As attached

http://www.scripturecatholic.com/feature-articles/Feature_-_The_Errors_of_Sedevacantism.pdf

Sedevacantism (NON CATHOLIC!) begone.

http://www.scripturecatholic.com/feature-articles/Feature_-_The_Errors_of_Sedevacantism.pdf

Sedevacantism (NON CATHOLIC!) begone.

http://www.novusordowatch.org/the_chair_is_still_empty.htm#.Uws9YbCYbDc

Schismatic dogmatic anti-sedevacantist begone!

Quote from: Fr. Sylvester Berry

The ordinary teaching authority of the bishops is that which they exercise in teaching the faithful of their respective dioceses by pastoral letters, by sermons delivered by themselves or by others approved for that purpose, and by catechisms or other books of instruction edited or approved by them. When the bishops of the Church, thus engaged in the duty of instructing their people, are practically unanimous in proclaiming a doctrine of faith or morals, they are said to exercise universal teaching authority, and are then infallible in regard to that doctrine. In other words, a doctrine of faith or morals in which practically all the bishops of the Church agree, is infallibly true. The faith of the Church believing must correspond to the faith proposed by the bishops who constitute the teaching body in the Church. Therefore, if the bishops as a body were not infallible, the whole Church might be led into error at any time, and thereby cease to be the Church of Christ, the pillar and ground of truth.

Herein lies the problem with sedevacantism that the sedevacantists refuse to see.

Look at this quote.

the bishops of the Church, thus engaged in the duty of instructing their people, are practically unanimous in proclaiming a doctrine of faith or morals, they are said to exercise universal teaching authority, and are then infallible in regard to that doctrine.

Didn't EXACTLY this happen at Vatican II?  Didn't the bishops in a "practically unanimous" way teach to the Church religious liberty, etc.?

What's the difference?

Bishop Sanborn denounces the idea of "magisterium sifting" via private judgment regarding what's Traditional and what isn't.

But with sedevacantism we use private judgment to sift the bishops (and the pope).

What's the DIFFERENCE?

There ISN'T ANY!!!!!

It's nothing but semantics.  At the end of the day BOTH SYSTEMS USE PRIVATE JUDGMENT TO DISCERN WHAT IS AND WHAT IS NOT TRADITIONAL.

BOTH the sedevacantists and the sedeplenists miss the fact that the magisterium must have an A PRIORI guarantee of infallibility.  Both of these systems erode a priori infallibility.

THAT'S WHY I STARTED THE THREAD on how both sedeplenism and sedevacantism are wrong and that the only Catholic position is sededoubtism.

Fastiggi demolished Bishop Sanborn on this very point, that he's using private judgment a posteriori to determine whether infallibility existed.

Quote from: Bishop Sanborn

Quote from: Fr. Sylvester Berry

The ordinary teaching authority of the bishops is that which they exercise in teaching the faithful of their respective dioceses by pastoral letters, by sermons delivered by themselves or by others approved for that purpose, and by catechisms or other books of instruction edited or approved by them. When the bishops of the Church, thus engaged in the duty of instructing their people, are practically unanimous in proclaiming a doctrine of faith or morals, they are said to exercise universal teaching authority, and are then infallible in regard to that doctrine. In other words, a doctrine of faith or morals in which practically all the bishops of the Church agree, is infallibly true. The faith of the Church believing must correspond to the faith proposed by the bishops who constitute the teaching body in the Church. Therefore, if the bishops as a body were not infallible, the whole Church might be led into error at any time, and thereby cease to be the Church of Christ, the pillar and ground of truth.

Herein lies the problem with sedevacantism that the sedevacantists refuse to see.

Look at this quote.

Quote

...the bishops of the Church, thus engaged in the duty of instructing their people, are practically unanimous in proclaiming a doctrine of faith or morals, they are said to exercise universal teaching authority, and are then infallible in regard to that doctrine.

Didn't EXACTLY this happen at Vatican II?  Didn't the bishops in a "practically unanimous" way teach to the Church religious liberty, etc.?

What's the difference?

Bishop Sanborn denounces the idea of "magisterium sifting" via private judgment regarding what's Traditional and what isn't.

But with sedevacantism we use private judgment to sift the bishops (and the pope).

What's the DIFFERENCE?

There ISN'T ANY!!!!!

The sedevacantists would have their cake and eat it, too.  But that's the way they are in other things as well.  It's a characteristic of our fallen human nature to have that outlook.  

The thing they're overlooking is that the bishops do not teach infallibly unless there is a condemnation of the error that would oppose what they're teaching.  Religious liberty has no such protection.  There is no anathema attached such that all Catholics are bound to believe in this novelty that goes against all of Apostolic Tradition!  Furthermore, it is the pope who has that power to condemn error.  He alone has the power of the keys.  The bishops all assembled together and agreeing together cannot condemn any error together, except through the approval of the reigning pope.  

It's nothing but semantics.  At the end of the day BOTH SYSTEMS USE PRIVATE JUDGMENT TO DISCERN WHAT IS AND WHAT IS NOT TRADITIONAL.

BOTH the sedevacantists and the sedeplenists miss the fact that the magisterium must have an A PRIORI guarantee of infallibility.  Both of these systems erode a priori infallibility.

THAT'S WHY I STARTED THE THREAD on how both sedeplenism and sedevacantism are wrong and that the only Catholic position is sededoubtism.

You just finished criticizing private judgment in discernment of things traditional -- and now you're the authority on what "the only Catholic position is?"  

Fastiggi demolished Bishop Sanborn on this very point, that he's using private judgment a posteriori to determine whether infallibility existed.

I have a question or 3:  Who is Fastiggi?  What did he say?  Do you have any reference?

If you want to indicate another thread and you expect anyone to read it, then you must post a link to it, because nobody is going to go searching for it, especially if not even you, who started the thread, can remember what its title is!  


And if you want to introduce new terminology, like "sededoubtism," then you ought to supply some link for that or else provide your own definition for it.  


.

A doubtful pope is no pope, Ladi.

Please stop already with the arrogant ad hominem one liners while skirting the actual issue.  You are nothing but a troll and I am going to request your banning.  We'll get back to your misapplied Papa Dubius thing.

First ...

No sedevacantist has ever explained why (of the scenarios below) B is acceptable while A is not acceptable.

A)  I am living during the reign of Pius IX.  Vatican I defines the dogma of infallibility.  I consider infallibility to be non-Catholic and non-traditional.  I declare Pius IX and the body of bishops to be heretical and reject infallibility.

B) I am living during the reign of Paul VI.  Vatican II defines Religious Liberty.  I consider Religious Liberty to be non-Catholic and non-traditional.  I declare Paul VI and the body of bishops to be heretical and reject Religious Liberty.

Please provide an adequate distinction that would make B acceptable but A unacceptable.

Bishop Sanborn himself raises the scenario of Old Catholics and Vatican I, that they too felt that infallibility was not traditional.

Quote

the bishops of the Church, thus engaged in the duty of instructing their people, are practically unanimous in proclaiming a doctrine of faith or morals, they are said to exercise universal teaching authority, and are then infallible in regard to that doctrine.

Didn't EXACTLY this happen at Vatican II? Didn't the bishops in a "practically unanimous" way teach to the Church religious liberty, etc.?

Not quite. Once the council was declared a "pastoral council"—as happened before, during, and after the said event by people with the authority to do so; namely, John XXIII and Paul VI—the council itself and the "council fathers" (i.e., the prelates and their staff on extended vacation in the miasmic swampland of summertime Rome) were reduced to the status of recommenders. The fact that they have made nothing but bad recommendations for the half-century since the council might be taken as evidence of the Holy Ghost's opinion of the pastoral-council concept.

… the sedevacantists and the sedeplenists miss the fact that the magisterium must have an a priori guarantee of infallibility. Both systems erode a priori infallibility.

… both sedeplenism and sedevacantism are wrong … the only Catholic position is sededoubtism.

Sedeplenism, like heterosɛҳuąƖ, is a word bred in willful deception, a word invented to reduce the healthy and the normal and the expected to the status of just one situation among many. Its presumption is that the natural world is nothing but an enormous collection of petri dishes, each of which contains one of a vast multitude of specimens. Just as heterosɛҳuąƖs came into being only at the moment that ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖs and their advocates felt secure and strong enough to declare themselves openly, so too did sedeplenism appear when sedevacantists came to understand that there is little point in having a whip in your hand if there is nothing nearby to flog. (See below for that extraordinarily infelicitous third term.)

A) … Vatican I defines the dogma of infallibility. [etc.]

B) … Vatican II defines Religious Liberty. [etc.]

Please provide an adequate distinction that would make B acceptable but A unacceptable.

See my comment above, to which might be added here a codicil: there are no do-overs in the realm of conciliar authority. Popes and bishops have been given enormous power by God Almighty, but included within it is not the power to apply to Vatican II a form of Buyer's Regret. The central problem, of course, with both the institutional church of the present day and 99.9 percent of the bishops and priests that staff it is that they have, illicitly but effectively, granted themselves permanent do-over permission, with which they do, well, any bloody thing they please. Then they cite the council's (nonexistent) authority for it. The sordid result of this illicit and legally illegitimate conduct is the contemporary world.

Isn't the situation grave enough already? Why can't it yet be seen by all and sundry that the adoption of a Trad version of this illicit and illegitimate do-over authority—known far and wide by the name sedevacantism—embraces, not the orthodox teaching and authority of the pre–Vatican II institutional Church and its bishops, but rather the Vatican II and post–Vatican II licentiousness of a roll-your-own ersatz religion?

Put otherwise, sedeplenism is a dishonest argument, not an impartial description of an outlook; sedevacantism is the bastard child of the Kegger Council; and sededoubtism is a joke in poor taste.

Quote from: SJB

A doubtful pope is no pope, Ladi.

Please stop already with the arrogant ad hominem one liners while skirting the actual issue.  You are nothing but a troll and I am going to request your banning.  We'll get back to your misapplied Papa Dubius thing.

First ...

No sedevacantist has ever explained why (of the scenarios below) B is acceptable while A is not acceptable.

A)  I am living during the reign of Pius IX.  Vatican I defines the dogma of infallibility.  I consider infallibility to be non-Catholic and non-traditional.  I declare Pius IX and the body of bishops to be heretical and reject infallibility.

B) I am living during the reign of Paul VI.  Vatican II defines Religious Liberty.  I consider Religious Liberty to be non-Catholic and non-traditional.  I declare Paul VI and the body of bishops to be heretical and reject Religious Liberty.

Please provide an adequate distinction that would make B acceptable but A unacceptable.

Bishop Sanborn himself raises the scenario of Old Catholics and Vatican I, that they too felt that infallibility was not traditional.

Listen, smart*ss, a layman doesn't declare anything. Are you saying he may not question anything and then suffer the consequences of expressing his opinion? Wouldn't it be to alert and move those in authority to recognize the unorthodoxy?