An acquaintance of mine read it in the Sunday bulletin from Fr. Ringrose's chapel.Ask your acquaintance to ask fr. Ringrose.
Is it wrong to be "new" here? Is it wrong to ask questions? Is this a closed group? Hmmm?You will have to learn to ignore certain people, get a thick skin, and pray for the crazies.
I have served for many of the Resistence priests, and I can confirm that there is at least one priest I know of who says "Benedicto" in the Canon. I heard it with my own ears. However, I'm not going to give any names or anything. My suggestion, like the others above, is to ask Fr. Ringrose or other priests personally.
There are also whispers that three "resistance" priests have dropped the name of Frank from the Canon.
Any one hear anything about this?
It doesn't seem all that surprising though, aren't some priests known sedeprivationists??Maybe Fr Ringrose is following the logic of Fr Chazal, who did an excellent talk on how 'dogmatic' sedevacantism is unsupportable from theologian's views, yet sedevacantism does make good points and that Pope Francis is definitely speaking heresy. (I'm not here to start some debate over the issue, just pointing out that there's a lot of gray area in such matters.)
I think that there are one or two forum members here who attend Father's chapel. Maybe they could shed a little light on what was written in the bulletins.
I don’t understand why so many Catholics and traditional Catholic groups still fight about this. To me the answer seems simple. Yes, there is positive doubt that the post-conciliar popes are not popes and no the problem has not been resolved until the Church speaks on this. Even many SSPX priests could agree with the above.I agree, spiritually speaking, we should not be fighting about this, especially in the ugly manner in which we often do. But our human nature is easily tempted to pride, bickering and frustration - which we sadly take out on our fellow Catholics. Let’s all pray that through this rest of Lent, our penances and prayers can return us to true charity, where we realize that the Church’s trials are God-sent, and God-controlled, therefore our response to such trials also need God’s graces, and a higher level of patience than we are capable. Then we would see that such trials are meant to teach us perseverance and humility, which Christ foretold to us and which graces we may need for future WORSE trials (the trials outlined in Matt chapter 24).
I agree, spiritually speaking, we should not be fighting about this, especially in the ugly manner in which we often do. But our human nature is easily tempted to pride, bickering and frustration - which we sadly take out on our fellow Catholics. Let’s all pray that through this rest of Lent, our penances and prayers can return us to true charity, where we realize that the Church’s trials are God-sent, and God-controlled, therefore our response to such trials also need God’s graces, and a higher level of patience than we are capable. Then we would see that such trials are meant to teach us perseverance and humility, which Christ foretold to us and which graces we may need for future WORSE trials (the trials outlined in Matt chapter 24).Good point.
If we can’t handle the minor trials now, while we have the sacraments/mass, how will we handle potential persecutions, or civil unrest or famines, when the Faith may be in hiding, and priests in short supply? We need to prepare NOW.
13 (http://biblehub.com/matthew/24-13.htm)But he that shall persevere to the end, he shall be saved. (Matt 24:13)
I wonder....how many traditional Catholic bishops identify themselves as sedeprivationist?SedeWhat? I can tell you that none of the bishop consecrated by +Lefebvre are sedeprivationist. And, none of the bishops consecrated by +Williamson are sedeprivationist. They are all sedeplenist.
pffffft ... none of them are sedeplenists. To be a sedeplenist you have to believe in the legitimacy of the pope with the certainty of faith. +Lefebvre, +Williamson, and +Tissier have all expressed doubts at one time another about their legitimacy. No Catholic could do that of a true pope any more than he can question the truth of any defined dogma.You are failing to distinguish between the belief that a pope can be judged a formal heretic and how it occurs, and doubt about the validity of a pope. These so called doubts of +Williamson,+Lefebvre, and +Tissier are not at all a doubt about the validity of the conciliar popes. If they had a doubt, they would be non una cum like all the others who at the very least concluded such. So, what it is is a doubt or question about whether a pope can become a formal heretic, and how that occurs. I personally don't believe a pope can ever become a formal heretic. And, neither do I believe that a perfect council can judge a pope a formal heretic. But, they did not/have not come to that conclusion. Hence, the discussion you are abusing. But make no mistake, it is not a doubt about the validity of the popes. And, fuss about legitimacy is child's talk.
You put your ignorance on display yet again. Sedeprivationism militates AGAINST conclavism.
Father Chazal is unquestionably a sedeprivationist ... whether or not he'd lay claim to the term. He is NOT R&R. Standard run-of-the-mill R&R holds that some V2 papal teaching is legitimate and must be accepted ... if it's traditional and it's true. +Chazal claims that all of it is null and void due to the heresy of the occupants of the office, i.e. that they are completely deprived of any formal authority. Thus, sedeprivationist.
I don't see how sedeprivationism ends up in conclavism. If anything, it opposes it.Yes, you are correct. It wouldn't surprise me if conservative Novus Ordo Catholics are more ready to hold a conclave than the sedevacante and sedeprivationist bishops. I don't really fault the sede bishops for that but I wish they would at least give a general council of Catholic bishops some serious thought.
Yes, you are correct. It wouldn't surprise me if conservative Novus Ordo Catholics are more ready to hold a conclave than the sedevacante and sedeprivationist bishops. I don't really fault the sede bishops for that but I wish they would at least give a general council of Catholic bishops some serious thought.I never said that the sedeprivationists will hold a conclave. They will not. However, they will be the first victim of a conclave. And, life is in the blood. Their end comes like a thief in the night.
I suspected this but can not verify. Can you provide some writing of his or audio lending him to be a sedeprivationist? Even for him to say he is not a r&r is a significant position. Thanks.
Father Chazal is unquestionably a sedeprivationist ... whether or not he'd lay claim to the term. He is NOT R&R.
- It may be held that since the Vatican II popes possess a legal and valid election, they have a certain legal status as popes.When +ABL was alive, the sspx agreed with the above. The ‘recognition’ of the popes was limited as he didn’t think that spiritually they were legitimate.
- It may be held that this legal status is sufficient to maintain the succession to Peter and the perpetuity of the hierarchy.
Nobody ever seems to explain to me how proper authority in the Catholic Church continues according to the strict sedevacantist position. I never get a clear answer.
Traditional Catholics have traditionally remained aloof and basically ignored "the man in a white cassock who lives in Vatican City".
Whether he is the pope, only legally the pope, or not pope at all doesn't really matter to us. In my opinion, that knowledge is AT LEAST morally impossible for 99.99% of men who weren't present at this or that secret meeting or election. For the average American or European living in 2018, no amount of study or thought is going to bring you to 100% certainty on the status of Pope Francis (and/or Pope Benedict).
But when I consider that the whole Crisis in the Church touches on God's secret plans and providence, which NO MAN IS PRIVY TO, nor has God shared his plans with anyone, it's even more impossible to know with certainty. I can't say "metaphysically impossible" because that would be like a plant having the use of reason. But it's morally impossible for 100% of men, not just the 99.99% who weren't intimately involved in papal elections, Freemasonry, etc.
Oh I've heard some good arguments in my time. From R&R, from conservative Novus Ordo, from sedevacantists, and from sedeprivationists. As you listen to any of their arguments, they sound quite convincing. Just one problem -- those arguments can't all be right!
They all sound convincing because they each focus on ONE ELEMENT of the mystery of the Crisis in the Church. If you focus on this element, you lean R&R. If you focus on this element, you lean sedevacantist. And so on. The problem is, NONE OF THESE POSITIONS ADEQUATELY ADDRESS ALL THE ISSUES AND OBJECTIONS INVOLVED. Hence my firm belief that we're dealing with a mystery.
But what we do know with certainty: We have to save our souls, and keep the Catholic Faith, and the man in white isn't promoting or protecting that Faith. On the contrary, he is doing everything he can to destroy it.
So we can pray for him, even in the Canon of the Mass (especially since he might be pope or legally pope -- who knows?) but that's about it.
We don't have to follow a material heretic, nor should we negotiate with him for "legitimacy", jurisdiction, approval, etc.
Here is what Fr. Ringrose has published:
“Today let us consider another error, referred to by some as “Recognize and Resist.” In a nutshell, R&R holds that sometimes, the pope teaches error or imposes evil or harmful practices or laws.* When he does, we must recognize his authority but resist his erroneous teachings or evil commands. Good Catholics have mistakenly fallen into this error in their attempt to protect the teaching of the Church that the pope must have perpetual successors and that somehow there must always be a hierarchy. The R&R position cannot be held because it ignores the clear teaching of the Church that the pope cannot teach error or impose evil or harmful practices and laws by virtue of the guarantee of Our Lord and the special assistance of the Holy Ghost. If we recognize the pope’s authority to teach and rule the Church in matters of faith and morals, we have no choice but to assent and obey, for not to do so would be to fail to assent to Christ Himself, by Whose authority and in Whose name the pope speaks. So R&R cannot be the answer, and like sedevacantism, it too must be rejected.
(*Some have said that the pope taught error at the time of St. Athanasius, but a closer examination of the facts shows this not to be true.)”
And:
-Contrary to the teaching of the Church: The pope can teach error sometimes and impose harmful or evil practices and laws on the Universal Church. The Faith requires all Catholics to reject this idea.
-Contrary to the teaching of the Church: There is no hierarchy whatsoever. (It is de fide that the hierarchy must be perpetual.) Therefore, Catholics must reject sedevacantism.
-Contrary to the teaching of the Church: We may resist the authority of the pope. Therefore, we must reject R&R.
- Since it is obvious that the Vatican II popes have imposed teachings and practices contrary to Faith and morals, it must be concluded that the infallible and indefectible teaching power promised to Peter’s successors is absent.
- It may be held that since the Vatican II popes possess a legal and valid election, they have a certain legal status as popes.
- It may be held that this legal status is sufficient to maintain the succession to Peter and the perpetuity of the hierarchy.
Previously, I posted excerpts. Here's the complete text:
From Fr. Ringrose’s bulletin:
This feast reinforces Catholic teaching that Christ has given to Peter and his successors a unique role in the Church as Universal Pastor. In this role as teacher Our Lord has promised that he who hears Peter hears him. Recognizing this promise, the Church has infallibly taught that Peter and his successors cannot teach error to the Universal Church any more than Christ can. So Christ guarantees that Peter will never teach error and Peter has the special assistance of the Holy Ghost to carry this out.
Last week we considered the error of sedevacantism, which holds that there is no pope, and that there is no hierarchy. Today let us consider another error, referred to by some as “Recognize and Resist.” In a nutshell, R&R holds that sometimes, the pope teaches error or imposes evil or harmful practices or laws.* When he does, we must recognize his authority but resist his erroneous teachings or evil commands. Good Catholics have mistakenly fallen into this error in their attempt to protect the teaching of the Church that the pope must have perpetual successors and that somehow there must always be a hierarchy. The R&R position cannot be held because it ignores the clear teaching of the Church that the pope cannot teach error or impose evil or harmful practices and laws by virtue of the guarantee of Our Lord and the special assistance of the Holy Ghost. If we recognize the pope’s authority to teach and rule the Church in matters of faith and morals, we have no choice but to assent and obey, for not to do so would be to fail to assent to Christ Himself, by Whose authority and in Whose name the pope speaks. So R&R cannot be the answer, and like sedevacantism, it too must be rejected.
(*Some have said that the pope taught error at the time of St. Athanasius, but a closer examination of the facts shows this not to be true.)
From Fr. Ringrose’s posting in his church:
It is the teaching of the Church that the office of the Chair of St. Peter (Peter and his successors, the popes) is indefectible, that is it is always free from error and must be perpetual. Its teachings are the standard and rule of Faith, despite the worthiness or unworthiness of the successor. In light of this, what is a faithful Catholic to do? Join or re-join the Novus Ordo? By no means! It is a false religion and to do so would be to abandon the Catholic Faith.
The question arises: How is it that the New Order popes have attempted to impose on the Church erroneous teachings and harmful or evil law or practices? Particular attention must be given to two of the most widely-held erroneous explanations: sedevacantism and recognize and resist (R&R). In light of what has been said, the following become apparent:
- Contrary to the teaching of the Church: The pope can teach error sometimes and impose harmful or evil practices and laws on the Universal Church. The Faith requires all Catholics to reject this idea.
- Contrary to the teaching of the Church: There is no hierarchy whatsoever. (It is de fide that the hierarchy must be perpetual.) Therefore, Catholics must reject sedevacantism.
- Contrary to the teaching of the Church: We may resist the authority of the pope. Therefore, we must reject R&R.
- Since it is obvious that the Vatican II popes have imposed teachings and practices contrary to Faith and morals, it must be concluded that the infallible and indefectible teaching power promised to Peter’s successors is absent.
- It may be held that since the Vatican II popes possess a legal and valid election, they have a certain legal status as popes.
- It may be held that this legal status is sufficient to maintain the succession to Peter and the perpetuity of the hierarchy.
It would appear, then, that the Chair is not totally vacant, nor is it completely full. The new order popes possess some legal aspect as popes but lack the authority to teach or rule on matters of faith and morals. In the face of this situation, the proper response of all faithful Catholics is to believe what Catholics have always believed and to do what Catholics have always done. We cannot go wrong with that!
Here is what Fr. Ringrose has published:This is a dangerous position Fr. Ringrose is teaching. Because, synonymous with saving our souls is preserving or in our case saving the papacy. Because, it is from the papacy that we have other bishops. And, it is from among the other bishops that we have the sword. Even the priest and the mass is not officially ahead of those two, despite it being easily quotable by +Lefebvre. We have to keep it all in the balance.
The R&R position cannot be held because it ignores the clear teaching of the Church that the pope cannot teach error or impose evil or harmful practices and laws by virtue of the guarantee of Our Lord and the special assistance of the Holy Ghost. If we recognize the pope’s authority to teach and rule the Church in matters of faith and morals, we have no choice but to assent and obey, for not to do so would be to fail to assent to Christ Himself, by Whose authority and in Whose name the pope speaks.
That's where sedeprivationism comes in ... as one proposed resolution to this question. I myself have a slightly-different slant on this position, where I believe that if a merely-material Pope appoints a bishop to his office, and that bishop is not a heretic and has no impediment to formally exercising the office, he can in fact formally exercise his office and has all the usual jurisdiction that comes with it.And not binding at all on the Catholic conscience -- mere theological speculation.
So you're claiming that the Church has defected. Heresy.That is not what I am saying -- but that is what you are implying, no?
You just said that authority has ceased in the Church ... that's a defection of the Church and heresy. There's no sugar-coating that. You may need to rethink and restate your position in non-heretical terms.What I am saying is that according to Fr Ringrose -- authority has de facto ceased. I obviously don't believe authority has ceased because Christ has instituted the Church with a hierarchy. However, what you are saying -- correct me if I am wrong -- (I am not actually trying to be flippant) is that the normal governance of the Church has more or less stopped.
The Dominican priest/professor and later bishop, Guerard des Lauriers, was the confessor of Pope Pius XII (!), helped pen the Dogma of the Asssumption and also wrote the Ottaviani Intervention.Wow! Thanks, I didn't know that.
It still does not answer the question of how Christ's Church can actually continue to govern -- it simply doesn't according to this theory but is left in a frozen state.Providence would have it that not only St. Peter die in Rome, but St. Paul as well. St. Paul is our check and balance. St. Paul would have us be more missionary, and less utopian. And, who was the most glorious missionary of the V2 crisis? +Lefebvre was the glorious missionary. I will follow +Lefebvre and +Williamson who has been faithful to him.
In 2015, Fr. Ringrose explained to the Holy Name Society and ladies' sodality that because francis does not possess the authority of the pope that he (Fr. Ringrose) has dropped his name from the Mass.I will have to pray for Fr. Ringrose. I went down this road years when I first became a traditionalist. And, I found myself basically at his exact position. So, I will not disown him. But, it is dangerous. I am glad I am no longer there. Because, the night cometh, when no man can walk. It is beneficial for all that francis be prayed for in the canon. The other novus ordo bishops on the other hand, I have my doubt. But, I like consensus. However, you cannot have consensus without dialogue, and I have heard no R&R clerics discuss this or explain why novus ordo bishops are legitimate.
I agree that this is pure sedeprivationism.Is it? It seems to me that Fr Ringrose, like Fr Chazal, consider these men real popes....just without the "authority". Sedeprivationism believes that these men are NOT real popes.
Oh, I had not seen this.Confederate Catholic: In 2015, Fr. Ringrose explained to the Holy Name Society and ladies' sodality that because francis does not possess the authority of the pope that he (Fr. Ringrose) has dropped his name from the Mass.
If I had known in advance that Fr. Ringose is a sedewhatever, I would not have donated to his school. Oh well. Live and learn.Fr. Ringrose is not sedevacantist, as far as I know.
I personally hold that a bishop appointed by a material pope can formally exercise office so long as he does not have any impediments to it (i.e. is not a heretic or excommunicate).Yet you attack me. Vatican 2, ecumenism, religious liberty, defense of the new mass, collegiality, and loose NFP is an impediment. I mean, the NO bishops universally are opposed to +lefebvre and the old sspx. That is a clear sign of a heretical impediment in my opinion. That is why I generally say remove the NO bishops(the pope remains) from the una cum, and doubt their legitimacy. I simply have enough conviction to put into practice.
He was a sedevacantist. Therefore, his "views" can be easily dismissed.des lauriers morality was worse. He flip flopped becoming a full fledged sedevacantist in order to become consecrated a bishop by +Thuc. +Thuc did not like his sedeprivationism, and required that he embrace full vacantism. He agreed. Then, after being consecrated, flip flopped back into privationism, which is basically just a more on the fence position that is none the less servant to vacantism.
If you have a problem with that, too bad.
Someone just posted that Father Ringrose does not put the name of Francis in the Canon, and that he believes Francis has no authority. So, what does that make him in your eyes?Are you saying you do not support Catholic schools because they teach the Church-condemned error of pagan Greek heliocentrism?
Doesn't his school teach Baal worship in their science classes, and yet you're promoting it?
Yep. I attack you for not applying the same standard to Francis. He's far more hereticaler than many, even most, NO bishops.One cannot apply those standards to francis. Fr. chazal has even clearly said in his privation lecture that we the church do not have the instruments to formally assess the state of the papacy/francis. We cannot judge the pope a formal heretic. And, there is no historical precedent of a perfect or imperfect council, or any council for that matter judging a pope a heretic or judging a pope to not have authority. It has never happened, and I contend it will never happen. The pope can not be judged, and will never be a formal heretic. That is my standard. And, when applied, my theory and thinking is sound.
Uhm, no, my question was why YOU support it despite the fact that "they teach the Church-condemned error of pagan Greek heliocentrism" (as YOU put it).I support Catholic schools.
Not today, in the absence of a true Pope, whom alone this Authority would derive from.
Let me ask, where is the formal authority existing (in practicality) for the R&R camp today anyway?
Sedeprivationists destroy the papal office by dissolving the unity of its form and matter.Can you expound on this?
Drew
Quote from: drew on Today at 01:55:27 PM (https://www.cathinfo.com/index.php?topic=48225.msg598974#msg598974)Sedeprivationists destroy the papal office by dissolving the unity of its form and matter.
Drew
Can you expound on this?
Quote from: Meg on Today at 11:25:06 AM (https://www.cathinfo.com/index.php?topic=48225.msg598923#msg598923)Sedeprivationism is basically the same thing as sedevacantism. Very little difference.
At least it's a theory that is consistent with Catholic doctrine ... unlike R&R.
You don't seem to understand sedeprivationism. You had this same problem on the Father Chazal thread. You're stuck on a binary pope or no pope. Sedeprivationism holds that he's real in one respect, but not real in another. That's referred to as a DISTINCTION. That "real" pope thing is +Sanborn's spin on it because he only grudgingly accepted sedeprivationism to get consecration from +McKenna. Even then, +Sanborn says he's not a true pope because he lacks authority. Father Ringrose and Father Chazal have stated that he lacks authority. So you're playing with semantics on what it means to be a "real" pope.As for the bolded, do you have real proof of that? Because if you don't that comment is pure calumny and should be retracted.
How is a pope "real" if he lacks authority? As per Father Ringrose, he maintains a certain legal status by way of his election, but no formal authority ... aka sedeprivationism.
Our obligation is only to remain doctrinally and morally sound in the faith. No Catholic is obligated to provide an answer every question but he does have an obligation to avoid obvious errors. “Sufficient for the day is the evil thereof” Matt 6:34.Agree 1000%!
One of the 20th-century popes actually issued a document (can't recall if it was St. Pius X or Pius XII or perhaps both) which explicitly stated that even excommunicates could validly cast votes in a conclave. Somebody else might have the text readily available.That shows that excommunicates can elect a pope. It doesn't explain how they can elect a man that is a non-Catholic heretic to the Chair of Peter.
+des Lauriers was no theological lightweight, and he adduced some weighty theological arguments in favor of the thesis. He didn't simply pull it out of thin air.
That's one response to his theological position in the practical order. On the other hand, one might continue to keep his name in their by virtue of his having legal status as pope. Of course, in the Canon, it does refer to the included pope as being among the "orthodoxi ... cultores catholicae fidei" (orthodox keepers of the catholic faith) ... which status one would rightly reject for Francis.I'm not sure.
So, 2V, does this sound like Father Ringrose considers him a "real" pope?
I would say that an obvious error would be to think that the Church can contradict Herself. Given that to all appearances the Church did contradict Herself in Vatican II Council as is the wish of the International Jewry (To make the Catholic Church contradict Herself as to prove that her claims of Divinity are false) then the only possible explanation is that the authority (pope) who promulgated such Council is false and that the erroneous teachings are coming from an illegitimate impostor; unless you would like to argue that there exists not such contradiction.I think what Drew posted makes more reasonable sense than the Church has somehow ceased exercising any formal authority since 1958 or was it 1965 or was it 1968, 69? 75? When exactly? Who decides?
Sedeprivationism is intellectually absurd. Sedevacantism is doctrinally and morally a dead end. Recognize and resist is the only sound position at this time that is easily defended in spite of the mocking insults delivered by posters on this forum.Bishop Donald Sanborn teaches the exact opposite. He says the Pope is the "living rule of faith for the entire Church". I quote:
Caiaphas was a heretic. He denied the bodily resurrection and rejected Jesus as the Christ. He did not thereby loose his office. Even the apostles after Pentecost did not suggest that he lost his office because of heresy. St. Paul recognized and respected the office when he appeared before the high priest in Jerusalem. “And they that stood by said: Dost thou revile the high priest of God? And Paul said: I knew not, brethren, that he is the high priest. For it is written: Thou shalt not speak evil of the prince of thy people” Acts 23:4-5. “Jesus spoke to the multitudes and to his disciples, saying: The scribes and the Pharisees have sitten on the chair of Moses. All things therefore whatsoever they shall say to you, observe and do: but according to their works do ye not” Matt. 23:1-3. This direction can be accurately described as “recognize and resist.” What God has established, only God can overthrow. Every commentary on the parable of the tares (Matt 13:24) the including Rev. George Haydock Commentary, Rev. Cornelius a Lapide’s Great Commentary, and St. Thomas’ Catena Aurea quoting the Church Fathers without exception say the tares refer to heretics. Those who demand that heresy precludes anyone from the office want to make themselves the “Lord of the Harvest.” Heresy precludes only be canonical laws, not by the nature of heresy itself. It is a question of law. It is ironic indeed that those making themselves the “Lord of the Harvest” end up with the tares.
No Catholic is required to do more with a heretical pope than the man born blind, and if he keeps dogma as his proximate rule of faith, a whole host of problems can be avoided. Those who deny dogma as the proximate rule of faith make the person of the pope their rule of faith and what follows is a host of irreconcilable problems.
The sedeprivationists offend the first principles of the understanding. The conciliarist popes are either popes or they are not. They cannot be, and not be, at the same time. If they stand in any way in potential to the office, then they are not popes. To divide the office between degrees of material and formal possession is to destroy the papacy. Separation of form and matter always constitutes a substantial change by definition. It is a dogma of faith that the Church founded by Jesus Christ was founded upon Peter. It is further a dogma of faith that the office will have perpetual successors. The faith is the primary sign and cause of unity in the Church. The pope is only accidentally and secondarily the sign and cause of unity and, since he is not the proximate rule of faith, he is just as much subject to the faith as every baptized Catholic. He does not possess the authority to command obedience to anything in violation of the virtue of Religion which is the virtue under Justice that directly governs obedience. Any act of obedience to any human authority that offends the virtue of Religion is a sin. Just as the man born blind in John 9 professed the true faith to the Pharisees every faithful Catholic is called upon to do the same today. It did not require him to deny that authority of the Pharisees because of heresy. When the pope becomes a heretical Judaizer like St. Peter did, when in his “dissimulation… (he) walked not uprightly unto the truth of the gospel,” he must be “withstood to his face” Gal 2:13-14.
Sedevacantism is intellectually, morally and doctrinally a dead-end. They have arrived at a Church that is not just defective in an essential attribute but it has no capacity to ever correct the defect therefore it cannot be the Church founded by Jesus Christ. How do faithful Catholics end up in a position that is manifestly erroneous? Those Catholics that do not accept dogma as the proximate rule of faith necessarily make the pope their rule of faith. They make him the source of revelation as the revealer of mere ecclesiastical faith and they impose an understanding to the attribute of Indefectibility to mean that the pope possess a personal never failing faith and cannot possible teach error or promulgate unjust laws. They cannot recognize a heretical pope without feeling personally contaminated by his sin. But none of this is so. None of this has been dogmatically defined. These are nothing but theological presuppositions; speculative opinions expressed from men who could not imagine the current crisis of the Church. These opinions in our current situation appear daily more and more implausible.
Until the Pope uses his office to engage the attribute of Infallibility that Jesus Christ endowed His Church to bind doctrinal error and immorality upon the Catholic faithful, and sedevacantists produce their own papal claimant, there is no argument against the recognize and resist that does not lead to doctrinal and intellectual error. Our obligation is only to remain doctrinally and morally sound in the faith. No Catholic is obligated to provide an answer every question but he does have an obligation to avoid obvious errors. “Sufficient for the day is the evil thereof” Matt 6:34.
Drew
The third difference is that the case of a heretical pope is different from that of a heretical bishop. A pope is the living rule of faith for the entire Church, and is infallible in his magisterium (whether solemn or ordinary universal), and is infallible in promulgating universal laws, liturgy, and disciplines. None of these things is true of a bishop of a diocese. I remember as a child that people would often say, “You can’t be more Catholic than the Pope.” Very true. He is the living rule of faith, just as a yardstick is the rule of what is one yard. (source: http://www.mostholytrinityseminary.org/SCSF%20February%202018.pdf)
(https://www.cathinfo.com/index.php?topic=48225.msg598992#msg598992)Quote from: drew on Today at 01:55:27 PM (https://www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/is-father-ringrose-dumping-the-r-r-crowd/msg598973/#msg598973)
Authority is an attribute of the Church primarily and only secondarily and accidentally an attribute of the pope. Those who make the pope the rule of faith have a problem when he is a heretic with the exercise of authority. Those who make dogma the rule of faith can deal with the corruption of authority
But the rule of Faith is neither. The Pope nor the Dogma are the proximate rule of Faith; but the living Magisterium of the Church.
Once one arrives to such realization, then the conclusion is completely different.
Drew - Thank you, I entirely agree with you.I agree with Drew.
Obscurus and cantarella - The "living" magisterium cantarella mentions as opposed to the rule of dogma, and the "living" rule of faith that +Sanborn attributes solely to the papacy as opposed to the rule of dogma are both wrong. The living element(s) in our time of crisis are either what we might call the office of st paul, or "the two or more who gather together in Christs name" with dogma as the rule of faith for both. Those are the living elements that vacantists and feeneyites are confusing. The vacantists attribute it solely to the pope, which will always and has let them down. And, the feeneyites attribute it to legion, which is basically the collective novus ordo zeitgeist. Both are not catholic.
You should begin at the end which is obviously not Catholic. Sedevacantist are in a church that has no pope, has no intention of getting one, and has no mechanism to get one. Their church cannot be the Church founded by Jesus Christ because it is absent a necessary attribute. If this fact is not enough to make any sedevacantist rethink the problem, then there is really nothing that can be done for them.Sedevacantists (of which I am not) and other similar groups did not found a new church anymore than Bishop de Castro Mayer did when his priests were expelled from their churches by Bishop Navarro and built new churches to offer the true Mass right near or beside the diocesan churches! They all run off of the same concept: the papal claimant cannot be obeyed because to do such would be to disobey Divine law.
I agree with Drew.I know, I just saw you post how +Sanborn believes the opposite, and wanted to respond to that part. And, to add to my last post, I don't think what I posted is in disagreement with dogma as the rule of faith. Because, I am aware of how the past probably 1200 years has placed increasing emphasis on the papacy to the point where I am not surprised that there are people who think as +Sanborn. And, the papacy is important. It is a significant element concerning what we might say are "living" elements of the faith. However, when the pope is a heretic, and the college we might say of bishops are heretics, what are we to think? Well, firstly, as drew said, it is dogma that is our rule of faith. But, secondly, for our crisis, it would be I think the "living" examples I gave. Because, there must always be hiarchical authority in the church. And, I contend that there still is. It is just not the pope and the college of bishops. It would be st paul an and the two or more who gather in Christ's name. Those are somewhat masked terms, but that may be the best way to say it.
Bishop Donald Sanborn teaches the exact opposite. He says the Pope is the "living rule of faith for the entire Church". I quote:That is correct. Sedevacantists (with only one exception that I know of), like conservative Catholics, hold the pope as the rule of faith. The conservatives believe the pope is rule of faith so they do everything he does. Sedevacantists hold the pope as the rule of faith and say he cannot be the pope. I had a recent exchange with Emmett O'Regan a conservative author and publicist who believes that the pope is the rule of faith and possess a "never failing faith." In the exchange, it is interesting to see that his arguments regarding the pope are the same arguments offered by sedevacantist.
Sedevacantists (of which I am not) and other similar groups did not found a new church anymore than Bishop de Castro Mayer did when his priests were expelled from their churches by Bishop Navarro and built new churches to offer the true Mass right near or beside the diocesan churches! They all run off of the same concept: the papal claimant cannot be obeyed because to do such would be to disobey Divine law.
Only a true conciliar apologist would make such a statement. Total newchurch speak. Let me quote Bishop Tissier from the 2012 Winona priestly ordinations when he said "this newchurch is no church but a poison poisoning the Church!".
Nice try to derail the thread and bury everything in ten tons of pages running circles around the EENS dogma and feenyism.
I know, I just saw you post how +Sanborn believes the opposite, and wanted to respond to that part. And, to add to my last post, I don't think what I posted is in disagreement with dogma as the rule of faith. Because, I am aware of how the past probably 1200 years has placed increasing emphasis on the papacy to the point where I am not surprised that there are people who think as +Sanborn. And, the papacy is important. It is a significant element concerning what we might say are "living" elements of the faith. However, when the pope is a heretic, and the college we might say of bishops are heretics, what are we to think? Well, firstly, as drew said, it is dogma that is our rule of faith. But, secondly, for our crisis, it would be I think the "living" examples I gave. Because, there must always be hiarchical authority in the church. And, I contend that there still is. It is just not the pope and the college of bishops. It would be st paul an and the two or more who gather in Christ's name. Those are somewhat masked terms, but that may be the best way to say it.I don't quite understand the parts I put in bold.
I don't quite understand the parts I put in bold.Well, for the most part heresy and error comes from the pope and the NO college of bishops. And, those are the two channels traditionally associated with the magisterium. So, in our time of crisis, those are really not representing the magisterium in action. And, I don't know about you, but I wouldn't be a traditional catholic if it weren't for +Lefebvre, and now +Williamson. I certainly wouldn't be one if I relied on the pope and the college for direction. They(+lefebvre) are a manifestation of what I would call the office of st. paul in action. Which is the bishop that can successfully resist the pope. And, he can successfully resist the pope because dogma is his rule of faith. The other "two" I would be guessing about. Perhaps it is some combination of the monk and the nun. I do not know. But, I don't think it is a husband and wife.
Yes but the Campos priests at that time operated under the principle that they must avoid the Conciliarists at all costs. They didn't question whether they had any authority. Can we somehow now claim that there is no longer any operating authority in the Church? I mean we are trying to keep principles here and avoidance seems imperative and Bishop Fellay and the like don't seem to understand that anymore. But it doesn't mean "R&R" is somehow illogical.Actually, they made a deal with the Vatican and explained in their letter in great detail how they made that deal because they no longer wanted to question whether the vatican 2 church had any authority and were afraid that if they continued that they would have to openly accept sedevacantism. They even explain how they wrote to Bishop Fellay and explained the same.
The Rule of Faith is the Magisterium or teaching Church. There is no doubt on that.Correct, Canterella, but what are the teachings of the magisterium but doctrine and the catechism? And what is doctrine and the catechism but the re-teaching of “what has always been taught” for 1,900 years. Thus, the magisterium’s job is to safeguard and teach doctrine, which is the rule of faith.
Actually, they made a deal with the Vatican and explained in their letter in great detail how they made that deal because they no longer wanted to question whether the vatican 2 church had any authority and were afraid that if they continued that they would have to openly accept sedevacantism. They even explain how they wrote to Bishop Fellay and explained the same.Yes, I am aware of what they did. It is sad. Bishop Rifan would eventually begin to concelebrate the New Mass. Again, they didn't quite understand the Crisis being isolated in their area of Brazil.
http://brasildogmadafe.blogspot.com.br/p/documento-perdido-dos-padres-de-campos.html
Correct, Canterella, but what are the teachings of the magisterium but doctrine and the catechism? And what is doctrine and the catechism but the re-teaching of “what has always been taught” for 1,900 years. Thus, the magisterium’s job is to safeguard and teach doctrine, which is the rule of faith.
If the current magisterium/hierarchy fails to do their job, then Catholics must turn to historical, orthodox teachings (ie doctors of the church and previous saintly popes) to help them learn the faith, which is exactly what trads have done.
The question of the status of the non-orthodox magisterium is largely academic, as it's none of our jobs to come to any conclusions about their future or punishments, etc. Our job is to know, love and serve God, and we have 1,900 yrs of consistent Church Teaching on how to do this. Everything else, including the status of the pope, is largely a distraction - especially for we laity.
As +W has been pointing out the past 3 weeks in his newsletters, our families are in crisis, young trads are leaving Church altogether, families are being ripped apart by immorality and many trad priests/bishops are STILL (after 20+ years?!) spending their time arguing about the status of the pope? REALLY? Is this the most pressing matter of the day? Hardly. The battle for souls has moved from the streets into the home and many priests have their heads stuck in theology books - too busy to notice and too worried about which “group” (ie sspx vs sede) is “winning”. What an insane world we live in.
The Magisterium (Pope & Episcopate) is needed for each passing generation.No one is saying they aren't needed. We're debating to what level. The point Drew is trying to make is that one's faith is MORE DEPENDENT on dogma (which has already been explained) than on the current hierarchy. As the past 50 years have shown - wherein we've had NO leadership and NO reliance on the magisterium, since they are quasi-heretical - traditional catholics have survived quite easily, because we have 2,000 yrs of orthodox magisterium's to fall back on. This is the beauty of God's eternal truth - that it does not change, which is why modernists had to introduce the idea of a 'living' magisterium - to get people to stop looking at the past and to get them to think that the 'current' magisterium is all that matters. This is heresy pure and simple.
St. Augustine famously taught that he wouldn't even believe the Scriptures themselves if the Church didn't propose them to him for belief.Right, but again, you must differentiate between the current and the UNIVERSAL magisterium. The Church has told us that Scripture must be believed...she told us LONG AGO. So, no matter what happens with Francis' faith, the belief in Scripture doesn't change. So, as Drew would classify it, this is a defined dogma/Truth which stands on its own, regardless of what's going on TODAY in rome.
He was arguing that the Magisterium is not the proximate rule of faith but, rather, dogma itself.As I understand it, he was classifying the PAST magisterium's teachings as dogma, since they aren't alive anymore and their teachings are 'set in stone'. All things in the present are classified as the magisterium. This way, one does not have to use the term 'universal'.
No, CATHOLICS hold that the Magisterium is the proximate rule of faith, not the pope per se. So you open with a complete strawman distortion of Catholic teaching. R&R like yourself concocted this nonsense about DOGMA itself, i.e. YOUR private judgment interpretation of said dogma, being the rule of faith ... and have thus essentially embraced Protestantism, the only difference being that the Prots hold that there's only one source of said dogma, while you hold two. Other than that, you're nothing but a run-of-the-mill Protestant. Dogmas is the object of the faith, not its rule. We've gone through this already.
It is a rule of faith, by which we believe that there is but one God, nor any other beside the Creator of the world, who produced all things out of nothing. For the sources of their teaching the Fathers point to Apostolic Tradition and the Mosaic narrative. Thus St. Athanasius teaches: “God created all things, which previously did not exist, through the Logos out of nothing, so that they received being, as He speaks through the mouth of Moses: ‘In the beginning God created heaven and earth.’”
“Whoever denies that new-born infants should be baptized immediately after birth, or asserts that they are indeed baptized for the remission of sins, but do not contract from Adam original sin, which must be expiated in the waters of regeneration, and that consequently the baptismal form for the remission of sins applies to them not truly, but falsely; let him be anathema.” The Council bases this definition on Rom. V, 12 sqq., and on ecclesiastical Tradition, and concludes: "Propter hanc enim regulam ndei etiam parvuli, qui nihil peccatorum in semetipsis adhuc committere potuerunt, ideo in peccatorum remissionem veraciter baptizantur ut in eis regeneratione mundetur, quod generatione traxerunt. According to this rule of faith little children, who are as yet unable to commit actual sin, are therefore truly baptized for the remission of sins, in order that by regeneration they may be cleansed of that which they have contracted by generation."
Second Council of Mileve (416); its canons were taken over by a plenary council held at Carthage in 418, and approved and promulgated by Pope Zosimus in his Epistola Tractoria.
The formal object of faith is the First Truth as manifested in Holy Scripture and in the Church’s teaching. Hence if anyone does not adhere as to an infallible and Divine rule to the Church’s teaching, which proceeds from the Church’s truth manifested in Holy Scripture, such an one has not the habit of faith, but holds the truths of faith not by faith but by some other principle" (II-II, Q. v, a. 3).
And:This is a strawman. Sedevacantism doesn't posit the complete loss of the hierarchy. SVs are all over the map on this particular point. 1. Some say there must be an ordinary hidden somewhere (Bishop in the woods theory) - John Lane claims this among many others. 2. Some say all the sees are vacant - Fr. Cekada proposed this on Ignis Ardens in 2012. It is possible. The hierarchy consists of all clerics and even a man who has received first tonsure is a cleric. So as long as there is at least one Catholic bishop (even if not an ordinary), the hierarchy is intact and retains all the powers of order and jurisdiction even if jurisdiction is not being exercised in any particular see. 3. Sede privationist theory 4. Siri theory - Cardinal Siri was the true pope elected in 1958. 5. Home alone theory and Apocalypse theory - we are in the end times. There might be other positions as well. But they are generally lumped in with the sv position. Basically, sv is a catchall for everyone who rejects the idea that Conciliar bosses are the true hierarchy of the Catholic Church. With the possible exception of position #5, sedes are not positing the destruction of the hierarchy. And those who hold #5 are very small in number. So I consider the argument a strawman. Also, I have never heard of a sede privationist attacking sedevacantists. So Fr Chazal and Fr. Ringrose have an ambiguous position. It certainly looks like SP but they are trying to distance themselves from other SPs and they give no reason for that. We could speculate that they do this for political reasons (because SP would be unpalatable to many former SSPX people which is the demographic that they are trying to serve).
-Contrary to the teaching of the Church: There is no hierarchy whatsoever. (It is de fide that the hierarchy must be perpetual.) Therefore, Catholics must reject sedevacantism.
What is being argued here is simply the foundation that the Rule of Faith for Catholics is what is taught by the Pope and the Apostolic succession of Bishops in union with him acting as protectors of the Deposit of Faith.
I am honestly in disbelief that we have Catholics here who have no concept about the Catholic Magisterium ... and who seem to follow a religion that's closer to both Protestantism and schismatic Orthodoxy than it is to Catholicism.Yeah, a lot of them are "dogmatic" sedes who are converts from Protestantism, too. A bunch of them on Facebook issuing their "bulls" and "encyclicals" to everyone. :laugh1: They act like some Catholic theologian after having converted from being a Protty or secularism only 3 years ago. Some of them haven't even had Confirmation, and others are home-aloner schizoids, despite a valid Tridentine Latin or eastern rite Mass available to them, but they think they can school everyone on the Catholic Faith.
DOGMA + MAGISTERIUM = object of supernatural faithAgree.
If the Magisterium, attempting to act Infallibly, could endanger faith, lead souls to hell, or even just cause them harm, it would have defected.Fixed your comment above.
Catholicism 103: The Pope is the principle and center, of the unity of faith.True, but he's not the author of the articles of faith, he's just the guardian of it...if he stays orthodox.
Catholicism 102: Church's lawful Rite of Mass cannot be harmful and is guaranteed to please God because Christ gave it to us.
If the Magisterium could endanger faith, lead souls to hell, or even just cause them harm, it would have defected.Ladislaus and Cantarella,
No, the entire point is that these men do NOT exercise Magisterium.Yes, but since when? At what point did +Francis lose his spiritual office? Was the Synod not an exercise of the magisterium?
Unlikely.Ok, but why is it unlikely?
No, because as it was defined in Vatican I Council, everything that the Magisterium proposes for belief as being divinely revealed MUST necessarily be derived from the Deposit of Faith, which consists of both Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition. There can be no novelties added to it, nor contradictions. The Magisterium consists of only all the infallible teachings of the Church.
Dogmas cannot change. They do not "evolve" either or are subject to further interpretation. This is true. It is also true however, that the Magisterium of the Church cannot contradict itself; but apparently it did, on December 7 of 1965, according to the Cassiciacum Thesis.
DOGMA + MAGISTERIUM = object of supernatural faith
Catholicism 101: Ecumenical Councils approved by a Pope are infallible.
Even if a non-infallible teaching can be, strictly speaking, mistaken, the Magisterium must always be considered a generally-reliable and safe guide to the faith. Otherwise, the Magisterium would have defected. If the Magisterium could promote grave and widespread error to the faithful ... to the point that Catholics MUST sever communion with the hierarchy rather than accept these teachings, then the Magisterium would have defected. R&R types love to quibble over the strict limits of infallibility, but then completely ignore the fact that the Magisterium cannot be anything other than a reliable and safe guide. If the Magisterium could endanger faith, lead souls to hell, or even just cause them harm, it would have defected. R&R like to pretend that, apart from the solemn dogmatic definition we see a couple times per century, everything else is a theological free-for-all.
BRAVO to Fathers Ringrose, Pinaud, Roy, and Rioult and finally Chazal for the bravery to reject the RR heresies. Likewise to Bishop Zendejas for continuing to care for these priests and for the bulk of his own people who likewise reject RR. Hopefully the rest of the SSPX or “Resistance” clergy are not far behind. There is hope.I am sorry you keep saying Fr Chazal rejects RR and embraces sedeprivationism. This message is simply ridiculous. You place extreme burdens on a Catholic to hold to the sedeprivationist theory.
Dear Drew,
The Catholic Encyclopedia 1913 uses the term Living Magisterium in a section title. I do understand your point that the N.O. is manipulating a redefinition of revelation and the magisterium but certainly the teaching authority is living entity. See the CE quote below.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15006b.htm (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15006b.htm)
"With regard to the organ of tradition it must be an official organ, a magisterium, or teaching authority."
"Must it be admitted that Christ instituted His Church as the official and authentic organ to transmit and explain in virtue of Divine authority the Revelation made to men?
"The Protestant principle is: The Bible and nothing but the Bible; the Bible, according to them, is the sole theological source; there are no revealed truths save the truths contained in the Bible; according to them the Bible is the sole rule of faith:"
"by it and by it alone should all dogmatic questions be solved; it is the only binding authority. "
"Catholics, on the other hand, hold that there may be, that there is in fact, and that there must of necessity be certain revealed truths apart from those contained in the Bible;"
"they hold furthermore that Jesus Christ has established in fact, and that to adapt the means to the end He should have established, a LIVING organ as much to transmit Scripture and written Revelation as to place revealed truth within reach of everyone always and everywhere."
Those who do not follow Dogma as their proximate rule of faith cannot avoid such errors as sedeprivationism that drives a wedge between the form and the matter of the papal office thus necessarily causing a substantial change that destroys the office, or sedevacantism that simply throws it away.Admittedly, I have not really studied sedeprivationism so I can't comment on that part of your statement but I'm curious what you mean by "sedevacantism ... simply throws [the office] away". I doubt you are denying the fact that there have been at least 260 periods where there was no cleric possessing the Roman See in the history of the Church. Every one of those periods was known as a sede vacante. Why would positing a sede vacante now bring one under an accusation of "throwing away the office"?
As I mentioned, the term "Magisterium" as known today was first used by Pope Pius IX in Tuas Libenter, 1863 :https://www.cathinfo.com/the-library/tuas-libenter/
I only read it in Italian and cannot find a copy in English so I used Google translator. The most relevant part is:
I am sorry you keep saying Fr Chazal rejects RR and embraces sedeprivationism. This message is simply ridiculous. You place extreme burdens on a Catholic to hold to the sedeprivationist theory.http://radtradthomist.chojnowski.me/2018/03/guerard-de-lauriers-call-your-office-fr.html (http://radtradthomist.chojnowski.me/2018/03/guerard-de-lauriers-call-your-office-fr.html) From Dr. Chojnowski:
Now R&R is heresy? My...who made you Pope?
Dear Pax,I didn't comment on this; must have been someone else.
I don’t know nor did I say Fr. Chazal embraced sp.
Father Chazal is redefining the term "sedeplenist" in order to avoid the label "sedeprivationist" (which has long been taken as a synonym for sedevacantism). In point of fact, when you have a Pope who has legitimate election but lacks authority due to heresy ... that's what has been known heretofore as sedeprivationism. Run-of-the mill R&R holds that these popes have authority ... when they're teaching the truth, but lack authority when teaching error. Father Chazal has proclaimed that all of their acts are null and void and that they are to be categorically ignored ... rather than having their individual acts "sifted" according to Tradition.It was a typo by Dr Chojnowski. He has since corrected it. He meant sedeprivationist. So basically, Dr C is trying to find out if Fr Chazal is an SP.
Are you now questioning the orthodoxy of Pope Leo XIII??No. I said his time period was not orthodox. Even St Pius X alluded to his efforts being stalled and thwarted many times by infiltrators.
If theologians and modernists decide to twist around the words of the Holy Roman Pontiff - so be it!Fair point, but you also have to admit that theological words should be as precise as possible, (and 'living' is not precise at all) which is why theologians used to use the Scholastic method of St Thomas. If precise words are used, then misinterpretation is hardly possible, therefore truth is protected. Modernists use vague words on purpose, and it's been going on since the 1800s, because that's when modernists started infiltrating the Church.
Would it make any difference if the word "living" is removed? It seems to me you are taking issue with that word because of the connection with Fr. Bainvilles' dissolution of the EENS dogma, which everyone knows I am a strict believer of (if not, just glance at my signature). The Magisterium, this is, the teaching Church composed by the Pope of Rome (Vicar of Christ) and Bishops (apostolic succession) in union with him, constitute the Rule of Faith for Catholics.
My point is that this Magisterium of the Church cannot err via a general council. An error of such magnitude is impossible. If it indeed happened, then this very fact as a sign, an indication, that the authority which promulgated it is illegitimate. That is the whole point.
"The deeper understanding" of dogma was already condemned by Pope Leo XIII in Testem Benevolentiae:
In Human Generis, Pope Pius XII is explicit about the Magisterium being the Rule of Faith:
As Catholics, we now that Christ established a Magisterium in order to keep intact the deposit of revealed truths for all time. Also, we know that this Magisterium cannot teach anything other than what pertains to this original deposit of Faith (Scripture & Tradition). Therefore, the Magisterium cannot contradict itself because that would be a failure of the Magisterium.
"It is not enough to find a new language in which to articulate our perennial faith; it is also urgent, in the light of the new challenges and prospects facing humanity, that the Church be able to express the “new things” of Christ’s Gospel, that, albeit present in the word of God, have not yet come to light. This is the treasury of “things old and new” of which Jesus spoke when he invited his disciples to teach the newness that he had brought, without forsaking the old (cf. Mt 13:52)."
…… I would like now to bring up a subject that ought to find in the Catechism of the Catholic Church a more adequate and coherent treatment in the light of these expressed aims. I am speaking of the death penalty. This issue cannot be reduced to a mere résumé of traditional teaching without taking into account not only the doctrine as it has developed in the teaching of recent Popes, but also the change in the awareness of the Christian people which rejects an attitude of complacency before a punishment deeply injurious of human dignity. It must be clearly stated that the death penalty is an inhumane measure that, regardless of how it is carried out, abases human dignity. It is per se contrary to the Gospel, because it entails the willful suppression of a human life that never ceases to be sacred in the eyes of its Creator and of which – ultimately – only God is the true judge and guarantor.
Pope Francis, Oct 2017
“Therefore every scribe instructed in the kingdom of heaven, is like to a man that is a householder, who bringeth forth out of his treasure new things and old” Matt 13:52.
Things new and old. This is a proverb, signifying every kind of food, substance, or goods necessary or useful for sustaining a family. Some of these things are best when new, others when old. Hence the proverb, “New honey, old wine;” i.e., honey is best when fresh, but the oldest wine is the best. Hence too the verse in Pindar’s ninth Olympic Hymn, “Praise old wine, but the flowers of new Hymns.” The meaning is—As the father of a family provides for his household things new and old, i.e., everything necessary and useful, so ought a Gospel teacher to bring forth, at suitable times, according to the capacity of his hearers, various discourses, knowledge of every kind; and especially to take care to teach them the new and unknown mysteries of the Gospel, by means of old examples, such as parables and similitudes, which his hearers can take in. Moreover, some of the ancients, as SS. Chrysostom, Augustine, Jerome, Hilary, and Bede apply old and new to the Old and New Testaments. For that is the best preaching when the New Testament is confirmed and illustrated from the Old, and proved to be in all points typically agreeable to it. For the Old Testament was the type of the New; the New Testament is the antetype of the Old.
Actually the Conciliar church is recognizable. It appears to be a branch of the Anglican Church.I find this comment very interesting. I've never heard anyone else put it like that.
Actually the Conciliar church is recognizable. It appears to be a branch of the Anglican Church.Rome has not formally applied to join the Anglican community but I know some Anglicans that have gone the other way, chased out by the ladies. This was before Bergoglio would have ridiculed such a decision.
bzzzt. Straw Man Alert! Straw Man Alert!
It is the Magisterium, and not the pope per se (as if it were his personal attribute), that is the rule of faith.
Quote from: drew“Simply not true”? What I said is a brief paraphrase but the statement is most certainly true.QuoteSubmission of the mind and will, that is, the soul to God on the authority of God is what divine faith is. It must necessarily be unqualified.
Simply not true, Drew.
“We are obliged to yield to God the revealer full submission of intellect and will by faith. This faith, which is the beginning of human salvation, the catholic church professes to be a supernatural virtue, by means of which, with the grace of God inspiring and assisting us, we believe to be true what He has revealed, not because we perceive its intrinsic truth by the natural light of reason, but because of the authority of God himself, who makes the revelation and can neither deceive nor be deceived.”
To simplify, the faith is the WHAT believed while the rule is related to the WHY believed.
What do I believe? the Assumption. Why do I believe it? Because it was proposed as dogma by the authority of the teaching Church (proximately) and ultimately by God in revealing Himself (remotely). So it's the proposal by the Church (viewed formally) that's the rule of what I believe.
This is similar to the distinction between the faith itself (the contents of Revelation) and the faith viewed as supernatural virtue as moved by the formal MOTIVE of faith
He was a sedevacantist. Therefore, his "views" can be easily dismissed.This is the problem with some Traditionalists. In all reality, it aggravates the Crisis in my opinion. Many in the SSPX-resistance are willing to admit (Fr. Chazal being one of them) that when one reads the "seminary libraries" the sede vacante position is a legitimate Catholic position just as there are theologians on the other side (R and R). I completely agree with Fr. Chazal on this and am glad that he took the time to dig into this and explain to confused faithful like people responsible for comments like those above. Fact of the matter is that until the Church speaks declaratively on the subject of the post-conciliar papal claimants, undeniable positive doubt does exist and theologians and Doctors of the Church have written extensively on the topic of a sede vacante due to a Pope losing office because of being a heretic just as there are theologians on the other side who said that he would retain office.
If you have a problem with that, too bad.
But the rule of Faith is neither. The Pope nor the Dogma are the proximate rule of Faith; but the living Magisterium of the Church.
Once one arrives to such realization, then the conclusion is completely different.
Wherefore, as appears from what has been said, Christ instituted in the Church a living, authoritative and permanent Magisterium, which by His own power He strengthened, by the Spirit of truth He taught, and by miracles confirmed. He willed and ordered, under the gravest penalties, that its teachings should be received as if they were His own. As often, therefore, as it is declared on the authority of this teaching that this or that is contained in the deposit of divine revelation, it must be believed by every one as true.
Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum
I would say that an obvious error would be to think that the Church can contradict Herself. Given that to all appearances the Church did contradict Herself in Vatican II Council as is the wish of the International Jewry (To make the Catholic Church contradict Herself as to prove that her claims of Divinity are false) then the only possible explanation is that the authority (pope) who promulgated such Council is false and that the erroneous teachings are coming from an illegitimate impostor; unless you would like to argue that there exists not such contradiction.
I am most particularly obliged to bless and thank God, for not having suffered the first professors of that doctrine (Jansenism), men of my acquaintance and friendship, to be able to draw me to their opinions. I cannot tell you what pains they took, and what reasons they propounded to me; I objected to them, amongst other things, the authority of the Council of Trent (DOGMA), which is clearly opposed to them; and seeing that they still continued, I, instead of answering them, quietly recited my Credo (DOGMA); and that is how I have remained firm in the Catholic faith.
St. Vincent de Paul regarding in dealing with the Jansenist
No, she is saying that this council is OBVIOUSLY without the Indefectible teaching protection of the the Holy Ghost promised to the Church residing in the papal office.
Apart from the fact that you grossly mischaracterize his position as promoting "blind obedience to Church authority", what Msgr. Fenton articulates is much more than mere speculation. It's a direct consequence of what the Church has always taught regarding the Magisterium.
So, where to begin? Fenton is not speaking about simple "authority".
1) He explains how this is limited to "teaching" and not to "authority" in general.
2) Even within teaching, he explains that it is limited to the substance of core theological principles that were taught to the Universal Church as normative for faith and morals ... not to each and every obiter dictum within the Papal Magisterium.
Essentially, if you were to do serious harm to your faith by assenting to the Magisterium on such core teachings, the Magisterium would have failed in its mission and defected. If the Magisterium got so corrupt that we, as you claim, MUST go so far as to refuse communion with the hierarchy, then the Magisterium would have failed. If an Ecumenical Council had taught Religious Liberty and religious indifferentism, and I accepted this and harmed (or even eventually lost) my faith, then the Magisterium would have defected.
This is nothing but Catholicism 101 ... vs. your brand of Protestantism that you pertinaciously promote here.
Hence there can be no valid reason to discountenance even the non-infallible teaching authority of Christ’s vicar on earth."This above quote is definitely psychological propaganda (catholic style) to get people ready for the V2 changes that were to come. If the above is true, then infallibility is meaningless. Of course the above is not true, and is an exaggeration of the authority of the papacy, which the Modernists used to their advantage, and which was necessary so that catholics would "obediently" swallow V2's errors.
There's nothing to correct. You grossly mischaracterized Fenton as promoting "blind obedience to authority". He does nothing of the sort in the article to which you refer. It is YOU who need to retract and correct your mistake. You're basically smearing Fenton ... to be point of bordering upon calumny.
The question of "Where is your living magisterium today" is THE question that all traditionalists ponder regardless of their stance on the crisis. Centroamerica is correct when he says that "Until the Church speaks on the post-conciliar crisis, the question regarding the legitimacy of the public and notorious heretic Bergoglio will not be resolved". Differently from the dogmatic truths concerning EENS, I can only write about my current personal conclusions on this crisis, which amount to mere speculations. You know I come from a previous, almost - dogmatic sedeplenist position. I have never supported the separatist SSPX rhetoric because it does not make sense. After reading Mons. Guerard Des Lauriers works though, I realized that his thesis has a lot of merit in explaining the reason why we are experiencing such an apparent swift in the current Magisterium.
I would not say that the current Magisterium is merely in a passive state of "standby" as this was a normal interregnum; no, I would go further and say that there exist at present time a para-magisterium, actively trying to destroy Catholicism by teaching falsehood and promoting world-wide "contra - verdades". Yes, I see that there are global active forces trying to pose as the Roman Catholic Church, which make sense, because the judeo-masonic infiltration of the Church is a fact well documented. Also, it makes more sense that there was an impostor placed to falsely occupy the Seat of Peter, rather than two thousand bishops apostatizing at once in Vatican II Council, because we know that all bishops of world without the Pope are not infallible.
In Des Lauriers words about the "Church Crisis": (using Google translation)
That is the precise date of the Magisterial contradiction occurring in a setting of a General Council, (with the promulgation of Dignitatis Humanae), which even if one wants to argue, is not infallible, it is evidently part of the Ordinary Magisterium of the Church, at the very least, and therefore, it is impossible that it teaches actively against the Faith. Contra-Verdades
Cantarella,
You are trying to answer questions that you do not have to answer. You have to begin from what is known with certainty and draw necessary conclusions but if something does not necessarily follow leave it alone.
It is a dogma that there will be perpetual successors in the papal office until the end of time. Francis/Bergoglio is no greater a heretic than his conciliar predecessors. Only his aggressive brashness, authoritarian spirit, vulgarity and overturning morality in the practical order has made him more repulsive than those who came before him even to the point of enlightening many conservative Catholics to rethink their positions. But it should not change the position of traditional Catholics.
Using the certainty of Catholic dogma we are obliged to reject everything from the conciliar church that does not accord with our immemorial ecclesiastical traditions. These traditions are not merely matters of Church discipline; they are necessary attributes of the faith that make the faith known and communicable to others. No pope possesses the authority to overturn these things but it does not require that he be removed from his office to oppose him. The office was established by God and only God can correct it. Just like the office of the high priest Caiphias. Jesus Christ advise to recognize and resist.
Remember the parable of the cockle. That cockle are heretics as taught by all the Church Fathers. The advice of Jesus Christ is to leave them until the harvest. The Church excommunicates heretics only because they are harming the faithful and that is a question of canon law. It is not a moral necessity.
The sedevacantists make the pope their rule of faith. They take the attribute of Indefectibility and interpret it to mean that the pope possesses a non-infallible infallibility and therefore can never teach doctrinal or moral error. This theory was harmless when the Church prospered but it clearly cannot stand the light of a clear examination.
The attributes of the Church: Infallibility, Indefectibility, and Authority relate directly to what St. Pius X identified in Pascendi as the three duties of the Church: to teach, to sanctify and to govern. There is an overlapping between the powers and the duties but the primary purpose of Indefectibility is duty to sanctify and worship God. Those who hold the pope as the rule of faith believe him to be infallible in his non-infallibility and thus either remove him from office or blindly obey and follow his every error. Those that hold dogma as the rule of faith subject obedience to the virtue of Religion and, like the man born blind, do not obey any command that directly or indirectly offends the virtue of Religion.
Some day we will learn that the evidence for the Indefectibility of the Church is the faithful Catholics who have preserved our immemorial ecclesiastical traditions, particularly, the immemorial received and approved rite of Mass, that is a dogma of our faith against a heretical hierarchy who would ‘deceive even the elect, if that were possible’.
Drew
Garbage. I already called drew out once for this strawman nonsense.
Nobody holds that the Pope is the rule of faith.
Nobody's talking here about what it boils down to. Indeed, the theological lynch pin for all these disagreements regarding the appropriate Catholic response to this crisis "boils down to" the pope and the papacy.
But here we're talking about the RULE OF FAITH.
So the authority of an Ecumenical Council, Vatican I, which I hope, we all agree is a legitimate and valid Council of the Church, is telling me that Blessed Peter and His Successors are to persevere in the rock-like strength he was granted, and does not abandon that guidance of the Church which he once received, so the Truth stands firm. I hope we all agree here (with the exception of, perhaps Poche) that to all appearances, Pope Francis and his conciliar predecessors are far from keeping such promise.
If then, any should deny that it is by the institution of Christ the Lord and by Divine right, that Blessed Peter should have a perpetual line of successors in the Primacy over the Universal Church, or that the Roman Pontiff' is the successor of Blessed Peter in this primacy; let him be anathema.
Ladislaus writes with erudition and solid doctrinal points. Making ad hominem attacks is both childish and pompous.....when in conformity with Tradition.
The Universal Ordinary Magisterium is infallible always. That’s de fide, not bogus.
The Universal Ordinary Magisterium is infallible always. That’s de fide, not bogus.This is not in dispute.
Catholic Encyclopedia:
You have eliminated the Magisterium as the PROXIMATE RULE OF FAITH. Consequently, you leave a vacuum, which is invariably filled with your private judgment. That's identical to Protestantism. I'm stunned that you don't understand this.
God often lets other fall into the same doctrinal and moral failings they unjustly accuse others of.This.
St. Thomas Aquinas --Great post!
Notice, as I have been saying, that the TRUTH itself is the "formal object of faith", whereas the "infallible and divine RULE" is the "Church's TEACHING" (aka Magisterium). It's this teaching that grants the requisite AUTHORITY to the truth MANIFESTED in the Scripture and provides its formal motive. Without the authority of the Church providing the formal motive of faith, there's no true supernatural faith. The, in the vacuum of this authority, "some other principle" (usually Protestant private judgment) fills the void.
Exactly as I have been articulating contrary to Drew's Protestantism.
With every post you simply expose your ignorance even more. Indeed the Magisterium is NOT part of God's Revelation. That Revelation ceased with the death of the Last Apostle. But the Magisterium does indeed come from God's AUTHORITY (which He left with and communicated to the Church). Just because it's extrinsic to the faith, per se, doesn't mean that it's not of God's authority ... but from man's. You do realize that Revelation and Authority are not co-extensive and that God's authority does operate outside of Revelation, right? Honestly, man, you're just a babbling fool with little or no grasp of basic logic. You can't distinguished between Pope and Magisterium, between faith and authority, between revelation and Magisterium, between revelation and authority ... but coflate all these notions like some ignoramus. This argument of yours quoted above has to be one of the most idiotic things I've read in a very long time.
When you appeal to DOGMA over and above the Magisterium, you have become a Protestant. It's the Magisterium that has the authority to interpret dogma There is NO APPEAL over the Magisterium to dogma.
Now, go ahead and say that not every pronouncement of the Magisterium is infallible or irreformable. That's an argument that can be debated among Catholic. But this nonsense where you make dogma the rule of faith cannot be countenanced among Catholics. You make yourself a Protestant heretic with this garbage.
Dogma is the object of our faith; it's WHAT we believe. But we do not believe dogma based on its own intrinsic truthfulness, but based on the authority of the Revealer, who can neither deceive nor be deceived. That's the formal motive of faith, the truthfulness of the Revealer. But, as the Protestants found out, when you take the Magisterium away as the proximate rule of faith, that creates a vacuum. We human beings ALWAYS have a proximate rule of faith. While some Prots tried in vain to set up various interpretation authorities, nothing short of God's authority in the Magisterium could suffice ... and everything else invariably reduces to PRIVATE JUDGMENT as the proximate rule of faith.
By appealing to DOGMA over the Magisterium, what you're really saying is that my, Drew's, INTERPRETATION of said DOGMA, TRUMPS the INTERPTATION OF THE MAGISTERIUM. YOU ARE MAKING YOUR PRIVATE JUDGMENT YOUR PROXIMATE RULE OF FAITH.
Modernism is condemned because it virtually destroys Christian dogma by denying that the dogmas of faith are contained in the revelation made by the Holy Spirit to the Catholic Church and subsequently defined through the supreme authority of the same Ecclesia docens{1} (https://www3.nd.edu/%7Emaritain/jmc/etext/oldtru02.htm#n_1). Once the Holy Spirit, speaking through the supreme magisterium{2} (https://www3.nd.edu/%7Emaritain/jmc/etext/oldtru02.htm#n_2) of the Church, defines a doctrine as de fide{3} (https://www3.nd.edu/%7Emaritain/jmc/etext/oldtru02.htm#n_3) the dogma in question remains, both in se{4} (https://www3.nd.edu/%7Emaritain/jmc/etext/oldtru02.htm#n_4) and in its external formula or terminology, unchanged and unchangeable, like God, Whose voice it communicates to us, in the shape of definite truth. Modernism tells us quite the reverse.
{1} (https://www3.nd.edu/%7Emaritain/jmc/etext/oldtru02.htm#n1) Ecclesia docens -- i.e., 'the teaching Church.'
{2} (https://www3.nd.edu/%7Emaritain/jmc/etext/oldtru02.htm#n2) Magisterium = 'teaching authority.'
{3} (https://www3.nd.edu/%7Emaritain/jmc/etext/oldtru02.htm#n3) De fide = 'what is of faith.'
{4} (https://www3.nd.edu/%7Emaritain/jmc/etext/oldtru02.htm#n4) In se = 'in itself.'
Rev. Father Norbert Jones, C.R.L., Old Truths, Not Modernist Errors, Exposure of Modernism and Vindication of its Condemnation by the Pope, 1908, (footnotes in original)
If we wish to proceed without offence along the true and royal road of divine justice, we must keep the declarations and teachings of the holy fathers as if they were so many lamps which are always alight and illuminating our steps which are directed towards God. Therefore, considering and esteeming these as a second word of God, in accordance with the great and most wise Denis, let us sing most willingly along with the divinely inspired David, The commandment of the Lord is bright, enlightening the eyes, and, Your word is a lamp to my feet and a light to my paths; and with the author of Proverbs we say, Your commandment is a lamp and your law a light, and like Isaiah we cry to the lord God with loud voice, because your commands are a light for the earth. For the exhortations and warnings of the divine canons are rightly likened to light inasmuch as the better is distinguished from the worse and what is advantageous and useful is distinguished from what is not helpful but harmful.
Therefore we declare that we are preserving and maintaining the canons which have been entrusted to the holy, catholic and apostolic church by the holy and renowned apostles, and by universal as well as local councils of orthodox [bishops], and even by any inspired father or teacher of the church. Consequently, we rule our own life and conduct by these canons and we decree that all those who have the rank of priests and all those who are described by the name of Christian are, by ecclesiastical law, included under the penalties and condemnations as well as, on the other hand, the absolutions and acquittals which have been imposed and defined by them.
Fourth Council of Constantinople.
And this power of designation is key. I don't know if any other sedeprivationists hold this, but if he can designate in general, then he can also designated/appoint a Bishop. And if that Bishop is not a heretic (or have some other impediment) that Bishop can formally exercise jurisdiction.At least some straight sedevacantists (maybe many?) also hold that a non-pope could legitimately make appointments via epikeia. John Lane for example.
This clearly suffices to meet the definition of Pastor Aeternus. If you take it too literally, it could never allow for even a brief interregnum between the death of one pope and the election of another.
Our captain Christ has given us the bearings unchangeable and clearly marked. Steady at the helm. Confidence and faith with sufficient heroism will get us home safely.
Even if this dogma was to be taken in the sense that R&R does, this is, the permanent physical occupancy of the See by a pope at all times, I do not see how this necessarily contradicts the sedeprivationist position, in which the permanency of the material hierarchy is fundamental (this is by the way, the main difference from strict sedevacantism). The Cassisiacum Thesis believes that the merely material occupation of Sees, currently by Bergoglio, is effectively transmitted in the Church, as long as the external human acts of a juridical order which are required for this continuance are carried on.
In the words of Fr. Bernard Lucien:
What is understood by Mission is the glory of God and the salvation of souls.
What is understood by Session is the material occupation of the See of Peter.
The ordering of these two is precisely what is lacking today in the Church militant because the materialiter pope does not have the habitual intention of doing good to the Church. He loses therefore, Authority; but not power of designation. This permanence of the hierarchical structure is absolutely required for the Church to retain her Apostolic nature.
It was the Third Council of Constantinople; not the Fourth.
And per your own reasoning, such condemnation of Pope Honorious is of dubious veracity; given that the narrative is not enclosed in a dogmatic canon. All the councils, from Nicea to Vatican I, have worded their dogmatic canons "If any one says...let him be anathema"; but if any teaching proposed by the Church is outside this strict bracket; is not infallible and therefore subject to error, according to Drew.
And that's a debate among Catholics with Catholic premises. But we can't start out with the Protestant heresy that dogma is the rule of faith rather than the Magisterium.But Drew maintains that it is the Magisterium which determines dogma; the Prots reject the whole idea of "magisterium." He says, in effect, the Magisterium provides us nourishment to eat (which Prots deny), but it cannot eat itself (and you agree with him; see below).
But Drew maintains that it is the Magisterium which determines dogma; the Prots reject the whole idea of "magisterium." He says, in effect, the Magisterium provides us nourishment to eat (which Prots deny), but it cannot eat itself (and you agree with him; see below).
By what "rule of faith" do you determine that the current Magisterium has gone "off the rails" and needs to be rejected?
No matter what the "rule of faith" is, at some point you must determine if the "rule of faith" applies to something, in this instance the current Magisterium. Even if your position is "doubt" and not rejection, that is still your determination of dubiety. If you base that on prior Magsterial statements . . . so does Drew in relying on infallible Magisterial utterances.
If you say the current Magisterium isn't the Magisterium, and its rules shouldn't be followed . . . how do you know that?
Dimond Brothers have summed up very nicely how R&R leads inexorably to a non-Catholic view of the Magisterium.
Does this mean absolute inerrancy in every single proposition that proceeds from the Magisterium? No. But it does mean that the Magisterium will always be a safe and reliable and sure guide to Catholic faith overall.
Dimond Brothers have summed up very nicely how R&R leads inexorably to a non-Catholic view of the Magisterium.Everything the popes said is certainly true. Your problem is that you don't know what the magisterium is and as long as you believe the magisterium they speak of to be the hierarchy, you never will.
Well, I suppose that these popes COULD have been wrong, just piously exaggerating the general safety and reliability of the Magisterium.
Does this mean absolute inerrancy in every single proposition that proceeds from the Magisterium? No. But it does mean that the Magisterium will always be a safe and reliable and sure guide to Catholic faith overall.
Good post. Thanks.
One of Drew's quotes on page 14, reply #200:
https://www.cathinfo.com/index.php?topic=48225.195
Dr(j)ew got completely destroyed by Cantarella and Ladislaus. :laugh1:
In your opinion, what is the Magisterium?From the thread titled: What exactly is the Magisterium? (https://www.cathinfo.com/anonymous-posts-allowed/what-exactly-is-the-magisterium/75/)
Only true in the minds of the sedes.This.
But Drew maintains that it is the Magisterium which determines dogma; the Prots reject the whole idea of "magisterium." He says, in effect, the Magisterium provides us nourishment to eat (which Prots deny), but it cannot eat itself (and you agree with him; see below).
By what "rule of faith" do you determine that the current Magisterium has gone "off the rails" and needs to be rejected?
No matter what the "rule of faith" is, at some point you must determine if the "rule of faith" applies to something, in this instance the current Magisterium. Even if your position is "doubt" and not rejection, that is still your determination of dubiety. If you base that on prior Magsterial statements . . . so does Drew in relying on infallible Magisterial utterances.
If you say the current Magisterium isn't the Magisterium, and its rules shouldn't be followed . . . how do you know that?
It was the Third Council of Constantinople; not the Fourth.
And per your own reasoning, such condemnation of Pope Honorious is of dubious veracity; given that the narrative is not enclosed in a dogmatic canon. All the councils, from Nicea to Vatican I, have worded their dogmatic canons "If any one says...let him be anathema"; but if any teaching proposed by the Church is outside this strict bracket; is not infallible and therefore subject to error, according to Drew.
Further, we accept the sixth, holy and universal synod {6 Constantinople III}, which shares the same beliefs and is in harmony with the previously mentioned synods in that it wisely laid down that in the two natures of the one Christ there are, as a consequence, two principles of action and the same number of wills. So, we anathematize Theodore who was bishop of Pharan, Sergius, Pyrrhus, Paul and Peter, the unholy prelates of the church of Constantinople, and with these, Honorius of Rome, Cyrus of Alexandria as well as Macarius of Antioch and his disciple Stephen, who followed the false teachings of the unholy heresiarchs Apollinarius, Eutyches and Severus and proclaimed that the flesh of God, while being animated by a rational and intellectual soul, was without a principle of action and without a will, they themselves being impaired in their senses and truly without reason.
The quote provided on the dogmatic canons being their rule of faith is from the first canon.
Fourth Ecumenical Council of Constantinople
If we wish to proceed without offence along the true and royal road of divine justice, we must keep the declarations and teachings of the holy fathers as if they were so many lamps which are always alight and illuminating our steps which are directed towards God. Therefore, considering and esteeming these as a second word of God, in accordance with the great and most wise Denis, let us sing most willingly along with the divinely inspired David, The commandment of the Lord is bright, enlightening the eyes, and, Your word is a lamp to my feet and a light to my paths; and with the author of Proverbs we say, Your commandment is a lamp and your law a light, and like Isaiah we cry to the lord God with loud voice, because your commands are a light for the earth. For the exhortations and warnings of the divine canons are rightly likened to light inasmuch as the better is distinguished from the worse and what is advantageous and useful is distinguished from what is not helpful but harmful.
Therefore we declare that we are preserving and maintaining the canons which have been entrusted to the holy, catholic and apostolic church by the holy and renowned apostles, and by universal as well as local councils of orthodox [bishops], and even by any inspired father or teacher of the church. Consequently, we rule our own life and conduct by these canons and we decree that all those who have the rank of priests and all those who are described by the name of Christian are, by ecclesiastical law, included under the penalties and condemnations as well as, on the other hand, the absolutions and acquittals which have been imposed and defined by them. For Paul, the great apostle, openly urges us to preserve the traditions which we have received, either by word or by letter, of the saints who were famous in times past.
Canon I, Fourth Ecumenical Council of Constantinople
Excellent questions! I hope you don't mind my making them my own. Ladislaus believes that the Indefectibility of the Church means that the pope possesses a fallible infallibility in the exercise of his ordinary authentic magisterium; a sort of negative infallibility whereby he can never lead any of the faithful into error. The theory is called "infallible security" (which I have already provided a link) from an earlier exchange with Ladislaus. Actually this may prove to be the most common property of those who hold the pope as the rule of faith. Since he is preserved from all public error, he can be safely followed wherever he leads.Drew,
So your questions are excellent. When did the Magisterium go "off the rails"? and, since dogma is not their rule of faith, How could they possibly ever know?
Drew
The following is a dogma of the Faith, Mr. Drew:What have they proposed at the Council to be held by all the faithful? We need to look at that Council and perhaps see that is was unlike any other.
The totality of the Bishops is infallible, when they, either assembled in general council or scattered over the earth propose a teaching of faith or morals as one to be held by all the faithful.
The totality of bishops assembled in a General Council is infallible. (This is, only IN UNION with the Pope of Rome). Yet, R&R denies this dogmatic truth when they pretend that it was possible that more than a thousand bishops united with a true Roman Pontiff, the Vicar of Christ on earth, maliciously taught error and promulgated falsehood to the Universal Church in Vatican II Council.
Let's see... two dogmatic and pastoral constitutions, nine decrees and three declarations, to begin with....At the same time a simple Catholic soul is not so ready to accept the abstract theological opinion of ONE theologian.
But why would I need to "look at the Council and see that was unlike any other"? As a simple Catholic soul, why would I have to scrutinize that?
I mean, if I can trust not even the Vicar of Christ on earth, whoever else can I trust? It used to be that Roman Catholics could just trust the Pope of Rome and accepted, as a matter of fact, that there was not a highest authority living on earth.
The following is a dogma of the Faith, Mr. Drew:
The totality of the Bishops is infallible, when they, either assembled in general council or scattered over the earth propose a teaching of faith or morals as one to be held by all the faithful.
The totality of bishops assembled in a General Council is infallible. (This is, only IN UNION with the Pope of Rome). Yet, R&R denies this dogmatic truth when they pretend that it was possible that more than a thousand bishops united with a true Roman Pontiff, the Vicar of Christ on earth, maliciously taught error and promulgated falsehood to the Universal Church in Vatican II Council.
Cantarella,In reference to the bold... Yes and it explains why they can't make any necessary distinctions. "You either obey everything or there is no Magisterium to speak of"
You are stumbling in the darkness already.
Since dogma is not your "rule of faith" why do you bother to quote it? You claim that the magisterium is your rule of faith, why not follow it? If the magisterium is in error, how can you possible know since you deny dogma as your rule of faith? You have nothing to judge anything by.
"The totality of bishops assembled in a General Council (with the pope) is infallible" only in potentia. To be infallible in acta requires that specific criteria be met which includes intent to define and impose upon the universal Church a question of faith and/or morals. Vatican II repudiated from the beginning to the end any claim to ever engage the attribute of Infallibility which Jesus Christ endowed His Church.
You cannot have it both ways. If the magisterium is your rule of faith and, like Ladislaus, you believe that the even in its ordinary authentic expression is necessarily free of error by virtue of the Church's attribute of Indefectibility, then how could Vatican II possible be in error? How can you possibly know if Vatican II "maliciously taught error and promulgated falsehood"? You have nothing by which to judge the matter.
You have no pope. You have no access to the Magisterium. You have no rule of faith. Sedevacantism and sedeprivationism are dead ends where all those stumbling souls who directly or indirectly hold the pope as their rule of faith fall into a hopeless mess of contradictions. What is fundamentally common to both errors is the overturning of dogma.
Drew
The following is a dogma of the Faith, Mr. Drew:Sorry Cantarella, but you are preaching a NO doctrine. This "totality of the Bishops is infallible....." is not a dogma. It is not even a Church teaching at all - and in fact is a contradiction of dogma per Vatican 1's teaching, which specifically states that the pope, and only the pope teaches infallibly, and only when he speaks ex cathedra. Your "dogma of the faith" is nowhere in any Church teaching. Outside of some writings from some 20th century theologians, the only place I have ever come across it is in Lumen Gentium (http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19641121_lumen-gentium_en.html), #25, especially the second paragraph - you are almost repeating LG word for word.
The totality of the Bishops is infallible, when they, either assembled in general council or scattered over the earth propose a teaching of faith or morals as one to be held by all the faithful.
The totality of bishops assembled in a General Council is infallible. (This is, only IN UNION with the Pope of Rome). Yet, R&R denies this dogmatic truth when they pretend that it was possible that more than a thousand bishops united with a true Roman Pontiff, the Vicar of Christ on earth, maliciously taught error and promulgated falsehood to the Universal Church in Vatican II Council.
The totality of "Bishops" necessarily includes the Bishop of Rome, right? ::). I was not referring to the bishops by themselves. It has been repeated that the key of infallibility here is the Bishop of Rome; the successor of St. Peter in union with the bishops in a setting of a General Council. No, it is not a NO doctrine. It is actually a very old Catholic belief that this general assembly is one of the organs of Church infallibility.I am trying to tell you that there is no such Catholic doctrine, that this "doctrine" only exists officially within the NO. The Bull of V1, Aeterni Patris (1869-1870), clearly defines the Church's infallibility, the NO "totality" doctrine is not in it - the "totality" doctrine, which doctrine is essential to the NO's collegiality farce, is eliminated by V1.
:facepalm:
:laugh1:
St. Thomas Aquinas and Ladialaus and Cantarella --
DOGMA: Formal Object of Faith
MAGISTERIUM: Rule of Faith
Drew --
DOGMA: Rule of Faith
MAGISTERIUM: Churchmen Opining About Various Doctrinal Subjects
You're seriously asking why someone might quote dogma? Because Dogma is that which is believed on the authority of the Church's teaching.
If anyone says that divine faith is not to be distinguished from natural knowledge about God and moral matters, and consequently that for divine faith it is not required that revealed truth should be believed because of the authority of God who reveals it: let him be anathema
Vatican I
"This faith, which is the beginning of human salvation, the Catholic Church professes to be a supernatural virtue, by means of which, with the grace of God inspiring and assisting us, we believe to be true what He has revealed, not because we perceive its intrinsic truth by the natural light of reason, but because of the authority of God himself, who makes the revelation and can neither deceive nor be deceived."
Vatican I
These books the church holds to be sacred and canonical not because she (the Church) subsequently approved them by her authority after they had been composed by unaided human skill, nor simply because they contain revelation without error, but because, being written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, they have God as their author, and were as such committed to the church.
Vatican I
The dogmas the Church holds out as revealed are not truths which have fallen from heaven. They are an interpretation of religious facts which the human mind has acquired by laborious effort. Condemned.
St. Pius X, Lamentabili
Wherefore, by divine and catholic faith all those things are to be believed which are contained in the word of God as found in scripture and tradition, and which are proposed by the church as matters to be believed as divinely revealed, whether by her solemn judgment or in her ordinary and universal magisterium.
Vatican I
"So the fathers of the fourth council of Constantinople, following the footsteps of their predecessors, published this solemn profession of faith: The first condition of salvation is to maintain the rule of the true faith. And since that saying of our lord Jesus Christ, You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, cannot fail of its effect, the words spoken are confirmed by their consequences."
Vatican I
The purpose of this is, then, not that dogma may be tailored according to what seems better and more suited to the culture of each age; rather, that the absolute and immutable truth preached by the apostles from the beginning may never be believed to be different, may never be understood in any other way.
Oath Against Modernism
Stumbling in darkness is thinking that a legitimate successor of St. Peter can lose the Faith and become a heretic, even though Christ purposely prayed for this not to happen; or that the current Vicar of Christ can lead souls to Hell, even though Christ expressly commanded Him to "feed His sheep".
Stumbling in darkness is thinking that you can be more Catholic than the "Pope". That the Pope you recognize as such has become an enemy of the Faith and therefore, you must severe communion from him, in order to keep the Faith.
This is real darkness right there for a Roman Catholic.
Tell me, if you think that the Pope of Rome can become a heretic, one after another one, for decades now, how is this not giving in to the accusations that the Protestants and Orthodox have made against us Catholics for centuries?.
bzzzt. But it is the CHURCH who tells us that God has revealed it. Thus the meaning of St. Augustine's quote: "I would not believe the Gospel myself if the authority of hte Catholic Church did not move me to do so."Protestantism?
Take your Protestantism elsewhere.
The Magisterium is the "teaching authority" of the Church. It is, like the Church itself, established by God and it is part of divine revelation. So you first massive error is that claim that the Magisterium has not been revealed by God. The Magisterium is grounded upon the attributes of Authority and Infallibility which God has endowed His Church and this is of divine revelation. These attributes are attributes of God alone and only of the Church because the Church is a divine institution. The Magisterium always teaches with the Authority of God the Truth of God without the possibility of error. We believe what the Magisteirum teaches because it is the Truth of God revealed by God. When the pope who is in potentia to the attribute of Infallibility teaches by the Magisterium, he does not teach on his own authority but the Authority of God. Thus dogma is divine revelation formally defined by the Church which we are obligated to believe because it is a Truth revealed by God on the Authority of God. Thus, the definition of faith is believing what God has revealed on the authority of God.
This bull contradicts you in the very first paragraph:
QuoteQuoteThe only-begotten Son of the Eternal Father, who came on earth to bring salvation and the light of divine wisdom to men, conferred a great and wonderful blessing on the world when, about to ascend again into heaven, He commanded the Apostles to go and teach all nations,(1) and left the Church which He had founded to be the common and supreme teacher of the peoples.
It is precisely this teaching Church (this is, the Magisterium) which Christ left, in order to be the common and supreme teacher of the peoples. The teaching Church is the Rule of Faith for all generations; contrary to what Mr. Drew says.
"Drew, your fight is against St. Thomas and all Catholic theologians, not with me. I'm not even going to bother with your last post. You can't seem to understand concepts as being formally distinct from one another. You act stunned when I wrote that the Magisterium is not part of God's Revelation. Magisterium is in fact formally distinct from Revelation."
Ladislaus
Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd? (https://www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/is-father-ringrose-dumping-the-r-r-crowd/msg600685/#msg600685)
« Reply #293 on: March 21, 2018, 08:17:44 AM »
The same as you, because of the Catholic Principle of Non-Contradiction. It is only that the reason of why this may have happened is different.
You cannot have it both ways, either and you also have no current Authority or Magisterium. The rule of Faith you are following are the dogmatic canons taught by the assemblies of Bishops in the past;but these differ from the disciplinary canons also promulgated in such Ecumenical Councils.
How do you make the difference between dogmatic canons and disciplinary canons (which are reversible) in past Councils? Doesn't make more Catholic sense to believe that everything which emanates from an Ecumenical Council is at least free from major error?
Do you have a concise list of the dogmatic canons that constitute your Rule of Faith, Mr. Drew?
“Wherefore, by divine and catholic faith all those things are to be believed which are contained in the word of God as found in scripture and tradition (remote rule of faith), and which are proposed by the church as matters to be believed as divinely revealed, whether by her solemn judgment or in her ordinary and universal magisterium” (proximate rule of faith).
Again, you distort her position in order to attack it. Straw man. St. Robert Bellarmine, first of all, held it as a "pious opinion" that the Pope could not even personally fall into heresy. St. Robert Bellarmine himself considered this probable. So now you attack a Doctor of the Church as a "papolator". In fact, you implicitly attack every Catholic theologian of "papolatry". "Papolatry", ironically, is the common Protestant attack against the Church.
What Cantarella says is that the Pope as Pope, in his office of teaching the Church, cannot fall into heresy ... i.e., that he can never teach heresy to the Universal Church (assuming that he's a legitimate pope).
Oh, come on now. Yes, the existence of the Magisterium was revealed. That's not what we're talking about.
When I say that the Magisterium is not part of Revelation, I'm simply reiterating the teaching of Vatican I regarding the distinction between Revelation and Magisterium. Magisterium is not part of Revelation; it's a distinct thing. It's the Church explaining and defining Revelation. It's formally distinct.
You don't answer questions so if I repeat myself below it's unfortunately a necessity under the circumstances. Or maybe some different questions will get a response.
Textbook. You appeal to dogma over and above the Magisterium, except what you're actually doing is preferring your own private interpretation of dogma to that of the Church.
Matthew 7
[1] (http://www.drbo.org/x/d?b=drb&bk=47&ch=7&l=1-#x) Judge not, that you may not be judged, [2] (http://www.drbo.org/x/d?b=drb&bk=47&ch=7&l=2-#x) For with what judgment you judge, you shall be judged: and with what measure you mete, it shall be measured to you again. [3] (http://www.drbo.org/x/d?b=drb&bk=47&ch=7&l=3-#x) And why seest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye; and seest not the beam that is in thy own eye? [4] (http://www.drbo.org/x/d?b=drb&bk=47&ch=7&l=4-#x) Or how sayest thou to thy brother: Let me cast the mote out of thy eye; and behold a beam is in thy own eye? [5] (http://www.drbo.org/x/d?b=drb&bk=47&ch=7&l=5-#x) Thou hypocrite, cast out first the beam in thy own eye, and then shalt thou see to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye.http://www.drbo.org/chapter/47007.htm
This bull contradicts you in the very first paragraph:Your above quote from Pope Leo XIII does not agree whatsoever with your echoing of V2's LG.QuoteThe only-begotten Son of the Eternal Father, who came on earth to bring salvation and the light of divine wisdom to men, conferred a great and wonderful blessing on the world when, about to ascend again into heaven, He commanded the Apostles to go and teach all nations,(1) and left the Church which He had founded to be the common and supreme teacher of the peoples.It is precisely this teaching Church (this is, the Magisterium) which Christ left, in order to be the common and supreme teacher of the peoples. The teaching Church is the Rule of Faith for all generations; contrary to what Mr. Drew says.
By the way, this bull also refers to the ecumenical councils as the "flowers of ALL earthly wisdom".
Stubborn, how do you distinguish an infallible teaching?"Wherefore, by divine and catholic faith all those things are to be believed, 1) which are contained in the word of God as found in scripture and tradition, and 2) which are proposed by the church as matters to be believed as divinely revealed, whether by her solemn judgment or in her ordinary and universal magisterium." - Pope Pius IX, First Vatican Council
This is what happens when the priest/bishop "theologians" prophesy the lie of their "immunity" from error in their teaching ALWAYS and whenever they open their mouths, and the people swallow it.
. . . . they are bound to teachings of their popes and bishops which are lies, on that account they cannot be bound to truth. They are bound to the method, not the matter.
Jeremiah 5
[11] For the house of Israel, and the house of Juda have greatly transgressed against me, saith the Lord. [12] They have denied the Lord, and said, It is not he: and the evil shall not come upon us: we shall not see the sword and famine. [13] The prophets have spoken in the wind, and there was no word of God in them: these things therefore shall befall them . . .
[26] For among my people are found wicked men, that lie in wait as fowlers, setting snares and traps to catch men. [27] As a net is full of birds, so their houses are full of deceit: therefore are they become great and enriched. [28] They are grown gross and fat: and have most wickedly transgressed my words. They have not judged the cause of the widow, they have not managed the cause of the fatherless, they have not judged the judgement of the poor. [29] Shall I not visit for these things, saith the Lord? or shall not my soul take revenge on such a nation? [30] Astonishing and wonderful things have been done in the land.
[31] The prophets prophesied falsehood, and the priests clapped their hands: and my people loved such things: what then shall be done in the end thereof?
http://www.drbo.org/chapter/28005.htm
This is what happens when the priest/bishop "theologians" prophesy the lie of their "immunity" from error in their teaching ALWAYS and whenever they open their mouths, and the people swallow it.Yes, being bound to the method, which can be evil, instead of being bound to the matter, which forever can be only truth, has resulted in the crisis we are in.
It results in the contradictions of Ladislaus at best (the Magisterium is indefectibile and without error in its teaching, except when that teaching is BOD, or a new rite of Mass, or whatever) and the apostasy of the NO church in masses at worst.
(Someone posted excerpts from Van Noort's Christ's Church already)Translation:
Translation:Never knew you had the gift of reading souls. Must be a wonderful gift to have.
"Someone posted excerpts from Van Noort's Christ's Church already, and I looked it up in order to attempt a rebuttal, but was unable to do so, and realized I was mistaken."
Church has never taught or defined BoD.The Magisterium teaches BOD in the Catechism of Trent. You simply say it's not to keep your idea of the indefectibility of the "teaching" Magisterium intact. The Magisterium is indeed teaching in the Catechism; that's the purpose of a catechism.
And the new Mass and NO teaching do not come from the Magisterium, but from a bunch of usurpers masquerading as the hierachy. That's precisely the point of sedeprivationism (as articulated by Father Ringrose and Father Chazal in in particular).
Never knew you had the gift of reading souls. Must be a wonderful gift to have.Res ipsa loquitur.
(Someone posted excerpts from Van Noort's Christ's Church already)Ha this is it.
The good news is that Ladislaus, Mr. Drew, Stubborn, Trad123, Maria Auxiliadora and me, we all are in definite agreement that BOD was never taught by the infallible Magisterium of the Church; let alone this Judaic novelty of "salvation by implicit desire".Cantarella (and Laudislaus),
:cheers:
Since when is a Catechism the Magisterium. It's a book and not infallible.It appears you have not been following the discussion.
I can't really rephrase since I don't understand your confusion.
I'm not sure I understand any of this. I haven't been following closely but your post is hard for me to follow. Not an insult BTW. Please rephrase if you want me to respond. If not, let me just leave these quotes.
Did these dogmas fall from Heaven straight to your intellect via private revelation, Mr. Drew? If you scratch the word "dogma" and replace it with "Scripture" that is exactly what the Protestants allege against us. There is a reason why they call us "papist". As said before, the dogmatic canons are such because the Magisterium of the Church taught it so in the past, via the highest organs of infallibility such an Ecumenical Council ratified by a Pope.
The dogmas the Church holds out as revealed are not truths which have fallen from heaven. They are an interpretation of religious facts which the human mind has acquired by laborious effort. Condemned St. Pius X, Lamentabili, 22
It is precisely this teaching Church (this is, the Magisterium) which Christ left, in order to be the common and supreme teacher of the peoples. The teaching Church is the Rule of Faith for all generations; contrary to what Mr. Drew says.
By the way, this bull also refers to the ecumenical councils as the "flowers of ALL earthly wisdom".
Your above quote from Pope Leo XIII does not agree whatsoever with your echoing of V2's LG.
Yes, certainly the Church is the supreme teacher because the Church is Christ, it is Christ's mystical body which He established on earth in order to teach us how to get to heaven. He left us His Mystical Body, which IS the Church. The Church is most assuredly the supreme teacher.
Catholics, being members of the Church, are members of Christ's mystical Body, the Church. Christ and the Church are one. They are one and the same, which is the reason why the Church He left us can never err and will last till the end of time - because the Church is Christ.
Heaven and earth will pass away, but it is His Words that will last forever. When you read dogma, you read His Words. His words are contained the Solemn Magisterium as well as in both the Ordinary Magisterium and the Universal Magisterium. This is the teaching of V1.
OTOH, the NO church is a church where all the bishops of the world in union with pope, gather in council, or are dispersed throughout the world teach whatever they want - and on that account alone whatever they teach is binding and infallible. This is the NO church. This is a NO doctrine and does not agree with Pope Leo's or any other Church teaching.
"Wherefore, by divine and catholic faith all those things are to be believed, 1) which are contained in the word of God as found in scripture and tradition, and 2) which are proposed by the church as matters to be believed as divinely revealed, whether by her solemn judgment or in her ordinary and universal magisterium." - Pope Pius IX, First Vatican Council
Truth is "the matter", the way we learn this truth is via "the method". We Catholics are bound to truth, it is the truth that binds us. It is therefore the matter that binds us, not the method. It is therefore "the matter" which is our rule of faith, not "the method".
OTOH, within the NO church, it is the method that binds them, not the matter. The NO matter ever changing and is therefore impossible to bind oneself too. This is why within the NO, they are bound to the method, not the matter, i.e. they are bound to teachings of their popes and bishops which are lies, on that account they cannot be bound to truth. They are bound to the method, not the matter.
Mr. Drew: the Vicar of Christ on earth is not a mere "churchman". The following is the Scriptural annotation I have in my Bible on Luke 22, 32, in which is taught that Popes may err personally; but not judicially or definitely. The dogmatic definition on Pastor Aeternum about Papal Infallibility is based upon such verse. This was true for St. Peter as well as for all his legitimate successors:
I have studied this matter. The evidence for the improbability of the Pope ever falling into personal heresy, (let alone teaching it via an Ecumenical Council); heavily outweighs the evidence otherwise. "For it was of congruity and Christ's special appointment, that he upon whom he intended to found his new Church, and whose Faith He would make infallible...". It is common knowledge that this argument of Pope Honorius has been repeatedly made against the Catholic claims of Papal infallibility for many centuries, but why should I take side with the Protestants, Orthodox, the SSPX and the likes of Salza & Siscoe on this matter?
No, my Rule of Faith is the Magisterium of the Roman Catholic Church in its highest manifestation of Infallibility. Namely, Ecumenical Councils and dogmatic ex-cathedra statements by the successors of St. Peter.
Because we know that the Church cannot contradict Herself; and to all appearances, there is a contradiction in Vatican II Council from previous Magisterial Teaching; then that it may be an indication that a true successor of St. Peter did not promulgated it. It could be an explanation for the consequent and successive chain of evils, following the Council as well.
I can look for Truth with confidence in ex-cathedra statements by the Popes and Ecumenical Councils up until Vatican II where there was a contradiction in a setting of a General Council, and an evident swift of the Magisterium as to make the Roman Catholic Church practically unrecognizable.
That is all.
Cantarella,This post was addressed to Cantarella. Reply # 399
The denial that dogmas are "truths fallen from heaven" is a condemned proposition of the Moderenists from Lamentabili.
When you exchange the word "dogma" for "scripture," you are replacing the proximate rule of faith for the remote rule of faith which changes the meaning of the post.
Acceptance of the proximate rule of faith necessarily presupposes acceptance of the Magisterium (the "teaching authority") and the papal office which alone can engage the teaching authority which is grounded upon the powers of Infallibility and Authority which Jesus Christ endowed His Church through which dogmas come. The papal office is the necessary but insufficient means to define doctrine as dogma. It is the material and efficient cause of dogma. Dogmas are the formal objects of divine and Catholic faith, they are "truths fallen from heaven, and as such, are divine revelation that constitute the proximate rule of faith. The Magisterium is the means used by God brings these truths to His faithful, not "private revelation."
In addition to rejection of the Magisterium, Protestants also reject Tradition as a source of divine revelation.
Drew
Cantarella,This was also addressed to Cantarella. Reply # 401
I have no disagreement with the quote you have provided. The "never failing faith" means that the successors of St. Peter can never formally engage the Magisterium grounded upon the attributes of Infallibility and Authority to bind errors of faith and/or morals on the faithful.
Regarding Pope Honorius, it is a fact that he was declared a heretic and anathematized by more two ecumenical councils about 200 years apart. It is unfortunate that others have tried to excuse this fact or mitigate its implications because, if these two ecumenical councils erred than the consequences are far worse than the problem of Honorius. Still, it is worth emphasizing that never was the question ever considered that Pope Honorius lost his office because of heresy.
Drew
Cantarella,And this was also addressed to Cantarella. Reply #402
I have no disagreement with what you have said. The Magisterium is the means and its end is the "highest manifestation of Infallibility. Namely, Ecumenical Councils and dogmatic ex-cathedra statements by the successors of St. Peter." It is this end to which we look for what we are to believe as formal objects of divine and Catholic faith. They are the whatness of our faith and consequently constitute the proximate rule of our faith.
I have no disagreement that Vatican II contradicts "previous Magisterial teaching," that is, the magisterium of Vatican II contradicts the proximate rule of faith, Dogma. But the magisterium of Vatican II formally refused to engage the Magisterial power of the Church grounded upon its attributes of Infallibility and Authority. It therefore has no more authority than churchmen teaching by their grace of state. And, as important as this is, when this teaching by their grace of state contradicts Dogma, the proximate rule of faith, it must be rejected, when, as you said, we can "look for Truth with confidence in ex-cathedra statements by the Popes and Ecumenical Councils up until Vatican II," that is, we can look to dogma. We reject it because "we ought to obey God rather than men."
Drew
But other than that, what's the difference between JP2 issuing an Encyclical and Karol Woytla writing a book about Theology of the Body?All papal teachings are to be given 'religious assent' which is a cautious acceptance. JP2's encyclicals were not authoritative, in the sense that he did not solemnly engage his infallibility. Therefore, they are in the realm of the ordinary, fallible magisterium, as teachings from his PERSONAL BISHOP's office as a theologian, historian, etc.
EVERY Catholic theologian teaches that the Magisterium is the proximate rule of faith.Actually Lad, the point here is that you are the one who believes this (https://www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/is-father-ringrose-dumping-the-r-r-crowd/msg601323/#msg601323) opinion from Van Noort, which is shared with some other 19th/20th century theologians, to be dogma. This "dogma's" validity wholly depends upon on the "totality of bishops doctrine", which was never a teaching of the Church, you will not find this "totality doctrine" in any Church teaching. The only place you WILL find it officially taught, is in the teachings of V2 as I already posted. It is a teaching, nay a dogma of the NO that you are attempting to defend.
I love if how Stubborn dismisses with a wave of his hand any 19th/20th century theologian (who doesn't agree with him).
Stubborn,Exactly.
I think this is an excellent post worth giving serious reflection. Clearly and simply explained.
Vatican II has corrupted the meaning of the word "universal" magisterium by making it a purely material object divorced from the attribute of time.
Drew
The Teaching office of the Church. This must have the Pope included and it must be clear that the teaching has been divinely revealed. Since Peter and his successors were the only ones promised an unfailing faith, Catechisms, Theologians, non-Pope saints, Bishops not in union with the Pope are all examples of not the Magisterium.That is a decent definition. Thanks. I agree with it.
The Solemn Magisterium is the Ex Cathedra statements as outlined by the Vatican Council. The Ordinary and Universal Magisterium is the teachings that are not set in that manner but nevertheless teach something divinely revealed. Usually a reiteration of a solemn declaration.
There are no teachings of the Magisterium that are erroneous or fallible. If a teaching is opposed to an Infallible Teaching, it is not of the Magisterium.
Quote from: Jeremiah2v8 on Yesterday at 10:18:26 AM (https://www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/is-father-ringrose-dumping-the-r-r-crowd/msg601346/#msg601346)That is not what you "say," perhaps, but it is what you do (e.g., BOD).QuoteIf Ladislaus defines the Magisterium as "the Church teaching infallibly," we would not be having this discussion. If he defines it that way, he can tell us.
Nonsense. This discussion hasn't been about infallibility ... but about whether the Magisterium is the Rule of Faith, or dogma is (as Drew has been asserting).
I have repeatedly stated that, if you want to argue about the limits of infallibility, that's a separate issue that can be disputed among Catholic (to a point). But to go around saying that Catholics can appeal to dogma over the Magisterium because Dogma is in fact the proximate rule of faith ... that's Protestantism.
Sorry for the repost, but the picture isn't visible when not logged in. Here's the text from Van Noort:
The proximate rule of faith, from which the faithful, one and all, are bound to accept their faith and in accordance with which they are to regulate it, is the preaching of the ecclesiastical magisterium. The following assertions concern the proximate rule of faith.
1. The Church's preaching was established by Christ Himself on the rule of faith. This can be proved from Matthew 28:19-20 and Mark 16:15-16; the command to teach all nations certainly implies a corresponding duty on the part of the nations to believe whatever the apostles and their successors teach.
There were many Church Councils that the pope was not even present. Some even called by the Emperors. I’m not sure, but the pope may have sent his delegate to those that he was not present. Fr. Hesse goes into the history of church councils and talks about the many church councils were the pope did not come.In the last few months, I've listened to a handful of Fr. Hesse's sermons and if I recall correctly, didn't Fr. say that the popes did not call those councils, but they did end up going to them?
In the last few months, I've listened to a handful of Fr. Hesse's sermons and if I recall correctly, didn't Fr. say that the popes did not call those councils, but they did end up going to them?He mentions several that the pope did not even go to.
In the last few months, I've listened to a handful of Fr. Hesse's sermons and if I recall correctly, didn't Fr. say that the popes did not call those councils, but they did end up going to them?Start at minute 4:50 and you will see that there have been Councils called by Emperors where the Pope was not even present and te Councils were only approved as true Church Coincils centuries later.
Start at minute 4:50 and you will see that there have been Councils called by Emperors where the Pope was not even present and te Councils were only approved as true Church Coincils centuries later.Thanks! I see Fr. was correcting another one of the 20th century theologian's teachings, Ludwig Ott's, for his teaching that "the very fact that a pope calls a Council, makes it a Council."
https://youtu.be/xnEQIq4_AKI (https://youtu.be/xnEQIq4_AKI)
I just don't recognize this concept of Catholicism, that everything is a theological free-for-all except for a small amount of core dogma.Ladislaus, can you give me examples of a theological "free-for-all" that you speak of? What do you mean by 'small amount of core dogma'? Your comment presumes that there will be NEW dogma sometime in the future. How can that be possible, when ALL dogma is contained in scripture/tradition?
CATHOLICS MUST ASSENT TO MAGISTERIUM || CATHOLICS ARE FREE TO DISREGARD MAGISTERIUMAlso, for the 100th time, you simplify the magisterium and fail to distinguish between the infallible and fallible. What non-sede, non-novus ordo catholics reject is the FALLIBLE magisterium, which we are allowed to do, when the FALLIBLE magisterium DIRECTLY contradicts a previous SOLEMN definition by a previous magisterium.
NOVUS ORDO GOOD || NO Conservaties NO Liberals
NOVUS ORDO BAD || SV/SP R&R
Yeah, either that or at least entertain positive doubts about the legitimacy of the V2 papal claimants.No, you are either bound by the (your) magisterium to be a NOer, or you do not have an ounce of faith in the very thing you've been promoting the Church infallibly teaches.
The fact is that no one in history before R&R ever held that General Councils were not an Infallible Act of the Magisterium (even if they didn't word it like that). So we are left with two options; the Magisterium can err and has defected or those men were not Popes and V2 was not a Catholic Council.
Well...then prove it.
It's looking at it from the perspective that the Magisterium cannot, on the whole, be substantially corrupted.If the magisterium cannot substantially err, then why are you a sedeprivationist? Isn't that view admitting that the magisterium has erred and has lost its spiritual authority due to heresy?
I've found that this poster is not worth responding to at all ... along with Stubborn. They are so emotionally attached to their positions ... without the slightest logical backing or theological acumen ... that there's simply no dislodging them from it. I wouldn't waste even a few minutes of my time once a month responding to Meg or to Stubborn.You are just upset because you do not know what to believe Lad. The "totality of bishops doctrine" dictates that you absolutely must accept whatever they teach as being infallibly safe, but you reject that part of the doctrine. Why promote a doctrine that even you reject?
PS -- this poster is the one who's going around stalking me with downthumbs for every post, including ones that have nothing controversial about them. She's doing it out of spite.
Let's say Pius XII is giving some 2-hour allocution and slips up theologically once or twice. Is that substantial error in the Magisterium? No. But now Pius XII writes an encyclical teaching some erroneous doctrine to the Universal Church? At that point it's substantial error.How about an error regarding justification, like BOD, in a universal catechism for instruction on the faith, like the Catechism of Trent?
How about an error regarding justification, like BOD, in a universal catechism for instruction on the faith, like the Catechism of Trent?Keep pressing him Jeremiah and he'll decide that your posts are not worth responding to at all. That's how it goes with some people who cannot answer clear questions with clear answers and instead, prefer to dance around your questions and dispute the indisputable lest they admit they've had it wrong all along. Keep him - and us all in your prayers please.
Just a helluva "slip up"? I'd say that's substantial error.
No?
(Athanasius and the Church of Our Time, p. 23):
The priest Arius denied the central doctrine of Catholicism: the
divinity of Christ. He claimed that Jesus Christ was like God, but was not
really God. He thus fashioned a Christ who would be acceptable to the non-
Catholic world, who would be acceptable to both the Jewish people and the
pagans. Thus, Arianism was the first "ecumenical" religion.
Millions were led astray by this charismatic priest, including four out
of five bishops according to St. Jerome, and two-thirds of all priests. The
eminent patristic scholar Fr. Jurgens notes: "At one point in the Church's
history, only a few years before Gregory [Nazianzen]'s present preaching
(A.D. 380), perhaps the number of Catholic bishops in possession of sees, as
opposed to Arian bishops in possession of sees, was no greater than something
between 1% and 3% of the total. Had doctrine been determined by popularity,
today we should all be deniers of Christ and opponents of the Spirit." (W.A.
Jurgens, The Faith of the Early Fathers, Vol. 2, p. 39.)
Your a devotee of Des Lauriers, right? So whatever he said is de fide to you, apparently.
No, sedeprivationism means that the POPES do not exercise authority, predominantly teaching authority. In other words, it's not the Church teaching but these imposters pretending that they are teaching. Why are you conflating the Popes and the Magisterium?How can the magisterium exist without the pope? It can't. The pope is promised infallibility, and the bishops in union with the pope are promised infallibility, BUT NOT the bishops apart from the pope. If there is no pope, there is no magisterium, there is no teaching authority.
How can the magisterium exist without the pope? It can't. The pope is promised infallibility, and the bishops in union with the pope are promised infallibility, BUT NOT the bishops apart from the pope. If there is no pope, there is no magisterium, there is no teaching authority.Please post this teaching that the bishops in union with the pope are promised infallibility.
Why don't you give it a try?Wow Cantarella, it makes me very sad to see what has happened to you. I thought when you quoted a sede bishop who quoted from V2 and called that a dogma was pretty sad, but now this?
Post any Catholic source of any type outside the SSPX and the like, which teaches that an Ecunemical Council ratified by a Pope can err. The same request was made to Pax Vobis and Mr. Drew before, but we are still waiting.
No, these are the actual two alternatives for Catholics. Defection of the Church is not an option (although I know that you meant it only logically).The V2 hierarchy, while not the Church, is legitimate - and they preach(ed) lies.
EITHER the V2 hierarchy is not legitimate or V2 taught truth.
From a story about St. Thomas Aquinas --
Well, I would sooner believe that Religious Liberty is true than to believe that THE CHURCH could lie. Hands down. It's not even a question. If I came to the conclusion that the V2 hierarchy was/is/has been legitimate, then I would go the way of all those conservative EWTN Catholics where I spent my time showing how V2 can be reconciled with prior Magisterium.
Post any Catholic source of any type outside the SSPX and the like, which teaches that an Ecunemical Council ratified by a Pope can err. The same request was made to Pax Vobis and Mr. Drew before, but we are still waiting.For the record, I posted numerous theological opinions which state that EVERY WORD of conciliar documents are not infallible. Only those statements which are authoritarian, clear and bind the faithful to believe matters of faith and morals, are infallible.
Stop digressing. I don't believe that the Catechism of Trent taught BoD.
No, what these Popes are teaching about is the Magisterium considered AS A WHOLE, the "forest" vs. the "trees" view of it that I've been talking about. It's looking at it from the perspective that the Magisterium cannot, on the whole, be substantially corrupted.
[35. Adulti quomodo ante Baptismum instruendi sint.]
Diversam vero rationem in iis servandam esse, qui adulta aetate sunt, et perfectum rationis usum habent, qui scilicet ab infidelibus oriuntur, antiquae ecclesiae consuetudo declarat. Nam christiana quidem fides illis proponenda est, atque omni studio ad eam suscipiendam cohortandi, alliciendi, invitandi sunt. Quod si ad dominum Deum convertantur, tum vero monere oportet, ne, ultra tempus ab ecclesia praescriptum, baptismi sacramentum different. Nam cum scriptum sit: Non tardes converti ad Dominum, et ne differas de die in diem; docendi sunt perfectam conversionem in nova per baptismum generatione positam esse. Praeterea, quo serius ad baptismum veniunt, eo diutius sibi carendum esse ceterorum sacramentorum usu et gratia, quibus christiana religio colitur, cum ad ea sine baptismo nulli aditus patere possit: deinde etiam maximo fructu privari, quem ex baptismo percipimus; siquidem non solum omnium scelerum, quae antea admissa sunt, maculam et sordes baptismi aqua prorsus eluit ac tollit, sed divina gratia nos ornat, cuius ope et auxilio in posterum etiam peccata vitare possumus, iustitiamque et innocentiam tueri: qua in re summam christianae vitae constare facile omnes intelligunt.
[36. Adultis baptismum differendum esse demonstratur.]
Sed quamvis haec ita sint, non consuevit tamen ecclesia baptismi sacramentum huic hominum generi statim tribuere, sed ad certum tempus differendum esse constituit. Neque enim ea dilatio periculum, quod quidem pueris imminere supra dictum est, coniunctum habet; cum illis, qui rationis usu praediti sunt, baptismi suscipiendi propositum atque consilium, et male actae vitae poenitentia satis futura sit ad gratiam et iustitiam, si repentinus aliquis casus impediat, quo minus salutari aqua ablui possint. Contra vero haec dilatio aliquas videtur utilitates afferre. Primum enim, quoniam ab ecclesia diligenter providendum est, ne quis ad hoc sacramentum ficto et simulato animo accedat, eorum voluntas, qui baptismum petunt, magis exploratur atque perspicitur: cuius rei causa in antiquis conciliis decretum legimus, ut qui ex iudaeis ad fidem catholicam veniunt, antequam baptismus illis administretur, aliquot menses inter catechumenos essent: deinde in fidei doctrina, quam profiteri debent, et christianae vitae institutionibus erudiuntur perfectius. Praeterea, maior religionis cultus sacramento tribuitur, si constitutis tantum paschae et pentecostes diebus, solemni caeremonia baptismum suscipiant.
Ref: Catholic Church (1566) Catechismus ex Decreto Concilii Tridentini ad Parochos Pii Quinti Pont. Max. Iussu Editus. (Rome: Manutius) pp.197-198.
http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=TPxbAAAAQAAJ (http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=TPxbAAAAQAAJ)
Headings from the 1845 Rome edition. p.108 ff.
Here's my translation:-
[35. How adults should be instructed before baptism.]
The custom of the early Church testifies that a truly different method is to be kept for those who are at a mature age and have the complete use of reason, and for those who undoubtedly descend from infidels. For instance, the Christian faith is at least to be proposed to them, and they are also to be exhorted, drawn and invited to take it up with all zeal. If they are converted to the Lord God, then truly it is proper to advise them not to put off receiving the sacrament of baptism beyond the time prescribed by the Church; for seeing that it is written: Do not delay to convert to the Lord, and do not postpone it from day to day, they should be taught that complete conversion, by a new coming into being through baptism is, to be highly valued; in addition, those who come late for baptism, still further lose for themselves the advantage and the grace of the other sacraments with which the Christian religion is adorned, since, without baptism, no one can be permitted to approach them [= the other sacraments]; then also they are deprived of the chief reward which we secure from baptism; because not only does the water of baptism wash off and entirely take away the stain and uncleaness of every evil deed which they had previously committed, but it adorns us with divine grace, by whose power and assistance we are also able to avoid sins in the future and to safeguard [our] righteousness and innocence; which, in reality, all easily understand to be the chief point of the Christian life.
[36. It is shown that the Baptism of adults is to be delayed.]
But nevertheless the Church has not been accustomed to bestow the sacrament of baptism at once upon this kind of person, whomsoever they might be, but has appointed that it should be deferred to a fixed season. Nor, in fact, does that delay hold the associated danger, which was said above to be certainly imminent for children, since, for those who are endowed with the use of reason, the intention as well as the resolution of receiving baptism, and repentance for a life badly spent, would be sufficient for the grace and the righteousness [of baptism to be granted to them], if some sudden accident should impede them from being able to be washed in the water of salvation. Indeed, on the contrary, this delay seems to bring certain advantages. In the first place, in fact, because it is carefully provided for by the Church that, lest anyone approach this sacrament with a feigned and simulated spirit, the desire of those who seek baptism is, to a greater extent, investigated as well as observed, on account of which we read in ancient decrees of the Councils that those who come to the Catholic faith from the Jews, shall spend several months amongst the catechumens before baptism is administered to them. Then, they are to be completely instructed in the doctrine of the faith which they ought to profess, and in the institutions of the Christian life. Moreover, a greater degree of reverence is shown towards the sacrament, if it be arranged that, they receive baptism with solemn ceremony only on the days of Easter and Pentecost.
https://www.cathinfo.com/baptism-of-desire-and-feeneyism/sedevacantist-'-feeneyite-'-bishops/ (Reply 11)
"but please stop promoting this false and heretical notion that dogma is the proximate rule of faith ... against the teaching of all Catholic theologians."
"EVERY Catholic theologian teaches that the Magisterium is the proximate rule of faith.
I love if how Stubborn dismisses with a wave of his hand any 19th/20th century theologian (who doesn't agree with him)."
Drew, you are just too proud to accept that you've been wrong about this. Someone cited Van Noort, and one could cite a huge number of Catholic theologians. I started with St. Thomas himself. But you just keep regurgitating this nonsense because you won't admit that you got it wrong. But it's worse than nonsense; it's the very heretical root of Protestantism.
Again, I know that you're trying to do in order to bolster up R&R. Do that, instead, by arguing about the limits of the Magisterium, but please stop promoting this false and heretical notion that dogma is the proximate rule of faith ... against the teaching of all Catholic theologians. I know why you're clutching onto this with white knuckles ... because you argued this position in some op ed piece (or whatever that was, I can't recall 100%). You similarly erred in misunderstanding and mischaracterizing the notion of "religious assent" to the Magisterium.
If you want to back R&R, just stick to your argument that the teaching of V2 can be rejected as fallible Magisterium. But let go of this error.
.No, more like Fred Sanford.
Kind of reminds me of a guy driving a beat up, rusty old pick up truck with the muffler hanging down and wearing clothes from the salvation army, trying to tell you how to become rich.
.
Oh, you mean like Sam Walton?
This is just a repetition of the old doctrine that all the bishops dispersed throughout the world in union with the Pope are infallible "when they propose a teaching of faith or morals as one to be held by all the faithful". The words "dispersed" just means that they are not gathered in the setting of an Ecunemical Council. What is the issue with it? All that it means is that there is no need to have the setting of a General Council in which all the bishops are present, in order to engage the Magisterium; which makes sense, given that there has only been 21 Ecunemical Councils since the Church foundation; so not ALL living generations have had an Ecunemical Council going during life time.It is not an old doctrine, it is officially a Novus Ordo doctrine, found only in the official documents of V2, specifically, it is found only in Lumen Gentium #25.
This is just a repetition of the old doctrine that all the bishops dispersed throughout the world in union with the Pope are infallible
#1
“For even if it were a matter of that submission which must be manifested by an act of divine faith, nevertheless, this would not have to be limited to those matters that have been defined by explicit decrees of ecumenical councils or by the Roman pontiffs and by this Apostolic See, but would also have to be extended to the totality of the Bishops [which is] is infallible, when they, either assembled in general council or scattered over the earth propose a teaching of faith or morals as one to be held by all the faithful.
#2
Even when it is only a question of the submission owed to divine faith, this cannot be limited merely to points defined by the express decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, or of the Roman Pontiffs and of this Apostolic See; this submission must also be extended to all that has been handed down as divinely revealed by the ordinary teaching authority of the entire Church spread over the whole world, and which, for this reason, Catholic theologians, with a universal and constant consent, regard as being of the faith. [the Ordinary Magisterium]
when they propose a teaching of faith or morals as one to be held by all the faithful"Cantarella,
Here’s what you guys are missing...the important factor of being “divinely revealed”.Pax Vobis,
Keep pressing him Jeremiah and he'll decide that your posts are not worth responding to at all. That's how it goes with some people who cannot answer clear questions with clear answers and instead, prefer to dance around your questions and dispute the indisputable lest they admit they've had it wrong all along. Keep him - and us all in your prayers please.Stubborn,
It is not an old doctrine, it is officially a Novus Ordo doctrine, found only in the official documents of V2, specifically, it is found only in Lumen Gentium #25.
In fact, the part I bolded in #3 is by far the best definition of what the Ordinary Magisterium is that I have seen so far.
Pope Pius IX in Tuas Libenter
1) "We love to think that they have not intended to restrict this obligation of obedience, which is strictly binding on Catholic professors and writers, solely to the points defined by the infallible judgment of the Church as dogmas of faith which all men must believe.
2) And We are persuaded that they have not intended to declare that this perfect adhesion to revealed truths, which they have recognized to be absolutely necessary to the true progress of science and the refutation of error, could be theirs if faith and obedience were only accorded to dogmas expressly defined by the Church.
3) Even when it is only a question of the submission owed to divine faith, this cannot be limited merely to points defined by the express decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, or of the Roman Pontiffs and of this Apostolic See; this submission must also be extended to all that has been handed down as divinely revealed by the ordinary teaching authority of the entire Church spread over the whole world, and which, for this reason, Catholic theologians, with a universal and constant consent, regard as being of the faith. [the Ordinary Magisterium]
4) But, since it is a question of the submission obliging in conscience all those Catholic who are engaged in that study of the speculative sciences so as to procure for the Church new advantages by their writings, the members of the Congress must recognize that it is not sufficient for Catholic savants to accept and respect the dogmas of the Church which We have been speaking about: they must, besides, submit themselves, whether to doctrinal decisions stemming from pontifical congregations, or to points of doctrine which, with common and constant consent, are held in the Church as truths and as theological conclusions so certain that opposing opinions, though they may not be dubbed heretical, nonetheless, merit some other form of theological censure.
*******************
*******************
In this teaching above, we read in #1 that dogma rules, that all men must believe the defined dogmas of the Church, not some vague idea of a magisterium. In #2, we read that perfect adhesion to dogma ("revealed truths") is absolutely necessary in the refutation of error. This agrees with dogma being the rule of faith.
We learn in #3 that we cannot limit our beliefs to defined dogma, that we must also believe (faithfully submit to) "all that has been handed down as divinely revealed by the ordinary teaching authority of the entire Church spread over the whole world" (the Ordinary Magisterium).
In and of itself, #3 and #4 kills the "totality of bishops doctrine" with the words "all that has been handed down". They then bury it 6 feet under with the words "with a universal and constant consent, regard as being of the faith" since here, the word "universal" simply means "always and every where". The term "constant consent" means that all of the Church's authorities and learned have accepted and taught as a part if the faith since the time of the Apostles.
Because he includes the attribute of time, he immediately eliminates the "totality of bishops doctrine", which by it's very nature excludes the attribute of time.
Dignitatis Humanae of Vatican II
“PAUL, BISHOP, SERVANT OF THE SERVANTS OF GOD, TOGETHER WITH THE FATHERS OF THE SACRED COUNCIL FOR EVERLASTING MEMORY…(# 9): The things which this Vatican Synod declares [declarat] concerning the right of man to religious liberty, have their foundation in the dignity of the person, whose needs have become more fully known to human reason through the experience of the ages. In fact, this doctrine [doctrina] on liberty has its roots in divine Revelation; with all the more reason, therefore, it is to be preserved [servanda est] sacredly by Christians…(# 12): The Church therefore, faithful to the truth of the Gospel, follows the way of Christ and the Apostles when it acknowledges the principle of religious liberty as in accord with human dignity and the revelation of God, and when it promotes it…EACH AND EVERY ONE OF THE THINGS SET FORTH IN THIS DECREE HAS WON THE CONSENT OF THE FATHERS. WE, TOO, BY THE APOSTOLIC AUTHORITY CONFERRED ON US BY CHRIST, JOIN WITH THE VENERABLE FATHERS IN APPROVING, DECREEING, AND ESTABLISHING THESE THINGS IN THE HOLY SPIRIT, AND WE DIRECT THAT WHAT HAS THUS BEEN ENACTED IN SYNOD BE PUBLISHED TO GOD’S GLORY… I, PAUL, BISHOP OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH.”
From MHFM
Dignitatis Humanae of Vatican II
“PAUL, BISHOP, SERVANT OF THE SERVANTS OF GOD, TOGETHER WITH THE FATHERS OF THE SACRED COUNCIL FOR EVERLASTING MEMORY…(# 9): The things which this Vatican Synod declares [declarat] concerning the right of man to religious liberty, have their foundation in the dignity of the person, whose needs have become more fully known to human reason through the experience of the ages. In fact, this doctrine [doctrina] on liberty has its roots in divine Revelation; with all the more reason, therefore, it is to be preserved [servanda est] sacredly by Christians…(# 12): The Church therefore, faithful to the truth of the Gospel, follows the way of Christ and the Apostles when it acknowledges the principle of religious liberty as in accord with human dignity and the revelation of God, and when it promotes it…EACH AND EVERY ONE OF THE THINGS SET FORTH IN THIS DECREE HAS WON THE CONSENT OF THE FATHERS. WE, TOO, BY THE APOSTOLIC AUTHORITY CONFERRED ON US BY CHRIST, JOIN WITH THE VENERABLE FATHERS IN APPROVING, DECREEING, AND ESTABLISHING THESE THINGS IN THE HOLY SPIRIT, AND WE DIRECT THAT WHAT HAS THUS BEEN ENACTED IN SYNOD BE PUBLISHED TO GOD’S GLORY… I, PAUL, BISHOP OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH.”
From MHFM
Ecclesia igitur, evangelicae veritati fidelis, viam Christi et Apostolorum sequitur quando rationem libertatis religiosae tamquam dignitati hominis et Dei revelationi consonam agnoscit eamque fovet.
http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_decl_19651207_dignitatis-humanae_lt.html
Yes, we are; but only if Pope Paul VI was a true Pope; because only the papal approbation is what makes the decrees of an Ecunemical Council binding. You are going out of the way, but it is quite unnecessary. Simply, do a dispassionate research on the infallibility of Ecunemical Councils. I recommend you start by reading the dogmatic Profession of Faith imposed by Pope Saint Horsmidas (514-23) on the Eastern bishops implicated in the schism of Acacius.You cannot get out of it like that - at least not honestly. By doubting the legitimacy of pope Paul VI, and on that account rejecting your own rule of faith, clearly demonstrates that you have no faith whatsoever in your own rule of faith. Can't you see that?
R&R is trying way too hard. I know because I have been there, but we do not have to.
Pastor Aeternus IV.2
So the fathers of the fourth Council of Constantinople, following the footsteps of their predecessors, published this solemn profession of faith: "The first condition of salvation is to maintain the rule of the true faith. And since that saying of our lord Jesus Christ, You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church,cannot fail of its effect, the words spoken are confirmed by their consequences. For in the Apostolic See the Catholic religion has always been preserved unblemished, and sacred doctrine been held in honor.
You guys have absolutely NO shame whatsoever. You need to read ALL of Pastor Aeternus; if you have any Catholic bones left in your body, then you should blush with shame for ever having embraced R&R. But then you can just claim that Pastor Aeternus got it wrong.
This ^^^ is in direct contradiction to Vatican I...No it's not.
Wherefore, by divine and catholic faith all those things are to be believed which are contained in the word of God as found in scripture and tradition, and which are proposed by the church as matters to be believed as divinely revealed, whether by her solemn judgment or in her ordinary and universal magisterium.The ordinary magisterium is fallible unless it agrees with "what has always been taught" (i.e. Apostolic Tradition), then it's UNIVERSAL because it agrees with the ETERNAL truths taught by Christ..
Your [false] accusation that I am a liar comes from the fact that you are simply incapable of understanding that words can be used in different ways.
Define Revelation. Revelation can be used for the revealed truths themselves, or for the PROCESS of Revelation, whereby God revealed Himself to us.
Indeed, the existence of the Magisterium is A revealed truth. I did not disagree with this. When I said that the Magisterium is not part of Revelation, I was referring to the process of Revelation.
This is precisely the distinction taught by Vatican I: Pastor Aeternus IV.6.
Whereas Revelation "makes known some new doctrine", Magisterium "religiously guards and faithfully expounds the revelation or deposit of faith". Popes do not REVEAL doctrine but, rather,
I can't help you are incapable of understanding the difference.
PS -- R&R distort the meaning of this passage to make it sound as if WHEN the Magisterium expounds "some new doctrine", then it can be rejected. But this passage is nothing more than a definition of the Magisterium, the Church's teaching authority, as distinct from Revelation.
And this is what I said in stating correctly that the Magisterium is not part of Revelation.
No, Drew, you the liar. You repeated the assertion that we consider the Pope to be the rule of faith even after I pointed out that it was not correct but was a dishonest strawman argument.
Drew, your fight is against St. Thomas and all Catholic theologians, not with me.
I'm not even going to bother with your last post. You can't seem to understand concepts as being formally distinct from one another. You act stunned when I wrote that the Magisterium is not part of God's Revelation. Magisterium is in fact formally distinct from Revelation. In Revelation, God reveals His truth to us. With Magisterium, the Church teaches and interprets and explains said truth. It is not the Church's teaching authority which REVEALS the truth. In fact, Vatican I clearly explained that papal Magisterium (in the context of infallibility) is to given to reveal new truth but merely to explain and protect it. If you cannot understand how these are different, then I just can't help you. Then your post goes downhill from there.
Ladislaus
"Oh, come on now. Yes, the existence of the Magisterium was revealed. That's not what we're talking about.
"When I say that the Magisterium is not part of Revelation, I'm simply reiterating the teaching of Vatican I regarding the distinction between Revelation and Magisterium. Magisterium is not part of Revelation; it's a distinct thing. It's the Church explaining and defining Revelation. It's formally distinct."
Ladisalus
"To simplify, the faith is the WHAT believed while the rule is related to the WHY believed."
Ladislaus
And then Drew claims that the indefectibility of the Magisterium has not been defined.
Let's keep reading in Pastor Aeternus. (IV.6-7)
Vatican I teaches that the Papal Magisterium was given by God so that the "whole flock of Christ might be kept away ... from the poisonous food of error" ... and yet R&R have the audacity to assert, in direct defiance of Vatican I, that the Papal Magisterium has in fact SUPPLIED this "poisonous food of error" to the "whole flock of Christ". How can you affirm, with your non-Catholic R&R position, that the Holy See "remains unblemished by any error". Disgraceful! Get thee behind me, Satan. R&R claims that the Papal Magisterium has failed to realize its end of protecting the flock from error, i.e. that it has defected.
You guys have absolutely NO shame whatsoever. You need to read ALL of Pastor Aeternus; if you have any Catholic bones left in your body, then you should blush with shame for ever having embraced R&R. But then you can just claim that Pastor Aeternus got it wrong. After all, these passages are not infallible because they do not come in the form of a solemn definition. You can just discard any non-infallible teaching of the Magisterium at a whim, because you in your brilliant private judgment have deemed it incompatible with dogma.
Many of you are nothing but Protestant heretics and schismatics.
Pastor aeternus is the Dogmatic Constitution of the Church of Christ, issued by the First Vatican Council, July 18, 1870. The document defines four doctrines of the Catholic faith: 1) the apostolic primacy conferred on Peter, 2) the perpetuity of the Petrine Primacy in the Roman pontiffs, 3) the meaning and power of papal primacy, and 4) Papal Infallibility - infallible teaching authority (magisterium) of the Pope. Wikipedia
The only thing that I have affirmed is that the attribute of Indefectibility has not been dogmatically addressed as has the attribute of InfallibilityI agree with the idea that Indefectibility has not has not been adequately explained. If it had been, then we wouldn't have certain people arguing that indefectibility is a "backup plan" for the church's magisterium, which renders the pope as a living oracle, incapable of "substantial" error and making the power of infallibility pointless.
Reply #464
Quote from: Ladislaus on Yesterday at 03:07:26 PM (https://www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/is-father-ringrose-dumping-the-r-r-crowd/msg601543/#msg601543)QuoteStop digressing. I don't believe that the Catechism of Trent taught BoD.
Unfortunately for you, I'm not digressing, but bringing up a very relevant point that directly contradicts not only your position but your attacks on the positions of others, e.g., Stubborn and Drew.
What is under discussion is the view that the Magisterium is free from error. You have yet to offer a definition of that critical term, Magisterium. You quote popes who say that the Magisterium is "free from error" then you go off on Thomas substance/accidents and say:
QuoteQuoteNo, what these Popes are teaching about is the Magisterium considered AS A WHOLE, the "forest" vs. the "trees" view of it that I've been talking about. It's looking at it from the perspective that the Magisterium cannot, on the whole, be substantially corrupted.
Why don't you go back and look at your quotes from the popes. Here's some of the phrases they used: "unable to be mistaken," "without danger of error," "could by no means commit itself to erroneous teaching." That is far more than "cannot, on the whole, be subtantially corrupted." Nice try, though, with that Thomist stuff. Impressive.
And now you say that you "don't believe" that the Catechism of Trent taught BoD. Here's the language, using a quote from another poster, which is cited:
QuoteQuote[35. Adulti quomodo ante Baptismum instruendi sint.]
Diversam vero rationem in iis servandam esse, qui adulta aetate sunt, et perfectum rationis usum habent, qui scilicet ab infidelibus oriuntur, antiquae ecclesiae consuetudo declarat. Nam christiana quidem fides illis proponenda est, atque omni studio ad eam suscipiendam cohortandi, alliciendi, invitandi sunt. Quod si ad dominum Deum convertantur, tum vero monere oportet, ne, ultra tempus ab ecclesia praescriptum, baptismi sacramentum different. Nam cum scriptum sit: Non tardes converti ad Dominum, et ne differas de die in diem; docendi sunt perfectam conversionem in nova per baptismum generatione positam esse. Praeterea, quo serius ad baptismum veniunt, eo diutius sibi carendum esse ceterorum sacramentorum usu et gratia, quibus christiana religio colitur, cum ad ea sine baptismo nulli aditus patere possit: deinde etiam maximo fructu privari, quem ex baptismo percipimus; siquidem non solum omnium scelerum, quae antea admissa sunt, maculam et sordes baptismi aqua prorsus eluit ac tollit, sed divina gratia nos ornat, cuius ope et auxilio in posterum etiam peccata vitare possumus, iustitiamque et innocentiam tueri: qua in re summam christianae vitae constare facile omnes intelligunt.
[36. Adultis baptismum differendum esse demonstratur.]
Sed quamvis haec ita sint, non consuevit tamen ecclesia baptismi sacramentum huic hominum generi statim tribuere, sed ad certum tempus differendum esse constituit. Neque enim ea dilatio periculum, quod quidem pueris imminere supra dictum est, coniunctum habet; cum illis, qui rationis usu praediti sunt, baptismi suscipiendi propositum atque consilium, et male actae vitae poenitentia satis futura sit ad gratiam et iustitiam, si repentinus aliquis casus impediat, quo minus salutari aqua ablui possint. Contra vero haec dilatio aliquas videtur utilitates afferre. Primum enim, quoniam ab ecclesia diligenter providendum est, ne quis ad hoc sacramentum ficto et simulato animo accedat, eorum voluntas, qui baptismum petunt, magis exploratur atque perspicitur: cuius rei causa in antiquis conciliis decretum legimus, ut qui ex iudaeis ad fidem catholicam veniunt, antequam baptismus illis administretur, aliquot menses inter catechumenos essent: deinde in fidei doctrina, quam profiteri debent, et christianae vitae institutionibus erudiuntur perfectius. Praeterea, maior religionis cultus sacramento tribuitur, si constitutis tantum paschae et pentecostes diebus, solemni caeremonia baptismum suscipiant.
Ref: Catholic Church (1566) Catechismus ex Decreto Concilii Tridentini ad Parochos Pii Quinti Pont. Max. Iussu Editus. (Rome: Manutius) pp.197-198.
http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=TPxbAAAAQAAJ (http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=TPxbAAAAQAAJ)
Headings from the 1845 Rome edition. p.108 ff.
Here's my translation:-
[35. How adults should be instructed before baptism.]
The custom of the early Church testifies that a truly different method is to be kept for those who are at a mature age and have the complete use of reason, and for those who undoubtedly descend from infidels. For instance, the Christian faith is at least to be proposed to them, and they are also to be exhorted, drawn and invited to take it up with all zeal. If they are converted to the Lord God, then truly it is proper to advise them not to put off receiving the sacrament of baptism beyond the time prescribed by the Church; for seeing that it is written: Do not delay to convert to the Lord, and do not postpone it from day to day, they should be taught that complete conversion, by a new coming into being through baptism is, to be highly valued; in addition, those who come late for baptism, still further lose for themselves the advantage and the grace of the other sacraments with which the Christian religion is adorned, since, without baptism, no one can be permitted to approach them [= the other sacraments]; then also they are deprived of the chief reward which we secure from baptism; because not only does the water of baptism wash off and entirely take away the stain and uncleaness of every evil deed which they had previously committed, but it adorns us with divine grace, by whose power and assistance we are also able to avoid sins in the future and to safeguard [our] righteousness and innocence; which, in reality, all easily understand to be the chief point of the Christian life.
[36. It is shown that the Baptism of adults is to be delayed.]
But nevertheless the Church has not been accustomed to bestow the sacrament of baptism at once upon this kind of person, whomsoever they might be, but has appointed that it should be deferred to a fixed season. Nor, in fact, does that delay hold the associated danger, which was said above to be certainly imminent for children, since, for those who are endowed with the use of reason, the intention as well as the resolution of receiving baptism, and repentance for a life badly spent, would be sufficient for the grace and the righteousness [of baptism to be granted to them], if some sudden accident should impede them from being able to be washed in the water of salvation. Indeed, on the contrary, this delay seems to bring certain advantages. In the first place, in fact, because it is carefully provided for by the Church that, lest anyone approach this sacrament with a feigned and simulated spirit, the desire of those who seek baptism is, to a greater extent, investigated as well as observed, on account of which we read in ancient decrees of the Councils that those who come to the Catholic faith from the Jews, shall spend several months amongst the catechumens before baptism is administered to them. Then, they are to be completely instructed in the doctrine of the faith which they ought to profess, and in the institutions of the Christian life. Moreover, a greater degree of reverence is shown towards the sacrament, if it be arranged that, they receive baptism with solemn ceremony only on the days of Easter and Pentecost.
https://www.cathinfo.com/baptism-of-desire-and-feeneyism/sedevacantist-'-feeneyite-'-bishops/ (https://www.cathinfo.com/baptism-of-desire-and-feeneyism/sedevacantist-'-feeneyite-'-bishops/) (Reply 11)
Now, apart from asking you to look at the language itself, which appears to be well translated above, I also want you to consider the following comments you made to Drew and Stubborn in this thread:
QuoteQuote"but please stop promoting this false and heretical notion that dogma is the proximate rule of faith ... against the teaching of all Catholic theologians."
"EVERY Catholic theologian teaches that the Magisterium is the proximate rule of faith.
I love if how Stubborn dismisses with a wave of his hand any 19th/20th century theologian (who doesn't agree with him)."
I have one for you: NAME A SINGLE CATHOLIC THEOLOGIAN WHO READS THE ABOVE CITED PASSAGE OF THE CATECHISM AS NOT SUPPORTING BOD. I'll let you answer and see what you come up, rather than listing the long roll call of theologians and saints who would not "believe" like you that the Catechism is "not teaching BoD."
You're simply, ah, selective in applying the accusation of not listening to the theologians when it suits you - namely, applying it to others and avoiding the application to yourself. In fact, unless I'm wrong about what I think you will (or rather won't) come up with,"every Catholic theologian" opposes you. Doesn't stop you on your "belief" regarding the Catechism, so why should "EVERY Catholic theologian" prevent Drew and Stubborn from offering their view, which is at least consistent and doesn't come at you with a beam sticking out of the eye.
The Magisterium that is "free from error" appears to be only "free from error" when it agrees with Ladislaus. When it doesn't, well, it commits some real whoppers.
Digression? Nah. It's a pin that goes straight into your balloon.
Mmmmm....Pastor Aeternus is telling us explicitly that the Pope enjoys the Divine promise of never-failing Faith.
What does that say about the belief that all the conciliar "popes" have become heretics one after the other?
Mmmmm....Pastor Aeternus is telling us explicitly that the Pope enjoys the Divine promise of never-failing Faith.Please don't take my bluntness as me being disrespectful toward you Cantarella because that most certainly is not why I am being blunt.....
What does that say about the belief that all the conciliar "popes" have become heretics one after the other?
R&R claims that the Papal Magisterium has failed to realize its end of protecting the flock from error, i.e. that it has defected.Ladislaus,
R&R DIRECTLY CONTRADICTS THE TEACHING OF VATICAN I.Pitiful bit of theological wizardry you attempt there Lad. Study the prior bullet point IV.6, in order to find out what this gift of never failing faith is. Study it until you fully understand and comprehend it. After you accomplish this, then apply the correct understanding to 7.
Vatican I, Pastor Aeternus IV.7QuoteThis gift of truth and never-failing faith was therefore divinely conferred on Peter and his successors in this See so that they might discharge their exalted office for the salvation of all, and so that the whole flock of Christ might be kept away by them from the poisonous food of error and be nourished with the sustenance of heavenly doctrine.
It cannot happen that Catholics in submission to the Papal Magisterium could jeopardize their salvation and ingest the "poisonous food of error" ... as R&R claims has happened. This right here is all the theological proof you need for the teaching of "infallible safety" ... which Drew dismisses as pure speculation. It's TAUGHT DIRECTLY by Vatican I.
:laugh1:LOL
Unbelievable. I simply quote Vatican I and that's referred to as a "pitiful ... theological wizardry". You guys are a joke, and it might even be funny if you weren't promoting heresy.
Imbecile, it defines it right there in the text I quoted. Never-failing faith has the effect of making sure that in the discharge of his teaching office the pope cannot introduce the poison of error to the flock ... and that the teaching office will be conducive to the salvation of the faithful (rather than militated against it .. as you heretics claim).Brainiac, you don't understand what Never failing faith is. Take the gloves and slip them over your head already, then go submit to your idea of the magisterium, show us the faith you have in that for a change.
I'm taking off the gloves here. You guys are without a question HERETICS.
In fact, as St. Thomas teaches that, once you've rejected the Magisterium as your rule of faith, you cannot have supernatural faith anymore --
This some other principle always ultimately reduces to your own private judgment.
WRONG. Most of the errors people call out in Vatican II were condemend in documents of the ORDINARY PAPAL MAGISTERIUM that had far less authority than an Ecumenical Council does.No, you're wrong. V2's errors may have been condemned through the ordinary magisterium but they were also condemned solemnly. How many times have anti-EENS ideals been condemned? Multiple. Has V2's false ecumenism been condemned solemnly? Yes, council of florence, I believe. And religious liberty? Yes, already been condemned (but I don't remember the council).
But you're claiming, then, that it's possible for an Ecumenical Council to teach HERESY to the Universal Church? That's taking it to a new level.V2 did not make use of its SOLEMN infallible magisterium, therefore its documents fall under the fallible ordinary magisterium. Your problem is that you refuse to admit that 'fallible' means 'able to err'.
Cantarella,
Now you have gone back to where this started. The Pope is you rule of faith. I suggest that you read the thread:
The Heretical Pope Fallacy (https://www.cathinfo.com/crisis-in-the-church/the-heretical-pope-fallacy/msg586898/#msg586898)
« on: December 31, 2017, 06:05:26 PM »
My wife posted a few of my initial exchanges with the conservative Catholic Emmet O'Regan. The link is provided in the post to the entire exchange. You will discover that he, like you, believes that the pope possesses a personal "never-failing faith." Besides not being true, it leads to two ends and you and Mr. O'Regan are good examples of both.
Dogma is the proximate rule of faith and the only solution to this error.
You need not reply to this. I think you are determined to follow the course you have chosen and any further discussion would be fruitless. It is Holy Week and we will have Tenebrae each day sung in Latin this year at our chapel in York, PA, so my time is committed elsewhere.
Drew
Please don't take my bluntness as me being disrespectful toward you Cantarella because that most certainly is not why I am being blunt.....
Being bound to the magisterium as your rule of faith "implies a corresponding duty to believe whatever the successors of the Apostles teach."
So where do you come off accusing the pope(s) of being heretics? You speak as if the popes and bishops (magisterium) are in some type of major doctrinal conflict with each other when they are not. What happened to your faith in your rule of faith?
Do you know what it means to have faith in the rule of faith?
Having faith means that no matter how pleasant or repugnant to you it may be, you are required to accept it. You may not accuse or put impositions on it, you may not require of it, *it requires of you* – and what it requires is your absolute submission of faith.
This is exactly the point. I am challenging you to demonstrate where your faith really lies. By telling you that you are bound to submit to the NO bishops and popes (magisterium), I am telling you something that is repugnant to you, something that logically, no trad Catholic could stomach - but having faith consists of accepting it regardless of how it strikes us, accepting it because it is our rule of faith, which rule is foundational to our faith.
I know the idea that the hierarchy, is the magisterium is the rule of faith, is entirely false, entirely NO, that it is a false teaching which even you and Lad have no faith in - we all know this because if you actually believed in what you say, you would have faith in it and you would be NO. Trads have always rejected that false teaching for what it is, while embracing what the magisterium actually is and what the rule of faith actually is - lest we all be NO.
Get lost, heretic. You're also one of the biggest idiots I've ever encountered online ... without the ability to grasp simple logic or even basic English. By itself, it's no big deal ... since not everyone has received the gift of intelligence from God. But combined with your incredible hubris, where you THINK you know better than the Church on everything, and only your interpretation of dogma is in fact the exact dogma "as it is written" ... that combination of stupidity and arrogance are incredibly repugnant to both God and man.Let's be straight here. You lie, not me. You're the educated one whose been brainwashed, not me. You're the one with no faith in your own heretical idea of what the magisterium even is, not me. I could go on, but you'll have to find out the hard way. Sad, but that's usually the way it works when you have no faith. I will keep you in my prayers.
You contradict the teaching of Vatican I, Pax....I think you put the accent on the wrong word BD. I think you should have put the accent on the word "in".QuoteVatican I
Wherefore, by divine and catholic faith all those things are to be believed which are contained in the word of God as found in scripture and tradition, and which are proposed by the church as matters to be believed as divinely revealed, whether by her solemn judgment or IN her ordinary and universal magisterium
It is proved ab eventu. For to this point no [Pontiff] has been a heretic, or certainly it cannot be proven that any of them were heretics; therefore it is a sign that such a thing cannot be
The Form and Minister of Baptism *
[From the responses to the decrees of the Bulgars, Nov., 866, Pope St. Nicholas the Great]
Denzinger 335 Chap. 104. You assert that in your fatherland many have been baptized by a certain Jew, you do not know whether Christian or pagan, and you consult us as to what should be done about them. If indeed they have been baptized in the name of the Holy Trinity or only in the name of Christ, as we read in the Acts of the Apostles [cf.Acts 2:38;19:5], (surely it is one and the same, as Saint Ambrose * sets forth) it is established that they should not be baptized again.
When one comes to the realization that the Magisterium (extraordinary and ordinary) is in fact infallible, everything becomes more clear.When a Bishop gives a homily at mass, that is an act of the magisterium. Is that infallible? It could be; it could not be.
Drew, Stubborn, Pax ... I don't even recognize you as Catholics.Emotional overreaction.
The homily of a Bishop and an "off the cuff" sermon or interview by the pope are acts of the Magisterium??If the Bishop is giving a sermon on a doctrinal matter, he is using his teaching authority and this is an act of the magisterium. If the pope is giving an interview and he is speaking of faith/morals, yes, this is an act of the magisterium. Depending on what they say, if it agrees with Tradition, it could be infallible or not.
Thus the truth that is taught must be proposed as already defined, or as what has always been believed or accepted in the Church, or attested by the unanimous and constant agreement of theologians as being a Catholic truth [which is therefore] strictly obligatory for all the faithful." ("Infaillibilite du Pape", DTC, vol. VII, col. 1705)
On this problem we must remember that a truth may be sure and certain, and hence it may be obligatory, even without the sanction of an ex cathedra definition. So it is with the encyclical Humanae Vitae, in which the pope, the supreme pontiff of the Church, utters a truth which has been constantly taught by the Church’s Magisterium and which accords with the precepts of Revelation." (L’Osservatore Romano, Oct. 19, 1968, p.3)
The question, therefore, must be put objectively thus: given that [Humanae Vitae] is not an act of the Infallible Magisterium and that it therefore does not of itself provide the guarantee of ‘irreformability’ and certitude, would not its substance be nonetheless guaranteed by the Ordinary Magisterium under the conditions under which the Ordinary Magisterium is itself known to be infallible?"
This encyclical recapitulated the ancient teaching and the habitual teaching of today. This means that we can say that the conditions for the Ordinary irreformable [i.e., infallible—Ed.] Magisterium were met. The period of widespread turbulence is a very recent fact and has nothing to do with the serene possession [of the Magisterium—Ed.] over many centuries." (Renovatio, op.cit.)
This is the normal procedure by which Tradition, in the fullest sense of that term, is handed down;..." (Pope or Church?, op. cit. p.10)
I'm sorry but the fact that you agree with Stubborn's inane and incoherent ramblings is enough to completely discredit you in my mind.The truth is always idiotic and incoherent to those without faith, to liars and to workers of iniquity. Again, nothing complicated about it.
His idiotic comments are all predicated on the fact that he doesn't understand that this error does not actually come from the Magisterium. He repeatedly assumes that the V2 Popes are legitimate as a premise for proving that the V2 Popes are legitimate. That's the ultimate begging of the question.
QuoteFor to what other See was it ever said I have prayed for thee Peter, that thy Faith do not fail? so say the Fathers, not meaning that none of Peter's seat can err in person, understanding, private doctrine or writing, but that they cannot nor shall not ever judicially conclude or give definitive sentence for falsehood or heresy against the Catholic Faith, in their Consistories, Courts, Councils, decrees, deliberations, or consultations kept for decision and determinations of such controversies, doubts, questions of faith as shall be proposed unto them: because Christ's prayer and promise protected them therein for conformation of their Brethren.
I think it does not come any clearer than this. This is a dogmatic decree from Vatican I Council which denial constitutes heresy. This teaching is infallible.
I would just like to see a teaching of the Magisterium that teaches that it is fallible in any form/type/mode whatsoever. I have never seen such a teaching and until you produce one, no one will consider your arguments legit.
I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail.
This is a dogmatic decree from Vatican I Council which denial constitutes heresy. This teaching is infallible.The Point #6 which you quoted from Vatican 1 is not part of the dogmatic decree. Point #6 is not infallible. The below is the only infallible part:
3. there is "non-infallible papal teaching" (col.1709).Exactly.
Amoris Laetitia
Really Pax? Now you are going to compartmentalize Vatican I Council just like you do with Vatican II? What is the end of such madness? What about the other previous 19 Ecumenical Councils? Must Catholics scrutinize the narrative of every single dogmatic document, just in case there has been a grammatical error or linguistic differences?You're missing the point. The faith is known by simple truths and simple sentences that a child can memorize by way of the catechism. So, when the pope defines a doctrine solemnly, he does so in a simple sentence, because truth is simple, as is God. The ARGUMENTS and REASONS why the pope issued the doctrine ARE NOT INFALLIBLE because they are not doctrine. It really doesn't matter WHY the pope reaffirmed the dogma of the assumption, or WHAT he hopes will be accomplished through his action. This isn't infallible because it's not directly related to faith and morals. All that matters is the dogma.
All of the below quotes are from a lengthy article which you can find here: http://the-american-catholic.com/2013/10/19/cardinal-newman-on-papal-infallibility/ (http://the-american-catholic.com/2013/10/19/cardinal-newman-on-papal-infallibility/)
These conditions of course contract the range of his infallibility most materially. Hence Billuart speaking of the Pope says,
“Neither in conversation, nor in discussion, nor in interpreting Scripture or the Fathers, nor in consulting, nor in giving his reasons for the point which he has defined, nor in answering letters, nor in private deliberations, supposing he is setting forth his own opinion, is the Pope infallible,” t. ii. p. 110. And for this simple reason, because on these various occasions of speaking his mind, he is not in the chair of the universal doctor.
4. Nor is this all; the greater part of Billuart’s negatives refer to the Pope’s utterances when he is out of the Cathedra Petri, but even, when he is in it, his words do not necessarily proceed from his infallibility. He has no wider prerogative than a Council, and of a Council Perrone says,
“Councils are not infallible in the reasons by which they are led, or on which they rely, in making their definition, nor in matters which relate to persons, nor to physical matters which have no necessary connexion with dogma.” Præl. Theol. t. 2, p. 492.
Thus, if a Council has condemned a work of Origen or Theodoret, it did not in so condemning go beyond the work itself; it did not touch the persons of either. Since this holds of a Council, it also holds in the case of the Pope; therefore, supposing a Pope has quoted the so called works of the Areopagite as if really genuine, there is no call on us to believe him; nor again, if he condemned Galileo’s Copernicanism, unless the earth’s immobility has a “necessary connexion with some dogmatic truth,” which the present bearing of the Holy See towards that philosophy virtually denies.
5. Nor is a Council infallible, even in the prefaces and introductions to its definitions. There are theologians of name, as Tournely and Amort, who contend that even those most instructive capitula passed in the Tridentine Council, from which the Canons with anathemas are drawn up, are not portions of the Church’s infallible teaching; and the parallel introductions prefixed to the Vatican anathemas have an authority not greater nor less than that of those capitula.
7. Accordingly, all that a Council, and all that the Pope, is infallible in, is the direct answer to the special question which he happens to be considering; his prerogative does not extend beyond a power, when in his Cathedra, of giving that very answer truly. “Nothing,” says Perrone, “but the objects of dogmatic definitions of Councils are immutable, for in these are Councils infallible, not in their reasons,”& c.—ibid.
Look, I know you are trying really hard but the reality is that Ecunemical Councils are infallible.They have the POTENTIAL to be infallible. V2 was the first to not have been. All other were infallible, in specific parts of the canons only.
There is absolutely nothing in Catholic theology that supports the notion that General Councils can promulgate heresy.I agree that history/theology does not support the idea that a council could err. However, it never says it can't happen, either. How many theologians argued that the pope could never become a heretic? Yet here we are.
If an Ecumenical Council has taught heresy to the Universal Church, then the Church has defected.A teaching of the Church implies that we MUST accept it under pain of sin, with certainty of faith, in order to be saved. All other ecumenical councils required this level of belief. V2 did not (and still does not). Therefore, V2 did not "teach" in the same manner, nor on the same level, as all other ecumenical councils. Again, if you won't admit this difference, you are of bad will and you have an agenda.
when we say the Church is indefectible, we mean that it will last forever and be infallible forever; that it will always remain as Our Lord founded it and never change the doctrines He taught.This means that the Church, in Her OFFICIAL teachings, will never change church doctrine and will forever remain the same, until the end of time. V2 did not change church doctrine, (though it proposed (but did not require) "modern" ways of "re-understanding" certain doctrines). The reason V2 did not change doctrine is because NO ONE IS FORCED TO ACCEPT THEIR NEW IDEAS. If we are not force to accept it, under pain of sin, with certainty of faith, as a matter of salvation, then it's not part of the Faith. It's as simple as that.
Amazing, you make the allegation of lying and produce no evidence other than your arguments (for what they are worth) have not convinced me? You think everyone reading these posts are fools? When I call you a liar, I produce a specific allegation. The charge is based upon evidence so that you can address the specific charge. Liars always have problems with their memory so let me refresh yours.
To "prove" your claim that the "magisterium is the rule of faith," you pasted the article from the Catholic New Advent Encyclopedia that argued that the rule of faith must be "extrinsic" to the faith.
Re: The Heretical Pope Fallacy (https://www.cathinfo.com/crisis-in-the-church/the-heretical-pope-fallacy/msg587485/#msg587485)
« Reply #94 on: January 03, 2018, 09:27:31 PM »
From this you argued that the magisterium is extrinsic to the faith, and that it is not part of divine revelation. We had several exchanges on this question to which you replied:
Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd? (https://www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/is-father-ringrose-dumping-the-r-r-crowd/msg600685/#msg600685)
« Reply #293 on: March 21, 2018, 08:17:44 AM »
Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd? (https://www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/is-father-ringrose-dumping-the-r-r-crowd/msg601142/#msg601142)
« Reply #358 on: March 23, 2018, 06:32:15 PM »
After Cantarella posted a dogmatic teaching that the magisterium is from divine revelation, she was asked whether she believed the dogma or you.
The reply did not come from Cantarella but from you. And now we move on to your lying efforts to "prove" that you never argued that the magisterium is extrinsic to divine revelation.
Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd? (https://www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/is-father-ringrose-dumping-the-r-r-crowd/msg601154/#msg601154)
« Reply #363 on: March 23, 2018, 08:23:17 PM »
Quote from: Maria Auxiliadora on March 23, 2018, 06:32:15 PM (https://www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/is-father-ringrose-dumping-the-r-r-crowd/msg601142/#msg601142)
"Well, what is it going to be: the Magisterium is part of divine revelation or the Magisterium is not part of divine revelation. Who has everything wrong, you or Ladisalus?"
And the equivocations keeps on flowing. You are a liar.
But your claim that the magisterium is not part of divine revelation is just one of many stupid things that you have posted. You are a phony pretending a competency that you do not possess.
Several years ago you denied that supernatural faith was believing what God has revealed on the authority of God.
SECRET SPECIAL CHAPTER OF NEO FSSPX (https://www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/secret-special-chapter-of-neo-fsspx/msg463233/#msg463233)
« Reply #30 on: August 16, 2015, 08:08:35 AM »
Then you demonstrated that you in fact did not know the definition of supernatural faith when you proposed driving a wedge between these two necessary attributes and thereby, dissolving the definition.
Re: The Heretical Pope Fallacy (https://www.cathinfo.com/crisis-in-the-church/the-heretical-pope-fallacy/msg588127/#msg588127)
« Reply #245 on: January 08, 2018, 11:25:03 AM »
So in this thread we have you arguing the magisterium is the rule of faith when you clearly do not know what the faith is or what the magisterium is. No wonder you do not know what the rule of faith is!
But you plod on tracking dirt where ever you go. Sedeprivationism presupposes the dissolution of the form and matter of the papal office and you are so ignorant that you do not even know that this presupposition necessarily produces a substantial change destroying the office!
You possess some knowledge but without wisdom or understanding. The habit of the first principles is wholly lacking with you. And what makes everything so destructive, you have no moral sense and your too immature to take responsibility for what you post or the damage you may do.
Drew
"Indeed the Magisterium is NOT part of God's Revelation. That Revelation ceased with the death of the Last Apostle. But the Magisterium does indeed come from God's AUTHORITY (which He left with and communicated to the Church). Just because it's extrinsic to the faith, per se, doesn't mean that it's not of God's authority."
Ladislaus
Ladislaus:
"I myself had once been a Sedevacantist. Only in retrospect can I honestly see the great bitterness and lack of charity that this led to on my part. I have found nothing but spiritual disorder – to one extent or another – in all the Sedevacantists I have ever met (myself included and foremost among them). It would be best to leave out the numerous downfalls – in scandalous fashion – of bitter Sedevacantists."
Cantarella, there's no need to keep debating these heretics.I'm coming to the same conclusion about you two. Both of you continue to post your personal interpretation of general V1 excerpts. How about you post some good research? How about you post some FACTS? The closest thing you have to supporting your view is 1-2 Fenton quotes about a weird, modernist view that the pope possesses a fallible infallibility (which is a contradiction), which leads to the false idea that the pope can never make a mistake and is an oracle.
This is a SSPX priest. That someone would think that an ecumenical Council whose decrees have been approved by a Pope is heretical should tell us a priori that such a person cannot do good theology. The SSPX also exercises poor theology in others matters; but that is another topic. That is why I had asked for a non-SSPX resource.
Anyway, this author is wrong and here is proof. He says: "The difference between doctrinal and pastoral teachings has great implications at Ecumenical Councils. This is because the Church has never taught that all Church Councils are in and of themselves infallible".
In the scriptural annotations for the Acts of the Apostles, Chapter 15, which recounts the First Council of Jerusalem, is taught very explicitly that a General Council represents the whole Church, and therefore cannot err. Here is the most relevant parts from the textual annotation:
The Holy Ghost is the assistant of all lawful Councils, to the world's end, and that by Christ's promise.
I've pointed out this insanely idiotic "begging the question" logic about 100 times to you already. What we're saying is that V2 was NOT an legitimate Ecumenical Council and therefore not infallible. That's the very POINT of sedevacantism/sedeplenism.You've never offered a definition of the indefectible and errorlessly teaching "Magisterium." You avoid my posts bringing up the apparent contradiction of how a Magisterium which is, to quote the popes you quoted, "unable to be mistaken, "without danger of error," and which "could by no means commit itself to erroneous teaching," could in fact actually teach the erroneous doctrine of BoD in a universal catechism approved by the pope and drafted at the request of the Ecumenical Council of Trent.
If Vatican II was "different" as we all seem to agree, must be because a true Pope did not promulgated it. The only difference that could be defended from a theological point of view in saying that Vatican II was not a true Ecumenical Council of the Church, is that the authority which promulgated it is illegitimate, basically that Paul VI was an impostor, so there was not a Papal approbation, which is what makes the Councils infallible. It is either that; or accepting that Vatican II did not teach heresy; and hat therefore, we ought to be applying the "Hermeneutic of continuity".
The resolutions of a General Council are infallible. Part of the long scriptural annotations following the mentioned chapter of Acts of the Apostle from my Rheims Bible dated 1582 reads as follows:
That someone would think that an ecumenical Council whose decrees have been approved by a Pope is heretical should tell us a priori that such a person cannot do good theology
Do you know what distinguished the anti-Councils? precisely the lack of PAPAL APPROBATION.This is a good point and I agree. The quote was an interesting one, but we'll throw it out as its irrelevant. My bad.
What we're saying is that V2 was NOT an legitimate Ecumenical Council and therefore not infallible.Agree. But it has nothing to do with sedevacantism. It wasn't infallible because 1) it didn't follow V1's infallibility requirements and 2) it never intended to be infallible.
The resolutions of a General Council are infallible.Of course they are. But V2 HAD NO RESOLUTIONS/CANONS. A teaching of a council, whereby the Church issues a statement, with an anathema, IS REQUIRED TO BE BELIEVED OR WE GO TO HELL. V2 had no such statements/resolutions/canons. Therefore, it's not infallible.
If Vatican II was "different" as we all seem to agree, must be because a true Pope did not promulgated it.THANK YOU for admitting that V2 was not like ANY OTHER ecumenical council in church history. But it has nothing to do with the status of the pope! It has to do with the language used (or lack of it), the intention of the council and the lack of MORAL WEIGHT of its documents, which do not bind anyone to believe its drivel.
Well, then be consistent, Stubborn. Your rule of Faith is "dogma", then have Faith in the infallible dogma that there is no salvation without personal submission to the Holy Father. If you recognize Pope Francis as such, then there is no other option for you but attending Mass next Sunday in your local FSSP, as unpleasant as may sound.The dogma never states we must submit to him at all, it clearly state: "We declare, state and define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff."
Moron. She holds this dogma as an object of her faith based on (and motivated by) the rule that it has been defined by the Church. Idiot doesn't even know what "rule of faith" means and he's spouting nonsense as if he's some kind of theological authority.
Moron. She holds this dogma as an object of her faith based on (and motivated by) the rule that it has been defined by the Church. Idiot doesn't even know what "rule of faith" means and he's spouting nonsense as if he's some kind of theological authority.No, I am merely saying that which is the most basic and fundamental of truths of the Catholic faith, which is the authority.
Of course he is. R&R twists teachings of the Church to suit their narrative of the situation, and have been for a long time.
Yes, this sums it up nicely.
He's now trying to liken the teaching of an Ecumenical Council to a random bishop giving a Sunday sermon or the Pope giving a radio interview.Nope, nice try. You refuse to admit that an infallible statement IS REQUIRED FOR SALVATION. V2 is not required, because it contradicts previously infallible/required statements, therefore it's anathema.
The Shepherd has been struck and the sheep are scattered...we all have to do our best in this situation, Meg. I believe most of us are trying to do our best to make sense out of everything.
I just happen to believe the most logical position is the sede vacante position and that's why I'll keep debating and arguing about it.
But these R&R Trad Catholics are in no way different, theologically speaking, from the Old Catholics who arose in the aftermath of Vatican I.There you go again, making rash generalizations, like the liberal media, and you broad-brush everyone who disagrees with you as "R&R", which you've falsely defined as a narrow and specific viewpoint, when in reality, the term can include multiple mindsets. You fail to distinguish either through malice, laziness or lack of education.
If you have no acumen for theology, then you need to stop drawing absurd theological conclusions (out of ignorance) and then falsely attributing your nonsensical conclusions to others. You were claiming that Cantarella no longer believed in dogma because her rule of faith isn't dogma.What you call absurd "theological conclusions (out of ignorance)" are principles simple, basic and fundamental to the Catholic faith.
So according to Pax Vobis' logic, the Nicene Creed emerging from the Council of Nicea (Ecunemical I) must be a fallible teaching subject to error because it does not happen to be enclosed in a "Canon".Trick question. The Nicean creed, as we know it today, was formulated at Nicea, but revised at the councils of Constantinople and Chalcedon.
Right?? According to Pax, we can't know for sure, so we have to pit Council against Council, and Pope against Pope...this is lunacy and at a minimum, proximate to heresy.
What did he replace the magisterium with?QuoteThose who reject the Magisterium as this proximate rule must replace this proximate rule with something. If it isn't the Church presenting dogma to our minds with authority as worthy of supernatural faith, then it's something else, a fallible rule that ultimately reduces in every case to private judgment.Excellent post.
It is only by the authority of the Church that we know what has been revealed by God.
This is what separates the Catholic Church from the reformists.
He's making it up.Yes, I made up all those quotes from theologians and Bishops about how V2 is a fallible council. I also made up the theological commentary where it explains the 3 levels of the magisterium and how the papal office is only infallible in specific, and precise circumstances, as Vatican I lays out.
So how can we know that what the Church previously taught was true before such infallibility "requirements" were defined in Vatican I? This is, 19 Ecunemical Councils prior that one.Because the requirements for infallibility are part of the Faith, which has existed since Apostolic times. Vatican 1 only RE-TAUGHT what had always been believed. Do you think it is a coincidence that all previous dogmatic statements at ALL ecumencial councils and ALL 'stand alone' dogmatic statements (i.e. immaculate conception in a papal bull) used the same formula to define these truths? No it's not coincidence because it is FROM APOSTOLIC TIMES. Who do you think the Apostles learned it from? Christ, of course.
I'm not following, Stubborn...take me down the rabbit hole a bit and maybe I'll figure it out.In a nutshell, the magisterium, his (previous?) rule of faith, is NO, but presumably he is not. This means he rejects the magisterium as his rule of faith.
I don't think there's exactly a "Rainbow Coalition of Sedevacantists" (although when I read that, it made me laugh pretty good). If that were the case you'd have to include the "sede plenists" as part of that Coalition.
Personally, I don't care for all of the labels, but it becomes somewhat necessary in order to distinguish all of the particular points of view. I view myself as a Catholic who believes the sede vacante position is the most logical explanation of the Vatican II revolution, and I view you as a fellow Catholic who disagrees with me.
Condemn is a strong word...I don't believe I've ever condemned anyone.
Condemning aside, don't you do the same to Catholics who hold a position different than yours?
Pax, post a source that teaches the sermon of a bishop or an interview by the pope is an act of the Magisterium... That's what I'm asking
I suppose you could say that I condemn the R&R position...along with sede positions that aren't simple sede vacante.
I would agree that most folks who hold the sede vacante position are in disagreement on other issues, but then again, the R&R have many disagreements with each other as well.
Like I said, we're all trying to do our best and I'm happy to have a forum where we can have robust debate about all of it.
But these clowns here who assert that an Ecumenical Council can teach heresyYou've yet to respond to ANY of the quotes i've posted, from theological experts and Bishops. These are not my opinion, but from people who study these things for a living. Quit attacking me and let's debate ideas. Find other sources besides Fenton. Don't be a 1 trick pony.
If it were a mere quibble about the legal status of a pope, I'd agree with you.
But I have realized on this thread I that must distance myself from acknowledging those as Catholic who have basically a heretical view of the Magisterium. You yourself called it "at least proximate to heresy". I think it's more than just proximate.
For those R&R who just say, "As for the pope, it's not my position to say." or "I just give him the benefit of the doubt." or "It's up to the Church to depose these guys, and I don't have the authority to do it." That kind of reasoning is all within the parameters of a disagreement among Catholics. Cajetan vs. Bellarmine on the heretical pope issue, a disagreement among Catholics.
But these clowns here who assert that an Ecumenical Council can teach heresy or even grave error to the Universal Church, and that we must reject the teachings of an Ecumenical Council by appealing to Tradition? That's just downright heretical. There's no other way to describe it. St. Pius V would have had them burned at the stake. If these guys are Catholic, then the Church owes an apology to Luther and to the Old Catholics.
From my point of view, I'd tell you that the NO is a false church, set up to deceive the masses and propagandize them in false doctrine that has some semblance of the Catholic Church. The only teaching authority the NO possesses is from the devil.We agree on this. The reason we even can agree on this, is because the magisterium is not our rule of faith.
I see a contradiction occurring in Lumen Gentium; in that salvation is possible to those who are "ignorant" of the need to be in communion with the Pope of Rome, and therefore never join the Catholic Church, contradicting the thrice infallibly defined, EENS dogma.Ahhh, but see you are "sifting" the magisterium, as Ladislaus so often says. You aren't allowed to do that. If the magisterium is always infallbile and an ecumenical council is always infallible, then this contradiction is only APPARENT and not real. And you must use +Benedict's 'continuity' theory to bridge the gap. You must wait for the Church to clear up the confusion. This is your logical conclusion.
And now you shamelessly mock the solemn teaching of Vatican I. It was not Cantarella but Vatican I which taught about the Pope's "never-failing faith". But, then, what's the difference? If you can excoriate the teaching of one Ecumenical Council (Vatican II), then why not the other Vatican Council also?
You're a complete disgrace, and the more you post the less Catholic you seem.
Then AGAIN you repeat that lie that we consider the Pope the rule of faith. We are not talking about the Pope but about the Papal Magisterium. And, yes, Vatican I DOES IN FACT TEACH that the Papal Magisterium (to the Universal Church) IS IN FACT THE RULE OF FAITH. In fact, it's explicitly laid out.
I'm absolutely appalled by your posting.
"Mmmmm....Pastor Aeternus is telling us explicitly that the Pope enjoys the Divine promise of never-failing Faith.
"What does that say about the belief that all the conciliar "popes" have become heretics one after the other?"
Cantarella
This gift, then, of truth and never-failing faith was conferred by heaven upon Peter and his successors in this Chair, that they might perform their high office for the salvation of all; that the whole flock of Christ, kept away from the poisonous food of error by them, might be nourished with the pasture of heavenly doctrine; that the occasion of schism being removed, the whole Church might be kept one, and, resting on its foundation, might stand firm against the gates of Hell.
Pastor Aeternus
"You shamelessly mock the solemn teaching of Vatican I."
Ladislaus
"And, yes, Vatican I DOES IN FACT TEACH that the Papal Magisterium (to the Universal Church) IS IN FACT THE RULE OF FAITH."
Ladislaus
"The first condition of salvation is to keep the rule of the true faith."
Vatican I, Pastor Aeternus
"Apostolic See is bound before all others to defend the truth of faith, so also if any questions regarding faith shall arise, they must be defined by its judgment."
Vatican I, Pastor Aeternus
And the Roman Pontiffs, according to the exigencies of times and circumstances, sometimes assembling Ecumenical Councils, or asking for the mind of the Church scattered throughout the world, sometimes by particular Synods, sometimes using other helps which Divine Providence supplied, defined as to be held those things which, with the help of God, they had recognized as conformable with the Sacred Scriptures and Apostolic Traditions. For the Holy Spirit was not promised to the successors of Peter that by His revelation they might make known new doctrine, but that by His assistance they might inviolably keep and faithfully expound the Revelation, the Deposit of Faith, delivered through the Apostles.
Vatican I, Pastor Aeternus
But since, in this very age in which the salutary efficacy of the Apostolic office is most of all required, not a few are found who take away from its authority, We judge it altogether necessary to assert solemnly the prerogative which the only-begotten Son of God found worthy to join with the supreme pastoral office.
Vatican I, Pastor Aeternus
It's not "sifting" if she believes that the NO is a false church.Ahhh, but what is the evidence that the Church is false, according to her? The V2 documents that she "sifted". CIRCULAR LOGIC!
Because of the Catholic principle of non-Contradiction in dogmatic teachings as those emerging from Ecunemical Councils. In particular I see a contradiction occurring in Lumen Gentium; in that salvation is possible to those who are "ignorant" of the need to be in communion with the Pope of Rome, and therefore never join the Catholic Church, contradicting the thrice infallibly defined, EENS dogma. I also see a contradiction in Nostra Aetate and the Church radical change on Her timeless approach towards the perfidious Jews. This false Magisterium of the Church has become radically Judaized.
Without the pope, no Magisterium. So, as a rule of faith, the pope and the Magisterium stand or fall together. Your distinction between the two as a rule of faith is meaningless.
She throws them all out as being without authority.She (the new authority) throws them all out as being without authority. Very humble.
Now you could claim that private judgment is the starting point for any rejection of Vatican II.He who calls everyone protestant is now promoting protestant private interpretation.
But the rejection of the Conciliar Church has more to do with the fact that it lacks the elements required for the motives of credibility in general.Here's what Vatican I says about 'motives of credibility', which it says the Church always posesses. Nice try.
That's why St. Robert spoke of MANIFEST heresy (vs. formal heresy or any other kind of heresy) ...Speaking of St. Robert Bellarmine, who said that, "Only by the words of the general Council do we know whether the fathers of that council intended to engage their prerogative infallibility"
Now you could claim that private judgment is the starting point for any rejection of Vatican II. But the rejection of the Conciliar Church has more to do with the fact that it lacks the elements required for the motives of credibility in general. If you look at that abomination as a whole, it does not resemble the Church Church in its essential marks. Those "motives of credibility" are the natural precursors before the acceptance of the Church's authority as a whole.
So how do we know that Pius IX and Gregory XVI weren't in fact WRONG in their condemnation of religious liberty while Vatican II was right? Ah, you say, it's because Pius IX and Gregory XVI followed Tradition while Vatican II did not. Says who, Drew? Your private judgment?
Ladislaus
We know they are wrong because their teaching is in accord with the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium. Of course any judgment anyone makes on anything can rightfully be called “private judgment.” Even making a profession of Catholic faith by the submission of mind and will to the revelation of God is a “private judgment.” Vatican I’s article on the faith says that, “the assent of faith is by no means a blind movement of the mind.” That is, it requires a “private judgment” regarding the motives of credibility. What I said before concerning conscience applies here. Every Catholic must do his best before any act or judgment to insure a conscience that is both true and certain. He is then required to follow that conscience even if it is shown subsequently to be erroneous....
Drew
I asked for a Magisterial Teaching,Well, the term “magisterium” has only been used for 150 years, so that’s a limitation on your request. I’ve posted stuff before and you rejected that too, so do your own research. The fact of the matter is, that since Vatican 1 defined the parameters of the papal magisterium’s infallibility, anything which falls OUTSIDE those parameters, by definition, is fallible.
The bottom line is that Ecunemical Councils approved by the Pope cannot err. This is true, regardless of the Council issuing dogmatic canons or anathemas.There are so many quotes from theologians all saying the same thing. And I could post a lot more. What’s the use? You can’t even follow St Bellarmine’s explanation. You either have a reading comprehension problem, or you’re not open to the truth.
What if there were errors in the Council of Trent or Vatican I Council present in the "fallible" narrative"?Do you have the documents of Trent memorized? How about all the other ecumenical councils - can you recite them all by heart? Have you even READ them all, word for word? Because If you think that every word is infallible, then by golly, you’d better be familiar with every dot and tittle.
Second, the Fathers are clear that those who refuse to accept the definitions of faith made by a general council are to be excluded from the Church as heretics.You gloss over this term like it has no meaning.
Except that Pax insisted that V2 taught blatant heresy.I said it erred. I said it had contradictions.
You're conflating the term de fide with infallibilityInfallibility is only used for de fide definitions. That’s it purpose.
Bellarmine reasons that if the pope is infallible in judging matters of faith or morals, then his judgment of a council’s decision cannot be in error, no matter how small the particular council.You continue to ignore the fact that V2 did not have any judgements. Therefore it’s not protected by infallibility. It did not have any dogmatic decrees, canons, judgements or teachings. Therefore, infallibility IS NOT PART OF THE COUNCIL. This is backed up by the quotes from Paul VI himself, the council fathers, theologians present and theologians not present.
But while there could theoretically be some small mistakes, for an Ecumenical Council to teach heresy or even grave substantial error to the Universal Church?Your use of the word “teach” is in error. That’s your problem. A teaching of the Church MUST be believed by all the faithful, with certainty of faith, under pain of sin, as a matter of salvation. V2 DID NOT “TEACH” ON MATTERS OF FAITH AND MORALS like all other ecumenical councils. There is NOTHING in V2 that we MUST accept with a “certainty of faith” therefore your use of the word “teach” is absolutely wrong because you fail to distinguish the different levels of thr magisterium, some only requiring CONDITIONAL assent, which fact you continue to dodge like a snake on a road dodges cars.
No, Pax Vobis. Of course we do not have to memorize all Ecunemical Councils by heartOf course we don’t, because only the dogmatic decrees, judgments, canons or definitions are MATTERS OF FAITH. All else is theological reasons and intentions, which aren’t infallible.
There are many teachings of the Church that fall short of being de fide.True, but these non-de fide teachings are not required to be held with 'certainty of faith'. They are to be held with CONDITIONAL assent, just like V2. Ergo, they are not required for salvation...just like V2 is not required.
Is it possible that in an expository passage in an Ecumenical Council there could be a small mistake? Theoretically, yes, although even this is unlikely as Catholics have always believed that Ecumenical Councils have been under the guidance and protection of the Holy Spirit. But while there could theoretically be some small mistakes, for an Ecumenical Council to teach heresy or even grave substantial error to the Universal Church? That would mean a defection of the Church. I reiterate without any hesitation or shadow of doubt that people who believe as Pax does are heretics and are not Catholic.
Things can be taught infallibly even if they are not de fide.I don’t think the above is possible. Infallibility only deals with faith/morals; it is PRECISELY the reason it exists - to define matters of faith. Provide an example where an infallible statement is not de fide or “of the faith”.
Secondly, you're confusing indefectibility/infallible safety with infallibility in the strict sense.Fenton is the only source which postulates this ideal. It’s a theory at this point. I’d like to see a strictly-orthodox theologian agree with him. One theologian does not make it so.
quite another for an Ecumenical Council to teach HERESY to the Church, as you have claimed.V2 is an ecumenical anomaly. This is what the masons wanted - to cause confusion. To create an unprecedented situation. They succeeded. But those who know their faith, and the simple truths of the catechism, know that its errors are errors. They also know that these errors are NOT binding as even the authors, theologians and post-conciliar popes have repeatedly said.
No, a de fide truth is not the same thing as a matter of faith. "Matter of faith or morals" simply refers to truths having to do with faith and morals (as opposed to scientific truths, for instance). There are lesser truths which pertain to the faith. And that's the typical R&R misreading of Vatican I again, that only solemnly defined dogmas are infallble. "Define" simply means to clearly delineate and put an end to dissent ... on some matter relating to faith and morals ... in such a way as to make it clear that it must be held by all the faithful.
I disagree. The problem with sedevacatism and sedeprivationism is that they lead to theological and philosophical teachings that overturn dogma.Excellent.
Why cannot an fallible council approved by a pope, churchmen teaching by their grace of state, teach heresy? The reply is typically that the Indefectibility of the Church would not permit this. But here is the problem. The Attribute of Indefectibility has not been dogmatically defined as has been the Attribute of Infallibility. Much of what is believed concerning this Attribute of the Church is the product of theological speculation and Catholics are free to speculate how this Attribute is exercised and preserved in the Church.
Dogma establishes the limits of theological speculation and as long as a Catholic does not offer any conclusions that oppose revealed truth, he is free to consider other possible explanations. It is from theological speculation that we have the common opinion the Indefectibility serves as a personal non-infallible infallibility of the pope protecting him from error in doctrine and morals in the exercise of the authentic ordinary magisterium based upon his grace of state. This theory has a number of problems that are not just evident since Vatican II but can be seen throughout difficult times in Church history.
We know that the Attributes of the Church are powers given to her by her founder, Jesus Christ, that enable the Church to do specific things. But just as in man, where each individual sense power has its specific mode of operation and individual ends but still has considerable overlapping with other sense powers in many general perceptions, so do the powers of the Church. If each power is considered with respect to its individual end, they correspond to the three principles duties that God has imposed upon His Church: to teach, to worship God and sanctify the faithful, and to govern specifically enumerated by St. Pius X in Pascendi. These duties are possible through the powers of Church given to her by God, that is, Infallibility, Indefectibility, and Authority. It is important to remember that these Attributes are firstly Attributes of God and only Attributes of the Church because the Church is a divine institution. The powers resided primarily and essentially in the Church. They resided in churchmen only secondarily and accidentally.
The specific end of Indefectibility is to worship God and sanctify the faithful. Common theological opinion holds that Indefectibility of the Church means that a council and pope could never impose doctrinal or moral error on the Church. This leads to conservative Catholics. like Emmett O'Regan. who believe that the pope possess a personal never-failing faith and Indefectibility means there is no possibility of error from the Vatican II or concilar popes therefore we must accept them and all they teach. It also leads to sedevacantism/sedeprivationism that agree in general principle with conservatives but therefore conclude that the pope cannot be the pope to preserve the Attribute of Indefectibility. I contend that both of these conclusions are wrong and both lead to overturning of dogma.
If you consider Indefectibility as primarily an Attribute of the Church in light of the specific end of this power, that is, the worship of God and the sanctification of the faithful, these ends have never been absent from the Church since Vatican II. Just as Noah building the Ark condemned a sinful world, so Catholics faithful to tradition and the "received and approved rites customarily used in the solemn administration of the sacraments" condemn the conciliar Church. It is traditional Catholics that will not betray the faith that constitute the evidence of the Church's Indefectibility.
This theory may not be correct but it does not overturn any Catholic dogma.
As far as the exercise of Authority, it is strictly addressed in Catholic moral theology. The proper response to Authority is Obedience. But the ultimate Authority is God and all Catholics are obligated firstly to obey God. There are about a dozen subsidiary virtues under the virtue of Justice. These subsidiary virtues are hierarchically related. The first and most important virtue under Justice is the virtue of Religion. This virtue primarily concerns giving to God the things that are God's and typically can be quantified by specific acts. It is the virtue of Religion that governs obedience. Obedience is only a virtue when it is properly regulated by the virtue of Religion. When it is not, any act of obedience is sinful. There has hardly been any imposition of Authority since Vatican II that does not directly offend the virtue of Religion and must therefore be opposed.
R & R does no damage whatsoever to Catholic dogma or Catholic morality. Two things are necessary for any reconsideration: firstly, a conciliar pope will have to directly engage the Attributes of Infallibility and Authority to bind the Church to doctrinal and moral error, secondly, sedevacantists/sedeprivationists will have to produce a pope who is generally accepted by Catholics faithful to tradition.
I do not think either one is going to happen.
Lastly, every faithful Catholic should remember that the two greatest tests by God, the angelic test in heaven and the person of Jesus Christ to the Jews, required His chosen faithful to reject the constituted authority established by God. It should not surprise anyone if this should happen again.
Drew
"If you consider Indefectibility as primarily an Attribute of the Church in light of the specific end of this power, that is, the worship of God and the sanctification of the faithful, these ends have never been absent from the Church since Vatican II."
and
"Two things are necessary for any reconsideration: firstly, a conciliar pope will have to directly engage the Attributes of Infallibility and Authority to bind the Church to doctrinal and moral error, secondly, sedevacantists/sedeprivationists will have to produce a pope who is generally accepted by Catholics faithful to tradition.
I do not think either one is going to happen."
Just as Noah building the Ark condemned a sinful world, so Catholics faithful to tradition and the "received and approved rites customarily used in the solemn administration of the sacraments" condemn the conciliar Church. It is traditional Catholics that will not betray the faith that constitute the evidence of the Church's Indefectibility.
Jeremias writeth to the captives in Babylon, exhorting them to be easy there and not to hearken to false prophets. That they shall be delivered after seventy years. But those that remain in Jerusalem shall perish by the sword, famine and pestilence. And that Achab, Sedecius, and Semetas, false prophets, shall die miserably.
I wonder what is your understanding of the dogma that there is no salvation without personal submission to the Pope of Rome, Mr. Drew. It is a defined dogma of the Catholic Church that no one can be saved who is not subject to that flesh and blood Vicar of Jesus, the Roman Pontiff. How can you recognize, in good conscience, who the Pope of Rome is, and still persist in severing communion from him?Are you saying we are under a moral obligation to become a sedevacantist or sedeprivationist? I am sorry but there is considerable debate about what needs to be done with a heretical Pope. There is absolutely nothing wrong with avoiding him while at the same time recognizing his authority.
I wonder what is your understanding of the dogma that there is no salvation without personal submission to the Pope of Rome, Mr. Drew. It is a defined dogma of the Catholic Church that no one can be saved who is not subject to that flesh and blood Vicar of Jesus, the Roman Pontiff. How can you recognize, in good conscience, who the Pope of Rome is, and still persist in severing communion from him?
Excellent.
My disagreement with you is best represented by the juxtaposition of these two quotes of yours:
I agree with both statements, and because I do I disagree with an implication that I see in the paragraph from which the first quote is taken:
I read that as you saying that it is only Traditional Catholics, who attend the Latin Mass, who continue to carry the faith of the Church in these times. I disagree. In addition to the impossibility of a pope "engag[ing] the Attributes of Infallibility and Authority to bind the Church to doctrinal or moral error," I also think it impossible for a pope to promulgate or foist a Mass upon the Church that fails to perpetuate the Lord's presence in the Church and deliver the sacramental grace of the Eucharist, the center of our faith. Perhaps, however, that is included in your formulation.
True Catholics who hold to the true faith have followed Our Lord into the "captivity" of the Novus Ordo and post-Vatican 2 reality. This has been willed by God on the Church for her past abominations and the "heresies" by prior popes with regard to bowing to Mammon and the Money Powers, most evidenced with regard to usury, and the practical gutting of God's law against it.
On the whole in coming to understand what we are going through I recommend that Jeremiah 29 and the "70 years of captivity" for God's people be deeply and prayerfully studied. That punishment came upon the Church of the Old Covenant for its past abominations, and those who followed God's will and went into captivity were the ones to receive the future blessing.
In any event, within the NO are numerous elect of God, receiving Our Lord in maimed but salvific rites while in "captivity" in a foreign land, humbly enduring His just scourge upon His people, praying, confessing, saying their Rosaries, standing outside abortion clinics, decrying sodomy and adultery, maintaining the truth of "one Lord, one faith, one baptism."
But again, I agree with you, perhaps in total, and misunderstood and read some implications into your excellent post that weren't there.
Have a Blessed Easter, brother.
Hogwash. If you recognize his authority and avoid him, then you are in schism. Period. No, there's no strict obligation to be a sedevacantist or a sedeprivationist. But one must at least have positive doubts about the legitimacy of the V2 popes to avoid the sin of formal schism. If you want to argue that he stays in office until removed by the Church, that's a theological opinion.Wow, you certainly are over-analyzing the issue. I am only saying that I am not going to say that the See is Vacant. I recognize he has been given authority but that he is misusing his authority. He holds the office but should not have the office. Who decides that he should be deposed? In fact, who will depose him? Or the local diocesan bishop? Me? You? My obligation is to keep the faith in its simplicity.
However you want to eventually resolve the pope question in isoluation, I could hardly care less. What I care about is how you're butchering the indefectibility of the Church, the holiness of the Church ... smearing the Magisterium as having taught heresy, etc. That is what I find repugnant. As to whether you think Bergoglio is the pope, I could hardly care less about that in isolation. I have no problem attending Mass una cum Francisco. I have a problem with Protestant and non-Catholic principles that usually end up manifesting themselves with R&R.
Submissive and in submission to are completely different things. No, this is not a question of simple disobedience. You go to a Mass center that operates outside of the Church's jursidiction, nay, not merely outside of but "over and against" it, as it were, in defiance of it. You reject the Magisterium and the Universal Discipline of the Pope. So a son might be "submissive", i.e., pay lip service about how in theory he should submit to his father, but then he leaves the home in defiance of his own father and instead of helping with the father's business, he opens a shop down the street that is trying to steal customers from his own father. That's what you're doing ... if these guys are legitimate popes. You can TALK all you want about how you wish to submit to your father, but in fact you are NOT in submission to him.
Stop it with the "obey God rather than man" nonsense already. This isn't about simple obedience, but about submission to the Magisterium and Church's Universal Discipline. When you put YOUR interpretation of Tradition/dogma over that of the Magisterium, you're not actually obeying God ... but rather your private judgment, i.e. yourself. That's Protestantism in a nutshell.
Submissive and in submission to are completely different things. No, this is not a question of simple disobedience. You go to a Mass center that operates outside of the Church's jursidiction, nay, not merely outside of but "over and against" it, as it were, in defiance of it. You reject the Magisterium and the Universal Discipline of the Pope. So a son might be "submissive", i.e., pay lip service about how in theory he should submit to his father, but then he leaves the home in defiance of his own father and instead of helping with the father's business, he opens a shop down the street that is trying to steal customers from his own father. That's what you're doing ... if these guys are legitimate popes. You can TALK all you want about how you wish to submit to your father, but in fact you are NOT in submission to him.
Stop it with the "obey God rather than man" nonsense already. This isn't about simple obedience, but about submission to the Magisterium and Church's Universal Discipline. When you put YOUR interpretation of Tradition/dogma over that of the Magisterium, you're not actually obeying God ... but rather your private judgment, i.e. yourself. That's Protestantism in a nutshell.
“Things can be taught infallibly even if they are not de fide.”
Ladislaus
Your claim that “Things can be taught infallibly even if they are not de fide,” is impossible.
That's tantamount to a defection of the Magisterium.If the pope is not engaging his FULL magisterium, then his errors are not a defection, because his errors do not come from the OFFICIAL PAPACY but from his private office as theologian/bishop. You are making an illogical and erroneous connection between the fallible magisterium and indefectibility. There is not ONE V2 official who has claimed that V2 was free from error. You and Catarella however disagree and try to impose YOUR INTERPRETATION of a council and you HAVE NO OFFICIAL CHURCH AUTHORITY TO DO SO, nor any facts to support your thesis. (You've yet to show one quote or fact which proves that V2 must be accepted as a matter of salvation, yet you falsely assert that it is part of the infallible magisterium. So ridiculous.)
You go to a Mass center that operates outside of the Church's jursidiction, nay, not merely outside of but "over and against" it, as it were, in defiance of it.
You reject the Magisterium and the Universal Discipline of the Pope.We reject the fallible magisterium, since it is in error in some cases, which we are allowed to do since it only requires 'religious CONDITIONAL assent'.
So basically a legitimate successor of St. Peter, the very foundation of the Holy Roman Catholic Church, has turned to be an enemy of Jesus Christ?
Then you wonder why the Protestants laugh at us.
:facepalm: :laugh1:
An excellent point...
Pitting pope against pope and Council against Council is exactly what R&R leads to...
So the Vicar of Christ on earth himself has been offering the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass in an illegal and sinful rite for decades now?Does a bear shat in the woods? Does a pig like mud? Can a pope go to hell?
So basically a legitimate successor of St. Peter, the very foundation of the Holy Roman Catholic Church, has turned indeed to be an enemy of Jesus Christ?How many theologians have addressed this possibility? Many, over the course of many centuries. Even St Bellarmine said it was possible.
What is completely foreign to Roman Catholicism is the disdain and contemptuousness towards the Pope of Rome, the legitimate successor of St. Peter, by those who call themselves Catholic.You mean the same disdain and contempt that St Bellarmine showed towards the (imaginary) pope whom he argued could fall into heresy? I guess St Robert was in error and his ideals are COMPLETELY FOREIGN to the faith, as you state. (sarcasm alert).
It is believed that Popes can indeed fall into error in private writings or even have sinful lives.
But NOT promulgate error in Ecunemical Councils, though.V2 did not OFFICIALLY and AUTHORITATIVELY (i.e. under pain of sin, as a matter of salvation) force ANYONE to accept their novelties. You have not proven your above statement in any capacity and EVERY V2 theologian, including Pope Paul VI says the COMPLETE opposite of what you said. Your view has no factual backing. It is worse than a theory, it is wishful thinking. At worse, it's a lie.
Again, they pretend that V2 were just the private musings of one Giovanni Battista Montini. He and the bishops were officially teaching the Church, exercising the Magisterium.Alas, only if they had been exorcising the Magisterium instead!
It was an act of the fallible Magisterium.
Paul VI simply stated that V2 did not SOLEMNLY define anything.Yes and they said much more. Not only did Paul VI fail to SOLEMNLY define anything he also failed to non-solemnly define anything. The magisterium can be infallible solemnly and non-solemnly. V2 was neither.
The Fifth Lateran Council defines infallibly the necessity of being subject to the Pope of Rome for salvation, so if you know who the Pope of Rome is, then why don't you submit?
Pope Innocent III († 1216) :
“The pope should not flatter himself about his power, nor should he rashly glory in his honour 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.” (St. John 3:1) In such a case it should be said of him: ‘If salt should lose its savour, it is good for nothing but to be cast out and trampled under foot by men." (Sermo 4)
Pope Adrian VI († 1523) :
“If by the Roman Church you mean its head or pontiff, it is beyond question that he can err even in matters touching the faith. He does this when he teaches heresy by his own judgement or decretal. In truth, many Roman pontiffs were heretics. The last of them was Pope John XXII († 1334).”
Venerable Pope Pius IX :
“If a future pope teaches anything contrary to the Catholic Faith, do not follow him.” (Letter to Bishop Brizen)
Pope Adrian II († 872) :
“We read that the Roman Pontiff has always possessed authority to pass judgment on the heads of all the Churches (i.e., the patriarchs and bishops), but nowhere do we read that he has been the subject of judgment by others. It is true that Honorius was posthumously anathematized by the Eastern churches, but it must be borne in mind that he had been accused of heresy, the only offense which renders lawful the resistance of subordinates to their superiors, and their rejection of the latter's pernicious teachings”.
St. Thomas Aquinas:
“There being an imminent danger for the Faith, prelates must be questioned, even publicly, by their subjects. Thus, St. Paul, who was a subject of St. Peter, questioned him publicly on account of an imminent danger of scandal in a matter of Faith. And, as the Glossa of St. Augustine puts it (Ad Galatas 2.14), 'St. Peter himself gave the example to those who govern so that if sometimes they stray from the right way, they will not reject a correction as unworthy even if it comes from their subjects.” (Summa Theologiae, IIa IIae, Q. 33, A. 4)
Saint Thomas Aquinas O.P:
“It is written: ‘We ought to obey God rather than men.’ Now sometimes the things commanded by a superior are against God. Therefore, superiors are not to be obeyed in all things.” (Summa Theologiae, IIa IIae, Q. 104, A. 5)
From Galatians 2:11
“But when Cephas [Peter] was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed.” (Galatians 2:11)
The theologian Juan Cardinal De Torquemada O.P. († 1468)
“Although it clearly follows from the circumstances that the Pope can err at times, and command things which must not be done, that we are not to be simply obedient to him in all things, that does not show that he must not be obeyed by all when his commands are good. To know in what cases he is to be obeyed and in 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 faith, or the truth of the Sacraments, or the commands of the natural or divine law, he ought not to be obeyed, but in such commands, to be passed over.” (Summa de Ecclesia)
You have a habit of classifying anything as "theory" or "speculation" if it hasn't been formally or solemnly defined. So, for instance, you claimed this of the Church's disciplinary infallibility and overall indefectibility ... even though the propositions related to both disciplinary infallibility and indefectibility flow directly from Catholic teaching and have a much higher theological note than "speculative". For you there seem to be only two categories, de fide and speculation. That's in line with your limiting of infallibility to solemn definitions. As with the different ramifications of indefectibility which are denied by no theologian, the notion of fides ecclesiastica is very widely held. This distinction appears in every listing of the "theological notes" that I have ever seen.
But for people of your mindset, anything short of things defined solemnly by the Church are optional.
Wherefore, by divine and catholic faith all those things are to be believed which are contained in the word of God as found in scripture and tradition, and which are proposed by the church as matters to be believed as divinely revealed, whether by her solemn judgment or in her ordinary and universal magisterium. Vatican I
I am not aware of any reputable Catholic source which gives this (rather childish) explanation of the doctrine of submission to the Vicar of Christ on earth, the Pope of Rome. I have only heard this rhetoric in SSPX circles. Furthermore, you did not answer what is your understanding of the dogma, what it entails, and its implications in the regular lives of Catholics. You briefly touched the point of the legitimacy of general disobedience. Do you become a subject to the Roman Pontiff by virtue of Baptism alone? What are your obligations as a Roman Catholic in this respect?
I rather believe the words of Pope Leo XIII in Epistola Tua, 1885:
"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."
[Galatians 1:8 (http://www.drbo.org/cgi-bin/d?b=drb&bk=55&ch=1&l=8#x)]
This whole thread, and the other long winded thread (The Heretical Pope Fallacy (https://www.cathinfo.com/crisis-in-the-church/the-heretical-pope-fallacy/405/), 28 pages) could have been reduced to a few posts IF ONLY sedevacantists would know how to distinguish between the Authentic Magisterium and the Infallible Magisterium (Extraordinary and Ordinary). For some reason, they CAN NOT and WILL NOT make a distinction between the two.One of the main problems is that the sedes' very definition of "magisterium", which they say is their rule of faith, is the same as the Novus Ordo definition of "magisterium". Which is to say the sedes' adhere to the NO "totality of bishops doctrine". They believe this NO doctrine, quoted from a sede bishop, to be "a dogma of faith" - "The totality of the Bishops is infallible, when they, either assembled in general council or scattered over the earth propose a teaching of faith or morals as one to be held by all the faithful." - Bishop Pivarunas, CMRI
How do you reconcile your post with this teaching from Pope Leo XIII?
Fr. Joachim Salaverri wrote: |
Quote “An internal and religious assent of the mind is due to the doctrinal decrees of the Holy See which have been authentically approved by the Roman Pontiff.” Fr. Joachim Salaverri, of the Jesuit faculty of theology in the Pontifical Institute of Comillas in Spain, quote taken from article by Fr. Joseph C. Fenton, Infallibility in the Encyclicals, AER, 1953 |
What is more, I adhere with religious submission of will and intellect to the teachings which either the Roman pontiff or the college of bishops enunciate when they exercise the authentic Magisterium even if they proclaim those teachings in an act that is not definitive.
http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_1998_professio-fidei_en.html
Essentially what you're saying is that the non-infallible teachings of the Pope and bishops have no authority when they're not infallible, and Catholics can be free to disregard them.You really are a person of extremes. If something is not infallible, we must give 'religious CONDITIONAL assent'. If you want to know what that means, go re-read the definitions i've posted multiple times.
So you're essentially denying the notion of authoritative teaching to anything short of infallible pronouncements.I've posted theologians' explanations of the 3 tiers of magisterial authority numerous times. You refuse to make distinctions. You have no integrity.
"At the time, when the word magisterium was used, it meant the infallible type only" Are you kidding me, Pax?? Where did you come up with this little gem? Source please...You don't even believe that there IS a fallible magisterium, so how else can YOU interpret this, but that it's ALL infallible?
I actually have a scriptural annotation ...Cantarella, you need to stop with the scriptural annotation that you've posted like 1,000x. It's AN OPINION.
Same thing here. The "superiors" who are mentioned here (and may be disobeyed if they command something sinful), are NOT precisely the Pope of Rome.A superior is a superior. The Pope is a superior. Principle applies. If St Thomas needed to make an exception, I think he's smart enough to remember to do so. Your exception is not valid.
St. Thomas explicitly taught in "Contra Errores Graecorum" that to be subject to the Roman Pontiff is necessary for salvation. When we talk about the Holy Father himself then; then the submission to be given is completely different.Right. We are only obligated to give 'religious CONDITIONAL assent' to the pope, unless he requires UNQUALIFIED assent, through a teaching that he, through infallibility (either solemn or non-solemn), binds us.
...because we believe that his authority comes from GOD, being the succesor of St. Peter. Obedience and loyalty to Peter is the authentic and traditional Catholic attitude.
You're entitled to your opinion.
Since you've decided to join in, please elaborate on the quote from Pope Leo XIII. What is he saying in the quote below? What does he mean?
Why would anyone be banished from the Church by departing "from the doctrine propose by the authentic magisterium" if the authentic magisterium can err?
It was consequently provided by God that the Magisterium instituted by Jesus Christ should not end with the life of the Apostles, but that it should be perpetuated. We see it in truth propagated, and, as it were, delivered from hand to hand. For the Apostles consecrated bishops, and each one appointed those who were to succeed them immediately "in the ministry of the word."
Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum
The practice of the Church has always been the same, as is shown by the unanimous teaching of the Fathers, who were wont to hold as outside Catholic communion, and alien to the Church, whoever would recede in the least degree from any point of doctrine proposed by her authoritative Magisterium. Epiphanius, Augustine, Theodoret, drew up a long list of the heresies of their times. St. Augustine notes that other heresies may spring up, to a single one of which, should any one give his assent, he is by the very fact cut off from Catholic unity. "No one who merely disbelieves in all (these heresies) can for that reason regard himself as a Catholic or call himself one. For there may be or may arise some other heresies, which are not set out in this work of ours, and, if any one holds to one single one of these he is not a Catholic" (S. Augustinus, De Haeresibus, n.).
Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum
Wherefore, as appears from what has been said, Christ instituted in the Church a living, authoritative and permanent Magisterium, which by His own power He strengthened, by the Spirit of truth He taught, and by miracles confirmed. He willed and ordered, under the gravest penalties, that its teachings should be received as if they were His own. As often, therefore, as it is declared on the authority of this teaching that this or that is contained in the deposit of divine revelation, it must be believed by every one as true. If it could in any way be false, an evident contradiction follows; for then God Himself would be the author of error in man. "Lord, if we be in error, we are being deceived by Thee" (Richardus de S. Victore, De Trin., lib. i., cap. 2)………..
For this reason the Fathers of the Vatican Council laid down nothing new, but followed divine revelation and the acknowledged and invariable teaching of the Church as to the very nature of faith, when they decreed as follows: "All those things are to be believed by divine and Catholic faith which are contained in the written or unwritten word of God, and which are proposed by the Church as divinely revealed, either by a solemn definition or in the exercise of its ordinary and universal Magisterium" (Sess. iii., cap. 3). Hence, as it is clear that God absolutely willed that there should be unity in His Church, and as it is evident what kind of unity He willed, and by means of what principle He ordained that this unity should be maintained, we may address the following words of St. Augustine to all who have not deliberately closed their minds to the truth: "When we see the great help of God, such manifest progress and such abundant fruit, shall we hesitate to take refuge in the bosom of that Church, which, as is evident to all, possesses the supreme authority of the Apostolic See through the Episcopal succession? In vain do heretics rage round it; they are condemned partly by the judgment of the people themselves, partly by the weight of councils, partly by the splendid evidence of miracles. To refuse to the Church the primacy is most impious and above measure arrogant. And if all learning, no matter how easy and common it may be, in order to be fully understood requires a teacher and master, what can be greater evidence of pride and rashness than to be unwilling to learn about the books of the divine mysteries from the proper interpreter, and to wish to condemn them unknown?" (De Unitate Credendi, cap. xvii., n. 35).
Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum
How do you reconcile your post with this teaching from Pope Leo XIII?
The practice of the Church has always been the same, as is shown by the unanimous teaching of the Fathers, who were wont to hold as outside Catholic communion, and alien to the Church, whoever would recede in the least degree from any point of doctrine proposed by her authoritative Magisterium.
Authorized: having official permission or approval.
Authoritative: able to be trusted as being accurate or true; reliable.
Pope Leo XIII elaborates on this specific issue...
That was not the point, Meg. The point of the quote is to demonstrate that Christ left in Peter and His successors, a representative of Himself on earth. Christ and the Pope are not independent from each other. As Pope Innocent III explains here:
Well, I'm certainly not a linguist by any stretch of the means. But the latin sure seems to indicate the word "authentic".
Looks pretty clear to me, but maybe someone with training in Latin can chime in...
authentĭcus (adjective I class)
1. (document) original, genuine, authentic
2. that comes from the author
authentic (adjective)The bottom line for me is this: often lay theologians will read something and understand it in a completely different way as what was intended by the one who wrote it. Put many little such mistakes together and you will arrive at a big mistake, which will be very hard to correct.
1. verus [veră, verum]
2. certus [certă, certum]
Another example from Satis Cognitum:
From an online Latin dictionary:
authentĭcum
neutral noun II declension
1 original or authentic document, the original
2 document certifying relic genuine
Wherefore, as appears from what has been said, Christ instituted in the Church a living, authoritative and permanent Magisterium, which by His own power He strengthened, by the Spirit of truth He taught, and by miracles confirmed.
Well, I'm certainly not a linguist by any stretch of the means. But the latin sure seems to indicate the word "authentic".
Looks pretty clear to me, but maybe someone with training in Latin can chime in...
I already ignore quite a bit of what Father Cekada has to say. He's done a lot of good research and laid a good foundation, but I don't care about what version of this or that is accepted by him...
I'm certainly skeptical of the translation, yes. Anything "official" that comes from the apostate church should make anyone skeptical. Obviously, in your position, it makes sense that you would accept something "official" from the Vatican. I get it, man...
I don't find it that interesting of an exercise... Of course, I know where I got it from.
I did, however, find our dictionary exercise interesting as it confirmed my original assertion about the translation.
I agree, I don't think that our little exercise did you any good. People like you already think you know it all - it's obvious from this last condescending post of yours.
By the way, Samuel, you can pursue this as far as you want to go. Just know that I'll be here to keep you in check...
I agree, I don't think that our little exercise did you any good. People like you already think you know it all - it's obvious from this last condescending post of yours.
By the way, Samuel, you can pursue this as far as you want to go. Just know that I'll be here to keep you in check...
There's no need to apologize at all ... since Drew and his wife are actively promoting heresy. They would have been burned at the stake by St. Pius V for trying to spread such poison.
You're succumbing to feminine emotions in feeling the need to apologize.
Your sarcasm indicates you're not really interested in pursuing anything...but I'll bite.
I don't have any "illustrious sedevacantist mentors", Sam.
Father Cekada, Novus Ordo Watch, John Lane, and John Daly all believe in the salvation of non-Catholics, so I don't pay much attention to any of them. Occasionally I'll refer to some Father Cekada material, and Novus Ordo Watch has some good material, but to be honest, I don't know much about John Lane or John Daly...
That being said, I believe that the Dimonds have the most comprehensive material to read through, and I refer to their material the most. And to correct your statement above, MHFM does not use or accept the translation of "authentico" or "authenticum" as "authoritative". See below, from the Dimonds website:
Papal Infallibility does not mean that a pope cannot err at all and it does not mean that a pope cannot lose his soul and be damned in Hell for grave sin. It means that the successors of St. Peter (the popes of the Catholic Church) cannot err when authoritatively teaching on a point of Faith or morals to be held by the entire Church of Christ. We find the promise of the unfailing faith for St. Peter and his successors referred to by Christ in Luke 22.(http://www.mostholyfamilymonastery.com/catholicchurch/catholic-glossary-principles/#.WsQcxp9fhhF)
...
Satan desired to sift all the Apostles (plural) like wheat, but Jesus prayed for Simon Peter (singular), that his faith fail not. Jesus is saying that St. Peter and his successors (the popes of the Catholic Church) have an unfailing faith when authoritatively teaching a point of faith or morals to be held by the entire Church of Christ.
...
Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum, 1896:
“… Christ instituted a living, authoritative and permanent Magisterium… If it could in any way be false, an evident contradiction follows; for then God Himself would be the author of error in man.”
Outside of the Church there is absolutely no salvation
(http://www.mostholyfamilymonastery.com/catholicchurch/outside-the-church-there-is-no-salvation/#.WsQed59fhhE)
Heretic – a baptized person who rejects a dogma of the Catholic Church. Heretics are automatically excommunicated from the Church (ipso facto) without any declaration for rejecting an authoritative teaching of the Faith.
The Glossary of Terms and Principles (http://www.mostholyfamilymonastery.com/catholicchurch/catholic-glossary-principles/#.WsQcxp9fhhF)
Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum (# 9), June 29, 1896: “The practice of the Church has always been the same, and that with the consenting judgment [i.e. consensus] of the holy fathers who certainly were accustomed to hold as having no part of Catholic communion and as banished from the Church whoever had departed in even the least way from the doctrine proposed by the authentic magisterium.”
Also, note here that the Church is infallible in its ‘authentic magisterium’. Pope Leo XIII declares that to deny teaching of the ‘authentic magisterium’ is to separate oneself from the Church. The position that the ‘authentic magisterium’ can contain error is common among false traditionalists.
The Magisterium is Free From Error (http://www.mostholyfamilymonastery.com/catholicchurch/the-magisterium/#.WsQX6Z9fhhF)
I'm not going to digress onto the subject of BoD here (this thread is long enough already), but it suffices to say that AT NO POINT have I ever asserted that there can be no error whatsoever in any proposition ever to have emanated from the Magisterium. What I have stated is that the Magisterium is infallibly safe, i.e., that no one can in submitting to an authoritative teaching made to the Universal Church on a substantial point proposed as being normative for the faithful endanger their faith (as Msgr. Fenton articulated it). BoD, conceding for the sake of argument that the Church has taught this, as held by St. Thomas et al., does no substantial harm to the faith. It's a speculative theory that can be understood in such a way as to bring no harm to Catholic doctrine. Saying that the Magisterium is the "rule of faith" is not the same as saying that it's absolutely inerrant ... you ignorant baboon. I've explained this to you several times already, but you are too dense to absorb this ... that and too blinded by your own heretical depravity.
Why don't you go back and look at your quotes from the popes. Here's some of the phrases they used: "unable to be mistaken," "without danger of error," "could by no means commit itself to erroneous teaching." That is far more than "cannot, on the whole, be subtantially corrupted." Nice try, though, with that Thomist stuff. Impressive.
Saying that the Magisterium is the "rule of faith" is not the same as saying that it's absolutely inerrant ... you ignorant baboon. I've explained this to you several times already, but you are too dense to absorb this ... that and too blinded by your own heretical depravity.
No I don't, moron. I have consistently characterized BoD as an opinion of speculative theology with which I happen to disagree at this time.
You have no recourse but to lie in a futile attempt to win this debate, out of spite.
So who is right and who is wrong between you and the Magisterium when you "disagree" with its speculatively theologizing about BoD?Since his magisterium can be wrong on inconsequential matters, he is naturally free to decide which matters are inconsequential and which matters they got wrong. He is also forced to decide who is actually the real vs fraudulent magisterium and find out where the real magisterium aka Church is hiding.
The wrong one is in "error" - which is why I imagine you "disagree" with it. Or do you "disagree" with truth much?
If it's the Magisterium in error, don't go doing any carpentry with your "rule of faith." lol
Interestingly enough, my first post on this thread was on page 12 - It was a post correcting your false assertion that "the foundation of the Church are its teachings..."The Church = teachings + pope. It's both. However, teachings came first, because Christ was teaching the Apostles the Truth (which came from both the Old Testament and Christ's new testament) before the Church even existed. Christ's public life and time before the Ascension were done before Pentacost (birthday of the Church). So, teachings are the foundation of the Church, with the pope being the guardian of the teachings.
As for the Bellarmine quote from the SSPX article you posted, I believe Cantarella and Ladislaus addressed this.Why don't YOU address it? They read plain english and then apply verbal/mental gymnastics to say that it doesn't say what it says. I guess you go along with their lack of integrity? Suit yourself.
The Pope is human indeed; but as time progresses, I am more and more convinced that his Faith indeed cannot fail. Until someone is able to prove otherwise; I am now endorsing the 4th proposition explained by St. Bellarmine here:
As I had said before, the evidence of Popes not falling into heresy is overwhelming. R&R just can't really defend its position on this matter. Most of their sources do not even have enough theological weight whatsoever. For example, this quote attributed to Pope Adrian VI:
First, this is a false assertion, given that it is easily proven by ecclesiastical documents that not "MANY" Roman pontiffs were heretics. Second, it turns out that this quote was not written by POPE Adrian VI, but by "Adriano Florenzio" before being elected pontiff. Therefore, this work does not even belong to the Magisterium whatsoever.
I will go further and say that I don't even think you can safely believe a Pope can become a heretic after the dogmatic definition of Papal infallibility from Vatican I Council.
I am now endorsing the 4th proposition explained by St. Bellarmine here:Ha ha.
He's referring to the simple fact that the existence of the alleged quotation cannot be verified.St Bellarmine was quoted 4-5x saying that 1) councils are only infallible in their decrees/canons/definitons and 2) decrees/canons/definitions are the ONLY parts which are 'of the faith' and must be held for salvation.
A single reading of Dogmatic Constitution Pastor Aeternus is all is needed to arrive to my conclusions:
7. This gift of truth and never-failing faith was therefore divinely conferred on Peter and his successors in this See so that they might discharge their exalted office for the salvation of all, and so that the whole flock of Christ might be kept away by them from the poisonous food of error and be nourished with the sustenance of heavenly doctrine. Thus the tendency to schism is removed and the whole Church is preserved in unity, and, resting on its foundation, can stand firm against the gates of hell.
7. This gift of truth and never-failing faith was therefore divinely conferred on Peter and his successors in this See so that (1) they might discharge their exalted office for the salvation of all, and so that (2) the whole flock of Christ might be kept away by them from the poisonous food of error and (3) be nourished with the sustenance of heavenly doctrine. Thus the (4) tendency to schism is removed and the whole Church is preserved in unity, and, resting on its foundation, can stand firm against the gates of hell.
And those I have already explained to you.You ignored 1/2 of the quotes. I'm not surprised.
Your argument is not with me, Pax, but with the Vicar of Christ.The pope is the foundation of the Church, but not the ONLY foundation.
That is just because you do not understand it. If, in fact, the conciliar "popes" have done all you describe above against the Church, then that is a public indication that they are NOT the legitimate successors of St. Peter to begin with. That is the sign, because we know that popes do not fall into heresy.
Do tell. This ought to be good.
[Insert R&R distortion of Vatican I right here].
We are dealing here with the possibility of heresy in an Ecunemical Council,
So you mock this, eh?
Gross distortion? This comes almost verbatim from the TEACHING OF VATICAN I, dips..t:
And this last part is key. If Catholics are forced to split off from the hierarchy on account of error in the Papal Magisterium, then this overturns the teaching of Vatican I. If the Magisterium has gotten so corrupt that Catholics are forced to refuse submission to the hierarchy, then it's a sign that these are not Peter with the "gift of truth and never-failing faith".
Oh, Pius IX condemned Religious Liberty? Well, it didn't have all the notes of infallibility, so it's a flip of the coin whether I accept it or not. I like Pius IX and don't like Vatican II, so I'll go with Pius IX.Anyone with an 8th grade understanding can read encyclicals pre and post V2 and see the difference in use of the english language. Your sweeping-generalizations, emotional rants, and childish name-calling are becoming more and more normal for your posts. I wish you'd deal in facts, but that might be asking too much.
He has so constructed and ordered the Church that those who follow the directives given to the entire kingdom of God on earth will never be brought into the position of ruining themselves spiritually through this obedience.Oh, here we go again, with Fenton...
So you're saying that the teachings of Pius IX were infallible, right?No, not everything. The Syllabus of Errors was binding, yes. The Immaculate Conception, obviously, and any canons from V1. And any of his non-infallible magisterium, which I don't have memorized because it would've been a RE-TEACHING of a dogma ALREADY IN EXISTENCE, therefore it was already in the catechism.
Directives ... from Latin, meaning to give a direction to. And Vatican II clearly set a direction for Catholic theology and made it normative for the Church.AUTHORITATIVE direction is different from just direction. AUTHORITATIVE presumes we MUST BELIEVE it. A simple 'direction' is not binding, and the pope is NOT protected from error in simple directions, only when he is authoritative, and teaches/binds the Church.
I didn't ask whether the Syllabus was binding but whether it was infallible.The syllabus contains many errors that have been previously and infallibly condemned. Yet the Syllabus is not regarded as an infallible statement, no. It could fall under the non-infallible magisterium, if such errors are shown to have been ALWAYS condemned (which is problematic, since most of those errors have only been around since the 16th century with modern philosophers). Yet, such a condemnation must be given 'religious conditional assent' and presumed to be correct, unless we find errors.
Again, for people like Pax and Drew, the entire Magisterium can become polluted with error so grave that it endangers the faith if submitted to and an Ecumenical Council can teach heresy to the Universal Church.
Except for a small handful of solemn pronouncements, the rest of it amounts to little more than the public musings of a Giovanni Battista Montini or Karol Wojtyla or Jorge Bergoglio. Hey, there's Bergoglio's latest Recyclical. Well, he was just thinking out loud. Oh, Pius IX condemned Religious Liberty? Well, it didn't have all the notes of infallibility, so it's a flip of the coin whether I accept it or not. I like Pius IX and don't like Vatican II, so I'll go with Pius IX. I'm going to pit Pope against Pope and Council against Council.
And the entire Magisterium outside of those core dogmatic de fide teachings can become so thoroughly corrupted that we must break submission with the hierarchy in order to please God and save our souls.
THIS is the Church you believe in?
It's blasphemous ... and quite heretical.
I believe that we are not dealing with human authority, Mr. Drew; but in the figure of the Pope, DIVINE authority coming from God. Otherwise, the foundation of St. Peter that Our Lord envisioned for His Church is quite meaningless. That changes everything of course, and it is why the example of father and son falls short. We part from the premise that the Holy Father, on account of having authority from God, will NOT and CANNOT command something harmful to the Faith.
The Vicar of Christ on earth does not issue unjust commands to the Faithful or lead souls to Hell by promulgating error. As simple as that. If someone has doubts on the reason for this, please read Vatican I Dogmatic Constitution Pastor Aeternus.
If the Magisterium has gotten so corrupt that Catholics are forced to refuse submission to the hierarchyThe V2 hierarchy HAS NOT REQUIRED SUBMISSION to their errors. They are NOT REQUIRED TO BE HELD UNDER PAIN OF SIN. Therefore, when we question and refuse parts of V2 (which we are allowed to do because they only require CONDITIONAL assent) it HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE OFFICIAL MAGISTERIUM which is only in operation when teachings are REQUIRED.
but “also be submissive to him in matters of liturgy and discipline.”Cantarel