Uh.... are you serious? DERP! We already knew that! It's called TRADITION, and there are MULTIPLE publications WHY a WOMAN CANNOT be a priest! For one thing, she's not a MAN and a woman cannot say "This is My Body" as Christ did.
Are you trying to suggest that we're denying the primacy of Peter by saying that he can't say that there can't be women priests?
That's interesting. Taking your assertion, one could conclude that Pope Pius IX did no need to declare the dogma of the Immaculate Conception. Nor would Pius XII need to declare the dogma of the Assumption, since both of these dogma had strong ordinary and universal teaching to back up their acceptance by the Church.
For your betterment: That is why the Church has a living teaching authority (aka magisterium) not to be confused with a living tradition. To make clear what may not have been clear or contested.
You asked for a Law - I provided an example. If you don't like it ... that is your prerogative.
Now this part of your retort is particularly interesting:
Give me one example of something that has been infallibly stated that the Catholic Church hasn't already pronounced as something that is required for belief in the last 55 years. You can't do it.
Before leaving off my example please provide the quotation in the magisterium where the Church (preferably a Pope directly not just a congregation) previous to BJP2 stated that Women could not ordained as a Catholic Priestess.
If a person, in their desire to hold onto the Faith, denies the primacy of Peter's successor and refuses submission to a lawful command because of this denial - then they have lost the Faith.
Now this would also have to apply as well to a Pope who in defiance of the doctrinal condemnations of his predecessors, teaches and acts contrary to those same declarations, which must be seen to be commands in themselves that it is not permitted to hold such positions.
Such a one would have lost the Faith and this then must be applied to all of the conciliar Popes and which leaves the Church as having been ruled by men without Faith for sixty years.
Well, now that is quite the logical jump that you've made. From a subordinate refusing submission to the Pope, to the Pope refusing submission to a Pope who is either dead (normal situation) or has abdicated (present position).
There is only one Pope at a time so one Pope cannot issue a lawful command to another one. Otherwise subsequent Pope's would not be able to condemn prior Popes inaction in the case of heresy spreading through the Church. Any non-infallible statement is as a consequence of not being infallible, by definition reformable.
So you assertion is simply non sequitur.
Perhaps I have misunderstood your response that was misunderstanding mine ... if so please clarify.
The good are those who are linked together not only by the profession of the same faith, and the participation of the same Sacraments, but also by the spirit of grace and the bond of charity. Of these St. Paul says: The Lord knoweth who are his. Who they are that compose this class we also may remotely conjecture, but we can by no means pronounce with certainty. Hence Christ the Saviour does not speak of this portion of His Church when He refers us to the Church and commands us to hear and to obey her. As this part of the Church is unknown, how could we ascertain with certainty whose decision to recur to, whose authority to obey?
So while the fear of the masonic/communist/modernist/lgbt infiltration may seem like a good reason to refuse a canonical regularization ...
it is still wrong.
If the conditions for obedience are present as noted - then there is an obligation to obey.
God Bless!
So...it's wrong to not be regularized?
If a Pope were to issue a command/request etc that did not involve sin - then yes the Pope would then have fulfilled the requirements and it would be wrong to not acquiesce to such a command.
Now if someone has an argument for why abiding by the Divine Constitution of the Church is immediately or proximately sinful (given the conditions noted by the SSPX), I would love to hear it.
Please don't just proof text Archbishop Lefebvre - I want a sound doctrinally based rationale for refusing a legitimate command from a reigning Vicar of Christ.
Hollingsworth is right. People should resist replying to this constant 'obey the pope' mantra. The new SSPX is a backdoor device luring trads into conciliarism and is touted by those who really want the movement to collapse.
The Rome trads adhere to is not geographical or contemporary. And the visible Church resides wherever there is belief. To harbour lingering attachments to an apostate Rome is worthless sentiment or hedging one's bets. And that is before putting one's brain into gear and trying to explain why accommodating two religions makes any sense.
Well, I hardly know where to start with this one, there are a number of things that are wrong with it.
"obey the pope mantra": It is a Catholic principle of obedience that one must obey a lawful superior in all things within their scope of authority. Sinful commands obviously fall outside of that scope of authority. This is called True Obedience.
"SSPX is a backdoor": As I understand it the fundamental issue between the resistance and the SSPX is twofold:
First, the SSPX believes that the Pope is the Vicar of Christ and as such has Universal Jurisdiction and Authority over all Catholics as well as over heretics and schismatics.
Second, the SSPX believes that the visible Church (as understood by the Church) is the Church of which Pope Francis is the visible head.
As such the visible Church under the leadership of Pope Francis is the One Holy Roman Catholic Church. Of course now some will deny that the four marks are present in the Church lead by Pope Francis.
"the visible Church resides wherever there is belief":
This is an interesting an assertion as it is wrong.
The Eastern Orthodox (Schismatics) had the same belief at first when they separated from the Church. Were they still part of the visible Church? What caused them to be outside the Church?
The second aspect is that this strongly resembles the invisible Church because belief is internal - hence not visible. The visibility of the Church rests on the visible hierarchy - the foundation of which is the Pope (See Vatican I, Catechism of the Council of Trent).
"To harbour lingering attachments to an apostate Rome is worthless sentiment or hedging one's bets.": Well, given that it is dogma that the Church is indefectible, that there will be successors of Peter until the end of the world, that Pope Francis is the Pope (dogmatic fact), it is a safe bet that this assertion is wrong.
Dogmatic Fact: When a Pope is recognized by the hierarchy as the Pope after an election - it is infallible. This is tied to the indefectibility of the Church.
Do the remaining members of the hierarchy accept Francis as Pope? Any faithful Catholic that accepts his claim, does so with reservations. If a Catholic does not accept a pope as the rule of Faith, then they are not accepting him.
Based on the quoted theological text: The question of the valid election of a prelate to the Papacy is established as a dogmatic fact by the recognition of the elected candidate immediately after his election - not for months or years afterwards.
Sylvester Hunter - Outlines of Dogmatic Theology
The Church is infallible when she declares what person holds the office of Pope; for if the person of the Pope were uncertain ... it would be uncertain what Bishops were in communion with the Pope; but according to the Catholic faith ... communion with the Pope is a condition for the exercise of the function of teaching by the body of Bishops; if then the uncertainty could not be cleared up, the power of teaching could not be exercised, and Christ's promise would be falsified, which is impossible. ... it is enough to say that if the Bishops agree in recognizing a certain man as Pope, they are certainly right, for otherwise the body of the Bishops would be separated from their head, and the Divine constitution of the Church would be ruined.
...
affords an answer to a much vaunted objection to the claims of the Catholic Church, put forward by writers who think that they find proof in history that the election of a certain Pope was simoniacal and invalid, and that the successor was elected by Cardinals who owed their own appointment to the
simoniacal intruder; from which it is gathered that the Papacy has been vacant ever since that time.
A volume might be occupied if we attempted to expose all the frailness of the argument which is supposed to lead to this startling conclusion; but it is enough to say that if the Bishops agree in recognizing a certain man as Pope, they are certainly right, for otherwise the body of the Bishops would be separated from their head, and the Divine constitution of the Church would be ruined.
This is an explicit of how a dogmatic fact is established upon the election of a new Pontiff and why it is so. Where does it say in the quoted text anything about the 'rule of faith'?
God Bless!
Topic: Sharon Jane Ballatine (Read 49978 times)