Author Topic: Are Sedevacantists Clueless About St. Bellarmine's True Position? (Read 16883 times)

ignatius · « **Reply #15 on:** April 22, 2018, 07:11:49 PM »

Quote from: SeanJohnson on April 22, 2018, 06:11:24 PM

PS: He also pretends Fr. Chazal endorses sedevacantism (sedeprivationism), despite Fr. chazal's repeated denials of same. How does an honest man do that?

There isn't a pretending. Fr. Chazal does endorse sedeprivationism. See here.
https://www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/is-fr-chazal-sedeprivationist/

Centroamerica · « **Reply #16 on:** April 22, 2018, 07:31:33 PM »

I would take it easy on Sean. I believe he is a good guy and believing Catholic. God save me if I am wrong. Maybe he has some other issues he is dealing with. He's only human like the rest of us.

That being said, I don't hold to any group but judge each chapel or Mass on a case by case basis: 1) Is the priest a valid priest 2) Is he a true Catholic 3) Does he offer the New Mass 4) Does he believe and preach only in accordance with Catholic Dogma and Tradition i.e. not Vatican 2.

If the answers are (yes, yes, no, yes) I have no problem attending be it sede-vacantist, diocesan allowed Latin or Eastern rite, SSPX, CMRI or Resistance.

Sean will lump me together with the sede-vacantists now because I admit it is a valid Catholic opinion, but he has deceived himself in doing so. We are in crisis in the Catholic Church, deep into the crisis. When Sean gets his drum to beat on, man does he beat it. Right now his horse to kick is sedevacantism and he won't let it go. Last year it was whether or not the New Mass gives "good fruit". He went so far as to call up the prior of a well-known Resistance monastery and strike the debate and beat his drum with these priests, of whom I'm sure he gained many prayers.

Indeed, even Bishop Williamson has publicly stated that sedevacantism is a Catholic opinion albeit dangerous in the humble bishop's opinion. So knowing that a great many of Sean's inspirations and motivations are almost certainly motivated on defending the good bishop, he should inquire with him as to whether or not sedevacantists like the CMRI or SSPV are Catholics or schismatic heretics. Then he can beat his drum no more and maybe get back to productivity.

Centroamerica · « **Reply #17 on:** April 22, 2018, 07:47:23 PM »

Not to incite Sean or anyone, but I would be interested in hearing his comments on what Fr. Jenkins lays out as his position in this video...

to summarize:

-I don't say he isn't the pope I just don't see how he could be.
- I don't have all the answers to the Crisis
-sede vacante seems to be the possibility and there is a strong logical and theological argument
- no one has the authority to say that we are definitely in sede vacante
-I believe that people are entitled to the sede vacante opinion
- the mechanism for appointing a pope is the college of cardinals and that is a question that concerns me
- I don't have the answer to that so I treat sedevacantism lightly
- dogmatic sedevacantists are not actually Traditional Catholics
- dogmatic sedeplenists are attacking True Catholics because they do not believe you can even question whether these Roman claimants are true popes
- sedeplenists misrepresent those who hold the sede vacante opinion

Basically, he he says that there is positive doubt but we don't have any authority to declare or bind the opinion of sede vacante to practicing Catholics.

Starting at 17:55

https://youtu.be/H633jb0YX2c?t=17m53s

Ladislaus · « **Reply #18 on:** April 22, 2018, 07:50:17 PM »

Quote from: ignatius on April 22, 2018, 07:11:49 PM

There isn't a pretending. Fr. Chazal does endorse sedeprivationism. See here.
https://www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/is-fr-chazal-sedeprivationist/

Now, he would not CALL it sedeprivationism, but has termed it something along the lines of sedeimpoundism. But it is I who have praised his position as very reasonable and very Catholic. Obviously he has not endorsed MY position. He doesn't know it and doesn't care.

2Vermont · « **Reply #19 on:** April 22, 2018, 09:13:04 PM »

Quote from: SeanJohnson on April 22, 2018, 06:14:15 PM

Ladislaus now pretends he is declining to participate in this thread because the "discussion will go nowhere."

This from a guy who can fire off 25 2-sentence posts in 20 minutes, and participates in multiple 100+ page threads all the way through?

Hardly believable.

The truth is that he is a windbag not capable of refuting the author he has no hesitation in maligning (despite not even reading his material)!!!

This, my friends, is the sedevacantist disposition.

Pot calling kettle black. You left your other thread when others questioned your so-called "moral unanimity" where you take the position that Francis' papacy must be legitimate because 99%+ of Novus Ordo adherents say he is Pope.

Clemens Maria · « **Reply #20 on:** April 22, 2018, 09:41:41 PM »

Quote from: Ladislaus on April 22, 2018, 07:07:31 PM

Why should they all follow you around CI like it's some cat-and-mouse game? Find SeanJohnson. Oops. He's not on this thread but moved over to that other one.

If they don’t respond within minutes, they have lost the argument. By the way, you misspelled Salsa and Crisco.

SeanJohnson · « **Reply #21 on:** April 22, 2018, 09:47:14 PM »

Quote from: 2Vermont on April 22, 2018, 09:13:04 PM

Pot calling kettle black. You left your other thread when others questioned your so-called "moral unanimity" where you take the position that Francis' papacy must be legitimate because 99%+ of Novus Ordo adherents say he is Pope.

Incredible ignorance:

Meanwhile, the clock ticks on Ladislaus...

Unanimous Consent of the Fathers

By Steve Ray

An article in the soon-to-be-published Catholic Dictionary of Apologetics and Evangelism by Ignatius Press

****************************************

The Unanimous Consent of the Fathers (unanimem consensum Patrum) refers to the morally unanimous teaching of the Church Fathers on certain doctrines as revealed by God and interpretations of Scripture as received by the universal Church. The individual Fathers are not personally infallible, and a discrepancy by a few patristic witnesses does not harm the collective patristic testimony.

The word “unanimous” comes from two Latin words: únus, one + animus, mind. “Consent” in Latin means agreement, accord, and harmony; being of the same mind or opinion. Where the Fathers speak in harmony, with one mind overall-not necessarily each and every one agreeing on every detail but by consensus and general agreement-we have “unanimous consent”. The teachings of the Fathers provide us with an authentic witness to the apostolic tradition.

St. Irenaeus (AD c. 130-c. 200) writes of the “tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome’ (Against Heresies, III, 3, 2), and the “tradition which originates from the apostles [and] which is preserved by means of the successions of presbyters in the Churches” (Ibid., III, 2, 2) which “does thus exist in the Church, and is permanent among us” (Ibid., III, 5, 1). Unanimous consent develops from the understanding of apostolic teaching preserved in the Church with the Fathers as its authentic witness.

St. Vincent of Lerins, explains the Church’s teaching: “In the Catholic Church itself, all possible care must be taken, that we hold that faith which has been believed everywhere, always, by all. For that is truly and in the strictest sense “Catholic,” which, as the name itself and the reason of the thing declare, comprehends all universally. This rule we shall observe if we follow universality, antiquity, consent. We shall follow universality if we confess that one faith to be true, which the whole Church throughout the world confesses; antiquity, if we in no wise depart from those interpretations which it is manifest were notoriously held by our holy ancestors and fathers; consent, in like manner, if in antiquity itself we adhere to the consentient definitions and determinations of all, or at the least of almost all priests and doctors” (Commonitory 2). Notice that St. Vincent mentions “almost all priests and doctors”.

The phrase Unanimous Consent of the Fathers had a specific application as used at the Council of Trent (Fourth Session), and reiterated at the First Vatican Council (Dogmatic Decrees of the Vatican Council, chap. 2). The Council Fathers specifically applied the phrase to the interpretation of Scripture. Biblical and theological confusion was rampant in the wake of the Protestant Reformation. Martin Luther stated “There are almost as many sects and beliefs as there are heads; this one will not admit Baptism; that one rejects the Sacrament of the altar; another places another world between the present one and the day of judgment; some teach that Jesus Christ is not God. There is not an individual, however clownish he may be, who does not claim to be inspired by the Holy Ghost, and who does not put forth as prophecies his ravings and dreams.”

A fine definition of Unanimous Consent, based on the Church Counccils, is provided in the Maryknoll Catholic Dictionary, “When the Fathers of the Church are morally unanimous in their teaching that a certain doctrine is a part of revelation, or is received by the universal Church, or that the opposite of a doctrine is heretical, then their united testimony is a certain criterion of divine tradition. As the Fathers are not personally infallible, the counter-testimony of one or two would not be destructive of the value of the collective testimony; so a moral unanimity only is required” (Wilkes-Barre, Penn.: Dimension Books, 1965), pg. 153.

The Council Fathers at Trent (1554-63) affirmed the ancient custom that the proper understanding of Scripture was that which was held by the Fathers of the Church to bring order out of the enveloping chaos. Opposition to the Church’s teaching is exemplified by William Webster (The Church of Rome at the Bar of History [Carlisle, PA: Banner of Truth Trust, 1995]) who misrepresents the Council Fathers by redefining and misapplying “unanimous consent”. First in redefining, he implies that unanimous consent means each Father must have held the same fully developed traditions and taught them clearly in the same terms as used later in the Church Councils. This is a false understanding of the phrase and even in American law unanimous consent “does not always mean that every one present voted for the proposition, but it may, and generally does, mean, when a [verbal] vote is taken, that no one voted in the negative” (Black’s Law Dictionary). Second he misapplies the term, not to the interpretation of Scripture, as the Council Fathers intended, but to tradition. His assertions are not true, but using a skewed definition and application of “unanimous consent”, he uses selective patristic passages as proof-texts for his analysis of the Fathers.

As an example, individual Fathers may explain “the Rock” in Matthew 16 as Jesus, Peter, Peter’s confession or Peter’s faith. Even the Catechism of the Catholic Church refers to the “Rock” of Matthew 16 as Peter in one place (CCC 552) and his faith (CCC 424) in another. Matthew 16 can be applied in many ways to refute false teachings and to instruct the faithful without emphasizing the literal, historical interpretation of Peter as the Rock upon which the Church has been built his Church. Webster and others emphasize various patristic applications of a biblical passage as “proof” of non-unanimous consent.

Discussing certain variations in the interpretations of the Fathers, Pope Leo XIII (The Study of Holy Scripture, from the encyclical Providentissimus Deus, Nov., 1893) writes, “Because the defense of Holy Scripture must be carried on vigorously, all the opinions which the individual Fathers or the recent interpreters have set forth in explaining it need not be maintained equally. For they, in interpreting passages where physical matters are concerned have made judgments according to the opinions of the age, and thus not always according to truth, so that they have made statements which today are not approved. Therefore, we must carefully discern what they hand down which really pertains to faith or is intimately connected with it, and what they hand down with unanimous consent; for ‘in those matters which are not under the obligation of faith, the saints were free to have different opinions, just as we are,’ according to the opinion of St. Thomas.”

***************************************

Referred works:
St. Irenaeus’ quote: Ante-Nicene Fathers. Roberts and Donaldson, Eerdmans, 1985, vol. 1, p. 415, 417).
St. Vincent’s quote: Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, 2nd series, ed. Philip Schaff and Henry Wace, Eerdmans, 1980, vol. 11, p. 132.
Luther quote: (Leslie Rumble, Bible Quizzes to a Street Preacher [Rockford, IL: TAN Books, 1976], 22).
Maryknoll quote: (Maryknoll Catholic Dictionary, pg. 154).
William Webster’s quote: (The Church of Rome at the Bar of History, 31).
Black’s Law Dictionary: Black’s Law Dictionary, Henry Campbell Black, St. Paul, MN: West Publ. Co., 1979, p. 1366.
Pope Leo XIII quote: Henry Denzinger, The Sources of Catholic Dogma [London: B. Herder Book Co., 1954], 491-492).

2Vermont · « **Reply #22 on:** April 22, 2018, 09:55:00 PM »

Quote from: SeanJohnson on April 22, 2018, 09:47:14 PM

Incredible ignorance:

Meanwhile, the clock ticks on Ladislaus...

Unanimous Consent of the Fathers
By Steve Ray

Incredible dishonesty.

I wasn't talking about the meaning of "unanimous", but you knew that, didn't you!

Please do explain how adherents to a false religion, the Novus Ordo, have ANY say in whether a pope is legitimate. Maybe we should ask the Muslims and Buddhists while we're at it.

SeanJohnson · « **Reply #23 on:** April 22, 2018, 09:56:35 PM »

Quote from: 2Vermont on April 22, 2018, 09:55:00 PM

Incredible dishonesty.
I am not talking about the meaning of "unanimous", but you knew that, didn't you!
Please do explain how adherents to a false religion, the Novus Ordo, have ANY say in whether a pope is legitimate.
Maybe we should ask the Muslims and Buddhists while we're at it.

Pathetic:

Roundly refuted, but proud and obstinate for the sake of a sectarian belief.

"He who hateth correction..."

2Vermont · « **Reply #24 on:** April 22, 2018, 09:58:05 PM »

Quote from: SeanJohnson on April 22, 2018, 09:56:35 PM

Pathetic:

Roundly refuted, but proud and obstinate for the sake of a sectarian belief.

"He who hateth correction..."

You are either a liar or delusional.

SeanJohnson · « **Reply #25 on:** April 22, 2018, 10:01:54 PM »

Quote from: 2Vermont on April 22, 2018, 09:58:05 PM

You are either a liar or delusional.

In your previous post, you tried to evade being pinned to the wall by pretending you "weren't talking about the meaning of unanimous."

Yet here you are in the other thread saying:

"Funny, I always thought the definition of unanimity meant agreement among all the people of a group....as in 100%."

https://www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/non-una-cuм-and-the-resistance/15/

Which of us is delusional and a liar??

Centroamerica · « **Reply #26 on:** April 22, 2018, 10:04:23 PM »

It's not that Sean is being dishonest. It's that Sean is a convert from the Novus ordo. So, he probably doesn't see the people from the Novus Ordo as non-Catholics. He believes that the Novus Ordo priests are true priests (I'm pretty sure) and that the Novus Ordo Mass gives good fruit. If not for Bishop Williamson and the whole emotion of the Resistance, I doubt he would be a Traditional Catholic. So I take what he says with a grain of salt, but admit that he is a good-willed Catholic and has God-given intelligence, I believe.

2Vermont · « **Reply #27 on:** April 22, 2018, 10:05:23 PM »

Quote from: SeanJohnson on April 22, 2018, 10:01:54 PM

In your previous post, you tried to evade being pinned to the wall by pretending you "weren't talking about the meaning of unanimous."

Yet here you are in the other thread saying:

"Funny, I always thought the definition of unanimity meant agreement among all the people of a group....as in 100%."

https://www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/non-una-cuм-and-the-resistance/15/

Which of us is delusional and a liar??

Yes, I wrote that there, but I also followed up on your response to me about your so-called "moral unanimity". You failed to answer that question over there too...which was the point of my post here. Would you like me to pull that over here too, Smartypants?

SeanJohnson · « **Reply #28 on:** April 22, 2018, 10:06:00 PM »

Quote from: Centroamerica on April 22, 2018, 10:04:23 PM

It's not that Sean is being dishonest. It's that Sean is a convert from the Novus ordo. So, he probably doesn't see the people from the Novus Ordo as non-Catholics. He believes that the Novus Ordo priests are true priests (I'm pretty sure) and that the Novus Ordo Mass gives good fruit. If not for Bishop Williamson and the whole emotion of the Resistance, I doubt he would be a Traditional Catholic. So I take what he says with a grain of salt, but admit that he is a good-willed Catholic and has God-given intelligence, I believe.

That post was beneath you (I hope).

2Vermont · « **Reply #29 on:** April 22, 2018, 10:06:32 PM »

Quote from: Centroamerica on April 22, 2018, 10:04:23 PM

It's not that Sean is being dishonest. It's that Sean is a convert from the Novus ordo. So, he probably doesn't see the people from the Novus Ordo as non-Catholics. He believes that the Novus Ordo priests are true priests (I'm pretty sure) and that the Novus Ordo Mass gives good fruit. If not for Bishop Williamson and the whole emotion of the Resistance, I doubt he would be a Traditional Catholic. So I take what he says with a grain of salt, but admit that he is a good-willed Catholic and has God-given intelligence, I believe.

I don't.

Author Topic: Are Sedevacantists Clueless About St. Bellarmine's True Position? (Read 16883 times)

ignatius

Re: Are Sedevacantists Clueless About St. Bellarmine's True Position?

Centroamerica

Re: Are Sedevacantists Clueless About St. Bellarmine's True Position?

Centroamerica

Re: Are Sedevacantists Clueless About St. Bellarmine's True Position?

Ladislaus

Re: Are Sedevacantists Clueless About St. Bellarmine's True Position?

2Vermont

Re: Are Sedevacantists Clueless About St. Bellarmine's True Position?

Clemens Maria

Re: Are Sedevacantists Clueless About St. Bellarmine's True Position?

SeanJohnson

Re: Are Sedevacantists Clueless About St. Bellarmine's True Position?

2Vermont

Re: Are Sedevacantists Clueless About St. Bellarmine's True Position?

SeanJohnson

Re: Are Sedevacantists Clueless About St. Bellarmine's True Position?

2Vermont

Re: Are Sedevacantists Clueless About St. Bellarmine's True Position?

SeanJohnson

Re: Are Sedevacantists Clueless About St. Bellarmine's True Position?

Centroamerica

Re: Are Sedevacantists Clueless About St. Bellarmine's True Position?

2Vermont

Re: Are Sedevacantists Clueless About St. Bellarmine's True Position?

SeanJohnson

Re: Are Sedevacantists Clueless About St. Bellarmine's True Position?

2Vermont

Re: Are Sedevacantists Clueless About St. Bellarmine's True Position?