Send CathInfo's owner Matthew a gift from his Amazon wish list:
https://www.amazon.com/hz/wishlist/ls/25M2B8RERL1UO

« previous next »
Pages: 1 2 3 [4]

Author Topic: The Whole Universal Acceptance Issue  (Read 2928 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline ByzCat3000

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 1889
  • Reputation: +500/-141
  • Gender: Male
Re: The Whole Universal Acceptance Issue
« Reply #45 on: May 30, 2019, 11:39:08 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Quo vadis Domine on May 29, 2019, 10:14:47 AM
    Come on, I’m not going to hold your hand. I’ve explained enough, look it up.
    I did a bit of research on this, pertiniciously holding to doubt seems to entail a refusal to believe what the Church defines, not merely a lack of absolute certainty.  I'm struggling with how such an idea would fit with sacred scripture either, in Mark 9:24 "I believe, help my unbelief" seems to be accepted as a genuine act of faith.  There is no "because you have doubt, its not real faith" or anything like that.

    Pertinicious seems more like "I know the Church teaches X, but I believe Y instead."  I agree that someone who says this isn't Catholic, at the least, I've been presuming such in my critique of Ladislaus in the OP.
    Logged

    Offline ByzCat3000

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1889
    • Reputation: +500/-141
    • Gender: Male
    Re: The Whole Universal Acceptance Issue
    « Reply #46 on: May 30, 2019, 11:44:02 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Ladislaus on May 30, 2019, 11:37:37 AM
    It's not essential that there be an alternate claimant.  But, aha, in fact many hold that Cardinal Siri was rightly elected instead of Roncalli, and was invalidly forced to resign under duress.
    *perhaps* that's the case, and I'm not claiming to be an expert here, but it doesn't seem obvious to me that that's the case.  I do see why Novus Ordo Conservatives don't think this is comparable.  St Vincent of Lerins was wrong on who the Pope was, *because there were multiple claimants*, accepted by large numbers of the Catholic world.  Whereas the Sedevacantist or the Sede-doubtist or whatever term you want to use, is rejecting the only claimant (I'm sorry, Michael really doesn't count).  Pre-Francis, I'm guessing those doubts were only held by about 5% of the Catholic population *at most* (and I'm excluding the people who deny one or more dogmas from Catholic here).  Francis is admittedly an interesting case, in that he's doubted by even people in the Novus Ordo, and there are people who wouldn't normally identify as Sedevacantist friendly who have doubts there.


    Logged

    Online Ladislaus

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 41909
    • Reputation: +23946/-4345
    • Gender: Male
    Re: The Whole Universal Acceptance Issue
    « Reply #47 on: May 30, 2019, 11:51:01 AM »
  • Thanks!2
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: ByzCat3000 on May 30, 2019, 11:39:08 AM
    Pertinicious seems more like "I know the Church teaches X, but I believe Y instead."

    This does lead to something of a quagmire.  Let's say the entire Church thinks that something is heretical, and you have a Pope who persists in claiming that it is not.  After all, the Pope's teaching on a matter of faith trumps any other judgement in that regard.
    Logged

    Online Ladislaus

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 41909
    • Reputation: +23946/-4345
    • Gender: Male
    Re: The Whole Universal Acceptance Issue
    « Reply #48 on: May 30, 2019, 11:52:33 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: ByzCat3000 on May 30, 2019, 11:44:02 AM
    Francis is admittedly an interesting case, in that he's doubted by even people in the Novus Ordo, and there are people who wouldn't normally identify as Sedevacantist friendly who have doubts there.

    And in fact there's a movement afoot based on the substantiated claims that the election of Francis was invalid due to collusion on the part of many electors.
    Logged

    Online Ladislaus

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 41909
    • Reputation: +23946/-4345
    • Gender: Male
    Re: The Whole Universal Acceptance Issue
    « Reply #49 on: May 30, 2019, 11:56:56 AM »
  • Thanks!2
  • No Thanks!1
    • Cardinal Billot, in treating of the Universal Acceptance issue says this:

    Quote
    For the adhesion of the Church to a false Pontiff would be the same as its adhesion to a false rule of faith, seeing that the Pope is the living rule of faith which the Church must follow and which in fact she always follows. As will become even more clear by what we shall say later, God can permit that at times a vacancy in the Apostolic See be prolonged for a long time. He can also permit that doubt arise about the legitimacy of this or that election. He cannot however permit that the whole Church accept as Pontiff him who is not so truly and legitimately.

    So here's the problem for R&R.  If it is impossible for the Church to adhere to a false rule of faith, then the Church could no more accept the errors of Vatican II (incorrectly) than it could incorrectly accept a Vatican II Pope.  So there's an inherent contradiction in R&R's use of "Universal Acceptance".

    Logged

    Offline ByzCat3000

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1889
    • Reputation: +500/-141
    • Gender: Male
    Re: The Whole Universal Acceptance Issue
    « Reply #50 on: May 30, 2019, 12:03:38 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Ladislaus on May 30, 2019, 11:51:01 AM
    This does lead to something of a quagmire.  Let's say the entire Church thinks that something is heretical, and you have a Pope who persists in claiming that it is not.  After all, the Pope's teaching on a matter of faith trumps any other judgement in that regard.
    Yeah, I suspect what would happen in that case is you'd very likely have some kind of declaration from the College of Cardinals declaring that this man lost his office, or something like that.  And yeah, I could imagine that happening to Francis at some point, he's been so heterodox that even cardinals have called him out on it.

    I'm still confused on the stated *justification* for doubt though.  There were non crackpots who doubted the legitimacy of Popes before Pius XII, they just didn't do so in the same way sedes do.  Old Catholics don't accept Vatican I.  Eastern Orthodox still accept Papal primacy, but think the Holy See apostasized after the Great Schism.  I guess my main critique of radical Sedes (ie. people who challenge Pius XII and previous claimants) is that it would make way more logical sense for those people to be asking whether Eastern Orthodoxy, or *something else* is actually the Church Christ founded, rather than basically just creating an island unto themselves.  I don't think that critique applies quite the same way to "normal" Sedes as its a much less fringe position, but to a lesser extent it does raise similar questions.


    Logged

    Offline ByzCat3000

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1889
    • Reputation: +500/-141
    • Gender: Male
    Re: The Whole Universal Acceptance Issue
    « Reply #51 on: May 30, 2019, 12:08:24 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Ladislaus on May 30, 2019, 11:56:56 AM
    Cardinal Billot, in treating of the Universal Acceptance issue says this:

    So here's the problem for R&R.  If it is impossible for the Church to adhere to a false rule of faith, then the Church could no more accept the errors of Vatican II (incorrectly) than it could incorrectly accept a Vatican II Pope.  So there's an inherent contradiction in R&R's use of "Universal Acceptance".
    One: I don't see how Cardinal Billot is inherently right here.  Is there some reason why his statement here has to be accepted?  There could be, but I'm not seeing it.

    Two: I don't see how Cardinal Billot could possibly be right here.  By this logic did St Vincent of Lerins adhere to a false rule of faith?

    Three: I'm probably not "Recognize and Resist" in the fullest sense of the term.  I'm not fully convinced Vatican II *can't* be read in a way that's consistent with tradition, and I'm pretty confident that someone who tries to do that won't lose their soul wholly on that count (that addresses the whole "safety" thing, at any rate.)  My problem with Vatican II is the same problem I have with a lot of things liberals say, they're worded in a manner that definitely tends a certain direction, definitely seems to imply certain things, and yet doesn't come right out and say them.  I'm pretty open about the fact that by this forums standards I'm not actually trad, even though all of my (conservative) Catholic friends think I am, and I pretty much think Lefebvre saved the Western rite of the Church.
    Logged

    Offline Stubborn

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 13825
    • Reputation: +5568/-865
    • Gender: Male
    Re: The Whole Universal Acceptance Issue
    « Reply #52 on: May 31, 2019, 05:38:26 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!1
    • Quote from: ByzCat3000 on May 30, 2019, 12:08:24 PM
    One: I don't see how Cardinal Billot is inherently right here.  Is there some reason why his statement here has to be accepted?  There could be, but I'm not seeing it.

    Two: I don't see how Cardinal Billot could possibly be right here.  By this logic did St Vincent of Lerins adhere to a false rule of faith?
    Cardinal Billot, born 1846 / died 1931 = 19th/20th century theologian. Don't buy into the error he taught that that the pope is the living rule of faith.

    Per wiki: He became a cardinal in 1911 and resigned from that status in 1927, the only person to do so in the twentieth century....Billot became a leading figure in metaphysical and speculative theology.

    Billot's support for the deeply conservative movement Action Française eventually created tension between him and the Holy See. Pope Pius XI believed that the movement used Catholicism for its own political ends and placed the movement's newspaper on the Index Librorum Prohibitorum which meant that it was banned from all Catholic homes. Billot expressed strong disagreement with the decision, saying that the political activities of monarchist Catholics ought not to be censured by Rome.
    Logged
    "But Peter and the apostles answering, said: We ought to obey God, rather than men." - Acts 5:29

    The Highest Principle in the Church: "We are first of all under obedience to God, and only then under obedience to man" - Fr. Hesse

    Offline Nishant Xavier

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 2873
    • Reputation: +1893/-1750
    • Gender: Male
    • Immaculate Heart of Mary, May Your Triumph Come!
    Re: The Whole Universal Acceptance Issue
    « Reply #53 on: May 31, 2019, 07:38:01 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: ByzCat
    Although I certainly *believe* both, I'm much more sure on the Trinity than I am that I'm on the right side of the Great Schism.

    Before going to other things or even discussing these matters, ByzCat, you must first, as others said, firmly hold the Catholic Faith, pray for enlightenment, and make many acts of Faith till the habitual virtue of Faith becomes strong in you. Please make these acts of Faith, and pray for the Grace of a stronger Faith.

    Act of FaithO my God, I firmly believe that You are one God in three divine Persons, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. I believe that Your divine son became Man, died for our sins, and that He will come to judge the living and the dead. I believe these and all the truths which the Holy Catholic Church teaches, because You have revealed them, who can neither deceive nor be deceived. https://olrl.org/pray/devotionbk/acts.shtml

    Notice that we assent in one and the same act of Faith not only to the Truth of the Holy Trinity but also to all that the Church teaches.

    Cardinal St. Robert Bellarmine has a great article here that may be helpful in clearing some doubts about the Greek Orthodox Schism: http://www.catholicapologetics.info/apologetics/protestantism/procession.htm docuмenting the errors of the schismatic Greek Orthodox on Filioque, how it contradicts the dogmatic Athanasian Creed, 15 testimonies from Greek Fathers, 15 testimonies from Latin Fathers, the testimony of 5 Ecuмenical Councils that approved this doctrine in a letter of Patriarch St. Cyril to the heretic Nestorius; and a conclusion from a divine testimony, namely,

    "The Disputation is Concluded with a Divine Testimony At the end of the whole disputation it has been pleasing now to note a divine judgment or testimony. For God has shown in many ways after the rise of the schism who is in error, the Greeks or the Latins. For up to the time of the schism Greece flourished with learned and holy men, so that all the general Councils were celebrated among the Greeks; but after the schism for almost 800 years they have had no Council, no holy man famous for miracles, very few learned men. But the Latins at this time have had twelve general Councils and innumerable particular ones. Again in each age there have been men very famous for miracles, new orders of religious, many learned men."

    Universal Acceptance can only be discussed among those who hold the Catholic Faith and are resolved to do so, by the Grace of God, until death. God bless.
    Logged
    "We wish also to make amends for the insults to which Your Vicar on earth and Your Priests are everywhere subjected [above all by schismatic sedevacantists - Nishant Xavier], for the profanation, by conscious neglect or Terrible Acts of Sacrilege, of the very Sacrament of Your Divine Love; and lastly for the Public Crimes of Nations who resist the Rights and The Teaching Authority of the Church which You have founded." - Act of Reparation to the Sacred Heart of Lord Jesus.

    Online Ladislaus

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 41909
    • Reputation: +23946/-4345
    • Gender: Male
    Re: The Whole Universal Acceptance Issue
    « Reply #54 on: May 31, 2019, 07:46:23 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!1
    • Quote from: Stubborn on May 31, 2019, 05:38:26 AM
    Cardinal Billot, born 1846 / died 1931 = 19th/20th century theologian. Don't buy into the error he taught that that the pope is the living rule of faith.

    Not this crap gain.  Yes, by all means, we'll take Stubborn's word for it instead, someone who can barely read English vs. not only Billot but all the theologians who taught the same thing.  Cardinal Billot was highly respected by St. Pius X, to the point that he made him a Cardinal in 1911 even though he wasn't a bishop.  But all you readers should bow to Stubborn's wisdom instead, who dismisses this "error" with the waive of his hand, an error which somehow escaped the detection of the Vatican's entire Congregation of Faith.
    Logged

    Online Ladislaus

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 41909
    • Reputation: +23946/-4345
    • Gender: Male
    Re: The Whole Universal Acceptance Issue
    « Reply #55 on: May 31, 2019, 07:51:08 AM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!1
    • Quote from: XavierSem on May 31, 2019, 07:38:01 AM
    Before going to other things or even discussing these matters, ByzCat, you must first, as others said, firmly hold the Catholic Faith, pray for enlightenment, and make many acts of Faith till the habitual virtue of Faith becomes strong in you. Please make these acts of Faith, and pray for the Grace of a stronger Faith.

    Do you have a similar act of non-schism that you can recite to help draw you out of your formally-schismatic position?

    So someone who doesn't buy 100% into the garbage you're dishing out requires a strenghthening of faith.  So, now instead if the Pope being the rule of faith, we have XavierSem admirably taking up the mantle.  Give us a break from your self-righteous sanctimonious nonsense.
    Logged

    Offline Stubborn

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 13825
    • Reputation: +5568/-865
    • Gender: Male
    Re: The Whole Universal Acceptance Issue
    « Reply #56 on: May 31, 2019, 07:55:24 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Ladislaus on May 31, 2019, 07:46:23 AM
    Not this crap gain.  Yes, by all means, we'll take Stubborn's word for it instead, someone who can barely read English vs. not only Billot but all the theologians who taught the same thing.  Cardinal Billot was highly respected by St. Pius X, to the point that he made him a Cardinal in 1911 even though he wasn't a bishop.
    Yes, by all means accept the wrong opinion of the political activist Cardinal Billot as if it is dogma, but if you do and remain a trad, you are left without a rule of faith -or- embrace the NO and get your rule of faith back. So goes the sede mindset.



    Quote
    But all you readers should bow to Stubborn's wisdom instead, who dismisses this "error" with the waive of his hand, an error which somehow escaped the detection of the Vatican's entire Congregation of Faith.

    The liberal idea of which +Billot opined, made it into the seminaries, catechisms and all the manifestations of the Church. Your rule of faith is one of those errors, an essential ingredient for the crisis btw. How else could these errors get into the books, seminaries and etc.? Answer that.

    As +ABL said:
    "After all of these liberal ideas have been infiltrated into the seminaries, the catechisms and all the manifestations of the church, I am now being asked to align myself with these liberal ideas. Because I have not aligned myself with these liberal ideas that would destroy the church, there are attempts to suppress my seminaries. And it is for this reason that I am asked to stop ordaining priests...."
    Logged
    "But Peter and the apostles answering, said: We ought to obey God, rather than men." - Acts 5:29

    The Highest Principle in the Church: "We are first of all under obedience to God, and only then under obedience to man" - Fr. Hesse
    Pages: 1 2 3 [4]
    « previous next »