How many have the aptitude and time committed to study what the Magisterium, the manuals and the theological conclusions of the best theologians have to say? It reminds me a bit of the question of the existence of God. It can absolutely be demonstrated that God exists using reason but the reality is people have reasoned so falsely on this question and are liable to commit so many errors that God in His infinite wisdom has deemed it necessary to give us His Revelation. That is not exactly the best comparison but until the Magisterium speaks clearly on the question of the Post-Conciliar period do we need to hurl anathemas at each other? (I will agree that the S&S seem too strident)

It is also an interesting phenomenon that all the "champions" of sedevacantism and sedeprivationism are not known to do anything for really building a Catholic Social Order. I think that is somewhat of the point Fr Chazal made in one of his conferences in 2015.

Obscurus,

That is the first question proposed by St. Thomas in the Summa, with philosophy why do we need theological studies?  One answer is that there are certain doctrines of divine revelation that can be known with certainty by philosophy but still form part of God’s revelation. The reason is that most people do not have the time, inclination, or competency to study philosophy and even if they do may still end in error, so God in His mercy has provided certainty of these philosophical truths through divine revelation.

The precious gift of Dogma is exactly analogous to this very point made by St. Thomas that you mention. We know by divine revelation certain truths but often through lack of time, inclination or competency these remain poorly known. But what is worse, heretics corrupt this divine revelation leading many into error. God in His mercy again provides Dogma as a sure guide to His faithful.  Dogma is divine revelation formally defined, typically as a categorical proposition, that requires only good grammar and proper definition to understand, and good will to embrace.

This is why Dogma is the proximate rule of faith. Dogma, like Scripture and Tradition, the remote rule of faith, is divine revelation but possessing such additional clarity that it is within the competency of every Catholic. Supernatural faith is believing what God has revealed on the authority of God the revealer.  No one has to understand any particular Dogma, they just have to believe it as a literal truth revealed by God.  St. Teresa of Jesus said she rejoiced more in the truths she did not understand than the ones she did because they required a greater act of faith and were therefore more virtuous.

The arguments that I have made in this thread are typically very simple and generally are the clarification of definitions, the importance of not corrupting first principles, and the necessity of being faithful to Dogma. But these have made no impression on committed S&Sers.  I have posted many times that they are in a church that cannot be the Catholic Church. They are in a church that has no pope, no magisterium, and no intention or means to ever get one and therefore, no hope.  Their church is defective of necessary attributes of the Church founded by Jesus Christ.  Not once has any S&Ser addressed this manifest truth.  It does not matter to them.

They are impervious to any arguments.  Take one example.  Sedeprivationism begins with severing the matter and form of the papal office.  Hylomorphism, the philosophical truth that material beings are composed of form and matter, is philosophical truth that can be proven by natural reason.  It not only is a known philosophical truth, it is a truth of Catholic Dogma in that this philosophical truth has been used in Catholic Dogma on the sacraments. We know, not just by human reason, but by divine and Catholic faith that hylomorphism is true. From this we know with certainty that the separation of form and matter necessarily causes a substantial change in any material being. This is just one big cold hard fact.  How has it been answered over the last hundred pages?  The only answer is that this theory of sedeprivationism was formulated by the Rev. Guerard des Lauriers and it is unthinkable to suggest that he could have made such a stupid mistake.  That is it. That is the only answer provided over hundreds of posts.  The appeal to authority is the weakest of all arguments unless the authority is God then it is the strongest of all arguments.  Dogma is the authority of God and Dogma has been pitted against the authority of Guerard des Lauriers.  Ladislaus, Cantarella, et al. prefer the authority of Guerard des Lauriers over the authority of God.

The consequences are grave and yet S&Sers march on with a mindless self absorption that is frightening.  But the consequences go beyond the wreckage of their personal spiritual lives. They must necessarily become an enemy of Dogma because they are manifestly corrupting Dogma in their personal lives.  The greatest opposition to traditional Catholicism since Vatican II has not been from liberal Catholics.  It has been conservative Catholics that have constantly undermined the efforts to defend Tradition.  The interesting thing is that the arguments offered by S&Sers regarding the pope, the magisterium, councils, Catholic morality, etc., etc., are almost identical with those offered by conservative Catholics over the last fifty years.  One thing is certain, traditional Catholics working in defense of the faith for Catholic restoration will get the same knife in the back from S&Sers that they have suffered from conservative Catholics.  In the end both will have a lot to answer for.

Drew    

Did you even ever addressed the fact that your position has already been dogmatically condemned by the Council of Trent, under the errors of Luther:

This means that if Vatican II is actually a valid Ecunemical Council, you are not allowed to "weaken" its authority, contradict its actions, nor judge its decrees.

Catholics cannot reject Ecunemical Councils, "in the name of Dogma".

.
Cantarella, you seem to be in a tizzy about Vat.II being questioned as if it were invalid, when a pope (Paul VI) approved it.
.
He approved the New Mass too, you know, and punished anyone who opposed it.
Does that make the Newmass okay somehow? I hope you don't think so!
.
The problem is, as Fr. Hesse so well explained, there is NOTHING DOGMATIC about Vat.II.
.
It has misleading titles of parts, saying "Dogmatic" this or that, but there was no dogma defined anywhere at Vat.II.
.
The Liberals have long attempted to hijack the titles claiming that they render the material below them infallible.
.
Don't believe it.
.
The last infallible definition was the Assumption of Our Lady in 1950 by Pius XII.
.
And when the Liberals say we are obliged to give ascent of mind and will to things doctrinally proposed by ecuмenical councils even when not infallibly defined, keep in mind they're liberals and they want you to believe in liberalism.
.
But Liberalism is a Sin.
.

#1 ... the first part is absolutely true.  If a dogma is doubtful, it's not a dogma.  By the very definition of dogma, dogma must be know with the certainty of faith, which precludes all doubt.  So, if there's doubt about a dogma, it's not a dogma.

#2 ... the second is a false non-sequitur conclusion.  I know of no dogmas at the present time which are "doubtful", and no one is relieved from believing in "dogma at all" simply because one or another dogma happens to have a doubtful status.

This why it's so incredibly frustrating to engage with you guys on the forum.  It's almost painful to read your ridiculous attempts at "logic".

Yes, it is incredibly frustrating.

It is an oxymoron to say a dogma is doubtful, so there is no doubt that we must be subject to the pope, because there is no doubt that that is dogma. The power of doubting does not relieve anyone from this requirement for heaven, by design there is no way around it or out of it.   

I might take the time to post if you can justify your demand that it be a pre-VI theologian.  What happened at Vatican I that magically invalidates all theology after that time?  Even then, it's a waste of my time because you simply dismiss as wrong and invalid anything that doesn't agree with your viewpoint.

It is actually not all that complicated.

You keep siting teachings of 19th/20th century theologians as if they represent teachings of the Church, or at least, as you wrongfully said: "all theologians", but they don't, the teachings you keep siting only represent post-V1 era theologians (aka "19th/20th century theologians") whose teachings became instrumental within novus ordo, used for malicious purposes and accepted by the masses as if they are actually doctrines of the Church.

The reality is that pre-V1, the theologians never taught the things many of the post V1 theologians taught because infallibility was always understood exactly as V1 defined it. The confusion enters into the minds of the people when you introduce the musings of the post V1 theologians as if their musings are in fact what the Church has always taught, but this is wrong.  

It is exactly as +ABL, said in the linked interview:

Q. But isn't the fact that Pope Paul VI occupies the seat of St. Peter enough for you to heed whatever the pontiff as the vicar of Christ on earth asks you to do, just as other Catholics do?

A. "Unfortunately, this is an error. It is a misconception of papal infallibility because since the Council of Vatican I, when the dogma of infallibility was proclaimed, the pope was already infallible. This was not a sudden invention. Infallibility was then far better understood than it is now because it was well known then that the pope was not infallible on everything under the sun.....


Since sometime after V1, as +ABL said, infallibility has gotten misunderstood. Infallibility is no longer limited to the pope when he speaks ex cathedra, rather, SOMEONE (some theologians after V1) has wrongfully convinced the masses that *infallibility has been extended* to disciplines, to whatever the pope wants, says or teaches, to whatever the unanimity of bishops teach, to councils, canon laws, catechisms and even to theologians themselves.
 

Who was it that was instrumental in "widely promoting" this gross misunderstanding of infallibility if not the post V1 theologians? You keep referencing them as an infallible authority and the masses believe as you do, yet as +ABL says and V1 dictates, they are wrong.

This is why I ask for you to post quotes from pre-V1 theologians. When you find there are no pre-V1 theologian or Church teachings whatsoever on a Disciplinary infallibility of the Church, you will be faced with the reality to conclude for yourself that the whole idea is new and only taught by post V1 theologians and consequently, the NO church.

Great, but this doesn't mean that the post-Vatican I theological treatises can all be dismissed by clowns like you who can barely read English simply because it was "better" understood back then.  Nor is "misunderstood" the opposite of "better understood", rather it's "less understood".  Nor does it make his statement true.  +ABL also said that infidels could be saved.

In any case, see the video I just linked to above where +ABL says that it's not possible for the Pope, who has the protection of the Holy Spirit, to do the things that he has done ... and going on to speculate that the Holy See could be vacant.  It's well known that +Lefebvre went all over the place on the Pope question at various points in his life.

You either post the thing I asked you to post, i.e. quote from any of the pre-V1 "all theologians" who taught Universal Discipline that you falsely accused teaching this NO doctrine, or admit you lied. It's not complicated.

Do you have even the foggiest idea what a Universal Discipline even is? Neither did the pre-V1 theologians you clown.

V1 wasn't the beginning of NO you bumbling idiot.

You need to read what I wrote you bumbling idiot.

Care to try again?

Since sometime after V1, as +ABL said, infallibility has gotten misunderstood. Infallibility is no longer limited to the pope when he speaks ex cathedra, rather, SOMEONE (some theologians after V1) has wrongfully convinced the masses that *infallibility has been extended* to disciplines, to whatever the pope wants, says or teaches, to whatever the unanimity of bishops teach, to councils, canon laws, catechisms and even to theologians themselves.

The thing to do when trying to make sense of this subject - according to the teachings of the Church, is to be sure to always start with the pope in the Chair as your foundation. If that is not your foundation, you will forever argue in circles and never be able to ever make any sense of this situation. You will need to invent novelties like "canonical submission" and "disciplinary infallibility" etc. - all terms that sound like something but in reality are only the tools used by workers of iniquity.