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

« previous next »
Pages: 1 ... 10 11 [12] 13 14

Author Topic: Letter of +Thomas Aquinas to ++Vigano  (Read 5345 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Clemens Maria

Re: Letter of +Thomas Aquinas to ++Vigano
« Reply #55 on: June 30, 2020, 12:38:48 PM »
Quote from: Plenus Venter on June 29, 2020, 04:28:44 AM

John of St Thomas says "So long as it has not been declared to us juridically, that he is an infidel or heretic, be he ever so manifestly heretical according to private judgment, he remains, as far as we are concerned (quoad nos), a member of the Church and consequently its head. Judgment is required by the Church. It is only then that he ceases to be Pope as far as we are concerned", but Ladislaus says (pontificates): "If they do not have the faith, they are not Catholic.  If they are not Catholic, they do not legitimately hold authority in the Church.", and "to keep claiming that these men don't have the faith but then have legitimate authority in the Church, it's total desperation, an emotional reaction against sedevacantism ... but it's totally bankrupt". John of St Thomas, stand corrected!

The only people who believe John of St Thomas had it right are the R&R folks.  The Novus Ordo folks, the Resignationists (e.g. Fr. Paul Kramer), sede privationists, and sede vacantists all recognize that JST is not correct and that St Robert Bellarmine, Doctor of the Church, had the correct view (regardless of the nonsense that Siscoe and Salsa are peddling about Bellarmine's view being the same as JST).  But let's suppose that JST is correct.  The SSPX (R&R) view is that the hierarchy of the Catholic Church led almost the entire Church (save for the SSPX, apparently) into a silent apostasy.  So much for the indefectibility of the Church!  If on the other hand you limit the hierarchy of the Church to only those clergy who have remained faithful to the traditional doctrine of the Church, then I would have to point out that the Church has already made a judgement about the legitimacy of the Novus Ordo "popes".  We don't follow them!
Logged

Offline Ladislaus

  • Supporter
Re: Letter of +Thomas Aquinas to ++Vigano
« Reply #56 on: June 30, 2020, 01:05:54 PM »
Quote from: Clemens Maria on June 30, 2020, 12:38:48 PM
The only people who believe John of St Thomas had it right are the R&R folks.  The Novus Ordo folks, the Resignationists (e.g. Fr. Paul Kramer), sede privationists, and sede vacantists all recognize that JST is not correct and that St Robert Bellarmine, Doctor of the Church, had the correct view (regardless of the nonsense that Siscoe and Salsa are peddling about Bellarmine's view being the same as JST).  But let's suppose that JST is correct.  The SSPX (R&R) view is that the hierarchy of the Catholic Church led almost the entire Church (save for the SSPX, apparently) into a silent apostasy.  So much for the indefectibility of the Church!  If on the other hand you limit the hierarchy of the Church to only those clergy who have remained faithful to the traditional doctrine of the Church, then I would have to point out that the Church has already made a judgement about the legitimacy of the Novus Ordo "popes".  We don't follow them!

Yes, but the Church has not condemned the position of John of St. Thomas, so a person could hold it in good conscience.  Nevertheless, as you point out, the REAL problem is how legitimate papal authority could lead the entire Church into grave error.  It's a problem of indefectibility more than a quible about the strict limits of infallibility.  I have no problem with Father Chazal's position, for instance, because he states that these men are deprived of authority while they await deposition by the Church (basically the John of St. Thomas position).  So the disposition of a heretical pope is a detail that can be debated among Catholics.  What cannot be debated is whether or not legitimate authority could damage the Church this badly.

PV up there doesn't seem to understand this distinction of mine between the authority and the office (basically the sedeprivationist distinction).  Those who wreaked this much destruction on the Church cannot have done this using legitimate papal authority.  That destroys the Church's indefectibility.  But it is possible, depending on how you resolve the issue, that they continue to hold the office until the Church decides otherwise.
Logged

Offline Ladislaus

  • Supporter
Re: Letter of +Thomas Aquinas to ++Vigano
« Reply #57 on: June 30, 2020, 01:08:08 PM »
Perhaps a better distinction regarding the various Traditional Catholic groups, rather than R&R vs. sedevacantist, would be whether or not people believe that the V2 papal claimants still have authority in the Church.

Do the V2 papal claimants still have authority in the Church?

NO -- Sedevacantists, Sedeprivationists, Father Chazal
YES -- classic R&R

Do the V2 papal claimants still hold office in the Church?

NO -- Sedevacantists
YES -- classic R&R, Father Chazal, sedeprivationists

It's this division that helps explain why Sean Johnson puts Father Chazal in the R&R camp, while I put him in the non-R&R camp.  I distinguish between classic R&R and Father Chazal's "R&R".

Classic R&R is the only position that holds that these Conciliar popes have held legitimate authority in the Church; they believe that they have authority when they teach/command what is true/moral but not when they teach/command what is erroneous/immoral.

And this is why I'm perfectly fine with Father Chazal's positon.  He does not impute the destruction in the Church to legitimate papal authority.  I care very little for the academic debate between Bellarminists and Cajetanists/JSTists.  All I care about is the pernicious allegation of classic R&R which holds that legitimate papal authority can destroy the Church's doctrine/discipline and can lead souls to hell.
Logged

Offline Meg

Re: Letter of +Thomas Aquinas to ++Vigano
« Reply #58 on: June 30, 2020, 01:23:51 PM »
Quote from: Ladislaus on June 30, 2020, 01:08:08 PM
Perhaps a better distinction regarding the various Traditional Catholic groups, rather than R&R vs. sedevacantist, would be whether or not people believe that the V2 papal claimants still have authority in the Church.

Do the V2 papal claimants still have authority in the Church?

NO -- Sedevacantists, Sedeprivationists, Father Chazal
YES -- classic R&R

Do the V2 papal claimants still hold office in the Church?

NO -- Sedevacantists
YES -- classic R&R, Father Chazal, sedeprivationists

It's this division that helps explain why Sean Johnson puts Father Chazal in the R&R camp, while I put him in the non-R&R camp.  I distinguish between classic R&R and Father Chazal's "R&R".

Classic R&R is the only position that holds that these Conciliar popes have held legitimate authority in the Church; they believe that they have authority when they teach/command what is true/moral but not when they teach/command what is erroneous/immoral.

And this is why I'm perfectly fine with Father Chazal's positon.  He does not impute the destruction in the Church to legitimate papal authority.  I care very little for the academic debate between Bellarminists and Cajetanists/JSTists.  All I care about is the pernicious allegation of classic R&R which holds that legitimate papal authority can destroy the Church's doctrine/discipline and can lead souls to hell.

You KNOWINGLY misrepresent Fr. Chazal's position, and have done so for quite awhile. And no, I'm not going to belabor the point.
Logged

Offline Ladislaus

  • Supporter
Re: Letter of +Thomas Aquinas to ++Vigano
« Reply #59 on: June 30, 2020, 01:28:53 PM »
Quote from: Meg on June 30, 2020, 01:23:51 PM
You KNOWINGLY misrepresent Fr. Chazal's position, and have done so for quite awhile. And no, I'm not going to belabor the point.

Get off this thread, Meg.  You provide no meaningful contribution whatsoever.  There's no misrepresentation.  Father Chazal clearly states that they "have no authority" and are impounded and can be ignored entirely.  I went through his entire two-hour presentation and cited chapter and verse (gave the exact minute and second marks.  You have no earthly idea what you're talking about.  You have no idea with the authority vs. office distinction even means.

You clearly have a psychological impairment about the issues raised by sedevacantists to the point that you cannot get past words and terms and semantics.
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 10 11 [12] 13 14
« previous next »