymen in a pew is insufficient to determine with certainty of faith whether a Pope fell into formal heresy - that could have happened and there is indeed a very strong possibility that V2 claimants are/were not Popes, but currently we can't know that for sure.
I never denied any of that - to the contrary, I absolutely agree, which is why I'm not a sedevacantist. A private judgment of laymen in a pew is insufficient to determine with certainty of faith whether a Pope fell into formal heresy - that could have happened and there is indeed a very strong possibility that V2 claimants are/were not Popes, but currently we can't know that for sure.
By debating with someone online we empower them, acknowledge them.
Unfortunately, we can't see them, so it takes a while to get to know them and during that time that we respond to them out of charity to them and others, they get puffed up. "I'm important, Matthew and Ladislaus responds to me."
The recognize and resisters are selling swiss cheese and the sedevacantists are also selling swiss cheese and they both have booths right next to each other. And whenever someone comes up to the sedevacantist to buy cheese the R&R supporter says "don't buy from him. His cheese tastes bad and it isn't really real cheese." And whenever someone goes up to the R&R supporter to buy cheese the sedevacantist says "don't buy from him, his cheese is full of holes."Haha. Nice analogy. But...Is this a coded message telling me that the real pope is hiding in Wisconsin? Is that where we find the "real cheese"? :ready-to-eat:
Haha. Nice analogy. But...Is this a coded message telling me that the real pope is hiding in Wisconsin? Is that where we find the "real cheese"? :ready-to-eat:Thanks. My post was somewhat of a joke and only partially serious. But if it was meant to be taken seriously, I think it would be a message that there is an alternative cheese that is real cheese and tastes good and does not have any holes. Of course that would be the cheese of the true Pope in exile Gregory XVII.
Regarding indefectibility of the Church - yes, they are in error, but one can simply disagree and keep attending SSPX/Resistance chapel. I reject R&R position, yet I have no problem attending the SSPX chapel, because I know that SSPX teaches this error in good faith and otherwise provides solid Catholic teaching and valid sacraments.
yes, a heretical Pope loses membership in the Church, but one needs to prove he is a formal heretic, not just a material heretic (which you can't do).
The Arians taught a SINGLE error in good faith too, and St. Athanasius and other clergy of his time insisted Catholic stays away. The Church has taught this repeatedly, for example:Are you seriously comparing the SSPX position on the Pope with Arian heresy? It is beyond absurd (and I don't see how the Arians could have taught their error in good faith, certainly not after the Council of Nicaea and its approval of a creed with homoousios).
"Since heresy, and any kind of infidelity, is a mortal sin, they also sin mortally who expose themselves to its danger, whether by their association, or by listening to preaching, or by their reading." - St. Alphonsus Ligouri
Whoah...Christ as our model is a tactic? Ridiculous. Christ died at the hands of heretics. Without doubt, in the corporal world, some of them maintain authority. And as Christ Himself said, "given to them from above."
Here we see a very common tactic used by adherents of the resistance position: As they are usually quite unfamiliar with Catholic magisterial teaching on the Papacy and can’t be bothered to look it up, they instead make up their own inept arguments from Sacred Scripture or other sources which they think lend support to their thesis.
So the claim is made that Christ never stripped Caiaphas the High Priest of his office, despite his official rejection and condemnation of Him (see Matthew 26:57-66). This, the resistance adherent triumphantly believes, is the death blow to Sedevacantism!
There is just one problem with it: It isn’t true. Christ did strip the high priest of his office. More specifically, the high priest stripped himself of his office, by his own act of apostasy, the sentence being rendered by the divine law (thus Christ’s) itself.
Don’t take our word for it, though; take the word of St. Jerome (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08341a.htm), Doctor of the Church and patron saint of Bible scholars, commenting on this passage in St. Matthew’s Gospel:
In other words, St. Jerome tells us that when the high priest Caiaphas rent his garments and rejected Christ as the true Messias, he lost his authority and his office, automatically and without a declaration, by publicly defecting from the true religion. Does this sound familiar or what?
Of course we can have a bad Pope. What we cannot have, however, is a non-Catholic Pope — just as we can have a bad Catholic but not a non-Catholic Catholic because that’s a contradiction in terms.
If Christ didn't die, you would have a case. But Christ did die at the hands of heretics to which He was obedient unto death. And so was His mother.
Don't go off into a fantasy world of your own making. Do you accept the quote I cited from St. Francis de Sales or not? I am giving you a chance to really read it, if you have not.
The Hebrew religion was the true religion, but it wasn't the Mystical Body of Christ. The is a substantial difference between the Old Law before the Redemption, and the New Law of Grace. That is why you should read the quote I gave and accept it what it teaches.
If Christ didn't die, you would have a case. But Christ did die at the hands of heretics to which He was obedient unto death. And so was His mother.I thought Christ was obedient to God the Father. He was not being obedient to heretics. Your comments are absurd.
I thought Christ was obedient to God the Father. He was not being obedient to heretics. Your comments are absurd.Christ was obedient to heretics for the sake of His Father. But He did permit them authority over Him as He Himself said. "You would have no authority over Me unless it were given you from above." Heretics killed Christ as they are killing His Church today. Those who deny this are like Peter when he told Jesus he wouldn't have to die. Jesus called Peter the devil for saying it.
So, Ladislaus won't accept those approved Catholic books, and because I won't listen to him telling me I shouldn't either, I am "heretically depraved filth"!
The current crisis is a mystery which we are not held accountable for solving it.
The current crisis is a mystery which we are not held accountable for solving it.Then why do all of you anti-sedevacantists insist that we must be able to resolve the Crisis?
Then why do all of you anti-sedevacantists insist that we must be able to resolve the Crisis?The resolution of the problem remains the same as it has always been. It is the personal clash (and hopeful victory) over sin. Loving God with your whole heart, mind, soul and strength and your neighbor as yourself. The Church in crisis is Christ in crisis in men's souls, but manifested as a whole. We have very limited power in the bigger picture but have been called to overcome self with God's grace. This is where the battle is won or lost.
You want it both ways. You condemn sedevacantists for merely recognizing the situation as it is rather than as we would like it to be and then you absolve yourselves for not being responsible for resolving the problem.
Then why do all of you anti-sedevacantists insist that we must be able to resolve the Crisis?Can you be more specific? How do some insist this?
Give it a rest, Nado. I didn't declare you to be heretically depraved on account of following "Catholic books". There are about 3-4 legitimate grounds for that accusation ... various heresies that have been condemned as such by the Church and to which you pertinaciously adhere. Also, my "declaration" (my use of that word) was largely argumentum ad absurdum regarding your "manifest heresy" position. If the V2 Popes are manifest heretics and lose their membership in the Church by virtue of your declaration, then the same holds of you when you manifestly embrace heresy. Why? Because I say so.
In addition, your preposterous Nadoist theology that we must accept anything ever written in any "approved" Catholic book can ironically not be found in a single approved Catholic book. You're like the Prots who believe in sola Scriptura but then cannot provide evidence of sola Scriptura in the selfsame Scriptura.
Are you seriously comparing the SSPX position on the Pope with Arian heresy? It is beyond absurd (and I don't see how the Arians could have taught their error in good faith, certainly not after the Council of Nicaea and its approval of a creed with homoousios).
I am not comparing the SSPX position to the Arian heresy. I gave the Arian heresy as an example to show you that if you believe there is error being taught at the SSPX, the Church teaches you have an obligation not to go there, even if you think their error is in "good faith". You admitted the SSPX was in error and said there was no reason to leave there should someone change to the sedevacantist position. This is false because if someone becomes a sedevacantist (belief that Francis is an imposter), he/she must inevitably believe that the SSPX is in error, since they believe Francis is a true pope (the exact opposite of sedevacantism).
....in the sedevacantist scenario the Church has failed by having no more bishops with ordinary jurisdiction which results in cessation of the Apostolic Succession (some sedes understand that and hold onto what Fr Cekada called "bishop in the woods" theory - somewhere there is a bishop with ordinary jurisdiction, but no one knows who he is and where he is). Obviously I will not accuse sede clergy of formal heresy for teaching that error, because I know they do it in good faith, just like its absurd to accuse the SSPX of formal heresy.
Again, thinking that sedevacantism provides a comprehensive explanation of the current crisis is nothing but a delusion. It is a possible, but problematic thesis which fails to answer important questions, just like R&R fails to do so. The current crisis is a mystery which we are not held accountable for solving it.
First, no, the case of Arians does not prove anything like that, Arians rejected the Ecuмenical Council and dogmatically promulgated creed, they were not material heretics arguing in good faith, certinly not after Nicaea. Furthermore, in the time of Nestorian heresy St. Cyril of Jerusalem declared that he will not break communion with Nestorius until Pope Celestine I is informed of Nestorius' heretical teaching and makes a decision. You are making up your own theology here.
Second, I believe sedevacantists to be also in grave error (ecclesia-vacantism), so following your flawed argument I'd have to be home aloner, which is absurd.
You obviously need to read up on the Arian heresy. In the year 319 Arius began teaching his own view on the Divinity of Christ. St. Athanasius, St. Alexander, and an enormous list of clergy immediately circulated a letter condemning him for heresy, telling the faithful that he and churches that taught his view were to be AVOIDED. Many of those who didn't listen to the warning fell for the heresy and nearly 2/3 of the Church wound up becoming infected with heresy because they didn't heed the warning. Because Arius wouldn't recant, he was condemned as a heretic 6 years later in the Council of Nicaea.I specifically said that *after* the Council of Nicaea Arians could not be considered material heretics in any way, shape or form. And that needed Church declaration and condemnation at Nicaea to be official. Only judgment of the Church can be sufficient, just as in the case of Nestorius and St. Cyril of Jerusalem, which you did not address at all - St. Cyril stated explicitly that he will not severe communion with Nestorius untill the Pope decides on the matter (even though St. Cyril considered Nestorius' teaching to be heretical).
Moral of the story: the Church recommends AVOIDING churches if you know even ONE error is being taught there. If you ignore this warning, we have the example of two-thirds of the Church falling for heresy to show us what can be expected. As our pastor always used to quote from Scripture, "he who loves the danger shall perish in it".
I've are answered your "ecclesia-vacantism" argument in another post - it's nonsense.
I specifically said that *after* the Council of Nicaea Arians could not be considered material heretics in any way, shape or form.How do you know that they didn't just claim what they claimed in good faith because they were ignorant of what the teaching of the Council was? Isn't that what you say about the Conciliar popes and bishops who teach condemned heresies (most notably and recently in Amoris Laetitia), that is, that we can't really know that it's formal or merely material?
I specifically said that *after* the Council of Nicaea Arians could not be considered material heretics in any way, shape or form. And that needed Church declaration and condemnation at Nicaea to be official. Only judgment of the Church can be sufficient, just as in the case of Nestorius and St. Cyril of Jerusalem, which you did not address at all - St. Cyril stated explicitly that he will not severe communion with Nestorius untill the Pope decides on the matter (even though St. Cyril considered Nestorius' teaching to be heretical).
Show me any quote from the Magisterium teaching that one cannot attend churches of priests who are undeclared heretics (much less material heretics) and receive sacraments there.
The current crisis in the Church is a mystery, the the SSPX/Resistance are trying to make sense of it, just like sedevacantist do. All explanations have problems, and people run into errors in good faith because the situation is without precedence in Church history. I understand that and thus I have no problems with attending the SSPX even though their R&R position is indefensible.
Furthermore, if I were to avoid Traditional Catholic Churches who teach a single error, I'd have to avoid virtually all sedevacantist chapels - CMRI, SSPV, Bishop Sanborn, Fr Cekada et al. all deny EENS dogma by teaching that people who die ignorant of Christ can be saved if they are in "invincible ignorance", which is heretical.
Ecclesia-vacantism is a logical conclusion of sedevacantist position - even some sedevacantists admit that if there are no more bishops with ordinary jurisdiction than sedevacantism is false (thus "bishop in the woods" theory). According to you, all episcopal sees are vacant, and thus the Apostolic succession has ceased. Epikeia and supplied jurisdiction is not sufficient to maintain Apostolic Succession - ordinary jurisdiction which is associated with possessing episcopal sees is necessary. Sede bishops do not have ordinary jurisdiction and thus cannot constitute hierarchy which maintains Apostolic Succession. It is impossible for all episcopal sees to become vacant. Thus, sedevacantism denies indefectibility of the Church and is in error no less grave than R&R.
You'll notice your constant whining about apostolic succession being broken is not a concern to anyone but you. You don't understand what you are talking about.You are wrong here. It is a concern well known in the sedevacantist world. Many sedevacantists believe that apostolic succession requires ordinary jurisdiction and that there must at all times be such Bishops and some even say it is a heresy to hold your position. So they argue there must be some Bishops with ordinary jurisdiction and a diocese who has kept the faith or else the Church has defected. If you go to the sedevacantist forum Te Deum this is the position of the owner. And John Lane believes this also and he is a prominent sedevacantist who ran the Bellarmine Forum and he got in a famous argument with Father Cekada over this on Ignis Ardens where he went as far as to call Father Cekada a heretic for believing there were no remaining Bishops with ordinary jurisdiction in the world who did not fall into heresy. This argument was considered so important that some people saved it and kept records of it even after Ignis Ardens went defunct. So this issue is a concern to many traditional Catholics and not just Arvinger.
You are wrong here. It is a concern well known in the sedevacantist world. Many sedevacantists believe that apostolic succession requires ordinary jurisdiction and that there must at all times be such Bishops and some even say it is a heresy to hold your position. So they argue there must be some Bishops with ordinary jurisdiction and a diocese who has kept the faith or else the Church has defected. If you go to the sedevacantist forum Te Deum this is the position of the owner. And John Lane believes this also and he is a prominent sedevacantist who ran the Bellarmine Forum and he got in a famous argument with Father Cekada over this on Ignis Ardens where he went as far as to call Father Cekada a heretic for believing there were no remaining Bishops with ordinary jurisdiction in the world who did not fall into heresy. This argument was considered so important that some people saved it and kept records of it even after Ignis Ardens went defunct. So this issue is a concern to many traditional Catholics and not just Arvinger.
There are two kinds of heresy, material (heresy out of ignorance), and formal (a deliberate denial or doubt of a revealed truth). Francis has publicly approved of atheism, ѕυιcιdє, and ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity which are all against the Natural Law built into every human being. No one can claim ignorance to approving of sins against the Natural Law, which makes these 3 heresies at a minimum to be formal heresies.
Looking for you or anyone to prove me wrong on this particular point.
How do you know that they didn't just claim what they claimed in good faith because they were ignorant of what the teaching of the Council was? Isn't that what you say about the Conciliar popes and bishops who teach condemned heresies (most notably and recently in Amoris Laetitia), that is, that we can't really know that it's formal or merely material?Arius and his closest followers were explicitly condemned by the Church and deposed of their offices, so there was judgment of the Church by which we can know with certainty that they were formal heretics.
You are wrong here. It is a concern well known in the sedevacantist world. Many sedevacantists believe that apostolic succession requires ordinary jurisdiction and that there must at all times be such Bishops and some even say it is a heresy to hold your position. So they argue there must be some Bishops with ordinary jurisdiction and a diocese who has kept the faith or else the Church has defected. If you go to the sedevacantist forum Te Deum this is the position of the owner. And John Lane believes this also and he is a prominent sedevacantist who ran the Bellarmine Forum and he got in a famous argument with Father Cekada over this on Ignis Ardens where he went as far as to call Father Cekada a heretic for believing there were no remaining Bishops with ordinary jurisdiction in the world who did not fall into heresy. This argument was considered so important that some people saved it and kept records of it even after Ignis Ardens went defunct. So this issue is a concern to many traditional Catholics and not just Arvinger.That is true, John Lane understands this - he went as far as to propose a solution that an antipope can validly appoint bishops for the good of the Church. He understands the problem of Apostolic Succession, he even admitted that if there is no bishop with ordinary jurisdiction left then sedevacantist thesis is false. Some sedevacantists try to solve it by saying that Pope Pius XII's bishops still have jurisdiction, because their resignations were to antipopes and thus were invalid and they still have jurisdiction, even though they don't know it(!).
What I have said has obviously gone completely over your head. How could St. Athanasius, St. Alexander and all the other bishops have condemned Arius publicly as a heretic beforehand if the Pope had not yet decided on the matter? They all avoided Arius before he was ever condemned in General Council. This is just the opposite of what you are arguing. They avoided Arius before the Church condemned him because they saw him teaching against the continuous teaching of the Church and they considered this a danger. When reading up on this you will notice that NONE of these saints or bishops that were against Arius at that time were concerned with whether his heresy was formal or material - it didn't matter - they all unanimously condemned him and avoided him BEFORE the pope made any decision on the subject. This is exactly opposite of what you are saying. I rest my case on that subject.:facepalm:
That is true, John Lane understands this - he went as far as to propose a solution that an antipope can validly appoint bishops for the good of the Church. He understands the problem of Apostolic Succession, he even admitted that if there is no bishop with ordinary jurisdiction left then sedevacantist thesis is false. Some sedevacantists try to solve it by saying that Pope Pius XII's bishops still have jurisdiction, because their resignations were to antipopes and thus were invalid and they still have jurisdiction, even though they don't know it(!).
Bosco is either ignorant of this or tries to sweep this under the rug because he has no answer to this problem, a problem which is devastating for the sedevacantist thesis.
It is not just John Lane - why do you think sedeprivationism has supporters and why Bishop des Lauriers proposed Cassiciacuм thesis in first place? Because it solves the problem of Apostolic Succession. Your claim that it is just a claim of John Lain is simply wrong.
I wouldn't mix the two; John Lane has always hated sedeprivationism and the Cassiciacuм thesis.
I can see you either didn't really read what I wrote, or didn't understand it, because you continue on with the same stuff I have already addressed.
I mentioned wandering bishops in history without jurisdiction or title to a diocese, who functioned by providing Sacraments, but they were not condemned. How do you handle that historical fact?
I'm not mixing them, I just point out that both Lane and adherents of Cassiciacuм Thesis recognize the necessity of bishops with ordinary jurisdiction - they just address this grave problem in very different way, but they recognize it. You simply deny that the problem exists.
Yes, of course there were wandering bishops - it is true and irrelevant. By bringing this argument you show you don't understand what the problem is. I'm not saying that bishops and priests can't operate under supplied jurisdiction or without being assigned to a specific diocese - yes, they can. But there must also be bishops with ordinary jurisdiction associated with Episcopal Sees, for that is requirement for the continuity of Apostolic Succession, as Vatican I teaches. There was no point in Church history when all Episcopal Sees were vacant (not even at the worst period of Arian crisis) and there cannot be such situation, for that would mean cessation of ordinary jurisdiction and Apostolic Succession. Anyone claiming to have solution for the current crisis must be able to identify the hierarchy with ordinary jurisdiction. Sedevacantists can't do that, in their scenario the Church has defected by leaving all Episcopal Sees vacant, thus ceasing to be Apostolic and even visible (sedes can't even agree which of their bishops are actually validly consecrated).
:facepalm:
They condemned him as a heretic because they considered his views to be objectively heretical. However, that was not a binding judgment of the Church prohibiting any Christian communion with Arius or his followers. In fact, Arian bishops, including closest supporters of Arius, took part in the Council of Nicaea and some of them even refused to sign the Nicaean Creed and they were deposed only after this refusal. Your argument is completely void.
Once again - show me a single statement from the Magisterium saying that it is forbidden to attend Masses of material heretics (since you claim we should not attend SSPX Masses) or even undeclared heretics.
I'm saying, contrary to what you have said, that if you believe the SSPX is teaching heretically, it is your duty to avoid them even before the Church makes any decisions about it. It does not matter whether the error is in good faith or not! This topic is NOT complex Arvi.Today, that is a good formula only for not going to mass anywhere, being a home aloner.
I'd like to point out, as the point seems to be lost, that Arvinger never said that the sspx teaches/preaches/believes formal heresy. He said that he believes (his opinion) they are in 'good faith' error when it comes to the Indefectibility of the Church. SaintBosco13, you are making the argument as if Arvinger is talking about outiright heresy. This debate has veered off course.
yes, a heretical Pope loses membership in the Church, but one needs to prove he is a formal heretic, not just a material heretic (which you can't do).
Arvi, This is a very simple topic and I don't understand why you cannot grasp it. OF COURSE it was not a binding judgment for St. Athanasius and others to circulate a letter warning the faithful to stay away from Arius and his followers. That is IRRELEVANT to the topic we are discussing. We were discussing whether Catholics have the duty to take it upon themselves to avoid what they believe is error, or whether they should wait for the Church to make a decision first. The example I gave PROVES that St. Athanasius and the Catholics of his day took it upon themselves to avoid what they believed was heresy and they avoided it before the Church made any decisions about it. Likewise, I'm saying, contrary to what you have said, that if you believe the SSPX is teaching heretically, it is your duty to avoid them even before the Church makes any decisions about it. It does not matter whether the error is in good faith or not! This topic is NOT complex Arvi.
Now, you asked for some quotes. As already posted previously, here is an applicable quote pertaining to what I just said: "Since heresy, and any kind of infidelity, is a mortal sin, they also sin mortally who expose themselves to its danger, whether by their association, or by listening to preaching, or by their reading." - St. Alphonsus Ligouri
There are also related quotes from the Church confirming the seriousness of even ONE error in Catholicism, and how that ONE error is enough to damn someone and make them not Catholic. So if you believe any priest is teaching erroneously, these quotes show the importance of avoiding that priest:
- "A person who denies even one article of our faith could not be a Catholic; for truth is one and we must accept it whole and entire or not at all." - Baltimore Catechism
- "Whosoever shall keep the whole law, but offend in one point, is become guilty of all." - St. James 2:10
- "To reject but one article of faith taught by the Church is enough to destroy faith as one mortal sin is enough to destroy charity..." - St. Thomas Aquinas
If the Crisis could be reduced to a simple explanation, there would only be one true solution, and all the others would be IN ERROR, just like protestants and other non-Catholics.
I'd like to point out, as the point seems to be lost, that Arvinger never said that the sspx teaches/preaches/believes formal heresy. He said that he believes (his opinion) they are in 'good faith' error when it comes to the Indefectibility of the Church. SaintBosco13, you are making the argument as if Arvinger is talking about outiright heresy. This debate has veered off course.
SaintBosco13 said:A necessary distinction needs to be made: Arius openly taught heresy and he was trying to start a rebellion. The sspx (in this example) is said to hold a false view on indefectibility (and, that's debatable). The point to distinguish is that Arius was openly spreading/preaching his heresy, while the sspx (based on +Lefebvre's writings) holds such ideas as 'more likely than not'.
I've already addressed this point in one of my responses to Arvinger. It does not matter if their error is in good faith or not. Arius could have also been in "good faith" but he was still denounced and avoided. Error is dangerous to Catholics regardless of the intention of the person teaching the error.
And ecclesiologists do not quibble over the matter in any event, they state clearly that public heretics, material or otherwise, do not belong to the Church.Some do. Some do not. There is no "consensus" among theologians for if, when and how (in the absense of a declaration by the Church) that a heretic loses membership. If there was a consensus, then we'd have nothing to debate...
A necessary distinction needs to be made: Arius openly taught heresy and he was trying to start a rebellion. The sspx (in this example) is said to hold a false view on indefectibility (and, that's debatable). The point to distinguish is that Arius was openly spreading/preaching his heresy, while the sspx (based on +Lefebvre's writings) holds such ideas as 'more likely than not'.If Arius and the Arians were really that open then why were they so hard to defeat? On the contrary, they were notoriously slippery and very rarely admitted to their heresies. At Niceae I Eusebius of Nicomedia was there to "translate" Arianism into orthodox terms, and if not for Athanasius (who was only secretary to the Patriarch at that time but highly esteemed) there arguably would have been no Nicene Creed because people would have been satisfied that the Arians really just had a different way of formulating the same truth.
You try to make everything black and white and that's not how life works.
Some do. Some do not. There is no "consensus" among theologians for if, when and how (in the absense of a declaration by the Church) that a heretic loses membership. If there was a consensus, then we'd have nothing to debate....
but the point to keep in mind is that Arianism was really not a flagrant heresy the way that we see heresy today.Just as in the 40s, 50s and 60s (and, arguably decades before this) the heresies were ambiguous and lurking, so were they in the early days of Arian. Yet, as time went on, Vatican II and Arius both became much more explicit in their errors.
Which theologians teach that manifest heretics are members of the Church?None of these theologians mention that the pope has lost his office or that he isn't the pope. Therefore, there's no "consensus".
None of these theologians mention that the pope has lost his office or that he isn't the pope. Therefore, there's no "consensus"..
Fr. Francisco de Vitoria, O.P., poses these questions: “A Pope must be resisted who publicly destroys the Church. What should be done when the Pope, because of his bad customs, destroys the Church? What should be done if the Pope wanted without reason to abrogate Positive Law?”
His answer is: “He would certainly sin; he should neither be permitted to act in such fashion nor should he be obeyed in what was evil; but he should be resisted with a courteous reprehension. Consequently ... if he wanted to destroy the Church or the like, he should not be permitted to act in that fashion, but one would be obliged to resist him."
The Chair of Peter must be guarded from errors - even those made by Popes
“The reason for this is that he does not have the power to destroy. Therefore, if there is evidence that he is doing so, it is licit to resist him. The result is that if the Pope destroys the Church by his orders and actions, he can be resisted and the execution of his mandates prevented.” (5)
Fr. Francisco Suarez, S.J., also defends this position: “If [the Pope] gives an order contrary to good customs, he should not be obeyed. If he attempts to do something manifestly opposed to justice and the common good, it would be licit to resist him. If he attacks by force, he could be repelled by force, with the moderation appropriate to a just defense.” (6)
St. Robert Bellarmine, the great paladin of the Counter-Reformation, maintains: “Just as it is licit to resist a Pontiff that aggresses the body, it is also licit to resist one who aggresses the soul or who disturbs civil order or, above all, one who attempts to destroy the Church.
“I say that it is licit to resist him by not doing what he orders and preventing his will from being executed. It is not licit, however, to judge, punish or depose him, since these are actions proper to a superior.” (7)
Fr. Cornelius a Lapide, S.J., argues: “Superiors can, with humble charity, be admonished by their inferiors in the defense of truth; that is what St. Augustine, St. Cyprian, St. Gregory, St. Thomas and others declare about this passage (Gal. 2:11).
“St. Augustine wrote: ‘By teaching that superiors should not refuse to be corrected by inferiors, St. Peter gave posterity an example more rare and holier than that of St. Paul as he taught that, in the defense of truth and with charity, inferiors may have the audacity to resist superiors without fear’ (Epistula 19 ad Hieronymum).” (8 )
http://www.traditioninaction.org/religious/i010-Resist-1.htm (http://www.traditioninaction.org/religious/i010-Resist-1.htm)
Mithrandylan, you miss the main point. It is one thing to ask what happens to a formal heretic, and the other how can we know that one is a formal heretic. In case of the Pope we must know it with certainty of faith, because Papal legitimacy/illegitimacy must be known with certainty of faith.A formal heretic, if his heresy is private, probably does not lose membership. This is a disputed point on some level, but most theologians, particularly after Vatican I, hold that formal heresy that it is private does not sever the bond of membership.
So, yes, a formal heretic loses membership in the Church, so a formal heretic cannot be Pope, but how do we know with certainty of faith that he indeed is a formal heretic and that loss of office took place? Without judgment of the Church we cannot, because:
1) Without judgment of the Church it is impossible to exclude the possibility that he is only a material heretic;
2) Private judgment is insufficient to determine anything with certainty of faith, certainly not Papal legitimacy.
For those reasons it is not sufficient to simply point out some objectively heretical quotes from Francis or Benedict and say "see, they are manifest heretics and not Popes!" It is a gross oversimplification on the part of sedevacantists which overlooks the issues I already outlined and which were beaten to death on this sub-forum.
One of my quotes was from Bellarmine himself. If a pope could try to destroy the church, then by definition, he wouldn't have membership, according to you, because to try to destroy the Faith would REQUIRE full knowledge of what he's doing. Therefore, why didn't Bellarmine clarify and call him an anti-pope (since, according to you, such a person would've already ceased to be catholic)? His statement allows for the situation where a pope (who's still the pope) could try to harm the Faith..
Secondly, if there is lawful resistance and if no one can judge the pope, then how is the R&R position faulty? I'm not saying it's air tight, but at least it's arguable.
There's not a way to read Bellarmine to support the idea that a pope can be a manifest heretic.I never said it did. I'm simply pointing out that:
I never said it did. I'm simply pointing out that:.
1) Bellarmine distinguished between a 'destroyer pope' and a 'manifest heretic', which you do not.
2) Bellarmine isn't the 'end note' on this debate. There are other theologians who disagreed..
3) There is a difference between a formal and a manifest heretic, as you stated:.
You are proposing a state of affairs that requires a man to know the very condition of another's soul in order to form any judgment.
This is exactly what I'm saying. You, I, Bob, Clare, etc CANNOT make ANY form of judgement on ANY person's guilt/status within the Church - no, ifs ands or buts.
The only thing we are ALLOWED to do, as laymen who are not part of church governance, is to make a determination on the ACTIONS of individuals. ANY determination outside of how WE react to an error, even if the heretic is quoting directly from Arius, is NOT OUR CALL. And, per many theologians, outside of the working of the Church, it's not any lone cleric's call either. Otherwise, you end up with a Church divided, where anathemas are thrown around like water balloons at a kid's birthday party. There must be order and authority to declare someone a heretic. But anyone can recognize heresy and error, assuming they know anything of their faith, and in that case, as theogians have pointed out, we must resist the error.
Pax Vobis, a destroyer pope is a Catholic and a manifest heretic is not.How can a pope try to destroy the Church without resorting to promoting error? Aren't we splitting hairs, here?
The papacy, the Church-- this is what he did. It was his area of expertise. And the Church has been using it for five hundred years.That's great, but it still doesn't make him infallible. I'm not trying to trash his work, but just distinguishing that one theologian isn't correct 100% of the time. (See St Thomas and the Immaculate Conception).
It also precludes the possibility of believing that anyone, ever is the pope.No it doesn't. My point is that we believe that 'so and so' is the pope because the Church tells us. And we believe that Martin Luther was in error because we know our faith and we see that what he said was wrong. ...But, we laymen CANNOT make a determination that Martin Luther (or the pope, or anyone) is a heretic (which is a very SERIOUS label) until the Church tells us. It it Her authority, and Hers alone, which can do this.
We know. Destruction of Faith is the destruction of the Mass, which is the deposit of Faith. Holy Orders is also destroyed. That is obvious.We know what? Not sure what you're referring to.
Being a Catholic and a non-Catholic, or being a Catholic and a heretic, are binary-- if you know that a man is one, you know that he is not the other. So our ability to identify heretics is intricately woven into our ability to identify Catholics. If we can identify who Catholics are, we can identify who they are not. Certainly there will be room for doubt in some instances, in which case the benefit of the doubt is extended in good will, but usually we can make this judgement.First of all, I'm not sure how you reached the conclusion from your first sentence. I did not say you can't make any judgment about anything - but most certainty you can't make a private judgment where the matter has to be known with certainty of faith (in this case, Papal legitimacy). And yes, to know it without Church declaration you would have to know condition of Francis' soul (whether he is a formal heretic or not), and you can't know it, and thus you can't make a judgment whether he is a Pope or not. Why? Because it is not up to you, but up to the Church to judge this - you have absolutely no role in determining that. You start with an incorrect presupposition that we are suppose to make such a judgment and there must be a way to do that - no, for a laymen equipped just with his private judgment there is no such possibility. There are arguments and evidence tobe sure, but at the end of the day there is no way to determine whether Francis is a formal or merely material heretic (as unlikely as the latter one is), and your private judgment is insufficient to determine anything with certainty of faith.
You are proposing a state of affairs that requires a man to know the very condition of another's soul in order to form any judgment. But that is most definitely something about which we can have no certainty of faith (at least not usually, perhaps some minor exceptions like Judas), and I'm sure that this impossibility of having a certainty of faith regarding the state of another's soul is an indirect reason, not elucidated in the manuals, for why the theologians simply discuss manifest/public and private heretics when discussing who is and isn't a member.
Mithrandylan, you miss the main point. It is one thing to ask what happens to a formal heretic, and the other how can we know that one is a formal heretic. In case of the Pope we must know it with certainty of faith, because Papal legitimacy/illegitimacy must be known with certainty of faith.
So, yes, a formal heretic loses membership in the Church, so a formal heretic cannot be Pope, but how do we know with certainty of faith that he indeed is a formal heretic and that loss of office took place? Without judgment of the Church we cannot, because:
1) Without judgment of the Church it is impossible to exclude the possibility that he is only a material heretic;
2) Private judgment is insufficient to determine anything with certainty of faith, certainly not Papal legitimacy.
For those reasons it is not sufficient to simply point out some objectively heretical quotes from Francis or Benedict and say "see, they are manifest heretics and not Popes!" It is a gross oversimplification on the part of sedevacantists which overlooks the issues I already outlined and which were beaten to death on this sub-forum.
yes, a heretical Pope loses membership in the Church, but one needs to prove he is a formal heretic, not just a material heretic (which you can't do).
Fr. Francisco de Vitoria, O.P., poses these questions: “A Pope must be resisted who publicly destroys the Church. What should be done when the Pope, because of his bad customs, destroys the Church? What should be done if the Pope wanted without reason to abrogate Positive Law?”
His answer is: “He would certainly sin; he should neither be permitted to act in such fashion nor should he be obeyed in what was evil; but he should be resisted with a courteous reprehension. Consequently ... if he wanted to destroy the Church or the like, he should not be permitted to act in that fashion, but one would be obliged to resist him."
Fr. Francisco Suarez, S.J., also defends this position: “If [the Pope] gives an order contrary to good customs, he should not be obeyed. If he attempts to do something manifestly opposed to justice and the common good, it would be licit to resist him. If he attacks by force, he could be repelled by force, with the moderation appropriate to a just defense.” (6)
St. Robert Bellarmine, the great paladin of the Counter-Reformation, maintains: “Just as it is licit to resist a Pontiff that aggresses the body, it is also licit to resist one who aggresses the soul or who disturbs civil order or, above all, one who attempts to destroy the Church.
“I say that it is licit to resist him by not doing what he orders and preventing his will from being executed. It is not licit, however, to judge, punish or depose him, since these are actions proper to a superior.” (7)
How can a pope try to destroy the Church without resorting to promoting error? Aren't we splitting hairs, here?.
That's great, but it still doesn't make him infallible. I'm not trying to trash his work, but just distinguishing that one theologian isn't correct 100% of the time. (See St Thomas and the Immaculate Conception)..
No it doesn't. My point is that we believe that 'so and so' is the pope because the Church tells us..
And we believe that Martin Luther was in error because we know our faith and we see that what he said was wrong. ...But, we laymen CANNOT make a determination that Martin Luther (or the pope, or anyone) is a heretic (which is a very SERIOUS label) until the Church tells us. It it Her authority, and Hers alone, which can do this..
Analogy: If someone were to tell you that murder was okay, but later claimed innocence saying, "I didn't know murder was wrong!", would that be a valid argument? Of course not - everyone reading this knows that all human beings inherently know that murder is wrong without having to be taught about it in school, because it is part of the Natural Law.I reply the same way as above - it is still your private judgment which is insufficient to know anything with certainty of faith, which is absolutely necessary in case of knowing Papal legitimacy/illegitimacy. Novus Ordo apologists interpret these quotes regarding ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity, atheism etc. in such a way as to bring them in line with Catholic orthodoxy (and many of these quotes are, in fact, ambiguous, as usual in modernist double-speak, and even more so in the case of earlier V2 claimants to the Papacy, who were much more conservative than Francis in the area of sɛҳuąƖ morality). So, it is Jimmy Akin's/Tim Staples' interpretation vs. your interpretation of Francis' words - again, it comes down to private judgment. As long as there is no judgment of the Church, or at very least Francis is not confronted about these teachings by the hierarchy, it remains a matter of private judgment.
Likewise, Francis has publicly taught that atheism, ѕυιcιdє, and ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity are acceptable (see FrancisQuotes.com for links directly to the Vatican websites). These beliefs are all against the Natural Law and no human being can claim ignorance that they are wrong. This rules out material heresy (which is heresy out of ignorance) for Francis on these points. This proves Francis is a formal heretic on these 3 points. Now that this has been proven, it follows without question that Francis has lost membership in the Church - as Arvinger admits in his quote above.
*POOF* - You are now sedevacantists
I reply the same way as above - it is still your private judgment which is insufficient to know anything with certainty of faith, which is absolutely necessary in case of knowing Papal legitimacy/illegitimacy. Novus Ordo apologists interpret these quotes regarding ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity, atheism etc. in such a way as to bring them in line with Catholic orthodoxy (and many of these quotes are, in fact, ambiguous, as usual in modernist double-speak, and even more so in the case of earlier V2 claimants to the Papacy, who were much more conservative than Francis in the area of sɛҳuąƖ morality). So, it is Jimmy Akin's/Tim Staples' interpretation vs. your interpretation of Francis' words - again, it comes down to private judgment. As long as there is no judgment of the Church, or at very least Francis is not confronted about these teachings by the hierarchy, it remains a matter of private judgment.
Notice, I'm not arguing that Francis is a Pope - I argue that we can't answer with certainty of faith the question of his legitimacy/illegitimacy. I personally believe he is most likely not a Pope, but I can't be sure about it. This is why I declared numerous times that I agree with Ladislaus on what he calls sede-doubtism.
I reply the same way as above - it is still your private judgment which is insufficient to know anything with certainty of faith, which is absolutely necessary in case of knowing Papal legitimacy/illegitimacy. Novus Ordo apologists interpret these quotes regarding ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity, atheism etc. in such a way as to bring them in line with Catholic orthodoxy (and many of these quotes are, in fact, ambiguous, as usual in modernist double-speak, and even more so in the case of earlier V2 claimants to the Papacy, who were much more conservative than Francis in the area of sɛҳuąƖ morality). So, it is Jimmy Akin's/Tim Staples' interpretation vs. your interpretation of Francis' words - again, it comes down to private judgment. As long as there is no judgment of the Church, or at very least Francis is not confronted about these teachings by the hierarchy, it remains a matter of private judgment.
Notice, I'm not arguing that Francis is a Pope - I argue that we can't answer with certainty of faith the question of his legitimacy/illegitimacy. I personally believe he is most likely not a Pope, but I can't be sure about it. This is why I declared numerous times that I agree with Ladislaus on what he calls sede-doubtism.
Today, that is a good formula only for not going to mass anywhere, being a home aloner.
All the sede groups and SSPX seminaries teach that Jews, Mohamedans, Hindus, Bhuddists..... can be saved by their belief in a God that rewards.
Clear dogma says that one can't be saved even if they shed their blood for Christ, but the sede & SSPX priests teach or are taught that anyone can be saved just by believing in a God that rewards. Go figure!
Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, “Cantate Domino,” 1441, ex cathedra:
“The Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that all those who are outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans but also Jews or heretics and schismatics, cannot share in eternal life and will go into the everlasting fire ..and that nobody can be saved, … even if he has shed blood in the name of Christ[/b], unless he has persevered in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church.”
Pope Innocent III, Fourth Lateran Council, Constitution 1, 1215, ex cathedra: “There is indeed one universal Church of the faithful, outside of which nobody at all is saved, …
Pope Boniface VIII, Unam Sanctam, Nov. 18, 1302, ex cathedra:
“… this Church outside of which there is no salvation nor remission of sin… Furthermore, … every human creature that they by absolute necessity for salvation are entirely subject to the Roman Pontiff.”
Pope Clement V, Council of Vienne, Decree # 30, 1311-1312, ex cathedra:
“… one universal Church, outside of which there is no salvation, for all of whom there is one Lord, one faith, and one baptism…”
Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, Sess. 8, Nov. 22, 1439, ex cathedra:
“Whoever wishes to be saved, needs above all to hold the Catholic faith; unless each one preserves this whole and inviolate, he will without a doubt perish in eternity.”
Pope Leo X, Fifth Lateran Council, Session 11, Dec. 19, 1516, ex cathedra:
“For, regulars and seculars, prelates and subjects, exempt and non-exempt, belong to the one universal Church, outside of which no one at all is saved, and they all have one Lord and one faith.”
Pope Pius IV, Council of Trent, Iniunctum nobis, Nov. 13, 1565, ex cathedra: “This true Catholic faith, outside of which no one can be saved… I now profess and truly hold…”
Pope Benedict XIV, Nuper ad nos, March 16, 1743, Profession of Faith: “This faith of the Catholic Church, without which no one can be saved, and which of my own accord I now profess and truly hold…”
Pope Pius IX, Vatican Council I, Session 2, Profession of Faith, 1870, ex cathedra: “This true Catholic faith, outside of which none can be saved, which I now freely profess and truly hold…”
If you were really interested in the truth on this matter, you would be thoroughly analyzing the quotes in-depth to see if they could indeed be legitimately interpreted to be in line with Catholic orthodoxy. But instead of going that far, you stop and put your hands up and say, "there is no way for us to know". You are clearly avoiding the obvious.
Example: Here's the quote from Francis on atheism. To say that an atheist is not condemned is DIRECTLY against the Natural Law - the Church teaches that NOBODY can claim ignorance to the existence of God. How can we possibly twist this into orthodoxy without being labeled a lunatic? Putting your head in the sand and saying "we can't know" in a case like this is sickening. Anyone with even knowledge of grade school English knows exactly what the statement below means.
On Heaven and Earth, pp. 12-13: “I do not approach the relationship in order to proselytize, or convert the atheist; I respect him… nor would I say that his life is condemned, because I am convinced that I do not have the right to make a judgment about the honesty of that person… every man is the image of God, whether he is a believer or not."
You still don't get it. Even if I analyze these quotes in depth and come to a conclusion on the basis of it, it is still merely my private judgment vs. private judgment of another person, like Jimmy Akin or Tim Staples. In some cases there were clarifications from the Vatican about what Francis meant - obvious damage control, but there were such nonetheless. For example, in the above quote one could argue that Francis refered only to earthly life of this person ("nor would I say that his life is condemned"), but does not negate that a person who will die as atheist will be condemned after death. I don't suggest that is what Francis meant, personally I am convinced he is a formal heretic, but one could clearly take this line of defence. In that case it is merely his vs. yours private interpretation.
Mine and your private judgments carry zero authority and are insufficient to determine Papal legitimacy/illegitimacy with certainty of faith, which is absolutely necessary in this case. We could know it with certainty of faith only through Church pronouncement, for only Church has such authority. St. Cyril of Jerusalem believed Nestorius to be in heresy, nevertheless he asked Pope Celestine I to investigate the matter and render judgment before takign action himself - how much more cautious must we be in case of a Pope, whose legitimacy/illegitimacy must be known with certainty of faith. Yes, there is a strong possibility that the Chair of Peter is vacant, but currently there is no way we could know it for sure.
* There is a Catholic principle, "a doubtful pope is no pope". It's on the books. This is something you, and the R&R, go against.
* St. Robert Bellarmine, St. Francis de Sales, nay, the Church Herself by official approval of the former, says that the Church can/must judge and punish a man who ceased to be pope by manifest heresy.
* That fact that the Church can and must do this does not argue that individuals cannot come to the certain conclusion for themselves and publish it. The first bastions against
* Proof of (a) is that before the Cardinals convene they must individually have come to the solid conclusion the man is not longer pope. The same individual process of faith and reason as anyone can use.
* The purpose of the Church doing so is to have everyone believe it who were no capable before. This is necessary in order to have the next man elected accepted as pope.
* The book "Liberalism is a Sin" was highly praised directly by the Holy Office in 1887, and in its second to last chapter it explains that those who try to insist that we must only wait for the top authority in the Church to judge, are actually promoting "a species of brutal and satanic Jansenism".
* sede-doubtism is flatly contrary to St. Francis de Sales, Liberalism is a Sin, and the Church telling us that an individual can judge and act upon it. If you can't come the personal conclusion, then you should just humbly admit that you are not personally capable, without trying to declare nobody is.
The Scriptures predicted in the last days, that the "operation of error" would come.....and I think we are witnessing it.
All the sede groups and SSPX seminaries teach that Jews, Mohamedans, Hindus, Bhuddists..... can be saved by their belief in a God that rewards.
Clear dogma says that one can't be saved even if they shed their blood for Christ, but the sede & SSPX priests teach or are taught that anyone can be saved just by believing in a God that rewards. Go figure!
No it doesn't. My point is that we believe that 'so and so' is the pope because the Church tells us.
Mithrandylan saidHow does the church tell us we have a new pope? By a visible election of the pope, by visible cardinals and by the visible, liturgical celebrations which occur immediately afterwards (i.e. smoke, bells ringing, and papal blessing over the crowd).
How does she tell us? What infallible docuмent is presented to the faithful that informs them of who the pope is? And how do you know that it's infallible? Or if it doesn't need to be infallible (I'm not sure exactly what your position is) then what assurances do we have that the man in the white robe standing on the loggia is actually the new pope?
And we believe that Martin Luther was in error because we know our faith and we see that what he said was wrong. ...But, we laymen CANNOT make a determination that Martin Luther (or the pope, or anyone) is a heretic (which is a very SERIOUS label) until the Church tells us. It it Her authority, and Hers alone, which can do this.
A Catholic cannot act as though the Church has declared so-and-so to be a heretic when she hasn't, so in that regard a sedevacantist cannot insist, as though it were a dogmatic fact, that such and such conciliar claimant must, under pain of sin, be considered an anti-pope.I agree wholeheartedly.
But I'm not insisting that and you'll find that outside of the Internet, very, very few sedevacantists think this is the case. Just the Dimonds and a few Ohioans and Floridians.I'm glad you aren't insisting that, contrary to others on this chain who are extremely dogmatic. However...based on my interactions with regular, everyday sedes (the kind who are trying to do the right thing, who want to save their souls, etc) is that they ARE very dogmatic. Because 1) they read or hear arguments from the 'popular' sedes and they take this or that catchphrase and run with it, 2) because they don't know enough of the issues to distinguish and properly analyze the topics involved, 3) because they want an easy answer to the crisis, and so they clutch to a 'black and white' outlook in an ever-increasingly gray world, 4) because they're scared they don't know their faith when people ask them to explain the situations we live in, which, in some respects are so demonically confusing that they are unexplainable.
But that's not the case, because what a person does and what a person professes is a reflection of what a person believes. This is the mind of the Church, as evidenced by the fact that we presume sacramental intention if a man exteriorily follows the rubric; as evidenced by the fact that we flee those who teach heresy even if they claim authority (because if they are heretics they, in fact, are not authorities), etc.I agree with your argument in theory. I agree that it APPEARS as if the Vatican 2 popes are outright, damnable heretics who should be burned at the stake for their crimes against Holy Mother Church. But, as you stated above, I can't say that with certainty, and my opinion doesn't matter, so I leave it to God to sort it out, which He will, through His Church authorities, at some point.
Pax Vobis,Bosco, I see the distinction you are making but I disagree with your interpretation. Answer me this scenario:
Looking at these quotes that you just posted, you are confusing two different scenarios: resisting sin and resisting heresy when it comes to a pope. These are two totally different scenarios. The quotes you have given above are referring to resisting sin.
First of all, I'm not sure how you reached the conclusion from your first sentence. I did not say you can't make any judgment about anything - but most certainty you can't make a private judgment where the matter has to be known with certainty of faith (in this case, Papal legitimacy). And yes, to know it without Church declaration you would have to know condition of Francis' soul (whether he is a formal heretic or not), and you can't know it, and thus you can't make a judgment whether he is a Pope or not. Why? Because it is not up to you, but up to the Church to judge this - you have absolutely no role in determining that. You start with an incorrect presupposition that we are suppose to make such a judgment and there must be a way to do that - no, for a laymen equipped just with his private judgment there is no such possibility. There are arguments and evidence tobe sure, but at the end of the day there is no way to determine whether Francis is a formal or merely material heretic (as unlikely as the latter one is), and your private judgment is insufficient to determine anything with certainty of faith..
By the way, your first paragraph is a logical fallacy - you claim that if we can't identify a formal heretic (indeed, we can't without Church declaration, or if he himself doesn't to be a non-Catholic) we can't identify a Catholic, but that does not follow at all. An analogy - at present we can't know about anyones condemnation to hell (maybe except Judas). However, we know that some people are for sure in Heaven - the Saints. Likewise, we can't know who is a formal heretic without Church declaration, but we can recognize a Catholic.
As to Bellarmine, his writings are not as in favor of sedevacantist position as sedes claim, as Salza and Siscoe correctly pointed out. Bellarmine's third opinion explicitly says that Pope can be judged and that heresy is the only case when inferiors and judge superiors.
"The third opinion is on another extreme, that the Pope is not and cannot be deposed either by secret or manifest heresy. Turrecremata in the aforementioned citation relates and refutes this opinion, and rightly so, for it is exceedingly improbable. Firstly, because that a heretical Pope can be judged is expressly held in the Canon, Si Papa, dist. 40, and with Innocent [321]. And what is more, in the Fourth Council of Constantinople, Act 7, the acts of the Roman Council under Hadrian are recited, and in those it was contained that Pope Honorius appeared to be legally anathematized, because he had been convicted of heresy, the only reason where it is lawful for inferiors to judge superiors. Here the fact must be remarked upon that, although it is probable that Honorius was not a heretic, and that Pope Hadrian II was deceived by corrupted copies of the Sixth Council, which falsely reckoned Honorius was a heretic, we still cannot deny that Hadrian, with the Roman Council, and the whole Eighth Synod sensed that in the case of heresy, a Roman Pontiff can be judged. Add, that it would be the most miserable condition of the Church, if she should be compelled to recognize a wolf, manifestly prowling, for a shepherd."
This is why in fifth opinion Bellarmine says that although the Pope loses office ipso facto, there is still necessity of judgment from the Church to determine that:
"Now the fifth true opinion, is that a Pope who is a manifest heretic, ceases in himself to be Pope and head, just as he ceases in himself to be a Christian and member of the body of the Church: whereby, he can be judged and punished by the Church."
So, although Bellarmine does teach ipso facto loss of jurisdiction, he does not teach than an individual in a pew can determine that - rather, Church must render judgment that the ipso facto deposition occured. So, it is possible, and even probable, that Francis is not a Pope - but we can't know that with certainty of faith.
Right. But the fact that +Bellarmine dominates a field does not mean his views are exclusive or all-encompassing. The Church makes use of theologians to help Her make a final decision..
The other problem is that when theologians discuss matters, sometimes their ponderings do not cover every aspect of a potential scenario. I would say that our current crisis is unprecedented and not adequately solved by Bellarmine or any other theologian. They may have provided principles, but it is up to the Church to apply the principles to real life. While we wait for such explanations, we can make private judgements but that's the extent of it.
Final decisions are necessary when extreme confusion reigns, as is the case with who is or isn't the pope. I agree that the ordinary magisterium is very important and can be a 'final decision' itself. But, there is no clear teaching, by ordinary or solemn means, which adequately explains or directs our actions in our present circuмstances. Therefore we wait.Consider that there is a reason that there is no such teaching.
Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis:
After this agreement has been furnished within a time limit to be determined by the prudent judgment of the Cardinals by a majority of votes (to the extent it is necessary), the man elected is instantly the true Pope, and he acquires and can exercise full and absolute jurisdiction over the whole world.
Hence, if anyone dares to challenge the docuмents prepared in regard to any business whosoever that comes from the Roman Pontiff before the coronation, We bind him with the censure of excommunication to be incurred ipso facto....
Bosco, I see the distinction you are making but I disagree with your interpretation. Answer me this scenario:
1. A pope recommends heresy.
2. A pope teaches heresy.
Is there a difference? Is pope #1 still a pope?
You still don't get it. Even if I analyze these quotes in depth and come to a conclusion on the basis of it, it is still merely my private judgment vs. private judgment of another person, like Jimmy Akin or Tim Staples. In some cases there were clarifications from the Vatican about what Francis meant - obvious damage control, but there were such nonetheless. For example, in the above quote one could argue that Francis refered only to earthly life of this person ("nor would I say that his life is condemned"), but does not negate that a person who will die as atheist will be condemned after death. I don't suggest that is what Francis meant, personally I am convinced he is a formal heretic, but one could clearly take this line of defence. In that case it is merely his vs. yours private interpretation.
Mine and your private judgments carry zero authority and are insufficient to determine Papal legitimacy/illegitimacy with certainty of faith, which is absolutely necessary in this case. We could know it with certainty of faith only through Church pronouncement, for only Church has such authority. St. Cyril of Jerusalem believed Nestorius to be in heresy, nevertheless he asked Pope Celestine I to investigate the matter and render judgment before takign action himself - how much more cautious must we be in case of a Pope, whose legitimacy/illegitimacy must be known with certainty of faith. Yes, there is a strong possibility that the Chair of Peter is vacant, but currently there is no way we could know it for sure.
Final decisions are necessary when extreme confusion reigns, as is the case with who is or isn't the pope. I agree that the ordinary magisterium is very important and can be a 'final decision' itself. But, there is no clear teaching, by ordinary or solemn means, which adequately explains or directs our actions in our present circuмstances. Therefore we wait.
I'm not arguing that Francis is a Pope, rather than we can't know his status with certainty of faith.
.Here, I must disagree with you. The idea that the Church has incorporated the theologians into the ordinary magisterium is an error. It is a source of much confusion as far too often traditional Catholics have put more stock in the theological discussions by various (favored) theologians (who happen to agree with their theological opinion) rather than the actual teaching authority (i.e., the Magisterium) of the Church.
The Church uses theologians far more by incorporating them into the ordinary magisterium.
21. It is also true that theologians must always return to the sources of divine revelation: for it belongs to them to point out how the doctrine of the living Teaching Authority is to be found either explicitly or implicitly in the Scriptures and in Tradition. Besides, each source of divinely revealed doctrine contains so many rich treasures of truth, that they can really never be exhausted. Hence it is that theology through the study of its sacred sources remains ever fresh; on the other hand, speculation which neglects a deeper search into the deposit of faith, proves sterile, as we know from experience. But for this reason even positive theology cannot be on a par with merely historical science. For, together with the sources of positive theology God has given to His Church a living Teaching Authority to elucidate and explain what is contained in the deposit of faith only obscurely and implicitly. This deposit of faith our Divine Redeemer has given for authentic interpretation not to each of the faithful, not even to theologians, but only to the Teaching Authority of the Church. But if the Church does exercise this function of teaching, as she often has through the centuries, either in the ordinary or extraordinary way, it is clear how false is a procedure which would attempt to explain what is clear by means of what is obscure. Indeed the very opposite procedure must be used. Hence Our Predecessor of immortal memory, Pius IX, teaching that the most noble office of theology is to show how a doctrine defined by the Church is contained in the sources of revelation, added these words, and with very good reason: "in that sense in which it has been defined by the Church." [Emphasis added.]The Magisterium need not "definitively" declare a teaching. When they do this, that is an exercise of the extraordinary Magisterium. The ordinary teaching of the Magisterium, however, is just as infallible and just as binding for the Catholic faithful. Too often have traditional Catholics succuмbed to the teaching of some theologians even when the Magisterium has later condemned those particular opinions.
Here, I must disagree with you. The idea that the Church has incorporated the theologians into the ordinary magisterium is an error. It is a source of much confusion as far too often traditional Catholics have put more stock in the theological discussions by various (favored) theologians (who happen to agree with their theological opinion) rather than the actual teaching authority (i.e., the Magisterium) of the Church.
From Humani Generis:
The Magisterium need not "definitively" declare a teaching. When they do this, that is an exercise of the extraordinary Magisterium. The ordinary teaching of the Magisterium, however, is just as infallible and just as binding for the Catholic faithful. Too often have traditional Catholics succuмbed to the teaching of some theologians even when the Magisterium has later condemned those particular opinions.
Even on those matters that have been settled by the Teaching Authority of the Church, the theologians can assist in better understanding those issues. But this does not make the theologians part of the ordinary Magisterium. I understand many traditional Catholics quote various theologians who insist that the teaching authority of the theologians is on par with or even a part of the ordinary Magisterium. The fact is, however, that Pope Pius XII disabused all faithful Catholics of that notion in promulgating Humani Generis, quoted above.
Here, I must disagree with you. The idea that the Church has incorporated the theologians into the ordinary magisterium is an error. It is a source of much confusion as far too often traditional Catholics have put more stock in the theological discussions by various (favored) theologians (who happen to agree with their theological opinion) rather than the actual teaching authority (i.e., the Magisterium) of the Church..
From Humani Generis:
The Magisterium need not "definitively" declare a teaching. When they do this, that is an exercise of the extraordinary Magisterium. The ordinary teaching of the Magisterium, however, is just as infallible and just as binding for the Catholic faithful. Too often have traditional Catholics succuмbed to the teaching of some theologians even when the Magisterium has later condemned those particular opinions.
Even on those matters that have been settled by the Teaching Authority of the Church, the theologians can assist in better understanding those issues. But this does not make the theologians part of the ordinary Magisterium. I understand many traditional Catholics quote various theologians who insist that the teaching authority of the theologians is on par with or even a part of the ordinary Magisterium. The fact is, however, that Pope Pius XII disabused all faithful Catholics of that notion in promulgating Humani Generis, quoted above.
I don't see what it matters. Let's take the atheism example. If a pope says, "I recommend atheism" or "I find atheism an acceptable option" or "you must practice atheism", any of these would be considered heresy since atheism is condemned by both the Natural Law and by the Church.Earlier you said the following:
1. A pope does something sinful or recommends something sinful. By doing so he remains pope, and the particular sin can be resisted against. Your quotes are correct in that regard.
2. A pope teaches manifest heresy and by doing so is immediately no longer pope. At that point you are no longer resisting a pope but an ordinary man holding the title of pope who has been stripped of his authority.
These are obviously two completely different scenarios...
Obviously the man who is elected instantly becomes pope. But not all men can be elected, that is the point. There are Church laws which literally envision an instance where the entire Cardinalate elect a heretic (and that in such an instance, despite even unanimous recognition by the Cardinals, he's not pope), so let's not pretend like it is impossible in theory for it to happen. The Church's own laws throughout history have planned for the possibility of ALL the cardinals electing someone that they weren't able to without realizing it.The law says "...the man elected is instantly the true pope,..." as such, whoever is elected and accepts the election is the pope. Your saying that not all men can be elected has nothing to do with anything - what it is, is your own proviso which is of course shared among sedevacantists and the confused.
Stubborn, would you agree that the man elected to be pope must be Catholic?Or living?
Earlier you said the following:
If a pope can recommend something sinful, and still be the pope, then as long as he doesn't command/teach such things as REQUIRED, then he hasn't lost his office? This seems to be what you're saying, though your former quote does not jive with your secondary quote.
We also need to keep in mind that the Church teaches that the unanimous consent of theologians is de fide as we see mentioned in A Commentary on Canon Law (Augustine, 1918 ):
"What the Holy Fathers and the theologians hold unanimously as a matter of faith and morals, is also de fide."
Ad 1) Again, straw-man - I'm not arguing that Francis is a Pope, rather than we can't know his status with certainty of faith.
Here's the problem, bosco. You are trying to separate a promotion of sin as separate from heresy and this can't be done. If the pope were declare that ANY sin is ok, then he is against the moral law and it would make him a heretic because he is denying the moral code of the 10 commandments.
Heresy is a pretty simple definition:
"Heresy is the obstinate post-baptismal denial of some truth which must be believed with divine and catholic faith, or it is likewise an obstinate doubt concerning the same;
You can't say that +Bellarmine's 'destroyer pope' was ONLY referring to a sin-promoting pope because a sin-promoting pope is denying an article of Faith - that the 10 commandments are required for salvation. Therefore, it's at least plausible that +Bellarmine was referring to a formal heretic.
Stubborn, would you agree that the man elected to be pope must be Catholic?I agree with the popes who decreed that which ever man is elected, that man is the true pope. Period.
Or living?This is not new, I posted this same argument against sedevacantism months and probably years ago and yes, I remember that I could only find two translations - not even sure whose they were now, but I do remember one had added their own crazy commentaries in various places, which commentary usually clearly contradicted the clear papal teachings.
.
Stubborn is just fishing for the newest silver bullet against sedevacantism. He'd be more respectable if every time he posted about the issue with an absurd confidence he wasn't arguing something completely different from the last time he tried to talk about the issue.
.
People who have strong positions or arguments aren't constantly changing them.
.
The funny thing is that I guarantee you he had to go to a sedevacantist (Teresa Benns, in this instance-- a dogmatic home aloner, to boot!) in order to find an English translation. She's the only one who's published an English version the last time I checked, which was three or four months ago).
Arvinger, everyone knows this private judgment card you are playing is nonsense, but for the sake of argument, let's assume that we are somehow all misinterpreting Francis' statements and that he is actually Orthodox in all of his writings. Let's look at one of his actions, which is praying in common in ѕуηαgσgυєs and mosques with non-Catholics. Doing this has been repeatedly condemned by the Church, yet we can all witness him doing it on TV/Internet. Actions speak louder than words and don't require any private judgment. Now will you argue that we can't judge on our own that he is in fact doing this, and the fact that such an action is heresy ? ? ?
There are many ways of sinning in this world without committing heresy at the same time. The quotes you previously posted refer to Popes sinning,No, they refer to a pope who is trying to DESTROY the church, as they explicitly said. They weren't referring to a pope who was immoral and who was promoting having children out of wedlock. They are referring to a pope who tries to ACTIVELY destroy the church, which means that they are trying to destroy church TEACHINGS, Liturgy, dogma, etc. Therefore, such actions, by their nature, deal with heresy.
Pax, Bellarmine thinks a Destroyer pope is a pope, and that a manifest heretic "pope" is not. So obviously his notion of a destroyer pope does not include a pope who is a heretic, unless we imagine Bellarmine as a doofus who didn't realize that he was directly contradicting himself in consequent chapters of his opus.
once the newly elected pope accepts his office and is pope - he is the pope - period - from that moment forward, he remains the pope till he dies or abdicates, other than that, there is no possible way for him to ever "lose his office", nor is it possible for his subjects to ever depose him no matter how much evil and heresy he spews - that's what being the supreme authority means.
It's basic Catholicism without any man made provisos, there is absolutely nothing, confusing or complicated about it.
Pax, Bellarmine thinks a Destroyer pope is a pope, and that a manifest heretic "pope" is not. So obviously his notion of a destroyer pope does not include a pope who is a heretic, unless we imagine Bellarmine as a doofus who didn't realize that he was directly contradicting himself in consequent chapters of his opus.In my example, I didn't say the pope was a heretic, but his actions DEAL with heresy. There's a difference. I'm not talking about a manifest heretic, but a formal one. Secondly, a destroyer pope, by definition, HAS INTENT TO DESTROY. I think you're trying to minimize the intent here, by saying that it only means that the pope was telling kids it's ok to eat candy, even if their parents said no, or some other lesser offense. Notice Bellarmine didn't say "destroy morals", which would deal with sin and not heresy. He said 'destroy the church' which implies the pope is trying to destroy the liturgy, doctrine or other teachings.
In my example, I didn't say the pope was a heretic, but his actions DEAL with heresy. There's a difference. I'm not talking about a manifest heretic, but a formal one. Secondly, a destroyer pope, by definition, HAS INTENT TO DESTROY. I think you're trying to minimize the intent here, by saying that it only means that the pope was telling kids it's ok to eat candy, even if their parents said no, or some other lesser offense. Notice Bellarmine didn't say "destroy morals", which would deal with sin and not heresy. He said 'destroy the church' which implies the pope is trying to destroy the liturgy, doctrine or other teachings.A destroyer pope could intend, more than anyone has ever intended in the history of the world, to completely humiliate and obliterate God's Church. So long as his intention to do so and his methods do not sever him from the Church through heresy, schism, or apostasy, he's still pope. And we know that whatever Bellarmine thinks makes a pope a "destroyer" does not include him being a manifest heretic.
I say we must interpret Bellarmine as the word 'destroy' is properly understood - 'to put an end to something by damaging or attacking it. To ruin it. To defeat it.'
Notice that the definition does not mean 'change' or 'alter'. I interpret DESTROYER to mean a pope who is out to ATTACK church doctrine, or at least cause confusion.
We know that freemasons have infiltrated the church and they started waaaay back in the mid 1800s. We know that it is rumored that certain V2 popes were masons, but not all of them were. We also know that satan and the masons know their limits and God will not allow them to destroy the church. But, they can inflict damage. So, can we not imagine the scenario where a pope tries to destroy the church by ambiguities, confusion, etc without changing doctrine, but simply by minimizing truth, promoting lukewarmness and APPEARING to promote evil, all the while, TECHNICALLY they didn't change church teaching? The devil is a master of technicalities, of confusion and of 'toeing the line'. My opinion is that this exactly describes the situation we are living in today.
You just flagrantly contradict what St. Francis de Sales taught with the approval of the Church, and which was echoed in many approved Catholic books since Vatican I, as being categorically true, not opinion. Do I have to requote?You just flagrantly ignore what true popes (Pius X and XII in this case) decreed as you twist teachings into oblivion as a matter of habit.
You also don't realize that a non-pope can possibly possess the office, but uselessly. The office is not the man.
Stubborn, would you agree that there are prerequisites for a man to be elected pope?The man elected by the college of cardinals obviously met the prerequisites. So says Popes Pius X and XII.
The man elected by the college of cardinals obviously met the prerequisites. So says Popes Pius X and XII..
Absolutely nothing complicated here at all.
In my example, I didn't say the pope was a heretic, but his actions DEAL with heresy. There's a difference. I'm not talking about a manifest heretic, but a formal one. Secondly, a destroyer pope, by definition, HAS INTENT TO DESTROY. I think you're trying to minimize the intent here, by saying that it only means that the pope was telling kids it's ok to eat candy, even if their parents said no, or some other lesser offense. Notice Bellarmine didn't say "destroy morals", which would deal with sin and not heresy. He said 'destroy the church' which implies the pope is trying to destroy the liturgy, doctrine or other teachings.
I say we must interpret Bellarmine as the word 'destroy' is properly understood - 'to put an end to something by damaging or attacking it. To ruin it. To defeat it.'
Notice that the definition does not mean 'change' or 'alter'. I interpret DESTROYER to mean a pope who is out to ATTACK church doctrine, or at least cause confusion.
We know that freemasons have infiltrated the church and they started waaaay back in the mid 1800s. We know that it is rumored that certain V2 popes were masons, but not all of them were. We also know that satan and the masons know their limits and God will not allow them to destroy the church. But, they can inflict damage. So, can we not imagine the scenario where a pope tries to destroy the church by ambiguities, confusion, etc without changing doctrine, but simply by minimizing truth, promoting lukewarmness and APPEARING to promote evil, all the while, TECHNICALLY they didn't change church teaching? The devil is a master of technicalities, of confusion and of 'toeing the line'. My opinion is that this exactly describes the situation we are living in today.
.Do the popes decree the man elected is instantly the pope or does it not? Do the popes decree at that instant he has the full authority of the pope or not?
No, the law about elections includes prerequisites, they're just not in the snippet you're relying on.
Do the popes decree the man elected is instantly the pope or does it not? Do the popes decree at that instant he has the full authority of the pope or not?.
Sedevacantists were not consulted to pre-approve any candidates or any part of the electoral process, or to scrutinize prerequisites - and neither are non-sedevacantists consulted, neither are bishops, neither are heads of state consulted nor theologians nor seminary professors, it is entirely up to the cardinals. The cardinals, who btw have all been personally appointed by previous popes mainly for the very purpose of electing the next pope, it is their business not ours, to actually make any and all - or none if they so choose - determinations and scrutinzations while they elect the next pope.
Again, there is absolutely nothing complicated here at all.
.The only reason to even ask such a question is to dissuade from the decree of PPX and XII. The man elected by the cardinals is the pope. Confirmation of this factual truth occurs in the very same sentence when they say: "and he acquires and can exercise full and absolute jurisdiction over the whole world."
Oh Stubborn get real. Does a man have to be a Catholic or not to be pope? You're the one trying to muddy the waters with evasive answers and second grade copy-pastes from texts that were provided by people you abhor.
You just flagrantly ignore what true popes (Pius X and XII in this case) decreed as you twist teachings into oblivion as a matter of habit.
The only reason to even ask such a question is to dissuade from the decree of PPX and XII. The man elected by the cardinals is the pope. Confirmation of this factual truth occurs in the very same sentence when they say: "and he acquires and can exercise full and absolute jurisdiction over the whole world."There is nothing complicated about a pope becoming a manifest heretic and automatically ceasing to be pope and Catholic. These are the fully approved Catholic quotes you trash, and you don't seem to care a bit. The idea that you are smarter than St. Francis de Sales and papally approved quotes, is definitively arrogance and stubborn-ness.
Now you get real, do the cardinals elect the pope or don't they?
Again, there is absolutely nothing complicated here at all.
There is nothing complicated about a pope becoming a manifest heretic and automatically ceasing to be pope and Catholic. These are the fully approved Catholic quotes you trash, and you don't seem to care a bit. The idea that you are smarter than St. Francis de Sales and papally approved quotes, is definitively arrogance and stubborn-ness.Always remember that there are no Church teachings which in any way vindicate sedevacantism. Also, if you think there are Church teachings which you think actually do vindicate sedevacantism, then always remember that in order for you to think that way, you are twisting the meaning of a teaching of the Church into something it does not teach.
Always remember that there are no Church teachings which in any way vindicate sedevacantism. Also, if you think there are Church teachings which you think actually do vindicate sedevacantism, then always remember that in order for you to think that way, you are twisting the meaning of a teaching of the Church into something it does not teach.
"Thus we do not say that the Pope cannot err in his private opinions, as did John XXII; or be altogether a heretic, as perhaps Honorius was. Now when he is explicitly a heretic, he falls ipso facto from his dignity and out of the Church, and the Church must either deprive him, or, as some say, declare him deprived, of his Apostolic See."
So you do believe that a man must be Catholic to be elected pope.no our pope doesn't have to be catholic silly, if he is a heretic he is definitely a catholic, when he prays with the jews in the ѕуηαgσgυє we should all rejoice ....Stubborn has finally convinced me with his brilliant arguments...matzah ball for everyone
Is a heretic (not a material heretic) a Catholic?
Catholic approved teaching is Catholic approved teaching. When St. Francis de Sales is quoted, or a myriad of Catholic imprimatured books saying precisely the same, you cannot play this game of dismissing those quotes and running away. If you think they mean something entirely opposite than what they obvious say, the burden is on you to restate the quote and explain how it means something else.As I said, you are twisting the saint's speculation into meaning something he does not say and into teaching something the Church does not teach. You can start with that fact.
You can start with this one:
So you do believe that a man must be Catholic to be elected pope.I believe the purpose that the cardinals were appointed in the first place and assemble during the period of sede vacante, is to elect a pope, not play cards or watch movies. I could be wrong I guess, but that's what I believe.
Is a heretic (not a material heretic) a Catholic?
no our pope doesn't have to be catholic silly, if he is a heretic he is definitely a catholic, when he prays with the jews in the ѕуηαgσgυє we should all rejoice ....Stubborn has finally convinced me with his brilliant arguments...matzah ball for everyoneYou sedes are not arguing with me, you're arguing with "true" popes' teachings. Crazy I know, but I'm not the one who decreed that the man elected is instantly pope with the full authority and jurisdiction of a pope - "true" popes made those rules.
As I said, you are twisting the saint's speculation into meaning something he does not say and into teaching something the Church does not teach. You can start with that fact.
You never cease to amaze.
Do you realize you just contradicted yourself? You say that he spoke Church teaching and then you call it speculation!
I cannot be both. Which is it?
You never cease to amaze.
A destroyer pope could intend, more than anyone has ever intended in the history of the world, to completely humiliate and obliterate God's Church. So long as his intention to do so and his methods do not sever him from the Church through heresy, schism, or apostasy, he's still pope. And we know that whatever Bellarmine thinks makes a pope a "destroyer" does not include him being a manifest heretic.You make some good points and i agree with most of this, however, I think we've both spent too much time debating on what +Bellarmine meant. What matters to me is that until the Church makes a determination on the pope's status, people must, by default, accept that he's the pope - at least temporally. We can argue all day about if he is or isn't a heretic, but that's not our call.
.
We don't care about formal heretics, we care about manifest (public) ones. That's the distinction that matters for whether or not someone belongs to the Church, as manifest heretics-- whether formal or material-- do not belong to her. There's a reason that Avinger hasn't replied to me, because he's not going to find any teachers who say that manifest heretics belong to the Church under any condition.
.
I think that you are trying to answer the question of whether or not Francis has committed a sin. That really doesn't matter, although it sure seems that he has no defense of ignorance since his training and exposure to the Catholic faith far surpasses anything that any of us have experienced. Clerics don't get a pass for ignorance. But it doesn't matter at the end of the day, because the distinction between whether he's a formal or a material heretic isn't a distinction that will tell us whether or not he is a Catholic, it's one that will tell us whether or not he's guilty before God, and that isn't really any of our concern. Catholics are those who belong to the Catholic Church, incorporated at baptism and maintained by the profession of faith (and the absence of severance through heresy, apostasy, schism, or excommunication). They can do a lot of really, really, really evil things and still be Catholic. A pope can sacrifice infants to a goat's skull and participate in Satanic orgies in private and remain pope so long as he professes the faith outwardly. He can be the most rotten person to ever have lived. We don't judge whether or not someone is a Catholic based on some gradation of good or evil committed.
.
You see, this is all true because of the nature of the Church. She is a visible unity of faith. That being the case, it is impossible for someone who publicly professes something alien to belong to her. That is why the material/formal distinction is not used in this case. The material/formal distinction tells us whether or not someone is guilty of some thing or another before God. We don't care about that. We want to know if they belong to the Church.
That's not an answer. Which is it, it cannot both be speculation and Church teaching.You need to re-read what I wrote: "As I said, you are twisting the saint's speculation into meaning something he does not say and into teaching something the Church does not teach. You can start with that fact."
You need to re-read what I wrote: "As I said, you are twisting the saint's speculation into meaning something he does not say and into teaching something the Church does not teach. You can start with that fact."
I will attempt to explain it.
The thing you quoted is the saint's speculation, it is exactly and only that - speculation. His speculation being only that = it is not a teaching at all, certainly not a Church teaching. As such, it is neither a teaching of the Church nor a teaching of the saint, it is only the saint's speculation. Since it is only speculation, it is not a teaching of the saint nor is it a teaching of the Church.
This is why I correctly pointed out to you that you are twisting the saint's speculation into teaching something the Church does not teach.
For future reference, whenever you read from saints who are talking about events having anything to do with popes losing their office, i.e. specifically, events which have never happened, that is going to be speculation for the simple reason that's all it can be because it has never happened.
What matters to me is that until the Church makes a determination on the pope's status, people must, by default, accept that he's the pope - at least temporally. We can argue all day about if he is or isn't a heretic, but that's not our call.
I think you see where I'm coming from. Bosco and Bumphrey, however, do not. They take a pretty hard-line stance on heresy and feel it's easy to determine (even if they have no authority to do so).
but you cannot argue actually watching the man praying in common with non-Catholics in ѕуηαgσgυєs and mosques - something condemned repeatedly as heresy throughout the history of the Church.
Ridiculous. Even Traditional Canon Law has ACTIONS such as these render someone SUSPECT of heresy. You once again demonstrate that you have no idea what the term "heresy" even means but just casually fling it around. Heresy is an intellectual adherence to propositions that are contrary to the faith. Actions, however scandalous or sinful, are NOT heresy. These actions can be performed for any number of reasons ... the most common of which is human respect. On another thread you were completely confounding heresy with lesser errors (having no concept of theological notes) and now you declare actions to be tantamount to heresy.
And this is coming from someone who considers Francis a material heretic at least.
Ridiculous. Even Traditional Canon Law has ACTIONS such as these render someone SUSPECT of heresy. You once again demonstrate that you have no idea what the term "heresy" even means but just casually fling it around. Heresy is an intellectual adherence to propositions that are contrary to the faith. Actions, however scandalous or sinful, are NOT heresy. These actions can be performed for any number of reasons ... the most common of which is human respect. On another thread you were completely confounding heresy with lesser errors (having no concept of theological notes) and now you declare actions to be tantamount to heresy..
And this is coming from someone who considers Francis a material heretic at least.
Ridiculous. Even Traditional Canon Law has ACTIONS such as these render someone SUSPECT of heresy. You once again demonstrate that you have no idea what the term "heresy" even means but just casually fling it around. Heresy is an intellectual adherence to propositions that are contrary to the faith. Actions, however scandalous or sinful, are NOT heresy. These actions can be performed for any number of reasons ... the most common of which is human respect. On another thread you were completely confounding heresy with lesser errors (having no concept of theological notes) and now you declare actions to be tantamount to heresy.
And this is coming from someone who considers Francis a material heretic at least.
Ladislaus, what about the concept that external actions signify inward thought?
Or St. Robert Bellarmine's famous quote:
Previous to that quote, St. Robert was discussing Pope Liberius:
Ridiculous. Even Traditional Canon Law has ACTIONS such as these render someone SUSPECT of heresy. You once again demonstrate that you have no idea what the term "heresy" even means but just casually fling it around. Heresy is an intellectual adherence to propositions that are contrary to the faith. Actions, however scandalous or sinful, are NOT heresy. These actions can be performed for any number of reasons ... the most common of which is human respect. On another thread you were completely confounding heresy with lesser errors (having no concept of theological notes) and now you declare actions to be tantamount to heresy.Do no these actions of worshiping with the non catholics render someone as an apostate?
And this is coming from someone who considers Francis a material heretic at least.
Absolutely, I agree with you on this point.Very good, we agree on this fundamental truth of the Catholic faith!
Salvation rests in the hands of each individual, there's no debating this simple truth. No matter what happens around us, each individual is responsible for the salvation of his/her soul.
Do no these actions of worshiping with the non catholics render someone as an apostate?
Certainly such attempts can nowise be approved by Catholics, founded as they are on that false opinion which considers all religions to be more or less good and praiseworthy, since they all in different ways manifest and signify that sense which is inborn in us all, and by which we are led to God and to the obedient acknowledgment of His rule. Not only are those who hold this opinion in error and deceived, but also in distorting the idea of true religion they reject it, and little by little. turn aside to naturalism and atheism, as it is called; from which it clearly follows that one who supports those who hold these theories and attempt to realize them, is altogether abandoning the divinely revealed religion.
Now if I go pray in common with non-Catholics in ѕуηαgσgυєs or mosques, am I not denying the above teachings of the Church?
Yes, the encyclical "Mortalium Animos" of 1928 made this clear in the second paragraph, of which I will give an excerpt:
This is talking about embracing certain condemned propositions, not about the mere act of participating in false worship. Those are two different things.
Infallibility prevents not just heresy, but anything lesser that is harmful to faith or morals. Even ambiguous doctrine is harmful. This includes not just the magisterium, but the liturgy and law of the Church.
Vatican II is ALL about realizing those theories. Where have you been?
This is talking about embracing certain condemned propositions, not about the mere act of participating in false worship. Those are two different things.They indeed are, one is a defection from orthodoxy, the other is generally a gravely sinful act as such, but not necessarily a heretical one unless it is joined with the first.
Infallibility does not govern the personal actions of a pope. You're basing your entire case for sedevacante in your last few posts on participation in false worship. This has nothing to do with Magisterium, Universal Discipline, nor Universal Law. You guys really our out of your league in attempting theology and every post of yours simply exposes the absurdity of untrained laymen such as yourselves going around declaring people guilty of heresy..
Yes, infallibility extends not only to Magisterium, but also to Universal Discipline (liturgy and law). But you make no distinctions whatsoever. Not every act of the Magisterium is infallible. You guys keep talking as if they were. Nay, more, you even claim that every book ever authorized by some local bishop with an imprimatur must be regarded as effectively infallible.
You make a mockery of Catholicism with your absurdities. You take a rightful objection to the R&R position (which effectively holds that the Church's Universal Magisterium and Discipline can fail) and twist it by way of an extreme opposite overreaction into the absurd extreme that EVERYTHING in the Magisterium is basically infallible.
...you twist it by way of an extreme opposite overreaction into the absurd extreme that EVERYTHING in the Magisterium is basically infallible.
Not necessarily. Again, please read the code of Canon Law, would you?, instead of pontificating from your own ignorance. Such activities render people SUSPECT of heresy. Actions are not the same as propositions. Someone might engage in such activities for any number of reasons that fall short of actually embracing heresy. Indeed, such activities are, objectively speaking, mortal sins. But many Catholics participate in such things due to motives of human respect ... not because they have embraced the propositions of whatever place they're participating in. If a Catholic goes and prays at a ѕуηαgσgυє, it doesn't mean he's embraced Judaism.
I can't believe you have the nerve to actually type this. The First Vatican Council and every Catholic book discussing infallibility clearly states that the magisterium is ALWAYS infallible, whether it's the solemn or the ordinary. You are blatantly promoting heresy for all to see here, and you do it with a straight face! You have no credibility AT ALL. I challenge you to post even one Catholic resource that says the magisterium is not always infallible. You will not be able to because none of them say it.
.
First, numerous quotes have just been posted for you that actions do confirm belief, so that ends your argument right there. But, then you add the embarrassing argument that many Catholics participate in such things (i.e. praying and ѕуηαgσgυєs) due to motives of human respect. You might be able to present such an argument if Francis were otherwise perfectly orthodox. You act like you have never seen all of his other heresies posted on FrancisQuotes.com. Looking at those confirms his actions are no mistake.
If there were a contest on here on how many times someone is disproven, you would definitely take first prize. Pathetic really.
Infallibility does not govern the personal actions of a pope. You're basing your entire case for sedevacante in your last few posts on participation in false worship.
That's a different argument. Has nothing to do with what you've been blabbering on about. Your brains are so confused and dull that it's painful to read your posts. If you want to argue from the TEACHING of Vatican II, that's one thing. One can make a strong case. But you've been trumpeting the significance of mere participation in false worship as convicting popes of heresy. I've actually known many otherwise orthodox Catholics who have participated in such because their brains are muddled; they think they can do so without compromising their faith and most certainly do not embrace the propositions of the false believers with whom they pray.
..
You should actually listen to Ladislaus and look at the canons. Then you can explain to him that "suspicion of heresy" is a canonical term. It has a technical meaning in the law. It is a penalty with certain conditions and processes attached to it. It has no role to play in the discussion at all, which isn't a canonical one, but a theological one. And it has no role to play whatsoever even if this was a canonical discussion, because the person we're discussing is "the pope."
.
The only possible way that the canons could apply to Francis were if he wasn't the pope. If he is, they don't apply. So says Vatican I. The pope has no judge.
These arguments can very easily and naturally overlap but they are distinct, and when one argues that these men themselves (or, this man himself) are not Catholic, the evidence should be somewhat confined to evidence against them as individuals, to help keep things organized in discourse.
.
That being the case, Bumphrey's mistake is just a syllogistic one.
There is no mistake. 'Where the pope is, there is the Church'. An ecuмenical Council, the laws of the Church, the liturgy, are only official when the pope nods his head. If he nods his head, and it goes out to the Church, and there is something found that is harmful, then the man who gave the nod cannot be a true pope. This is a dogmatic fact.
.
To be clear, this is because one who has incurred the "suspicion of heresy" is then warned by a superior, twice if necessary, and is then penalized by the superior. That's what it means to be "suspect of heresy." It isn't a theological notion used to describe someone who might be a heretic. It is a canonical term, and a penal one at that. Who would Ladislaus propose be the pope's judge in this case? :p
.
They indeed are, one is a defection from orthodoxy, the other is generally a gravely sinful act as such, but not necessarily a heretical one unless it is joined with the first.
The ecuмenical follies are not as strong an example of conciliar heterodoxy as many other clearly heretical acts of the conciliar popes. They are removed from the false doctrines and untruths which motivate them, which is where the scrutiny should be focused.
Adherence to and promotion of the conciliar doctrines is where the apostasy lies. One need go no further.
Folks, we have just entered the twilight zone. I've never seen anything like it.
"Heretic" is defined as a baptized person who "perniciously rejects or doubts any article of faith determined by the authority of the Catholic Church..." (A Catholic Dictionary)
Now a few quotes from the Church:
- "None must neither pray or sing psalms with heretics, and whosoever shall communicate with those who are cut off from the communion of the Church, whether clergyman or layman, let him be excommunicated" Council of Carthage
- "If any ecclesiastic or layman shall go into the ѕуηαgσgυє of the Jews or to the meeting-houses of the heretics to join in prayer with them, let them be deposed and deprived of communion. If any Bishops or Priest or Deacon shall join in prayer with heretics, let him be suspended from Communion" III Council of Constantinople
- Canon 33: "No one shall join in prayers with heretics or schismatics" Council of Laodicea
Now if I go pray in common with non-Catholics in ѕуηαgσgυєs or mosques, am I not denying the above teachings of the Church?
It's a fact that those people who follow Vatican II's ecuмenism and syncretism are "abandoning" the faith. That is probably why the encyclical didn't put it in the past tense, because it is not always an instantaneous result.
But again, read my past message where I explained why the popes of Vatican II are false popes, and it only involved official actions of the Church's magisterium, liturgy and laws, and the idea that "error against faith or morals" does not have to be outright heresy.
Not dogmatic fact, but dogma. Otherwise, I agree with you.
It's the reason that R&R is not acceptable. Now, various R&R nuances along the lines of "I don't know. I'll just give him the benefit of the doubt until the Church declares him deposed." -- those are different. That's more along the lines of a sedeprivationism which grants his material occupancy a certain kind of "status".
Nevertheless, there's a fault in this reasoning process:
If some teaching that cannot be harmful actually brings harm, then the pope cannot be the pope. This is what I refer to modus tollentis sedevacantism, the other form where you start with the person of the pope modus ponentis sedevacantism.
Now, that's the problem, isn't it? Pope has no judge. Point of this is simply that actions render one SUSPECT of heresy and are not themselves HERESY. It's in the nature of an action vs. an adherence to a false proposition. Actions can certainly suggest pertinacious adherence to false propositions but do not of themselves constitute the same..
.
Ladislaus, the point is that if the man is the pope then he is not rendered "suspect of heresy" because "suspect of heresy" is a canonical penalty. The designation is meted from a superior to an inferior, and it includes and involves a procedure of warnings also imposed on an inferior by a superior. Read Woywod or Augustine or Bouscaren or any of the canonists. You're treating "suspect of heresy" like it's a theological term. Read theologians who write about heresy and they don't talk about "suspicion of heresy." It's a technical term. And you're not only misusing it, you're misapplying it in the most grossly possible way by insisting that it could apply to the pope, who has no earthly judge.
:facepalm:
In normal times you guys would be banned by your local ordinary from ever posting on any subject of Catholic theology. There's such a thing as the "merely authentic" Magisterium, which is NOT INFALLIBLE. Vatican I defined the infallibility of the extraordinary solemn Magisterium and the Ordinary Universal Magisterium. There's also ordinary and non-universal (aka "merely authentic") Magisterium ... which is NOT infallible.
I'm just taken aback by the sheer stupidity here.
- "None must neither pray or sing psalms with heretics, and whosoever shall communicate with those who are cut off from the communion of the Church, whether clergyman or layman, let him be excommunicated" Council of Carthage
- "If any ecclesiastic or layman shall go into the ѕуηαgσgυє of the Jews or to the meeting-houses of the heretics to join in prayer with them, let them be deposed and deprived of communion. If any Bishops or Priest or Deacon shall join in prayer with heretics, let him be suspended from Communion" III Council of Constantinople
- Canon 33: "No one shall join in prayers with heretics or schismatics" Council of Laodicea
Again, these are not TEACHINGS of the Church but canonical penalties (of excommunication) for the crimes listed. Excommunication is not the same as heresy.
Please provide quotes from the Church on the "merely authentic" magisterium.
The reason the Church created these penalties is because those who pray with non-Catholics and heretics are clearly showing by their actions that they believe one religion is as good as another, which is heresy.
Really the only charge of heresy that sticks against the V2 Popes has to do with their false ecclesiology and soteriology. Tragically, both bosco and Nado hold the same soteriology and ecclesiology. Consequently, by their own standards, they are manifest heretics who are outside the Church. Priests should refuse them the Sacraments on that account.Ha ha. Oh the irony!
It's not my job to educate you in your ignorance ... especially since you put yourself forward as competent to pontificate on theological matters. "Magisterium Mere Authenticuм" is a term used by theologians in reference to the non-infallible teachings of the Magisterium.
Your implied corollary is that there's no such thing, that every act of the Magisterium is infallible. Please produce a quote from ANY CATHOLIC theologian which asserts as you do that there can be no error in the Magisterium.
Now, that's the problem, isn't it? Pope has no judge. Point of this is simply that actions render one SUSPECT of heresy and are not themselves HERESY. It's in the nature of an action vs. an adherence to a false proposition. Actions can certainly suggest pertinacious adherence to false propositions but do not of themselves constitute the same.
I searched every Catholic reference I have for both "Magisterium Mere Authenticuм" and "merely authentic magisterium", and it is not found anywhere. Even "merely authentic" does not appear in my primary Catholic references. You had better start educating us Ladi - show us some Catholic books before Vatican II that explain it.
Waiting....:popcorn:
Obviously this Council couldn't demand the faithful believe both solemn and ordinary teaching if they weren't guaranteed infallible.
You have been disproven big time. Again.
Educate yourself before posting again:
http://www.catholicapologetics.info/thechurch/encyclicals/docauthority.htm
"Ultimately, however, this assent is not the same as the one demanded in the formal act of faith. Strictly speaking, it is possible that this teaching (proposed in the encyclical letter) is subject to error. There are a thousand reasons to believe that it is not. It has probably never been (erroneous), and it is normally certain that it will never be. But, absolutely speaking, it could be, because God does not guarantee it as He guarantees the teaching formulated by way of definition’. "
You use Fenton as an authority when he agrees with you, and when you don't agree with him, then he's wrong.
Perhaps you can find what you need say by quoting a book over 50 years before that, which had an imprimatur?
Perhaps you can find what you need say by quoting a book over 50 years before that, which had an imprimatur?
Again, idiot, NO CATHOLIC THEOLOGIAN has ever held that every teaching of the Magisterium is infallible. You and your idiot cohort bosco alone believe that crap. In so doing, you discredit Catholicism. No, I don't accept Msgr. Fenton as infallible. But you do, since his writings were imprimatured. Nevertheless, Fenton cites a long list of sources (other theologians) who also teach that things like encyclical letters are not infallible. You have yet to produce a single proof (other than your own perverted fantasy) that all acts of the Magisterium are infallible. That's because NO CATHOLIC THEOLOGIAN has ever held that.
Perhaps you can find what you need say by quoting a book over 50 years before that, which had an imprimatur?
Fenton cites these. Look them up yourself. Footnotes 16-29.
"Another very imposing group of theologians explicitly list the papal encyclicals, at least in a general way, as non-infallible docuмents. Bishop Hilarinus Felder, [16] Msgr. Caesar Manzoni, [17] and Fathers Emil Dorsch, [18] Reginald Schultes, [19] Antonio Vellico, [20] Ludwig Koesters, [21] Ludwig Lercher, [22] and Aelred Graham [23] teach thus in their treatises. The same view is set forth by Fr. Mangenot in his excellent article on the encyclicals in the Dictionnaire de théologie catholique, [24] by Fr. Lucien Choupin in his outstanding monograph, [25] by Fr. Thomas Pegues in his frequently quoted article in the Revue thomiste on the authority of the encyclicals, [26] and by Canon George Smith in his brilliant study on this subject in the Clergy Review. [27] Fr. Jean Vincent Bainvel, along with Choupin and Schultes, incidentally, refers explicitly to the encyclicals of Pope Leo XIII and classifies them as non-infallible, [28] while the article of Pegues was written as an answer to a question sent in to the Revue thomiste about the doctrinal authority of Pope Leo’s encyclicals. Fr. Herman Dieckmann [29] classifies the doctrine contained in papal encyclicals with that of the Roman Congregations."
I have NEVER said that all acts of the Magisterium are infallible.
You don't seem to accept #2. I had given you quotes from 6 different imprimatured Catholic books through the 19th century explaining what passive infallibility of the Church is, and you condemned them all!
You have "NEVER said" that all acts of the Magisterium is infallible, and yet you argue with me every step of the way when I assert the contrary. And your idiot CMRI pal bosco has been promoting this notion all along while you defend him. Not to mention that you basically stalk me across CathInfo downthumbing every single post of mine. You have some perverse obsession with me, Nado.
You have no idea what passive infallibility means nor any understanding of its scope. Passive infallibility is the infallibility of the Ecclesia Credens and a function of the Church's indefectibility. It is not this crap that you push that the Church can never fail (passively) to condemn any error whatsoever.
The definition from "A Catholic Dictionary" is, per V1, absolutely wrong.
Definition of "magisterium" from "A Catholic Dictionary": "The Church's divinely appointed authority to teach the truths of religion.... This teaching is infallible...". It then goes on to explain that the magisterium consists of two types of teaching; solemn and ordinary. It then repeats later in the definition, "All these are founts of a teaching which as a whole is infallible".
The Catholic Encyclopedia (1917) in the article on Infallibility, states the same: "Three Organs of Infallibility: 1. the bishops dispersed throughout the world in union with the Holy See (exercised by what theologians describe as the ordinarium magisterium, i. e. the common or everyday teaching authority of the Church), 2. ecuмenical councils under the headship of the pope; and 3. the pope himself separately.
The First Vatican Council confirms the same: "All those things are to be believed by divine and Catholic faith which are contained in the written Word of God or in Tradition, and which are proposed by the Church, either in solemn judgment or in its ordinary and universal teaching office, as divinely revealed truths which must be believed."
Obviously this Council couldn't demand the faithful believe both solemn and ordinary teaching if they weren't guaranteed infallible.
You have been disproven big time. Again.
You said that I changed his meaning. You have not explained that. Tell us what he meant, and exactly what different meaning I put to his words. Particularly, "he falls ipso facto from his dignity and out of the Church". What does "out of the Church" mean to you?
Also, just because something has never happened does not logically imply the possibility is a speculation. For example, that you will live to be 100 years old is speculation, but the possibility is not.
Stubborn, I have been waiting a couple of days for you to answer this. Can a true pope be "out of the Church"?You do not get it at all, which makes debating with you a test which no one, not even you, can pass.
You do not get it at all, which makes debating with you a test which no one, not even you, can pass.
Your whole idea of "out of the Church" is altogether corrupt. You cannot grasp the fact that the pope, being the supreme authority on earth, has no superior, not even all the bishops, priests, cardinals and whatever other prelates all together in council can even accuse him of anything, let alone you judging him of being "out of the Church" - this fact in and of itself makes the whole sedevacantist doctrine, which btw, most certainly is nothing but a doctrine of man, absolutely superfluous, if not mortally sinful.
Again, idiot, NO CATHOLIC THEOLOGIAN has ever held that every teaching of the Magisterium is infallible. You and your idiot cohort bosco alone believe that crap. In so doing, you discredit Catholicism. No, I don't accept Msgr. Fenton as infallible. But you do, since his writings were imprimatured. Nevertheless, Fenton cites a long list of sources (other theologians) who also teach that things like encyclical letters are not infallible. You have yet to produce a single proof (other than your own perverted fantasy) that all acts of the Magisterium are infallible. That's because NO CATHOLIC THEOLOGIAN has ever held that.
You do not get it at all, which makes debating with you a test which no one, not even you, can pass..
Your whole idea of "out of the Church" is altogether corrupt. You cannot grasp the fact that the pope, being the supreme authority on earth, has no superior, not even all the bishops, priests, cardinals and whatever other prelates all together in council can even accuse him of anything, let alone you judging him of being "out of the Church" - this fact in and of itself makes the whole sedevacantist doctrine, which btw, most certainly is nothing but a doctrine of man, absolutely superfluous, if not mortally sinful.
Educate yourself before posting again:
http://www.catholicapologetics.info/thechurch/encyclicals/docauthority.htm
"Ultimately, however, this assent is not the same as the one demanded in the formal act of faith. Strictly speaking, it is possible that this teaching (proposed in the encyclical letter) is subject to error. There are a thousand reasons to believe that it is not. It has probably never been (erroneous), and it is normally certain that it will never be. But, absolutely speaking, it could be, because God does not guarantee it as He guarantees the teaching formulated by way of definition’. "
Both you and Lad are confusing "magisterium" with "Hierarchy". The Hierarchy, which includes the pope, is human, as such is absolutely, entirely fallible. This confusion being demonstrated between "Magisterium" and "Hierarchy", will only fuel the continuance of the currant silly debate and insure that there is solution..
The "Universal and Ordinary Magisterium" is *not* the hierarchy, rather, the UOM is teachings which have been taught since the time of the Apostles - these are infallible without solemn papal decrees and will always completely agree with any solemn papal decrees.
Constantly misnaming the Hierarchy as "the Magisterium" only adds to the confusion - as obviously already demonstrated.
.Just so that you'll know in the future, gramatical gender has absolutely nothing to do with the sex of the noun...at least in Latin. Just because the noun is a neuter noun does not mean that it refers to a non-human, any more that a table (in Latin, mensa, first declension, feminine) is a woman or food (in Latin, cibus, second declension masculine) is man.
The Latin word, magisterium, is a second declension noun in the neuter gender, which means it does not refer to any human being(s). It refers to a THING, which in this case is the teaching office of the Church.
.Thank you Neil!
The Latin word, magisterium, is a second declension noun in the neuter gender, which means it does not refer to any human being(s). It refers to a THING, which in this case is the teaching office of the Church.
.
An office is neither male nor female, for example. Since it isn't a human being or human beings, it is not the hierarchy, but their office, that is, their teaching office. Magister is the Latin singular second declension noun for teacher, male gender, and magistri is its nominative plural. Magisterium is the singular neuter noun in the second declension.
.
Some languages, like Spanish, attach male or female gender to inanimate objects like table, floor, kitchen, mountain, sunset, shoes or car. But this is not the case with Latin as applies to the noun, office.
.
I have run into very opinionated Novus Ordo activists who are under the impression that the Magisterium is an assembly of men who direct the Church, sort of like an ecclesiastical congress or whatever. Apparently this notion is promoted by Newchurch bishops to sew confusion among the faithful which is an outgrowth of Vat.II ecclesiology.
.
The purpose and mission of the Church's Magisterium is to transmit the Church's infallible teaching and Sacred Tradition throughout the ages, to subsequent ages. Like the tombstone on the burial place of ABL says, TRADIDI QUOD ET ACCEPI, I have handed down that which I have received. It is not the place of the Magisterium to introduce new doctrine (Vat.I) but to safeguard the teaching office that has been handed down to this generation.
.
I didn't ask whether anyone could discern it. I asked whether a true pope can be outside the Church.
Both you and Lad are confusing "magisterium" with "Hierarchy". The Hierarchy, which includes the pope, is human, as such is absolutely, entirely fallible.
constantly confusing "hierarchy" with "magisterium" is only one of the many teachings
Interesting how this appears suddenly in 1949 and is not found in Catholic books before that.
I have never said, that the Church can never fail (passively) to condemn any error whatsoever.
You keep lying about that.
Gotta love the "down thumb attack" that Ladislaus has begun - within an hour I received 50 or so down thumbs, all in numbers of three across all of my posts. Looks like Ladi-boy is having a temper tantrum like a little boy because he has lost the debate.
Here I will list some quotes that you have asked for confirming that the Church teaches both solemn and ordinary magisterium are infallible.
Gotta love the "down thumb attack" that Ladislaus has begun - within an hour I received 50 or so down thumbs, all in numbers of three across all of my posts. Looks like Ladi-boy is having a temper tantrum like a little boy because he has lost the debate.
You have said exactly that, liar.
I was merely using the term "suspect" of heresy as an illustration of the fact that actions that might be construed as having heretical intent do not of themselves rise to the level of heresy ... as an illustration of the mind of the Church on the principle here. I am not saying that the pope is subject to canonical penalties..
I repeat, NO THEOLOGIAN HAS EVER HELD THAT EVERYTHING IN THE MAGISTERIUM IS INFALLIBLE.
Sorry, Stubborn, but you couldn't be more wrong about this. In fact, this distinction (the way you applied it) is expressly condemned by Vatican I. We are not talking about the personal orthodoxy of the V2 Popes. We are talking about what they taught to the Universal Church (the Magisterium) and the Divine Liturgy they introduced to the Church. Your distinction is completely false. With such falsehoods you simply give more ammunition to the sedevacantists. They correctly react against stuff like this ... but then take it too far to the opposite extreme.Sorry Lad, I wish I were wrong. I agree that we are not talking about the personal orthodoxy of the V2 Popes, but when you keep saying magisterium when you should be saying hierarchy, then you ARE talking about he personal orthodoxy of the V2 Popes.
(https://www.cathinfo.com/index.php?topic=44819.msg551942#msg551942)
Quote from: Ladislaus on Today at 08:40:58 AM (https://www.cathinfo.com/crisis-in-the-church/yes-i%27m-going-to-judge-sedevacantism-here-like-i%27m-above-it-all/msg551915/#msg551915)QuoteI repeat, NO THEOLOGIAN HAS EVER HELD THAT EVERYTHING IN THE MAGISTERIUM IS INFALLIBLE.
You asked me to provide "even one" quote, and I provided you a dozen, showing that the Church teaches that the magisterium, consisting of solemn and ordinary magisterium, is INFALLIBLE. Why are you ignoring the quotes? If any of the quotes are in error, point out exactly which ones.
The quotes clarify that everything in the magisterium pertaining to faith and morals is infallible, while other topics are excluded.
The only logical answer is that you have a different concept of the ordinary magisterium than the Church does.
No, the only logical answer is that there are different levels of the magisterium, which is proven by the on-going discussions of the sspx and rome. The romans have finally admitted that the V2 docuмents contain different levels of 'spiritual assent' (as they put it), which means, for the sake of this discussion, that not everything from a council is infallible. It goes without saying that this applies to many other docuмents and speeches from rome.
The quotes you posted are referring to the POTENTIAL dogmatic powers of the ordinary universal magisterium, if such docuмents/decrees 1) deal with faith/morals and 2) agree with "what has always been taught". If they do not, then they are fallible. Your quotes don't make this clarification because (in normal times) the typical persons who study this type of subject (i.e. theologians, canon lawyers, etc) consider this common knowledge.
Also, ALL General Councils are infallible, no exceptions. The Church has always taught this and comes directly from Scripture. This is another error of the SSPX and Novus ordo. Again, I challenge you or anyone to provide something from the Church before Vatican II that says not everything from a General Council is infallible. You will not find it. Again, we are speaking of subjects on faith and morals.No, this is not true. This is the error which +ABL rightly said has "been infiltrated into the seminaries, the catechisms and all the manifestations of the Church..."
The fact that VII taught error to the entire Church should tell you one thing, that VII is a false council not of the Catholic Church. One thing it should not say to you is that Councils can err. This is so foreign to all ages of the Church.
Ladi, you'll also notice the dozen or so quotes I just provided are from a General Council and several popes, which are certainly more authoritative than quotes from individual theologians. I don't understand why you keep insisting on quotes from only theologians?
If you look carefully at all the quotes I posted, you will see that they are unanimous in stating there are only 2 types of magisterial teaching; solemn and ordinary. That's it. They all say it. Anyone who says there are additional "levels" of the magisterium is only fabricating their own Catholicism.
When I see you post things like this I wonder how you can believe this. You often say things like 20 century theologians etc... gave us the idea that councils are infallible but I have never seen you provide a shred of evidence as to why you believe that councils are NOT infallible or can teach error. There is no evidence of what you are saying. I've read numerous examples of past pre-"conciliar" Popes and others quoting or making reference to Councils as the deciding factor on particular dogmas or religious questions. When a council, approved by a Pope, teaches something related to faith or morals (not disciplinary) to the entire Church, it is infallible. This is an example of the very definition of the Vatican Council on infallibility and the Magisterium.Hi seven, nice to see you're back!
The fact that VII taught error to the entire Church should tell you one thing, that VII is a false council not of the Catholic Church. One thing it should not say to you is that Councils can err. This is so foreign to all ages of the Church.
Stubborn, (or anyone else) out of the 20 Ecuмenical Councils prior to the false council of Vatican II, can you name one error that was taught to the Universal Church? Just one...No, but there is really no need to waste time on such a thing as that.
Here's a simple example of what parts of a council are infallible. What was the first ecuмenical council? Nicea. What part was infallible? The nicean creed. What about the other 95% of the council?! Nobody talks about it much. Isn't it infallible?! If it was, why isn't it talked about? Why don't catholics memorize it? Why don't catholics have every, single sentence of every, single ecuмenical council memorized? If it was all infallible, we should, right? But it's not all infallible, only specific parts. Like the nicean creed, which we all know of.But that doesn't even answer the question you're asking (which parts of a council are infallible?).
But that doesn't even answer the question you're asking (which parts of a council are infallible?).This is missing the point.
.
Everything that is approved by the pope at a council is infallible. In fact, without the pope, a council isn't infallible at all. And whatever is drawn up by a council and not approved by the pope has no guarantees whatsoever.
.
What Catholics memorize and what Catholics believe are two different things. There are plenty of infallible truths that a Catholic could die without ever knowing, or at least without ever knowing well. Immaculate conception is a perfect example. What happens to an eight year old who dies prematurely-- surely he doesn't really understand what the Immaculate Conception is, but it suffices that he will to believe whatever it is that the Church teaches. Ditto Our Lady's perpetual virginity, and the virgin birth.
Everything that is approved by the pope at a council is infallible.No. Everything that is approved by the pope and which follows the criteria outlined in Vatican 1 is infallible. As canon 749 says (which agrees with Vatican 1):
This is missing the point..
The point being popes are not infallible by virtue of being the pope, same goes for councils, same goes for the unanimous opinion/teaching of all the bishops dispersed throughout the world.
V1 laid out how we identify teachings which are safeguarded by the holy Ghost from the possibility of error - ALL General Councils, no exception" was not a teaching that was on the list, neither was the unanimous opinion/teaching of all the bishops dispersed throughout the world, neither was universal discipline, nor canon law nor the hierarchy - except when they speak as regards the criteria V1 laid out. Which is to say that outside of those criteria, the pope and bishops and theologians and fathers and doctors and councils etc. are completely fallible.
No. Everything that is approved by the pope and which follows the criteria outlined in Vatican 1 is infallible. As canon 749 says (which agrees with Vatican 1):.
Canon 749, § 3. “No doctrine is understood to be infallibly defined unless it is clearly established as such.”
When I see you post things like this I wonder how you can believe this. You often say things like 20 century theologians etc... gave us the idea that councils are infallible but I have never seen you provide a shred of evidence as to why you believe that councils are NOT infallible or can teach error. There is no evidence of what you are saying. I've read numerous examples of past pre-"conciliar" Popes and others quoting or making reference to Councils as the deciding factor on particular dogmas or religious questions. When a council, approved by a Pope, teaches something related to faith or morals (not disciplinary) to the entire Church, it is infallible. This is an example of the very definition of the Vatican Council on infallibility and the Magisterium.
The fact that VII taught error to the entire Church should tell you one thing, that VII is a false council not of the Catholic Church. One thing it should not say to you is that Councils can err. This is so foreign to all ages of the Church.
For the umpteenth time now, bosco, there's ordinary Magisterium and there's ordinary UNIVERSAL Magisterium. Nobody "fabricated" this kind of ordinary Magisterium. It's right in the definition of Vatican I. So every Catholic theologian ever just fabricated this distinction, bosco. Do sedevacantism a favor and stop posting.
Problem is, bosco, that no theologian has ever interpreted these same sources the way you do. Methinks you are the one who's wrong. Funny how on the BoD question you tout the authority of a unanimous consensus of theologians but then ignore that here entirely because it doesn't fit your own vision.
Here's an interesting article that explains why we are all struggling to define the magisterium...because it's a relatively new term for an old concept. Here is a summary:
http://www.catholicherald.co.uk/commentandblogs/2016/08/30/what-is-the-ordinary-magisterium-a-brief-history-of-a-disputed-idea/ (http://www.catholicherald.co.uk/commentandblogs/2016/08/30/what-is-the-ordinary-magisterium-a-brief-history-of-a-disputed-idea/)
- The term ‘ordinary magisterium’ was first used by Pius IX in the letter Tuas libenter addressed to the archbishop of Munich and Freising on 21 December 1863.
- At a meeting of theologians in Munich, there was an opinion expressed which said that only 'solemn definitions' had to be accepted, to which Pius IX responded:
“it must not be limited to those things which have been defined by the express decrees of councils or of the Roman Pontiffs and of this Apostolic See, but must also be extended to those things which are handed on by the ordinary magisterium of the whole church dispersed throughout the world as divinely revealed, and therefore are held by the universal and constant consensus of Catholic theologians to pertain to the faith.”
- The teaching of Pius IX on ordinary magisterium was later incorporated in the docuмents of Vatican I, in particular the dogmatic constitution Dei Filius: “Wherefore, by divine and catholic faith all those things are to be believed which are contained in the word of God as found in scripture and tradition, and which are proposed by the church as matters to be believed as divinely revealed, whether by her solemn judgment or in her ordinary and universal magisterium.”
- It was understood that the addition of ‘universal’ to ‘ordinary magisterium’ was meant to relate the phrase to the teaching of the whole episcopate with the pope, and not the teaching of the pope alone.
- Vatican II of course also dealt with the question, and in Lumen gentium 25, the conditions under which the ordinary universal magisterium enjoys the privilege of infallibility are defined.
- When the Code of Canon Law was promulgated in 1983, the ordinary and universal magisterium was dealt with in canons 749 and 750, but without the inclusion of the broader understanding of the ordinary universal magisterium by Vatican II. In other words, the canonical language had not been updated yet.
- Canon 749, § 1. “The Supreme Pontiff, in virtue of his office, possesses infallible teaching authority when, a supreme pastor and teacher of all the faithful, whose task is to confirm his fellow believers in the faith, he proclaims with a definitive act that a doctrine of faith and morals is to be held as such.”
Canon 749, § 2. “The college of bishops also possesses infallible teaching authority when the bishops exercise their teaching office gathered together in an ecuмenical council when, as teachers and judges of faith and morals, they declare that for the universal Church a doctrine of faith and morals must be definitively held; they also exercise it scattered throughout the world but united in a bond of communion among themselves and with the successor of Peter when together with that same Roman Pontiff in their capacity as authentic teachers of faith and morals they agree on an opinion to be held as definitive.”
Canon 749, § 3. “No doctrine is understood to be infallibly defined unless it is clearly established as such.”
Canon 750. “All that is contained in the written word of God or in tradition, that is, in the one deposit of faith entrusted to the Church and also proposed as divinely revealed either by the solemn magisterium of the Church or by its ordinary and universal magisterium, must be believed with divine and catholic faith; it is manifested by the common adherence of the Christian faithful under the leadership of the sacred magisterium; therefore, all are bound to avoid any doctrines whatever which are contrary to these truths.
Canon 752. “A religious respect of intellect and will, even if not the assent of faith, is to be paid to the teaching which the Supreme Pontiff or the college of bishops enunciate on faith or morals when they exercise the authentic magisterium even if they do not intend to proclaim it with a definitive act; therefore the Christian faithful are to take care to avoid whatever is not in harmony with that teaching.”
My Comments:
Canon 752 is shows liberalism/ambiguity there and it is what those in rome point to regarding V2 docuмents. This "religious respect" term is a novelty, in my opinion.
Canons 749/750 shows us that the term magisterium is a new term, but it's not a new concept. Some of us are making it more complicated than it is. If we go back to the basics and ask ourselves, "How does the Church view the writings of the Fathers of the Church, who were the successors of the Apostles?" Quite simply, she tells us that the Fathers' writings are to be reverenced and esteemed, but are only considered infallible when they all agree.
In the same way, the ordinary universal magisterium is infallible when it agrees with what "has always been taught". The above canons of 749 and 750 (while from 1983) agree with this definition and also agree with conditions of Vatican I. If something is to be infallible it must 1) be related to faith/morals, 2) be taught by the pope or bishops in union with the pope and 3) be a definitive teaching, which is 4) binding on the whole church.
If such docuмents, encyclicals, or even council docuмents do not have such statements or meet such conditions, then they are not infallible.
Here's a simple example of what parts of a council are infallible. What was the first ecuмenical council? Nicea. What part was infallible? The nicean creed. What about the other 95% of the council?! Nobody talks about it much. Isn't it infallible?! If it was, why isn't it talked about? Why don't catholics memorize it? Why don't catholics have every, single sentence of every, single ecuмenical council memorized? If it was all infallible, we should, right? But it's not all infallible, only specific parts. Like the nicean creed, which we all know of.
Canon 749 is a perfect example of the ordinary universal magisterium, in my opinion.
1) it's not infallibly defined, so it would be part of the ordinary magisterium.
2) it agrees with Vatican 1, which is a solemn statement (i.e. it agrees with what "has always been taught").
3) it deals with faith and morals
4) it is binding on the whole church
An infallible statement from the ordinary universal magisterium still has to meet the requirements of Vatican 1, it just won't have the "We declare, define, etc...by our apostolic authority" because it doesn't come DIRECTLY from the pope (or doesn't have to).
V2 doesn't agree with what has always been taught and therefore is fallible. There are no new church teachings. No new scripture. No new tradition. The Church is fixed; Her teachings are set in stone. If something is new, it's rejected. If something is 'close' to being apostolic, it's still not apostolic, therefore it's rejected. It's that simple.
You are trying to put interpretations of individual theologians up against a General Council and multiple popes. Your "misinterpretation" argument is never going to fly at this point. Your goose is cooked Ladislaus.
.This is nonsense Mith.
Well that's just nonsense. It is precisely by virtue of "being the pope" that the pope is infallible! The Holy Ghost guarantees infallibility to him and him alone, and it is only with him that the bishops unison teachings are also infallible (consider the council of Rimini as instructive in how wrong a council can go when there's no pope).
In any event, the Church fights errors that exist and she solemnly defines doctrines when they are under attack so as to bring an abundance of clarity amidst the dissent of heretics. In the mid 1800s it was papal supremacy (not the ordinary magisterium) that was being challenged. That's why the principle object of the council was to clarify once and for all that the pope was infallible as supreme teacher. You wouldn't look at Nicaea and argue that it didn't condemn justification by faith alone, or teach that Our Lady was assumed into Heaven. Neither doctrine was under fire by the Arians. Likewise, the contemporaneous errors to Vatican I had nothing to do with the ordinary magisterium, so of course Vatican I doesn't emphasize it.
Good to be back. Went home to see family for a bit.The way the new CI formats quotes is about the only thing I don't care for too much, but anyway, I think I answered some of this in my reply to Mith.
Back to business. I agree it is not complicated and I think you are complicating it.
I am not sure that your quote from ABL means what you think it means. Furthermore, I am not inclined to believe much of what a person, who word for word denies EENS, says. He knew something was wrong and tried to do something about it but in the end he couldn't see the truth in front of him; those men who claimed to be Pope were not, as they had removed themselves from the Church even before their supposed elections.
To your point though, how could a Council not be infallible? The criteria from V1 is there. It fits it precisely. Obviously there are disciplinary things in a council that are not part of faith and morals and are disciplinary. This is not the argument though. When the Councils speak on matters of faith and morals, they are proclaiming it to the universal Church are they not? The Pope, acting as the supreme authority, gives his assent to the matters does he not? How can those things, discussed in a Council, pertaining to faith and morals, not be infallible according to the V1 rules? Would or could you ever disagree with anything the Council of Trent taught? I would hope not.
You know I don't believe whatever the Pope says is infallible but that is not the argument here. Whenever the requirements from V1 are met it is certainly infallible. The requirements are exactly met at a Church council, that is the very purpose of them when matters of faith and morals are discussed.I agree that the magisterium is not the hierarchy alone. I think that many SV don't understand what the magisterium is and attribute it to more than what it is but this also is beside the point. V2 was not merely an act of the hierarchy though. It, if it were a true council, would have been an act of the Magisterium precisely because of the rules and definition of V1. These facts are why most SV believe the way they do. Everyone, at all times, has always known that the Magisterium is exercised in a Council. It is the epitome of the Magisterium. That is why we believe that it could not have been a true Council and those men could not have been pope because of what Our Lord promised to his Church and the definition of V1. Our Lord promised that no error could be taught to the universal Church when those criteria are met from V1. Those criteria were most certainly met at V2, again had it been a true council.
If all councils were automatically infallible, which is to say, if all councils were automatically promised the protection of the Holy Ghost from teaching error, ...
Now, this is the problem with R&R. R&R posits that the Magisterium has become substantially corrupt. That cannot happen and is contrary to the Church's indefectibility.This may be a problem for some, I don't know - but it is not a problem with R&R.
1) It is not possible that an Ecuмenical Council could teach any substantial error to the Church. 2) Essentially, here's the bottom line, if the Church, an Ecuмenical Council, or a Pope in his teaching directed to the Universal Church, could teach something that requires us to break communion with the hierarchy, then the Magisterium (and the Church) have defected. Both R&R and the SVs are arguing about trees, but what's at issue is the forest. So take a step back and look at the forest. 3) There's no way that the Magisterium could become so corrupt as to give rise to a legitimate separated Traditional Catholic movement. That's basically heresy, folks. 4) If I believed with the certainty of faith that the V2 Popes are legitimate, then I would accept Vatican II. Period. I would do my darndest to make sure it was interpreted in the light of and reconciled with previous Tradition. But God would never fault me for assenting to the teaching of a legitimate Ecuмenical Council. End of story. And if I were to lose my souls for doing so, then the Catholic Church would have defected. Then there's no value to the entire Magisterium. If by following the Magisterium I compromise my faith and can lose my soul, then we would have been better off without any Magisterium. And that's basically blasphemous.Again Lad, you are using the word "Magisterium" where mean to say and should be using the word "Hierarchy".
There are only two ways to respond to this crisis:
1) accept Vatican II and remain in communion with the Holy See
or
2) question the legitimacy of the V2 papal claimants
There's no other solution that's consistent with Catholic principles.
The Hierarchy may have defected from the Magisterium and the Church, but the magisterium can never defect from whence it came, namely, the Church.This is a great point. The ordinary magisterium's (i.e. cardinals, bishops) job is to teach and preach "that which was handed down". If they do so, then they agree with "what has always been believed", therefore such teachings can be called part of the ordinary UNIVERSAL magisterium. However, if they preach something different/modified/speculative, then such teachings aren't UNIVERSAL and they are fallible.
1) V2 disproves this and V1 never taught or even ever implied this.
If I believed with the certainty of faith that the V2 Popes are legitimate, then I would accept Vatican II. Period. I would do my darndest to make sure it was interpreted in the light of and reconciled with previous Tradition.This is true. If one believes them to be legitimate without doubt, then one must submit to Vatican II. That is why R&R is a fantasy.
I repeat .. the ORDINARY UNIVERSAL Magisterium can never go so badly off the rails that Catholics must sever communion with the hierarchy on account of substantial and grave false teaching in the ORDINARY UNIVERSAL Magisterium.I agree. Any teaching that agrees with 'what has always been taught' (i.e what Christ taught the Apostles) = ordinary, universal magisterium.
I repeat .. the ordinary, fallible Magisterium can never go so badly off the rails that Catholics must sever communion with the hierarchy on account of substantial and grave false teaching in the ordinary, fallible Magisterium.I disagree. The ordinary, fallible magisterium = the hierarchy. So, yes, the ordinary Magisterium can teach falsely.
I repeat .. the Magisterium can never go so badly off the rails that Catholics must sever communion with the hierarchy on account of substantial and grave false teaching in the Magisterium.
If you say this, you are a heretic who denies the indefectibility of the Church.
This is true. If one believes them to be legitimate without doubt, then one must submit to Vatican II. That is why R&R is a fantasy.Per 1983's canon 752 I give "religious respect" (whatever that means) to V2 docuмents, but I am not required to give an 'assent of faith' because nothing in the docuмents require it. This has been confirmed by the romans.
The docuмents of said council which teach error, blasphemy, or heresy cannot be interpeted according to Tradition because their intent was to oppose and undermine the Traditional teaching of the Church. There is no guesswork here, as the authors of the docuмents are on record as stating their true and rebellious intent.Generally, the docuмents cannot be interpreted according to Tradition, which is why they are not infallible. Specifically, some passages can, but that's besides the point.
The supreme interpreter of a true council is the Pontiff and all four conciliar popes have confirmed the heterodox meaning of them.Correct, and Paul VI said V2 was neither infallible nor doctrinal, but pastoral, since nothing doctrinal was defined or clarified.
A true docuмent of a council cannot on its face have teaching which is subversive or contrary to the orthodoxy of the Faith, and to say that it can be somehow interpreted to be orthodox without deliberately reading an orthodoxy into it, which it does not posses on its face is not possible.You need to add the word 'formal' to teaching. If a bishop gives a sermon, he is teaching, but that doesn't mean it's formal, definitive. For the last 2,000 years, we wouldn't have to make this distinction since a bishop is normally orthodox. However, in our age, we must be 'wise as serpents' and make a distinction between formal Teachings (ordinary universal magisterium) and generalized 'teachings' (fallible ordinary magisterium).
The only remedy is to void such a docuмent or council as not being a legitimate part of the Church's teaching function.Yes V2 should be voided, burned and mocked in all history books for the rest of time. But it is not part of the legitimate teaching authority of the Church and it never proclaimed to be...it was only ASSUMED that it was because 1) the media, bishops and clergy lied or were confused themselves and 2) because those in the 70s were not prepared for the 'smoke of satan' that had entered the vatican and for the demonic deception which has never been seen before in history.
Here I will list some quotes that you have asked for confirming that the Church teaches both solemn and ordinary magisterium are infallible. Please note the clarification that the Commentary on Canon Law gives on what may be erroneous from the magisterium - things that exclude faith or morals. These quotes easily trump the unknown priests you have quoted to support your position:
First Vatican Council (1870):
"All those things are to be believed by divine and Catholic faith which are contained in the written Word of God or in Tradition, and which are proposed by the Church, either in solemn judgment or in its ordinary and universal teaching office, as divinely revealed truths which must be believed."
Canon Law 1323 (1917):
1. All of those things are to be believed with a divine and Catholic faith that are contained in the written word of God or in tradition and that the Church proposes as worthy of belief, as divinely revealed, whether by solemn judgment or by her ordinary and universal magisterium.
Commentary On Canon Law, Augustine (imprimatur, 1918) Canon 1323:
§ 1. All those truths which are contained in the written word of God, or in tradition, and proposed to our belief as divinely revealed either by a solemn proclamation or by the ordinary and universal magisterium of the Church must be believed by Divine and Catholic faith.
…This infallible judgment is embodied in the teaching office of the Church, and constitutes a special prerogative granted to the Church by Christ, in virtue of which she cannot deceive nor be deceived in matters of faith and morals.
Our text distinguishes a solemn ex cathedra judgment and the ordinary magisterium of the Church. But there is no intrinsic difference between the two, as they derive from the same source, vis., the divine promise and providence, and have the same object and purpose. The object is faith and morals; the purpose, to protect the faithful from error.
…Both the Pontiff sole and the body of teachers united with him, enjoy the power of teaching infallibly.
a) What has been solemnly defined, either by a general council or by the Supreme Pontiff, is certainly de fide; but not all the historical or theological assertions which accompany a papal decision (for instance, the Bull "Ineffabilis ") are de fide.
b) What is clearly and undoubtedly contained in Holy Scripture and Tradition as a matter of faith or morals, must be believed, although individual errors are not entirely excluded;
c) What the universal and approved practice and discipline proposes as connected with faith and morals must also be believed ("Lex orandi, lex credendi").
d) What the Holy Fathers and the theologians hold unanimously as a matter of faith and morals, is also de fide.
Pope Pius IX in his Letter to Archbishop Scherr of Munich in 1863:
"We desire to reassure ourselves that they did not mean to limit the obligation, which strictly binds Catholic teachers and writers, to those things only which are proposed by the infallible judgment of the Church as dogmas of faith to be believed by everybody. In a like manner, We are convinced that it was not their intention to state that the perfect adherence to revealed truths (which they regard as absolutely necessary for true progress in science and for refuting errors) can be maintained, if the submission of faith is given only to those dogmas expressly defined by the Church. The reason for this is the following: even supposing that we are treating of that subjection which is to be made by an explicit act of divine faith, this must not be limited to those things which have been defined in the express decrees of the ecuмenical councils or of the Roman Pontiffs of this See; but it must also be extended to those things which, through the ordinary teaching of the whole Church throughout the world, are proposed as divinely revealed and, as a result, by universal and constant consent of Catholic theologians are held to be matters of faith. "
Pope Leo XIII, Providentissimus Deus, On the Study of Holy Scripture, November 18, 1893:
Wherefore the first and dearest object of the Catholic commentator should be to interpret those passages which have received an authentic interpretation either from the sacred writers themselves, under the inspiration of the Holy Ghost (as in many places of the New Testament), or from the Church, under the assistance of the same Holy Spirit, whether by her solemn judgment or her ordinary and universal magisterium
Pope Leo XIII, Encyclical On the Church in Scotland, 1898
"But as the Church was to last to the end of time, something more was required besides the bestowal of the Sacred Scriptures. It was obviously necessary that the Divine Founder should take every precaution, lest the treasure of heavenly-given truths, possessed by the Church, should ever be destroyed, which would assuredly have happened, had He left those doctrines to each one's private judgment. It stands to reason, therefore, that a living, perpetual "magisterium" was necessary in the Church from the beginning, which, by the command of Christ himself, should besides teaching other wholesome doctrines, give an authoritative explanation of Holy Writ, and which being directed and safeguarded by Christ himself, could by no means commit itself to erroneous teaching"
Pope Pius XII, Humani Generis, 1950 (Denz 2313):
It is not to be thought that what is set down in Encyclical Letters does not demand assent in itself, because in this the popes do not exercise the supreme power of their magisterium. For these matters are taught by the ordinary magisterium, regarding which the following is pertinent: "He who heareth you, heareth me." [Luke 10:16]; and usually what is set forth and inculcated in the Encyclical Letters, already pertains to Catholic doctrine. But if the Supreme Pontiffs in their acts, after due consideration, express an opinion on a hitherto controversial matter, it is clear to all that this matter, according to the mind and will of the same Pontiffs, cannot any longer be considered a question of free discussion among the theologians.
Pope Pius XII, Defining the Dogma of the Assumption, Munificentissimus Deus, Nov 1, 1950:
"Thus, from the universal agreement of the Church's ordinary teaching authority we have a certain and firm proof, demonstrating that the Blessed Virgin Mary's bodily Assumption into heaven- which surely no faculty of the human mind could know by its own natural powers, as far as the heavenly glorification of the virginal body of the loving Mother of God is concerned-is a truth that has been revealed by God and consequently something that must be firmly and faithfully believed by all children of the Church. For, as the Vatican Council asserts, "all those things are to be believed by divine and Catholic faith which are contained in the written Word of God or in Tradition, and which are proposed by the Church, either in solemn judgment or in its ordinary and universal teaching office, as divinely revealed truths which must be believed."
“Certainly this teaching authority of the Church, not by any merely human effort but under the protection of the Spirit of Truth,[7] and therefore absolutely without error, carries out the commission entrusted to it, that of preserving the revealed truths pure and entire throughout every age, in such a way that it presents them undefiled, adding nothing to them and taking nothing away from them.”
Catholic Encyclopedia (~1913), Science and the Church, The Holders of the Teaching Office:
(1) The official activity of teaching may be exercised either in the ordinary, or daily, magisterium, or by occasional solemn decisions. The former goes on uninterruptedly; the latter are called forth in times of great danger, especially of growing heresies. The promise of Divine assistance provides for the integrity of doctrine "all days, even to the consummation of the world" (Matt., xxviii, 20). From the nature of the case it follows that individual bishops may fall into error, because ample provision is made when the entire teaching body of the Church and the supreme pastor in particular are protected by Providence. The "Ecclesia docens", as a whole, can never fall into error in matters of faith or morals, whether her teaching be the ordinary or the solemn; nor can the pope proclaim false doctrines in his capacity of supreme pastor of the universal Church. Without this prerogative, which is known by the name of Infallibility, the Divine promise of assistance would be a fallacy.
Catholic Encyclopedia (~1913), Dogma:
"...some theologians confine the word defined to doctrines solemnly defined by the pope or by a general council, while a revealed truth becomes a dogma even when proposed by the Church through her ordinary magisterium or teaching office”
A Catholic Dictionary (imprimatur, 1931-1957), Infallibility:
"This infallibility resides (A) in the pope personally and alone; (B) in an ecuмenical Council subject to papal confirmation (these infallibilities are distinct but correlative); (C) in the bishops of the Church, dispersed throughout the world, teaching definitively in union with the pope. This is not a different infallibility from (B) but is the ordinary exercise of a prerogative (hence called the "ordinary magisterium") which is manifested in a striking manner in an ecuмenical Council. This ordinary magisterium is exercised by pastoral letters, preaching, catechisms, the censorship of publications dealing with faith and morals, the reprobation of doctrines and books: it is thus in continuous function and embraces the whole deposit of faith."
A Catholic Dictionary (imprimatur, 1931-1957), Magisterium:
“The Church's divinely appointed authority to teach the truths of religion…This teaching is infallible. The solemn magisterium is that which is exercised only rarely by formal and authentic definitions of councils or Popes... The ordinary magisterium is continually exercised by the Church especially in her universal practices connected with faith and morals, in the unanimous consent of the Fathers and theologians, in the decisions of the Roman Congregations concerning faith and morals, in the common sense of the Faithful, and various historical docuмents, in which the faith is declared. All these are founts of a teaching which as a whole is infallible...”
The Catechism Explained (imprimatur, 1899) Page 239: The Infallibility of the Church
Nor was this solemn declaration (of the Immaculate Conception in 1854) necessary; it was quite sufficient that all the bishops should teach in the same sense in regard of any given subject to make that teaching infallible; were it otherwise the Church would be capable of teaching heresy, or of falling away from the truth. Hence the Vatican Council declared that not only must that be accepted which has been solemnly defined by the Church, but also whatever is proposed by the lawful and general teaching authority (Vatican Council, 3, 3).
Garbage. It only "disproves" this if you assume R&R as valid.No, sorry to be the one to tell you Lad but you disagree primarily because, as a student of the error yourself, your indoctrination has over taken your sensus catholicus. The same thing happened to Jaynek, who has a masters degree in theology and has not posted here for a long time.
Alternatively, either
1) V2 did not teach any substantial error.
OR
2) V2 is not a legitimate Ecuмenical Council and the V2 popes are not legitimate popes.
No, this was not directly taught by VI in terms of making an explicit definition.
But it's a direct consequence of the Church's indefectibility.
I repeat .. the Magisterium can never go so badly off the rails that Catholics must sever communion with the hierarchy on account of substantial and grave false teaching in the Magisterium.
If you say this, you are a heretic who denies the indefectibility of the Church.
Stubborn, your non-Catholics rantings are precisely what gave rise to the sedevacantist movement in the first place.So now we see that the decrees of V1 are deemed non-Catholic by Ladislaus himself. Sad day.
Lad,This is true. If one believes them to be legitimate without doubt, then one must submit to Vatican II. That is why R&R is a fantasy.No, V1 states that any new doctrine is not protected by the Holy Ghost.
The docuмents of said council which teach error, blasphemy, or heresy cannot be interpeted according to Tradition because....
3. The quotes above also confirm that ALL General Councils are infallible, PERIOD.Bosco, no, your quotes specifically say the 'solemn declarations/decrees/etc' of councils, in union with the pope, are infallble. V2 issued no solemn declarations/decrees (per the requirements of V1) therefore it's not infallible.
What is your understanding of what Archbishop Lefebvre taught, in regards to what you've written above? He didn't want to have much of anything to do with the conciliar church hierarchy until they converted and returned to tradition, right?Sadly, Lad, is hell bent on his own doctrine that he names, "sededoubtism". This "doctrine", is as if he actually found a solution of some sort, which in and of itself demonstrates a false understanding of the doctrine of papal / OUM infallibility - and even he has admitted this "sededoubtism" to being a novel idea.
2. The phrases "ordinary magisterium" and "ordinary and universal magisterium" and similar phrases are used interchangeably in the quotes above. They are referring to the same thing, and even if you wanted to argue they are not the same thing, you'll notice the quotes above say they are both infallible either way.No, Bosco, not true. Since you can't (don't want to) distinguish, i'll point it out (in bold). The key idea which is supposed to be gathered from the world 'universal' is that it has 'always been taught'. You'll see below that universal is used many times, but also 'constant' and 'perpetual'. The idea is that those things of the faith are infallible if they agree with what Christ told the Apostles. If they disagree, or it is debatable, then until the pope clarifies it solemnly, they are fallible teachings (teachings with a lowercase 't').
Pax Vobis nails it!
Now's the time, STUBBORN, for you to answer my question you have been avoiding in this thread about the quote from St. Francis de Sales...I thought I already answered that question, but for the record, your question is entirely ambiguous because once elected and he accepts the office, he is instantly pope - as such, there is no authority on earth capable of judging the status of the pope.
Can a true pope be "outside of the Church"?
I thought I already answered that question, but for the record, your question is entirely ambiguous because once elected and he accepts the office, he is instantly pope - as such, there is no authority on earth capable of judging the status of the pope.
Sad as it may be to you, that is the only answer.
Say it then. You believe that St. Francis de Sales is WRONG for saying that a true pope could possibly fall "out of the Church".No, I won't say he is wrong. I will say that I do not wholly agree with his speculation.
Yes, or No?
No, I won't say he is wrong. I will say that I do not wholly agree with his speculation.
Wholly? Explain how you partly agree with it.I do not agree with his speculating that the pope could fall out of the Church because "once a Catholic, always a Catholic".
I do not agree with his speculating that the pope could fall out of the Church because "once a Catholic, always a Catholic".
Bosco, no, your quotes specifically say the 'solemn declarations/decrees/etc' of councils, in union with the pope, are infallble. V2 issued no solemn declarations/decrees (per the requirements of V1) therefore it's not infallible.
(https://www.cathinfo.com/index.php?topic=44819.msg552183#msg552183)
QuoteQuote2. The phrases "ordinary magisterium" and "ordinary and universal magisterium" and similar phrases are used interchangeably in the quotes above. They are referring to the same thing, and even if you wanted to argue they are not the same thing, you'll notice the quotes above say they are both infallible either way.
No, Bosco, not true. Since you can't (don't want to) distinguish, i'll point it out (in bold). The key idea which is supposed to be gathered from the world 'universal' is that it has 'always been taught'. You'll see below that universal is used many times, but also 'constant' and 'perpetual'. The idea is that those things of the faith are infallible if they agree with what Christ told the Apostles. If they disagree, or it is debatable, then until the pope clarifies it solemnly, they are fallible teachings (teachings with a lowercase 't').
Wow!!!!!! You reject the notion that Martin Luther ceased to be Catholic?
Wow!!!!!! You reject the notion that Martin Luther ceased to be Catholic?Yes I reject it because it's only a "notion". OTOH, "once a Catholic, always a Catholic" is indisputable. At his particular judgement, he stood before the "Judge severe" as a Catholic.
Yes I reject it because it's only a "notion". OTOH, "once a Catholic, always a Catholic" is indisputable. At his particular judgement, he stood before the "Judge severe" as a Catholic.
Yeah, Stubborn follows the muddled thinking of Father Wathen on this subject. He fails to understand that profession of the true faith is required for membership in the Church.Fr. Wathen remained faithful to the end. Unlike most here, his mind was never tainted with any trace of the infection of the NO. You call that muddled.
Now, one COULD argue that someone could retain some form of jurisdiction based on the baptismal character (ala a form of sedeprivationism), or that, contrary to the opinion of the Church, a manifest heretic would retain membership until the Church discerned otherwise, but in no way does a condemned heretic remain a member of the Church.
Wow, again!! You are a Novus ordo ecuмenist!!!WOW!
The one true Church, that is, CHRIST OUR LORD, declared the Lutherans where no longer Christian or Catholic....yet YOU are doubting that!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Yes I reject it because it's only a "notion". OTOH, "once a Catholic, always a Catholic" is indisputable. At his particular judgement, he stood before the "Judge severe" as a Catholic.
Fr. Wathen remained faithful to the end. Unlike most here, his mind was never tainted with any trace of the infection of the NO. You call that muddled.
No, "once a Catholic, always a Catholic" is patently false. Now, once baptized Catholic, a person remains subject to the Church even if the person has forfeited membership in the Church somehow. That's why even apostate Catholics cannot validly marry non-Catholics. And, from that perspective, one might argue that a person could also retain a measure of material jurisdiction. But you muddle this so badly that your formulation is basically heretical.It is only patently false to sedevacantists and sedevacantist sympathizers.
And this statement of yours is muddled. Just because Father Wathen was faithful, he wasn't infallible. You grant him greater respect than you do to an Ecuмenical Council?Where do you come up with this stuff?
No, sorry to be the one to tell you Lad but you disagree primarily because, as a student of the error yourself, your indoctrination has over taken your sensus catholicus.
Where do you come up with this stuff?
The man remained faithful to and persevered to the end in the true faith through it all. How long were you NO?
Now, THIS is the true "WOW" statement. Because I repeat the universal consensus of all theologians ever that the Magisterium could never become so corrupt as to force Catholics to separate themselves from the Magisterium in order to remain Catholic, you claim that I don't have a "sensus catholicus". You are so far gone on this point that you're barely recognizable as a Catholic anymore. It's our subjection to the Magisterium as our proximate rule of faith that separates Catholics from all the heretics.Will you ever differentiate between the Magisterium and the Hierarchy? That would be a good start for you.
So he couldn't be wrong on ANY point? My allegation that it's possible Father Wathen was mistaken on one or another point is now something I just "came up with" practically out of nowhere?He could be wrong on this - but isn't, sorry to inform you that it is you that's wrong.
WOW!?
How many decades were you NO again?
He could be wrong on this - but isn't, sorry to inform you that it is you that's wrong.
?
Gratuitous assertion. You (and Father Wathen) disagree with every Catholic theologian ever on this subject.Whatever. Once a Catholic always a Catholic. Whoever dies an apostate will stand before God and will be judged as a Catholic.
That doesn't answer my question.
Ad hominems are all you've got, right? I've been traditional Catholic for 30 years and studied many years of Catholic theology in seminary. How about you?
I never went to seminary, I was only raised in the faith, so I am admittedly altogether ignorant of many things of which you are very knowledgeable. That is the upside to your education. But I do wonder why, with all that education, that apparently you do not know the difference between "Magisterium" and "Hierarchy".
Ad hominems are all you've got, right? I've been traditional Catholic for 30 years and studied many years of Catholic theology in seminary. How about you?
I think the "once a catholic always a catholic" saying definitely depends on the meaning of the word 'catholic'. Some would say an apostate is not a catholic because he doesn't have the faith. Others would say that he's still a catholic because he'll always have the mark of baptism and he's still under jurisdiction if the church. It depends on the context, really, and semantics.
I do remember Fr Wathen making the point that we must distinguish between an excommunication's punishment and its effects. An excommunication bars one from receiving certain sacraments and from participating in certain public church ceremonies. But they would still have an obligation to attend Sunday mass and other things.
It is only patently false to sedevacantists and sedevacantist sympathizers.No, "once Catholic, always Catholic" is false for the Magisterium of the Catholic Church.
Those who are apostates and heretics, although they retain the permanent mark of Baptism which marks them as a Christian, are nonetheless dead members of the Church and are cut off from its communion, sacraments, and membership.
Quote from: Pax Vobis on Yesterday at 03:17:50 PM (https://www.cathinfo.com/crisis-in-the-church/yes-i'm-going-to-judge-sedevacantism-here-like-i'm-above-it-all/msg552175/#msg552175)QuoteBosco, no, your quotes specifically say the 'solemn declarations/decrees/etc' of councils, in union with the pope, are infallble. V2 issued no solemn declarations/decrees (per the requirements of V1) therefore it's not infallible.
Bosco said:
Holy cow where do I start with this reply! Here we go:
1. General Councils are declared infallible because this originates in Scripture ("For it hath seemed good to the Holy Ghost and to us" (Acts xv. 28)." And "For where there are two or three gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them" Matthew 18:20). When the bishops of the whole world meet to make decisions for the Church they cannot just "switch off" infallibility. The infallibility is promised because they have all gathered in the name of the Church.
2. Every Catholic book before Vatican II says that General Councils are infallible. Not a single book mentions exceptions that you are fabricating here. You are falling for Novus ordo nonsense with this argument.
3. From the First Vatican Council, Profession of Faith: "all other things which have been transmitted, defined and declared by the sacred canons and the ecuмenical councils, especially the sacred Trent, I accept unhesitatingly and profess; in the same way". This Council mandates that we accept General Councils unhesitatingly.
4. Vatican II certainly DID issue solemn decrees pertaining to doctrine and the faith (i.e. Decrees on ecuмenism and religious freedom), and the fact that some of the other decrees were labeled "dogmatic" goes to show they were not optional. Also, Paul VI decreed at the end of the Council that all the faithful were to abide by what they published. He also later said in open audience that the Council was part of the ordinary magisterium, which we've already confirmed his infallible.
So Vatican II is either infallible, or it is an illegitimate Council. The true answer is staring you in the face.
The "once Catholic, always Catholic" argument is false.Bad quote because it does not apply.
Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum:
No one who merely disbelieves in all (these heresies) can for that reason regard himself as a Catholic or call himself one. For there may be or arise some other heresies, which are not set out in this work of ours, and, if any one holds to one single one of these he is not a Catholic.
It doesn't get any more clear than that...
No, "once Catholic, always Catholic" is false for the Magisterium of the Catholic Church.That is *not* what Pope Pius XII is teaching.
....
Pope Pius XII teaches that schism, heresy and apostasy are different from all other mortal sins because they remove one from the Church. A heretic or schismatic is not a member of the Church, period. Thus, if a Pope falls into formal heresy, he separates himself from the Church, and as a non-Catholic can be deposed by the Church - there is no judgment of the Pope involved. This is why almost every theologian who touched upon this matter taught that a heretic can be deposed form the Chair of Peter.
I never went to seminary, I was only raised in the faith, so I am admittedly altogether ignorant of many things of which you are very knowledgeable. That is the upside to your education. But I do wonder why, with all that education, that apparently you do not know the difference between "Magisterium" and "Hierarchy".
That quote appears to talking about those type of folks who are "Catholic in name only".
That is *not* what Pope Pius XII is teaching.
23) "Nor must one imagine that the Body of the Church, just because it bears the name of Christ, is made up during the days of its earthly pilgrimage only of members conspicuous for their holiness, or that it consists only of those whom God has predestined to eternal happiness. It is owing to the Savior's infinite mercy that place is allowed in His Mystical Body here below for those whom, of old, He did not exclude from the banquet. For not every sin, however grave it may be, is such as of its own nature to sever a man from the Body of the Church, as does schism or heresy or apostasy."
Did you miss the parts where Pope Pius XII said that place is allowed in the Body of the Church for those whom Christ Himself did not exclude from the banquet (Mat. 9:11/footnote) and basically, that the Body of the Church includes sinners?
He then reminds us that all sin severs man from the Body of the Church - which is true, no? But the sin of schism or heresy or apostasy severs a man from the Body of the Church worse than other sins because of the nature of those particular sins - which is also true, no?
You are putting words in his mouth when you attribute the pope with saying "A heretic or schismatic is not a member of the Church, period." That is not what he taught at all.
We have the Pope and Bishops (hierarchy).I see the distinction that Stubborn is making, but I also see what Ladislaus is saying. I just think these terms need more definition. Here's how I see it:
When they teach the Church, that's exercising Magisterium.
No it does not. It's quite clear what it means. It only "appears" that way to you because you stubbornly refuse to admit that Father Wathen could ever have made a mistake about anything.There are things which I disagree with Fr. Wathen on - he is only a man. I grew up a trad and never heard of Fr. Wathen till 8 or 10 years ago when a poster from FE, TraceG, introduced me to The Great Sacrilege.
That is *not* what Pope Pius XII is teaching.
23) "Nor must one imagine that the Body of the Church, just because it bears the name of Christ, is made up during the days of its earthly pilgrimage only of members conspicuous for their holiness, or that it consists only of those whom God has predestined to eternal happiness. It is owing to the Savior's infinite mercy that place is allowed in His Mystical Body here below for those whom, of old, He did not exclude from the banquet. For not every sin, however grave it may be, is such as of its own nature to sever a man from the Body of the Church, as does schism or heresy or apostasy."
Did you miss the parts where Pope Pius XII said that place is allowed in the Body of the Church for those whom Christ Himself did not exclude from the banquet (Mat. 9:11/footnote) and basically, that the Body of the Church includes sinners?
He then reminds us that all sin severs man from the Body of the Church - which is true, no? But the sin of schism or heresy or apostasy severs a man from the Body of the Church worse than other sins because of the nature of those particular sins - which is also true, no?
You are putting words in his mouth when you attribute the pope with saying "A heretic or schismatic is not a member of the Church, period." That is not what he taught at all.
It is simply amazing that you keep defending such an obvious error and refuse to correct your position in light of such obvious and explicit teachings of the Magisterium.I agree, it is amazing. Let's try this in a simple "True or False" format......
Because the distinction between Magisterium and Hierarchy is a phony one ... particularly the way you apply it.Good explanation for the most part!
We have the Pope and Bishops (hierarchy).
When they teach the Church, that's exercising Magisterium.
Now, if the Pope and Bishops were PERSONALLY in error/heresy, then that pertains to hierarchy.
But when their TEACHING to the Church contains error/heresy, that pertains to Magisterium.
You pretend that these people just PERSONALLY fell away from the faith. If that were the case, nobody would care. It's none of my business and doesn't affect me. Problem is that this junk has infected their TEACHING, i.e. the "Magisterium".
This is a common R&R tactic, make it about the "Romans" or the "people", claiming that, why, yes, indeed, the Church is made up of fallible and sinful people. Of course it is. But it's NOT ABOUT THE PEOPLE. It's about their OFFICE and their TEACHING AUTHORITY, the Magisterium. We've had absolute scuмbags in the See of Peter in the past that make Karol Wojtyla look like a saint. This is NOT ABOUT THAT.
I find Pius XII's writings to be ambiguous and that they serve only to stir debate. The style is a stepping stone to Vatican II. I would not use Pius XII as my sole source for doctrine. All the modernists that made Vatican II came from Pius XII's pontificate. Those modernists all praise Mystici Corporis.Very well stated!
Carry on with the very interesting debate.
But - I do not "pretend that these people just PERSONALLY fell away from the faith" - because the actually did fall away from the faith and it actually does infect their teaching - because they "PERSONALLY fell away from the faith".
I find Pius XII's writings to be ambiguous and that they serve only to stir debate. The style is a stepping stone to Vatican II. I would not use Pius XII as my sole source for doctrine. All the modernists that made Vatican II came from Pius XII's pontificate. Those modernists all praise Mystici Corporis.
Carry on with the very interesting debate.
Archbishop Lefebvre himself misfired on some things, and he went back and forth on the R&R vs. sede question.
From a practical aspect, there's no difference between R&R or sedevacantism. We're all debating theory.
Again, one more time Stubborn ignores and refuses to address the teaching of Pope Pius XII, much like bosco and Bumphrey refuse to address the Athanasian Creed.Trying to keep it simple here Arvinger, answer this. (https://www.cathinfo.com/crisis-in-the-church/yes-i'm-going-to-judge-sedevacantism-here-like-i'm-above-it-all/msg552344/#msg552344)
"22. Actually only those are to be included as members of the Church who have been baptized and profess the true faith, and who have not been so unfortunate as to separate themselves from the unity of the Body, or been excluded by legitimate authority for grave faults committed."
Those who separate themselves from the Body of the Church and do not profess true faith are not members of the Church - it is clear teaching of Pope Pius XII which you explicitly deny.
As to the confession argument, it is easy to refute - if a former Catholic reverts to the faith and rejects his errors, he is a Catholic again because he professes true faith and has baptismal character. Thus, he can go to confession as a Catholic, but not before he embraces true faith again. Your argument proves nothing. It looks like your emotional attachment to Fr Wathen is clouding your judgment and causes you to reject clear teaching of Pope Pius XII and Pope Leo XIII that Catholics who separate themselves from the Body of Christ are no longer members of the Church. There is a reason why you can't cite any other authority then Fr Wathen to support your position - because it is wrong.
There is nothing is quotation from Pope Leo XIII which indicates that it is about "Catholics in name only" - he plainly speakes about everyone.
"St. Augustine notes that other heresies may spring up, to a single one of which, should any one give his assent, he is by the very fact cut off from Catholic unity. "No one who merely disbelieves in all (these heresies) can for that reason regard himself as a Catholic or call himself one. For there may be or may arise some other heresies, which are not set out in this work of ours, and, if any one holds to one single one of these he is not a Catholic." (S. Augustinus, De Haeresibus, n. 8."
Again, he speaks about anyone - which part of "anyone" is unclear to you? If a professing Traditional Catholic embraces even one heresy tomorrow, he ceases to be Catholic.
In other words:
Pope Pius XII: those who separate themselves from the Church (i.e. heretics and schismatics) are no longer members of the Church
Stubborn: those who separate themselves from the Church nevertheless remain members of the Church
Pope Leo XIII: anyone who embraces a single heresy is not a Catholic
Stubborn: a Catholic who embraces heresy remains a Catholic
If you can't see such an obvious contradiction, I'm affraid the discussion is pointless.
Trying to keep it simple here Arvinger, answer this. (https://www.cathinfo.com/crisis-in-the-church/yes-i'm-going-to-judge-sedevacantism-here-like-i'm-above-it-all/msg552344/#msg552344)
Precisely. It has infected their teaching. Consequently, we're talking about the Magisterium and not merely the hierarchy.We're talking about the corrupt hierarchy teaching error - there is nothing to stop them. Infallibility is not promised to the hierarchy - although that same wrong thinking helped get us in this crisis and keeps fueling it today. They can preach error all day long just as they've been doing and the idiot sheeple can keep eating it up just as they've been doing, and they are all happy to eat, drink and be merry for tomorrow they will die - and fry! They don't care. Infallibility was not promised to any of the hierarchy, not even the pope - except under certain exacting conditions per V1.
He's already answered that. Your argument is that, since heretics/schismatics, etc. can return to the Church through Confession, and since only Catholics can go to Confession, this makes them Catholics.1) Schism, heresy and apostasy are mortal sins - True or False?
#1) they cannot go to Confession and be forgiven until they have first ceased their heresy and resumed profession of the Catholic faith.
#2) sometimes that profession even requires a formal/public abjuration of their error first
#3) access to the Sacraments is possible for people based on their Baptismal character -- that character isn't lost even when membership in the Church has been lost
SV says by objective criteria they are not. R&R on the other hand, says they are and must be no matter what they do, say, or how they act, and we are told that we must hold to one view or the other or not be Catholic.Jpaul, I agree with your whole post but the above is a good summary. I guess there's no label for what I believe since I say that SV 'could' be right, I just don't know, and because of this unknown, I am R&R by default. But I am Fr Wathen's/+Lefevbre's R&R version (i.e. Rome has lost the faith), not +Fellay's version (V2 is 95% traditional).
Hogwash!
Whether one sees them as Catholic or not, one thing is for certain, they are without doubt, a danger to your soul and a peril for your salvation and the Church has already ruled on what must be done when facing these things.
He's already answered that. Your argument is that, since heretics/schismatics, etc. can return to the Church through Confession, and since only Catholics can go to Confession, this makes them Catholics.#1 Is the same for every sin we seek to be absolved from. No one should go to confession until they first ceased their sin, have contrition and resolve to not commit that sin any more.
#1) they cannot go to Confession and be forgiven until they have first ceased their heresy and resumed profession of the Catholic faith.
#2) sometimes that profession even requires a formal/public abjuration of their error first
#3) access to the Sacraments is possible for people based on their Baptismal character -- that character isn't lost even when membership in the Church has been lost
Trying to keep it simple here Arvinger, answer this. (https://www.cathinfo.com/crisis-in-the-church/yes-i'm-going-to-judge-sedevacantism-here-like-i'm-above-it-all/msg552344/#msg552344)I take this response to mean that again you refuse to address Pope Pius XII's teaching from Mystici Corporis 22., because it contradicts and refutes your position, much like bosco and Bumphrey refuse to address the Athanasian Creed because it refutes their position on salvation for invincibly ignorant. I don't judge you, but these behaviors are usually result of bad will. Do you really search for truth on that matter or do you just hold onto anything you can grab to defend your erroneous position?
From a practical aspect, there's no difference between R&R or sedevacantism. We're all debating theory. If anyone could prove that one or the other was true, what would that change in our daily lives? What would change regarding our salvation? I say nothing. We live our lives as trad catholics and go to mass with a valid priest.
No one can prove 'manifest heresy' so, at best, it's a theory.
I take this response to mean that again you refuse to address Pope Pius XII's teaching from Mystici Corporis 22., because it contradicts and refutes your position, much like bosco and Bumphrey refuse to address the Athanasian Creed because it refutes their position on salvation for invincibly ignorant. I don't judge you, but these behaviors are usually result of bad will. Do you really search for truth on that matter or do you just hold onto anything you can grab to defend your erroneous position?Seeing your wrong answer to #6 is sad, though not entirely unexpected.
As Ladislaus pointed out, I already answered, but I will do that again in regards to the main question:
"6) The schismatic heretic apostate who walked into confession to be absolved from his sins was a Catholic - True or False."
False, because prior to his confession he had to reject heretical and schismatic beliefs and embrace true faith, and thus cease to be a heretic or schismatic and return to Catholicism. Had he not rejected his heretical beliefs, he would still be a non-Catholic and as such he could not have received absolution. No heretic can walk into confessional and be absolved, he must first cease to be a heretic and return to Catholicism by embracing true faith.
Seeing your wrong answer to #6 is sad, though not entirely unexpected.
FYI, the reason non-Catholics (who were never once Catholic) are not permitted to receive the sacrament of penance is because they do not believe in it. Not believing in it means they either would not even make the attempt to go to confession in the first place (the most likely scenario), or, not believing in it anyway, they might only go to confession for nefarious reasons thus committing a sacrilege. Non-Catholics (who were never once Catholic) either do not believe that they are even in sin, or their sins are already forgiven, and/or that no priest can forgive sins.
Like Lad, your wrong answer to the question is only describing what we all are required to do before entering confession no matter what the sin.
Again, you refuse to address Mystici Corporis Christi 22. You can as well be open about your rejection of the teaching of Pope Pius XII:It decisively refutes nothing of the sort and you know this because you cannot even answer the simple true of false questions. The only one you did answer you got wrong.
22. Actually only those are to be included as members of the Church who have been baptized and profess the true faith, and who have not been so unfortunate as to separate themselves from the unity of the Body, or been excluded by legitimate authority for grave faults committed.
That decisively refutes once Catholic, always Catholic, along with consensus of Saints, Church Fathers, and other papal teachings (such as Leo XIII in Satis Cognitum). No wonder you can't site any Church authority to support your position - because the Church never taught your error, she taught just the opposite. A heretic is not a Catholic because he does not profes true faith and has separated himself from the unity of the Body.
Yes, it describes what we need to do with all sins before confession - renounce them, but, as Pope Pius XII teaches in Mystici Corporis Christi 23., heresy, schism and apostasy are different from all other mortal sins because they separate one from the Church (unlike other mortal sins - a thief or adulterer who professes true faith is still a member of the Church). So, for a heretic who left the Church and wants to go to confession the path is following:
1. A heretic who left the Church and thus is not a Catholic rejects his heretical beliefs
2. Rejecting his heretical beliefs and embracing true faith he becomes Catholic again
3. As a Catholic he can go to confession
It decisively refutes nothing of the sort and you know this because you cannot even answer the simple true of false questions. The only one you did answer you got wrong.That is a nice way of dodging Pope Pius XII's, Pope Leo XIII's, St. Robert Bellarmine's and Church Fathers' teaching on that matter.
In the past, I posted Trent's teaching on the matter, but it really doesn't matter to you what Trent says, all I posted was essentially the same thing Trent taught. You are reading the papal teachings in the wrong light - more along the lines of the way the sedes would read it - try reading your papal quotes to agree with what I wrote, which would mean you read those quotes in agreement with Trent.
That is a nice way of dodging Pope Pius XII's, Pope Leo XIII's, St. Robert Bellarmine's and Church Fathers' teaching on that matter.Dodging answering the simple true or false questions, is dodging the truth of the matter as it effectively proves you are not reading the magisterial teachings you keep quoting in the correct light in which they were written.
Pope Pius XII teaches in Mystici Corporis Christs that those who separate themselves from the unity of the body and do not profess true faith are not members of the Church. Pope Leo XIII teaches in Satis Cognitum that anyone who embraces a single heresy is not a Catholic (which part of "anyone" is unclear to you?). St. Robert Bellarmine teaches that heretic is not a Christian and is thus outside the Church, which is why a heretic cannot be a Pope. You reject these teachings and put Fr Wathen over Pope Pius XII, Leo XIII and consensus of Church Fathers, that is all there is to it. It is ironic, since your once Catholic, always Catholic position relies so heavily of Fr Wathen, yet you condemn Cushingites for using quotes from Saints to support BoD.
I got the question on confession perfectly right - before going to confession a heretic ceases to be a heretic and returns to Catholicism by embracing true faith. Before returning to true faith he was not a Catholic and not a member of the Church.
Show me where Trent taught that Catholics who become heretics and schismatics remain members of the Church.
Dodging answering the simple true or false questions, is dodging the truth of the matter as it effectively proves you are not reading the magisterial teachings you keep quoting in the correct light in which they were written.I clearly explained what is the context of Mystici Corporis Christi 22. and 23. - Pope Pius XII explains that heresy, schism and apostasy are different from all other mortal sins because they separate one from the Church, and only those who profess true faith and have not separated themselves from the unity of the body are members of the Church.
And no, you did not get even the question on confession right at all because before going to confession, a heretic MIGHT cease to be a heretic, exactly the same as before us going to confession, our sins MIGHT be forgiven if our contrition is perfect - but we do not know that. Nobody knows that. Yet you already took it upon yourself to forgive his sin of heresy ahead of the priest in confession.
You never answered T or F #1 - do you even believe that heresy is a mortal sin? If you believe it is a mortal sin, which fyi, it is, then the sin (of heresy) is not forgiven (therefore not Catholic according to you) for certain until he is absolved in confession - until that moment, the heretic, according to you, is a non-Catholic partaking of the sacrament of penance.
The one glaring difference between the pre-Confession of the sinner and the heretic is that the mere sinner can be elected Pope whereas, per Catholic Teaching, the heretic cannot.And this is what the whole denial of "Once a Catholic always a Catholic" revolves around.
Of course, you have not shown were Trent allegedly teaches that heretics and shismatrics remain members of the Church, and you have no Magisterial support of your novel idea whatsoever.I don't think I will. Seek and ye shall find, same as I had to. I've already handed it to you on a silver platter, but you keep resorting to misconstruing the other papal teachings. Heck, you cannot even get yourself to answer the simplest of T or F questions. The one you gave the wrong answer to, you cannot accept your answer is wrong, when it is obviously wrong, as I already explained why. You won't believe Trent either, you'll just mangle it into suiting your current wrong headed idea same as the other papal teachings you keep misquoting.
Yes, the denial of the heretical OCAC man-made dogma that you admittedly have no Catholic doctrinal proof of yet incessantly cling to.Will you answer the T or F questions?
I don't think I will. Seek and ye shall find, same as I had to. I've already handed it to you on a silver platter, but you keep resorting to misconstruing the other papal teachings. Heck, you cannot even get yourself to answer the simplest of T or F questions. The one you gave the wrong answer to, you cannot accept your answer is wrong, when it is obviously wrong, as I already explained why. You won't believe Trent either, you'll just mangle it into suiting your current wrong headed idea same as the other papal teachings you keep misquoting.
Tonight. I have to go now. Those questions are laughable. I am surprised that you ask them. Also, your last responses to arv are the opposite of your responses on the BOD threads. It's easy to see you know you are wrong but won't admit it. You have nothing on this subject but won't stop responding with ridiculousness, if that's a word.See next reply to Arv.
Everything you write above are just assertions with zero arguments. You have been refuted on Pope Pius XII's teaching, on confession, on Pope Leo XIII's teaching in Satis Cognitum (apparently you can't explain what these quotes mean at all - which part of "anyone who embraces a single heresy is not a Catholic" is unclear to you?), you never addressed unanimous consensus of Church Fathers that all heretics are not members of the Church, likewise you never addressed St. Robert Bellarmine, and your novel idea of "once Catholic, always Catholic" has zero support in the Magisterium of the Catholic Church, which is why you can't produce a single Magisterial quote to support your assertions.Yet you still are afraid, apparently, to answer those simple little T or F questions. Because if you did, you would need to retract your error, or remain believing it.
Yet you still are afraid, apparently, to answer those simple little T or F questions. Because if you did, you would need to retract your error, or remain believing it.Again, empty assertions without any actual argumentation (again, refusal to address the evidence which was brought up many times, and no Magisterial quotes to support your position) there is nothing to answer here really. You do exactly what Bumphrey and bosco do in BoD and Feeneysim sub-forum.
FYI, none of your quotes from the popes claim what you are claiming. Not one. Also FYI, I agree entirely that "anyone who embraces even a single heresy is not a Catholic". Now you can scratch your head and call me crazy, but that's because you do not understand that what you and the popes are saying is not what you are claiming - again, answer the T or F questions, I asked them specifically with the hope that maybe, doing so will prompt you to see that I am not crazy, probably not, but it is what it is.
Will you answer the T or F questions?
Seeing your wrong answer to #6 is sad, though not entirely unexpected.
FYI, the reason non-Catholics (who were never once Catholic) are not permitted to receive the sacrament of penance is because they do not believe in it. Not believing in it means they either would not even make the attempt to go to confession in the first place (the most likely scenario), or, not believing in it anyway, they might only go to confession for nefarious reasons thus committing a sacrilege. Non-Catholics (who were never once Catholic) either do not believe that they are even in sin, or their sins are already forgiven, and/or that no priest can forgive sins.
Like Lad, your wrong answer to the question is only describing what we all are required to do before entering confession no matter what the sin.
Again, empty assertions without any actual argumentation (again, refusal to address the evidence which was brought up many times, and no Magisterial quotes to support your position) there is nothing to answer here really. You do exactly what Bumphrey and bosco do in BoD and Feeneysim sub-forum.As regards your answer for #5,
In regards to your questions, if you insist...
1) Schism, heresy and apostasy are mortal sins - True or False?
True.
2) Any Catholic who becomes a schismatic, heretic and apostate, are guilty of having mortally sinned AND have severed themselves from "the Body of the Church" and cannot call themselves Catholic because of their sin of schism, heresy and apostasy - True or False?
True, a schismatic, heretic and apostate is no longer a Catholic, he ceases to be member of the Church (see Pope Pius XII Mystici Corporis Christi, Pope Leo XIII Satis Cognitum, consensus of Church Fathers, St. Robert Bellarmine and many other Catholic sources). As Pope Pius XII teaches, these sins are different from all other mortal sins because they remove one from the Church.
3) There is only one way for Catholics to be certainly absolved from their mortal sins, that one way is through confession - True or False?
Yes, or with an act of perfect contrition.
4) Confession, instituted by Christ for all sinners but is only available to Catholics - True or False?
Licitly, yes.
5) Any Catholic who became a schismatic, heretic and apostate, can at any time walk into the confessional, be absolved from his sins of schism, heresy and apostasy, thereby repairing his being severed - True or False?
Not untill he renounces his heretical and schismatic beliefs and embraces true faith, i.e. returns to Catholicism. A heretic cannot walk into confessional and be absolved, because he is not a Catholic, does not profess true faith and is not willing to reject his heretical beliefs.
6) The schismatic heretic apostate who walked into confession to be absolved from his sins was a Catholic - True or False.
False, he was not a Catholic untill he rejected his heretical or schismatic beliefs and embraced true Catholic faith before approaching confessional. Point 6 does not follow at all from point 5.
As you often say, there is nothing complicated here.
Sorry, Stubborn, but you're an idiot. And, on top of that, you're incredibly arrogant ... a dangerous combination. You have been proven wrong by the Magisterium as well as by the constant undisputed Tradition of the Church. But you refuse to let this crap go ... because your pride won't let you admit being wrong.Lad, I told you a long time ago that the worst kind of idiot, is an educated idiot. Hopefully you remember what else I said on that subject. Enough said.
5) Any Catholic who became a schismatic, heretic and apostate, can at any time walk into the confessional, be absolved from his sins of schism, heresy and apostasy, thereby repairing his being severed True or False?
This is easily false as proven by the quotes from Popes Pius XII and Leo XIII. A Catholic who becomes one of those things is no longer a Catholic. He of course has the Baptismal Character but as is plainly written, that is not all that is required. He cannot "walk into the confessional" until he is a Catholic again.
The anwers given by arvinger were sufficient.From one armchair theologian who has no business arguing this to another..........Heresy is a sin. FYI, it is a sin against the 1st commandment per the catechism.
1-4 were easily enough answered. (1. True, 2. True, 3. True, 4. True) Number 5 and 6 are where you truly show that you a) do not understand the argument at all and b) have no business arguing this.
5) Any Catholic who became a schismatic, heretic and apostate, can at any time walk into the confessional, be absolved from his sins of schism, heresy and apostasy, thereby repairing his being severed True or False?
This is easily false as proven by the quotes from Popes Pius XII and Leo XIII. A Catholic who becomes one of those things is no longer a Catholic. He of course has the Baptismal Character but as is plainly written, that is not all that is required. He cannot "walk into the confessional" until he is a Catholic again.
6) The schismatic heretic apostate who walked into confession to be absolved from his sins was a Catholic - True or False.
Again, false. You truly "shine" with this question though. Have you not been listening to what we've been saying? You really have no idea. This heretic etc... was definitely not a Catholic. A heretic by definition is someone who does not profess the true faith and by definition a Catholic is one who professes the true faith. They are different, that's why the Church draws the distinction.
I'm taking it to mean exactly what it says, which is why I said....."Also, Trent's last sentence below, is yet another refutation against the whole "heretic pope (or hierarchy) is no pope (or no hierarchy)"........ consider yourself "reminded"."
I absolutely would accept your apologies if I knew what you were apologizing for specifically. Maybe I overlooked it in your response but I truly can't tell.It is for my misunderstanding of "Once a Catholic always a Catholic". Trent's catechism plainly explains that my understanding was wrong.
If you call the Church's law for receiving heretics back into the Church "complicated" well then take that up with the Church. The Heretic etc... is required to abjure their heresy first. Then they are received back into the Church, then examine the Conscience, then Confess. The heretic cannot go to confession, only the Catholic can.The Church's law for receiving heretics back into the Church publicly with the "Abjuration of heresy" is not universal, and certainly not always required for heretics who have never been officially, publicly censured by the pope or bishop.
To borrow a catchphrase from Rosco, "there is no such thing as a heretic pope". A heretic cannot be pope since he is not a Catholic. The quotes from the Church are more than sufficient to prove that. A man (bishop, priest, layman) cannot be validly elected to the Papacy if he has not entered the Church or has left it due to heresy etc... The Pope cannot be a non-Catholic.
So what I got from all this is that you now believe that a Catholic can become a non-Catholic AND that a heretic is not a Catholic. You also still seem to believe that a man, no matter what his status, Catholic or non-Catholic, as long as he is elected Pope, can never not be Pope. So essentially you are saying that a non-Catholic is able to be Pope. Am I correct? Is this the next error we will endeavor to correct?No, you don't get it.
Approved Catholic Teachers should very well educate us. But what happens when those approved Catholic Teachers are teaching an error? Why don't you follow the V2 hierarchy or the current theologians? It's amazing how people like you and Bumphrey think that everything pre-V2 was completely orthodox, as if the apostasy just appeared out of nowhere..
.Looks like there's an official way to become a non-member of the NO church.... http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/intrptxt/docuмents/rc_pc_intrptxt_doc_20060313_actus-formalis_en.html
We are obliged to flee error and to hold fast the doctrines we received-- this is a divine instruction given in scripture by St. Paul. There is no controversy over whether or not someone can ever abandon the faith to embrace alien doctrine. False doctrines, even if taught by an angel from Heaven, are rejected and their teachers avoided.
.
No, you don't get it.
I believe, as PPX put it, the man elected is "instantly pope". That's all there is to it. There is absolutely zero reason for anyone to ever concern themselves with his status.
That's all well and good that a man is instantly pope when he accepts the election, but you are dodging the fact that when, after that, he shows himself to be a manifest heretic, he falls out of the Church and ceases to be pope..
That's all well and good that a man is instantly pope when he accepts the election, but you are dodging the fact that when, after that, he shows himself to be a manifest heretic, he falls out of the Church and ceases to be pope.And?
.Certainly there are certain conditions required, thankfully I have no control over them and absolutely zero reason to be concerned about or for that matter, to even know - Deo Gratias for one less thing to worry about in this mess.
Or that even prior to that point there are certain conditions required. Stubborn hasn't even admitted that the man elected has to be alive, never mind Catholic.
So it's clear then. You believe that the Dali Lama, Joel Osteen, Martin Luther or anybody can be the Pope so long as they are elected. This is seriously ridiculous Stubborn.Actually, that is a seriously ridiculous thing to even say, especially since it mocks the explicit teaching of another pope, more so since it comes from a sedevacantist.
So...certainly one of those conditions would be that the candidate is Catholic. Would you at least admit that?Certainly, too bad for the sedevacantists - and all the others who believe the pope is like a god - that the conciliar popes have all been heretics.
Just answer the question. Does the Pope have to be a Catholic?Certainly.
So let's review what we've learned so far.I see sedevacantism as a lie that has spread on certain of the faithful who believe sedevacantism to be a truth. Because I see sedevacantism for the lie that it is, it is logical to hate the lie. You are among those who believe sedevacantism to be true, so for you, it is illogical to hate it.
The Pope must certainly be Catholic.
A Catholic can become a non-Catholic.
A heretic is no longer a Catholic.
A heretic cannot be a Pope since he is not a Catholic.
I understand you have an illogical hatred for Sedevacantism, out of spite?, because you have always been told we are wrong? I don't know but...
Where, in this process are we losing you?
What you are saying is that there is no reason for you to hate it, only that you do. You speak of SV as a lie but can offer no proof that it is. After all, it is not Church teaching, it is the only conclusion to draw from Church teaching. You completely ignore the perfectly obvious points I made in the last post and instead use your usual copy and paste about the conciliar claimants sins, knowing full well this has already been refuted and you even admitted as much in this thread.Anyone who loves the truth, hates lies they know to be lies. That's just the way it is. I call sedevacantism a lie because that's how I see it. It starts out by giving popes a measure of infallibility they do not possess and never has, that's the primary lie - from there naturally comes the rejecting of the pope's position of supreme authority on earth, after that, anything goes, right up to old granny's deposing him as if it's a dogmatic truth - which is a lie. Can you at least agree with that?
Do you believe still, after having admitted that you were wrong, that a heretic is a Catholic?
Sedevacantism is no "lie". It is a response to this crisis that rightly troubles Catholic consciences. It's one theological approach to how we need to deal with this in good conscience. You may agree or disagree, but calling it a "lie" is absurd. While I agree that it labors under certain difficulties, R&R has plenty of its own.Sorry Lad, but it is only your version of R&R that has plenty of it's own.
Sorry Lad, but it is only your version of R&R that has plenty of it's own.
Blah, Blah, Blah. This does not mean anything. No one rejects a Popes supreme authority on Earth except for you. You are the one who claims you only have to listen to him when he says something infallible. This whole paragraph makes no sense believing what you believe.I understand it does not mean anything to you, because it denies the foundation of sedevacantism which likely means it is even offensive to you. Nothing I can do about that, try to understand that it's not my intention to offend you.
It does not make me happy. If, in the dictionary, they were to give an example of the word hypocritical after the definition, they could not give a better example than your beliefs above. You are saying that a heretic is not Catholic, that the Pope must be Catholic to be Pope, and that a heretic is the Pope. Truly amazing. I really don't need to even be talking with you but I keep praying that these astounding contradictions will be realized by you. There is a need for you to pursue it further because it concerns who is in the Church and the fact that there are millions of people out there who are misled and continue to follow those men while thinking that as long as he's the Pope, they're okay.I said a heretic is not Catholic and that the pope needs to be Catholic, I then said it stops right there. I've said that my knowledge of his sin of heresy is one thing, claiming he is not the pope based on that knowledge, as if that knowledge in some way authorizes me to claim he is deposed, is another - and I will not make that claim. I said *that* is the truth, I said *that* truth is what sedevacantists cannot get through their heads - and you keep proving it.
No, Stubborn, your particular version of R&R is nothing short of heretical; it's not even remotely Catholic.It's just that I never learned the hierarchy was infallible, as apparently you did.
The teachings of the Pope that are not infallible are protected by the Holy Ghost from being harmful to the faithful:* The lie starts here.
here is Msgr. Fenton on the "negative infallibility" of the Church in Her ordinary teachings:
(The Doctrinal Authority of Papal Encyclicals, Msgr Joseph Fenton, American Ecclesiastical Review, Vol. CXXI, August, 1949, pp. 136-150)
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's just that I never learned the hierarchy was infallible, as apparently you did.
Magisterium and Universal Discipline. You keep hiding behind the "hierarchy" when the V2 phenomenon isn't a question of hierarchy. We've already debunked your bogus distinction but you continue to run for cover behind it.I'm not hiding behind anything Lad. You keep posting (https://www.cathinfo.com/crisis-in-the-church/universal-acceptance-of-a-pope/msg435869/#msg435869) things like: "And even the non-infallible Magisterium (and discipline) of the Church must be regarded by Catholics as infallibly safe, i.e. that they cannot lead to the ruin of souls."
I know you are not trying to offend me. You are trying to win an argument regardless of whether the facts back you up or not. Which they don’t.For the umpteenth time, there are no Church teachings that vindicate sedevacantism, as such, the only thing I can possibly deny is the doctrine of the sedevacantists.
One thing you are right about though is that it does deny the foundation of SV. That is because it denies Church Teaching on the Subject and you adhere to it.
Church teaching on Infallibility has nothing to do with this point. The Pope is protected from teaching error when the rules of V1 are met. The problem is that the Church would defect from what it’s supposed to be and what Jesus founded if you are correct. A Council cannot, with the solemn approval of a true Pope, teach error to the entire Church. You are saying that people will not be culpable for putting into practice the sins against morality and doctrine that the post-Concilliar claimants have taught. From the attempted destroying of the Mass and Sacraments to the allowance of Communion for adulterers, this is all possible according to you, for a Pope to perpetrate upon Christ’s Church.This (bolded) is not true, this is a Fentonism.
Don't forget, prior to the 1960s, there was no Novus Ordo, the people chose to leave the true faith they were *all* born and raised in and join the new faith because they believed the lie that "even the non-infallible Magisterium (and discipline) of the Church must be regarded by Catholics as infallibly safe, i.e. that they cannot lead to the ruin of souls." IF this lie were the truth, there would be no crisis! It is as simple as that. The people were sufficiently confused and believed the lie to be truth so strongly, that they actually regarded the non-infallible to be infallible, i.e. "infallibly safe"!First of all, I disagree about your diagnosis that people caved in to the Novus Ordo because their views of the Magisterium - what is much more likely is that people were simply ignorant of the faith, did not know the Catholic doctrine, were lukewarm and the changes simply did not bother them, or maybe even welcomed them as "friendly, ecuмenical and building bridges between people of different cultures". Ask an average practising Novus Ordite about papal infallibility or different levels of the Magisterium - most of them are entirely ignorant of that.
First of all, how would you know since you refuse to read them as you admitted a while ago. Second, cuм ex Apostolatus certainly proves that a heretic cannot be elected to the Papacy, which is what I claim; these claimants were heretics before their elections. There is no SV doctrine only Catholic doctrine which proves SV, but again, you wouldn't know that because you refuse to read them.cuм ex did NOT teach nor in any way, shape or form, vindicate sedevacantism. It specifically instructs us of all that we may actually do about a pope who is a heretic - it says: "he may be contradicted".
This is the Bold: A Council cannot, with the solemn approval of a true Pope, teach error to the entire Church.Rather than pick apart each magisterial quote, let me simply say that you are missing the forest - read the first quote - we are to *properly* and truly confess all that has been handed down and preached, well, it doesn't say we must confess what V2 brought, namely, teachings that were never handed down nor preached in the holy Catholic Church.
This is not fentonism. The Church has always taught this. Here are some quotes that you won't read.
Lateran Council, 649- Can. 17. If anyone in word and mind does not properly and truly confess according to the holy Fathers all even to the last portion that has been handed down and preached in the holy, Catholic, and apostolic Church of God, and likewise by the holy Fathers and the five venerable universal Councils, let him be condemned.
As you can see one is condemned if they don't confess all, even the last portion of a Council (first quote), accepting the Councils is part of this profession of faith and are to be treated as the Gospels (second quote), the councils teachings and its canons are part of the authority given from Our Lord (third quote), and the Roman Pontiff has full authority over all Councils, that when he acknowledges them they are of his authority (fourth quote), and also part of a profession of faith that one must accept all that a Council teaches. There are many other quotes that prove that a Council cannot teach error but if you have read these you will have changed your opinion on the matter.
First of all, I disagree about your diagnosis that people caved in to the Novus Ordo because their views of the Magisterium - what is much more likely is that people were simply ignorant of the faith, did not know the Catholic doctrine, were lukewarm and the changes simply did not bother them, or maybe even welcomed them as "friendly, ecuмenical and building bridges between people of different cultures". Ask an average practising Novus Ordite about papal infallibility or different levels of the Magisterium - most of them are entirely ignorant of that.*Most* people caved because they wanted the easy road. No one forced any one of them to abandon the only faith they ever knew, then join the new faith. Most who compromised knew their faith well, most went to Catholic schools since first grade, most were bishops, priests and many nuns, most Catholics back then were taught by the nuns, heard edifying sermons and etc. You are grossly underestimating the Catholic culture of the pre-V2 days by thinking it was anything like today's culture.
Second, if they did think like that, they were right. The Council indeed cannot teach error to the Universal Church because of the dogma of indefectibility of the Church. There can be errors, but minor and not threatening the faith, otherwise the Magisterium would have defected. That is the whole point of the Magisterium - Catholics can trust it and don't have to privately verify with their own private judgment whether Church's teaching is true or not. Otherwise you'd have to verify almost every teaching of the Church by your private judgment, which leads to Protestantism.This is more Fentonism. The Holy Ghost only provides His protect from the possibility of teaching error ONLY under exacting conditions and provided the criteria is met as taught at V1, that's it. Catholics are to always beware - that's what Our Lord taught. St. Paul said even if an angel preaches a false Gospel to not listen to it - nowhere does it say that when they start the wreckovation of all things Catholic it's ok, it must be infallibly safe, the
By the way, if the Magisterium can teach any error or heresy outside of solemn definitions of dogmas, how do you know that past teachings of the Councils and Popes are correct?
So, if I was sure that John XXIII and Paul VI were true Popes and that Vatican II was a valid Ecuмenical Council, I'd have to insist that VII can be somehow reconciled with Tradition and it does not teach any substantial error.
No, its not Fentonism, its the dogma of indefectibility of the Church - the Magisterium cannot teach error to the Universal church, period If it does, the Church has defected.I just wanted to make a random point here about this. Geocentrism. As Cassini points out sometimes, I think it makes these arguments more interesting. It seems if these arguments were brought to their logical conclusion sedevacantists should reject all the popes since 1820 or so.
I'm not confusing hierarchy and the Magisterium - when hierarchy in communion with the Pope teach something to the universal Church, it is part of the Magisterium. The condition for the teachng to be part of the Magisterium is that it is taught by the Pope or hierarchy in communion with the Pope.
s. What R&R group is teaching this today?what the heck is R & R?
No, its not Fentonism, its the dogma of indefectibility of the Church - the Magisterium cannot teach error to the Universal church, period If it does, the Church has defected. This is why in these discussions (we went thourgh this several times) you can never define what indefectibility of the Church means or what it protects the Church from. Because according to your positions indefectibility of the Church means absolutely nothing - the Church can teach any sort of heresy and error and fail in her universal discipline. This is of course an error which borderlines blasphemy.Yes, it is Fentonism. With the doctrine of Fentonism, it is IMPOSSIBLE for the hierarchy to ever teach error that might harm the faithful, absolutely, positively, 100% impossible - ergo, the hierarchy is infallible. Which is a Fentonism lie. Even you KNOW it is a lie but cannot admit it, because if you even for one minute believed Fentonism to be true, then you are bound to abandon the True faith for the new faith of V2 and the NO - the same as the rest of the compromisers did - who also believed Fentonism to be what the Church teaches.
I'm not confusing hierarchy and the Magisterium - when hierarchy in communion with the Pope teach something to the universal Church, it is part of the Magisterium. The condition for the teachng to be part of the Magisterium is that it is taught by the Pope or hierarchy in communion with the Pope. Thus, asserting that Vatican II is part of the Magisterium requires believing that John XXIII and Paul VI were valid Popes. However, because Vatican II contains heresies it cannot be part of the Magisterium, and therefore the legitimacy of claimants to the papacy who promulgated it must be doubted.
By the way, you conveniently skipped my question: if outside of solemn definition the Church can teach any sort of error and heresy, how do you know Mortalium Animos does not teach heresy and was not rightly corrected by Vatican II? According to your position, it is possible that Pope Pius XI was simply in error condemning ecuмenism and his whole encyclical was completely heretical (after all, it contains no solemn definition of dogma), and it was corrected by Vatican II's Unitatis Redintegratio. In fact, a docuмent promulgated by the Ecuмenical Council trumps Papal encyclical in authority. With your position you have no leg to stand on opposing that claim.The answer is, we know it is true because Mortalium Animos echoes past teachings of the Church. Even whatever V2 taught within it's heretical teachings that echoes past teachings of the Church are also true. Truth is truth, it is the truth that binds us - wherever it is found and regardless of where it comes from or who says it. The danger lies in mixing truth with lies and half truths - that's the snare that snags people.
what the heck is R & R?Recognize that the pope is the pope & Resist the errors he teaches, promotes, encourages, etc..
But you guys DO REALIZE, of course, that the Catholic Church has no official teaching about what happens when a Pope falls into heresy. Right?
If the Crisis could be reduced to a simple explanation, there would only be one true solution, and all the others would be IN ERROR, just like protestants and other non-Catholics.
Yes, it is Fentonism.
People,
This discussion has turned into an absolute circus - now at 470+ replies and going in all directions.
I am quoting the OP above.
Does the Catholic Church have official teaching on what happens when a pope falls into heresy? The answer is YES and it can be found here: http://francisquotes.com/church-teaching.html (http://francisquotes.com/church-teaching.html)
The quotes at this link are from the Church Fathers at Vatican I, Popes, Doctors of the Church etc, so they are certainly official Church teaching.
For those that think sedevacantism is somehow a fabricated scenario, you can read about the term "sede vacante" in the Catholic Encyclopedia here: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01143a.htm (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01143a.htm)
The term "sedevacantism" was derived from this. When reading this article you will see that the current situation in the Church is actually better described as "sede impedita", but the effect is the same and somehow the term "sedevacantism" stuck over time. Needless to say, it is a true scenario in the Church.
We've already proven earlier in this discussion that at least some of the heresies coming from Francis are manifest given that his actions match his writings, and given that some of his teachings are against the Natural Law. Once even one heresy is manifest, the teaching of the Church at the first link above takes effect. That's all Catholics need to worry about.
To answer the statement in bold quoted from the OP above, this one post is a summary of the entire subject. Go to any sede forum and no one is discussing this subject - they know what the Church teaches, and they accept it, and they move on with their lives. No one is beating the subject to death in sede forums like they do here. The people holding out on the subject in this forum are likely doing so out of pride or personal inconvenience.
No, it's not. He was not the first to use the term "infallible safety".I picked "Fentonism" out of convenience, but this same false teaching which made it into "the seminaries....all the manifestations of the Church", is promoted by many (all?) of the well respected 20th century theologians. Pick any one of them and add "ism" to his name, they all say the same thing.
This has always astonished me that you say this. You love to quote the "he may be contradicted" aspect, which I agree with. This is but one point that the Pope touches upon in the Bull. Yes, we all know, that if a true Pope, validly elected, deviates from the faith, he may be contradicted. ....... 6. In addition, that if ever at any time it shall appear that any Bishop, even if he be acting as an Archbishop, Patriarch or Primate; or any Cardinal of the aforesaid Roman Church, or, as has already been mentioned, any legate, or even the Roman Pontiff, prior to his promotion or his elevation as Cardinal or Roman Pontiff, has deviated from the Catholic Faith or fallen into some heresy:
(i) the promotion or elevation, even if it shall have been uncontested and by the unanimous assent of all the Cardinals, shall be null, void and worthless;
(ii) it shall not be possible for it to acquire validity (nor for it to be said that it has thus acquired validity) through the acceptance of the office, of consecration, of subsequent authority, nor through possession of administration, nor through the putative enthronement of a Roman Pontiff, or Veneration, or obedience accorded to such by all, nor through the lapse of any period of time in the foregoing situation;
(iii) it shall not be held as partially legitimate in any way;
(iv) to any so promoted to be Bishops, or Archbishops, or Patriarchs, or Primates or elevated as Cardinals, or as Roman Pontiff, no authority shall have been granted, nor shall it be considered to have been so granted either in the spiritual or the temporal domain;
(v) each and all of their words, deeds, actions and enactments, howsoever made, and anything whatsoever to which these may give rise, shall be without force and shall grant no stability whatsoever nor any right to anyone;
(vi) those thus promoted or elevated shall be deprived automatically, and without need for any further declaration, of all dignity, position, honour, title, authority, office and power.
This can be found in the Catholic Encyclopedia under the heading "General Councils" and the sub-heading "Infallibility of General Councils". One would be most advised that NONE of the sources listed for this article in the CE are "well respected 20th century theologians".Both PJXIII and PPVI said the council was not infallible.
Infallibility of general councils
All the arguments which go to prove the infallibility (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07790a.htm) of the Church (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03744a.htm) apply with their fullest force to the infallible (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07790a.htm) authority of general councils in union with the pope (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12260a.htm). For conciliary decisions are the ripe fruit of the total life-energy of the teaching Church actuated and directed by the Holy Ghost (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07409a.htm). Such was the mind of the Apostles when, at the Council of Jerusalem (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08344a.htm) (Acts 15:28 (http://www.newadvent.org/bible/act015.htm#vrs28)), they put the seal of supreme authority on their decisions in attributing them to the joint action of the Spirit of God (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07409a.htm) and of themselves: Visum estSpirituisancto et nobis (It hath seemed good to the Holy Ghost and to us). This formula and the dogma (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05089a.htm) it enshrines stand out brightly in the deposit of faith (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05752c.htm) and have been carefully guarded throughout the many storms raised in councils by the play of the human element. From the earliest times they who rejected the decisions of councils were themselves rejected by the Church (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03744a.htm). Emperor Constantine (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04295c.htm) saw in the decrees of Nicaea"a Divine commandment" and Athanasius (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02035a.htm) wrote to the bishops (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02581b.htm) of Africa: "What God (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06608a.htm) has spoken through the Council of Nicaea (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11044a.htm) endureth for ever." St. Ambrose (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01383c.htm) (Ep. xxi) pronounces himself ready to die by the sword rather than give up the Nicene decrees, and Pope Leo the Great (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09154b.htm) expressly declares that "whoso resists the Councils of Nicaea and Chalcedon cannot be numbered among Catholics (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03449a.htm)" (Ep. lxxviii, ad LeonemAugustum). In the same epistle he says that the decrees of Chalcedon were framed instruente SpirituSancto, i.e. under the guidance of theHoly Ghost. How the same doctrine (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05075b.htm) was embodied in many professions of faith (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05752c.htm) may be seen in Denzinger's (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04736b.htm) (ed. Stahl) "Enchiridion symbolorum et definitionum", under the heading (index) "Concilium generale representat ecclesiamuniversalem, eiqueabsoluteobediendum" (General councils represent the universal Church and demand absolute obedience). TheScripture texts on which this unshaken belief (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02408b.htm) is based are, among others: "But when he, the Spirit of truth (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15073a.htm), is come, he will teach you all truth (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15073a.htm) . . ." John 16:13 (http://www.newadvent.org/bible/joh016.htm#vrs13)) "Behold I am with you [teaching] all days even to the consummation of the world" (Matthew 28:20 (http://www.newadvent.org/bible/mat028.htm#vrs20)), "The gates of hell (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07207a.htm) shall not prevail against it [i.e. the Church (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03744a.htm)]" (Matthew 16:18 (http://www.newadvent.org/bible/mat016.htm#vrs18)).
It has always been the belief that the Councils are completely infallible. If one believes that Vatican 2 is actually the work of the Catholic Church and its Popes then one is obliged to give complete assent and obedience to it. To deny this is blasphemy and heresy.
It has always been the belief that the Councils are completely infallibleNo, not 'completely'. 1) Only those declarations/canons/decrees which fulfill the requirements of Vat 1 and/or 2) those writings which agree with scripture/tradition.
No, not 'completely'. 1) Only those declarations/canons/decrees which fulfill the requirements of Vat 1 and/or 2) those writings which agree with scripture/tradition.Well said.
I'm baffled why many of you talk about infallibility as if it's this magical power whereby the pope could possibly preach something that we've never heard of before and then the catholic world will be in awe of this new doctrine. That will never, ever happen.
If you don't think the pope or a council could declare some new catholic truth, then good. But you argue like it could because you over complicate the idea of infallibility by not putting it into its proper perspective and limits.
Christ told the Apostles EVERYTHING that will EVER be needed for a catholic to save his soul. There ARE NO MORE CATHOLIC TRUTHS OUT THERE WAITING TO BE DISCOVERED. Catholicism is unchanging, it is fixed, it is perfect - just like God. Therefore, outside of a solemn declaration by the pope inside/outside of a council, then the only way that infallibility comes into play is if what is taught "agrees with what has always been taught" because we know ALL CATHOLIC TRUTHS ALEADY. They won't change, they won't be added to or subtracted from.
Infallibility is meant to clarify and re-teach. Not invent or add. If something differs from what we have been told from Scripture/Tradition, then it's wrong, it's novel and its anathema.
I picked "Fentonism" out of convenience, but this same false teaching which made it into "the seminaries....all the manifestations of the Church", is promoted by many (all?) of the well respected 20th century theologians. Pick any one of them and add "ism" to his name, they all say the same thing.
This is the Fentonism in a nutshell:
Here is the lie: "The teachings of the Pope that are not infallible are protected by the Holy Ghost from being harmful to the faithful."
Infallibility is meant to clarify and re-teach. Not invent or add. If something differs from what we have been told from Scripture/Tradition, then it's wrong, it's novel and its anathema.
It's not ANYTHINGism. It's a basic Catholic principle. Again, despite my previous correction you continue to distort this principle.This is Fentonism, it is irreconcilable with the teachings of V1.
Basically, it's this: the Magisterium could never teach so grave an error to the Universal Church as to require separation of communion with the Holy See. That's a defection of the Magisterium and heresy. Same holds for the Church's Universal Discipline (e.g. the New Mass). This is a simple consequence of the Church's indefectibility.
This is Fentonism, it is irreconcilable with the teachings of V1.
Bovine excrement. Your position that the Magisterium can defect is incompatible with Catholicism.That's not my position, but you go right ahead and feel free to just keep on saying it is if that's what makes you happy.
I'm very surprised that we all disagree on this. So when the Assumption was defined a few decades ago, was this a new teaching? Protestants say so because they reject Tradition. I say, no, it's absolutely not a new teaching but is in complete harmony with the Church Fathers and with what the Apostles believed.It boils down to being about relieving the people of pretty much all responsibility for abandoning the faith, and instead blaming the massive loss of faith since V2 on the conciliar popes and the council.
Could the Pope ever define that hell doesn't exist? No. Or that St Joseph was an accountant? No. Why? Because that's not reality and not part of Tradition/Scripture.
There's no new catholic teachings. There can be clarifications, or distinguishments, but anything we must believe BY FAITH has always been believed since the Apostles.
I'm very surprised that we all disagree on this. So when the Assumption was defined a few decades ago, was this a new teaching? Protestants say so because they reject Tradition. I say, no, it's absolutely not a new teaching but is in complete harmony with the Church Fathers and with what the Apostles believed..
Could the Pope ever define that hell doesn't exist? No. Or that St Joseph was an accountant? No. Why? Because that's not reality and not part of Tradition/Scripture.
There's no new catholic teachings. There can be clarifications, or distinguishments, but anything we must believe BY FAITH has always been believed since the Apostles.
I think this is from Siscoe, I could be wrong though.From Sisco? It's from a true pope, Pius XII.
Let's say for the sake of argument that PPX/XII did abrogate cuм ex (they definitely did not), and that now Cardinals who have been excommunicated for heresy can now take part in the election. There is one big problem with this for you; you have already admitted that a heretic is not Catholic and when the new temporarily un-excommunicated Cardinal or whoever gets elected and the electoral process is completed, the excommunication takes effect again. This means that the person elected is excommunicated now and again is no longer in the Church. Therefore, this person who is not Catholic is now Pope.
The truth is that the excommunications that PPXII and PPX are talking about are not excommunications for heresy. These types are done ipso facto and the person cannot be restored to the Church for any reason until at least they have abjured their heresy and decided to be Catholic again. The Popes are talking about excommunications for ecclesiastical impediments, not willfully denying the faith. There is no other way to interpret their statements unless you read up to the first comma and stop there. The Church teaches that if you deny one article of faith, you deny it all. Therefore, if you were correct, you would have a man as Pope who denies the Papacy itself. This is just not possible.
Another thing I will add is that it's not possible to abrogate the relevant parts of cuм ex since they are rooted in Divine Law. It is blasphemous to say that a non-Catholic could take part in the election of a true Pope and/or be elected Pope themselves.
This is something you refuse to talk about. If we were to live by your rules, there would be nothing preventing a Muslim, Buddhist, Protestant, or pagan from becoming Pope.
"P"PVI also said it was infallible and "P"JXIII NEVER said the council was not infallible. He wasn't even alive when it ended. These guys, even if they wanted you to think the "council" was not infallible, were they real Popes, would not have that power since "P"PVI personally approved it, and more, each and every docuмent of it.I continue to be amazed how distorted people's views of infallibility is. It is entirely understandable to be completely wrong when speculating about the matter, but it is inconceivable to be completely wrong about the historical facts of the matter.
I would really like you to teach us how "all general councils are automatically infallible" is a liberal idea. I'm pretty sure you don't know what liberal means from this statement. If anything, discrediting a councils infallibility would be a liberal idea.The term, "liberal idea" is quoted from the words of +ABL. It is a liberal idea because of what it all entails.
First, V1 specifically says that the Pope is infallible when speaking ex Cathedra. So you first sentence is wrong.First - Yes, he is infallible when speaking ex cathedra, something which never happened at V2.
Second, all the criteria was met at V2 for it to be infallible.
Third, you need to provide some evidence that V2 was merely pastoral and even more that pastoral means it wasn't infallible.
I continue to be amazed how distorted people's views of infallibility is.
And yet you can't see the beam in your own eye. While people like Nado and bosco exaggerate the scope of infallibility, you go to the opposite extreme and effectively reject it altogether.
For all of you who mistakenly believe that EVERY single sentence of EVERY ecuмenical council is infallible, please explain the following quote to me. This is Bosco's quote and he couldn't explain it, it's been posted now 5 times on this thread, so I am bringing it up again. This is a commentary on infallibility as it pertains to a council and it is from 1918. It DIRECTLY contradicts your understanding of what is and isn't infallible from a council. Please explain how the below reconciles with your view.
a) What has been solemnly defined, either by a general council or by the Supreme Pontiff, is certainly de fide; but not all the historical or theological assertions which accompany a papal decision (for instance, the Bull "Ineffabilis ") are de fide.
Whichever Hierarchical teachings are heretical teachings, those teachings are not part of the magisterium - because those teachings are heretical teachings - period.
This is exactly what Stubborn says - if it is wrong it is not Magisterial:Wow you are certainly one screwed up victim of Fentonism! - and I thought that I explained it simple enough for an elementary school child to understand it! I sure never said that - or anything like what you are saying I said.
So whether something is part of the Magisterium of the Catholic Church is not determined by the authority of the Magisterium and how Magisterium actually operates, but upon private judgment of a Catholic who decides whether the teaching is actually true and whether it qualifies to be Magisterium! This is absolutely ridiculous. As NovusOrdoWatch explained this error succintly:
"In other words, we must first check and see whether what the Church teaches is actually true before we can know whether the Church really teaches it. This is perfectly circular and thus fallacious reasoning, and it makes a complete mockery of the Catholic Magisterium."
I am amazed that anyone can fail to see the circularity and absurdity of this position.
Pax Vobis asked: If every statement of every ecuмenical council were infallible, then why are there even solemn statements to begin with?
Plus, de fide and infallible aren't the same thing. De Fide is a "classification" of truth in theological terms. Reference Fr. Cartechini's theological notes which were composed for the use (and were used by) the Holy Office: http://tedeum.boards.net/thread/2872/oum-teachings-denial-make-heretic?page=1&scrollTo=41810 (<--- posted a few spots down in the thread).
Well then show me the historical facts. Quote them as saying it wasn't infallible. I can quote them as saying it was infallible.I already did that, you do not believe them. Also, you cannot quote them as saying it was infallible - you only mis-quote them trying to make them say it, but that's it. The fact is, you simply do not know what it even is and/or have no faith whatsoever in the doctrine of infallibility. Being a victim of "fentonism", unlearning error you learned is proving to be an insurmountable task.
Show how believing the councils are infallible is a liberal idea.When you wrongly believe all councils are infallible - which actually makes zero sense - and V2 tells you to abandon the true faith and start sinning....you'll abandon the true faith and start sinning because that directive came from a council.
This has been the point all along. The councils are infallible. It is precisely this fact that the V2 anti-popes could not have been Catholic. If they were then those docuмents would be completely orthodox. The fact that they were contrary to dogma proves that it wasn't a Catholic Council and the men approving it and furthering it cannot be Catholic. The Church would have defected if that were the case.
If true, there is no way a council which, by virtue of it being a council is thereby guaranteed protection from error, to teach error. Period.
My emphasis (above).Name one teaching from V2 you believe is supposed to be infallible.
A General Council, is only "a council" when it ends. It ends when a pope approves of what it has proposed. A pope can, and has, approved of some things, and not approved of other things proposed. That which is "a Council" is the final result of what a pope decides to be approved.
If it appears a pope has approved of erroneous doctrine, or even ambiguous doctrine, then by solid sylogistic reason and the faith we know that the man who approved really is not a true pope. A dogmatic fact.
You are only saying that because you are upset and confused, and because I will not agree with you that the heretical teachings of today's hierarchy must be part of the magisterium,
Ironically, it's quite the opposite. YOU are the one who claims that heretical teachings can be part of the Magisterium (provided it's non-infallible Magisterium). You are so mentally befuddled and "confused" that you don't even realize this.Ironically, it is you who claim heretical teachings "become part of the magisterium" based on you bestowing infallibility to the hierarchy. Aren't you saying that whatever the hierarchy teach, gets added to the magisterium?
Vatican II docuмent, Dignitatis Humanae (# 9): “The things which this Vatican Synod declares concerning the right of man to religious liberty, have their foundation in the dignity of the person, whose needs have become more fully known to human reason through the experience of the ages. In fact, this doctrine on liberty has its roots in divine Revelation; with all the more reason, therefore, it is to be preserved sacredly by Christians.”As Pope Leo XIII said and you just quoted - it is false, an evident contradiction, which proves it to be a lie, "blatant heresy" as you rightly stated.
Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum (9): As often, therefore, as it is declared on the authority of this teaching that this or that is contained in the deposit of divine revelation, it must be believed by every one as true. If it could in any way be false, an evident contradiction follows; for then God Himself would be the author of error in man.
It was declared that V2's doctrine on religious liberty (blatant heresy) has it's roots in, or in other words is contained in, Divine Revelation. According to you, God Himself is the author of error in man.
Yes, to someone who has learned all they know about the Catholic Church from the SSPX it proves that the councils are not infallible. To someone who learned what they know about the Catholic Church from Scripture, Popes and the Councils it proves that V2 could not possibly be of the Catholic Church and that these claimants could not possibly be Popes.It only proves some of those errors you learned from your time within the NO remain unpurged from your mind.
The people fell for the lie because they thought that it's the Magisterium talking. A perfectly logical assumption considering that's how Catholics had believed since the Apostles. The quote I provided would be infallible if Paul VI was a real pope.You have it backwards, the quote you provided was not protected from error, because it is error. The people fell for the lie because they were taught the lie that all councils are automatically infallible.
You have it backwards, the quote you provided was not protected from error, because it is error. The people fell for the lie because they were taught the lie that all councils are automatically infallible.Correction, I meant to say:
Yes, reality ends up as an inconceivable mirage when replaced with superfluous theories. The superfluous theories become reality. Truth becomes error and error a revealed truth..
[Religious] Criticism has plucked the imaginary flowers on the chain not in order that man shall continue to bear that chain without fantasy or consolation but so that he shall throw off the chain and pluck the living flower. The criticism of religion disillusions man, so that he will think, act and fashion his reality like a man who has discarded his illusions and regained his senses, so that he will move around himself as his own true sun. Religion is only the illusory sun which revolves around man as long as he does not revolve around himself (Karl Marx, Critique of Hegel's Philosophy of Right)..
Ironically, it is you who claim heretical teachings "become part of the magisterium" based on you bestowing infallibility to the hierarchy. Aren't you saying that whatever the hierarchy teach, gets added to the magisterium?
.Proving the point that a good conspiracy theory is all some people need to deny reality.
That's cute but now you're just proving the point.
You're both primitive psycho-analysts who've got human nature figured out. We're all just projecting and reflecting superfluous and mythical realities born out of a misplaced trust and esteem in religious authority and you're here to help us see the real truth (which of course, depends on us putting down the religious authorities and figuring this all out ourselves (with a copy of Denzinger or whatever else), as you have-- funny, that). The difference is that you're not as transparent or original as Marx, but you're copying right out of his playbook.I never read his book. The superfluous theories are the non-pope / non-council superfluous theories. I used to call them just opinions, which they are, but either way, superfluous.
:facepalm:No, that is your phraseology, not mine. I posted V1's definition but it disagrees with your version. Yes, this conversation is as hopeless as your sededoubtism.
You're absolutely hopeless. What LEGITIMATE hierararchy teach is in fact part of the Magisterium. Legitimate Hierarchy + teaching to the Universal Church = Magisterium. Sedevacantism denies the "legitimate hierarchy" part. You on the other hand redefine "Magisterium". Nothing gets "added to" the Magisterium. This phraseology suggests that you think of Magisterium as a static body of teaching. And if something suits your fancy, then you consider it added to Magisterium. If not, then it's not Magisterium, but rather hierarchy. So are so befuddled and confused that this conversation is hopeless.
You really need to start posting your proof where the Church says that Councils are not infallible. Up until now all I've seen is your emotional rants. I have shown you proof that the Church has always said that the Councils are an act of Supreme authority in the Church and can never be disagreed with. You have posted nothing but personal statements that amount to a child's response of "no they aren't". I need proof and if you truly believe that I am putting my soul in danger by being SVist, then you NEED to show me Church teaching that proves that councils approved by Popes are not infallible by their very nature. No need for the teaching to be specific either. I know how to follow the logical conclusions. Something to show me that the Church believes as you believe.How many times do you need to have the decrees on infallibility from V1 posted? I gave you the link, read it. Find where it teaches that all councils are infallible, and YOU post it.
Pope John XIII Opening Speech to the Council:
From the link provided - An interview with Father Wathen
All one has to do is take a look at Roncalli's Opening Speech to the Council on October 11, 1962, to see that the above statement is false.
I'd say that it's fairly obvious that the intentions of the Council were to deal with doctrine....
This is nothing but a myth.... I can't find a single source wherein John XXIII or Paul VI, call Vatican II a "pastoral council". As a matter of fact, both of them refer to it as an "Ecuмenical Council" countless times.
Taking for granted the correctness of one's one position? Check.You seem to take issue with my confidence, which is based mainly on two things, reality and the teaching of the Church at V1. If there is a third thing, it is the bald face lies the people ate up and still eat up. There was always a missing ingredient for me, but between +ABL and a sede poster at SD, it became clear how they were able to do procure the NO comparatively effortlessly. One of the main lies was that all councils are automatically infallible, the other was Catholics must submit their blind obedience to the pope. Both lies are accepted as a teaching of the Church - even unto "all the manifestations of the Church" as +ABL put it.
.
Bald assertions? Check.
.
Use of those bald assertions as fundamental premises to all of your arguments? Check.
.
An inability to think critically accompanied by an invariable tendency to criticize others of exactly the same? Check.
.
Contending those who are arguing from tradition and authority are simply fooled? Check.
.
Advocating an individualist approach which is contended to actually reveal the real truth of the matter, and (thereby) subtly disguising this approach as being itself rooted in a love of truth, authority, and tradition? Check, check, check.
.
You don't point us to where your ideas come from. You either don't tell us at all, or you claim that you're getting them from the primary docuмents themselves. The former instance needs to comment, as its a bald assertion. The latter instances are simply you telling us what you've come to believe by elevating your own self as the arbiter of authentic meaning to doctrine a, council b, etc. We, on the other hand, are pointing to legitimate authorities who are deputed as the arbiters. You disagree with them. You prefer your own reading, though you won't put it that way, you'll simply say that you're reading it "as it is written" and you will appeal (vainly) to your conclusion being supported by the raw facts of the matter without ever an attempt to prove through (reasonable or authoritative) syllogism what it is you contend to be the case-- you assert it baldly as the fact of the matter, just as Marx would. And those who, like you, are disenchanted with the "old way of doing things" will absolutely gobble it up because it's ferocious and unrelenting, and you're ever so confident in it being true (because, again like Marx, it's not like you ever actually address an objection but simply quip it away through question-begging).
Where does John XXIII say, "this is a Pastoral Council", as Father Wathen claimed?Obviously Fr. Wathen was quoting PJXIII directly, the quote I provided supports Fr. Wathen, even though it's not a word for word quote of the pope.
C'mon, Stubborn... Your quote above proves nothing, as those words claimed by Father Wathen DO NOT appear anywhere.
John XXIII said that Vatican II would reflect the Church's Magisterium (which should give you some pause), "which is predominantly pastoral in character".
Pax why don't you reference Augustine's commentary on Canon 1323 yourself.The 3rd point in your commentary: Nothing is to be taken as dogmatically declared or defined, unless it is manifestly known to be such.
Note that asking this question seems to implicitly take for granted the very thing that is up for debate: mainly, whether or not there are infallible truths, and/or truths which must be believed that aren't solemn statements.I agree that there are infallible truths which can be proposed outside of solemn statements - this would be the realm of the ordinary and UNIVERSAL magisterium. What I am debating are the conditions for which the ordinary universal magisterium must operate for such infallibility to apply. It seems odd to me that a solemn decree by the pope must abide by VERY specific conditions whilst many of you argue that the ordinary magisterium does not have to abide by the same conditions. This makes no sense.
But if one looks at Councils, it doesn't take long for it to become readily apparent that they are not reducible only whatever collection of one sentence solemn conclusions; think about how many councils also explain the faith, or provide theological reasoning for a certain doctrine. Think also of how Councils also condemn beliefs. Think of how councils also may include the codification and promulgation of reform and other positive law.
Plus, de fide and infallible aren't the same thing.Of course they are not.
Obviously Fr. Wathen was quoting PJXIII directly, the quote I provided supports Fr. Wathen, even though it's not a word for word quote of the pope.Should say "was not" quoting PJXXIII directly.
a) What has been solemnly defined, either by a general council or by the Supreme Pontiff, is certainly de fide; but not all the historical or theological assertions which accompany a papal decision (for instance, the Bull "Ineffabilis ") are de fide.
Bosco said:
Pax,
It's frightening that you keep asking about this. LOOK at the sentence more closely. It is divided into two smaller sentences, separated by a semicolon.
1) The first part of the sentence before the semicolon says that what has solemnly been defined - either by general Council or supreme Pontiff - is certainly de fide. This is clearly stating that general councils are INFALLIBLE. Every Catholic book on the subject says this!
2) The second part of the sentence is referring to the example of a BULL, which is NOT a General Council. All General Councils are considered infallible, while not all parts of a Bull are infallible.
You need to show how a council, approved by a Pope, does not meet the requirements set by Vatican 1. I have brought this up many times and you refuse to address it. V2 teaches doctrines with a supposed infallibility. Yes, I know it is not really infallible, because they are new doctrines. This is the point. They are teaching things that, according to them, have been believed by the Church all along, and they are presenting them in a new manner. This, were they true Popes and representative of the Magisterium, would have to be believed as infallible. Your posting of V1 only serves to prove you wrong.
You still have not proven that it is an error. You simply cannot prove that.
You and your kind are harming the faithful immensely by saying that a general council of the Catholic Church can and did teach error.
It destroys all faith in the Magisterium of the ChurchThis makes no sense.
I have a question for you. In your opinion, what would be an example of the Church Defecting, and the gates of hell prevailing against her?
Whenever I think to myself, “hey, stubborn might actually understand the SV position and we can really have a fruitful discussion of this topic”, you say things like this. This only proves that you have no idea what you are actually arguing against.
The SV position has multiple moving, changing targets, try to follow along.
V1 is the Church’s final word on infallibility. We learn from V1 that there is only one person promised infallibility, that person is the pope, and then only under certain conditions, and then only when his teaching meets those certain criteria of V1.:facepalm:
:facepalm::facepalm:
No, Vatican I only DEFINED papal infallibility. Vatican I did not teach that there's no other kind of infallibility. So, for instance, theologians unanimously hold that the Church's Universal Discipline cannot be harmful. But Vatican I did not define this. Nevertheless, it's a direct consequence of the Church's indefectibility and held to be such universally by all theologians. Simply because Vatican I chose not to define something doesn't make the opposite true. That's like saying that because the Council of Ephesus did not define the Immaculate Conception when teaching about Our Lady, so she was not immaculately conceived. You really struggle with basic logic.
Honestly, Stubborn, what kind of blasphemous notion of the Church do you promote when you claim that the Church can promulgate a Rite of Mass that's harmful to souls and must be avoided in good conscience? If you told me that to my face, I'd knock your teeth out ... since you're insulting the honor of Mother Church.
You really struggle with basic logic.
As Catholics, we have to believe that no matter what hell does, no matter what tactics are used, whether from within or without, not event an errant pope, or a hundred errant popes in a row all hell bent on destroying the Church will ever succeed in destroying the Church. As Fr. Wathen says – “it is the enemies of the Church who do not believe this, which explains why they will never cease to try” – again, it’s the enemies of the Church who believe it, but Catholics don’t believe it. Catholics don't believe there is any way possible to ever destroy the Church because God said so.
You prefer your own reading, though you won't put it that way, you'll simply say that you're reading it "as it is written" and you will appeal (vainly) to your conclusion being supported by the raw facts of the matter without ever an attempt to prove through (reasonable or authoritative) syllogism what it is you contend to be the case-- you assert it baldly as the fact of the matter, just as Marx would.
1) Wrong. 2) We learned from V1 what the definition of infallibility of the Pope is. 3) We also learned that these ex Cathedra pronouncements, are not the only teachings which must be believed with divine and Catholic faith. 4) We also learned that the OUM commands this sort of faith.1) You are wrong.
5) From this statement it seems that you believe that the Pope cannot be infallible during a council.
1) How could you logically call the anathemas at a council infallible? After all, they are not specifically defining anything, they are condemning error. Your logic is absent completely. How can you use your quote from Trent that the Sacraments are necessary when you hold this view? It doesn’t exactly meet the requirements from V1. 2)While we’re at it, why do you even believe the definition from V1, after all, it is a council who said it, and they aren’t infallible according to you? 3)Who do you think approves Councils with his supreme Apostolic Authority? (By the way, I want answers to these questions, I had asked them rhetorically, but the more I think about it, the more I think you have no idea as to the answer)
You keep avoiding my response to this. V2 presented those new doctrines as if they were infallible. Stating they are part of tradition or divine revelation, the supposed “pope” giving his approval with his supreme apostolic authority, and the fact that it was taught to the entire Church. These are the requirements and the real Church cannot do this with new doctrines. This is the defection Christ prayed would not happen.(It didn't happen by the way, because the person approving it was a heretic and not a pope).......False. I know it’s the truth because every Pope and every Council that has ever said anything about it has said that the Councils are on equal footing with the Gospels, that they are solemn, that they absolutely require complete obedience. It’s overwhelming to anyone with any sense.
Exactly right, and the people who refused to believe the reality of the situation within the Church, like yourself, started inventing new ways to justify the heresy and apostasy. All the while claiming the Church and the Pope can do all these evil things and it’s perfectly fine and consistent with Christ’s promises.
It’s nonsensical because you have no idea what it means. If you knew what it meant for the Church to be indefectible, you would have no problem giving me an example of the opposite.It is nonsensical to waste even a second trying to think of any scenario that could possibly destroy the Church after Our Lord promised the gates of hell will not prevail. From what I've seen, it seems to confuse you enough to waste a lot of time on it though, apparently you have the same faith in the doctrine of the Church's indefectibility that you have in the "doctrine" that all councils are automatically infallible.
It is nonsensical to waste even a second trying to think of any scenario that could possibly destroy the Church after Our Lord promised the gates of hell will not prevail. From what I've seen, it seems to confuse you enough to waste a lot of time on it though, apparently you have the same faith in the doctrine of the Church's indefectibility that you have in the "doctrine" that all councils are automatically infallible.
The bottom line is, there are only two possibilities:
1) Vatican II is part of the Magisterium and as such does not contain any error which might be harmful to souls (only minor errors can occur) - to say that it is Magisterial but harmful to souls is to deny indefectibility of the Church.
2) Vatican II is not part of the Magisterium. But it was promulgated with Magisterial authority by Paul VI in union with all the bishops of the world. Thus, the only way it can be non-Magisterial is if Paul VI was not a Pope.
Tertium non datur.
The bottom line is, there are only two possibilities:Absolutely, there is a third possibility. And i'll correct your points above, which are faulty.
1) Vatican II is part of the Magisterium and as such does not contain any error which might be harmful to souls (only minor errors can occur) - to say that it is Magisterial but harmful to souls is to deny indefectibility of the Church.
2) Vatican II is not part of the Magisterium. But it was promulgated with Magisterial authority by Paul VI in union with all the bishops of the world. Thus, the only way it can be non-Magisterial is if Paul VI was not a Pope.
Tertium non datur.
But AES asks a legitimate question here. How do you define Church's indefectibility and what does it protect the Church from? From your position, the dogma of indefectibility of the Church is meaningless - the Magisterium (including an Ecuмenical Council!) can allegedly teach all sorts of heresies and endanger souls of the faithful, the Church can promulgate doubtful rites of sacraments and a non-Catholic rite of Mass, yet the Church is still "indefectible"? This is why you can never properly define Church's indefectibility in these discussions - you can't, because you effectively rejected it.The Church's indefectibility protects the Church from the gates of hell prevailing. Those are the words of Our Lord. The Church's indefectibility as promised by Our Lord means that the Church is protected from hell destroying and being victorious over the Church.
The bottom line is, there are only two possibilities:More proof that you do not believe all councils are automatically infallible yourself. Agree?
1) Vatican II is part of the Magisterium and as such does not contain any error which might be harmful to souls (only minor errors can occur) - to say that it is Magisterial but harmful to souls is to deny indefectibility of the Church.
2) Vatican II is not part of the Magisterium. But it was promulgated with Magisterial authority by Paul VI in union with all the bishops of the world. Thus, the only way it can be non-Magisterial is if Paul VI was not a Pope.
Tertium non datur.
The Church's indefectibility protects the Church from the gates of hell prevailing. Those are the words of Our Lord. The Church's indefectibility as promised by Our Lord means that the Church is protected from hell destroying and being victorious over the Church.
How much proof do you need any way oh ye of little faith? Isn't it proof enough for you that we've had heretical popes and hierarchy spewing modernist, heretical and blasphemous lies TO THE UNIVERSAL CHURCH trying like crazy to destroy it for over 50 years now - AND THE CHURCH HAS NOT BEEN DESTROYED. What other proof do you require? What would it take to give you faith in the words of Our Lord?
More proof that you do not believe all councils are automatically infallible yourself. Agree?
In other words, once again you redefine indefectibility into material indestructability of the Church. The Church can teach all sorts of heresies and lead souls to hell, but the dogma is allegedly not compromised as long as the hierarchy is materially present. That is not what indefectibility of the Church means - you still cannot define what it actually, in practice, protects the Church from.I'm not redefining anything, you are. You take the plain words of Our Lord and turn them into some extravagant theological mess. No, the Church has not "indeed defected". Maybe yours has, but not mine.
If what you said has happened the Church has indeed defected. Therefore, together with a fact that a non-Catholic cannot in any way be Pope, leads to the conclusion that the Chair of Peter is most likely vacant.
I never claimed such a thing.
Absolutely, there is a third possibility. And i'll correct your points above, which are faulty.
1) Vatican II is part of the ordinary, fallible Magisterium and as such can/doesnotcontain any error which might be harmful to souls(only minor errors can occur)- to say that it is part of the UNIVERSAL Magisterial but harmful to souls is to deny indefectibility of the Church.
2) Vatican II is not part of the ordinary and UNIVERSAL Magisterium. But it was promulgated with ordinary, fallible Magisterial authority by Paul VI in union withallmany the bishops of the world. (Many bishops opposed and voted against the docuмents of V2. There was never a consensus and the votes were by simple majority, which was unlike any other ecuмenical council in history. Also, many docuмents were changed AFTER voting had occurred.)Thus, the only way it can be non-Magisterial is if Paul VI was not a Pope.
3) Vatican II is part of the ordinary, fallible magisterium of the Church, which includes all the current hierarchy. The ordinary magisterium is not protected from error and can teach error because when they teach, they do so in their capacity as fallible bishops, cardinals, theologians, professors, etc. Any cleric, or group of clerics, can teach error and this has nothing to do with the Indefectibility of the Church, but of the defectibility of human understanding of the Faith.
Vatican II is not part of the ordinary and UNIVERSAL (or continuous/perpetual) magisterium because its teachings
1) did not agree with "what has always been taught"
2) were not agreed upon by a consensus of bishops at the council
3) were not proposed to be "of the faith, or scripture or of revelation"
I'm not redefining anything, you are. You take the plain words of Our Lord and turn them into some extravagant theological mess. No, the Church has not "indeed defected". Maybe yours has, but not mine.
What other proof do you require? What would it take to give you faith in the words of Our Lord?
Of course the Church has not defected, which is why the Vatican II claimants were most to the Papacy arewere most likely not Popes. And yes, you are redefining indefectibility of the Church into intestructability in the manner I described above - according to you the Magisterium can defect and teach heresy, but as long as the hierarchy is there the promises of Christ are not compromised.I said no such thing. You and some of the others concern yourselves with the Fentonist inspired idea that drives you to accuse me of saying ridiculous things like "the magisterium can defect and teach heresy", the truth of the matter is that I have never even implied, let alone said anything so ridiculous. In your confusion, you are scrambling to have me say things I never said nor meant.
You are very confused. I don't require any proof and I believe that the Church has not defected, which is why I question the legitimacy of V2 Popes and Vatican II as an Ecuмenical Council. To accept Vatican II as part of the Magisterium and a valid Ecuмenical Council would be to deny indefectibility of the Church.
Vatican II was promulgated to the Universal Church by the (alleged) Pope with all the bishops of the world, therefore if Paul VI was a Pope it constitutes part of the UOM which, although not infallible in this case, can never be harmful to the faithful. What it does not constitute is Universal Extraordinary Magisterium, because it did not teach infallibly at any point.Promulgated is a legal term which means 'to promote or make widely known', or 'to put a law into effect'. A council must follow canon law procedure, which is why the term promulgate is used. It does not mean 'official teaching' or 'infallible' or 'indefectible'. It means that the pope 'made known' that the council was closed and officially part of the legal history of Church. Further, V2 had non-doctrinal, governmental aspects to it (which most councils do), which were made into law and needed to be 'made known.'
More of the error "if it is wrong, it is not Magisterial". So, according to you, whether something is Magisterial is not decided a priori by the authority of the Magisterium itself and the rules by which it operates, but by your later assessment whether it is orthodox or not. In other words, you need to examine Church's teaching according to your private judgment in order to decide whether the Church actually teaches it. Of course it makes the mockery of the authority of the Magisterium and is circular.No, it is decided by the hierarchy themselves, depending on the language they use. Language matters! For a teaching to be part of the UNIVERSAL magisterium, it must be declared so and it must be clear that the magisterium/hierarchy is teaching with the weight of its full authority. I've posted numerous quotes which say this; you need to re-read them.
Not sure what you mean by "consensus of bishops" - the docuмents were voted upon and got the majority. For example, heretical Dignitatis Humanae received 2380 votes for and just 70 against. The fact that some voted against is irrelevant to the authority of these docuмents, just like during Vatican I Papal infallibility had its opponents as well. What matters is that they were promulgated to the Universal Church by the Pope in union with the college of bishops.As I said, if you want to read how V2 was different from ALL the other councils, and how it involved trickery, lies and novel democratic processes, then read 'The Rhine flows into the Tiber'. I think it is important to know how the council was run, to understand that its docuмents wanted the APPEARANCE of approval, but, in fact, did not have it, due to changes, deception and lies.
In other words, once again you redefine indefectibility into material indestructability of the Church. The Church can teach all sorts of heresies and lead souls to hell, but the dogma is allegedly not compromised as long as the hierarchy is materially present. That is not what indefectibility of the Church means - you still cannot define what it actually, in practice, protects the Church from.
Promulgated is a legal term which means 'to promote or make widely known', or 'to put a law into effect'. A council must follow canon law procedure, which is why the term promulgate is used. It does not mean 'official teaching' or 'infallible' or 'indefectible'. It means that the pope 'made known' that the council was closed and officially part of the legal history of Church. Further, V2 had non-doctrinal, governmental aspects to it (which most councils do), which were made into law and needed to be 'made known.'No, it is decided by the hierarchy themselves, depending on the language they use. Language matters! For a teaching to be part of the UNIVERSAL magisterium, it must be declared so and it must be clear that the magisterium/hierarchy is teaching with the weight of its full authority. I've posted numerous quotes which say this; you need to re-read them.Pope Paul VI made clear that the docuмents of the Council are authoritative for all the faithful, which, promulgated by the Pope in union with all the bishops of the world makes it Universal Ordinary Magisterium. Yes, it is not infallible, but since it is an official teaching to the Universal Church, it cannot contain any error which would endager souls.
Under normal circuмstances, we would not have to 'sift' through what is 'de fide' vs what is 'potentially wrong'. But, the circuмstances of the clergy and their questionable orthodoxy requires that we 1) know our Faith EXTREMELY well, 2) and 'beware of wolves in sheeps clothing' because 3) St Paul told us 'if anyone teach that which is different...let him be anathema.'
Besides, what's so wrong or hard about examining V2 and comparing it with Tradition? It's not like I'm the only one on the face of the earth to come to this conclusion. You did so too. So did Bishop Castro Meyer, Fr Wathen, Fr DePauw, +ABL, etc, etc, etc. These men have the training necessary to tell us that V2 is NOT consistent with Tradition.
The difference is that you say 'V2 isn't infallible because there's no pope.'
We say 'V2 isn't infallible because 1) it didn't intend to be. 2) there was no theological consensus. 3) it doesn't agree with Tradition. 4) it is part of the ordinary, fallible magisterium, per the many, many quotes i've already posted.
As I said, if you want to read how V2 was different from ALL the other councils, and how it involved trickery, lies and novel democratic processes, then read 'The Rhine flows into the Tiber'. I think it is important to know how the council was run, to understand that its docuмents wanted the APPEARANCE of approval, but, in fact, did not have it, due to changes, deception and lies.
Even putting this aside, assuming no evil intentions, assuming every cardinal accepted every single docuмent, based on the language used, V2 did not teach ANYTHING as a matter to be believed 'of the faith' as coming from Tradition or Scripture. Therefore, they did not teach as part of the UNIVERSAL church, but as current churchmen, who are as fallible as any of us
but the line has been crossed into a defection of the Magisterium when one claims, as these R&R do, that the Magisterium has become so thoroughly and so substantially polluted and unreconizable as Catholic that we must sever communion with the Holy See and refuse submission to that Magisterium in order to preserve our faith.Ladislaus, provide one example where we MUST as a BINDING LAW follow rome into her errors? V2 isn't binding; novus ordo not binding; communion in the hand - no. Praying with other religions - no. There is not ONE novelty from V2 that we MUST follow, under penalty of sin. Now, all trads are guilty of attending illicit masses (in theory) but even supplied jurisdiction covers this in canon law.
Correct, as usual; Stubborn has done this repeatedly, claiming that so long as the Church exists materially and/or if at least some faithful Catholics remain, then the Church has not defected. Pay no attention to the fact that theologians who treat of this subject assert that the Church cannot fail IN HER MISSION. If Catholics are obliged to sever communion with the hierarchy due to their Magisterium in order to keep the faith, the Church will have defected in that mission. This is what Stubborn refuses to see, and where he's essentially a heretic. One can quibble about the degree to which one or another specific statement in the Magisterium may or may not be infallible in the strict sense according to the notes defined by VI, but the line has been crossed into a defection of the Magisterium when one claims, as these R&R do, that the Magisterium has become so thoroughly and so substantially polluted and unreconizable as Catholic that we must sever communion with the Holy See and refuse submission to that Magisterium in order to preserve our faith.Good heavens man.
I said numerous times, V2 was fallible. But as part of the Universal Ordinary Magisterium teaching to all Christians on the matters of faith and morals it cannot contain grave error.Your translation: V2 was fallible but can't be fallible.
Good heavens man.But we agree that the Church can never fail in her mission. The difference is that you somehow believe that the Magisterium teaching error and leading souls to hell for the last 50 years is "Church not failing in her mission", while we recognize that the Popes teaching grave error to the Universal Church through their Magisterium would have constituted defection of the Church. Therefore, the doctrine of indefectibility of the Church clearly indicates that V2 and post-Vatican II Magisterium have no authority at all. But they were promulgated authoritatively by Vatican II claimants to the papacy as part of the Magisterium - the only way they can be non-Magisterial if these people were not Popes.
For over 50 years the pope and nearly the entire hierarchy have been teaching, preaching and promoting heresies to the universal Church - have the gates of hell prevailed? No they haven't. Any dope would see how this disproves your Fentonisms. But nope, not so.
The Church HAS NOT FAILED IN HER MISSION, that is not possible because Our Lord promised the Church will never lose! This means the Church will never fail in her mission no matter how many heretic popes and hierarchy we have, even if they all preach even more new and more blasphemous heresies than the last 50 years - and even if they remain heretics for the next 1000 or more years!
Your translation: V2 was fallible but can't be fallible.No, Vatican II is fallible but even fallible Magisterium cannot contain grave errors which would endangering souls - the teachings of the Magisterium endangering souls would mean defection of the Magisterium and of the Church. Fallible Magisterium can contain only minor errors.
Makes no sense.
Arvinger, have you read ANY of the posts that I posted a few pages back? If so, i'd like you to respond to them, not me. It seems like you're jumping right into the middle of this 39 page debate and you've read nothing of what's been posted before.You are arguing against a straw-man. I never claimed V2 was infallible and obviously I disagree with Bosco and Bumphrey's claim that everything the council teaches is autimatically infallible. Don't impute to me positions that I don't hold.
Bosco and Bumphrey were arguing that a council is ALWAYS, EVERYWHERE and IN EVERY MANNER infallible but per my quotes, they've not posted since.
Finally, i'd like to challenge all of you who think that a council is protected from error to PROVE IT. You can quote over and over about the ordinary UNIVERSAL magisterium but that does not prove that such things apply to a council 100% of the time. My quotes prove that it's much more nuanced and complicated than you make it out to be.
Fallible Magisterium can contain only minor errors.Your interpretation. No theologian has ever said this.
The fact that a teaching of the Magisterium is fallible does not mean it can contain any sort of heresy.This is just not catholic teaching. Fallible means 'not protected from error'. Error = big, small, accidental, on purpose, etc, etc.
Corrected below. You fail to distinguish.I already proved to you with specific quotes that Vatican II, although fallible, was promulgated to the Universal Church to be observed by all faithful and dealt with doctrine - as such, it constitutes part of the Universal Ordinary Magisterium. According to Paul VI any future effort against the teachings of the V2 is worthless and void and they needs to be religiously observed by all the faithful.
1) Because the Church is indefectible and can never fail in her mission, her UNIVERSAL/PERPETUAL/CONTINUOUS Magisterium can never endanger souls
2) But Vatican II Popes and Vatican II itself endanger souls with teachings which were authoritatively promulgated, but not 'of the faith', nor binding under pain of sin, nor authorized by Apostolic authority to the Universal Church as part of the ordinary, non-universal, fallible Magisterium
3) Therefore, Vatican II is not part of the UNIVERSAL/PERPETUAL/CONTINUOUS Magisterium and Vatican II Popes are most likely not Popes (but not because of V2, but *potentially/probably* for many other reasons)
Your interpretation. No theologian has ever said this.To the contrary, it is a consensus of theologians and their interpretation of indefectibility of the Church.
I think this is absurd also. It seems just as problematic to me to think the legitimate hierarchy of the Catholic Church defected, ceased being the Catholic Church, became heretical, and followed antipopes.
The only logical conclusion that one can come to is that Vatican II was a false council, presided over and confirmed by anti-popes.
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.
I think this is absurd also. It seems just as problematic to me to think the legitimate hierarchy of the Catholic Church defected, ceased being the Catholic Church, became heretical, and followed antipopes.There's nothing problematic about the hierachy of the church losing the faith, or falling into partial error, or believing quasi-heretical ideals. In fact, scripture foretells that there will be a 'great apostasy'; OL of LaSallette said that 'rome will lose the faith' and St Athanasius said if the entire church was reduced to a handful of believers that 'they are the church'.
I never claimed V2 was infallible and obviously I disagree with Bosco and Bumphrey's claim that everything the council teaches is autimatically infallible. Don't impute to me positions that I don't hold.Arvinger, my quotes apply to your position and to Bosco's/Bumphrey's.
1. V2 issued no doctrinal directives that anyone must follow, under pain of sin.
I don't think it's absurd...But there is currently not a single diocese in the entire world that does not accept Vatican II and that does not accept Francis as Pope. Not a single one. Can you show me one? Isn't it a problem that every Bishop who is supposed to be a member of the Catholic Church hierarchy officially accepts Vatican II and officially follows an antipope if sedevacantism is true?
Father Jurgens talks about the period of time during the Arian heresy:
1. V2 issued no doctrinal directives that anyone must follow, under pain of sin.
Then explain why Rome has always insisted that Traditional Catholics accept Vatican II as a condition for returning to the "Church".Ladislaus,
1. V2 issued no doctrinal directives that anyone must follow, under pain of sin.Paul VI said at the closing of V2 that its teachings must be religiously observed by all the faithful and that all efforts against it are worthless and void - I already provided you with a quote. Regarding the quote from Fenton you tried to interact with, it does not say anything about necessity of following under pain of sin (in a sense of issuing anathema). It says about any doctrinal directive taught Magisterialy by the Pope to the Universal Church. Following any such directive is infallibly safe, that is one can never endanger his soul by following such teaching. Thus, either te teachings of V2 must be safe to follow, or V2 is not Magisterial and Paul VI was not a Pope.
2. V2 did 'taught' with it's ordinary, fallible teaching authority; not in union with the UNIVERSAL magisterium.
3. V2 issued no 'commands' for anyone to do or believe anything.
But we agree that the Church can never fail in her mission. The difference is that you somehow believe that the Magisterium teaching error and leading souls to hell for the last 50 years is "Church not failing in her mission", while we recognize that the Popes teaching grave error to the Universal Church through their Magisterium would have constituted defection of the Church. Therefore, the doctrine of indefectibility of the Church clearly indicates that V2 and post-Vatican II Magisterium have no authority at all. But they were promulgated authoritatively by Vatican II claimants to the papacy as part of the Magisterium - the only way they can be non-Magisterial if these people were not Popes.No, I do not believe that the magisterium is teaching error and leading souls to hell - the magisterium, that is, the Church teachings as defined at V1, can only teach Catholic truths. Period. There is no mistaking this. Nor is it even remotely possible for Catholic to believe that heretical popes teaching error constitutes a defection of the Church - the very idea is ridiculous because no one or no thing can ever make the Church defect. Period.
Putting it into a syllogism:1) True
1) Because the Church is indefectible and can never fail in her mission, her Magisterium can never endanger souls
2) But Vatican II Popes and Vatican II itself endanger souls with teachings which were authoritatively promulgated to the Universal Church as part of the Magisterium
3) Therefore, Vatican II is not part of the Magisterium and Vatican II Popes are most likely not Popes
Pax Vobis, you and others are positing that all the bishops of the Catholic world, united with the supreme authority in this world, the Roman Pontiff, by means of an Ecuмenical Council have preached error and heresy to the Universal Church....remarkable, absolutely remarkable.It happened, therefore it is not impossible.
This is impossible.
No, I do not believe that the magisterium is teaching error and leading souls to hell - the magisterium, that is, the Church teachings as defined at V1, can only teach Catholic truths. Period. There is no mistaking this. Nor is it even remotely possible for Catholic to believe that heretical popes teaching error constitutes a defection of the Church - the very idea is ridiculous because no one or no thing can ever make the Church defect. Period.
It happened, therefore it is not impossible.That is the fallacy of begging the question, as it assumes that Paul VI was a Pope and that Vatican II was a valid Ecuмenical Council.
That is the fallacy of begging the question, as it assumes that Paul VI was a Pope and that Vatican II was a valid Ecuмenical Council.This question only comes from those who believe (say they believe) all councils are automatically infallible.
Paul VI said at the closing of V2 that its teachings must be religiously observed by all the faithful'religiously observed' is a term made up by V2 which is defined as 'not infallible' but coming from the hierarchy, so it must be given 'religious assent'. Ok. It's not binding under pain of sin, it's not 'of the faith' and if I ignore it, I'm not going to hell.
No, I do not believe that the magisterium is teaching error and leading souls to hell ...
The hierarchy can, has, and does teach grave error, blasphemous ideas and heretical doctrines in their efforts to destroy the Church, ...
No, I don't see it as a problem. The Catholic Church is not defined by it's numbers.But there is no hierarchy then. It is not that there is only no Pope. There is no magisterium, there is no more infallibility. So it is a problem if the magisterium teaches error, but there is no problem with the magisterium ceasing to exist?
Saint Athanasius says ""Even if Catholics faithful to tradition are reduced to a handful, they are the ones who are the true Church of Jesus Christ".
I agree with the Dimonds on this point:
But Vatican II, which contains grave errors, was promulgated by Paul VI - whom you believe to be a true Pope unless or until a future pope declares otherwise - with Apostolic authority to the Universal Church and its teachings should be religiously observed by all the faithful, as Paul VI declared. Unless it contradicts what the Church has always taughtYou really need to get the whole "he was not a pope" thing out of your entire vocabulary and come down to reality.
Thus, if Paul VI was a Pope, he was Vatican II is part of the Magisterium of the Catholic Church. Not the errors it taught - that would be impossible That leaves you with two options, both of which are non-Catholic:
1) The Magisterium taught error to the Universal Church and has defected The magisterium only teaches truth, it is absolutely incapable of teaching error.
2) "If it is wrong, it is not Magisterial" error, in which you decide what is Magisterial by your private judgment of the docuмents promulgated by the Pope through Apostolic authority with all the bishops of the world to the Universal Church. In other words, you judge Magisterial teaching to find out whether it is actually Magisterial or not. We Catholics know error from truth, this knowledge comes from the Magisterium, which is why we know error when we see it no matter where it comes from.
The reality is that either V2 is part of the Magisterium and as such it does not have any substantial error (at most some minor ones), or it was not Magisterial and since Paul VI promulgated it as such, he was not a Pope.
You really need to get the whole "he was not a pope" thing out of your entire vocabulary and come down to reality.Why? A formal heretic is not a Catholic and as such cannot in any way be Pope. The Pope cannot teach heresy to the Universal Church by apostolic authority.
Arvinger, I will post this again. This is not about councils but about the magisterium.
Conditions for Infallibility of the Ordinary Magisterium
The ordinary acts of the magisterium also receive the guarantee of divine assistance in what they propose to be believed as revealed truth. Unlike the acts of the solemn magisterium, though, they do not have the same definitive character, nor do they carry the anathemas by which recusants are formally excluded from the Catholic Faith. But for them to be considered as belonging to the Church's teaching, to which the divine promise is attached, they cannot be taken separately, but must be consonant with the body of the Church’s teaching: they are infallible only insofar as they fit into the constant teaching, only insofar as they reflect or echo the permanent teaching and unchanging Faith of the Church. In short, they are only infallible insofar as they agree with Catholic Tradition. Two conditions, then, are required: (1) the teaching must be proposed as revealed truth; (2) it must be in accord with the universality of Catholic Tradition.
- Excerpted from: The Infallibility of the Church’s Ordinary Magisterium by Canon Rene Berthod, 1956
That quote is irrelevant, since it talks about infallibility. I acknowledged numerous times that V2 is fallible.Are we speaking the same language? Do you understand what the word 'fallible' means? "capable of making mistakes or being erroneous"
But even when the Magisterium is fallible, it cannot teach heresy to the Universal Church (only minor errors) as V2 did, because it would constitute defection of the Church.The magisterium did not FORMALLY TEACH errors through V2. They promoted, in their capacity as private theologians and their fallible understanding of the faith, a quasi-heretical, amazingly ambiguous "updated" understanding of traditional teachings. But they did not FORMALLY TEACH IT, for to do so they would have HAD to require the faithful to give an 'assent of faith', which V2 did not.
Even fallible teaching of the Magisterium are always safe to follow - see the quotes from Cardinal Franzelin (which you did not even try to interact with) and Msgr Fenton which refute your position, as well as and your claim that "no theologian ever taught my interpretation of indefectibility of the Church".Under usual conditions, yes. Under current conditions, where there are wolves in sheep's clothing, no. You are basically arguing for 'blind obedience'.
Therefore, either V2 is safe to follow and has minor errors at worst, or it is not part of the Magisterium and Paul VI who promulgated it as such had no Papal authority. The idea of "sifting the Magisterium" is a non-Catholic approach.Where do you get the idea that the magisterium can only be fallible in a small way. No theologian has ever taught that. You are basically creating different levels of fallibility, which is not only irrational but not based on tradition.
Are we speaking the same language? Do you understand what the word 'fallible' means? "capable of making mistakes or being erroneous"
The magisterium did not FORMALLY TEACH errors through V2. They promoted, in their capacity as private theologians and their fallible understanding of the faith, a quasi-heretical, amazingly ambiguous "updated" understanding of traditional teachings. But they did not FORMALLY TEACH IT, for to do so they would have HAD to require the faithful to give an 'assent of faith', which V2 did not.
If they had attempted to BIND the faithful to accept V2 unconditionally, and under pain of sin, THEN we could say that the Church had defected. But since V2 is not binding, therefore, the Church has not defected.
Under usual conditions, yes. Under current conditions, where there are wolves in sheep's clothing, no. You are basically arguing for 'blind obedience'.
I will try to re-read Cardinal Franzelin but in all honesty Ive never heard of him and he wasn't clear, so why should his opinion really matter?
Where do you get the idea that the magisterium can only be fallible in a small way. No theologian has ever taught that. You are basically creating different levels of fallibility, which is not only irrational but not based on tradition.
You "sift" the magisterium when you say that V2 is heretical because it contains errors. If you didn't 'sift' it, how do you know it's wrong? Why can you determine that V2 has errors, which leads you to believe that the pope isn't the pope, but I can't determine it has errors as well?
St Paul told the Thessalonians: "But prove all things; hold fast that which is good." I guess he had a non-catholic approach?
Vatican II requires religious assent, just as Papal encyclicals do (which are of lower authority then the Ecuмenical Council). Pope Pius XII:
"20. 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";[3] and generally what is expounded and inculcated in Encyclical Letters already for other reasons appertains to Catholic doctrine." (Humani Generis)
"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." (Msgr Fenton, Authority of Papal Encyclicals)
"The Holy Apostolic See, to whom the guarding of the Deposit has been committed, and on whom the duty and office of feeding the entire Church, unto the salvation of souls, has been laid, can prescribe theological opinions (or other opinions to the extent that they are connected with theological ones) as to be followed, or proscribe them as not to be followed, not only with the intention of deciding the truth infallibly by definitive sentence, but also without that intention, [but] with the need and the intention of exercising care, either simply or with specified qualifications, for the safety of Catholic doctrine. [ref. omitted] In this sort of declarations, even though there is not the infallible truth of the doctrine (because, ex hypothesi, there is not the intention of deciding this), but nevertheless, there is infallible safety [infallibilis securitas]. By safety, I mean both objective safety as to the doctrine so declared (either simply or with such and such qualifications), and subjective safety, to the extent that it is safe for all to embrace it, and it is not safe, nor can it be free from the violation of due submission toward the divinely constituted Magisterium, that they should refuse to embrace it." (translation by James Larrabie)Again, he's talking about a situation where a doctrine is explained, in a non-solemn way, but it is declared that we accept it. He uses the term 'declarations' which implies a clear use of church authority. V2 was not clear in its teachings, it was not solemn and it did not declare that anyone must accept anything. It was ambiguous on all levels.
Msgr Fenton, The Doctrinal Authority of Papal EncyclicalsV2 contained no 'doctrinal directives' or 'commands'. It requires no catholic to do, or believe anything, under pain of sin. If it did, then the above quote would apply. If you disagree, please provide a SPECIFIC quote from the council.
"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's funny how often this quote comes up, yet it is interpreted incorrectly because of a lack of reading comprehension. Pius XII is exactly describing a case of UNIVERSAL magisterium because he is saying that if the teaching agrees with "what has always been taught" then it is related to doctrine, ergo, it must be followed, even if it isn't a Solemn decree. I agree with this.
But his opinion is based on the assumption that the encyclical agrees with Tradition. That's why he says "generally what is expounded and inculcated in Encyclical letters...appertains to Catholic doctrine." This means that if an encyclical does NOT agree with tradition or deal with doctrine, then it does not demand consent.
Your whole argument is based on a faulty understanding of the magisterium and the different levels of its authority. You make the argument that ANY church teaching is part of the magisterium. We've covered that in detail in 40 pages, and I'm not going to argue this point any longer.
He's talking about the possibility of a modification to a doctrinal matter, which is why he said 'body of doctrine' which implies a specific, clear and authoritative teaching on something. V2 did not define, or clarify any doctrinal matter, but discussed the 'pastoral applications' of it. This is a big difference.
Again, he's talking about a situation where a doctrine is explained, in a non-solemn way, but it is declared that we accept it. He uses the term 'declarations' which implies a clear use of church authority. V2 was not clear in its teachings, it was not solemn and it did not declare that anyone must accept anything. It was ambiguous on all levels.
V2 contained no 'doctrinal directives' or 'commands'. It requires no catholic to do, or believe anything, under pain of sin. If it did, then the above quote would apply. If you disagree, please provide a SPECIFIC quote from the council.
Why? A formal heretic is not a Catholic and as such cannot in any way be Pope. The Pope cannot teach heresy to the Universal Church by apostolic authority.Why do you "really need to get the whole "he was not a pope" thing out of your entire vocabulary and come down to reality."? First off, I know if I believed that way, that I could never get to heaven. That is dogma. I have not been able to figure out a way around it as is apparent that you have. Until a future pope says otherwise or until I figure out a way around the dogma, there is no other choice for me, I will continue to believe popes are popes.
Your claims are very much out of reality. Once again you put your main error on display:
"with Apostolic authority to the Universal Church and its teachings should be religiously observed by all the faithful, as Paul VI declared. Unless it contradicts what the Church has always taught [your addition]"I hope I never underestimate the power of fentonistic brainwashing again. Where was your formal training?
This is precisely what I'm talking about. According to you, whether something is Magisterial is not decided a priori by the rules the Magisterium operates, but by your later judgment whether this teaching is actually true or not. The Church teaches it, but you examine whether it is true to judge whether the Church actually teaches it or not! This is a circular, ridiculous and non-Catholic approach to the Magisterium.
This is from the Profession of Faith from the Vatican Council (http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Councils/ecuм20.htm).This profession is how we know that V2 was not infallible and taught grave errors.
This is for the people here who believe that V2 was a council of the Catholic Church and feel free to disregard any single word from it.
You cannot make this profession of faith of Vatican 1 if you believe that V2 was a council of the Catholic Church because V2 transmitted a lot of things and you most precisely do not unhesitatingly accept and profess. It also means that whatever heresies V2 taught, you must condemn, reject and anathematize all the previous Dogmatic Teachings of the Pope to the contrary.
The answer is, we know it is true because Mortalium Animos echoes past teachings of the Church.
Here you go - Vatican II declares that religious liberty has its root in Divine Revelation and Christians are bound to respect it as such - there is nothing ambiguous there. According to the doctrine of infallible safety, such doctrinal teaching, albeit not infallible, is safe to follow by Catholics. Also, according to Paul VI at the closing of the council, "it must be observed religiously by all faithful".Doctrine of infallible safety? :facepalm:
A more subtle display of "if it is wrong, it is not Magisterial" erroneous approach to the Magisterium was displayed by Stubborn in his reply to my question. I asked him - if the Pope can allegedly teach heresy to the universal Church in any non-infallible docuмent, how does Stubborn know that Mortalium Animos by Pope Pius XI was not heretical and in error about ecuмenism and was not corrected by Vatican II' Unitatis Redintegratio (Ecuмenical Council trumps Papal encyclical in authority)? Stubborn's answer:Between your idea of "magisterium" and your "doctrine of infallible safety" why aren't you NO? or are you? Serious question.
Of course the answer is wrong. We know that Mortalium Animos is true because it was promulgated by Pope Pius XI on January 6th 1928 as part of his Magisterium. Stubborn's private judgment whether it echoes past teachings of the Church or not is irrelevant.
But according to "if it s wrong, it is not Magisterial" error Mortalium Animos must first be examined by a private judgment of every Catholic and every Catholic must decide for himself whether he finds the encyclical to echo past teachings of the Church or not, and that judgment results in a decision whether it is actually part of the Magisterium or not! John might decide it is, and Jack that it is not. This obviously destroys any authority of the Magisterium other then solemn definitions and is essentialy Protestantism.
What are you even talking about?I'm talking about the words of the profession of faith, about what it is. Yes, it says all the councils, especially Trent. You liken it to saying "all future councils especially V2", but it does not say that. You say that, they don't say that.
The profession of faith says all things that have been transmitted in ALL councils must be accepted and professed unhesitatingly.
Your response is nonsense. You don't even respond to what it's saying. You may as well have picked random words and letters, capitalized the first letter and put a punctuation mark at the end; that would have made more sense than your response.
Is this Profession of Faith infallible? Do you accept and profess unhesitatingly all that is transmitted in V2?
As I already demonstrated, Vatican II was part of Universal Magisterium because it was directed to the universal Church to be religiously observed by all Christians. The teaching does not have to be a dogmatic definition or anathema to be part of the Universal Ordinary Magisterium.The UNIVERSAL magisterium is what has always been taught. V2 agrees and disagrees with 'what has always been taught', therefore it's not part of Tradition, therefore it can err. You fail to distinguish between the ordinary magisterium and the UNIVERSAL magisterium.
Nowhere does Pope Pius XII say anything like thatYou have a reading comprehension problem.
Any Church's teaching on faith and morals promulgated by the Pope in union with all the bishops of the world to all Christians is part of the Magisterium. Do you deny that?It is part of the ordinary magisterium, but not necessarily the UNIVERSAL magisterium. If a bishop gives a sermon, he is teaching as part of the ordinary magisterium and can err. He is teaching privately as a theologian/professor. If 2 bishops, at a conference collaborate on a speech - same thing. If all the bishops in the world gather together, with the pope, they are still teaching as men, as part of the ordinary magisterium, until they declare they are teaching with 1) solemn authority of the pope or 2) authority of the UNIVERSAL magisterium.
accordig to the council religious liberty it is rooted in Divine Revelation and Christians are bound to respect it as such.1. 'Respecting' V2 does not equal a 'matter of faith'. No one is bound to accept under pain of sin
So in your warped mind, the V1 profession of faith applies to only past councils and not ANY council of the Catholic Church? Talk about reading your own bias into it. You liken it to saying all councils "except future councils". You are refuted by Vatican 1.I did not say that you don't do this. Please read what I say if you are going to try to rebut.I have no agenda so I read what is there, you have an agenda to prove the pope is not the pope and all councils are infallible, so you read what it does not say.
The problem for you and others like you is, if you believe that this profession of faith is infallible AND you believe that V2 is actually a Catholic Council, you must condemn all prior teachings of the Church that are contrary to V2, because the profession of faith in V1 mandates Catholics to condemn all that is contrary to Catholic Councils. Since V2 has many teachings that are contrary to real Catholic Teaching, you must condemn those Catholic Teachings because you believe that V2 is a Council.
Again:The heresies of V2 were not transmitted, defined nor declared by sacred canons and etc, they were condemned rejected and anathematized, so you should agree, not debate it.
Vatican 1, Session 2, #14: Likewise all other things which have been transmitted, defined and declared by the sacred canons and the ecuмenical councils, especially the sacred Trent, I accept unhesitatingly and profess; in the same way whatever is to the contrary, and whatever heresies have been condemned, rejected and anathematised by the church, I too condemn, reject and anathematize.
This is a total lie. Your agenda is to prove that heretics can be Pope, that Councils do not require assent, and that true Popes do not require obedience. All of these things are easily proven by the infallible teachings of the Church. You also have an agenda to attempt to debunk SVism no matter how illogical and strawman-ish the argument.I do not need to prove any such thing, we all only need wait for a future pope to decide the matter - if he ever decides to decide the matter at all. As it is, the man elected is instantly pope and there is nothing you can do to prove otherwise, but you won't let that stop you. As I said already, saying the pope is a heretic is one thing, removing him from his office is another. You are in no position to decide his status - that's reality. It simply is.
Actually all one needs to believe is the Profession of Faith I quoted. It is infallibly saying that a Catholic must believe and profess all that is transmitted in a Council and condemn the contrary. You have lied again in your attempt to wriggle out of being refuted......Ok. Apparently you don't know what transmit means. It means to convey, disseminate, impart, relay etc... V2 had my teachings that it disseminated, conveyed, imparted etc... to the faithful.A profession of faith is exactly that, it isn't infallibly saying what you want it to say no matter how often you say it is and no matter how badly you wish it were.
The profession of faith says that any thing that a council transmits must be professed by Catholics.
Also, we are not debating whether V2 had heresies, almost all of your posts have this strawman. We are debating whether a Catholic Council can have heresies and whether a Catholic is permitted to deny anything contained in them. Which, by the way, Vatican 1 has proven that you cannot deny anything in a Council as shown in the Profession of Faith.You really should look up what a profession of faith is, it is not an infallible teaching - just fyi.
^^^^ Never mind, I remember - because the pope might not be the pope. Right?good to see you finally agree with Archbishop Lefebvre
good to see you finally agree with Archbishop Lefebvre
Archbishop Lefebvre, Aug. 4, 1976: “The Council [Vatican II] turned its back on Tradition and broke with the Church of the past. It is a schismatic council… If we are certain that the Faith taught by the Church for twenty centuries can contain no error, we are much less certain that the pope is truly pope. Heresy, schism, excommunication ipso facto, or invalid election are all causes that can possibly mean the pope was never pope, or is no longer pope…
He in no way toyed around with the idea that sedevacantism was either reality nor the practical response.Let us all be reminded that, practically speaking, sedevacantism changes nothing. If every trad decided today to become a sedevacantist, what would change? Would rome stop it's inter-faith nonsense? Would the V2 or the novus ordo go away? Nothing would change. Our duties as catholics would remain, our obligations to prayer remain, etc. There is nothing practically that would change, EXCEPT, MAYBE trad groups might be able to get along, but that's assuming they wouldn't find something else over which to anathamatize each other...
God, I miss those days!
You should have posted the rest of the words of +ABL:of course he toyed around with the idea, it's exactly what he did here
"That the heresy come to us from someone that be as elevated in dignity as possible, the problem is the same for the salvation of our souls. In this regard many of the faithful are in grave ignorance as to the nature and the extension of the infallibility of the Pope. Many think that every word that comes from the mouth of the Pope is infallible.
[....]
"Because in fact a serious problem is being posed to the conscience and to the faith of all the Catholics since the beginning of the pontificate of Paul VI. How is it that a Pope, the true successor of Peter, assured of the assistance of the Holy Spirit, could preside at the destruction of the Church, the most profound and the most widespread in history to occur in so little space of time, that which no heretic has ever succeeded in doing?
This question will have to be answered one day, but leaving this problem to the theologians and the historians, the reality forces us to a practical response, according to the counsel of Saint Vincent of Lerins: 'What should the Catholic Christian do if a part of the Church were to detach itself from communion with the universal law? What other side could he take but to prefer instead of the gangrenous and corrupted member, the body in its whole which is healthy? And if some new contagion would poison not only a small part of the Church but the entire Church all at the same time! Then again, his great concern would be TO STAY WITH THE ANTIQUITY, which, of course, can no longer be seduced by any lying novelty!
"Therefore we have firmly decided to continue our work of restoring the Catholic priesthood no matter what happens, persuaded that we can render no greater service to the Church, to the Pope, to the bishops and to the faithful. May they let us to test or experience (as they say) Tradition."
"Reality forces us to a practical response." That is the position he took and I am telling you. He in no way toyed around with the idea that sedevacantism was either reality nor the practical response.
Then we must not keep this idea which is false! which a number of Catholics, poorly instructed, poorly
taught, believe! So obviously, we no longer understand anything, we are completely desperate, we do
not know what to expect! We must keep the Catholic faith as the Church teaches it.
…
Archbishop Lefebvre, retreat at St-Michel en Brenne, April 1st, 1989
I don't think +ABL thought sedes were bad or extreme Catholics. I don't either. And I don't think +ABL thought the sede theory was wrong. I don't either. But the reason I think he rejected it is because, practically, it can have bad consequences for those that are untrained (i.e. many of us laity) where we don't know where to 'draw the line' between theory and application.What you say here is clearly a consequence of having no known pope.
We see that today in many, many sede laity (and sadly in some priests) who go around anathematizing other Trads, arguing constantly about this issue, and basically making this issue WAY more important than it is, in the context of our spiritual daily duties and our salvation. Basically, they say, if you aren't a sede, you aren't catholic. Utterly ridiculous.
Put it this way, after he toyed around with it a few times, he saw that the whole idea was false and said to forget that false idea - "we must not keep this false idea".you haven't responded to my question
After toying around with the idea only a very short time, he soon saw the whole false idea was largely a result of Catholics having been "poorly instructed and poorly taught" to the point they "no longer understand anything". Please remember he mostly dealt with those who had formal training, most often he dealt with priests!
So don't go around trying to promote the idea that +ABL in any way supported or even allowed for sedevacantism, which he rightly called a "false idea". Quote only sedevacantist saints and Fathers in your attempts to vindicate sedevacantism, keep the good Archbishop's quotes out of it please.
you haven't responded to my questionI thought I did answer it - yes, I do believe the conciliar popes have all been popes, including the current pope, Francis. That is being practical. Sedevacantism is an idea, a false idea, and therefore isn't practical - it is a false idea whose foundation is built on false premises.
"you on the other hand are certain Jewgorglio is our pope, how is your position a practical response yet the sedevanctist isn't?"
it's clear ABL toyed with the issue,that was my point which is enough,do you agree with his following statement
Archbishop Lefebvre, Aug. 29, 1987: “The See of Peter and the posts of authority in Rome being occupied by anti-Christs, the destruction of the Kingdom of our Lord is being rapidly carried out… This is what has brought down upon our heads persecution by the Rome of the anti-Christs.”[20] (http://www.mostholyfamilymonastery.com/catholicchurch/sspx-society-st-pius-x-lefebvre/#_edn20)
I would be interested in hearing a diehard R&Rer who does not believe post-1968 "rite" priestly ordinations or episcopal consecrations to be valid, reconcile that notion with Bergoglio being a valid Pope.I believe a lot of the NO ordinations are doubtful. But I also believe a lot are perfectly valid for the simple reason that sacrileges are valid when they come from valid priests and bishops and are far, far worse than invalid sacrileges.
I thought I did answer it - yes, I do believe the conciliar popes have all been popes, including the current pope, Francis. That is being practical. Sedevacantism is an idea, a false idea, and therefore isn't practical - it is a false idea whose foundation is built on false premises.believing Jewgorglio the anti christ is your pope has nothing practical about it whatsoever, it's schismatic since you disobey him.I'll stick to obeying the past Catholic popes..much more practical than your false idea
Interesting to note that even though all the conciliar popes have for all intents and purposes, been anti-Catholic conspirators and often blatantly heretical - yet we still have the Church, the true faith and sacraments, the Church has not been destroyed nor have the gates of hell have prevailed. Popes are not the Church.
The good Archbishop toyed with the idea enough to find out it was a false idea. From now on, instead of calling it sedevacantism, you should call it "that false idea" as it will help you better understand his true thoughts about it.
Of course, you'd need to get a new screen name, or ask Matthew to change it to "False idea3".
I believe a lot of the NO ordinations are doubtful. But I also believe a lot are perfectly valid for the simple reason that sacrileges are valid when they come from valid priests and bishops and are far, far worse than invalid sacrileges.What makes any NO ordination doubtful? Where are any invalid priests or bishops if the new rites are valid? 5+ years ago many R&Rers were troubled by the change in the essence of the form found in the new rites resulting in invalid consecrations/ordinations. If the issue was not with the form, whether post-1968 or not would be irrelevant. But that simply has not been the case with many R&Rers heretofore.
believing Jewgorglio the anti christ is your pope has nothing practical about it whatsoever, it's schismatic since you disobey him.I'll stick to obeying the past Catholic popes..much more practical than your false ideaThe reason you say this is because the whole false idea is based upon false premises. False idea of infallibility, false ideas about what popes can and can't, should and shouldn't do. Combine that with the false ideaists believing they are qualified to decide that the popes' status is that of no pope at all, and you end up with human creatures who have no possibility of being subject to the pope, yet believe they have figured out how they will attain salvation any way.
Pope Innocent III, Eius exemplo, profession of faith, Dec. 18, 1208: “By the heart we believe and by the mouth we confess THE ONE CHURCH, NOT OF HERETICS, but the Holy Roman, Catholic, and Apostolic Church outside of which we believe that no one is saved.”
Canon 1325.2, 1917 Code of Canon Law: “One who after baptism… rejects the authority of the Supreme Pontiff or refuses communion with the members of the Church who are subject to him, he is a schismatic.”
What makes any NO ordination doubtful? Where are any invalid priests or bishops if the new rites are valid?Presuming that the "official NO ordination formula" is valid:
5+ years ago many R&Rers were troubled by the change in the essence of the form found in the new rites resulting in invalid consecrations/ordinations. If the issue was not with the form, whether post-1968 or not would be irrelevant. But that simply has not been the case with many R&Rers heretoforeYes, since 1968, the new ordinations have always caused trads to question the validity of NO clergy. It is comparatively very easy to simply avoid all things NO completely, then it is to try to figure out with certainty the validity or invalidity of NO clergy.
Hi Myrna, long time no see!Thanks for the warm welcome back to me, I appreciate it! Thanks also for your gracious reply here.
It is as I already said Myrna, for me, I have no choice but to be subject to the pope, that is the dogma. There is no proviso in the dogma saying "...unless I don't believe he is the pope."
Seems a lot of folks around here have figured out how to get around that, and if I ever happen across a way around that, then I too can go around proclaiming the pope is not the pope for no reason at all, but until then, I will remain the pope's good subject, but God's first. It's the simplest and only way I know of where I can't possibly do wrong.
Having no pope for such a long time as it has been; is the cause, the reason why Catholics who are trying to keep the Faith are constantly debating each other.MyrnaM - No! A bad/non-existent pope pope does NOT force any catholic to be uncharitable or stupid. There are too many adults (both laymen and priests) who fling around the accusation of 'mortal sin', 'heretic', etc towards other trads on the sede issue. This is completely juvenile, uncatholic and scandalous. Not to mention, it's also a sin. And the devil laughs over it all.
It is as I already said Myrna, for me, I have no choice but to be subject to the pope, that is the dogma. There is no proviso in the dogma saying "...unless I don't believe he is the pope."
Thanks for the warm welcome back to me, I appreciate it! Thanks also for your gracious reply here.I disagree. We can and must be subject to the conciliar popes in all things that do not offend God, this is dogma. It is in this way that we are subject to both the past and present (conciliar) popes. This is putting into practice what I said - being the popes' good subject, but God's first.
The problem is you can't be subject to the past Traditional popes, who have not contradicted each other, and be subject to this doubtful pope who contradicts past history of the Church at the same time. It says in the book of Hebrews: 13;8 "Jesus Christ, yesterday, and today; and the same for ever. [9] (http://www.drbo.org/x/d?b=drb&bk=65&ch=13&l=9-#x) Be not led away with various and strange doctrines. For it is best that the heart be established with grace, not with meats; which have not profited those that walk in them. [10] (http://www.drbo.org/x/d?b=drb&bk=65&ch=13&l=10-#x) We have an altar, whereof they have no power to eat who serve the tabernacle."
This is completely juvenile, uncatholic and scandalous. Not to mention, it's also a sin. And the devil laughs over it all.
Except that you completely redefine "subject to" to mean "pay lip service to" and/or "acknowledge his legitimacy". You have broken communion with him and do not submit to his Magisterium nor do you submit to his disciplinary law nor do you submit to his Canon law. And somehow you declare this to be "subjection".You have been fentonized, which is the reason that I believe that you do not understand what "magisterium" even is Lad. This fact is apparent in your postings.
This is absolutely mind-boggling. If ANYONE refuses subjection to the pope, it's people like you.
Unfortunately, in some cases, it's objectively true. Stubborn's ecclesiology, for example, (resulting from his R&R) is nothing short of heretical.This coming from the inventor of "sededoubtism", which is to say, "sede-who-knowsism", or "sede-cant-figure-it-outism". :facepalm:
In other words what exactly is the biography of this great apostasy?I am pretty sure that different people will give different events and different time lines for this crisis. As for trying to piece together any facts, events or theories "that the conciliar "popes" were never popes, to begin with" is an exercise in futility - then again, Richard Ibranyi has docuмented proof that there have been no popes or cardinals since 1130....
Unfortunately, in some cases, it's objectively true. Stubborn's ecclesiology, for example, (resulting from his R&R) is nothing short of heretical.
Mithrandylan (https://www.cathinfo.com/profile/Mithrandylan/)-The ordinary magisterium, by definition, does not define. It teaches (ordinarily and universally). That which is dogmatically "declared or defined" is, by necessity, something that belongs to the extraordinary magisterium. But as Augustine says, there is no intrinsic difference (between the extraordinary and ordinary magisterium) "as they derive from the same source, viz., the divine promise and providence, and have the same object and purpose" (pp. 323-24). But let's remember why this all came about in the first place; we were not so much arguing about the ordinary magisterium as we were the extraordinary magisterium, inasmuch as it consists in and is exercised through an ecuмenical council presided by the pope. So this particular paragraph of the canon does not illumine that matter at all.
The 3rd point in your commentary: Nothing is to be taken as dogmatically declared or defined, unless it is manifestly known to be such.
This applies to solemn definitions AND to the ordinary magisterium. Point 3 goes further and says that any 'article of faith' is either in scripture or tradtion, as preserved by the Church. Preserved means that it existed long before and the Church is "keeping it intact". As Cardinal Neumann quoted the "Pastoral of the Swiss Bishops" on Papal Infallibility (which quote received the pope's approval):
Cardinal Newman (quoted by Pax Vobis) said: “(Infallibility) in no way depends upon the caprice of the Pope, or upon his good pleasure, to make such and such a doctrine, the object of a dogmatic definition. He is tied up and limited to the divine revelation, and to the truths which that revelation contains. He is tied up and limited by the Creeds, already in existence, and by the preceding definitions of the Church. He is tied up and limited by the divine law, and by the constitution of the Church. Lastly, he is tied up and limited by that doctrine, divinely revealed, which affirms that alongside religious society there is civil society, that alongside the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy there is the power of temporal Magistrates, invested in their own domain with a full sovereignty, and to whom we owe in conscience obedience and respect in all things morally permitted, and belonging to the domain of civil society.”
Vatican I, Ch. 4, § 9 (https://www.ewtn.com/library/councils/v1.htm)
"Therefore, such definitions of the Roman Pontiff are of themselves, and not by the consent of the Church, irreformable."
These requisites verified, the pope enjoys that same infallibility which Christ conferred on His Church. Are there perhaps two infallibilities? No! Only one is the infallibility given by Christ to His Church, i.e., that same infallibility conferred on Peter and his successors, which is said to be given to the Church because it was bestowed for the good of the Church and is exercised by its head. As man's life is one but derives from the soul and is diffused through all the body, so infallibility is diffused and circulates in the whole Church, both in the teaching Church (active infallibility) and in the learning Church (passive infallibility), but dependently on the head who can exercise it by himself (ex sese) in such a way that his definitions are irreformable, i.e., not subject to correction, even without the consent of the Church (Pietro Parente, Dictionary of Dogmatic Theology, 1951, p. 143, emphasis added)
I agree that there are infallible truths which can be proposed outside of solemn statements - this would be the realm of the ordinary and UNIVERSAL magisterium. What I am debating are the conditions for which the ordinary universal magisterium must operate for such infallibility to apply. It seems odd to me that a solemn decree by the pope must abide by VERY specific conditions whilst many of you argue that the ordinary magisterium does not have to abide by the same conditions. This makes no sense.Good, good. A solemn decree (as you call it-- I assume we mean the very clear papal definition of some dogma or another, done by the pope as the pope and without laboring to secure the consensus of all the bishops, e.g., the definition of the Assumption) does have to meet certain criteria to be protected by infallibility, but that's just simply another way of saying that infallibility only "kicks in" to protect papal definitions under certain conditions. Infallibility itself is the protection from error and as Parente describes (and his teaching is standard; you'll find the same thing in Van Noort of Pohl or any of them) this protection diffuses throughout the Church. So to your question about when the ordinary and universal magisterium is infallible, the answer is, in a manner of speaking: always. It's very name describes an infallible operation: the unanimous teaching of all the bishops throughout the world united to the pope. When they're all teaching a, b, or c, we can be assured (on the condition of course that there is a pope and that those teaching are in fact bishops) that a, b, or c is infallible, because the entire Church cannot teach error, and the entire Church cannot believe error. If some bishops here or there teach error, or simply teach something that is not taught by the pope nor by the rest of the bishops, by that fact alone we know that it is not ordinary magisterium.
Practically speaking, you're arguing that if the pope makes a solemn definition, that he has to abide by very strict terms in formulating his decree, which is usually a few sentences long. While, if you throw a hundred cardinals in a room and they debate for a few months, they can write a 4 page docuмent which rambles ambiguously, appears to contradict itself, and never says it binds anyone to anything specific, nor does it penalize anyone, yet such docuмent is infallible just because all 100 cardinals were in a room together and signed 'x' saying they were there?.
A gathering of the hierarchy does not invoke infallibility anymore than stepping into a confessional makes a confession valid. There are rules to follow and V2 is not comparable to any of the other ecuмenical councils in its form, its process, or its definitions. Again, Nothing is to be taken as dogmatically declared or defined, unless it is manifestly known to be such.
The ordinary magisterium has to be just as clear as the pope in their solemn decrees. They can't use the same wording as a papal pronouncement (because they can't invoke their papal authority) but they still must in clear terms declare that 1) what they are saying must be believed, 2) that all must follow and 3) what the penalty is for refusing..
Page 327 of your commentary says that if there is doubt regarding whether or not a statement is infallible then it is not infallble. It specfically says that such statements from the pope or the magisterium MUST follow the rules set forth in V1. If they do not, then they are not infallible.
All of the below quotes are from a lengthy article which you can find here: http://the-american-catholic.com/2013/10/19/cardinal-newman-on-papal-infallibility/ (http://the-american-catholic.com/2013/10/19/cardinal-newman-on-papal-infallibility/).
These conditions of course contract the range of his infallibility most materially. Hence Billuart speaking of the Pope says,
“Neither in conversation, nor in discussion, nor in interpreting Scripture or the Fathers, nor in consulting, nor in giving his reasons for the point which he has defined, nor in answering letters, nor in private deliberations, supposing he is setting forth his own opinion, is the Pope infallible,” t. ii. p. 110. And for this simple reason, because on these various occasions of speaking his mind, he is not in the chair of the universal doctor.
4. Nor is this all; the greater part of Billuart’s negatives refer to the Pope’s utterances when he is out of the Cathedra Petri, but even, when he is in it, his words do not necessarily proceed from his infallibility. He has no wider prerogative than a Council, and of a Council Perrone says,
“Councils are not infallible in the reasons by which they are led, or on which they rely, in making their definition, nor in matters which relate to persons, nor to physical matters which have no necessary connexion with dogma.” Præl. Theol. t. 2, p. 492.
Thus, if a Council has condemned a work of Origen or Theodoret, it did not in so condemning go beyond the work itself; it did not touch the persons of either. Since this holds of a Council, it also holds in the case of the Pope; therefore, supposing a Pope has quoted the so called works of the Areopagite as if really genuine, there is no call on us to believe him; nor again, if he condemned Galileo’s Copernicanism, unless the earth’s immobility has a “necessary connexion with some dogmatic truth,” which the present bearing of the Holy See towards that philosophy virtually denies.
5. Nor is a Council infallible, even in the prefaces and introductions to its definitions. There are theologians of name, as Tournely and Amort, who contend that even those most instructive capitula passed in the Tridentine Council, from which the Canons with anathemas are drawn up, are not portions of the Church’s infallible teaching; and the parallel introductions prefixed to the Vatican anathemas have an authority not greater nor less than that of those capitula.
7. Accordingly, all that a Council, and all that the Pope, is infallible in, is the direct answer to the special question which he happens to be considering; his prerogative does not extend beyond a power, when in his Cathedra, of giving that very answer truly. “Nothing,” says Perrone, “but the objects of dogmatic definitions of Councils are immutable, for in these are Councils infallible, not in their reasons,”& c.—ibid.
To summarize:.
1. Nothing is to be taken as dogmatically declared or defined, unless it is manifestly known to be such.
2. V2 did NOT declare that ANY of their statements to be infallible. Therefore, they are not.
3. V2 did not follow the rules of V1, which the pope must follow when he defines a doctrine OR when he approves a doctrine of the bishops (i.e. from a council).
4. Infallibility flows from the pope, hence, he must follow the same rules whether he is teaching from his office or if he approves the ordinary magisterium.
5. Councils/papal declarations are NOT infallible in their reasons, or instructions or explanations - only in their clear and distinct teachings.
6. V2 did not bind all the faithful, in any way, shape or form to accept ANY doctrine or dogma. And there is no penalty for ignoring the council.
7. V2 did not define anything doctrinally.
Richard Ibranyi but who is he that you should give any credit, he doesn't even believe in Fatima, or Saints such as Thomas Aquinas..
If that were true we would have been told this a long time ago through approved apparitions of Our Blessed Mother.
Unless of course you also don't believe in Fatima. I know it's a private revelation but is it?
Even his name Ibranyi suggest you run from him.
His name is not worth mentioning I hope he is not your defense, Stubborn?
This coming from the inventor of "sededoubtism", which is to say, "sede-who-knowsism", or "sede-cant-figure-it-outism". :facepalm:
2) "Declaring infallibility" is not a prerequisite to being infallible, so disagreed. Niceae didn't declare infallibility, so is it up for grabs, too?I didn't say that. The correct quote, FROM YOUR SOURCE, is: Nothing is to be taken as dogmatically declared or defined, unless it is manifestly known to be such.
.
The thing is, the Ibranyi's of the world make up an infinitesimal portion of sedevacantists. They're completely non-representative; attacking Ibranyi in an effort to make a point against a general position would be like looking at Bruce Jenner and arriving at the conclusion that every human person was born as the wrong sex. It's an entirely self-serving, selective, and perverse logic that one expects of six year olds (and probably not even).
.
Ibranyi is very useful - you use him as your example to understand why the Church permits no one to decide the status of popes. It's not complicated.I guess you might call him your crutch someone to lean on instead of God's grace. The truth is you don't want to know the difference between good and evil, truth and false, black and white for sure, it is more convenient for some to be in limbo. Lacking fortitude to make a decision that might cause friction between family, friends or heavens they might even have to say goodbye and move for the sake of the Faith.
Yes, Stubborn, all you have are ad hominem because you wouldn't know a syllogism if it hit you in the face.Sorry for you Lad, all you have is name calling, and your Fentonisms. Your problem is that you don't know the difference between blind obedience and true obedience, any more than you know the difference between the hierarchy and the magisterium, I think it's due to being Fentonized.
It's a shame that you tenaciously hold heretical opinions on the Magisterium and Catholic ecclesiology.
Who, then, is representative of sedevacantism?And... is Judas a representative of the apostles?
I guess you might call him your crutch someone to lean on instead of God's grace. The truth is you don't want to know the difference between good and evil, truth and false, black and white for sure, it is more convenient for some to be in limbo. Lacking fortitude to make a decision that might cause friction between family, friends or heavens they might even have to say goodbye and move for the sake of the Faith.True, he is useful to me. I was raised that I can learn something from even the dumbest person in the world, if I learn not to be as dumb, I learned something from him.
So Ibranyi is useful to YOU, as you say.
And... is Judas a representative of the apostles?
Who, then, is representative of sedevacantism?.
I didn't say that. The correct quote, FROM YOUR SOURCE, is: Nothing is to be taken as dogmatically declared or defined, unless it is manifestly known to be such..
"Declaring dogma" is a prerequisite for it being 'of the faith'. For something to be infallible, it must be declared as dogma, then we know that either the pope (solemnly) or the bishops (universal magisterium) are teaching something that is important. The council of nicea was very clear that it was declaring something to be 'of the faith'. The magisterium must do the same if they declare that something has 'always been taught'. Otherwise, they are teaching as private theologians and are fallible.
2. V2 did NOT declare that ANY of their statements to be infallible. Therefore, they are not.
2) "Declaring infallibility" is not a prerequisite to being infallible, so disagreed. Niceae didn't declare infallibility, so is it up for grabs, too?
Anyways, I say it's not infallible because there was no pope at it.Switching gears here, but when, your view, did the pope lose his office?
Who, then, is representative of sedevacantism?Post 662 indicated you alluded to perhaps Ibranyi was representative of the sede position, perhaps I was wrong on my assumption.
Post 662 indicated you alluded to perhaps Ibranyi was representative of the sede position, perhaps I was wrong on my assumption.^^^^There's another one of those moving/changing targets.
Remember the sedevacantist position is a term to distinguish Catholics who believe a head of a non-Catholic church cannot simultaneously be head of the Catholic Church. Otherwise, we are just souls who want to live and die united to the Catholic Church.
By Representative do you mean by definition as the Vicar of Christ is the representative of Jesus Christ? Now let me ask you who today would that be?
^^^^There's another one of those moving/changing targets.Since sedevacantists are Catholics; their head is Christ in Heaven, that is what the Church teaches, His representative His Vicar. The point being His Vicar is not Francis, we all agree on that point, which is the only point of the sedevacantist position worthy of discussion. Any other point is opinion and a consequence of having no pope for unity with dogmatic issues such as i.e. BOD or groups like (Holy Family et al).
By representative, Meg meant what she asked, if not Ibranyi, then who is representative of the sedevacantist position?
All sedevacantists have different ideas about sedevacantism which vary from time to time and person to person - it seems to be only the underlying principle which all sedevacantists agree on, that principle being, the ability/necessity for his subjects to decide whether or not the pope is the pope.
I can't imagine Meg ever getting an answer so for me, I'd guess that Ibranyi is representative of those who hold the most extreme sedevacantist position, +Sanborn is at the opposite end of the scale, and the others are somewhere in the middle.
^^^^There's another one of those moving/changing targets.
By representative, Meg meant what she asked, if not Ibranyi, then who is representative of the sedevacantist position?
All sedevacantists have different ideas about sedevacantism which vary from time to time and person to person - it seems to be only the underlying principle which all sedevacantists agree on, that principle being, the ability/necessity for his subjects to decide whether or not the pope is the pope.
I can't imagine Meg ever getting an answer so for me, I'd guess that Ibranyi is representative of those who hold the most extreme sedevacantist position, +Sanborn is at the opposite end of the scale, and the others are somewhere in the middle.
So Meg, who is your representative? I never got an answer from anyone and... why? Because you all are ashamed to say it is Francis, your pope. ::)
Since sedevacantists are Catholics; their head is Christ in Heaven, that is what the Church teaches, His representative His Vicar. The point being His Vicar is not Francis, we all agree on that point, which is the only point of the sedevacantist position worthy of discussion. Any other point is opinion and a consequence of having no pope for unity with dogmatic issues such as i.e. BOD or groups like (Holy Family et al).Amazing.
Ibranyi is your hero, not ours, he is a Judas who wants his 30 pieces of silver in the form of a self-proclaimed prophet. Your the one who makes over him and watches his every move uses him as the devil makes use of Francis.
If there was a group with different ideas it is the conciliarist the only point they agree on is the sedevacantist are very small, not big enough for a threat but they certainly feel threatened and rightly so. Since Traditional Catholic in the true sense of the word; those who want nothing to do with the Modernists.
Just open a phone directory or check the Internet you will find a so-called "catholic" Conciliarist church for every type of Francis follower there is, from any type of gender confused catholic to divorced remarried, divorced again, and so, on. Face the truth Stubborn your accusation against those who remain steadfast is a description of any Francis follower out there.
You, on the other hand, want your cake and eat it too, as the saying goes. You have no absolutes, just as the conciliarists have no absolutes.
Sorry, I missed your question previously.He declared sedevacantism to be a "false idea".
That's an easy one to answer. My representative would be Archbishop Lefebvre, the stalwart defender of Our Lord and His Church.
The problem is that the Church has never defined the infallibility requirements for the magisterium, therefore we are left with what is the basis for our Faith - scripture and Tradition. Now, if the Church tells us that the Church Fathers are only infallible and only teach 'of the faith' when they agree with each other, then such an approach is also reliable when dealing with a council where the clear, legalistic writing style is lacking. Since V2 does not agree with Tradition, therefore it CANNOT be 'of the faith', therefore it's not infallible.She never defined them because no one ever questioned it (until now, unfortunately, when we find ourself with no pope and a ravaged Church).
Switching gears here, but when, your view, did the pope lose his office?
Bishop Fellay would say that's his representative too. Point is that we're not talking about who a person looks to as a way of informing their own response to the crisis. We're talking about in the course of intellectual debate, meeting opposing positions-- not meeting isolated caricatures of them.
.
Look, there are hosts of authors who've published material on how the sedevacantist thesis works. John Lane, John Daly, Fr. Cekada et al., Patrick Omlor, Hutton Gibson, Fr. Saenz y Arriga, and more. And even ceding variances in some formulations of the thesis between these authors, sedeplenist interlocutors would come across as far more credible by even elevating ONE of these authors and pretending that they univocally represent sedevacantism (and even that wouldn't be true, but it'd at least be far closer to the truth than what they're doing with Ibranyi or the Dimond boys).
.
He declared sedevacantism to be a "false idea".
Well, yes, Bishop Fellay would likely say that Archbishop Lefebvre is his representative. There isn't anything I can do about that. I can't force others to see the situation my way. I can only try to state my case as clearly as possible..
You wrote previously that Ibranyi doesn't represent sedevacantism, yet it's obvious that no one particular person represents it for the sedevacantists here.
Ibranyi or the Dimond Bros. may represent the fringes of sedevacantism, but surely there are moderates whom you would take to be your representative. But it seems not to be the case. Is there no one, Mithrandylan, who represents sedevacantism for you? Or is sedevacantism just a personal subjective belief system, based only on the view that there is currently no pope? This seems to be the only thing that sedevacantists can completely agree on.
.
But Meg, you're talking about a completely different thing now. I'm a Roman Catholic, so my rule of faith is the pope and my bishop. If they're not around, then I do the best I can with approved teachers of the Catholic faith-- the popes, saints, doctors, and theologians who've gone before. Scripture and Tradition. No sedevacantist author falls into that category. No sedeplenist author falls into that category either. They're all without jurisdiction, so they have no teaching or ruling authority*. No approval. No mission. Their utility and import is one of academic impact, as contributors to an ongoing discussion (what happened to the Church in the 1960s?).
.
*That doesn't mean they can't be right about one thing or another, it just means that we cannot look at/to them the way that Catholics would ordinarily submit to their bishop or the pope.
Okay, I think I understand that the best you can do, as a sedevacantist, is to make do with approved teachers of the Catholic faith - popes, saints, doctors, scripture, tradtion, etc. But isn't this necessarily flawed, in that it then becomes subjective, in that you are forced to view the faith and crisis only of your own volition?.
Catholicism is naturally and necessarily hierarchical. It's how Our Lord set it up. That we are in a severe crisis doesn't change that. Those of us who still try to follow a hierarchy or semblance of one isn't a bad thing. It is a Catholic thing to do. It is completely natural for a Catholic to look up to and follow superiors where they can find them..
Exactly!Perhaps, false at that time, but I wonder what he would say today!
The pope and the magisterium are the proximate rule of faith. Not scripture or tradition. They are the remote rules.That's backwards. The Church is based on TRUTH, taught by Christ to the Apostles, who passed it on through scripture/Tradition. The pope/bishop's job is to re-teach, clarify and reiterate scripture and tradition. The church is based on truth/doctrine, with the pope/bishops as the tools to teach it properly. The church is not based on men. That's why, as St Paul tells us, "if anyone, even if they are an angel from heaven, preach that which is different than I have taught, let him be anathema." Men can fail us. Doctrine cannot.
Perhaps, false at that time, but I wonder what he would say today!
This is the time we are all living in, right now and here. All these Fathers, Doctors, Theologians never expected this would happen and when people here quote this one and that one and anyone that they could twist into their agenda, it means next to nothing.
Sedevacantist are Traditional Catholics who admit the truth that the person who is sitting in the chair is not a Catholic, therefore how can he be a visible head of the Church. He can't be!
Pax, to whom is the title, "father and teacher of all christian people", bestowed upon?You miss the point. If the pope chooses to be a good and true defender and teacher of the truth, he is a true father of catholicism. BUT, not all popes are good. Not all popes care about their duties. HE HAS A CHOICE, just like we all do - to do his duty and save his soul. If he does not, this does not mean that doctrine disappears or becomes forgotten. It's still the basis for our religion, not the pope!
Who has the authority to interpret scripture and pass on unwritten tradition?The pope has the authority, if he uses it. If he doesn't, then he doesn't. When was the last time a pope interpreted scripture/tradition authoritatively? Pre V2 with the assumption? You act like we NEED to the pope to do this on a daily basis. It's a very irregular part of his job.
The Church is composed of those who teach, and those who require instruction. Those who require instruction cannot rely on the written Word alone, as they are not authorized to interpret it's meaning - this is left to the popes and the teaching authority of the Church. Those who require instruction, rely on those who teach, to pass on sacred tradition.We have over 2,000 years of the Church Father's teachings and papal teachings on the matter. It's not rocket science to figure out what the Church teaches on this or that passage - there are probably thousands of books on the topic. The pope's job is to step in if there is a MAJOR or NEW problem.
Without the popes and the Magisterium, scripture would be profitless to us, and we would have no sacred tradition.Right. And the popes and the magisterium's of the past 2,000 have done much of the legwork already. How many books of the bible still need interpreting?
I agree with you about the non-infallibility of Vatican II, just for a different reason. You think that it's not infallible because it is the pope or the Church's prerogative to give all the trappings of infallibility and pull the chute at the last second, which allow the pope and the Church to unleash havoc on the faithful because someone didn't cross a "t" or dot an "i" and a bunch of error has crept in and is now dominating the Catholic world, but don't worry because it's not infallible. It's a very mechanistic and legalistic way of looking at things, and one where we find a Church that can feed poison at the dinner table so long as she doesn't call it "dinner."
Well said! :applause:.
Let's take the false principle even further - why should the Church have been concerned with what Martin Luther was promoting.....he wasn't doing so infallibly nor teaching it solemnly in the name of the Church!
You guys have this false notion of who is responsible for the salvation of our souls - we are! Not the pope, or the bishops, or the priests. You and I. Sure, it would be great if the hierarchy were good catholics, but this isn't always the case. How many times in history did catholics have bad, lax or immoral leaders? Too many to count.
The V2 catholics knew that V2 was novel; they knew that it was not consistent with what they grew up with. So did the priests and bishops. THEY WANTED THE CHANGES! THEY WANTED TO GET RID OF THE RIGIDITY OF CHRIST! I've talked to many of this generation, most notably my grandmother (God rest her soul) who was as liberal as they come. She knew it was wrong but she embraced the new church wholeheartedly.
It's our job to know our religion and it is false of you to spin this yarn about a 'last minute', 'rabbit out of the hat' situation where people were duped into accepting v2 novelties. "Oh my gosh, no one knew v2 was wrong!" Bull. Some were duped, but not by the novelties; they were duped into thinking that 'blind obedience' is a virtue. No one of the V2 era had ANY impression that this council was 100% orthodox. Everyone knew it had problems.
You guys have this false notion of who is responsible for the salvation of our souls - we are! Not the pope, or the bishops, or the priests. You and I. Sure, it would be great if the hierarchy were good catholics, but this isn't always the case. How many times in history did catholics have bad, lax or immoral leaders? Too many to count.The mission of the Church is to save souls, Our Lord's words in Matthew ... "Go and teach all nations."
The V2 catholics knew that V2 was novel; they knew that it was not consistent with what they grew up with. So did the priests and bishops. THEY WANTED THE CHANGES! THEY WANTED TO GET RID OF THE RIGIDITY OF CHRIST! I've talked to many of this generation, most notably my grandmother (God rest her soul) who was as liberal as they come. She knew it was wrong but she embraced the new church wholeheartedly.
It's our job to know our religion and it is false of you to spin this yarn about a 'last minute', 'rabbit out of the hat' situation where people were duped into accepting v2 novelties. "Oh my gosh, no one knew v2 was wrong!" Bull. Some were duped, but not by the novelties; they were duped into thinking that 'blind obedience' is a virtue. No one of the V2 era had ANY impression that this council was 100% orthodox. Everyone knew it had problems.
Ibranyi or the Dimond Bros. may represent the fringes of sedevacantism, but surely there are moderates whom you would take to be your representative. But it seems not to be the case. Is there no one, Mithrandylan, who represents sedevacantism for you? Or is sedevacantism just a personal subjective belief system, based only on the view that there is currently no pope? This seems to be the only thing that sedevacantists can completely agree on.I do not find it troubling that there is not complete agreement. After all, in light of the status of the current leadership--either we don't have a Pope, or, well, it's Frank--we cannot expect any sound pronouncement from the Church setting out the definite intricate nature of the crisis.
You guys have this false notion of who is responsible for the salvation of our souls - we are! Not the pope, or the bishops, or the priests. You and I. Sure, it would be great if the hierarchy were good catholics, but this isn't always the case. How many times in history did catholics have bad, lax or immoral leaders? Too many to count..
The V2 catholics knew that V2 was novel; they knew that it was not consistent with what they grew up with. So did the priests and bishops. THEY WANTED THE CHANGES! THEY WANTED TO GET RID OF THE RIGIDITY OF CHRIST! I've talked to many of this generation, most notably my grandmother (God rest her soul) who was as liberal as they come. She knew it was wrong but she embraced the new church wholeheartedly.
It's our job to know our religion and it is false of you to spin this yarn about a 'last minute', 'rabbit out of the hat' situation where people were duped into accepting v2 novelties. "Oh my gosh, no one knew v2 was wrong!" Bull. Some were duped, but not by the novelties; they were duped into thinking that 'blind obedience' is a virtue. No one of the V2 era had ANY impression that this council was 100% orthodox. Everyone knew it had problems.
Of late, we've been discussing an ecclesiological problem, which essentially boils down to explaining how it is possible that the pope and the bishops at an ecuмenical council could teach error, and how they could then leave that council and continue to teach error for the next fifty years, with virtually no reprieve.Why does it need to be explained at all? - it happened, therefore it serves to prove (contrary to popular belief inspired by well respected 20th century theologians), that it was always possible that the pope and the bishops at an ecuмenical council could teach error. It is what it is, the reason I say this is because it actually happened. To deny that's what happened, is to deny there ever even was a council at all. There is zero reason to spin the whole event into a big conspiratorial mirage in order to cling to a false idea.
You say it's because the magisterium and can teach error so long as it doesn't try to do so infallibly. They can teach a false faith so long as they don't tell you that it's the true faith. And we say that if there's a pope, the magisterium literally can't do these things. Go back to the books and see what they have to say. The more and more you try to make this up as you go along the further you falter.The magisterium cannot teach error, the hierarchy and the pope can, did and do teach error, but the magisterium can never teach error, that is impossible and this whole idea needs to be completely stricken, and this term wholly rejected in it's entirety forever. The magisterium is literally, Church teachings since the time of Our Lord and the Apostles, the magisterium is not the hierarchy, is not the pope, is not a council, is not even people at all.
Stubborn why is your pope changing the magisterium teaching about EENS?If I ever meet him, I will ask him and get back to you on that, then we'll both know.
Why does it need to be explained at all? - it happened, therefore it serves to prove (contrary to popular belief inspired by well respected 20th century theologians), that it was always possible that the pope and the bishops at an ecuмenical council could teach error. It is what it is, the reason I say this is because it actually happened. To deny that's what happened, is to deny there ever even was a council at all. There is zero reason to spin the whole event into a big conspiratorial mirage in order to cling to a false idea..
The magisterium cannot teach error, the hierarchy and the pope can, did and do teach error, but the magisterium can never teach error, that is impossible and this whole idea needs to be completely stricken, and this term wholly rejected in it's entirety forever. The magisterium is literally, Church teachings since the time of Our Lord and the Apostles, the magisterium is not the hierarchy, is not the pope, is not a council, is not even people at all.
It is due to the Church's magisterium, and through the magisterium which has always been and will always be, that we knew and know our faith as it was handed down to us. It is through the magisterium that we knew not to compromise, not to go give up our faith and compromise along with the NO back in the 60s and still today and for the future. The fact that most people did choose to compromise does not change this fact.
The magisterium can never change, will always be infallibly true, will always be there, will always teach us truth, teach us what we must do to avoid hell and save our souls. It is with the faith and through the faith that we are blindly obedient to the magisterium for it alone teaches everyone what they must do to avoid hell and get to heaven and can never and will never cease to do so. But stop confusing the magisterium with the pope, or with a council or hierarchy - the two are not the same.
The pope's / council's role is to promulgate and safeguard the Church's magisterium till the end of time because without the magisterium, no one, not anyone even stands any chance at all of ever getting to heaven.
The pope achieves this either alone or in a council, by the pope condemning that which the magisterium has always condemned and by defining doctrines which have always been of the magisterium. The pope alone is promised divine protection from the possibility of error when he performs this, his duty.
Outside of the pope and outside of this duty, there is no Church teaching of some other promise of divine intervention from the possibility of error, no Church teaching of some other promise of infallibility, not for a council, or bishops or hierarchy, nothing - so the whole idea of infallibility being attached to anything other than the pope when he defines a doctrine to be held by the whole Church is a novelty, a false teaching of some theologians whose false, "liberal ideas have been infiltrated into the seminaries, the catechisms and all the manifestations of the Church", just as +ABL said.
This obviously begs the question. The question is whether or not Vatican II was an exercise of the Church's magisterium; for it to have been so, a pope's approval of the docuмents (at minimum, if not his supervision of their composition as well) is necessary. We're asking if a pope was there. You don't solve anything by (once again) baldly asserting that one was.I'm not baldly asserting anything other than historical facts, which ipso facto are indisputable. You OTOH are incapable of proving your theory, which is only, as +ABL calls it, a false idea, and you maintain this false idea against historical facts - and whats worse, you do so for no reason at all while risking your eternity.
Traditional Catholics, by definition, "believe" in cօռspιʀαcιҽs. No matter one's position on the "sede question" we all apprehend that beginning at least in the early twentieth century and likely before, the Church was being slowly by carefully and surely infiltrated by Illuminati communists. And they stormed the proverbial Bastille at Vatican II.Traditional Catholics believe certain conspiracy theories, but the sincere ones only do so until the theory is proven false by indisputable facts.
Why don't you just get a blog or something, if you insist on talking past the point and repeatedly asserting that which has been proven to not be the case? You haven't the semblance of an idea of what the magisterium is, and you've not taken a single effort to even support your notion of what you do think it is.Proven not to be the case? You certainly have not proven it, all you prove is that you deny indisputable facts in order to maintain adherence to your false idea. I merely quote V1 mainly, often word for word.
I do not find it troubling that there is not complete agreement. After all, in light of the status of the current leadership--either we don't have a Pope, or, well, it's Frank--we cannot expect any sound pronouncement from the Church setting out the definite intricate nature of the crisis.
What I do find troubling are various pockets having the idea that other Catholics clinging to the ancient teachings of the Church are going to hell simply because they have a different view of the crisis, and, closely related, having the idea that there is not even the remotest percent of a possibility that they may be wrong on the question of sede or r&r.
I see many on both sides of the question acting like this. How proud and pompous they are to, in essence, claim to know the mind of the Lord. "But it's gone on so long," they say; "that would mean the gates of hell have prevailed," they say; all conscious only of man's time with no regard for the fact that these some 59 years aren't even a nanosecond in God's time. The same can be said against those on the sede side who completely discount the power of God to possibly be working something out of this crisis in any state of circuмstances other than sedevacante.
For full disclosure of my perspective, I lean heavily toward the idea that sedevacante has been the situation since the death of Pope Pius XII, or less likely, since the death of an alleged Pope Gregory XVII (who may have been succeeded after a 16 year sede circuмstance by an alleged Pope Benedict XVI who may this day be the reigning Holy Roman Pontiff).
But I do not claim to know the mind of the Lord and cannot completely foreclose the possibility that the entire conciliar line of succession has been valid. I do see the teeniest possibility of the lot as to Frank though, as I cannot disingenuously redefine my notion of invalid new rite ordinations and episcopal consecrations, or ignore the big white elephant in the room, simply to save his papacy--I'm the one shouting "the emperor has no clothes." If you move the line for invalid ordinations, where will you stop? Will you accept a professed protestant emerging from a conclave? A hindu, a mohammadean, or a jew coming out of a conclave? An alleged Catholic with no orders and who renounces the necessity even after emerging from a conclave?
As to Cardinal Siri, if he was GXVII, that is as invisible as I could imagine the Pope ever being and do not buy into the idea that he had an underground hierarchy with unknown successor(s)--I don't want anybody getting the idea that I am some sort of conspiracy theorist nut ;-). But I know not the mind of the Lord.
You mention above that you do not find it troubling that there is not complete agreement [among sedevacantists]. But "complete agreement" is a long way from the reality. The only thing they agree on is that Francis is not the Pope. "Complete agreement" is not what I was getting at.Regarding the bolded above you are wrong, we agree on ALL the doctrines the magisterium contain. Which is far from the Vatican II laity agree with, including your pope. Be honest!
And yes, we either don't have a Pope, or it's Frank. I'm pretty sure it's Frank, though I could be wrong. Pope Francis is far more upfront about his modernism than his predecessors. For me, at least with Francis, he's obvious about his modernism - the two predecessors before him gave an impression of being less modernist - at least to the world. At least now the world can see (if they choose to) the ugliness of modernism in full form, being presented by Francis.
The situation is not all about Francis, as the sedevacantists believe. It's about the modernist moorings of the hierarchy of the conciliar church. They focus only on the chair of Peter, as if that's the only thing that's really wrong. If only the Pope were orthodox, then the situation would improve. I don't believe that it would improve. As Bishop Williamson has said..."God will give us a good Pope when there are enough Catholics who want one."
Regarding the bolded above you are wrong, we agree on ALL the doctrines the magisterium contain. Which is far from the Vatican II laity agree with, including your pope. Be honest!
Actually, the sedevacantists focus very little on the pope issue because we already know it is vacant and there is nothing to focus on, just pray for God to end the vacancy. It is the other Traditionalist that are always speaking about the pope, if he is or isn't and tear him down, while they still want their cake and eat it too. Which means "This phrase is easier to understand if it is read as "You can't eat (http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=eat) your cake, and have it too". Obviously once you've eaten your cake, you won't have it anymore. Used for expressing the impossibility of having something both ways (http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=ways), if those two (http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=two) ways conflict."
Which means "This phrase is easier to understand if it is read as "You can't eat (http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=eat) your cake, and have it too". Obviously once you've eaten your cake, you won't have it anymore. Used for expressing the impossibility of having something both ways (http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=ways), if those two (http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=two) ways conflict."
The descriptive term "sedevacantist" says it all, Myrna. Sedevacantists use that term to describe themselves.And ... what is so difficult with the meaning; maybe you might understand better if you think of it as the person sitting there is an usurper.
What is the definition of "sedevacantism?" The term means "empty chair," does it not?
Also what do you mean that to be a sede Catholic it is taking the comfortable side? We are the ones that good Traditionalist call schismatic and for no good reason since we believe in the Office, the Papacy, the Chair of Peter.The problem is that this is not being faithful to the dogma - which states it is altogether necessary for salvation to be subject to the Roman Pontiff, not believe in his Office, or believe in the Papacy or believe in the Chair of Peter. That is a doctrine which begets an entirely erroneous belief.
The problem is that this is not being faithful to the dogma - which states it is altogether necessary for salvation to be subject to the Roman Pontiff, not believe in his Office, or believe in the Papacy or believe in the Chair of Peter.
Except that you refuse to be subject to the man you claim is the Roman Pontiff. Go figure. Your idea of subjection is to pay lip service to his legitimacy. You reject his teaching, your reject his laws, you reject his universal discipline (aka New Mass). Yet you claim that you're "subject" to him. It's laughable. Every step of your "theology" is just self-serving nonsense.You are wrong Lad, sadly, very wrong.
Except that you refuse to be subject to the man you claim is the Roman Pontiff. Go figure. Your idea of subjection is to pay lip service to his legitimacy. You reject his teaching, your reject his laws, you reject his universal discipline (aka New Mass). Yet you claim that you're "subject" to him. It's laughable. Every step of your "theology" is just self-serving nonsense.
Also what do you mean that to be a sede Catholic it is taking the comfortable side? We are the ones that good Traditionalist call schismatic and for no good reason since we believe in the Office, the Papacy, the Chair of Peter.
For your information Stubborn, we are subject to the True Roman Pontiffs, which is more than I can say about your present Pontiff.No, you are not subject to the "True Roman Pontiffs", you are not subject to anyone - you said that you *believe* in the papacy, the Chair and the Office, whatever that means.
Your position is very hypocritical, not pleasing to God to be a hypocrite.
you reject his laws, you reject his universal discipline (aka New Mass).The new mass was not promulgated to the universal church. It has no penalty for ignoring it and there is no command to accept it. Benedict XVI corroborated this in his 'motu' when he stated that Quo Primum was still in effect. Quo Primum supersedes the new liturgy, there is no doubt about that. The novus ordo was promoted through legal trickery, which is a hallmark of the devil and his henchmen.
We only reject those teachings which are not in accordance with the Catholic Faith.The funny and ironic thing is that the new church's method of operation is to GET RID OF the old teachings, by way of confusion and doubt, while at the same time, obsuring them with new ideals. But there's no new TEACHINGS which are compulsory. There's nothing in the new church that MAKES us commit sin or COMMANDS us to accept error. This is a very important point lost on many sedes.
The strange point is everything people who are afraid of sedevacantism say about us, is so true about them when they see what their pope expects of them. What he teaches, what he says his example, instead of looking for dirt on the sedevacantist they should look into a mirror seeing their pope's actions. The only time I think of Francis is when I come into this forum and read all the dirt you guys post about your pope.
The funny and ironic thing is that the new church's method of operation is to GET RID OF the old teachings, by way of confusion and doubt, while at the same time, obsuring them with new ideals. But there's no new TEACHINGS which are compulsory. There's nothing in the new church that MAKES us commit sin or COMMANDS us to accept error. This is a very important point lost on many sedes.
L’Osservatore Romano, June 3, 1976
Paul VI Address (Concerning Archbishop Lefebvre)
The adoption of the new Ordo Missae is certainly not left to the free choice of priests or faithful. The instruction of 14 June 1971 has provided, with the authorization of the Ordinary, for the celebration of the Mass in the old form only by aged and infirm priests, who offer the divine Sacrifice sine populo. The new Ordo was promulgated to take the place of the old, after mature deliberation, following upon the requests of the Second Vatican Council. In no different way did our holy predecessor Pius V make obligatory the Missal reformed under his authority, following the Council of Trent…
We have called the attention of Archbishop Lefebvre to the seriousness of his behavior, the irregularity of his principal present initiatives, the inconsistency and often falsity of the doctrinal positions on which he bases this behavior and these initiatives, and the damage that accrues to the entire Church because of them.
Part of being subject to the Pope is acknowledging his legitimacy. We only reject those teachings which are not in accordance with the Catholic Faith. If Pope Francis were to ask me to do something that does not go against the Catholic faith, I would try to do it, if possible.We acknowledge all the True Popes legitimacy, however if Freemasons elected their ilk, that is not even a valid election.
No one denies that there was a Second Council at the Vatican. However, it was a false council as it was summoned by an anti-pope, and confirmed by an anti-pope.
No, you are not subject to the "True Roman Pontiffs", you are not subject to anyone - you said that you *believe* in the papacy, the Chair and the Office, whatever that means.If you don't know what that means it is because you have not ears to hear or eyes to read with understanding.
Comfortable in the sense that you feel that you do not have to deal with any contradictions. If everything must absolutely be black-and-white, there's no room for contradiction. I'm not speaking in terms of doctrine; but rather in terms of the situation of having a Pope, and many in the hierarchy of the church, that often preach a different Faith than one that has been handed down. It seems to me that you can rest easier in your mind, knowing that you have it figured out, and there's no Pope, and that's that, and anyone who says otherwise is wrong.I see, but is there anything really wrong with wanting to live my Faith without contradiction, in fact I believe that is the way God intended us to live our Faith. He gave us through His apostles all the teachings within the Deposit of Faith, what is so wrong with having confidence that we are pleasing to God by believing His Truths without confusion. Confusion is the devil's way! Who wants it?
I see, but is there anything really wrong with wanting to live my Faith without contradiction, in fact I believe that is the way God intended us to live our Faith. He gave us through His apostles all the teachings within the Deposit of Faith, what is so wrong with having confidence that we are pleasing to God by believing His Truths without confusion. Confusion is the devil's way! Who wants it?
To accept sedevantism means we know, that the Pope must be Catholic. Very simple!
No one denies that there was a Second Council at the Vatican. However, it was a false council as it was summoned by an anti-pope, and confirmed by an anti-pope.No, he was the pope. You can never prove otherwise. If you insist on saying such things and want to be accurate for the sake of the truth, then you need to preface it with "it is my opinion" it was a false council" or some such disclaimer.
I think that you are confusing the Deposit of Faith with the Magisterium of the Church. You speak as though the Magisterium is dead, that it ended with the Apostles... This couldn't be farther from the truth.No, the magisterium will last till the end of time - as I said. Not sure where you get that I think it's dead.
You are absolutely correct in that the Magisterium is free from all error, and that it can never teach error. However, the pope cannot teach error to the Universal Church, as he is the supreme authority of the living Magisterium.The pope can and has taught error - that is reality. I am not making anything up or attempting to theorize what I say - it is real, it happened, it is recorded history.
Yes, very simple. Too simple, though I can understand wanting to live without contradiction.True story: In regard to the Vatican having the encyclicals online, years and years ago about the time when I first started posting on the Internet one of the first places to have such forums was Prodigy.com https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prodigy_(online_service)
We have the true teachings of the Catholic without being a sedevacantist. Even the Vatican has the old papal encyclicals online.
Weren't the Apostles confused when Our Lord died on the Cross? Haven't there been other times in Church history that have been confusing? The Arian Crisis, all of the various heresies that have plagued the Church, the first three centuries of persecution.
The Councils of Trent and Vatican l were mainly called in order to deal with heresies at that time. If everything were clear, what need would there be for the Church to make clarifications and anathemas at the those Councils? The situation in the Church gets messy at times. Since it is peopled by sinners, that's not a surprise. Our Lord said that scandals would come.
True story: In regard to the Vatican having the encyclicals online, years and years ago about the time when I first started posting on the Internet one of the first places to have such forums was Prodigy.com https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prodigy_(online_service)
To make a long story shorter, I had conversations with some higher up novus ordo priests, (can't even remember their names) Father Gregory from Los Angeles I believe was one. I complained to them that the Vatican ONLY had encyclicals starting from Vatican II. For a long time that is what they had ONLY, but I complained and wrote letters complaining over and over. Finally, they started to put the prior ones up, and I humbly wondered if I had but a tiny voice that helped.
The Apostles were confused only till the Holy Ghost came to enlighten them. Vatican II doesn't have the Holy Ghost resulting in present day confusion, otherwise, if the Holy Ghost was present there wouldn't be such confusion. During those other times, you listed there were True Popes along with the Holy Ghost to guide them to write the encyclicals, that are currently on the Vatican II website, defending Truth and riding error. Do you see Francis writing anything to defend the Deposit of Faith; the answer is NO because the Holy Ghost is not with him.
Not saying that you or the novus ordo laity has been orphaned, I don't believe that, as long as you continue to do as the Bible says, stay firm with the teachings you have learned from the beginning and watch and pray. Especially as Our Lady of Fatima says, pray your daily rosary, wear your scapular.
However, it also says to leave the harlot.
If you had a hand in getting the Vatican to put the pre-V2 encyclicals online, then that's a wonderful thing - thank you. But at least the Vatican did put them up. That's something to be said in their favor. We do have access to these online.I spent a lot of time arguing with these novus ordo priest and one of my arguments went something like this: <<< Vatican II is a new religion and the proof of it is, you don't even have the encyclicals on the Vatican website prior to Vatican II.>>> They could not answer me because it was true, I think they put the ones prior to Vatican II up to defend that they were really pretending to be from apostolic times. I too am happy they are up because I read them often enough, notice how when you read them they are clear in what they mean, not unambiguous like the Modernists write.
Did Our Lord guarantee that the Holy Ghost would always guide the Popes? I don't recall that He did.
Times of confusion in the Church aren't always the same. In fact, the situation and confusion or crisis has varied in the last 2000 years. Wasn't it Pope St. Pius X who said that Modernism is the synthesis of all heresies? Right now, many in the hierarchy are modernist - perhaps most of them. We have Our Lady who has, in several apparitions, foretold about the current Crisis. Her remedy has been to pray much for sinners, not that we should cut ourselves off completely from the Church.
Yes, we do have the Bible, but really, we don't even need that. Some of the saints didn't even have that, but they had the Faith, and they wanted to please God. I've recently read about the life of St. Joseph of Cupertino. He could hardly read, and knew almost nothing from the Bible except one passage. Yet he knew the Faith, and the difference between right and wrong. The miracles that God performed through St. Joseph were so numerous, that they could fill a large volume. He was very simple, and believed in obedience above all else, unless it was sinful to obey.
You mentioned that the Bible says to leave the harlot. Are you saying that the conciliar church is the harlot in the Bible? I've has many debates with Protestants who believe this too. The hatred that they have for the Catholic Church is very sad.
Yes of course Our Lord guaranteed that the Holy Ghost would always guide the Popes.
The Protestants equate the verse about the harlot with the Catholic church from way prior to Vatican II and it varies how far they go back depending on what Protestant you are talking too. Think about this: Harlot what does that mean, intercourse with anyone and everyone, and doesn't that remind you of interfaith, all religions being equal and who cares anymore who you worship with anyone and everyone.
On youtube if you can search for a movie titled: The Reluctant Saint, it is all about St. Joseph of Cupertino, I have prayed many times that before I die I will have just one experience of the ecstasy that he enjoyed, not levitating, just the experience he felt when he prayed to God's Holy Mother.
I love the story of St.Joseph of Cupertino.
A pope cannot bind future popes... The pope is the supreme authority on this Earth and is not bound by the laws of previous popes.No one is talking about popes binding popes. Pope Pius V made it a law that the TLM remains in force forever. I keep repeating this because it's true - it is not complicated. There is no new law binding us to the NO "mass". And if there was, we are still bound by the law of Quo Primum to assist at only that Mass.
Pope Pius XII, Mediator Dei
"...the Sovereign Pontiff alone enjoys the right to recognize and establish any practice touching the worship of God, to introduce and approve new rites, as also to modify those he judges to require modification."
If Paul VI was a true pope, then he had every right to change the Liturgy. This is only more proof that Montini was a wolf posing as a shepherd. True popes, like the Church had for 500 years before Montini, saw no need to change the perfection of Pope St. Pius V, even though they could have.
Also don't forget that "St. Pius V also wrote the Bull Quod a nobis fixing the Breviary and the Divine Office, and at the end of it he issued penalties analogous to those in the Quo primum directed to anyone who would dare to change those norms. Notwithstanding, St. Pius X changed them without any problem." (Tradition in Action)
The pope is not the Church. The pope is not one of the Apostles, all of whom were infallible after having the Holy Ghost descend upon them. Since that time, only the pope enjoys the Holy Ghost's protection from error and is infallible only if/when he defines a doctrine of faith or morals to be held by the universal Church.Yes, I understand about infallible, I was talking about the Holy Ghost is with the Church always in a general way and why shouldn't He be. Do you suppose He is just too busy? When we receive the Sacrament of Confirmation the Holy Ghost comes down on us therefore don't you think He is guiding the Church in that capacity. Just because your pope doesn't believe in terms like speaking ex-cathedra and would prefer to spread his errors via the media, he can be excused.
No, he did not.
The promise of a "never failing faith" is circuмscribed. It applies to exercises of the extraordinary Magisterium, which, when exercised, is guaranteed to be protected by the promise:
Of course when the pope does this we have the guarantee of the Holy Ghost that it will be "in agreement with Sacred Scripture and apostolic tradition." Vatican I. This is because of the "promise" itself:
The ordinary Magisterium is only free from possibility of error when it is handing down and explicating “[q]uod ubique, quod semper, quod ab omnibus creditum est” (That Faith which has been believed everywhere, always, by all). Again, this is because of the nature of the "promise."
We do not have to become sedevacantists under the onslaught of the "Conciliar" Church and our latest pontiff and newfangled "ideas" of ecuмenism, morality, etc.
Yes, I understand about infallible, I was talking about the Holy Ghost is with the Church always in a general way and why shouldn't He be. Do you suppose He is just too busy? When we receive the Sacrament of Confirmation the Holy Ghost comes down on us therefore don't you think He is guiding the Church in that capacity. Just because your pope doesn't believe in terms like speaking ex-cathedra and would prefer to spread his errors via the media, he can be excused.We agree, the Holy Ghost guides the Church always. It is because the Holy Ghost always has and always will guide the Church that we still have the faith, the true Mass and sacraments and etc., regardless of this crisis, regardless of the popes' status. We still have the same chance to save our souls that every other human on earth has had since the birth of the Church at Pentecost.
I also understand the pope is not impeccable.The pope, having the same free will as the rest of us, can do whatever he wants - he will stand before "the Judge Severe" alone, naked and accused and be judged according to the justice of God, same as the rest of us. Asking the question "where is the Church?" when you have the faith, true Mass and sacraments is a rhetorical question, no?
Can the pope then just willy nilly change what the previous pope have taught infallibly or worse Divine Law, such as the breaking of the First Commandment, and it's okay since at that time he, as some say is not protected by the Holy Ghost.
The Holy Ghost guides us and is with the Church always... which begs the question... where is the Church?
Maybe when John XXIII opened the windows to get some fresh ideas, the Holy Ghost flew out!
We agree, the Holy Ghost guides the Church always. It is because the Holy Ghost always has and always will guide the Church that we still have the faith, the true Mass and sacraments and etc., regardless of this crisis, regardless of the popes' status. We still have the same chance to save our souls that every other human on earth has had since the birth of the Church at Pentecost.Of course the Holy Ghost guides the Church always, which was my point. I was and still am scandalized that a few persons objected to that, and was ignorant of that fact. I did not bring into the conversation about the special way the Holy Ghost protects the Church when a pope speaks with the authority of infallibility and it is my understanding that it was only but a few times a pope had to speak ex-cathedra, perhaps as few as the fingers on your one hand.
I was taught that a pope is also infallible when he teaches ordinary, that is when he is teaching doctrine unanimously with his bishops.CORRECTED: a pope is also infallible when he teaches ordinary, that is when he is teaching doctrine unanimously with his bishops and if it agrees with "what has always been taught". This is called the ordinary and UNIVERSAL magisterium because it is a UNIVERSAL, PERPETUAL, CONSTANT teaching of the church.
I was taught that a pope is also infallible when he teaches ordinary, that is when he is teaching doctrine unanimously with his bishops. Now isn't that what Francis is doing when he speaks publically to the entire world, and I see little objection from his bishops, therefore I conclude they agree with his novelties. He is not guided by the Holy Ghost pure and simple, and the reason is, he is not a pope, he is not Catholic. There is no grace within his actions. Anyone who calls themselves Catholic should not defend him as being a Catholic pope. This goes much deeper than just overlooking the man because as we know he is not impeccable and anyone can make an honest mistake even a true pope, as the Churches teaches. What he is doing is deliberate, do you not see it?Yes, the error that the pope is also infallible when he teaches unanimously with the bishops was among those "liberal ideas [which] have been infiltrated into the seminaries, the catechisms and all the manifestations of the Church" as +ABL (http://www.sspxasia.com/Docuмents/Archbishop-Lefebvre/Interview_With_Archbishop_Lefebvre.htm) said.
What, Stubborn is your definition of "The ordinary teachings of the Church?"
Pope Pius IX, Inter Multiplices: “This chair is the center of Catholic truth and unity, that is, the head, mother, and teacher of all the Churches to which all honor and obedience must be offered. Every church must agree with it because of its greater preeminence -- that is, those people who are in all respects faithful.”Please note in each of your quotes, he is telling you to do something you do not do.Pope Pius IX, Neminem Vestrum: “In this way everybody will follow with due reverence, compliance, and obedience that full and supreme authority which our Lord Jesus Christ gave to Peter and to his successors, the popes: namely to feed, rule, and govern the universal Church…”Pope Pius IX, Quanta Cura: “Nor can we pass over in silence the audacity of those who, not enduring sound doctrine, contend that "without sin and without any sacrifice of the Catholic profession assent and obedience may be refused to those judgments and decrees of the Apostolic See, whose object is declared to concern the Church's general good and her rights and discipline, so only it does not touch the dogmata of faith and morals." But no one can be found not clearly and distinctly to see and understand how grievously this is opposed to the Catholic dogma of the full power given from God by Christ our Lord Himself to the Roman Pontiff of feeding, ruling and guiding the Universal Church...by our Apostolic authority, we reprobate, proscribe, and condemn all the singular and evil opinions and doctrines severally mentioned in this letter, and will and command that they be thoroughly held by all children of the Catholic Church as reprobated, proscribed and condemned.”
Pope Pius IX, First Vatican Council: "Wherefore we teach and declare that, by divine ordinance, the Roman church possesses a pre-eminence of ordinary power over every other church, and that this jurisdictional power of the Roman pontiff is both episcopal and immediate. Both clergy and faithful, of whatever rite and dignity, both singly and collectively, are bound to submit to this power by the duty of hierarchical subordination and true obedience, and this not only in matters concerning faith and morals, but also in those which regard the discipline and government of the church throughout the world.Note he said "True obedience", not "blind obedience".
Myrna, I don't know what you're getting at with this whole "Holy Ghost guides the Church" thing. I do know that this is such a phrase often used by V2 modernists and seems to imply that "whatever the church says comes directly from the Holy Ghost" which is VERY ambiguous and is the same logic that authorities used in the 60s to shut up those laymen who objected to the changes. Further, your quote comes from the late 1800s which was a time of masons running society and imprisoning the pope. It certainly was a tumultuous time and I can't trust everything from that time period for there was liberalism everywhere at the time, until Pius X came along and finished Pius IX's fight.My mentioning of it stems from the notes here numbered 737 and then 738, I merely mentioned the Holy Ghost and note 738 seemed astonished that the Holy Ghost remained in the Church forever. Not much I read here shocked me, but this did, thus my notes after that fact.
Practially speaking, the Holy Ghost is there to guide EVERY catholic, including the pope, if we/he lets Him. But the pope doesn't have to and the Holy Ghost will not force him to listen. So, really, it comes down to the personal sanctity of the pope if the church is PROPERLY guided by the Holy Ghost.
There's some enlightenment philosophy going on here, viewing free will as though it were unlimited. Free will is not man's ability to do anything; free will occurs within providence, and it is limited to the options available to a man and it is also limited by providence and natural laws. Obviously free will does not mean that I can fly or that I am omniscient-- but it also means that I cannot act in a way that is contrary to providence, despite the fact that I may sin. For the Church to act in a way contrary to her nature and mission (that is, for the pope or the magisterium to teach error) is not something that is explained by free will, because it is contrary to providence. Now we, could speak of a hypothetical were God chose to create a Church that did teach error (inasmuch as he could allow such a thing) in the same way that we could speak of a hypothetical where God chose not to redeem us (and to instead simply leave us in our fallen state). But providence, as a matter of faith, (that is, as a fact taken on God's authority) is otherwise, and free will does not and cannot go against that. It is a matter of providence that God will protect his Church, and that is the same promise as infallibility.First, Magisterium. Start with the truth that the magisterium never has, never can and never will teach error. This is the unmovable and unchangeable foundation forever. The magisterium is, literally, "the Church teaching". The Church is Christ, Christ can never teach error. The pope and/or hierarchy are humans, they are not the Church. Being humans, the pope and / hierarchy can, have and do act contrary to the Church's nature of their own free will.
Some may wish to interject that I am not sufficiently distinguishing between different "types" of magisterium. The distinction between the magisterium that can teach error and the magisterium that can't is a complete novelty. The term itself refers to the teaching body of the Church, and while we can sub-distinguish different expressions and manifestations of this (ordinary teaching, extraordinary teaching, papal definitions, etc.) office, infallibility extends to it broadly inasmuch as it extends to the pope and then diffuses.
But providence, as a matter of faith, (that is, as a fact taken on God's authority) is otherwise, and free will does not and cannot go against that. It is a matter of providence that God will protect his Church, and that is the same promise as infallibility.:applause:
Some may wish to interject that I am not sufficiently distinguishing between different "types" of magisterium. The distinction between the magisterium that can teach error and the magisterium that can't is a complete novelty.
What is the Church, Stubborn?
The Church is Christ, Christ can never teach error.
Did you even read my post to you?.......
The distinction between the magisterium that can teach error and the magisterium that can't is a complete novelty.First off, as I pointed out like 50 pages ago, the word 'magisterium' was first used in the mid 1800s. So it's a relatively new term, but an old concept. (The old concept is 'tradition' which means that we have to believe 'what was always taught'.) But the term itself is new and after V1 defined the infallibility requirements for the pope, theologians started delving into the requirements for the magisterium to also be infallible. Hint: sometimes they are and sometimes not. I've posted at least 7 quotes on the subject.
Magisterium: The power conferred by Christ upon His Church and strengthened with the charism of infallibility, by which the teaching Church (Ecclesia Docens) is constituted as the unique depositary and authentic interpreter of divine revelation to be proposed authoritatively to men as the object of faith for their eternal salvation (Parente, Dictionary of Dogmatic Theology, p. 170, 1951)
Ecclesia Discens: ... Moroever, the bishops, united with the pope in their teaching, enjoy active infallibility (infallibility in teaching). (Ibid. p.83)
.I cannot agree. Yes, the way the whole fentonology teaches, such terms are analogous, confusing and often ambiguous as the rule. But when we say things like "the Church teaches" and "the Church cannot teach error", we say this is true because the Church, which is Christ's Mystical Body, IS Christ. So the Church actually is Christ, so as such, cannot teach error.
Just wanted to give you a chance to expand or clarify.
.
Seems that with your view, as you've left it, we could speak of a Church which has no pope, no hierarchy, or no faithful. The Church is usually called the Mystical Bride of Christ. And maybe even Christ, but only in an analogous way. I'm asking what she actually is.
Magisterium: The power conferred by Christ upon His Church and strengthened with the charism of infallibility, by which the teaching Church (Ecclesia Docens) is constituted as the unique depositary and authentic interpreter of divine revelation to be proposed authoritatively to men as the object of faith for their eternal salvation (Parente, Dictionary of Dogmatic Theology, p. 170, 1951)
I cannot agree. Yes, the way the whole fentonology teaches, such terms are analogous, confusing and often ambiguous as the rule. But when we say things like "the Church teaches" and "the Church cannot teach error", we say this is true because the Church, which is Christ's Mystical Body, IS Christ. So the Church actually is Christ, so as such, cannot teach error..
We do not include the many faithful who also compose the Church when we say things like "the Church teaches", because "the Church", which is Christ, teaches those same faithful who are part of Christ's mystical body which comprise the Church, what they must do to get to heaven, which is the purpose of the Church.
Those faithful members who do teach the true faith, do not teach anything which they have not first been taught from the Church, which is Christ. Those faithful who do not teach the truth, may teach error unintentionally or intentionally, but for the sake of this subject, they are members who learn from the Church, they are not "the Church" nor teaching what the Church teaches whenever they teach error - and being human and being members who are bound to learn from the Church, they are fully capable of teaching error.
Trent's catechism is clear: "...Be careful to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace; one body and one Spirit. As the human body consists of many members, animated by one soul, which gives sight to the eyes, hearing to the ears, and to the other senses the power of discharging their respective functions; so the mystical body of Christ, which is the Church, is composed of many faithful."
.Please quote where I said that there can be no Church with no pope, hierarchy, or members or any such thing. Do not misquote me to suit your confusion.
Wait, why do you say that there can be no Church with no pope, hierarchy, or members? Because you've just simply repeated your initial assertion here with added explicitness: the Church actually is Christ. There's nothing in that definition that seems to entail there being faithful or clergy as a necessary part of the Church. Appealing to Trent at the end only muddies the water further, since you're saying the Christ actually is His own Mystical Bride.
The key phrases are 'proposed authoritatively' and 'an object of faith for their eternal salvation'. So, either the pope, or the pope/bishops must be VERY clear that what they are teaching is 1) by their apostolic authority, 2) a matter 'of faith' that MUST be believed, for salvation purposes..
Again, it goes back to the adage: Something isn't infallible unless it is understood to be as such.
I could add my interpretation: Something doesn't have to be believed as 'of the faith' unless it is understood as such.
The point is, if the pope or the magisterium isn't CLEAR in their intentions and their language, it's not infallible, nor can it be 'of the faith' in the sense that it's 'without a doubt'. V2 was not clear, nor did it teach authoritatively that x,y or z MUST believed, as an object of faith for our eternal salvation. Therefore, it's fallible and, unfortunately, it did contain error.
The key phrases are 'proposed authoritatively' and 'an object of faith for their eternal salvation'. So, either the pope, or the pope/bishops must be VERY clear that what they are teaching is 1) by their apostolic authority, 2) a matter 'of faith' that MUST be believed, for salvation purposes.That definition is more 20th century theologian mumbo jumbo. Go ahead and use "magisterium" in a legible sentence using that ridiculous definition.
Again, it goes back to the adage: Something isn't infallible unless it is understood to be as such.
I could add my interpretation: Something doesn't have to be believed as 'of the faith' unless it is understood as such.
The point is, if the pope or the magisterium isn't CLEAR in their intentions and their language, it's not infallible, nor can it be 'of the faith' in the sense that it's 'without a doubt'. V2 was not clear, nor did it teach authoritatively that x,y or z MUST believed, as an object of faith for our eternal salvation. Therefore, it's fallible and, unfortunately, it did contain error.
Magisterium: The power conferred by Christ upon His Church and strengthened with the charism of infallibility, by which the teaching Church (Ecclesia Docens) is constituted as the unique depositary and authentic interpreter of divine revelation to be proposed authoritatively to men as the object of faith for their eternal salvation (Parente, Dictionary of Dogmatic Theology, p. 170, 1951)
Please quote where I said that there can be no Church with no pope, hierarchy, or members or any such thing. Do not misquote me to suit your confusion..
Trent is quite clear, there is nothing muddled about it just because you do not understand it. You need to strive to understand it so that it will be clear.
.Without members, there would be no reason for the Church at all - right? We need the Church to get to heaven - right? So the Church would not exist without members, this includes the pope and the hierarchy. The Church was founded upon St. Peter and St. Peter should have successors until the end of time. That is what the Church teaches through V1.
I said to you:
.
"Seems that with your view, as you've left it, we could speak of a Church which has no pope, no hierarchy, or no faithful. The Church is usually called the Mystical Bride of Christ. And maybe even Christ, but only in an analogous way. I'm asking what she actually is"
.
To which you responded:
.
"No, I cannot agree..."
.
I took this to mean that you cannot agree with the entire proposition. If you meant that you cannot agree with only part of it, I can't be expected to guess which part you agreed with.
.
So, just to be perfectly clear-- do you believe that the Catholic Church can exist without a pope* and without a hierarchy and without the faithful?
.
*Understood here to refer to the office of Peter, which is normally occupied.
When I said I cannot agree, it is because I disagree with the use of the phrase of those who so often say; "the Church teaches" when they do not mean the Church, they mean either a cardinal or bishop, a catechism or the hierarchy, some theologians or whoever, but the way the phrase is most often used, often makes the phrase itself ambiguous to the point of scandal..
What is the Church, Stubborn?The Church of Christ is comprised of an anti-Christ Pope praying with Christ hating Jews, Jews who follow the тαℓмυd which insults Christ ...don't question, just follow the Church of Stubborn
God doesn't exist because we need Him. So if the Church "actually is" Christ, there doesn't seem to be any logical reason (as a result of the Church defined as "actually Christ") that the Church could not exist without us.This is true, God doesn't exist because we need Him, God is perfectly happy all by Himself, but, God did make us for the purpose so that we know, love and serve Him in this world so as to be happy with Him in the next. The Church serves the purpose of teaching us about Him so that we may fulfill the purpose for our being created.
How do we learn from the Church (who is actually Christ, in your view)?
The Church of Christ is comprised of an anti-Christ Pope praying with Christ hating Jews, Jews who follow the тαℓмυd which insults Christ ...don't question, just follow the Church of StubbornAnd this is where that false idea leads too.
Please note: I do not believe he is Pope. Therefore, I am not required to obey any man as Pope who is not.I know you don't believe he is the pope, which is how you justify being able to attain salvation while at the same time not being his subject. I have not figured out how I can do that and have in fact, stopped trying to figure out how to do that. For me, it's much safer (and simpler) to remain the popes' good subject, but God's first.
Also note: You believe he is Pope and yet you obey him in nothing. You judge the man you claim is "pope" constantly. You even call him a heretic and apostate.
And this is where that false idea leads too.
In otherwords, you are subject to the lies of Francis, subject to his bringing death to souls, subject to his distruction of the Church.No.As I have repeatedly said, I remain the popes' good subject, but God's first. This is very basic Catholicity, an elementary Catholic principle, there is nothing complicated about this at all.
Mainly you are subject to a man who heads a new religion, which is not Catholic ... or do you believe his religion is Catholic?I don't believe the man is Catholic, but as his subject I have nothing to say about it, I am in no position to do anything about it therefore that does not concern me. He will face His Judge same as we all will, that much we can be certain of.
It also leads another sedevacantist on this thread to the belief that the church is the "harlot" as described in Sacred Scripture. Sedevacantism can lead one to extremes of thought.Yes, which as I've echoed Fr. Wathen's words in the past that sedevacantism is inherently anarchistic, "sedevacantists argue themselves into a mentality of total lawlessness, the *only* consequence of which is that the total legal structure of the Church is either threatened, or it is violated or destroyed, that is the result of anarchism."
It also leads another sedevacantist on this thread to the belief that the church is the "harlot" as described in Sacred Scripture. Sedevacantism can lead one to extremes of thought.Interesting Meg that you believe Vatican II is the Church, is the Catholic church; you see to me that is insulting God, who can NOT deceive nor be deceived. It is you and those who continue to defend the new religion to extreme thoughts.
Can you name even one thing he has commanded us to do that was not displeasing to God. Name just one and provide the source.No pope has ever commanded us! Francis teaches us to break the First Commanded, which is Divine Law.
Yes, which as I've echoed Fr. Wathen's words in the past that sedevacantism is inherently anarchistic, "sedevacantists argue themselves into a mentality of total lawlessness, the *only* consequence of which is that the total legal structure of the Church is either threatened, or it is violated or destroyed, that is the result of anarchism."
It makes sense that sedevacantism is anarchistic. We can tell that from the sedevacantists here. Father Wathen seems to have been quite astute about the subject of sedevacantism. Did he write a book on the subject, or is there more info about Father Wathen's insight regarding sedevacantism online?No, not that I know of anyway and yes, he was very astute. It is really something how he kept such a clear head throughout the whole crisis.
Stubborn think about YOUR words, you just admitted Francis is not Catholic, but you are subject to a non-Catholic man, who pretends to be a Pope. Wake Up and smell the coffee!I see you could not see what I wrote again but FYI, I admitted that him not being a Catholic was my opinion, which holds no water whatsoever. And yes, I am his subject because I know of no way around the dogma. If you were not blinded, you would have been able to see and read - possibly even understand why I am his subject.
Yes, be subject to the Pope, but the True Catholic ones, not a pretender.He did? Well I guess that I will just take your word for that and thanks! I would have not known had you not told me. For heaven's sake, don't listen to him. Ok?
No pope has ever commanded us! Francis teaches us to break the First Commanded, which is Divine Law.
Can you name even one thing he has commanded us to do that was not displeasing to God? Name just one and provide the source.Exactly. No law exists which commands us to sin.
Exactly. No law exists which commands us to sin.
---
As far as Fr Wathen goes, you can visit his website and listen to sermons for free. There may be a few on sedevacantism.
www.fatherwathen.com
Exactly. No law exists which commands us to sin.I downloaded all the sermons that could be downloaded when his site was still up and have listened to most of them, he has some really, really awesome sermons but only one or two talking about sedevacantism. Here is one I found: "In defense of the Papal Throne" (https://www.dropbox.com/s/0k0rdy9bc6d5tbe/In-Defense-Of-The-Papal-Throne-39.mp3?dl=0)
---
As far as Fr Wathen goes, you can visit his website and listen to sermons for free. There may be a few on sedevacantism.
www.fatherwathen.com
I downloaded all the sermons that could be downloaded when his site was still up and have listened to most of them, he has some really, really awesome sermons but only one or two talking about sedevacantism. Here is one I found: "In defense of the Papal Throne" (https://www.dropbox.com/s/0k0rdy9bc6d5tbe/In-Defense-Of-The-Papal-Throne-39.mp3?dl=0)
My guess is that he gave this sermon in the mid 80s.