Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => SSPX Resistance News => Topic started by: NIFH on April 24, 2023, 07:45:19 PM
-
In the new interview with Bishop Hounder, the statement is given that Archbishop Lefebvre was disposed to accept the entirety of Vatican II. Bishop Fellay is comfortable in saying that he's simply following the Archbishop when he accepts 95% of Vatican II. Those of us who grew up in the old SSPX have certainly heard that we do not accept Vatican II at all. What is the 'percentage of acceptability' of Vatican II?
We cannot reject Vatican II in every single line of the docuмents. The council quotes Trent and other sources that require our belief. What percentage of the council falls under that category? Perhaps 5%. The description of papal infallibility in Vatican II is very beautiful, for example, which doesn't help the fact that a few lines down, that infallibility is more or less pushed aside.
The great bulk of Vatican II quite resembles the post-conciliar encyclicals in the respect that, whereas for 19 centuries the popes and councils spoke very succinctly, getting straight to the point without an abundance of words, Vatican II rambles on and on and on, for pages and pages, flooding the reader with words that don't really say much at all. I once heard this category described as 'microwaved doctrine'. Or think of a giant inflatable. The docuмents are huge, but just read them; almost nothing but thin air within. This is certainly 90% of the council. Ambiguity prevails, as well as the stinky breath of the Revolution, though it is possible to interpret these lines in a Catholic sense. These lines do not need to be rejected, but if we had a good pope, he would throw the whole thing in the garbage simply because of it's uselessness. Why give such a huge pile of blah-blah-blah the dignity of getting attention? This is without even going into the possibility of un-Catholic interpretations of these lines.
What remains is 5%. This category is the really problematic content. For example, "The Moslems together with us adore one merciful God." Or, "The Holy Ghost does not refrain from using the efforts of the protestant churches as means of salvation". There are about 40 different lines as terrible as these. No amount of mental gymnastics can help you twist these lines into a Catholic interpretation.
Why, then, would the Archbishop say time and again that he was ready to sign an acceptance of Vatican II? Even when he took back his initials from the Protocol of '88 it was not because he had changed his mind on this point (rather, it was to prevent the administration of the Society from being turned over to Modernist wolves).
The Archbishop did not mean that he could accept the evil statements at face value. He specified that because of the Explanatory Note in Lumen Gentium, he could indeed sign below the council taken as a whole. The Note, which was asked for by Archbishop Lefebvre during the council, and which Paul VI inserted into the official docuмent, says, "... the sacred Council [!?!] defines as binding on the Church only those things in matters of faith and morals which it shall openly declare to be binding". Well, the council and the conciliar popes many times and clearly stated that they refused to proclaim anything as binding. To make the Note more succinct, it says, "none of this council must be accepted". It is there in the council itself!
It was with this Note in view that Archbishop Lefebvre declared himself ready to sign the council as a whole. Let's see the Neo-SSPX or Bishop Hounder give this explanation!
-
The explanation is just because Archbishop Lefebvre was ready to accept 95% of the council doesn't mean Archbishop Lefebvre is no longer credible. What you don't understand is that Archbishop Lefebvre became disillusioned with it later on. We can't write off traditional Catholics who were not traditional catholic their whole life. That's exactly why the Church has converts (and I have seen a few people on this forum not understand this). Fr. Gregory Hesse for example was a personal secretary of Cardinal Stickler from 1986 to 1988 and Cardinal Stickler was one of the members of the commission for the clergy at Vatican II. Fr. Malachi Martin was a personal secretary to Cardinal Bea during the second Vatican council. Fr. Malachi Martin, Fr. Gregory Hesse, and Archbishop Lefebvre all at one time were fine with Vatican II.
What disillusioned all of them was the modernism and all three of them spoke against that modernism in their own ways. Bishop Fellay apparently does not fully understand this. Vatican II ended up not being catholic. Plain and simple. You also need to understand when Archbishop Lefebvre was a Vatican II Council father, he was kicked out by the liberal fathers and the only one to be kicked out. Archbishop Lefebvre disagreed with the other fathers on religious liberty and it caused such a stir, Pope Paul VI had to get involved. As Archbishop Lefebvre said about this:
I was the only one eliminated, my interventions on this topic during the Council and my membership in the Coetus frightened them. - Archbishop Lefebvre
-
The Archbishop did not become disillusioned later. He fought might and main while the council was still in session. I recommend I Accuse the Council! to see his immediate disillusionment. The point is that even in 1988 he was ready to sign the council as a whole because of this Explanatory Note, a fact that is deceitfully put forward by Bishop Hounder as a defense for his own acceptance of the council docuмents; an acceptance of a completely different nature.
-
Archbishop Lefebvre was all over the place about the council and the Pope. You can carefully pick his writings and give the impression that he favours this or that position. He never fully accepted the council, but, at times, he was very soft about it. Especially when he expected to make some kind of deal with the modernists.
I believe that the fair thing to do is to judge him and his position like God does. God judges you based on your position towars Him just before you die.
What I mean is that we should see what he said in his final years, after the 1988 consecrations.
If you do that, I believe that you will see clearly that, in the end, he rejected Vatican II and all its ramifications. He gave up on expecting anything from the modernists in 1988.
In a certain sense, this is the main question that opposes the Neo-SSPX and the Resistance.
The present day SSPX insists that Archbishop Lefebvre would accept a deal with the modernists, if it was a satisfactory one. Bp. Williamson and his group say the opposite.
-
According to Paul VI you have to accept VII with docility as official Ordinary Magisterium:
"it still provided its teaching with the authority of the supreme ordinary magisterium. This ordinary magisterium, which is so obviously official, has to be accepted with docility, and sincerity by all the faithful"
see here for more:
https://novusordowatch.org/2020/07/how-taylor-marshall-distorts-paul6-on-vatican2/
The RR position does not accept with docility VII's "teaching with the authority of the supreme ordinary magisterium". That's schism. It's pick and choose protestantism.
Failure to accept with docility the Ordinary Magisterium is schism:
Pope Pius XI put it in his encyclical, Mortalium Animos, “Furthermore, in this one Church of Christ, no man can be or remain who does not accept, recognize and obey the authority and supremacy of Peter and his legitimate successsors.”
If you accept Paul VI as a legitimate successor you have to accept, recognize and obey ALL of VII. You cannot pick and choose like a protestant or you are in schism.
If VII says you worship the same god as Muslims, you have to accept, recognize and obey with docility.
-
In the new interview with Bishop Hounder, the statement is given that Archbishop Lefebvre was disposed to accept the entirety of Vatican II. Bishop Fellay is comfortable in saying that he's simply following the Archbishop when he accepts 95% of Vatican II. Those of us who grew up in the old SSPX have certainly heard that we do not accept Vatican II at all. What is the 'percentage of acceptability' of Vatican II?
We cannot reject Vatican II in every single line of the docuмents. The council quotes Trent and other sources that require our belief. What percentage of the council falls under that category? Perhaps 5%. The description of papal infallibility in Vatican II is very beautiful, for example, which doesn't help the fact that a few lines down, that infallibility is more or less pushed aside.
The great bulk of Vatican II quite resembles the post-conciliar encyclicals in the respect that, whereas for 19 centuries the popes and councils spoke very succinctly, getting straight to the point without an abundance of words, Vatican II rambles on and on and on, for pages and pages, flooding the reader with words that don't really say much at all. I once heard this category described as 'microwaved doctrine'. Or think of a giant inflatable. The docuмents are huge, but just read them; almost nothing but thin air within. This is certainly 90% of the council. Ambiguity prevails, as well as the stinky breath of the Revolution, though it is possible to interpret these lines in a Catholic sense. These lines do not need to be rejected, but if we had a good pope, he would throw the whole thing in the garbage simply because of it's uselessness. Why give such a huge pile of blah-blah-blah the dignity of getting attention? This is without even going into the possibility of un-Catholic interpretations of these lines.
What remains is 5%. This category is the really problematic content. For example, "The Moslems together with us adore one merciful God." Or, "The Holy Ghost does not refrain from using the efforts of the protestant churches as means of salvation". There are about 40 different lines as terrible as these. No amount of mental gymnastics can help you twist these lines into a Catholic interpretation.
Why, then, would the Archbishop say time and again that he was ready to sign an acceptance of Vatican II? Even when he took back his initials from the Protocol of '88 it was not because he had changed his mind on this point (rather, it was to prevent the administration of the Society from being turned over to Modernist wolves).
The Archbishop did not mean that he could accept the evil statements at face value. He specified that because of the Explanatory Note in Lumen Gentium, he could indeed sign below the council taken as a whole. The Note, which was asked for by Archbishop Lefebvre during the council, and which Paul VI inserted into the official docuмent, says, "... the sacred Council [!?!] defines as binding on the Church only those things in matters of faith and morals which it shall openly declare to be binding". Well, the council and the conciliar popes many times and clearly stated that they refused to proclaim anything as binding. To make the Note more succinct, it says, "none of this council must be accepted". It is there in the council itself!
It was with this Note in view that Archbishop Lefebvre declared himself ready to sign the council as a whole. Let's see the Neo-SSPX or Bishop Hounder give this explanation!
The less precise a mind is, the more words it takes to express itself.
-
None of the Vatican II council is acceptable. It is a new theology (based on bad philosophy) and the Luther Mess of Paul VI - pox be upon him - is a direct outgrowth thereof.
"Prometheus" by Fr. Calderon is a must read. Despite where one sits with Fr Cekada, his book "The Work of Human Hands" which I just recently finished reading, does a clear and concise job of exposing Paul VI liturgical machinations that result in the NO.
5% of V2 MIGHT look good, but zit is not by virtue of the context/milieu it is set in. Satan mixes truths with lies, as his modernist minions love to obfuscate the meanings of words.
Do we reject Satan and all his pomps and works such as Vatican II? Abrogaverit!!!!!!
-
You can't deconstruct Vatican II and read it sentence by sentence, but it must be viewed as a whole. This is like saying I have a book by some Eastern Orthodox or Protestant that might be 90% OK. What's important is that even the statements that happen to be materially true are now put into the new "context". Why else does V2 have to re-state prior Church teaching? It's because it's putting prior Church teaching into the context of the new mentality and the new Modernist-subjectivist mindset. It's one thing to say that "There are Three Divine Persons in One God" and present it as required for belief, and another thing to say that [it happens to be our view that] "There are three Divine Persons in One God". In both cases, the statement is true, but in the former you're presenting its "theological note", so to speak, as a dogma that's objectively required for belief and for salvation, but in the latter you're presenting it as, "this in our opinion is the fullness of truth, but it's OK for you to also not believe this, as we respect Muslims, Jєωs, etc." It's one thing to present a dogma as objectively true and another to present it as closest to the truth but still evolving toward greater trueness (ala de Chardin and the other Modernists).
What's at issue isn't the material truth or falsehood of statements that you can sit down and run math on. What's at issue is the entire theological context or framework in which the truths are presented.
So, going back to my analogy with a Prot. Prot might say, "Yes, there are Three Persons in One God." Materially correct. Problem is that the Prot holds this to be true because he derived it from Sacred Scripture using his private judgment, and his formal motive is completely flawed. So materially correct, but formally incorrect. Same thing with Vatican II. Statements that may be materially correct are rendered formally incorrect due to the warped subjectivist/Modernist formal motive of belief. In both the case of the Prot and of Vatican II, the REASON we believe these things is different than the Traditional Catholic view.
In the Vatican II perspective on the Holy Trinity, it's what we happen to hold true, but if you don't accept it, it doesn't mean that your beliefs are not true also. It's a question of degress of truth and relative trueness. Ours is more relatively true than yours, but this doesn't mean that your beliefs are untrue. Ours are just MORE true than yours are. THIS is is why Traditional Catholic truths are restated materially, so that they can be respun in the new subjectivist/Modernist context.
Vatican II admitted as much, claiming that they were not teaching anything "new" but presenting it in a "new way". This mode of presentation, the subjectivist/Modernist mode of presentation, pollutes the entirety of Catholic doctrine.
This is very solidly established Catholic doctrine. It's not necessary simply to MATERIALLY adhere to true propositions, but the FORMAL MOTIVE of belief has to be correct and true. I can't believe in the Holy Trinity because I discerned it from Sacred Scripture. I must believe in the Holy Trinity due to the formal motive of the Church having taught it. This is the reason for the teaching that if you deny one dogma you deny them all. You could accept 99.9% of Catholic dogma ... or, as +Fellay says of V2, 95% of Catholic dogma ... but if you reject just ONE of 1,000 dogmas, you reject them all. Why? Because you do not have the correct formal motive for the remaining 95% or 99.9%. So the formal pollution of Vatican II renders all of Vatican II untrue.
-
Vatican II might be 95% materially correct.
Eastern Orthodox might be 90% materially correct.
Some Prots might be 75% materially correct.
Other Prots might be 50% materially correct.
Muslims might be 20% materially correct.
Jєωs might be 15% materially correct.
Isn't this PRECISELY the vision of Vatican II, that things can admit of degrees of correctness? +Fellay speaking about the 95% correct is unwittingly (or not?) acquiescing to the entire new Vatican II theological framework, that there are degrees of truth based on the percentage of material propositions that happened to be correct, regardless of whether or not the entire formal framework is polluted?
Traditional Catholics would holy that ONLY the Catholic faith is correct, that formally speaking it's all or nothing. It's only with Vatican II that this notion or partial (material) correctness became "a thing".
-
Vatican II might be 95% materially correct.
Eastern Orthodox might be 90% materially correct.
Some Prots might be 75% materially correct.
Other Prots might be 50% materially correct.
Muslims might be 20% materially correct.
Jєωs might be 15% materially correct.
Isn't this PRECISELY the vision of Vatican II, that things can admit of degrees of correctness? +Fellay speaking about the 95% correct is unwittingly (or not?) acquiescing to the entire new Vatican II theological framework, that there are degrees of truth based on the percentage of material propositions that happened to be correct, regardless of whether or not the entire formal framework is polluted?
Traditional Catholics would holy that ONLY the Catholic faith is correct, that formally speaking it's all or nothing. It's only with Vatican II that this notion or partial (material) correctness became "a thing".
Yup. It goes hand in hand with the "partial communion" theology.
-
(https://i.imgur.com/CwAzr9I.png)
-
Yup. It goes hand in hand with the "partial communion" theology.
Yes, to buy that "95% correct" means something is essentially to buy all of Vatican II in a nutshell. You have to actually have the V2 perspective to make that statement.
-
Archbishop Lefebvre was all over the place about the council and the Pope. You can carefully pick his writings and give the impression that he favours this or that position. He never fully accepted the council, but, at times, he was very soft about it. Especially when he expected to make some kind of deal with the modernists.
I believe that the fair thing to do is to judge him and his position like God does. God judges you based on your position towars Him just before you die.
What I mean is that we should see what he said in his final years, after the 1988 consecrations.
If you do that, I believe that you will see clearly that, in the end, he rejected Vatican II and all its ramifications. He gave up on expecting anything from the modernists in 1988.
In a certain sense, this is the main question that opposes the Neo-SSPX and the Resistance.
The present day SSPX insists that Archbishop Lefebvre would accept a deal with the modernists, if it was a satisfactory one. Bp. Williamson and his group say the opposite.
Archbishop Lefebvre was very consistent with his judgement of the council from 1965 all the way to his death. He spoke very severely about the texts even in his correspondence with Cardinal Ratzinger. Yet in these same letters he declared to be ready to sign the council as a whole, being careful to explain that it was only because of this Explanatory Note that says the statements in the council need not be accepted.
-
According to Paul VI you have to accept VII with docility as official Ordinary Magisterium:
"it still provided its teaching with the authority of the supreme ordinary magisterium. This ordinary magisterium, which is so obviously official, has to be accepted with docility, and sincerity by all the faithful"
see here for more:
https://novusordowatch.org/2020/07/how-taylor-marshall-distorts-paul6-on-vatican2/
The RR position does not accept with docility VII's "teaching with the authority of the supreme ordinary magisterium". That's schism. It's pick and choose protestantism.
Failure to accept with docility the Ordinary Magisterium is schism:
Pope Pius XI put it in his encyclical, Mortalium Animos, “Furthermore, in this one Church of Christ, no man can be or remain who does not accept, recognize and obey the authority and supremacy of Peter and his legitimate successsors.”
If you accept Paul VI as a legitimate successor you have to accept, recognize and obey ALL of VII. You cannot pick and choose like a protestant or you are in schism.
If VII says you worship the same god as Muslims, you have to accept, recognize and obey with docility.
The pope is only infallible under very precise conditions. When a pope says something wrong and tries to label it 'ordinary magisterium', you simply ignore him, as Pius IX said. Paul VI was not the first heretical pope in Church history.
-
You can't deconstruct Vatican II and read it sentence by sentence, but it must be viewed as a whole. This is like saying I have a book by some Eastern Orthodox or Protestant that might be 90% OK. What's important is that even the statements that happen to be materially true are now put into the new "context". Why else does V2 have to re-state prior Church teaching? It's because it's putting prior Church teaching into the context of the new mentality and the new Modernist-subjectivist mindset. It's one thing to say that "There are Three Divine Persons in One God" and present it as required for belief, and another thing to say that [it happens to be our view that] "There are three Divine Persons in One God". In both cases, the statement is true, but in the former you're presenting its "theological note", so to speak, as a dogma that's objectively required for belief and for salvation, but in the latter you're presenting it as, "this in our opinion is the fullness of truth, but it's OK for you to also not believe this, as we respect Muslims, Jєωs, etc." It's one thing to present a dogma as objectively true and another to present it as closest to the truth but still evolving toward greater trueness (ala de Chardin and the other Modernists).
What's at issue isn't the material truth or falsehood of statements that you can sit down and run math on. What's at issue is the entire theological context or framework in which the truths are presented.
So, going back to my analogy with a Prot. Prot might say, "Yes, there are Three Persons in One God." Materially correct. Problem is that the Prot holds this to be true because he derived it from Sacred Scripture using his private judgment, and his formal motive is completely flawed. So materially correct, but formally incorrect. Same thing with Vatican II. Statements that may be materially correct are rendered formally incorrect due to the warped subjectivist/Modernist formal motive of belief. In both the case of the Prot and of Vatican II, the REASON we believe these things is different than the Traditional Catholic view.
In the Vatican II perspective on the Holy Trinity, it's what we happen to hold true, but if you don't accept it, it doesn't mean that your beliefs are not true also. It's a question of degress of truth and relative trueness. Ours is more relatively true than yours, but this doesn't mean that your beliefs are untrue. Ours are just MORE true than yours are. THIS is is why Traditional Catholic truths are restated materially, so that they can be respun in the new subjectivist/Modernist context.
Vatican II admitted as much, claiming that they were not teaching anything "new" but presenting it in a "new way". This mode of presentation, the subjectivist/Modernist mode of presentation, pollutes the entirety of Catholic doctrine.
This is very solidly established Catholic doctrine. It's not necessary simply to MATERIALLY adhere to true propositions, but the FORMAL MOTIVE of belief has to be correct and true. I can't believe in the Holy Trinity because I discerned it from Sacred Scripture. I must believe in the Holy Trinity due to the formal motive of the Church having taught it. This is the reason for the teaching that if you deny one dogma you deny them all. You could accept 99.9% of Catholic dogma ... or, as +Fellay says of V2, 95% of Catholic dogma ... but if you reject just ONE of 1,000 dogmas, you reject them all. Why? Because you do not have the correct formal motive for the remaining 95% or 99.9%. So the formal pollution of Vatican II renders all of Vatican II untrue.
The subjectivist setting of Catholic doctrine in Vatican II is one of the main reasons if any 'traditionalist' were pope, Vatican II would be immediately discarded.
It is truly remarkable that the Modernists allowed the Note to be included in the official text of the council. They really shot themselves in the foot. Because of the Note, a Catholic could sign under the council as a whole, and then by virtue of this Note reject the whole thing.
-
The pope is only infallible under very precise conditions. When a pope says something wrong and tries to label it 'ordinary magisterium', you simply ignore him, as Pius IX said. Paul VI was not the first heretical pope in Church history.
:facepalm: Unbelievable. This is where R&R has brought us. No Catholic theologican has ever taught that Catholics can "simply ignore" the Pope.
This is the biggest heretical hodge-podge articulation of R&R that I have seen yet.
This isn't about the strict limits of papal infalliblity but about the overall indefectibility of the Church, which would be gutted if the Church's Magisterium could become substantially corrupt, so corrupt that Catholics must break communion with it in order to remain Catholic, and where Catholics cannot in good conscience particpate in the Public Worship (Mass) of the Catholic Church.
-
This isn't about the strict limits of papal infalliblity but about the overall indefectibility of the Church, which would be gutted if the Church's Magisterium could become substantially corrupt, so corrupt that Catholics must break communion with it in order to remain Catholic, and where Catholics cannot in good conscience particpate in the Public Worship (Mass) of the Catholic Church.
But indefectability is apparently not wounded by the complete disappearance of the hierarchy?
Just more sede nonsense.
:facepalm:
-
While Pius IX was overseeing the formulation of the dogma of papal infallibility in Vatican I, the bishop of Brechin asked, "What happens if a future pope teaches heresy?" Pius IX, with his characteristic nonchalance, answered, "You just don't follow him."
When these disastrous recent popes say things contrary to what their predecessors defined, it is not magisterium. The Church remains indefectible and no shadow of corruption takes hold of the Magisterium.
-
While Pius IX was overseeing the formulation of the dogma of papal infallibility in Vatican I, the bishop of Brechin asked, "What happens if a future pope teaches heresy?" Pius IX, with his characteristic nonchalance, answered, "You just don't follow him."
When these disastrous recent popes say things contrary to what their predecessors defined, it is not magisterium. The Church remains indefectible and no shadow of corruption takes hold of the Magisterium.
Perfectly correct.
Nothing is of the ordinary magisterium which does not possess universality (in space and time).
-
But indefectability is apparently not wounded by the complete disappearance of the hierarchy?
Just more sede nonsense.
:facepalm:
How is the "legitimate" hierarchy all being heretics or heretic enablers any better?
-
How is the "legitimate" hierarchy all being heretics or heretic enablers any better?
They are certainly nothing to brag about, and much to be ashamed of. I don't deny that.
-
While Pius IX was overseeing the formulation of the dogma of papal infallibility in Vatican I, the bishop of Brechin asked, "What happens if a future pope teaches heresy?" Pius IX, with his characteristic nonchalance, answered, "You just don't follow him."
What is the source of this quote?
It appears the Diocese of Brechin ceased to be Catholic in 1558.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bishop_of_Brechin
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diocese_of_Brechin
-
This was one of the favorite stories of Father Hesse. He pronounced it 'Brixen', I assumed it was Brechin.
-
:facepalm: Unbelievable. This is where R&R has brought us. No Catholic theologian has ever taught that Catholics can "simply ignore" the Pope.
“If (the Pope) lays down an order contrary to right customs one does not have to obey him; if he tries to do something manifestly opposed to justice and to the common good, it would be licit to resist him; if he attacks by force, he could be repelled by force, with the moderation characteristic of a good defence.” - Suarez, De Fide, disp.X sect.6, n.16.
“If a man is sincerely convinced that what his superior commands is displeasing to God, he is bound not to obey…The word ‘superior’ certainly includes the Pope.” - Cardinal Newman, Difficulties of Anglicans, pp.260-61.
“If the Faith be in danger, prelates ought to be accused by their subjects, even in public. Thus, St. Paul, who was the subject of St Peter, called him to task in public because of the impending danger of scandal concerning a point of Faith. As the gloss of St Augustine says on Gal 2:11: ‘St Peter himself set an example for those who rule, to the effect that if they ever stray from the right path they are not to feel that anyone is unworthy of correcting them, even if such a person be one of their subjects.’” - St Thomas Aquinas, S.Th.IIaIIae,q33a4ad2.
"Although it clearly follows from the circuмstances that the Pope can err at times, and command things which must not be done, that we are not simply to be obedient to him in all things, that does not show that he must be obeyed by all when his commands are good. To know in what cases he is to be obeyed and what not, it is said in the Acts of the Apostles: 'One ought to obey God rather than man'; therefore, were the Pope to command anything against Holy Scripture, or the articles of the Faith, or the truths of the Sacraments, or the commands of the natural or the divine law, he ought not to be obeyed, but in such commands, to be passed over, ignored." - Cardinal Torquemada OP (1388-1468), Summa de Ecclesia, p47-48
"Great as our filial duty of reverence is towards whatever (the Pope) may say, great as our duty of obedience must be to the guidance of the Chief Shepherd, we do not hold that every word of his is infallible, or that he must always be right" - Raphael Cardinal Merry del Val, The Truth of Papal Claims, 1902, p19... Commenting on St Paul's resisting St Peter as related in Galatians: "Even today a bishop might expostulate with a Pope, who in his judgement might be acting in a way which was liable to mislead those under his own charge, and then write to his critics that he had not hesitated to pass strictures upon the action of the successor of St Peter... The hypothesis is quite conceivable and in no way destroys or diminishes the supremacy of the Pope. And yet an individual bishop does not occupy the exceptional position of St Paul, a fellow Apostle of the Prince of the Apostles. Even a humble nun, St Catherine of Siena, expostulated with the reigning Pontiff in her day, whilst fully acknowledging all his great prerogatives." -Card Merry del Val, Ibid. p74
“Were he (the Pope) to wish to destroy the Church or to commit an act of similar magnitude, there would be a duty to prevent him, and likewise an obligation to oppose him and resist him. The reason being that he does not possess power in order to destroy, and thus it follows that if he is doing so it is lawful to oppose him” - Sylvester Prieras, prominent Dominican defender of papal authority against Martin Luther, in Dialogus de Potestate Papae, 1517.
“If the Pope by his orders and his acts destroys the Church, one can resist him and impede the execution of his commands.” - Vitoria, Dominican theologian, Obras de Francisco de Vitoria pp. 486-67
“Just as it is licit to resist the Pontiff who attacks the body, so also is it licit to resist him who attacks the souls or destroys the civil order, or above all destroys the Church. I say that it is licit to resist him by not doing what he orders and by impeding the execution of his will…” - St Robert Bellarmine, De Summo Pontifice, n.30, lib.II, cap.102
-
:facepalm: Unbelievable.
This isn't about the strict limits of papal infalliblity but about the overall indefectibility of the Church, which would be gutted if the Church's Magisterium could become substantially corrupt, so corrupt that Catholics must break communion with it in order to remain Catholic, and where Catholics cannot in good conscience particpate in the Public Worship (Mass) of the Catholic Church.
The Church has not defected. The Church's Magisterium is not corrupt, nor is its worship, and your setting yourself up as Pope in order to depose the Pope does not alter that.
Catholics are required to use their God-given intellect to practice true obedience and be true subjects of the Roman Pontiff, they are not to slavishly obey him in all things, anymore than they are to 'obey' their parents or civil authorities should they command them to sin. Catholics who do this have the same faith and worship as their fathers.
Nor is it Catholic teaching that if a Pope teaches heresy or attempts to mangle the Mass and the Sacraments that he ceases to be Pope, at least quoad nos, without the Church first establishing the fact.
Just accept the fact that God has allowed this great evil to rock the boat, this perilous storm on a very dark ocean threatening the Ark of Salvation which is the Church, and stop usurping the authority of that Church which God has permitted should be so crippled.
-
The Catacombs - Archbishop Lefebvre - On the Second Vatican Council (https://thecatacombs.org/archive/index.php?thread-79.html)
“The more one analyzes the docuмents of Vatican II, and the more one analyzes their interpretation by the authorities of the Church, the more one realizes that what is at stake is not merely superficial errors, a few mistakes, Ecuмenism, Religious Liberty, Collegiality, a certain Liberalism, but rather a wholesale perversion of the mind, a whole new philosophy based on modern philosophy, on subjectivism… A wholly different version of Revelation, of Faith, of philosophy! Very grave! A total perversion! How we are going to get out of all this, I have no idea, but in any case it is a fact, and as this German theologian shows (who has, I believe, another two parts of his book to write on the Holy Father's thought), it is truly frightening. So, they are no small errors. We are not dealing in trifles. We are into a line of philosophical thinking that goes back to Kant, Descartes, the whole line of modern philosophers who paved the way for the Revolution.” (Two Years After the Consecrations (http://thecatacombs.org/thread/540/final-conference-priests-september-consecrations), September 6, 1990)
“…it is nonetheless certain that the Council was deflected from its purposes by a group of conspirators and that it is impossible for us to take any part in this conspiracy, despite the fact that there may be many satisfactory declarations in Vatican II. The good texts have served as cover to get those texts which are snares, equivocal, and denuded of meaning, accepted and passed.” (from I Accuse the Council)
“We believe we can affirm, purely by internal and external criticism of Vatican II, i.e. by analyzing the texts and studying the Council’s ins and outs, that by turning its back on Tradition and breaking with the Church of the past, it is a schismatic council.” (Archbishop Lefebvre, Le Figaro, August 4, 1976)
“It is stupefying to read in the Docuмentation Catholique that the Lutheran-Catholic Commission of the Secretariat for Christian Unity, and thus an official Roman commission, said in effect that numerous points in the Council were drawn from the teachings of Luther…” (Conference in Germany, October 29, 1984)
“Some say the Council was good and has good, but only the reform is bad. But that is not true! Why? Because when Rome gave the reform, they always say the reforms they do, they do in the name of the Council. In the name of the Council! It is evident that all reform came from the Council, and if the reform is bad, it is impossible that the Council is good and all reforms are bad. Because that is the authentic interpretation of the Council by Rome!” (Conference, May 11, 1976)
“This Council gives the same rights to error as to Truth! That is impossible.” (Conference, May 11, 1976)
“We refuse, on the other hand, and have always refused to follow the Rome of neo-Modernist and neo-Protestant tendencies which were clearly evident in the Second Vatican Council and, after the Council, in all the reforms which issued from it. ... This reform, since it has issued from Liberalism and from Modernism, is entirely corrupt. It comes from heresy and results in heresy, even if all its acts are not formally heretical. It is thus impossible for any faithful Catholic who is aware of these things to adopt this reform, or to submit to it in any way at all. To ensure our salvation, the only attitude of fidelity to the Church and to Catholic doctrine, is a categorical refusal to accept the reform. ... That is why we hold fast to all that has been believed and practiced in the faith, morals, liturgy, teaching of the catechism, formation of the priest and institution of the Church, by the Church of all time; to all these things as codified in those books which saw day before the Modernist influence of the Council.” (Declaration (http://thecatacombs.org/thread/80/1974-declaration-archbishop-lefebvre) of Faith, November 21, 1974)
“We can think that there is Rome and Rome: [on one hand,] there is the Rome which is eternal in Her Faith, Her Dogmas, Her concept of the Sacrifice of the Mass; [on the other hand,] there is the temporal Rome which is influenced by the ideas of the modern world, an influence which the Council itself did not escape.” (October 13, 1974)
“The Church, in the course of the 1960's, thus during the Council, acquired values that have come from outside the Church, from the liberal culture - due secoli - from two centuries of liberal culture. It is clear: these are the "rights" of man, it is religious freedom, it is ecuмenism. It is Satanic.” (Conference, December 13, 1984)
"Without rejecting this Council wholesale, I think that it is the greatest disaster of this century and of all the past centuries, since the founding of the Church." The Angelus A Matter of Principle (http://redirect.viglink.com/?key=71fe2139a887ad501313cd8cce3053c5&subId=6872759&u=http%3A//www.angelus.online/en_US/8362/120253/a_matter_of_principle.html)
“I never…I don’t accept the Council! Because you are destroying the Catholic State in the name of the Council! It is sure! It is evident!…This Council gives the same rights to error as to Truth! That is impossible…This new faith, it is a new religion. It is a protestant religion. That is a fact! How is it possible that the Pope gives the authorization to this change? How it is possible that the pope can sign this constitution (on liturgical change)? It is a deep mystery…If I take the position of the Council, I am betraying my Mother Church.” (Archbishop Lefebvre, conference, 1976)
We [Bishop de Castro Mayer and the Archbishop] fought together to prevent the errors of Liberalism, which are a cancer in the doctrine of the Church, spreading themselves in the texts of the Council. ... Unfortunately, this Liberal principle has been adopted by Vatican II. ... If one does not want to believe that these texts are Liberal, one has just to see the consequences: ecuмenism (all religion on an equal footing), and the laicization of the states. Ordination Sermon 1988 (http://www.angelusonline.org/index.php?section=articles&subsection=show_article&article_id=1483)
And, so I said to him [Cardinal Ratzinger], "What is the source of these bad fruits? For me, it is the Council of aggiornamento; that signifies the Council of the changes. What changes? Changes in the sacraments, changes in catechisms, changes in the Bible, so that we are no longer Catholics [but] are like Protestants. ... And he said, "No! No, no, no, that does not come from the Council; it comes from bad interpretations of the Council; it comes from abuses of the reforms." I said, "That is not true. That comes from the new orientation of the Church in the Council, especially by ecuмenism." Changes in the Sacraments...We are like Protestants 1985 (https://thecatacombs.org/thread/1902/changes-sacraments-protestants-1985)
The Church has always dreaded novelties, even in her vocabulary and that is why she has held on so strongly to the Latin language in the principal form of Tradition, viz. the Roman Church. For it is by a tendency to novelty that heresies, schisms, and errors have come about. This spirit of novelty, mutation, and change has succeeded in entering into the Church. It necessarily tends to destroy Tradition. The Second Vatican Council, which wished to be the Council of "up-dating," opened the door to this spirit of change and novelty. (Principles and Directives - 1982 General Chapter (http://thecatacombs.org/thread/2267/principles-directives-1982-general-chapter))
The Council should have been the occasion of the reaffirmation of the Truth of the Church and the necessity of the social reign of Jesus and Mary against the errors of Protestantism and Teilhardian naturalism and against socialism and communism. Ordinary Protestants would have been converted en masse. They were disposed to it and their debacle was profound on the eve of the Council. But the Modernists, traitors to the Church, used the Council to favor their compromise with all the modern errors, profiting from a weak pope and a pope disposed to radical changes. All of the commentators on the Council recognize the triumph of the liberals who did not hide their satisfaction and who neutralized or drove from the Roman Curia all of the conservatives and who took the reins of government, centralizing power in the Secretariat of State in order to be certain of managing the ecuмenical revolution so much desired by the enemies of the Church. The work was quickly carried out in all fields. Destruction also followed quickly. In this pastoral Council the spirit of error and lies was able to work at its ease, placing time-bombs everywhere which, in due course, would destroy the institutions. (Principles and Directives - 1982 General Chapter (http://thecatacombs.org/thread/2267/principles-directives-1982-general-chapter))
-
While Pius IX was overseeing the formulation of the dogma of papal infallibility in Vatican I, the bishop of Brechin asked, "What happens if a future pope teaches heresy?" Pius IX, with his characteristic nonchalance, answered, "You just don't follow him."
When these disastrous recent popes say things contrary to what their predecessors defined, it is not magisterium. The Church remains indefectible and no shadow of corruption takes hold of the Magisterium.
No, he didn't, stop spreading that made up lie or give a credible source.
The best indication this is completely made up is that sometimes people say it was the bishop of Brechin, sometimes of Brixen and sometimes that the bishop's name was Brixen.
What Pius IX actually said to a person minimising the Pope's authority (like you do) is: "Tradition?! I am Tradition!"
-
No, he didn't, stop spreading that made up lie or give a credible source.
The best indication this is completely made up is that sometimes people say it was the bishop of Brechin, sometimes of Brixen and sometimes that the bishop's name was Brixen.
What Pius IX actually said to a person minimising the Pope's authority (like you do) is: "Tradition?! I am Tradition!"
Living Tradition. It is traditional after all! The Pope makes it! You had better follow your own advice and provide a source lest you come under your own judgement!
Your evidence of a lie, is no evidence at all.
Fr Chazal produces the same quote in Contra Cekadam, but again, sadly, with no reference:
"There is danger that a future pope would become a heretic and teach contrary to the Catholic Faith... do not follow him. If a future pope teaches anything contrary to the Catholic Faith, do not follow him" - Letter to the Bishop of Brixen, quoted in Contra Cekadam p60.
Pope Pius IX reigned from 1846-1878. From 1856-1879, the Bishop of Brixen was Vincent Gasser, famed for his Official Relatio on Papal Infallibility at Vatican Council I. Perhaps he is the one in question. His Relatio at the Council is even more condemning of your false and exaggerated notion of Papal Infallibility:
The gift of infallibility : the official relatio on infallibility of Bishop Vincent Gasser at Vatican Council I : Gasser, Vinzenz, 1809-1879 : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive (https://archive.org/details/giftofinfallibil0000gass/page/2/mode/2up?view=theater)
"Vincent Gasser was born in 1809, taught dogmatic theology after ordination to priesthood, was nominated by Emperor Franz Joseph as prince-bishop of Brixen in the Tyrol in 1856 and died there as bishop in 1879". Dom Cuthbert Butler wrote in his history of the Council "Mgr Vincent Gasser... stands out as the most prominent theologian of the Council". He was the official spokesman of the Deputation De Fide at the Council, entrusted with drawing up the draft and explaining it to the Council Fathers, which he did in his Relatio. Here are some quotes from this work which you can read in full above:
"It should not be said that the Pontiff is infallible simply because of the authority of the Papacy but rather inasmuch as he is certainly and undoubtedly subject to the direction of the divine assistance. By the authority of the Papacy the Pontiff is always the supreme judge in matters of faith and morals, and the father and teacher of all Christians. But the divine assistance promised to him, by which he cannot err, he only enjoys as such when he really and actually exercises his duty as supreme judge and universal teacher of the Church in disputes about the Faith. Thus, the sentence 'The Roman Pontiff is infallible' should not be treated as false, since Christ promised infallibility to the person of Peter and his successors, but it is incomplete, since the Pope is only infallible when, by a solemn judgement, he defines a matter of faith and morals for the Church universal"
"The purpose of this prerogative is the preservation of truth in the Church. The special exercise of this prerogative occurs when there arise somewhere in the Church scandals against the faith... and we should piously believe that , in the divine assistance promised to Peter and his successors by Christ, there is simultaneously contained a promise about the means which are necessary and suitable to make an infallible pontifical judgement...
"Note well. It is asked in what sense the infallibility of the Roman Pontiff is 'absolute'. I reply and openly admit: in no sense is pontifical infallibility absolute, because absolute infallibility belongs to God alone, who is the first and essential truth and who is never able to deceive or be deceived. All other infallibility, as communicated for a specific purpose, has its limits and its conditions under which it is considered to be present. The same is valid in reference to the Infallibility of the Roman Pontiff. For this infallibility is bound by certain limits and conditions."
"Now before I end this general relatio, I should respond to the most grave objection that has been made from this podium, namely, that we wish to make the extreme opinion of a certain school of theology a dogma of Catholic Faith. Indeed, this is a very grave objection, and when I heard it from the mouth of an outstanding and most esteemed speaker, I hung my head sadly and pondered well before speaking. Good God, have you so confused our minds and our tongues that we are misrepresented as promoting the elevation of the extreme opinion of a certain school to the dignity of dogma...? As far as the doctrine set forth in the draft goes, the Deputation is unjustly accused of wanting to raise an extreme opinion, namely, that of Albert Pighius, to the dignity of a dogma. For the opinion of Albert Pighius, which Bellarmine indeed calls 'pious and probable', was that the Pope, as an individual person or a private teacher, was able to err from a type of ignorance but was never able to fall into heresy or teach heresy... it is evident (apparet) that the doctrine in the proposed Chapter is not that of Albert Pighius or the extreme opinion of any school..."
-
Living Tradition. It is traditional after all! The Pope makes it! You had better follow your own advice and provide a source lest you come under your own judgement!
Your evidence of a lie, is no evidence at all.
Fr Chazal produces the same quote in Contra Cekadam, but again, sadly, with no reference:
"There is danger that a future pope would become a heretic and teach contrary to the Catholic Faith... do not follow him. If a future pope teaches anything contrary to the Catholic Faith, do not follow him" - Letter to the Bishop of Brixen, quoted in Contra Cekadam p60.
As we can see, you can't even tell me whether the quote is from a letter to the Bishop of Brixen or stated verbally in a converstion to the Bishop of Brechin. Fr. Chazal just quotes whatever will support his position no matter if he can substantiate it or not, obviously.
Here are some undisputedly authentic quotes from Pope Pius IX that reveal the true nature of his teaching on absolute Papal supremacy and the absolute obedience you owe to the Pope.
This chair [of Peter] 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….
Now you know well that the most deadly foes of the Catholic religion have always waged a fierce war, but without success, against this Chair; they are by no means ignorant of the fact that religion itself can never totter and fall while this Chair remains intact, the Chair which rests on the rock which the proud gates of hell cannot overthrow and in which there is the whole and perfect solidity of the Christian religion. Therefore, because of your special faith in the Church and special piety toward the same Chair of Peter, We exhort you to direct your constant efforts so that the faithful people of France may avoid the crafty deceptions and errors of these plotters and develop a more filial affection and obedience to this Apostolic See. Be vigilant in act and word, so that the faithful may grow in love for this Holy See, venerate it, and accept it with complete obedience; they should execute whatever the See itself teaches, determines, and decrees.
(Pope Pius IX, Encyclical Inter Multiplices (http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Pius09/p9interm.htm), nn. 1,7; underlining added.)
For any man to be able to prove his Catholic faith and affirm that he is truly a Catholic, he must be able to convince the Apostolic See of this. For this See is predominant and with it the faithful of the whole Church should agree. And the man who abandons the See of Peter can only be falsely confident that he is in the Church. As a result, that man is already a schismatic and a sinner who establishes a see in opposition to the unique See of the blessed Peter from which the rights of sacred communion derive for all men.
(Pope Pius IX, Encyclical Quartus Supra (http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Pius09/p9quartu.htm), n. 8)
It is certainly a regrettable thing, Dearly beloved Son, that it is possible to meet even among Catholics men who, while they glory in the name [of Catholic], show themselves thoroughly imbued with corrupt principles and adhere to them with such stubbornness that they are no longer able to submit their minds with docility to the judgment of the Holy See when that judgment is opposed to them, even when common opinion and the recommendation of the episcopate have corroborated it. They go even further, and making progress and the happiness of society depend on these principles, they strive to bring the Church round to their way of thinking. Considering that they alone are wise, they do not blush to give the name of “Ultramontane Party” to the entire Catholic family which thinks otherwise.
(Pope Pius IX, Apostolic Letter Dolendum Profecto; in Papal Teachings: The Church (https://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/B002NGG73I/interregnumnow-20), n. 332)
... it is not sufficient for learned Catholics to accept and revere the aforesaid dogmas of the Church, but that it is also necessary to subject themselves to the decisions pertaining to doctrine which are issued by the Pontifical Congregations, and also to those forms of doctrine which are held by the common and constant consent of Catholics as theological truths and conclusions, so certain that opinions opposed to these same forms of doctrine, although they cannot be called heretical, nevertheless deserve some theological censure.
(Pope Pius IX, Tuas Libenter)
…in the Apostolic See the Catholic religion has always been preserved untainted, and holy doctrine celebrated. Desiring, then, least of all to be separated from the faith and teaching of this [Apostolic See], We hope that We may deserve to be in the one communion which the Apostolic See proclaims, in which the solidarity of the Christian religion is whole and true.
(Vatican I, Dogmatic Constitution Pastor Aeternus, Ch. 4; Denz. 1833 (http://patristica.net/denzinger/#n1800))
Pope Pius IX, Quartus Supra:
All these traditions dictate that whoever the Roman Pontiff judges to be a schismatic for not expressly admitting and reverencing his power must stop calling himself Catholic.
Your "Pope" Francis: "the schism with the movement of Mons. Lefebvre”
It is the height of absurdity to propose Pope Pius IX would say something so stupid and out of character.
Your clown position is destroyed by Pope Pius IX.
-
While Pius IX was overseeing the formulation of the dogma of papal infallibility in Vatican I, the bishop of Brechin asked, "What happens if a future pope teaches heresy?" Pius IX, with his characteristic nonchalance, answered, "You just don't follow him."
When these disastrous recent popes say things contrary to what their predecessors defined, it is not magisterium. The Church remains indefectible and no shadow of corruption takes hold of the Magisterium.
Characteristic nonchalance? :confused::laugh2:
:fryingpan:
Yeah, try reading some actual Pius IX quoted above. Try reading the whole Quartus Supra (http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Pius09/p9quartu.htm) and tell me how it fares with your position.
-
“If (the Pope) lays down an order contrary to right customs one does not have to obey him; if he tries to do something manifestly opposed to justice and to the common good, it would be licit to resist him; if he attacks by force, he could be repelled by force, with the moderation characteristic of a good defence.” - Suarez, De Fide, disp.X sect.6, n.16.
“If a man is sincerely convinced that what his superior commands is displeasing to God, he is bound not to obey…The word ‘superior’ certainly includes the Pope.” - Cardinal Newman, Difficulties of Anglicans, pp.260-61.
“If the Faith be in danger, prelates ought to be accused by their subjects, even in public. Thus, St. Paul, who was the subject of St Peter, called him to task in public because of the impending danger of scandal concerning a point of Faith. As the gloss of St Augustine says on Gal 2:11: ‘St Peter himself set an example for those who rule, to the effect that if they ever stray from the right path they are not to feel that anyone is unworthy of correcting them, even if such a person be one of their subjects.’” - St Thomas Aquinas, S.Th.IIaIIae,q33a4ad2.
"Although it clearly follows from the circuмstances that the Pope can err at times, and command things which must not be done, that we are not simply to be obedient to him in all things, that does not show that he must be obeyed by all when his commands are good. To know in what cases he is to be obeyed and what not, it is said in the Acts of the Apostles: 'One ought to obey God rather than man'; therefore, were the Pope to command anything against Holy Scripture, or the articles of the Faith, or the truths of the Sacraments, or the commands of the natural or the divine law, he ought not to be obeyed, but in such commands, to be passed over, ignored." - Cardinal Torquemada OP (1388-1468), Summa de Ecclesia, p47-48
"Great as our filial duty of reverence is towards whatever (the Pope) may say, great as our duty of obedience must be to the guidance of the Chief Shepherd, we do not hold that every word of his is infallible, or that he must always be right" - Raphael Cardinal Merry del Val, The Truth of Papal Claims, 1902, p19... Commenting on St Paul's resisting St Peter as related in Galatians: "Even today a bishop might expostulate with a Pope, who in his judgement might be acting in a way which was liable to mislead those under his own charge, and then write to his critics that he had not hesitated to pass strictures upon the action of the successor of St Peter... The hypothesis is quite conceivable and in no way destroys or diminishes the supremacy of the Pope. And yet an individual bishop does not occupy the exceptional position of St Paul, a fellow Apostle of the Prince of the Apostles. Even a humble nun, St Catherine of Siena, expostulated with the reigning Pontiff in her day, whilst fully acknowledging all his great prerogatives." -Card Merry del Val, Ibid. p74
“Were he (the Pope) to wish to destroy the Church or to commit an act of similar magnitude, there would be a duty to prevent him, and likewise an obligation to oppose him and resist him. The reason being that he does not possess power in order to destroy, and thus it follows that if he is doing so it is lawful to oppose him” - Sylvester Prieras, prominent Dominican defender of papal authority against Martin Luther, in Dialogus de Potestate Papae, 1517.
“If the Pope by his orders and his acts destroys the Church, one can resist him and impede the execution of his commands.” - Vitoria, Dominican theologian, Obras de Francisco de Vitoria pp. 486-67
“Just as it is licit to resist the Pontiff who attacks the body, so also is it licit to resist him who attacks the souls or destroys the civil order, or above all destroys the Church. I say that it is licit to resist him by not doing what he orders and by impeding the execution of his will…” - St Robert Bellarmine, De Summo Pontifice, n.30, lib.II, cap.102
This is simply the teaching of Our Lord, and the revelation directly written down in the Scriptures.
Matthew 23
1 Then Jesus spoke to the multitudes and to his disciples, 2 Saying: The scribes and the Pharisees have sitten on the chair of Moses. 3 All things therefore whatsoever they shall say to you, observe and do: but according to their works do ye not; for they say, and do not.
Some try to limit the rein Christ put on obedience to the Scribes by saying that He is only speaking about what they do, not what they teach. Yet Christ had previously warned the disciples to beware of the "doctrine" of the Scribes and Pharisees (Matthew 16:12), and explicitly told them that the Pharisees taught things that "make void the commandment of God, that you may keep your own tradition" (Mark 7:9; see also Matthew 15). Thus, not only does Scripture in light of itself reject such an interpretation, but also notable Catholic commentators do as well, as reflected in Haydock and Lapide below.
Haydock Commentary
Ver. 2. The Scribes. They, who professed the greatest zeal for the law of Moses, and gloried in being the interpreters of it, sat upon the chair of Moses, succeeded to his authority of governing the people of God, of instructing them in his law, and of disclosing to them his will. Such, therefore, as did not depart from the letter of the law, were called Scribes. But such as professed something higher, and separated themselves from the crowd, as better than the ordinary class of men, were called Pharisees, which signifies, separated. Origen. — God preserveth the truth of the Christian religion in the apostolic See of Rome, which in the new law answers to the chair of Moses, notwithstanding the disedifying conduct of some few of its bishops. Yes, though a traitor, as vile as Judas himself, were a bishop thereof, it would not be prejudicial to the integrity of the faith of God's Church, or to the ready obedience and perfect submission of sincere good Christians, for whom our Lord has made this provision, when he says: do that which they say, but do not as they do. S. Aug. Ep. clxv.
Ver. 3. All therefore whatsoever they shall say. S. Augustine, in his defence of the Apostolic See, thus argues, contra lit. Petil. "Why dost thou call the apostolic chair the chair of pestilence? If, for the men that sit therein, I ask: did our Lord Jesus Christ, on account of the Pharisees, reflect upon the chair, wherein they sat? Did he not commend that chair of Moses, and, preserving the honour of the chair, reprove them? For he sayeth: they have sat on the chair of Moses. All therefore whatsoever they shall say to you, observe and do. These points if you did well consider, you would not, for the men whom you defame, blaspheme the Apostolic See, wherewith you do not hold communion." l. ii. c. 51. And again, c. 61. Ibid. "Neither on account of the Pharisees, to whom you maliciously compare us, did our Lord command the chair of Moses to be forsaken; (in which chair he verily figured his own) for he warned the people to do what they say, and not what they do, and that the holiness of the chair be in no case forsaken, nor the unity of the flock divided, on account of the wicked lives of the pastors." — Christ does not tell them to observe every thing, without exception, that the Pharisees should say to them; for, (as it was observed in a previous chapter) many superstitions and false ordinances had obtained amongst them, corrupting the Scriptures by their traditions; but only such as were not contrary to the law of Moses. We are taught to obey bad no less than good ministers, in those things that are not expressly contrary to the law of God. Hence appears how unfounded and unreasonable is the excuse so often adduced by persons in justification of their misdeeds, viz. that they saw their pastors do the same. Such must attend to the rule here given by Jesus Christ. What they say, do: but according to their works, do ye not. Dion. Carthus. — The words, all whatsoever, shew that nothing must be excepted, but what the supreme law orders to be excepted. E.
Lapide commentary:
Saying, &c. By seat we here understand the honour, dignity, and authority of teaching and commanding, which Moses had with the Jєωs, and to which the Scribes had succeeded. We gather from S. Luke iv. 16, that the Scribes not only sat, but sometimes stood when they taught. In like manner, the chair of S. Peter is used to signify the power and authority of teaching and ruling all the faithful throughout the world, in which the Roman Pontiffs succeed S. Peter. For otherwise no Pontiff ever sits now in that actual wooden chair in which S. Peter sat, but it is religiously preserved in his basilica, and is shown to the people every year on the Feast of S. Peter’s Chair, to be venerated. Hence S. Jerome said to Damasus, “I am united in communion to your blessedness, that is, to the chair of Peter.” For although as a private man the Pontiff may err, yet when he defines anything ex cathedra, that is, by his Pontifical authority concerning the faith, he cannot err, because he is assisted by the Holy Ghost.
Observe, many of the Scribes and Pharisees were priests or Levites, whose duty it was to teach the people (Mal. ii. 7). But Christ did not wish to name the Priests, because He would not derogate from the sacerdotal honour.
All things therefore whatsoever, &c. He means, of course, all things not contrary to Moses and the Law. For the doctrine of the Scribes, when they taught men to say corban to their parents, was contrary to the Law, as Christ showed (xv. 4). In like manner, it was contrary to the Law of Moses to teach, as the Scribes did, that Jesus was not the Messiah, or the Christ. For Jesus showed those very signs and miracles which Moses and the Prophets had foretold Messiah would perform. In such things, therefore, the people must not follow the doctrine of the Scribes, nor be obedient to them; but in other things, in which their teaching was generally conformable to the Law of Moses, it was their duty to obey them. Christ therefore here teaches that all the other dogmas of the Scribes, which were not repugnant to the law, even though they were vain and foolish, and therefore not binding (for that a law should be obligatory, it must command something honest and useful, as Civilians and Theologians teach in their treatises upon laws, also D. Thomas, 1. 2 quæst. 95, art. 3), such as were the frequent washings of the hands and other parts of the body, might yet serve for the merit of blind and simple obedience, and for reverence of the sacerdotal order. So Jansen, Franc. Lucas, and others. But Maldonatus restricts the word all to such commands alone as are contained in the Law of Moses. Certainly these were what Christ chiefly referred to.
Of course, obedience to the hierarchy is a virtue, and indeed they sit in the chair or seat of Moses. They should be listened to, unless . . . see above.
Let me then ask: if those sitting, legitimately, in the seat or chair of Moses, are to be rejected for saying or teaching anything contrary to the law of God (as Our Lord and Scripture teaches us, confirmed by Catholic expositors of the same), and those teachers say something - i.e., "we are always to be obeyed and we can never teach something contrary to the law of God" - that is contrary to the Law of God, who do you listen to? Or who teaches rightly, as the teachings are opposed?
In anticipation of the assertions of "heresy" and "Old Catholic" that will surely follow, I'll ask that the accusers show the unreliability of my sources, or the fallacy of my reasoning.
Thank you,
DR
-
This is simply the teaching of Our Lord, and the revelation directly written down in the Scriptures.
Some try to limit the rein Christ put on obedience to the Scribes by saying that He is only speaking about what they do, not what they teach. Yet Christ had previously warned the disciples to beware of the "doctrine" of the Scribes and Pharisees (Matthew 16:12), and explicitly told them that the Pharisees taught things that "make void the commandment of God, that you may keep your own tradition" (Mark 7:9; see also Matthew 15). Thus, not only does Scripture in light of itself reject such an interpretation, but also notable Catholic commentators do as well, as reflected in Haydock and Lapide below.
Haydock Commentary
Lapide commentary:
Of course, obedience to the hierarchy is a virtue, and indeed they sit in the chair or seat of Moses. They should be listened to, unless . . . see above.
Let me then ask: if those sitting, legitimately, in the seat or chair of Moses, are to be rejected for saying or teaching anything contrary to the law of God (as Our Lord and Scripture teaches us, confirmed by Catholic expositors of the same), and those teachers say something - i.e., "we are always to be obeyed and we can never teach something contrary to the law of God" - that is contrary to the Law of God, who do you listen to? Or who teaches rightly, as the teachings are opposed?
In anticipation of the assertions of "heresy" and "Old Catholic" that will surely follow, I'll ask that the accusers show the unreliability of my sources, or the fallacy of my reasoning.
Thank you,
DR
OT is not NT.
Pope Pius IX defined the scope of obedience for you so you don't have to extrapolate anything yourself, just submit to the clear teaching of the Pope, the universal and supreme Teacher.
-
OT is not NT.
Pope Pius IX defined the scope of obedience for you so you don't have to extrapolate anything yourself, just submit to the clear teaching of the Pope, the universal and supreme Teacher.
Not when he contradicts the word of God (Galatians 1:8-9). That's NT btw.
And why? You don't.
As to the relevance and guidance of the OT examples:
Romans 15:4
For what things soever were written, were written for our learning: that through patience and the comfort of the scriptures, we might have hope.
-
OT is not NT.
Pope Pius IX defined the scope of obedience for you so you don't have to extrapolate anything yourself, just submit to the clear teaching of the Pope, the universal and supreme Teacher.
I'll say this, though you won't listen - after all, it's only OT.
The same power or charism given to the pope was given to the High Priest under the Old Covenant:
Ecclesiasticus 45:21
And he gave him power in his commandments, in the covenants of his judgments, that he should teach Jacob his testimonies, and give light to Israel in his law.
-
I'll say this, though you won't listen - after all, it's only OT.
The same power or charism given to the pope was given to the High Priest under the Old Covenant:
You didn't demonstrate it was the same.
But even if it was, what would be your point? That you're free to ignore and reject your Pope's teaching? Pius IX clearly told you you have to obey everything, from Roman congregations to discipline.
Reminds me of the absurdity at the 1988 consecrations. "Habetis Mandatum Apostolicuм?" Schmidberger: "Habemus."
A flat out lie. Not only did they not have an apostolic mandate, they had an explicit prohibition.
Here's Pius IX again refuting the "ignore-the-Pope" position:
22. And surely what these sons of perdition intend is quite clear from their other writings, especially that impious and most imprudent one which has only recently been published by the person whom they recently constituted as a pseudo-bishop. For these writings attack and pervert the true power of jurisdiction of the Roman Pontiff and the bishops, who are the successors of blessed Peter and the apostles; they transfer it instead to the people, or, as they say, to the community. They obstinately reject and oppose the infallible magisterium both of the Roman Pontiff and of the whole Church in teaching matters. Incredibly, they boldly affirm that the Roman Pontiff and all the bishops, the priests and the people conjoined with him in the unity of faith and communion fell into heresy when they approved and professed the definitions of the Ecuмenical Vatican Council. Therefore they deny also the indefectibility of the Church and blasphemously declare that it has perished throughout the world and that its visible Head and the bishops have erred. They assert the necessity of restoring a legitimate episcopacy in the person of their pseudo-bishop, who has entered not by the gate but from elsewhere like a thief or robber and calls the damnation of Christ upon his head.
Sound familiar? The docuмent could be aptly renamed to "Letter to Lefebvre".
One can refute R&R using only Pius IX quotes. Sad.
-
You didn't demonstrate it was the same.
But even if it was, what would be your point? That you're free to ignore and reject your Pope's teaching? Pius IX clearly told you you have to obey everything, from Roman congregations to discipline.
Reminds me of the absurdity at the 1988 consecrations. "Habetis Mandatum Apostolicuм?" Schmidberger: "Habemus."
A flat out lie. Not only did they not have an apostolic mandate, they had an explicit prohibition.
Here's Pius IX again refuting the "ignore-the-Pope" position:
Sound familiar? The docuмent could be aptly renamed to "Letter to Lefebvre".
One can refute R&R using only Pius IX quotes. Sad.
I demonstrated that the High Priest was given “power” to teach Israel, and “give light to Israel in his law.” That is at the very least similar to the power of the pope to teach and interpret the law for the Church. If you want to make a distinction of difference between the similarity between the two that I have already established, that’s on you. Go ahead. Nowhere in Scripture will you find such a distinction.
I have nothing to do with the SSPX, so I”ll avoid that part.
There is an incredible irony in you citing Pius IX, as what you cited exposes you to be directly in his censure: it applies to you as well as me, and indeed to everyone who rejects the Novus Ordo or Conciliar religion - aka, Trads.
So anyone who rejects V2 is condemned by Pius IX statements. This includes you.
My position entails rejecting teachings of Godly appointed teachers that go against the Law. I have the word of God in support, to which you can only respond by citing the teachers.
So your position is based upon papal teachings that say you can’t reject any papal teachings at a certain level, which you haven’t specified. Now, you can’t use those teaching to reject the Novus Ordo or Conciliar religion of 50 plus years of popes, which is glaringly manifest: you can’t reject popes by citing popes who say popes can’t be rejected.
So on what basis do you reject them? They teach contrary to what was taught before as God’s law. So . . . you adopt my position anyway.
But you fancy yourself as not adopting my position because you reject the teachers, and not just the teachings. But in rejecting the teachers, rejecting the hierarchy God put in positions of power to guide and rule the Church for the last 50 plus years, you are rejecting the old teachings that you rely upon to reject the teachers (as already mentioned), but you also do so by the implicit invoking of the old teaching on indefectibility - to justify your rejection of the teachers the teaching says you can't reject. It's a muddle, I know, but such is your position.
If you want to follow the old teachings, the old teaching on indefectibility requires not only a pope who teaches the Church inerrantly but also a pope with the power to rule and govern, to discipline, or, in the temporary absence of the pope, bishops with such power over Catholics subject to their authority. Christ is a King, a ruler, and not only a priest and prophet. An indefectible Church that is His body retains the same prerogatives and powers: to be "Him," it must not only sanctify and teach, but govern and rule.
We are both in a bit of a bind under the old teaching. Either we're both wrong, or the old teaching was wrong. If the old teaching was wrong, then the teachers who taught it were wrong, and were capable in God's order of being wrong, as Scripture indeed says, which is my position. My position squares with that reality; yours entangles you in contradictions.
So, to sum up: I reject false teachings by duly appointed and legitimately chosen teachers on the basis of Scriptural authority and example where they go beyond their authority and teach contrary to God’s law, and you oppose the teachers on the basis of their predecessors' own prior teachings about themselves and the indefectibility of the Church, which teachings ironically expose your position as false since it a) ironically uses them to reject the teachers or b) for denying the very indefectibility of the Church which is the implicit principle underlying your position for rejecting the Conciliar Church.
I can't resist highlighting the simple and farcical cartoon version of your position: citing absolute acceptance of the teacher’s teachings as the principle on which you reject the teachings and the teachers.
And you pull it off all without even blinking.
Amazing.
-
Reminds me of the absurdity at the 1988 consecrations. "Habetis Mandatum Apostolicuм?" Schmidberger: "Habemus."
A flat out lie. Not only did they not have an apostolic mandate, they had an explicit prohibition.
The consecrations of 1988 were performed with the will of the pope, and perfectly in accordance with Canon Law.
The 'will of the pope' is not a term used for the pope's subjective wishes. Take the example of 'the intentions of the Holy Father', for which we must pray to get a plenary indulgence. 'The intentions of the Holy Father' are not his private intentions, but actually refers to a list of six defined intentions which always remain the same. The 'will of the pope' refers to the Office of Peter, not to Karol Wojtyla's unfortunate wishes.
Canon 1725 says, "The highest law in the Church is the salvation of souls." It is very simple to prove that the salvation of souls depended on the consecration of the four bishops, without which we could not have truly Catholic priests ordained. Because John Paul II explicitly expressed his subjective will to be contrary to the objective will of his office, Archbishop Lefebvre took the prescribed formula for the Mandatum Apostolicuм, removed the name 'John Paul II' and replaced it with 'the Church'.
Not only was Archbishop Lefebvre never excommunicated, the episcopal consecrations of 1988 were entirely canonically correct.
-
Gaudium et Spes Ch. 1 #19
Moreover, atheism results not rarely from a violent protest against the evil in this world, or from the absolute character with which certain human values are unduly invested (? what does that mean?), and which thereby already accords them the stature of God. Modern civilization itself often complicates the approach to God not for any essential reason but because it is so heavily engrossed in earthly affairs. (that's why the Church and the faith need to modernize ... because of the modern world, of course)
Undeniably, those who willfully shut out God from their hearts and try to dodge religious questions are not following the dictates of their consciences, and hence are not free of blame; yet believers themselves frequently bear some responsibility for this situation. For, taken as a whole, atheism is not a spontaneous development but stems from a variety of causes, including a critical reaction against religious beliefs, and in some places against the Christian religion in particular. Hence believers can have more than a little to do with the birth of atheism. To the extent that they neglect their own training in the faith, or teach erroneous doctrine, or are deficient in their religious, moral or social life, they must be said to conceal rather than reveal the authentic face of God and religion.
It sounds like aggiornamento nonsense. Why have a Council for nonsense? Oh, to modernize and help the atheists! The Freemasons too, of course.
-
Dignitatis Humane #2
2. This Vatican Council declares that the human person has a right to religious freedom. This freedom means that all men are to be immune from coercion on the part of individuals or of social groups and of any human power, in such wise that no one is to be forced to act in a manner contrary to his own beliefs, whether privately or publicly, whether alone or in association with others, within due limits.
What are the due limits and who decides that? Fox News used to say "we rpeort you decide", but who decides the "due limits"? If one reads this closely enough, it has a hint of Rabelais hidden in it, and even worse, possible Aleister Crowley for the Law of Thelema and so forth, e.g. "Do what thou wilt".
"Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law" says Crowley. Besides being on the cover of the Beatles Sgt. Pepper's album, there's a story that's been around and on the internets that Aleister Crowley was none other than the materanl grandfather of George Bush II.
"Moreover, as the truth is discovered, it is by a personal assent that men are to adhere to it." If this is "pastoral", does it have to be so dumb or naive? The pimps and Freemasons could run a mac truck through the holes in Vatican II.
-
I mean, of course, it's understood that it is not with the help of God's grace and corrective formation that men adhere to the truth and the right way, but merely by their own very individual, self-important (even if vice-ridden) personal assent. etc.
And Joe Biden is yo' Prezident. So please enjoy.
-
But even if it was, what would be your point? That you're free to ignore and reject your Pope's teaching? Pius IX clearly told you you have to obey everything, from Roman congregations to discipline.
But maybe Pius IX was wrong. Thus, the problem, eh?
What if Pius IX and a couple other popes were wrong about condemning Religious Liberty and Vatican II was right? How do we know? Tradition. R&R claim "Tradition" but that's no different than the Prot claim about the Bible. Ultimately, they're making their own INTERPRETATION of the Bible (for the Prots) and "Tradition" (for R&R) their proximate rule of faith.
Now, there is a balance. Not EVERYthing the Pope has ever opined about is true. He has to be teaching the Universal Church with some sense of authority (not opining before a group of midwives). Msgr. Fenton described well the proper balance.
-
We cannot reject Vatican II in every single line of the docuмents. The council quotes Trent and other sources that require our belief. What percentage of the council falls under that category? Perhaps 5%. The description of papal infallibility in Vatican II is very beautiful, for example, which doesn't help the fact that a few lines down, that infallibility is more or less pushed aside.
1. The question is what NEW doctrine did Vatican II define? How useful actually was it, which would prevent us from saying: THROW THE WHOLE THING IN THE FIRES OF HELL WHERE IT BELONGS.
2. As for the "nuggets of truth", remember that the devil, in his deceptions and lies, utters PLENTY OF TRUTHS in his overall scheme, in order to better deceive you. It's the proverbial lemonade that is perfectly good -- in which he inserts a bit of cyanide. Making the overall drink 99.9% good, but nevertheless FATAL. So percentages aren't everything in this case. Our intellect is attracted to the TRUE, just as our Will is directed to the GOOD. So the devil presents everything as true and good, or else we would never fall for his wiles.
Just as one would throw his mixed drink (99.9% good lemonade 0.1% poison) back in his face, tell him to go to Hell -- so also we must throw the WHOLE Vatican II into hell, because even the TRUTHS are made use of in such a way, that you are deceived into a whole new religion.
-
I need to get baptized again..
-
1. The question is what NEW doctrine did Vatican II define? How useful actually was it, which would prevent us from saying: THROW THE WHOLE THING IN THE FIRES OF HELL WHERE IT BELONGS.
2. As for the "nuggets of truth", remember that the devil, in his deceptions and lies, utters PLENTY OF TRUTHS in his overall scheme, in order to better deceive you. It's the proverbial lemonade that is perfectly good -- in which he inserts a bit of cyanide. Making the overall drink 99.9% good, but nevertheless FATAL. So percentages aren't everything in this case. Our intellect is attracted to the TRUE, just as our Will is directed to the GOOD. So the devil presents everything as true and good, or else we would never fall for his wiles.
Just as one would throw his mixed drink (99.9% good lemonade 0.1% poison) back in his face, tell him to go to Hell -- so also we must throw the WHOLE Vatican II into hell, because even the TRUTHS are made use of in such a way, that you are deceived into a whole new religion.
If tonight someone holds a gun to my head, demanding me to sign Dignitatis Humanae, God give me strength to die a martyr!
If the gunman demands I sign Vatican II as a whole, I will only do so after having made clear that by virtue of the Explanatory Note, I accept nothing in the texts that contradicts Tradition.
I will never volunteer to sign my name under the council.
If I become pope, within 3 minutes the entire council will be Number One on the newly revived Index of Forbidden Books.
This was the attitude of Archbishop Lefebvre.
-
If tonight someone holds a gun to my head, demanding me to sign Dignitatis Humanae, God give me strength to die a martyr!
If the gunman demands I sign Vatican II as a whole, I will only do so after having made clear that by virtue of the Explanatory Note, I accept nothing in the texts that contradicts Tradition.
I will never volunteer to sign my name under the council.
If I become pope, within 3 minutes the entire council will be Number One on the newly revived Index of Forbidden Books.
This was the attitude of Archbishop Lefebvre.
What is the "Explanatory Note"?
-
In agony over the evil docuмents being voted through by the council Fathers, Archbishop Lefebvre and others submitted a question to the Secretary of the council, asking, 'to what degree are these texts demanding our acceptance?' The Secretary issued a written response saying that 'only what the council explicitly labels as binding must be accepted.' In short, 'nothing in these texts requires your acceptance'.
Paul VI took this Note and inserted it into the official council text.
The Holy Ghost was not invited to the council, but no one can hold Him out by force.
-
1. The question is what NEW doctrine did Vatican II define? How useful actually was it, which would prevent us from saying: THROW THE WHOLE THING IN THE FIRES OF HELL WHERE IT BELONGS.
2. As for the "nuggets of truth", remember that the devil, in his deceptions and lies, utters PLENTY OF TRUTHS in his overall scheme, in order to better deceive you. It's the proverbial lemonade that is perfectly good -- in which he inserts a bit of cyanide. Making the overall drink 99.9% good, but nevertheless FATAL. So percentages aren't everything in this case. Our intellect is attracted to the TRUE, just as our Will is directed to the GOOD. So the devil presents everything as true and good, or else we would never fall for his wiles.
Just as one would throw his mixed drink (99.9% good lemonade 0.1% poison) back in his face, tell him to go to Hell -- so also we must throw the WHOLE Vatican II into hell, because even the TRUTHS are made use of in such a way, that you are deceived into a whole new religion.
What if I like VII (I don't but just for sake of argument) but I want to throw out Trent.
Can I do that?
Why or why not?
-
Council of Trent is Infallible. Now can you throw that out?!
-
Council of Trent is Infallible. Now can you throw that out?!
I don't want to throw out Trent, of course :), I'm just asking because I get asked these kinds of questions and would like a concise answer.
So Paul VI declared that we must accept VII with docility as part of the Ordinary Magisterium (requiring Religious Assent. Religious submission of mind, intellect, and will)
"it still provided its teaching with the authority of the supreme ordinary magisterium. This ordinary magisterium, which is so obviously official, has to be accepted with docility, and sincerity by all the faithful"
https://novusordowatch.org/2020/07/how-taylor-marshall-distorts-paul6-on-vatican2/
(https://novusordowatch.org/2020/07/how-taylor-marshall-distorts-paul6-on-vatican2/)So why can I throw out VII but not Trent?
I guess I don't understand the difference between "Full assent of the Faith" and "Religious Assent-submission of mind, intellect and will".
Either way, if I accept Paul VI as pope I don't see how I can throw out either one. ::shrug::
-
I don't want to throw out Trent, of course :), I'm just asking because I get asked these kinds of questions and would like a concise answer.
So Paul VI declared that we must accept VII with docility as part of the Ordinary Magisterium (requiring Religious Assent. Religious submission of mind, intellect, and will)
"it still provided its teaching with the authority of the supreme ordinary magisterium. This ordinary magisterium, which is so obviously official, has to be accepted with docility, and sincerity by all the faithful"
https://novusordowatch.org/2020/07/how-taylor-marshall-distorts-paul6-on-vatican2/
(https://novusordowatch.org/2020/07/how-taylor-marshall-distorts-paul6-on-vatican2/)So why can I throw out VII but not Trent?
I guess I don't understand the difference between "Full assent of the Faith" and "Religious Assent-submission of mind, intellect and will".
Either way, if I accept Paul VI as pope I don't see how I can throw out either one. ::shrug::
Does VII count as requiring "Full assent of Faith" or
"Religious Assent: religious submission of mind, intellect and will"?
And either way, how can we throw it out (if we accept Paul VI as pope)?
This Chart doesn't show up well, but the column headings from left to right are
Teacher Level of Magisterium Degree of Certitude Assent Required
1. Pope ex cathedra (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ex_cathedra)
Extraordinary and universal teaching of the Church
Infallible on matters of faith and morals
Full assent of faith[17] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magisterium#cite_note-17)[18] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magisterium#cite_note-18)
2. Ecuмenical council (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecuмenical_council)
Extraordinary and universal teaching of the Church
Infallible on matters of faith and morals
Full assent of faith[19] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magisterium#cite_note-19)[20] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magisterium#cite_note-20)
3. Bishops, together with the Pope, dispersed but in agreement, proposing definitively
Ordinary and universal teaching of the Church
Infallible on matters of faith and morals
Full assent of faith[21] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magisterium#cite_note-21)[22] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magisterium#cite_note-22)
4. Pope
Ordinary teaching of the Church
Authoritative but non-infallible
Religious Assent. Religious submission of mind, intellect, and will (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obsequium_religiosum)[23] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magisterium#cite_note-23)[24] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magisterium#cite_note-24)
5. Bishop
Ordinary teaching of the Church
Authoritative but non-infallible
Religious assent. Religious submission of mind, intellect, and will[25] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magisterium#cite_note-25)[26] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magisterium#cite_note-26)[27] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magisterium#cite_note-27)
The chart can be viewed here if that is helpful:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magisterium
Would Vatican II come under Number 3? If yes then it would require full assent of the faith, right?
-
How can one fill consent to a council clearly shown NOT to be Catholic?
How does one consent to error if one knows it to be error?
So much diabolical subterfuge both just pre V2 and post. :'(
Christe eleison :incense::pray:
-
How can one fill consent to a council clearly shown NOT to be Catholic?
How does one consent to error if one knows it to be error?
So much diabolical subterfuge both just pre V2 and post. :'(
Christe eleison :incense::pray:
Well, I would have to agree. We cannot consent.
So why do we need a pope or a magisterium then?
If we pick and choose which Councils we consent to, how are we any different than Luther?
Unless that isn't the pope or the magisterium but a False Church?
(https://i.imgur.com/LMTIua2.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/10rC9Cs.png)
A false Church.
Not just a false Mass or invalid Mass or irreverent Mass...
A FALSE CHURCH
-
The orchestrators of this coup were very cunning.
They erected a false church (like a straw man) and then they went about destroying it by getting the "conservatives" and "traditionalists" to disobey their pope and their bishops and throw out whole councils according to their desires.
(https://i.imgur.com/RHSmVZn.png)
-
Would Vatican II come under Number 3?
No.
Do not forget universality applies not only to space but time as well.
When Vatican II and Modernist clergy contradict their predecessors, they fall under no category of the magisterium whatsoever.
We do not discard conciliar docuмents out of our own little desires. By their nature they impose a choice: either this new garbage or the teachings of 19 centuries.
-
No.
Do not forget universality applies not only to space but time as well.
When Vatican II and Modernist clergy contradict their predecessors, they fall under no category of the magisterium whatsoever.
We do not discard conciliar docuмents out of our own little desires. By their nature they impose a choice: either this new garbage or the teachings of 19 centuries.
"When Vatican II and Modernist clergy contradict their predecessors, they fall under no category of the magisterium whatsoever."
Yes, and not just the docuмents, but they themselves as well.
They have fallen OUT of the Church altogether.
They left the Barque:
Matthaeus Conte a Coronata — Institutiones Iuris Canonici, 1950
“If indeed such a situation would happen, he (the Roman Pontiff) would, by divine law, fall from office without any sentence, indeed, without even a declaratory one. He who openly professes heresy places himself outside the Church, and it is not likely that Christ would preserve the Primacy of His Church in one so unworthy. Wherefore, if the Roman Pontiff were to profess heresy, before any condemnatory sentence (which would be impossible anyway) he would lose his authority.”
https://cmri.org/articles-on-the-traditional-catholic-faith/quotes-from-theologians-supporting-the-sedevacantist-position/
"We do not discard conciliar docuмents out of our own little desires. By their nature they impose a choice: either this new garbage or the teachings of 19 centuries."
Yes, it's all up to us. We must carefully examine all of the docuмents because if we don't the Pope and the Church could teach us falsehood and lead our soul to Hell!
Wait, is that even possible?
From the Act of Faith:
"I believe these and all the truths which the Holy Catholic Church teaches, because Thou hast revealed them, Who canst neither deceive nor be deceived."
Goodness, do each of us need to go through VI and Trent and study all the previous docuмents and see if those councils are really in line with what came before?
Then we have to buckle down and go through all the other Church Councils and decide for ourselves if they have contradicted themselves?
Whew! I know I can't do that. Who do we trust to study these things? Who do we obey? Didn't God provide us with somebody we could trust on these matters?
Do I ask you? Do I ask a priest? Do I ask folks on Cathinfo?
If the Church is indefectible then why do we have to go to all this trouble? Is this how Catholics treated the pope before the false church took over?
Doesn't this very notion contradict this prior Church teaching:
(I added spaces to help with reading it)
"Wherefore, let the faithful also be on their guard against the overrated independence of private judgment and that false autonomy of human reason.
For it is quite foreign to everyone bearing the name of a Christian to trust his own mental powers with such pride as to agree only with those things which he can examine from their inner nature, and to imagine that the Church, sent by God to teach and guide all nations, is not conversant with present affairs and circuмstances;
or even that they must obey only in those matters which she has decreed by solemn definition as though her other decisions might be presumed to be false or putting forward insufficient motive for truth and honesty.
Quite to the contrary, a characteristic of all true followers of Christ, lettered or unlettered, is to suffer themselves to be guided and led in all things that touch upon faith or morals by the Holy Church of God through its Supreme Pastor the Roman Pontiff, who is himself guided by Jesus Christ Our Lord.
(Pope Pius XI, Encyclical Casti Connubii (http://www.papalencyclicals.net/pius11/p11casti.htm), n. 104)
That sounds a lot better. We can trust ourselves to the Roman Pontiff who is guided by Jesus.
Is that true? Did Pius XI get that wrong?
So if we take it upon ourselves to go through and decide what contradicts earlier teaching, that would contradict the earlier teaching of Pius XI wouldn't it?
Besides, wasn't he assuring us we didn't need to do that because we can put our trust in the Church and the Pope? Was he wrong?
As time went on did we discover that we can't trust the Church and the Pope to guide us so we don't need to obey?
What kind of a rotten Church is that? Sounds like a False Church.
So if we ignore Paul VI when he commanded ALL the faithful to accept VII with docility
do we only ignore modern docuмents or can we also ignore earlier ones too?
Here is another earlier docuмent we are ignoring:
“Furthermore, in this one Church of Christ, no man can be or remain who does not accept, recognize and obey the authority and supremacy of Peter and his legitimate successsors.” Pope Pius XI encyclical, Mortalium Animos.
So we gotta obey Paul VI's authority when he says to assent to VII.
Legitimate successors...hmm
It sounds to me like anyone who recognizes Paul VI as a legitimate successor has to obey him or find themselves in schism.
Or can we be like Protestants and pick and choose which earlier docuмents we obey as well as which later ones we obey? Do we pick and choose which popes we obey and which ones we disobey? Isn't that making ourselves pope?
Or...
do we simply give full obedience and trust to the teachings of the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church as they were passed down to us until the death of Pius XII
rather than destroy the entire concept of the Papacy and Magisterium altogether while
twisting ourselves into pretzels
by trying to remain members of a false church which preaches a different gospel complete with false gods and a false heirarchy which is ipso facto outside the Church?
"But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach a gospel to you besides that which we have preached to you, let him be anathema."
Gal 1:8
-
Great post Miser.
I think it is appropriate to remind people of the etymology of heretic, it comes from the Greek hairetikos meaning 'able to choose'.
The essence of heresy is that you choose what to believe. It all comes down to the motive of faith which we profess in the act of faith - we believe because God has revealed it through His Church.
Those who choose don't have the necessary motive of faith even if they chose all the correct doctrines.
-
Did Vatican II have definitions? No. So, we are ignorant if we do not read what makes a Council infallible. Mass that was changed, due to Vatican II, destroyed, went against Faith. The Mass is the Deposit of Faith. Even those of the Vat. II council stated there was nothing to define, there was suggestions, and they of the council said it was a "Pastoral council. It was a meeting. The last True Council is Vat. I. I highly suggest to read "The True Story of Vatican I, by Cardinal Manning.
You will get the Truth of what a True Council is, by definition.
-
Did Vatican II have definitions? No. So, we are ignorant if we do not read what makes a Council infallible. Mass that was changed, due to Vatican II, destroyed, went against Faith. The Mass is the Deposit of Faith. Even those of the Vat. II council stated there was nothing to define, there was suggestions, and they of the council said it was a "Pastoral council. It was a meeting. The last True Council is Vat. I. I highly suggest to read "The True Story of Vatican I, by Cardinal Manning.
You will get the Truth of what a True Council is, by definition.
Don't the docuмents use solemn language which makes it binding?
-
Did Vatican II have definitions? No. So, we are ignorant if we do not read what makes a Council infallible. Mass that was changed, due to Vatican II, destroyed, went against Faith. The Mass is the Deposit of Faith. Even those of the Vat. II council stated there was nothing to define, there was suggestions, and they of the council said it was a "Pastoral council. It was a meeting. The last True Council is Vat. I. I highly suggest to read "The True Story of Vatican I, by Cardinal Manning.
You will get the Truth of what a True Council is, by definition.
The Mass is very, very important, but going round and round about the Mass and the changes made to the rites and sacraments is missing the big picture.
The problem is that VII didn't just set the stage for changing the Mass.
It actually changed the Catholic Faith, replacing it with a false religion and false church.
What good is the Latin Mass if your church declares a false religion?
See, I was always told that VII was "just pastoral" and "didn't define anything", "Paul VI said so in his closing statements" and "there is nothing there binding on our conscience to follow".
Now I know that's not true.
Here is the closing statement from Paul VI. It's pointing out in blue what Taylor Marshall quotes in his video on the topic which leaves out half of the statements that make it clear VII
actually is binding on consciences:
But one thing must be noted here, namely, that the teaching authority of the Church, even though not wishing to issue extraordinary dogmatic pronouncements, has made thoroughly known its authoritative teaching on a number of questions which today weigh upon man’s conscience and activity, descending, so to speak, into a dialogue with him, but ever preserving its own authority and force; it has spoken with the accommodating friendly voice of pastoral charity; its desire has been to be heard and understood by everyone; it has not merely concentrated on intellectual understanding but has also sought to express itself in simple, up-to-date, conversational style, derived from actual experience and a cordial approach which make it more vital, attractive and persuasive; it has spoken to modern man as he is.
(Paul VI, Closing Speech for the Last General Meeting of the Second Vatican Council (http://w2.vatican.va/content/paul-vi/en/speeches/1965/docuмents/hf_p-vi_spe_19651207_epilogo-concilio.html), Vatican.va, Dec. 7, 1965; underlining added.)
In view of the pastoral nature of the Council, it avoided any extraordinary statement of dogmas that would be endowed with the note of infallibility, but it still provided its teaching with the authority of the supreme ordinary magisterium. This ordinary magisterium, which is so obviously official, has to be accepted with docility, and sincerity by all the faithful, in accordance with the mind of the Council on the nature and aims of the individual docuмents.
(Paul VI, Audience of Jan. 12, 1966; English translation (https://web.archive.org/web/20071012150311/http://www.lumengentleman.com/content.asp?id=161) from The Pope Speaks 11, n. 2 [Spring 1966], pp. 152-154; underlining added. Italian original here (http://w2.vatican.va/content/paul-vi/it/audiences/1966/docuмents/hf_p-vi_aud_19660112.html).)
I had never learned what Ordinary Magisterium means. That's why I posted the chart in my post above. You can also see the chart halfway down this page:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magisterium
I was always told that if "it's not infallible we don't have to worry about it and if it's not ex-cathedra it's not infallible".
Nope. That's a lie!
Again, that chart makes it clear we have to give religious assent and submission of mind, intellect and will
to the ORDINARY Magisterium.
1870 Vatican Council taught:
All those things are to be believed with divine and Catholic faith which are contained in the Word of God, written or handed down, and are proposed by the Church either by a solemn judgment or by her ordinary and universal magisterium to be believed as divinely revealed.
(Dogmatic constitution Dei Filius, chapter 3, “Concerning Faith”, Denzinger 1792 (http://denzinger.patristica.net/#n1700))
Okay, so we have to ask ourselves,
do I give religious assent, submission of mind, intellect and will
to the following teachings of VII which according to VI
are to be believed as divinely revealed?
Muslims worship the same god as Catholics
Hindus make a loving, trusting flight toward God
The Catholic Church promotes the good found in all religions
and on and on...
(CMRI site has good side by side comparisons of all the changes that are in direct opposition to Tradition)
No. I do not give religious assent. I do not submit my mind intellect and will to such blasphemy!
If we did that we would apostatize! We can't do that.
Likewise, since all of those docuмents are apostasy
anyone who signed them publicly apostatized.
Therefore, after they apostatized, (the GREAT Apostasy)
they left the Barque
and established a false church with a false hierarchy.
(Chrislam Universal Church of NWO :clown:)
Any church which proclaims those things is clearly not the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.
Now we have to decide if we want to be members of that false church
or of the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.
We simply can't be in both churches.
-
or even that they must obey only in those matters which she has decreed by solemn definition as though her other decisions might be presumed to be false or putting forward insufficient motive for truth and honesty.
"Presumed." We cannot reject what the pope says simply because we presume he is wrong when not speaking ex cathedra. We must prove it, which is within the powers of a 5-year-old when dealing with recent popes.
Nobody leaves the Church by pronouncing material heresy alone. It must be formal. If by innocent misunderstanding or a mistake in speech I say a heresy, it is only material. To become a formal heretic I must say, "The Church says X but I say Y."
It is possible for a pope to lead souls to Hell, not the Church. There have been a few other miserable popes in Church history.
We are confronted with a false church. The True Church continues 'eclipsed' by it. We have a pope who is simultaneously the Vicar of Christ and the President of the false church. Unfortunately all his efforts seem to be put to the service of his masonic club while he neglects his duties to Christ's Immaculate Spouse.
-
Great post Miser.
I think it is appropriate to remind people of the etymology of heretic, it comes from the Greek hairetikos meaning 'able to choose'.
Perhaps you could find for us the term for 'obliged to choose'. The docuмents of Vatican II are incompatible with Tradition. It's one or the other.
-
In view of the pastoral nature of the Council, it avoided any extraordinary statement of dogmas that would be endowed with the note of infallibility, but it still provided its teaching with the authority of the supreme ordinary magisterium. This ordinary magisterium, which is so obviously official, has to be accepted with docility, and sincerity by all the faithful,
This is one of the 586 million examples of Modernist clergy trying to call Vatican II 'magisterium'. Remember the universality in time again. The council contradicts the magisterium of 19 centuries, and is therefore not magisterium at all.
-
Perhaps you could find for us the term for 'obliged to choose'. The docuмents of Vatican II are incompatible with Tradition. It's one or the other.
Yes, it's one or the other.
One Church or the other "church".
Christ founded only One Religion. There is only One God.
If as you say, the docuмents of VII are incompatible with Tradition
so is the post VII church since all involved apostatized.
Pope St Pius X and other Popes clearly condemned the errors of Modernism, and put religious indifferentism on the same level as apostasy - not just heresy.
It was the Great Apostasy.
All who signed on apostatized.
So why would we pay attention to what apostates are saying about the Church or the Catholic Faith?
They have ipso facto fallen from office.
We should treat them and their council the same as we would a Lutheran council or a Baptist council
or a UN council since they allow for worship of all gods.
It's a false church.
It's not the Catholic Church (despite what they say).
If we obey the pre-Vatican II teachings of the Church, we can freely submit without needing to pick and "choose".
In fact you are not free to "choose"...
12. Can Catholics, in good conscience, withhold religous assent to the Pope’s ordinary universal teachings?
No, they cannot. Pope Pius XII declared in his encyclical Humani Generis (1950):6 “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 the will of the same Pontiffs, cannot any longer be considered a question of free discussion among the theologians.”
https://cmri.org/articles-on-the-traditional-catholic-faith/a-primer-on-infallibility/
-
This is one of the 586 million examples of Modernist clergy trying to call Vatican II 'magisterium'. Remember the universality in time again. The council contradicts the magisterium of 19 centuries, and is therefore not magisterium at all.
Pius X would call "modernist clergy"
"apostate clergy".
-
First off, that's wrong, he just must know what the Church teaches, he doesn't have to say it.
But here's just a few of dozens of quotes where an antipope indicates what is the true teaching before he denies it.
“Cardinal” Ratzinger, Principles of Catholic Theology (1982), pp. 216-217: “Patriarch Athenagoras [the non-Catholic, schismatic Patriarch] spoke even more strongly when he greeted the Pope [Paul VI] in Phanar: ‘Against all expectation, the bishop of Rome is among us, the first among us in honor, ‘he who presides in love’. It is clear that, in saying this, the Patriarch [the non-Catholic, schismatic Patriarch] did not abandon the claims of the Eastern Churches or acknowledge the primacy of the west. Rather, he stated plainly what the East understood as the order, the rank and title, of the equal bishops in the Church – and it would be worth our while to consider whether this archaic confession, which has nothing to do with the ‘primacy of jurisdiction’ but confesses a primacy of ‘honor’ and agape, might not be recognized as a formula that adequately reflects the position that Rome occupies in the Church – ‘holy courage’ requires that prudence be combined with ‘audacity’: ‘The kingdom of God suffers violence.’”
“Cardinal” Ratzinger, Principles of Catholic Theology (1982), p. 234: “Vatican Council I had said that the pope can make definitive decisions not only with the consent of the Church but also in his own right (‘ex sese’). Although many efforts were made during Vatican Council II to interpret this harsh and very ambiguous formula in such a way that its real meaning would be more readily apparent, they were not successfulat that time because of disagreement among those concerned. It is my opinion that what was then only a wish is again being attempted in this section of the ‘Declaration’ [a post-Vatican II docuмent]. It is no longer simply stated that the teaching ministry can make decisions on its own – ex sese. Now it is more accurately stated that, while the teaching ministry always acts against the background of the faith and prayer of the whole Church, ‘its office is not reduced merely to ratifying the assent already expressed by the latter…’”
So do you now acknowledge Ratzinger is a formal heretic even by your own standards?
Here's a bonus notorious heresy:
“Cardinal” Ratzinger, Principles of Catholic Theology (1982), p. 202: “But we can define the required action even more clearly in terms of the above diagnosis. It means that the Catholic does not insist on the dissolution of the Protestant confessions and the demolishing of their churches but hopes, rather, that they will be strengthened in their confessions and in their ecclesial reality.”
There's over 30 heresies in Principles of Catholic Theology alone. You can check out Ratzinger's hundreds of heresies by book on MHFM's site.
-
First off, that's wrong, he just must know what the Church teaches, he doesn't have to say it.
If he knows, he is subjectively a heretic, in the state of mortal sin. The Church cannot judge if he knows or not, only God can. De internis non judicat ecclesia. If he tells us he knows that he's contradicting the Church, he becomes a formal heretic. This is what is needed for a pope to lose his office.
Cardinal Ratzinger was famous for his mistaken concept of Tradition. He thought Church teaching could grow and change under the influence of the people's studies and 'religious experiences'. This is why he thought he could say, "The Church taught X and now She teaches Y." This is different from formal heresy: "The Church teaches X but I say Y." He was materially a heretic, God knows whether subjectively or not, but not a formal heretic.
-
All who signed on apostatized.
They have ipso facto fallen from office.
They think they are following the evolution of Church teaching, which now embraces false religions. Objectively it is apostasy. Subjectively they proclaim to want to follow what they imagine to be the teaching of the Church. This is not formal heresy, and does not make them lose office.
-
They think they are following the evolution of Church teaching, which now embraces false religions. Objectively it is apostasy. Subjectively they proclaim to want to follow what they imagine to be the teaching of the Church. This is not formal heresy, and does not make them lose office.
Ah yes, they are imaginary Catholics
promoting the worship of false gods
in an imaginary catholic church
because they have been deposed by Divine Law.
If somebody believes they are a dog
do we go along and give them bones?
Madness!
Objectively they are human
even though subjectively they believe they are a dog.
Well these poor prelates are objectively NOT Catholic.
We are not to play along with their delusion.
We are to have nothing to do with them.
We owe no obedience to any apostate much less
delusional apostates
or their church of Chrislam.
"But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach a gospel to you besides that which we have preached to you, let him be anathema".
-
If somebody believes they are a dog
do we go along and give them bones?
On the contrary, we keep a good distance, build our own emergency chapels, and condemn their errors loudly and unflinchingly.
The supposed 'Church teachings' they follow are imaginary. Whether or not they have subjectively left the True Church neither you nor I nor anyone but God can judge. Objectively, however, there is no doubt about it.
-
On the contrary, we keep a good distance, build our own emergency chapels, and condemn their errors loudly and unflinchingly.
The supposed 'Church teachings' they follow are imaginary. Whether or not they have subjectively left the True Church neither you nor I nor anyone but God can judge. Objectively, however, there is no doubt about it.
Why do you need to keep a distance from your own pope?
Now you make yourself pope and try to judge which teachings you will submit to, whether they be Ex-Cathedra or
Ordinary Magisterium,
and which ones you won't
and you are in schism:
(https://i.imgur.com/IcZHmAL.png)
(emphasis on the word "legitimate")
So the title of this thread could be
"To schism or not to schism, that is the question!"
Why do you resist their authority??
Why would anybody need to keep distance from their pope?
That's a very anti-Catholic notion!
Didn't Jesus promise they would not fail?
"He that heareth you, heareth me" Luke 10:16
The pope and the bishops in union with the pope are the voice of the Church. This voice is used in order to teach each day. Listen to Pope Pius XI stating it with his authority:
“The teaching authority of the Church in the divine wisdom was constituted on earth in order that the revealed doctrines might remain forever intact and might be brought with ease and security to the knowledge of men.”
https://cmri.org/articles-on-the-traditional-catholic-faith/papal-infallibility-and-the-crisis-in-the-church-today/
(Note: Is the First Commandment part of revealed doctrines to remain intact forever???)
Are you keeping your distance until the Church is "restored" to her former glory?
(https://i.imgur.com/KHZKJ77.png)
Restoration and Regeneration?
I've heard conservative and trad priests and pundits talk about waiting for a
a good pope
a "Catholic" pope
who will one day restore and regenerate the Church and its teachings.
Yeah, that's not how it works.
There have been sinful popes but not heretical popes.
Besides, how is it possible that you are qualified to judge magisterial teachings
but you are not qualified to see that they are apostates
who left the Catholic Church?
You know Pius X and other popes declared indifferentism is apostasy, right?
Didn't all those prelates at VII sign docuмents declaring indifferentism to the whole world?
That really happened.
They put their name on it.
As you said, objectively there is no doubt they are apostates.
The dangerous problem is, if we worship in union with apostates who promote the worship of false gods
we also apostatize.
Yikes!
Therefore we must be qualified to know they are apostates or we cannot possibly avoid this mortal sin and our own removal from the One True Church.
The Council of Laodicea in 365 AD stated, “No one shall pray in common with heretics and schismatics.”
But how do we know? What if they worship demons in St Peter's Basilica but deep inside believe they are still Catholic?
They might be a formal demon worshiper but not subjectively believe in their heart and mind that demon worship is not opposed the Catholic faith after all.
What if they believe Allah is God the Father but inside their heart of hearts still believe they are Catholic?
sniff, sniff...ugh! ::)
I wouldn't try that argument with God on judgement day. smh
St. Cyril of Alexandria echoed these same sentiments when he said, “It is therefore unlawful, and a profanation, and an act the punishment of which is death, to love to associate with unholy heretics, and to unite yourself to their communion.”
Unite ourselves to their communion?? Like "una cuм"?
Whoah...
But St Cyril, how can we tell? What if they say Hindu's believe in God the Father but on the inside they subjectively still believe they are truly Catholic? We simply can't judge such things subjectively can we? ::)
Council of Carthage in the fifth century decreed, “One must neither pray nor sing psalms with heretics, and whoever shall communicate with those who are cut off from the communion of the Church, whether clergy or layman: let him be excommunicated.”
That's scary! Well, it's a good thing we are completely off the hook on this one because
"Whether or not they have subjectively left the True Church neither you nor I nor anyone but God can judge."
Well God will judge their internal forum but we know that Divine law causes them to be
ipso facto removed from the Church,
which means we should not continue to stay in communion with them and their false religion.
St. Thomas Aquinas, said, “To know whom to avoid is a great means of saving our souls…Thus, the Church forbids the faithful to communicate with those unbelievers who have forsaken the faith by corrupting it, such as heretics, or by renouncing it, such as apostates.”
Forsaken the faith...yep we all saw that!
That makes them unbelievers?
Hmm.."communicate with those unbelievers"
as in worship "una cuм"?
As in remain in communion with?
As in celebrate Holy Mass "una cuм" the demon worshiper and his false church that promotes worshiping false gods?
As in communion with those who say Allah is God the Father and Hindu's also worship God the Father?
We are forbidden to communicate with those unbelievers?
So all the V2 prelates
publicly declared themselves to be unbelievers
and we are forbidden
to communicate with them
or any of the esteemed prelates following in their footsteps with their false religion?
Wait, but did they really leave?
Aren't they just in partial communion? Kind of, sort of...
They presuppose the erroneous view that all religions are more or less good and praiseworthy, inasmuch as all give expression, under various forms, to that innate sense which leads men to God and to the obedient acknowledgment of His rule… to favor this opinion, therefore, and to encourage such undertakings, is tantamount to abandoning the religion revealed by God.”
Let us focus attention on the phrase “tantamount to abandoning the religion revealed by God.” This phrase is another definition of the word “apostasy.” According to Pope Pius XI, to hold to false ecuмenism and to encourage it, is equivalent to apostasy.
Yep. They really left. They left the Barque.
Elvis...
all the prelates who signed on to VII have left the building---
they left the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.
The Sedes didn't leave. They left.
It was the GREAT APOSTASY
It really happened. :(
It's sad. Really sad! It requires processing the five stages of grief to accept.
But it's the truth.
Our Lord told us this was coming:
“…for the day of the Lord will not come unless the
Apostasy comes first
and the man of sin is revealed… so that he sits in the temple of God… for the mystery of iniquity is already at work; provided only that
he who is at present restraining it,
does still restrain, until he is gotten out of the way” (II Thess. 2:3-4).
So the Great Apostasy comes first and then the RESTRAINER
is gotten out of the way.
Who is the restrainer?? The Katechon.
That would be the pope.
He's gotten out of the way.
Removed.
Sede vacante...
So anyway, we have to make judgements about whom we will pray
in union with (una cuм)
and are clearly qualified to do so
lest we apostatize ourselves!
We must not only distance ourselves from apostates,
we must not worship in union with apostates.
We must not obey apostates.
We must not encourage others to worship in union with or obey apostates.
We must not call them priests or bishops or popes.
We must not recognize them as any kind of authority.
We must see apostates for what they truly are.
Apostates are no longer members of the Church.
They are outside the Barque.
It is our responsibility to protect our soul.
God will judge their internal forum on the grounds of "subjectively"
and Divine law automatically deposes them.
Pope Innocent III:
“The Pope should not flatter himself about his power nor should he rashly glory in his honor and high estate, because the less he is judged by man, the more he is judged by God. Still the less can the Roman Pontiff glory because he can be judged by men, or rather, can be shown to be already judged, if for example he should wither away into heresy; because he who does not believe is already judged, In such a case it should be said of him: ‘If salt should lose its savor, it is good for nothing but to be cast out and trampled under foot by men.’”
already judged
good for nothing
A. Vermeersch — Epitome Iuris Canonici, 1949
“At least according to the more common teaching; the Roman Pontiff as
a private teacher can fall into manifest heresy. Then, without any
declaratory sentence (for the Supreme See is judged by no one), he
would automatically (ipso facto) fall from power which he who is
no longer a member of the Church is unable to possess.”
without declaratory sentence
automatically
ipso facto
Edward F. Regatillo — Institutiones Iuris Canonici, 1956
“‘The pope loses office ipso facto because of public heresy.’ This is the more common teaching, because a pope would not be a member of the Church, and hence far less could he be its head.”
ipso facto
Billot — De Ecclesia, 1927
“Given, therefore, the hypothesis of a pope who would become notoriously heretical, one must concede without hesitation that he would by that very fact lose the pontifical power, insofar as, having become an unbeliever, he would by his own will be cast outside the body of the Church.”
by that very fact
by his own will
St. Francis de Sales:
“Now when the Pope is explicitly a heretic, he falls ipso facto from his dignity and out of the Church . . . ”
ipso facto
out of the Church
St. Robert Bellarmine:
“A Pope who is a manifest heretic automatically ceases to be a Pope and head, just as he ceases automatically to be a Christian and a member of the Church. Wherefore, he can be judged and punished by the Church. This is the teaching of all the ancient Fathers who teach that manifest heretics immediately lose all jurisdiction.”
ceases automatically
not a Christian
not a member of the Church
lost all jurisdiction
"But they haven't been declared heretics formally by the "false" church..."
First why would the false church declare them heretics? They won't.
On the contrary, they declare them saints!
But how can we be sure they really are heretics?
It's not hard.
"A manifest heretic is someone whose error or doubt in faith cannot be hidden by any excuse".
It's certainly not hidden and there is no excuse.
You don't need a degree in theology to know the First Commandment.
Yeah, there is no excuse for worshiping false gods
or encouraging others to worship false gods.
and there is no excuse for those who are in communion
with those who do so.
It's just the Freemasonic One World Chrislam church of the nwo, Inc.
Count me out!
God counts them out of the True Church and I'm with Him:
St. Alphonsus Liguori:
“If ever a Pope, as a private person, should fall into heresy, he should at once fall from the Pontificate. If, however, God were to permit a pope to become a notorious and contumacious heretic, he would by such fact cease to be pope, and the apostolic chair would be vacant.”
by such fact
cease to be pope
at once
chair vacant
St. Antoninus:
“In the case in which the Pope would become a heretic, he would find himself, by that very fact alone and without any other sentence, separated from the Church. A head separated from a body cannot, as long as it remains separated, be head of the same body from which it was cut off.”
by that fact alone
without any other sentence
separated from the Church
cut off!!
You can see more quotes here:
https://cmri.org/articles-on-the-traditional-catholic-faith/quotes-from-theologians-supporting-the-sedevacantist-position/
So it's really not very confusing at all.
It's very, very simple and easy to see.
It's just hard to accept...
but it's GOOD NEWS!
Why???
Because otherwise, the popes and the Catholic Church are leading souls to Hell
and Jesus was a liar.
No. Jesus was not a liar.
The One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church is still here.
The deposit of the faith is being preserved.
That other thing is a false church and false religion of apostates.
Time to get out!
see this for more on the beauty of the true papacy:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vlJQxn3PNTc&t=2713s
-
Oh and just to clarify,
when I say this post could be called,
"To schism or not to schism"
I'm referring to the Recognize and Resist position
because it's clear that taking that position is schismatic:
(https://i.imgur.com/F30Qnj9.png)
-
Now you make yourself pope and try to judge which teachings you will submit to, whether they be Ex-Cathedra or
Ordinary Magisterium,
and which ones you won't.
Why would anybody need to keep distance from their pope?
There have been sinful popes but not heretical popes.
"A manifest heretic is someone whose error or doubt in faith cannot be hidden by any excuse".
It's certainly not hidden and there is no excuse.
Everyone chooses between Vatican II and the teachings of 19 centuries. The two options exclude one another. Try to understand the universality in time. Vatican II is not magisterium even if you say so with bold font.
We keep distance because of their heretical notions.
Read about Pope Honorius. He was a Monothelitist. After his death he was denounced by the Church as a miserable pope. You will find him listed in the Annuario Pontificio to this day.
The recent materially heretical popes have a mistaken concept of Tradition. This does not make their heresies true, but may very well excuse them subjectively. They had false teachers in their seminary training, poor things. Judge not that ye may not be judged. Once they admit that they are contradicting the Church, we got 'em.
-
Everyone chooses between Vatican II and the teachings of 19 centuries. The two options exclude one another. Try to understand the universality in time. Vatican II is not magisterium even if you say so with bold font.
We keep distance because of their heretical notions.
Read about Pope Honorius. He was a Monothelitist. After his death he was denounced by the Church as a miserable pope. You will find him listed in the Annuario Pontificio to this day.
The recent materially heretical popes have a mistaken concept of Tradition. This does not make their heresies true, but may very well excuse them subjectively. They had false teachers in their seminary training, poor things. Judge not that ye may not be judged. Once they admit that they are contradicting the Church, we got 'em.
Vatican II is not magisterial because I say so, of course.
It's magisterial because of bold lettering! lol :)
No, it is magisterial because Paul VI declared it:
Here it is again:
"it still provided its teaching with the authority of the supreme ordinary magisterium. This ordinary magisterium, which is so obviously official, has to be accepted with docility, and sincerity by all the faithful"
If he is a legitimate successor then VII has to be accepted with docility and you have to give religious submission of mind, intellect and will.
As posted above, resisting your pope has been declared to be schism by Pius IX.
Do you also resist Pope Pius IX?
If I'm not sure which pope to resist, can I ask you?
With regards to Honorius:
Unfortunately, there are some who would falsely claim that popes have officially erred in the past; they refer to Pope Honorius and Pope Liberius. However, this is simply not true. To refute this, we read from the book The Vatican Council and its Definitions by Cardinal Henry Manning (1870):
“I will, nevertheless, here affirm, that the following points in the case of Honorius can be abundantly proved from docuмents:
- That Honorius defined no doctrine whatsoever.
- That he forbade the making of any new definition.
- That his fault was precisely in this omission of apostolic authority, for which he was justly censured.
- That his two epistles are entirely orthodox; though, in the use of language, he wrote as was usual before the condemnation of Monothelitism, and not as it became necessary afterwards. It is an anachronism and an injustice to censure his language, used before that condemnation, as it might be just to censure it after the condemnation had been made.
“To this I add the following excellent passage from the recent Pastoral of the Archbishop of Baltimore:
“That case of Honorius forms no exception; for
1st Honorius expressly says in his letters to Sergius, that he meant to define nothing, and he was condemned precisely because he temporized and would not define;
2nd Because in his letters he clearly taught the sound Catholic doctrine, only enjoining silence as to the use of certain terms, then new in the Church; and
3rd Because his letters were not addressed to a general council of the whole Church, and were rather private, than public and official; at least they were not published, even in the East, until several years later. The first letter was written to Sergius in 633, and eight years afterwards, in 641, the emperor Heraclius, in exculpating himself to Pope John II, Honorius’ successor, for having published his edict — the Ecthesis — which enjoined silence on the disputants, similar to that imposed by Honorius, lays the whole responsibility thereof on Sergius, who he declares, composed the edict. Evidently, Sergius had not communicated the letter to the Emperor, probably because its contents, if published, would not have suited his wily purpose of secretly introducing, under another form, the Eutcyhian heresy. Thus falls to the ground the only case upon which the opponents of Infallibility have continued to insists. This entire subject has been exhausted by many recent learned writers.”
https://cmri.org/articles-on-the-traditional-catholic-faith/on-the-vacancy-of-the-apostolic-see/
The recent materially heretical popes have a mistaken concept of Tradition. This does not make their heresies true, but may very well excuse them subjectively. They had false teachers in their seminary training, poor things. Judge not that ye may not be judged. Once they admit that they are contradicting the Church, we got 'em.
Yes, God bless them for they have been deceived.
The First Commandment is not hard to understand.
Where in the Magisterial statements regarding avoiding communion with apostates (posted in previous comment)
does it say "unless they are subjectively" not really apostates?
Do you have any Magisterial statements from that say we should remain in communion with heretics and apostates?
Did any saints ever say that?
-
Never mind Vatican II. They're already galloping through Vatican III. That's what's really on the table for acceptance.
Permanent synodality yet without even the facade anymore of decisions reached after debate and deliberation by bishops. Now, laypeople too will have equal standing in legislative say over the direction that conciliarism henceforth takes. Not just any laypeople, but progressive busybodies hand-picked by the least Catholic of the nominally Catholic hierarchy.
https://youtu.be/dfON0ViNUu4 (https://youtu.be/dfON0ViNUu4)
-
No, it is magisterial because Paul VI declared it:
If I'm not sure which pope to resist, can I ask you?
Paul VI called Vatican II 'magisterium'. He was wrong. Popes can be wrong. Pope Nicholas I said baptism "in the Name of Christ" is valid. He was wrong. He did not cease to be pope.
Feel free to ask me. I will try my best to give an answer based on traditional Church teaching. Or skip me, I'm fallible, and consult Church teaching yourself.
When a heresy rears its head, it is the pope's strict duty to fight it. Honorius wrote about the very topic the contemporary heresy was concerned with, and failed to use the opportunity to fight Monothelitism.
When St. Peter went along with the demands of the Circuмcisionists, he did not say they were right, but he did not use the opportunity to clearly put down the heresy. That is why St. Paul resisted him publicly--to his face, and Holy Scripture says St. Paul was right. We are right to resist these popes publicly-- to the face.
-
Paul VI called Vatican II 'magisterium'. He was wrong. Popes can be wrong.
What a trainwreck and a load of nonsense. If these are legitimate Popes, then their teaching that is clearly directed toward the Universal Church is Magisterium. Unbelievable. Claim if you will that it's merely authentic (therefore non-infallible) Magisterium, but it's ridiculous to claim that it's not Magisterium. To think that an Ecuмenical Council directed to all the faithful is not Magisterium ... :facepalm:
https://sspx.org/en/clear-ideas-popes-infallible-magisterium
-
Paul VI called Vatican II 'magisterium'. He was wrong. Popes can be wrong. Pope Nicholas I said baptism "in the Name of Christ" is valid. He was wrong. He did not cease to be pope.
Feel free to ask me. I will try my best to give an answer based on traditional Church teaching. Or skip me, I'm fallible, and consult Church teaching yourself.
When a heresy rears its head, it is the pope's strict duty to fight it. Honorius wrote about the very topic the contemporary heresy was concerned with, and failed to use the opportunity to fight Monothelitism.
When St. Peter went along with the demands of the Circuмcisionists, he did not say they were right, but he did not use the opportunity to clearly put down the heresy. That is why St. Paul resisted him publicly--to his face, and Holy Scripture says St. Paul was right. We are right to resist these popes publicly-- to the face.
NIFH: Paul VI called Vatican II 'magisterium'. He was wrong. Popes can be wrong. Pope Nicholas I said baptism "in the Name of Christ" is valid. He was wrong. He did not cease to be pope.
These "bad popes" or "wrong popes" objections are very reasonable objections.
In fact this was a concern of Archbishop Purcell at VI so
he put these "bad popes" on trial and this is how it went:
(I'm adding spaces to help with reading it)
"Then I said, you tell us that there were some forty Popes in the early ages, who taught what is now regarded as an erroneous doctrine by some. Cardinal Bellomang [sic — he must have meant Bellarmine] gives us the names of them and tells us what was taught. He tells us what was the nature of their teachings to a great extent.
Now, says I, there are a great cloud of witnesses over our heads — these forty Popes. I called them one by one, and I said, Honorius, why do you teach that there is but one will of Christ, when there is a divine will of Christ as God, and a human will of Christ as man. Now, why should you say there is but one will? This definition has caused a great deal of trouble. It created schisms and differences of opinions, etc., in the Church. He never should have done so. This was his fault. He should have instructed that the two wills of Christ were not incompatible.
Then I said to the council, in passing over this subject, here is another of these papers over our heads, as I imagine it was over Nicholas I. He taught that the baptism in the name of Jesus was all-sufficient, without the name of the Father and Holy Ghost. That he should not have taught. He was mistaken in that, and the Church says so now, and that he never should have taught the like. Here is John XXII., who teaches from the pulpit, and wishes others to teach, that those who died in the peace of God with the peace of God on their lips are [sic — the word “not” seems to be missing] in beatific condition until the day of judgment.
Here, again, three great Bishops of the sixth, seventh, and eighth general councils called Honorius heretical. Were we to consider those teachings ex cathedra on those occasions, and pronounce an anathema? I will not delay you by adverting to other instances of the kind, but I was most happy to hear the entire council, as one man, concerning those of whom I spake, answer me, “Those Popes never addressed such doctrines to the universal Church. They only spoke to individuals. They did not speak as pastors of His universal Church, therefore they did not speak ex cathedra.” I cannot tell you what a load that removed from my mind, when I heard that expression that those teachings were not ex cathedra, and therefore not binding on our action, and that our action would not be retroactive as binding on the teachings of those Bishops.
I told the Cardinals in the council that there was another and a weightier objection which I wished to have removed before I gave my assent to that dogma, and that was, how we are to understand the claims of Boniface VIII., who said, “Two swords are given me by God — the spiritual and the temporal!” I sought in the Dominican library of the Minerva in Rome to refresh my memory, and to see on what grounds they claim the right of controlling temporary affairs; of deposing Henry VIII. or Elizabeth, or any other temporal prince, and absolving their vassals from their oath of allegiance, if their sovereigns did not respect the act of excommunication by the Church. I could not find any text of authority for that in the Bible.
Hence I wanted the council to say whether they asserted a right of that kind or assumed it as a right, and the entire council with one voice cried out: “Those Popes had no authority, no commission from God to pretend to any such power.” Well, I told them, Thank God, I have spoken and had it decided by this council, instead of assuming the resposibility of those by-gone times. The day has gone by when such things were possible, and were believed of force, and we have done a great deal by having these two important matters settled."
(Abp. John B. Purcell, quoted in Rev. James J. McGovern, Life and Life Work of Pope Leo XIII (https://books.google.com/books?id=Yv8tAAAAYAAJ&dq=) [Chicago, IL: Allied Printing, 1903], pp. 239-241; paragraph breaks added to facilitate reading.)
According to the response given to an inquiring cardinal at the First Vatican Council, as related by Abp. Purcell:
- No Pope has ever been a heretic
- If a Pope were to become a manifest heretic, he would immediately cease to be Pope because he would immediately cease to be a member of the Church
- He would be deposed not by the Church, which has no authority over the Pope, but by God Himself, who has made membership in the Church dependent upon profession of the true Faith, on which the Church’s unity depends (see Pope Pius XII, Encyclical Mystici Corporis (http://www.papalencyclicals.net/pius12/p12mysti.htm), n. 22)
- The Church’s bishops (Note: the ones who are not apostates) could declare the former Pope to have deposed himself — something that would enable them to remove the non-Pope
- The very idea of a heretical Pope who nevertheless remains Pope is “injurious” to the papacy and thus to Catholic dogma
See the full article here: https://novusordowatch.org/2015/04/heretical-popes-first-vatican-council/
"the very idea of a heretical Pope"----so don't even think about it! :fryingpan:
NIFH: Feel free to ask me. I will try my best to give an answer based on traditional Church teaching.
Okay, so comparing the following two statements, which one do we accept and which one do we throw out?
One:
Paul VI
"it still provided its teaching with the authority of the supreme ordinary magisterium. This ordinary magisterium, which is so obviously official, has to be accepted with docility, and sincerity by all the faithful"
(Paul VI, Audience of Jan. 12, 1966; English translation (https://web.archive.org/web/20071012150311/http://www.lumengentleman.com/content.asp?id=161) from The Pope Speaks 11, n. 2 [Spring 1966], pp. 152-154; underlining added. Italian original here (http://w2.vatican.va/content/paul-vi/it/audiences/1966/docuмents/hf_p-vi_aud_19660112.html).)
Two:
1870 Vatican Council taught:
All those things are to be believed with divine and Catholic faith which are contained in the Word of God, written or handed down, and are proposed by the Church either by a solemn judgment or by her ordinary and universal magisterium to be believed as divinely revealed.
(Dogmatic constitution Dei Filius, chapter 3, “Concerning Faith”, Denzinger 1792 (http://denzinger.patristica.net/#n1700))
Which one do we submit to? Can we throw one out?
NIFH: When St. Peter went along with the demands of the Circuмcisionists, he did not say they were right, but he did not use the opportunity to clearly put down the heresy. That is why St. Paul resisted him publicly--to his face, and Holy Scripture says St. Paul was right. We are right to resist these popes publicly-- to the face.
Here is what St. Robert Bellarmine says about the matter, the great Doctor of the Papacy:
…[W]hen St. Peter compelled the Gentiles to Judaize, this was not an error of preaching but of conduct, as Tertullian suggests in his work de Praescriptionibus adversus haereticos. St. Peter did not ratify by some decree that they must Judaize, rather, he formally taught the contrary in Acts XV. Nevertheless, when he was still in Antioch, he separated himself from the dinner table of the Gentiles lest he would give offense to those recently converted to the faith from the Jєωs and by his example compelled them to Judaize in a certain measure, even Barnabas. But we do not deny that Popes can offer the occasion of erring through their own bad example, rather, we deny that they can prescribe the whole Church to follow some error ex cathedra. Moreover, the examples and doctrines of the Pontiffs are not equally pernicious to the Church, seeing that the Lord instructed them, saying: “Do what they say, but do not do what they do.”
(St. Robert Bellarmine, On the Roman Pontiff, vol. 2 (https://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0692678751/interregnumnow-20), trans. by Ryan Grant [Mediatrix Press, 2016], Book IV, Ch. 8, pp. 175-176; italics given; underlining added.)
Were you able to find any Magisterial statements that declare we should remain in communion with heretics and apostates?
Are there any saints who said such things?
-
Accepting ... _____________ .... fill-in-the-blank. If "is" refers to everything and everything refers to "is", the net castings can get quite wide. Some people have asked, "what do you mean by 'is', and others could ask what do you mean by 'pastoral' "?
Accepting what's "funny" about Vatican II and how funny is it and why? Anybody who hasn't seen that Vatican II is "funny" and not just ha, ha funny, is crazy or stupid or not being honest.
-
To think that an Ecuмenical Council directed to all the faithful is not Magisterium ... :facepalm:
I'm not aware of a universal and precise definition of what an Ecuмenical Council is. Briefly, if we judge according to matter, form and intention (which might not be the criterion) I can affirm Vatican II was not an Ecuмenical Council. Certainly a council (lowercase 'c'--the general English definition), but not an Ecuмenical Council (capital 'C').
-
Here, again, three great Bishops of the sixth, seventh, and eighth general councils called Honorius heretical.
The very idea of a heretical Pope who nevertheless remains Pope is “injurious” to the papacy and thus to Catholic dogma
Which one do we submit to? Can we throw one out?
Were you able to find any Magisterial statements that declare we should remain in communion with heretics and apostates?
Are there any saints who said such things?
Materially heretical popes are a sad fact of history. Formally heretical popes are an impossibility. They would no longer be pope.
Vatican I spoke about submitting to universal magisterium. Universal means: all places and all times. Even if the bishops teach heresy in all places today, they have not in all times. That is not 'universal' magisterium.
We are not united in any way with formal heretics and apostates. Solely material heretics are a different case.
-
Materially heretical popes are a sad fact of history. Formally heretical popes are an impossibility. They would no longer be pope.
Vatican I spoke about submitting to universal magisterium. Universal means: all places and all times. Even if the bishops teach heresy in all places today, they have not in all times. That is not 'universal' magisterium.
We are not united in any way with formal heretics and apostates. Solely material heretics are a different case.
Right.
Well, in the case of the signers of VII we aren't just talking about heresy, we are talking about total apostasy as defined by Pope Pius XI (as well as other Popes including Pius X).
Just posting Pius XI again here:
(Sorry the formatting is wonky. It looks nice on my screen until I publish it and then it shows up quite differently. Also, I have a difficult time reading so I spread things out and highlight words to keep it straight in my mind. :P)
Has there been an apostasy since Vatican Council II? The answer can be found in the teachings of Pope Pius XI in Mortalium Animos onFostering True Religious Unity, January 6, 1928
They presuppose the erroneous view that all religions are more or less good and praiseworthy, inasmuch as all give expression, under various forms, to that innate sense which leads men to God and to the obedient acknowledgment of His rule… to favor this opinion, therefore, and to encourage such undertakings, is tantamount to abandoning the religion revealed by God.”
Let us focus attention on the phrase “tantamount to abandoning the religion revealed by God.” This phrase is another definition of the word “apostasy.” According to Pope Pius XI, to hold to false ecuмenism and to encourage it, is equivalent to apostasy.
Since this is seriously truncated for a forum post, please see the full text here:
https://cmri.org/articles-on-the-traditional-catholic-faith/the-last-days-and-false-ecuмenism/
So holding false ecuмanism is apostasy, therefore all the signers of Vatican II apostatized.
Apostates are no longer members of the Church. They left the Barque of Peter.
They left and started the church of Chrislam.
Vatican I spoke about submitting to universal magisterium. Universal means: all places and all times. Even if the bishops teach heresy in all places today, they have not in all times. That is not 'universal' magisterium.
Actually, this is the definition:
A teaching of ordinary and universal magisterium is a teaching on which all bishops (including the Pope) universally agree, and is also considered infallible. Such a teaching must also be a part of the sensus fidelium.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magisterium#:~:text=A%20teaching%20of%20ordinary%20and,part%20of%20the%20sensus%20fidelium.
(That link has the chart (which I posted earlier) and the definitions nicely laid out. It's Wikipedia but it has the links to the original sources.)
But Apostates cannot "teach heresy". They cannot teach anything. They are not part of any magisterium. They are outside the Church. They left the Barque of Peter.
We are not united in any way with formal heretics and apostates. Solely material heretics are a different case.
As shown above they are apostates and outside the Barque of Peter.
Every Holy Sacrifice of the Mass said Una cuм "Pope Demon Worshiper" is in communion with him and his church of Chrislam.
As shown earlier in this thread, if we are in communion with them we become apostates too.
Posting again:
St. Cyril of Alexandria echoed these same sentiments when he said, “It is therefore unlawful, and a profanation, and an act the punishment of which is death, to love to associate with unholy heretics, and to unite yourself to their communion.”
Council of Carthage in the fifth century decreed, “One must neither pray nor sing psalms with heretics, and whoever shall communicate with those who are cut off from the communion of the Church, whether clergy or layman: let him be excommunicated.”
St. Thomas Aquinas, said, “To know whom to avoid is a great means of saving our souls…Thus, the Church forbids the faithful to communicate with those unbelievers who have forsaken the faith by corrupting it, such as heretics, or by renouncing it, such as apostates.”
BTW, I don't know who is downvoting you. It's not me. I understand that these are difficult subjects and I'm enjoying our discussion and it's helping me learn more as well. :)
-
This might also be helpful:
The Decrees of Vatican II Compared with Past Infallible Church Teachings
This series of articles studying the heretical teachings of Vatican Council II first appeared in The Reign of Mary several years ago. Its purpose is to show in a side-by-side comparison how the official decrees of Vatican II explicitly contradict past official decrees of the Catholic Church.
Non-Christian Religions (https://cmri.org/articles-on-the-traditional-catholic-faith/the-decrees-of-vatican-ii-on-non-christian-religions-compared-with-past-infallible-church-teachings/) | Sacred Scripture (https://cmri.org/articles-on-the-traditional-catholic-faith/the-decrees-of-vatican-ii-on-sacred-scripture-compared-with-past-infallible-church-teachings/) | Education (https://cmri.org/articles-on-the-traditional-catholic-faith/the-decrees-of-vatican-ii-on-education-compared-with-past-infallible-church-teachings/) | Religious Liberty (https://cmri.org/articles-on-the-traditional-catholic-faith/the-decrees-of-vatican-ii-on-religious-liberty-compared-with-past-infallible-church-teachings/) | Liturgy (https://cmri.org/articles-on-the-traditional-catholic-faith/the-decrees-of-vatican-ii-on-the-liturgy-compared-with-past-infallible-church-teachings/)
https://cmri.org/articles-on-the-traditional-catholic-faith/the-decrees-of-vatican-ii-on-ecuмenism-compared-with-past-infallible-church-teachings/
-
So holding false ecuмanism is apostasy, therefore all the signers of Vatican II apostatized.
Actually, this is the definition:
A teaching of ordinary and universal magisterium is a teaching on which all bishops (including the Pope) universally agree, and is also considered infallible. Such a teaching must also be a part of the sensus fidelium.
Those who signed on to religious liberty in Dignitatis Humanae signed objective apostasy. Subjective apostasy would require that they knew what they were doing. Some probably understood the ramifications of the text, others did not. Only God knows who was signing that text and really intending to abandon Tradition. These poor Modernists are all the time proclaiming the opposite; that they are accepting Dignitatis Humanae and therefore faithful to the Holy Catholic Church. Some may be liars, others I assume in charity to be honestly deeply mistaken. It is not easy to see what you and I see when almost everyone in the world says the opposite.
In the definition you provided, find the phrase 'universally agree'. Immediately our minds think about all the bishops of the world, but the term 'universally' also means all the bishops and popes in history. The bishops today say the opposite of what the universal magisterium really is.
-
Those who signed on to religious liberty in Dignitatis Humanae signed objective apostasy. Subjective apostasy would require that they knew what they were doing. Some probably understood the ramifications of the text, others did not. Only God knows who was signing that text and really intending to abandon Tradition. These poor Modernists are all the time proclaiming the opposite; that they are accepting Dignitatis Humanae and therefore faithful to the Holy Catholic Church. Some may be liars, others I assume in charity to be honestly deeply mistaken. It is not easy to see what you and I see when almost everyone in the world says the opposite.
In the definition you provided, find the phrase 'universally agree'. Immediately our minds think about all the bishops of the world, but the term 'universally' also means all the bishops and popes in history. The bishops today say the opposite of what the universal magisterium really is.
Can you share any infallible statements defining subjective apostasy?
Is there anything stating that we should remain in communion with subjective apostates?
"It is not easy to see what you and I see when almost everyone in the world says the opposite."
The First Commandment is very simple. They were taught it before First Communion:
I am the Lord thy God. Thou shalt not have strange gods before me.
Besides, they had previous Popes define ecuмanism/indifferentism as apostasy.
"The bishops today say the opposite of what the universal magisterium really is."
That's apostasy.
To Deny One Dogma Is to Separate Yourself from Christ
-
The question was also raised by a Cardinal, “What is to be done with the Pope if he becomes a heretic?” It was answered that there has never been such a case; the Council of Bishops could depose him for heresy, for from the moment he becomes a heretic he is not the head or even a member of the Church. The Church would not be, for a moment, obliged to listen to him when he begins to teach a doctrine the Church knows to be a false doctrine, and he would cease to be Pope, being deposed by God Himself.
If the Pope, for instance, were to say that the belief in God is false, you would not be obliged to believe him, or if he were to deny the rest of the creed, “I believe in Christ,” etc. The supposition is injurious to the Holy Father in the very idea, but serves to show you the fullness with which the subject has been considered and the ample thought given to every possibility. If he denies any dogma of the Church held by every true believer, he is no more Pope than either you or I; and so in this respect the dogma of infallibility amounts to nothing as an article of temporal government or cover for heresy.
(Abp. John B. Purcell, quoted in Rev. James J. McGovern, Life and Life Work of Pope Leo XIII (https://books.google.com/books?id=Yv8tAAAAYAAJ&dq=) [Chicago, IL: Allied Printing, 1903], p. 241)
This isn’t difficult to understand. As the words in red bold print clearly reveal, the question that was asked, considered, and responded to was what would happen if the Pope were to depart from the Faith himself, if he were to become a heretic — not if he were to attempt to define as dogma something that is heretical. The two questions are somewhat related, of course, but it is nonsense and calumnious to accuse us of somehow “twisting” the text — the text is as plain as it could be.
What would happen if the Pope should start professing heresy? He would cease to be Pope, that’s what, just as any other Catholic who begins to profess heresy would cease being a member of the Church! And as we likewise explained in our last post on this — and this is something our critics have so far ignored — the reason for this is that the Church cannot be divided in her Faith; she has but one Faith, as she has but one Lord and one baptism (see Eph 4:4).
It is impossible to profess a different religion and still be a member — much less head — of the Catholic Church: “Actually only those are to be included as members of the Church who have been baptized and profess the true faith…” (Pope Pius XII, Encyclical Mystici Corporis (http://www.papalencyclicals.net/pius12/p12mysti.htm), n. 22).
All of this couldn’t be more clear. Besides, in the quote by Abp. Purcell, as reproduced above, the keywords are not “define” or “declare”, but rather, “becomes [a heretic]”, “say”, and “deny”. We are clearly talking about a Pope becoming a heretic, a Pope who professes or fails to profess a particular teaching;
we are not talking about a Pope who attempts to define heresy infallibly. True, the text also says that the Church “would not be … obliged to listen to him when he begins to teach” a heresy, but of course this is true as well, because he is then no longer Pope,
as the rest of the quote painstakingly points out. Obviously the hypothetical scenario of a Pope who is a heretic brings with it the scenario of such a Pope teaching his heresy. That’s why the text speaks about a Pope both being a heretic and teaching heresy — and in that very order.
https://novusordowatch.org/2015/04/vatican-i-popes-follow-up/
-
Can you share any infallible statements defining subjective apostasy?
Is there anything stating that we should remain in communion with subjective apostates?
The First Commandment is very simple. They were taught it before First Communion:
I am the Lord thy God. Thou shalt not have strange gods before me.
Besides, they had previous Popes define ecuмanism/indifferentism as apostasy.
No communion with subjective apostates, they are outside the Church. A person might sign a docuмent that constitutes objective apostasy without understanding what the ramifications of the text are and without meaning to betray Jesus Christ. In a normal situation these people would be confronted by the authorities who would point out the meaning of the text, and hopefully the signers would say, "Yikes! Scratch out my signature!" Today the authorities would never point it out.
It is important to get a glimpse of just how messed up these Modernist clerics' minds are. From a young age and also during their seminary formation they were taught existentialist philosophy, by which there is no such thing as a definition. Imagine living with that idea. They have been taught that Holy Tradition changes with the times, and embracing false religions is not against the First Commandment because the 'church of Christ' subsists in them also. From a young age! Add to that the fact that cardinals and popes around the world do not condemn these errors, it is very easy for me to imagine many poor Modernists today thinking they are faithful orthodox Catholics. How wrong they are! Yet while they are objective apostates, they manifest a desire to be faithful to Jesus Christ. That makes them very confused persons, not formal apostates.
-
The quote about a pope 'becoming a heretic' is about a pope becoming a formal heretic. He would cease to be pope. Formal heresy is, "The Church says X, but I say Y."
Purely material heresy could be, "the Church says Y, and I also say Y." This person obviously has a wrong idea of what the Church teaches and does not intend to contradict the Church. He says a heresy, but thinks it's Church teaching. He does not subjectively leave the Church.
-
The quote about a pope 'becoming a heretic' is about a pope becoming a formal heretic. He would cease to be pope. Formal heresy is, "The Church says X, but I say Y."
Purely material heresy could be, "the Church says Y, and I also say Y." This person obviously has a wrong idea of what the Church teaches and does not intend to contradict the Church. He says a heresy, but thinks it's Church teaching. He does not subjectively leave the Church.
What about notoriety by fact? It's very clear that some v2 'popes' have publicly worshipped with false religions. And also published heretical docuмents.
-
What about notoriety by fact? It's very clear that some v2 'popes' have publicly worshipped with false religions. And also published heretical docuмents.
For example, take John Paul II kissing the Koran. Go down to the basement and stand next to your punching bag before you look up that photo.
Blatant objective apostasy. Public also. How can a man wear a white cassock and kiss the Koran? Well they think that all of these false religions contain 'seeds of the "Word"'. Many elements of the Catholic Religion are shared by our brothers in Islam. The Holy Ghost does not hesitate to use these elements as a means of saving our Islamic brethren, and the 'Church of Christ' subsists in Islamism to the degree that these elements are found there.
Pardon me while I get bandages for my knuckles.
Don't try too hard to understand this junk; if you understand, you have a diseased mind.
These poor popes have diseased minds to be able to do such things all while professing allegiance to Jesus Christ and His Church. We must pray.
-
(https://i.imgur.com/p5TkwmC.png)
-
(https://i.imgur.com/p5TkwmC.png)
"those who did not agree"
We must distinguish between those who explicitly don't agree, and those who say something wrong while thinking they agree with the Church. Bishop John was speaking about the former.
-
"those who did not agree"
We must distinguish between those who explicitly don't agree, and those who say something wrong while thinking they agree with the Church. Bishop John was speaking about the former.
Can you please provide some Magisterial evidence for that?
-
Here's some common sense:
I have personally heard Society priests say wrong things from the pulpit, obviously without realizing it.
Sometimes it was a slip of the tongue. Once Father told us Satan was in Heaven, then quickly corrected himself. Did he cease to be a Catholic for 5 1/2 seconds? No. It was material heresy, not formal heresy.
Other times it was clearly from a misunderstanding of Church doctrine. I remember one priest saying he was corrected by a laywoman in the sacristy after Mass, and in his next sermon he publicly corrected himself. Did he cease to be a Catholic for 1 day? No. It was material heresy, not formal heresy. Archbishop Lefebvre used to say, "A young priest is allowed two heresies per sermon." He was talking about material heresy stemming from misunderstanding.
Heresy only excludes a person from the Church when it is formal.
-
Here's some common sense:
I have personally heard Society priests say wrong things from the pulpit, obviously without realizing it.
Sometimes it was a slip of the tongue.
Other times it was clearly from a misunderstanding of Church doctrine. I remember one priest saying he was corrected by a laywoman in the sacristy after Mass, and in his next sermon he publicly corrected himself. Did he cease to be a Catholic for 1 day? No. It was material heresy, not formal heresy. Archbishop Lefebvre used to say, "A young priest is allowed two heresies per sermon." He was talking about material heresy stemming from misunderstanding.
Heresy only excludes a person from the Church when it is formal.
Once Father told us Satan was in Heaven, then quickly corrected himself. Did he cease to be a Catholic for 5 1/2 seconds? No. It was material heresy, not formal heresy.
Yes, he corrected himself. Perhaps you are not familiar with all of the OUTRAGEOUS heresies of Benedict XVI? Like all of the demon worshiping "popes" after VII there was never a correction:
1 hour 6min
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rkPiaS1z6Vs&t=639s
Yes, accidents can happen,
but did any of those priests sign their names to a "Magisterial" docuмent abrogating the First Commandment or the equivalent?
Have any of the prelates of the VII Council or those following in their footsteps made an Abjuration of Heresy?
A denial, disavowal, or renunciation under oath. In common ecclesiastical language this term is restricted to the renunciation of heresy made by the penitent heretic on the occasion of his reconciliation with the Church. The Church has always demanded such renunciation, accompanied by appropriate penance.
I've provided many infallible statements declaring heretics and apostates to be outside the Church admonishing us to NOT be in communion with them
or even pray with them
but you keep saying there is a clause in there somewhere that says
otherwise.
Where is that in Magisterial docuмents?
Is there an exception clause for formal demon worshipers, or material demon worshipers, or subjective demon worshipers?
Should we continue to pray with them?
Should we continue to offer the Holy Sacrifice of Our Lord Jesus Christ "una cuм" in communion with demon worshipers?
Archbishop Lefebvre called them antichrists.
Should we offer the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass in union with antichrists?
Where is that in Magisterial teaching (not the opinion of this or that priest)?
Common sense says we should not.
But we don't follow common sense.
We follow the infallible statements of the Magisterium.
-
These Modernists say wrong things because they misunderstand Church doctrine, like the priest I mentioned who was corrected in the sacristy after Mass. The things they say are so obviously wrong to you and I whom God has blessed with good teachers. They are not so obviously wrong if you have been born and bred in existentialism, phenomenologism, etc.
A well-formed hierarchy could point out to the Modernist his material heresies and demand he give them up or become a formal heretic.
The drama today is that the highest authorities are themselves the material heretics. I think it's St. Robert Bellarmine who said something about the college of bishops being able to confront a pope about his material heresies, but they're all Modernists also so don't hold your breath for that.
-
These Modernists say wrong things because they misunderstand Church doctrine, like the priest I mentioned who was corrected in the sacristy after Mass. The things they say are so obviously wrong to you and I whom God has blessed with good teachers. They are not so obviously wrong if you have been born and bred in existentialism, phenomenologism, etc.
A well-formed hierarchy could point out to the Modernist his material heresies and demand he give them up or become a formal heretic.
The drama today is that the highest authorities are themselves the material heretics. I think it's St. Robert Bellarmine who said something about the college of bishops being able to confront a pope about his material heresies, but they're all Modernists also so don't hold your breath for that.
First, how do you know what they are thinking?
We have no way of knowing that.
What we do know is that they are worshiping demons
and telling others that they can go to Heaven by worshiping demons.
You can call them "Modernists" if you want but the reality
is they are worshiping demons.
Of course they are delusional.
They left the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church
and started the Church of Chrislam.
Francis is the Vicar of Chrislam,
Vicar of the Pantheon of gods!
Join him in his worship at your own peril.
-
First, how do you know what they are thinking?
We have no way of knowing that.
They say themselves that they are only representing what the Church teaches. In charity I assume they are sincere, and gravely mistaken about Church teaching.
If they are lying and understand quite well they are teaching falsehoods, God will deal with them Himself. May He have mercy on them, may He have mercy on judgemental sedevacantists, and may He have mercy on me.
-
They say themselves that they are only representing what the Church teaches. In charity I assume they are sincere, and gravely mistaken about Church teaching.
If they are lying and understand quite well they are teaching falsehoods, God will deal with them Himself. May He have mercy on them, may He have mercy on judgemental sedevacantists, and may He have mercy on me.
Yes, may He have mercy on them and me.
Take into account that they may be delusional. Like men who think they are women, or humans who think they are a cat or dog, they worship demons and think they are Catholic.
Or they may just be liars or Freemasons or Communist infiltrators.
We have no way of knowing.
Either way...
be sympathetic. Pray for them, poor souls. There but for the grace of God go I.
But do not worship in communion with them. The Church forbids it.
Infallibly.
They warned us that if we worship in communion with them we also apostatize.
"may He have mercy on judgemental sedevacantists"
Can you please explain how I am judgemental and all those popes and Church councils which declared we are not to be in communion with heretics, apostates (or most obviously any demon worshipers) are not judgemental?
Not from a priest and his opinion
but from a Magisterial declaration?
Should we pray, "Lord have mercy on Popes Pius XI and Pius X and all those mean ol' Church Councils that were so very judgemental and told Catholics not to worship with demon worshipers, heretics and apostates. They simply didn't understand the poor poor Modernists and their childhood and their formation and their lack of understanding about the First Commandment and not worshiping false gods.
I'm so glad we have evolved to know better now. I'm so glad that I can pick and choose what is truly Magisterial in my profound sense of wisdom." :confused:
Was St Paul being judgemental?
"But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach a gospel to you besides that which we have preached to you, let him be anathema.
Gal 1:8
What does anathema mean?
He sounds like a sede, doesn't he? Was he being judgemental?
He doesn't seem to take into account what is in their heart or their formation or childhood.
I'm open to changing my mind if you can provide any Magisterial source that tells me I must.
I keep asking but I'm only hearing personal feelings and opinions.
Should I follow you and your feelings and opinion or that of a priest you once heard or should I follow the infallible teachings of the Magisterium of the Church?
I guess it doesn't matter though, since we can pick and choose which Magisterial declarations we follow and which ones we can throw out?
-
(https://i.imgur.com/jStc87O.png)
Does this sound judgmental?
-
Was St Paul being judgemental?
"But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach a gospel to you besides that which we have preached to you, let him be anathema.
Gal 1:8
What does anathema mean?
He sounds like a sede, doesn't he? Was he being judgemental?
Think about the SSPX priest who misunderstands a point of doctrine and says a heresy in his sermon: Before he understands his error and recants, is he anathema?
Be very careful.
-
Think about the SSPX priest who misunderstands a point of doctrine and says a heresy in his sermon: Before he understands his error and recants, is he anathema?
Be very careful.
Dude...I covered this.
That's not what we are talking about.
We are talking about declaring that Allah is Jesus' Father, signing it and trying to pass it off as authentic Magisterium.
Then never, ever recanting.
Can you provide an example of a post VII Pope recanting anything?
Watch that video about the heresies of the most Trad post VII pope I posted above. It's just a docuмentary of what he did as Vicar of Chrislam.
He wrote a book while acting as "pope" that said the bodily resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ never happened
while pretending to be pope!
Here he is pretending to be pope and getting a blessing from a witchdoctor:
(https://i.imgur.com/dMHbnfh.png)
Ooops....sorry. Just a little slip?
When did he recant?
Can you provide any evidence for any post VII "pope" recanting any of their demon worshiping heresies?
Any record of an Abjuration of Error?
-
Can you please provide some Magisterial evidence for that?
There is none. He just made it up.
-
Dude...I covered this.
That's not what we are talking about.
We are talking about declaring that Allah is Jesus' Father, signing it and trying to pass it off as authentic Magisterium.
Then never, ever recanting.
Can you provide an example of a post VII Pope recanting anything?
Watch that video about the heresies of the most Trad post VII pope I posted above. It's just a docuмentary of what he did as Vicar of Chrislam.
He wrote a book while acting as "pope" that said the bodily resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ never happened
while pretending to be pope!
Here he is pretending to be pope and getting a blessing from a witchdoctor:
(https://i.imgur.com/dMHbnfh.png)
Ooops....sorry. Just a little slip?
When did he recant?
Can you provide any evidence for any post VII "pope" recanting any of their demon worshiping heresies?
Any record of an Abjuration of Error?
His errors were larger and more abundant because his misunderstanding was deeper. But just like the SSPX priest mentioned, Benedict thought he was in harmony with Church teaching.
While the SSPX priest was saying the words of Consecration, he had not yet recanted his error. Was he anathema at that moment?
If no one pointed out his error and he held his misunderstanding until death, would he be anathema?
-
His errors were larger and more abundant because his misunderstanding was deeper. But just like the SSPX priest mentioned, Benedict thought he was in harmony with Church teaching.
While the SSPX priest was saying the words of Consecration, he had not yet recanted his error. Was he anathema at that moment?
If no one pointed out his error and he held his misunderstanding until death, would he be anathema?
(https://i.imgur.com/Xt8cYyf.png)
-
may He have mercy on judgemental sedevacantists
:facepalm: nobody’s judging anything except the external forum. I love how you try to spin your judgment of sedevcantists as charity. If anyone is judging, it’s you in accusing others of being judgmental, which is closer to a judgment of the internal forum than anything sedevavantists do. Sedevacantists are motivated by Catholic theological principles.
-
Think about the SSPX priest who misunderstands a point of doctrine and says a heresy in his sermon: Before he understands his error and recants, is he anathema?
Be very careful.
You’re conflating internal forum considerations with pertinacity that is discernible in the external forum. Your example of the priest who had a slip of the tongue is ridiculous. There was no pertinacity’s adherence to any error and that can be clearly discerned in the external forum. V2 papal claimants are clearly pertinacious in their errors, having repeated promoted them.
-
These Modernists say wrong things because they misunderstand Church doctrine, like the priest I mentioned who was corrected in the sacristy after Mass.
You no more know that this is true than anyone knows the opposite. You can no more ascertain their “good faith” than we can determine that they’re in bad faith. Those are matters of the internal forum that even the Church does not judge. What is judged is the external forum, thus the term manifest heresy.
It’s irrelevant anyway and a distraction from the core issue, which is that the Holy Spirit guides and protects the papacy. If V2 and the NOM had never happened, I could hardly care less about a Bergoglio spewing heresy on a daily basis. That would not be my problem, and we would leave him to the hierarchy to deal with.
What’s at issue here is the nature of the Church and the indefectibility of the Church.
-
But just like the SSPX priest mentioned, Benedict thought he was in harmony with Church teaching.
And you know this how? For all you know he is actually a Satanist who knows exactly what he’s doing.
And your continuing to use an idiotic comparison with a Traditional priest who has a slip of the tongue is idiotic.
If this priest had kept repeating his error over and over again, then you’re in a different situation where pertinacity would become manifest in the external forum. Most theologians would not classify a slip of the tongue as even material heresy. It’s not even in the same category. Heresy even etymologically denotes pertinacity, referring into a “clinging” to error. You also butcher the term formal heresy … but I’ll get back to that tomorrow.
-
...Benedict thought he was in harmony with Church teaching.
Come on, man.
-
Tradition in Action did a nice segment on Ratzinger, et al. He was a public and known Modernist for quite a while.
https://www.traditioninaction.org/ProgressivistDoc/A_001_CondemnationRatzinger.htm
(https://i.imgur.com/hmjXddE.png)
-
And let us not forget he wasn't alone in his Modernism.
(https://i.imgur.com/Dblsfnc.png)
-
You’re conflating internal forum considerations with pertinacity that is discernible in the external forum. Your example of the priest who had a slip of the tongue is ridiculous. There was no pertinacity’s adherence to any error and that can be clearly discerned in the external forum. V2 papal claimants are clearly pertinacious in their errors, having repeated promoted them.
I'm talking about the other example from the same post, sorry if I was unclear. Not the priest who had a slip of the tongue, the other who says a heresy because he misunderstood a point of doctrine and wasn't corrected until after Mass. Was he anathema between the sermon and the recessional? I'll answer myself: No. He misunderstood something, just like Benedict misunderstood many things. Both thought they were in harmony with Church teaching. Purely material heresy, not formal heresy.
Benedict continued to promote his errors, and continued to manifest his intention to agree with Church teaching. Still material heresy, not formal.
-
You no more know that this is true than anyone knows the opposite. You can no more ascertain their “good faith” than we can determine that they’re in bad faith. Those are matters of the internal forum that even the Church does not judge. What is judged is the external forum, thus the term manifest heresy.
I cannot see into Benedict's soul and check if he actually does mean to contradict the Church. I stick with the externals. He says he means to agree with Church teaching. I am obliged in charity to assume he's sincere, and terribly mistaken.
-
It’s irrelevant anyway and a distraction from the core issue, which is that the Holy Spirit guides and protects the papacy. If V2 and the NOM had never happened, I could hardly care less about a Bergoglio spewing heresy on a daily basis. That would not be my problem, and we would leave him to the hierarchy to deal with.
What’s at issue here is the nature of the Church and the indefectibility of the Church.
The Holy Ghost is promised to protect the pope in infallible pronouncements. He does not prevent Nicholas I from saying baptism in the Name of Christ is valid.
The indefectibility of the Church has been marvelously apparent during this crisis. Despite the popes doing everything they could think of to impose their errors, none of them has been able to infallibly define any of them. The Holy Ghost takes care of His Church.
-
The Holy Ghost is promised to protect the pope in infallible pronouncements. He does not prevent Nicholas I from saying baptism in the Name of Christ is valid.
The indefectibility of the Church has been marvelously apparent during this crisis. Despite the popes doing everything they could think of to impose their errors, none of them has been able to infallibly define any of them. The Holy Ghost takes care of His Church.
But vatican 2 taught error and meets the criteria of infallibility.
-
I cannot see into Benedict's soul and check if he actually does mean to contradict the Church.
If a man walks up to me, puts the barrel of a gun on my forehead and says, 'hand over your wallet', but then smiles and says he has my 'best interests' in mind, I simply believe him? What if he does this for years in public to everyone, on every street corner in town?
Call a spade a spade. That's precisely why there was a Holy Office and that's what the Holy Office had been doing for years - calling warped theologians warped in their non Catholic Modernism.
-
But vatican 2 taught error and meets the criteria of infallibility.
John XXIII, Paul VI and the council itself unequivocally denied the infallibility of Vatican II.
-
If a man walks up to me, puts the barrel of a gun on my forehead and says, 'hand over your wallet', but then smiles and says he has my 'best interests' in mind, I simply believe him? What if he does this for years in public to everyone, on every street corner in town?
Call a spade a spade. That's precisely why there was a Holy Office and that's what the Holy Office had been doing for years - calling warped theologians warped in their non Catholic Modernism.
The mugger would have to have some kind of explanation. He might present an explanation that would lead you to think, "Wow. This crazy guy really thinks he's helping me. Poor dude, he's doing wrong and needs to be put in the madhouse."
Benedict was asked to explain why he was saying the Church used to say one thing and now says another. His explanation was fallacious, but you can see why someone with his formation would believe his explanation. That makes him a sincere crackpot, not a formal heretic.
Of course, it's possible he was extorting our good will, and knew perfectly well his explanation was bogus. However we have very good reason to believe he was just a sincere crackpot.
-
John XXIII, Paul VI and the council itself unequivocally denied the infallibility of Vatican II.
This misses the point. The bishops collective, in union with His Holiness, approved false doctrine for the whole Church. His Holiness Pope Francis said as much recently:
This is magisterium: the Council is the magisterium of the Church. Either you are with the Church and therefore you follow the Council, and if you do not follow the Council or you interpret it in your own way, as you wish, you are not with the Church.
-
Of course, it's possible he was extorting our good will, and knew perfectly well his explanation was bogus. However we have very good reason to believe he was just a sincere crackpot.
You have 'good reason' to believe he was a sincere crackpot. I have good reason to believe that birds of a feather flock together, and that if you want to know what someone thinks then listen to what he teaches. He was under suspicion by the Holy Office, his writings are full of heresies, he rejected the Syllabus of Pius IX, he worked to bury the message of Fatima and he worked to bury the work of Lefebvre. And that's for starters. That isn't 'bad formation'. That is the work of an outlaw.
-
This misses the point. The bishops collective, in union with His Holiness, approved false doctrine for the whole Church. His Holiness Pope Francis said as much recently:
This is magisterium: the Council is the magisterium of the Church. Either you are with the Church and therefore you follow the Council, and if you do not follow the Council or you interpret it in your own way, as you wish, you are not with the Church.
"Magisterium" that contradicts the universal (all places, all times) magisterium is not magisterium at all. Even if His Holiness tries to call it such.
-
"Magisterium" that contradicts the universal (all places, all times) magisterium is not magisterium at all. Even if His Holiness tries to call it such.
Actually, if the bishops convene in union with the pope and teach universally, that is Magisterium precisely - in a nutshell. To quote the Hokey Pokey song, 'that's what it's all about'.
-
You have 'good reason' to believe he was a sincere crackpot. I have good reason to believe that birds of a feather flock together, and that if you want to know what someone thinks then listen to what he teaches. He was under suspicion by the Holy Office, his writings are full of heresies, he rejected the Syllabus of Pius IX, he worked to bury the message of Fatima and he worked to bury the work of Lefebvre. And that's for starters. That isn't 'bad formation'. That is the work of an outlaw.
It's not so clear.
Listen to what he teaches, and listen to his explanation why he teaches it. He says heresies and gives explanations that make sense to people schooled in false philosophies. Pretty obvious sincere crackpot. He does the work of an outlaw, like all those mentally challenged pyromaniac arsonists. I want to see him in the madhouse. Others seem to want him in the electric chair.
And he doesn't think he rejects the Syllabus. He says he accepts it and also accepts anti-Syllabus docuмents. I could try to repeat his ridiculous explanation for that but you must allow me to go back downstairs and stand next to my punching bag again first.
-
Actually, if the bishops convene in union with the pope and teach universally, that is Magisterium precisely - in a nutshell. To quote the Hokey Pokey song, 'that's what it's all about'.
"Universally." Our minds immediately think 'all over the world', but the term also means 'all through history'. Even if the bishops today teach heresy in all places, they have not in all times.
-
"Universally." Our minds immediately think 'all over the world', but the term also means 'all through history'. Even if the bishops today teach heresy in all places, they have not in all times.
Vatican II, as history, is precisely the problem. The Catholic Church - all the bishops collective in union with the pope - taught condemned errors to the entire Church and said it requires your assent.
You do you and I'll stick with the Magisterium.
-
"Universally." Our minds immediately think 'all over the world', but the term also means 'all through history'. Even if the bishops today teach heresy in all places, they have not in all times.
Yes, you are correct!
The thing is, since the Church is INDEFECTIBLE
and guided and protected by the Holy Spirit
it cannot teach heresy
and cannot contradict itself.
That's how we know that the post VII church of Chrislam
is not the Catholic Church.
The Catholic Church cannot declare heresies that send souls to Hell.
-
It's not so clear.
Listen to what he teaches, and listen to his explanation why he teaches it. He says heresies and gives explanations that make sense to people schooled in false philosophies. Pretty obvious sincere crackpot.
I have listened to him and I take him for what the Holy Office thought him to be - a Modernist.
So how do arm chair theologians, laymen in the backwaters of Podunk, USA, get it right but the pope of the Catholic Church is confused? Schooled in bad philosophies. Now that's quality.
I have some beach front property available. Any takers? I'm only charging, well, just give me your credit card and we'll make it fair. You can trust me.
-
Quote from: NIFH (https://www.cathinfo.com/index.php?topic=70795.msg882733#msg882733) 07/05/2023, 04:38:16
John XXIII, Paul VI and the council itself unequivocally denied the infallibility of Vatican II.
Both the dimonds and novus ordo watch disagree with you. From their conclusions;
https://schismatic-home-aloner.com/vatican-ii-infallible/
Many other statements from Antipopes Paul VI, John Paul II and Benedict XVI prove that they consider Vatican II to be binding and magisterial.
Those who ignore or deny the force of these facts – and instead convince themselves that the Vatican II “popes” did not attempt to use the authority of the Catholic Magisterium to promulgate the teachings of Vatican II – are simply living in a fantasy world.
There’s no way around it: the Vatican II antipopes attempted to use the authority of the Catholic Church and the papal magisterium (which is infallible) to promulgate the false teachings of Vatican II. That proves without any doubt that they did not possess the authority of the Catholic Church and the papal magisterium because they were antipopes.
https://novusordowatch.org/vatican-ii-infallible-john-daly/
We are thus entirely justified in our conclusion that the teachings of Vatican II on matters of faith and morals fulfil all the conditions necessary for the infallible exercise of the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium if the promulgating authority was truly pope. And far from being contradicted by any text of Paul VI or Vatican II itself, this fact is unmistakably affirmed by both.
In fact this is so evident, and yet so patently unacceptable to many traditionalists, that frequent attempts have been made to escape from it. These attempts have been so numerous as to remind one of the sailor’s maxim: “If you can’t make good knots, make plenty of ’em.” But poor arguments remain unconvincing for serious minds however many of them there are
The facts show that the conditions for infallibility were apparently fulfilled, for the bishops of 7th December 1965 under Paul VI were morally unanimous in presenting their teaching on faith and morals to the Church as definitive and to be believed as a consequence of divine revelation itself. If they were not in fact infallible, this can only be because the lynchpin of their consensus, the authority of a true bishop of Rome, was lacking.
-
Yes, you are correct!
The thing is, since the Church is INDEFECTIBLE
and guided and protected by the Holy Spirit
it cannot teach heresy
and cannot contradict itself.
That's how we know that the post VII church of Chrislam
is not the Catholic Church.
The Catholic Church cannot declare heresies that send souls to Hell.
THIS ^^^
Arguing about the personal status of the V2 papal claimants is a distraction. This is the primary issue.
Despite R&R hiding behind Archbishop Lefebvre, the Archbishop never denied the fact that the Holy Spirit guides the Church and that this degree of destruction is not possible on that basis. Having agreed with that, the Archbishop then speculated about how this could have happened. Could Montini have been blackmailed? drugged? replaced by an imposter? He didn't think those theories were likely and concluded that SVism is possible. Archbishop Lefebvre only prescinded from the SV conclusion because he felt that he lacked the requisite certainty regarding the "minor" of the SV conclusion.
Here's SVism as a syllogism:
MAJOR: Catholic Church is guided by the Holy Spirit and could not destroy the faith and the Mass.
MINOR: V2 Popes have destroyed the faith and the Mass.
CONCLUSION: V2 Popes cannot be legitimate Catholic Popes.
Archbishop Lefebvre agreed with the MAJOR of the SV position, but he expressed doubt about what the situation was with regard to the MINOR. Maybe they were legitimate popes but were being blackmailed? Who knows? So because he lacked certainty of faith about the MINOR (which one really can't have until the Church declares it authoritatively), he refrained from making the SV conclusion. He was not incorrect from a logical standpoint, and this is actually where dogmatic SVism fails, because the strength of the conclusion can be only as strong as the weakest premise, meaning that since we don't have dogmatic certainty regarding what happened with the V2 "popes", we can't have dogmatic certainty about SVism.
In any case, Archbishop Lefebvre upheld the MAJOR. Unfortunately, subsequent generations of R&R uphold the MINOR as if it were dogmatically certain, but then reject the MAJOR. Rejecting the MAJOR here is effectively to undermine the Church and veer away from the Catholic faith.
I find Archbishop Lefebvre's articulation of "R&R" perfectly acceptable, and there's a lot to be said for it, prescinding in humility from turning the MINOR into a dogmatic certainty. But, unfortunately, some modern R&R have inverted this, upholding the MINOR as dogmatically certain while rejecting the MAJOR. That I simply will not accept. It's precisely what the Eastern Orthodox, the Old Catholics, and the Protestants have said, that the Catholic Church had become corrupt.
-
THIS ^^^
Arguing about the personal status of the V2 papal claimants is a distraction. This is the primary issue.
Despite R&R hiding behind Archbishop Lefebvre, the Archbishop never denied the fact that the Holy Spirit guides the Church and that this degree of destruction is not possible on that basis. Having agreed with that, the Archbishop then speculated about how this could have happened. Could Montini have been blackmailed? drugged? replaced by an imposter? He didn't think those theories were likely and concluded that SVism is possible. Archbishop Lefebvre only prescinded from the SV conclusion because he felt that he lacked the requisite certainty regarding the "minor" of the SV conclusion.
Here's SVism as a syllogism:
MAJOR: Catholic Church is guided by the Holy Spirit and could not destroy the faith and the Mass.
MINOR: V2 Popes have destroyed the faith and the Mass.
CONCLUSION: V2 Popes cannot be legitimate Catholic Popes.
Archbishop Lefebvre agreed with the MAJOR of the SV position, but he expressed doubt about what the situation was with regard to the MINOR. Maybe they were legitimate popes but were being blackmailed? Who knows? So because he lacked certainty of faith about the MINOR (which one really can't have until the Church declares it authoritatively), he refrained from making the SV conclusion. He was not incorrect from a logical standpoint, and this is actually where dogmatic SVism fails, because the strength of the conclusion can be only as strong as the weakest premise, meaning that since we don't have dogmatic certainty regarding what happened with the V2 "popes", we can't have dogmatic certainty about SVism.
In any case, Archbishop Lefebvre upheld the MAJOR. Unfortunately, subsequent generations of R&R uphold the MINOR as if it were dogmatically certain, but then reject the MAJOR. Rejecting the MAJOR here is effectively to undermine the Church and veer away from the Catholic faith.
I find Archbishop Lefebvre's articulation of "R&R" perfectly acceptable, and there's a lot to be said for it, prescinding in humility from turning the MINOR into a dogmatic certainty. But, unfortunately, some modern R&R have inverted this, upholding the MINOR as dogmatically certain while rejecting the MAJOR. That I simply will not accept. It's precisely what the Eastern Orthodox, the Old Catholics, and the Protestants have said, that the Catholic Church had become corrupt.
…R&R! R&R! Anty Emm! Spit-snarl, blah, blah R&R! Spit-snarl, blah blah…
If you are not already on meds for OCD, you should certainly get some. If you have them, please take them. Your obsession has made you a mad man.
rr, rr, R&R, spit, snarl, gnash, R&R, blah, blah, blah…
-
THIS ^^^
Arguing about the personal status of the V2 papal claimants is a distraction. This is the primary issue.
Despite R&R hiding behind Archbishop Lefebvre, the Archbishop never denied the fact that the Holy Spirit guides the Church and that this degree of destruction is not possible on that basis. Having agreed with that, the Archbishop then speculated about how this could have happened. Could Montini have been blackmailed? drugged? replaced by an imposter? He didn't think those theories were likely and concluded that SVism is possible. Archbishop Lefebvre only prescinded from the SV conclusion because he felt that he lacked the requisite certainty regarding the "minor" of the SV conclusion.
Here's SVism as a syllogism:
MAJOR: Catholic Church is guided by the Holy Spirit and could not destroy the faith and the Mass.
MINOR: V2 Popes have destroyed the faith and the Mass.
CONCLUSION: V2 Popes cannot be legitimate Catholic Popes.
Archbishop Lefebvre agreed with the MAJOR of the SV position, but he expressed doubt about what the situation was with regard to the MINOR. Maybe they were legitimate popes but were being blackmailed? Who knows? So because he lacked certainty of faith about the MINOR (which one really can't have until the Church declares it authoritatively), he refrained from making the SV conclusion. He was not incorrect from a logical standpoint, and this is actually where dogmatic SVism fails, because the strength of the conclusion can be only as strong as the weakest premise, meaning that since we don't have dogmatic certainty regarding what happened with the V2 "popes", we can't have dogmatic certainty about SVism.
In any case, Archbishop Lefebvre upheld the MAJOR. Unfortunately, subsequent generations of R&R uphold the MINOR as if it were dogmatically certain, but then reject the MAJOR. Rejecting the MAJOR here is effectively to undermine the Church and veer away from the Catholic faith.
I find Archbishop Lefebvre's articulation of "R&R" perfectly acceptable, and there's a lot to be said for it, prescinding in humility from turning the MINOR into a dogmatic certainty. But, unfortunately, some modern R&R have inverted this, upholding the MINOR as dogmatically certain while rejecting the MAJOR. That I simply will not accept. It's precisely what the Eastern Orthodox, the Old Catholics, and the Protestants have said, that the Catholic Church had become corrupt.
The Sanhedrin, to whom the truths of the Scriptures and Prophets were veiled, could have formulated various seemingly impregnable syllogisms the time of Christ's first appearance in the flesh on earth:
Major: God is not a man
Minor: Jesus is a man
Conclusion: Jesus is not God
Major: A man who claims he is god blasphemes
Minor: Jesus claims he is god
Conclusion: Jesus is a blasphemer
Etc.
If Scripture tells us the Church would be overrun and have a head sitting in the Temple deceiving the masses which cannot read the Scriptures, the Prophets nor the signs, then your "syllogisms" function under a whole different reality and divine phase of history; they likewise would fail miserably like the Sanhedrin's, for all their infallible logic under a prior dispensation or age/saecula.
Just sayin'
-
Both the dimonds and novus ordo watch disagree with you. From their conclusions;
https://schismatic-home-aloner.com/vatican-ii-infallible/
https://novusordowatch.org/vatican-ii-infallible-john-daly/
"The sacred [sic] Council defines as binding on the Church only those things in matters of faith and morals which it shall openly declare to be binding." (Lumen Gentium, Explanatory Note)
The Dimonds need assistance with their reading comprehension skills.
If post-conciliar popes try to claim Vatican II intended to be infallible, they are contradicting the council itself.
-
Vatican II, as history, is precisely the problem. The Catholic Church - all the bishops collective in union with the pope - taught condemned errors to the entire Church and said it requires your assent.
You do you and I'll stick with the Magisterium.
"Said it requires your assent." No matter how many times they say it, they are wrong. When a council speaks infallibly, it is binding by the authority of the bishops in union with the pope. They explicitly refused to engage that authority.
If they taught what all bishops through history taught, it would also be infallible. They refused to do that also.
-
THIS ^^^
Arguing about the personal status of the V2 papal claimants is a distraction. This is the primary issue.
Despite R&R hiding behind Archbishop Lefebvre, the Archbishop never denied the fact that the Holy Spirit guides the Church and that this degree of destruction is not possible on that basis. Having agreed with that, the Archbishop then speculated about how this could have happened. Could Montini have been blackmailed? drugged? replaced by an imposter? He didn't think those theories were likely and concluded that SVism is possible. Archbishop Lefebvre only prescinded from the SV conclusion because he felt that he lacked the requisite certainty regarding the "minor" of the SV conclusion.
Here's SVism as a syllogism:
MAJOR: Catholic Church is guided by the Holy Spirit and could not destroy the faith and the Mass.
MINOR: V2 Popes have destroyed the faith and the Mass.
CONCLUSION: V2 Popes cannot be legitimate Catholic Popes.
Archbishop Lefebvre agreed with the MAJOR of the SV position, but he expressed doubt about what the situation was with regard to the MINOR. Maybe they were legitimate popes but were being blackmailed? Who knows? So because he lacked certainty of faith about the MINOR (which one really can't have until the Church declares it authoritatively), he refrained from making the SV conclusion. He was not incorrect from a logical standpoint, and this is actually where dogmatic SVism fails, because the strength of the conclusion can be only as strong as the weakest premise, meaning that since we don't have dogmatic certainty regarding what happened with the V2 "popes", we can't have dogmatic certainty about SVism.
In any case, Archbishop Lefebvre upheld the MAJOR. Unfortunately, subsequent generations of R&R uphold the MINOR as if it were dogmatically certain, but then reject the MAJOR. Rejecting the MAJOR here is effectively to undermine the Church and veer away from the Catholic faith.
I find Archbishop Lefebvre's articulation of "R&R" perfectly acceptable, and there's a lot to be said for it, prescinding in humility from turning the MINOR into a dogmatic certainty. But, unfortunately, some modern R&R have inverted this, upholding the MINOR as dogmatically certain while rejecting the MAJOR. That I simply will not accept. It's precisely what the Eastern Orthodox, the Old Catholics, and the Protestants have said, that the Catholic Church had become corrupt.
Small clarification about what the Archbishop tolerated:
He always allowed priests to have private opinions about whether the Apostolic See was vacant or not. What he enforced was to behave according to the presumption that the popes were authentic popes. There's nothing wrong with having a hunch that these are fake popes. What's wrong is claiming to have certainty that they're antipopes. None of the arguments for sedevacantism are conclusive, and the onus probandi is on us, not on the pope.
-
Small clarification about what the Archbishop tolerated:
He always allowed priests to have private opinions about whether the Apostolic See was vacant or not. What he enforced was to behave according to the presumption that the popes were authentic popes. There's nothing wrong with having a hunch that these are fake popes. What's wrong is claiming to have certainty that they're antipopes. None of the arguments for sedevacantism are conclusive, and the onus probandi is on us, not on the pope.
Did you even understand what I posted? Evdiently not.
Archbishop Lefebvre never denied the MAJOR. In refusing to commit entirely to the SV conclusion, he was wavering on the MINOR of the syllogism above, not the MAJOR. Those of you who reject the MAJOR are promoting a heretical view of the Church and you can't try to hide behind Archbishop Lefebvre there because he never rejected the MAJOR. Because +Lefebvre never committed to the SV conclusion, you try to pretend that the Archbishop backs your heretical rejection of the MAJOR above ... but then I don't expect you to understand this, as you clearly showed ignorance about that point in this response.
-
Here's SVism as a syllogism:
MAJOR: Catholic Church is guided by the Holy Spirit and could not destroy the faith and the Mass.
MINOR: V2 Popes have destroyed the faith and the Mass.
CONCLUSION: V2 Popes cannot be legitimate Catholic Popes.
Both premises are correct. The conclusion does not follow the premises.
Major: The Catholic Church cannot destroy the Faith. The pope cannot destroy the Faith when he speaks ex cathedra. The pope can destroy the Faith when speaking or acting as a private person.
Minor: V2 popes have only destroyed the Faith when speaking or acting as private persons.
Conclusion: V2 popes can be legitimate popes.
-
Did you even understand what I posted? Evdiently not.
Archbishop Lefebvre never denied the MAJOR. In refusing to commit entirely to the SV conclusion, he was wavering on the MINOR of the syllogism above, not the MAJOR. Those of you who reject the MAJOR are promoting a heretical view of the Church and you can't try to hide behind Archbishop Lefebvre there because he never rejected the MAJOR. Because +Lefebvre never committed to the SV conclusion, you try to pretend that the Archbishop backs your heretical rejection of the MAJOR above ... but then I don't expect you to understand this, as you clearly showed ignorance about that point in this response.
Archbishop Lefebvre was very sure about your 'minor'. You have omitted parts of the 'major'. There is a disconnect between the premises and your conclusion.
-
Both premises are correct. The conclusion does not follow the premises.
Major: The Catholic Church cannot destroy the Faith. The pope cannot destroy the Faith when he speaks ex cathedra. The pope can destroy the Faith when speaking or acting as a private person.
Minor: V2 popes have only destroyed the Faith when speaking or acting as private persons.
Conclusion: V2 popes can be legitimate popes.
Your Minor is wrong. Your claiming that the pope promulgated the NOM and made it the ordinary rite as a private person? Impossible.
-
Your Minor is wrong. Your claiming that the pope promulgated the NOM and made it the ordinary rite as a private person? Impossible.
The 'command' to use the New Mass was given in a notification from the Sacred Congregation of Rites. You will not find Paul VI's signature on a single decree saying priests must use the New Mass.
Even if he had signed a decree, Trent defined it to be outside his authority. Just like if he publishes a new traffic code for the United States, it's simply null and void.
-
The 'command' to use the New Mass was given in a notification from the Sacred Congregation of Rites. You will not find Paul VI's signature on a single decree saying priests must use the New Mass.
Even if he had signed a decree, Trent defined it to be outside his authority. Just like if he publishes a new traffic code for the United States, it's simply null and void.
Yes, command and promulgation are two different things. You are arguing that it was never made law, at least not through approved mechanisims or was missing requirements prescribe by Canon Law. However, some would disagree.
Bishop Fellay 2012 Doctrinal Preamble
http://www.archbishoplefebvre.com/uploads/1/0/3/2/10321570/_bishop_fellays_doctrinal_preamble.pdf (http://www.archbishoplefebvre.com/uploads/1/0/3/2/10321570/_bishop_fellays_doctrinal_preamble.pdf)
7. We declare that we recognize the validity of the sacrifice of the Mass and the Sacraments celebrated with the intention to do what the Church does according to the rites indicated in the typical editions of the Roman Missal and the Sacramentary Rituals legitimately promulgated by Popes Paul VI and John-Paul II.
Archbishop Lefebvre 1988 Protocol
http://www.sspxasia.com/Docuмents/Archbishop-Lefebvre/Archbishop_Lefebvre_and_the_Vatican/Part_I/1988-05-05B.htm (http://www.sspxasia.com/Docuмents/Archbishop-Lefebvre/Archbishop_Lefebvre_and_the_Vatican/Part_I/1988-05-05B.htm)
◄ 1988 ►d) Moreover, we declare that we recognize the validity of the Sacrifice of the Mass and the Sacraments celebrated with the intention of doing what the Church does, and according to the rites indicated in the typical editions of the Roman Missal and the Rituals of the Sacraments promulgated by Popes Paul VI and John Paul II.
Fr. Cekada
http://www.traditionalmass.org/images/articles/P6Illegally.pdf (http://www.traditionalmass.org/images/articles/P6Illegally.pdf)
What is “Promulgation”? To “promulgate” a law means nothing more than to announce it publicly. The essence of promulgation is the public proposal of a law to the community by the lawmaker himself, or on his authority, so that the will of the lawmaker to impose an obligation can become known to his subjects. The Code of Canon Law simply says: “Laws enacted by the Holy See are promulgated by their publication in the official commentary Acta Apostolicae Sedis, unless in particular cases another mode of promulgation is prescribed.” This is all that the Code requires and it suffices to make known the will of the legislator, the pope.
-
Yes, command and promulgation are two different things. You are arguing that it was never made law, at least not through approved mechanisims or was missing requirements prescribe by Canon Law. However, some would disagree.
Bishop Fellay 2012 Doctrinal Preamble
http://www.archbishoplefebvre.com/uploads/1/0/3/2/10321570/_bishop_fellays_doctrinal_preamble.pdf (http://www.archbishoplefebvre.com/uploads/1/0/3/2/10321570/_bishop_fellays_doctrinal_preamble.pdf)
7. We declare that we recognize the validity of the sacrifice of the Mass and the Sacraments celebrated with the intention to do what the Church does according to the rites indicated in the typical editions of the Roman Missal and the Sacramentary Rituals legitimately promulgated by Popes Paul VI and John-Paul II.
Archbishop Lefebvre 1988 Protocol
http://www.sspxasia.com/Docuмents/Archbishop-Lefebvre/Archbishop_Lefebvre_and_the_Vatican/Part_I/1988-05-05B.htm (http://www.sspxasia.com/Docuмents/Archbishop-Lefebvre/Archbishop_Lefebvre_and_the_Vatican/Part_I/1988-05-05B.htm)
◄ 1988 ►d) Moreover, we declare that we recognize the validity of the Sacrifice of the Mass and the Sacraments celebrated with the intention of doing what the Church does, and according to the rites indicated in the typical editions of the Roman Missal and the Rituals of the Sacraments promulgated by Popes Paul VI and John Paul II.
Fr. Cekada
http://www.traditionalmass.org/images/articles/P6Illegally.pdf (http://www.traditionalmass.org/images/articles/P6Illegally.pdf)
What is “Promulgation”? To “promulgate” a law means nothing more than to announce it publicly. The essence of promulgation is the public proposal of a law to the community by the lawmaker himself, or on his authority, so that the will of the lawmaker to impose an obligation can become known to his subjects. The Code of Canon Law simply says: “Laws enacted by the Holy See are promulgated by their publication in the official commentary Acta Apostolicae Sedis, unless in particular cases another mode of promulgation is prescribed.” This is all that the Code requires and it suffices to make known the will of the legislator, the pope.
Bishop Fellay made a grave error by including the word 'legitimately'. You will not find that word in the Protocol agreed to by Archbishop Lefebvre.
Even if the popes announced the 'law' with due process, that does not make it a law. St. Thomas explains that a 'law' promulgated in due form is still not a law if the promulgator is trying to legislate something outside of the domain of his authority.
Some imagine that the 'abortion laws' are bad laws. The Catholic Church actually holds that they are not laws at all, since the U.S. Congress has no authority over matters ruled by Divine Law.
Likewise with the New Mass. No matter how many official papal seals are stamped on a decree attempting to mandate the use of the New Mass, the decree is absolutely null and void.
-
In the new interview with Bishop Hounder, the statement is given that Archbishop Lefebvre was disposed to accept the entirety of Vatican II.
From the OP....this is BS.
Hounder is a german "bishop", the most notoriously liberal country that exists; his opinions should be laughed at and derided as anti-catholic. He's a subversive.
-
Both premises are correct. The conclusion does not follow the premises.
Major: The Catholic Church cannot destroy the Faith. The pope cannot destroy the Faith when he speaks ex cathedra. The pope can destroy the Faith when speaking or acting as a private person.
Minor: V2 popes have only destroyed the Faith when speaking or acting as private persons.
Conclusion: V2 popes can be legitimate popes.
Just stop. You don't know what you're talking about. What you're doing is distinguishing the MAJOR, so you're not holding that both premises are correct.
Uhm, no, holding an Ecuмenical Council and promulgating a new Rite of Public worship (Mass and Sacraments) are not the pope speaking or acting as a "private person". This is the same idiocy as when you claimed that an Ecuмenical Council is not Magisterium.
Private person would be when Bergoglio is answering question on his airplane or spouting heresies to Scalfari.
You can argue that the teaching of V2 was not infallible, i.e. were just merely authentic Magisterium but not that it was not Magisterium. You can argue the same about the Pope's actions, but to claim that V2 and the NOM were the Pope acting as private person (vs. in his official capacity as pope) is utterly absurd.
-
From the OP....this is BS.
Hounder is a german "bishop", the most notoriously liberal country that exists; his opinions should be laughed at and derided as anti-catholic. He's a subversive.
I'm guessing my lack of skill for wording things makes you think I disagree with you. Let me try again.
Bishop Hounder mentions that Archbishop Lefebvre was ready to accept Vatican II. This can be verified by reading his letters to Cardinal Ratzinger. +Lefebvre explained in the same letters that in accepting the council as a whole, the docuмents themselves permitted him to reject the content. Bishop Hounder and the Neo-SSPX do not mention the Archbishop's clarification. They are not exactly being upfront with us.
-
Just stop. You don't know what you're talking about. What you're doing is distinguishing the MAJOR, so you're not holding that both premises are correct.
Uhm, no, holding an Ecuмenical Council and promulgating a new Rite of Public worship (Mass and Sacraments) are not the pope speaking or acting as a "private person". This is the same idiocy as when you claimed that an Ecuмenical Council is not Magisterium.
Private person would be when Bergoglio is answering question on his airplane or spouting heresies to Scalfari.
You can argue that the teaching of V2 was not infallible, i.e. were just merely authentic Magisterium but not that it was not Magisterium. You can argue the same about the Pope's actions, but to claim that V2 and the NOM were the Pope acting as private person (vs. in his official capacity as pope) is utterly absurd.
An Ecuмenical Council is extraordinary magisterium; by definition infallible and binding. Vatican II says about itself, 'nothing in this council is binding'. It does not even fit the definition of an Ecuмenical Council.
To introduce a new rite of Mass is completely foreign to the authority of the papal office. A pope attempting to do such is not acting in his official capacity as pope.
-
Just stop. You don't know what you're talking about. What you're doing is distinguishing the MAJOR, so you're not holding that both premises are correct.
Uhm, no, holding an Ecuмenical Council and promulgating a new Rite of Public worship (Mass and Sacraments) are not the pope speaking or acting as a "private person". This is the same idiocy as when you claimed that an Ecuмenical Council is not Magisterium.
Private person would be when Bergoglio is answering question on his airplane or spouting heresies to Scalfari.
You can argue that the teaching of V2 was not infallible, i.e. were just merely authentic Magisterium but not that it was not Magisterium. You can argue the same about the Pope's actions, but to claim that V2 and the NOM were the Pope acting as private person (vs. in his official capacity as pope) is utterly absurd.
It's clear that NIFH is not only new to this forum, but new to Tradition.
-
It's clear that NIFH is not only new to this forum, but new to Tradition.
Thing is, there's another poster who's been here for years who keeps saying the same nonsense, that an Ecuмenical Council is not Magisterium and that the Pope is acting as a Private Person in promulgating a New Rite of Public Worship for the Church. It's actually tied to whe whole "faith is greter than obedience" fallacy. Magisterium and Universal Discipline of the Church are not the equivalent of positive commands issued by a superior. Teaching the Church from an Ecuмenical Council and promulgating a new Rite of Mass are not the same as Father Pagliarani appointing a priest in the United States to serve at a particular chapel. But that's the deceptive spin from R&R.
-
Thing is, there's another poster who's been here for years who keeps saying the same nonsense, that an Ecuмenical Council is not Magisterium and that the Pope is acting as a Private Person in promulgating a New Rite of Public Worship for the Church. It's actually tied to whe whole "faith is greter than obedience" fallacy. Magisterium and Universal Discipline of the Church are not the equivalent of positive commands issued by a superior. Teaching the Church from an Ecuмenical Council and promulgating a new Rite of Mass are not the same as Father Pagliarani appointing a priest in the United States to serve at a particular chapel. But that's the deceptive spin from R&R.
You are evading.
An Ecuмenical Council is Extraordinary Magisterium. How can Vatican II be an Ecuмenical Council if it says about itself that it is not binding?
Imagine your manager at McDonald's orders you to dye your hair green. When you laugh, he gives you a very official-looking paper, with a McDonald's logo and his official signature. He is acting as a private person, trying to invoke an authority that has not been given him.
Your coworker pipes in, "This proves he's not our manager!" He instinctively senses a problem, but his assessment is way off. God bless him.
-
You are evading.
An Ecuмenical Council is Extraordinary Magisterium. How can Vatican II be an Ecuмenical Council if it says about itself that it is not binding?
Imagine your manager at McDonald's orders you to dye your hair green. When you laugh, he gives you a very official-looking paper, with a McDonald's logo and his official signature. He is acting as a private person, trying to invoke an authority that has not been given him.
Your coworker pipes in, "This proves he's not our manager!" He instinctively senses a problem, but his assessment is way off. God bless him.
Then imagine you return to your job the next day only to find your old familiar parking spot has been given to someone else and your 'Best Employee' plaque and other things are in a box outside the building. You stand around, proclaiming to all who care (no one), "I've read Thomas Aquinas and I won't stand for this!!! And besides, I still have the photo of my manager hanging in my house." yada yada yada Try taking that one up with the Human Resources Department. (You might try and sue but if you're white and heterosɛҳuąƖ, well, good luck with that one...)
-
Then imagine you return to your job the next day only to find your old familiar parking spot has been given to someone else and your 'Best Employee' plaque and other things are in a box outside the building. You stand around, proclaiming to all who care (no one), "I've read Thomas Aquinas and I won't stand for this!!! And besides, I still have the photo of my manager hanging in my house." yada yada yada Try taking that one up with the Human Resources Department. (You might try and sue but if you're white and heterosɛҳuąƖ, well, good luck with that one...)
Sounds like the biography of Archbishop Lefebvre. May God grant to this unprofitable servant the honor of such company!
From an interview with +Lefebvre:
Question: Of course you realize that your name has disappeared from the latest edition of the Annuario Pontifico, the 'Papal Year Book' edited in Rome.
Archbishop Lefebvre: I think that my name has not disappeared from the Annuario of the Good Lord, at least I hope so, and that is what matters."
-
Sounds like the biography of Archbishop Lefebvre. May God grant to this unprofitable servant the honor of such company!
From an interview with +Lefebvre:
Question: Of course you realize that your name has disappeared from the latest edition of the Annuario Pontifico, the 'Papal Year Book' edited in Rome.
Archbishop Lefebvre: I think that my name has not disappeared from the Annuario of the Good Lord, at least I hope so, and that is what matters."
Sounds like the biography of a lot of people. Do you have a photo of the pope in your home?
-
No.
Here's an interesting bit of the history of the Neo-SSPX. One month after the death of Archbishop Lefebvre, Superior General Fr. Schmidberger ordered all SSPX chapels to display a photo of John Paul II. Why did he not give that order six months earlier?
-
I have no clue. I guess you'd have to ask him.
-
Not a pinch of incense to false gods of the Pantheon or worship in communion with heretics!
(https://i.imgur.com/P827YRL.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/qSPINfn.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/fShRJts.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/YNTii1x.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/iJjtOyg.png)
Japanese martyrs
(https://i.imgur.com/MOo52gW.jpg)
(https://i.imgur.com/hhMlWgZ.png)
Young women had their breasts cut off, young men had hot pokers inserted into their backsides, were drawn and quartered (intestines pulled outside their bodies), fingers cut off, devoured by beasts
rather than deny THE FIRST COMMANDMENT
with even a pinch of incense.
Please explain how they are members of the same church as these fools:
(https://i.imgur.com/aKs25Th.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/Ru8Rb8Q.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/0wUNMjc.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/7yH30f3.png)
(Ephod worn by the chief priest of the Sanhedrin when he sentenced Our Lord Jesus Christ to death!)
You can't. They are not members of the same church.
They do not worship the same gods!
Why are the Copts who were "martyrd" considered martrys
when all who accept Paul VI as a valid pope and all the bishops with him at Vatican II required the members of the concilliar church
by the ORDINARY magisterium to
give assent of mind, intellect and will
that ALLAH of the Quran is the same god as Jesus' Father?
The only people who are not officially members of the
concilliar church of Chrislam
are Sedevacantists----
otherwise known as members of the
ONE Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.
Choose which C(c)hurch you ally with very carefully.
Ask the Holy Martyrs to be your guide!
-
I didn't know in which thread to put it.
Here is a link to a blog in Croatian language about modernism, traditional catholic faith, historic events in the Church, especially in Croatia. There are many quotes in Latin and translation in Croation from Church docuмents, Catholic periodicals, scanned original books that are very old, authentic.
https://murusinexpugnabilis.blogspot.com/?m=1
Maybe there are more people who know Croatian but are not members of the forum. I want to help them to convert or better learn and understand true catholic teachings, practices and errors of modernism and how the revolution was done.
Owner of the blog is anynonimous, maybe some old priest, theologian who has many pre-conciliar books. We in Croatia had wonderful bishops, priests, especially franciscians during the time of Ottoman Empire. Our Cardinal Stepinac would be blessed in the old process of canonization. He died in prison after a false trial. It was proved that he was slowly poisoned. He was vocal againsts all regimes, against abortions, Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ, communist-associated priests (hrv. "udruženjaštvo"), heretics.
In texts with original Latin, others can translate into their vernacular language.
-
I just saw a picture of Cardinal Stepinac for the first time, having looked him up, and I have to say that he looks very much like my brother Steve, God rest his soul, and a bit less like myself (though still very similar as Steve and I look rather alike) ... including the receding hairline as he got a bit older. ;) Must be some kind of genetic overlap in lineage between many Hungarians and Croatians.
-
In this picture here, from a slightly different angle, he looks almost identical to myself when I was younger ... and somewhat lighter and had more hair and had not grown my beard yet (right about during my seminary years). I have one or two pictures of myself during the Winona years, and I do bear a striking resemblance to him in this picture here, from the eyes, nose, mouth, the larger forehead (and already high hairline). It's almost eerie for me to look at this here, as I could almost think I'm looking at an old picture of myself here ... that he's my doppelganger. Initially I thought, "Wow does he look like my brother Steve." but then from this angle he looks more like me ... as I'm reminded of the fact that for those outside our family the two of us looked very much alike also.
(https://wp.cruxnow.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/stepinac.jpg)
-
In this picture here, from a slightly different angle, he looks almost identical to myself when I was younger ... and somewhat lighter and had more hair and had not grown my beard yet (right about during my seminary years). I have one or two pictures of myself during the Winona years, and I do bear a striking resemblance to him in this picture here, from the eyes, nose, mouth, the larger forehead (and already high hairline). It's almost eerie for me to look at this here, as I could almost think I'm looking at an old picture of myself here ... that he's my doppelganger. Initially I thought, "Wow does he look like my brother Steve." but then from this angle he looks more like me ... as I'm reminded of the fact that for those outside our family the two of us looked very much alike also.
(https://wp.cruxnow.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/stepinac.jpg)
Who would thought? Sometimes we maybe more resemble some stranger than our father, mother, uncle. Personally, I don't think I look a like my father or mother, but many people associate me with my father, even I have a different shape of nose, mouth, ears... :laugh1:
You surely know that Croatians were under Ugars, from 1102. when we entered into "personal union", that's the term we learn from history subject. We weren't treated equal, and it was hard, but Ottoman Turks, Austrians, and Serbs were worse toward our nation, politicans, clerics. We are very old nation, ethincly but were without independance and own country for centuries. Before that, we had kings, first was king Thomas 1. crowned by pope St. Agatho in 925.
If you or anyone else knows someone who has Croatian roots, or have some relatives there, please recommend this blog.
Here is a quote from autor of this blog: "Fratres vicariae Bosnae facti sunt murus inexpugnabilis pro fide catholica." - papa Eugen IV.
-
Who would thought? Sometimes we maybe more resemble some stranger than our father, mother, uncle. Personally, I don't think I look a like my father or mother, but many people associate me with my father, even I have a different shape of nose, mouth, ears... :laugh1:
You surely know that Croatians were under Ugars, from 1102. when we entered into "personal union", that's the term we learn from history subject. We weren't treated equal, and it was hard, but Ottoman Turks, Austrians, and Serbs were worse toward our nation, politicans, clerics. We are very old nation, ethincly but were without independance and own country for centuries. Before that, we had kings, first was king Thomas 1. crowned by pope St. Agatho in 925.
If you or anyone else knows someone who has Croatian roots, or have some relatives there, please recommend this blog.
Here is a quote from autor of this blog: "Fratres vicariae Bosnae facti sunt murus inexpugnabilis pro fide catholica." - papa Eugen IV.
Yes, and the Hungarians are considered a highly unique group, with many linguists and ethnologists stumped about where we came from, many saying we're closest to people in Finland. Yet based on this striking resemblance between my younger self and Cardinal Stepinac, I have to think that there had been some intermingling given that both were within the Austro-Hungarian realm for quite some time.
-
If you or anyone else knows someone who has Croatian roots, or have some relatives there, please recommend this blog.
So, my father spoke Croatian (and Serbian) fluently. During WW2 he was in one of Tito's prison camps ... and ended up escaping, but alas I don't know too many Croatians these days since a couple of club soccer coaches for my kids a few years ago ... Joe Pavlek (and I can't remember the other one's name, but they won a state championship with one of my kids' teams). I did have a Serbian roommate (last name Abramovich) at Loyola University. But alas I'm not currently in contact with any Croatians, and very few Hungarians even outside my immediate family. But if I do run into any, I'll direct them to the blog there.
-
(https://i.imgur.com/E3Kcdyc.jpeg)
The Triple Habsburg Realms:
Österreich-Magyarország-Hrvatska