Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => SSPX Resistance News => Topic started by: SeanJohnson on September 22, 2020, 03:33:48 PM
-
https://adelantelafe.com/mons-vigano-se-puede-interpretar-el-vaticano-ii-a-la-luz-de-la-tradicion/
”Because the innovators fraudulently managed to place the label of Sacrosanct Ecuмenical Council on their ideological manifesto [Vatican II], in the same way that at the local level the Jansenists who manipulated the Synod of Pistoia managed to put a false mantle of authority over their heretical theses, later condemned by Pius VI.”
-
:popcorn:
-
Here is the official english translation of the whole article. Worth reading.
Archbishop Viganò: Is Vatican II “Untouchable”?
(https://onepeterfive.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/OnePeterFive-ICON-32x32.png) (https://onepeterfive.com/author/onepeterfive/)OnePeterFive (https://onepeterfive.com/author/onepeterfive/) September 21, 2020 (https://onepeterfive.com/archbishop-vigano-is-vatican-ii-untouchable/) One Comment (https://onepeterfive.com/archbishop-vigano-is-vatican-ii-untouchable/#comments)
By Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò
Peter Kwasniewski’s recent commentary, titled “Why Viganò’s critique of the Council must be taken seriously”, impressed me greatly. It appeared (here (https://onepeterfive.com/vigano-critique-council/)) on OnePeterFive, on June 29, and is one of the articles on which I have been meaning to comment: I do so now, with gratitude to the author and publisher for the opportunity they have given me.
First, it seems to me that I can agree with practically all of what Kwasniewski has written: his analysis of the facts is extremely clear and polished and reflects my thoughts exactly. What I am particularly pleased about is that “ever since Archbishop Viganò’s June 9 letter and his subsequent writing on the subject, people have been discussing what it might mean to ‘annul’ the Second Vatican Council”.
I find it interesting that we are beginning to question a taboo that, for almost sixty years, has prevented any theological, sociological and historical criticism of the Council. This is particularly interesting given that Vatican II is regarded as untouchable, but this does not apply – according to its supporters – to any other magisterial docuмent or to Sacred Scripture. We have read endless addresses in which the defenders of the Council have written off the Canons of Trent, the Syllabus of Errors of Blessed Pius IX, the encyclical Pascendi of St. Pius X, and Humanae Vitae and Ordinatio Sacerdotalis of Paul VI as “outdated.” The change to the Catechism of the Catholic Church, whereby the doctrine on the legitimacy of the death penalty was modified in the name of a “changed understanding” of the Gospel, shows that for the Innovators there is no dogma, no immutable principle that can be immune from revision or cancellation: the only exception is Vatican II, which by its nature – ex se, theologians would say – enjoys that charism of infallibility and inerrancy that is denied to the entire depositum fidei.
I have already expressed my opinion on the hermeneutic of continuity theorized by Benedict XVI, and constantly taken up by the defenders of Vatican II, who – certainly in good faith – seek to offer a reading of the Council that is harmonious with Tradition. It seems to me that the arguments in favor of the hermeneutical criterion, proposed for the first time in 2005[1] (https://onepeterfive.com/archbishop-vigano-is-vatican-ii-untouchable/#_ftn1), are limited to a merely theoretical analysis of the problem, obstinately leaving aside the reality of what has been happening before our eyes for decades. This analysis starts from a valid and acceptable postulate, but in this concrete case it presupposes a premise that is not necessarily true.
The postulate is that all the acts of the Magisterium are to be read and interpreted in the light of the entire magisterial corpus, because of the analogia fidei[2] (https://onepeterfive.com/archbishop-vigano-is-vatican-ii-untouchable/#_ftn2) [analogy of faith], which is somehow also expressed in the hermeneutic of continuity. Yet this postulate assumes that the text we are going to analyze is a specific act of the Magisterium, with its degree of authority clearly expressed in the canonical forms envisaged. And this is precisely where the deception lies, this is where the trap is set. For the Innovators maliciously managed to put the label “Sacrosanct Ecuмenical Council” on their ideological manifesto, just as, at a local level, the Jansenists who maneuvered the Synod of Pistoia had managed to cloak with authority their heretical theses, which were later condemned by Pius VI.[3] (https://onepeterfive.com/archbishop-vigano-is-vatican-ii-untouchable/#_ftn3)
On the one hand, Catholics look at the form of the Council and consider its acts to be an expression of the Magisterium. Consequently, they seek to read its substance, which is clearly ambiguous or even erroneous, in keeping with the analogy of faith, out of that love and veneration that all Catholics have towards Holy Mother Church. They cannot comprehend that the Pastors have been so naïve as to impose on them an adulteration of the Faith, but at the same time they understand the rupture with Tradition and try to explain this contradiction.
The modernist, on the other hand, looks at the substance of the revolutionary message he means to convey, and in order to endow it with an authoritativeness that it does not and should not have, he “magisterializes” it through the form of the Council, by having it published in the form of official acts. He knows well that he is forcing it, but he uses the authority of the Church – which under normal conditions he despises and rejects – to make it practically impossible to condemn those errors, which have been ratified by no less than the majority of the Synod Fathers. The instrumental use of authority for purposes opposed to those that legitimize it is a cunning ploy: on the one hand, it guarantees a sort of immunity, a “canonical shield” for doctrines that are heterodox or close to heresy; on the other hand, it allows sanctions to be imposed on those who denounce these deviations, by virtue of a formal respect for canonical norms. In the civil sphere, this way of proceeding is typical of dictatorships. If this has also happened within the Church, it is because the accomplices of this coup d’état have no supernatural sense, they fear neither God nor eternal damnation, and consider themselves partisans of progress invested with a prophetic role that legitimizes them in all their wickedness, just as Communism’s mass exterminations are carried out by party officials convinced of promoting the cause of the proletariat.
In the first case, the analysis of the Council docuмents in the light of Tradition clashes with the observation that they have been formulated in such a way as to make clear the subversive intent of their drafters. This inevitably leads to the impossibility of interpreting them in a Catholic sense, without weakening the whole doctrinal corpus. In the second case, the awareness that doctrinal novelty was being slipped into the acts of the Council made it necessary to formulate them in a deliberately ambiguous manner, precisely because it was only in making people believe that they were consistent with the Church’s perennial Magisterium that they could be adopted by the authoritative assembly that had to “clear” and circulate them.
It ought to be highlighted that the mere fact of having to look for a hermeneutical criterion to interpret the Council’s acts demonstrates the difference between Vatican II and any other Ecuмenical Council, whose canons do not give rise to any sort of misunderstanding. An unclear passage from Sacred Scripture or from the Holy Fathers can be the object of a hermeneutic, but certainly not an act of the Magisterium, whose task is precisely to dispel any lack of clarity. Yet both conservatives and progressives find themselves unwittingly in agreement in recognizing a kind of dichotomy between what a Council is and what that Council – i.e. Vatican II – is; between the doctrine of all previous Councils and the doctrine set forth or implied in that Council.
Archbishop Guido Pozzo, in a recent commentary in which he quotes Benedict XVI, rightly states that “a Council is such only if it remains in the furrow of Tradition and it must be read in the light of the whole Tradition.”[4] (https://onepeterfive.com/archbishop-vigano-is-vatican-ii-untouchable/#_ftn4) But this statement, which is irreproachable from a theological point of view, does not necessarily lead us to consider Vatican II as Catholic, but rather to ask ourselves whether it, by not remaining in the furrow of Tradition and by not being able to be read in the light of the whole Tradition, without upsetting the mens that wanted it, can actually be defined as such. This question certainly cannot be met with an impartial answer in those who proudly profess to be its supporters, defenders and creators. And I am obviously not talking about the rightful defense of the Catholic Magisterium, but only of Vatican II as the “first council” of a “new church” claiming to take the place of the Catholic Church, which is hastily dismissed as preconciliar.
There is also another aspect that, in my view, should not be overlooked; namely, that the hermeneutical criterion – seen in the context of a serious and scientific criticism of a text – cannot disregard the concept that the text means to express. Indeed, it is not possible to impose a Catholic interpretation on a proposition that, in itself, is manifestly heretical or close to heresy, simply because it is included in a text that has been declared magisterial. Lumen Gentium’s proposition: “But the plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator. In the first place amongst these there are the Muslims, who, professing to hold the faith of Abraham, along with us adore the one and merciful God, who on the last day will judge mankind” (LG, 16) cannot be interpreted in a Catholic way – firstly, because the god of Mohammed is not one and triune, and secondly because Islam condemns as blasphemous the Incarnation of the Second Person of the Most Holy Trinity in Our Lord Jesus Christ, true God and true Man. To affirm that “the plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator” and that “in the first place amongst these there are the Muslims” blatantly contradicts Catholic doctrine, which professes that the Catholic Church is the one and only ark of salvation. The salvation eventually attained by heretics, and by pagans even more so, always and only comes from the inexhaustible treasure of Our Lord’s Redemption, which is safeguarded by the Church. Belonging to any other religion is an impediment to the pursuit of eternal beatitude. Those who are saved, are saved because of at least an implicit desire to belong to the Church, and despite their adherence to a false religion – never by virtue of it. For what good it contains does not belong to it, but has been usurped; while the error it contains is what makes it intrinsically false, since the admixture of errors and truth more easily deceives its followers.
It isn’t possible to change reality to make it correspond to an ideal schema. If the evidence shows that some propositions contained in the Council docuмents (and similarly, in the acts of Bergoglio’s magisterium) are heterodox, and if doctrine teaches us that the acts of the Magisterium do not contain error, the conclusion is not that these propositions are not erroneous, but that they cannot be part of the Magisterium. Period.
Hermeneutics serve to clarify the meaning of a phrase that is obscure or that appears to contradict doctrine, not to correct it substantially ex post. This way of proceeding would not provide a simple key to reading the Magisterial texts, but would constitute a corrective intervention, and therefore the admission that, in that specific proposition of that specific Magisterial docuмent, an error has been stated which must be corrected. And one would need to explain not only why that error was not avoided from the beginning, but also whether the Synod Fathers who approved that error, and the Pope who promulgated it, intended to use their apostolic authority to ratify a heresy, or whether they would rather avail themselves of the implicit authority deriving from their role as Pastors to endorse it, without calling the Paraclete into question.
Archbishop Pozzo admits: “The reason why the Council has been received with difficulty therefore lies in the fact that there has been a struggle between two hermeneutics or interpretations of the Council, which indeed have coexisted in opposition to one another.” But with these words, he confirms that the Catholic choice to adopt the hermeneutic of continuity goes hand in hand with the novel choice to resort to the hermeneutic of rupture, in an arbitrariness that demonstrates the prevailing confusion and – what is even more serious – the imbalance of the forces at play, in favor of one or the other thesis. “The hermeneutic of discontinuity risks ending in a rupture between the pre-conciliar and post-conciliar Church and presupposes that the texts of the Council as such are not the true expression of the Council, but the result of a compromise,” Archbishop Pozzo writes. But this is exactly the reality, and denying it does not resolve the problem in the slightest but rather exacerbates it, by refusing to acknowledge the existence of cancer even when it has very clearly reached its metastasis.
Archbishop Pozzo’s affirmation that the concept of religious freedom expressed in Dignitatis humanae does not contradict Pius IX’s Syllabus of Errors[5] (https://onepeterfive.com/archbishop-vigano-is-vatican-ii-untouchable/#_ftn5) demonstrates that the Council docuмent is in itself deliberately ambiguous. If its drafters had wished to avoid such ambiguity, it would have been sufficient to reference the propositions of the Syllabus in a footnote; but this would never have been accepted by the progressives, who were able to slip in a doctrinal change precisely on the basis of the absence of references to the earlier Magisterium. And it doesn’t seem that the interventions of the post-conciliar Popes – and their own participation, even in sacris, in non-Catholic or even pagan ceremonies – have ever, or in any way, corrected the error propagated in line with the heterodox interpretation of Dignitatis humanae. Upon closer examination, the same method was adopted in the drafting of Amoris laetitia, in which the Church’s discipline in matters of adultery and concubinage was formulated in such a way that it could theoretically be interpreted in a Catholic sense, while in fact it was accepted in the one and obvious heretical sense they wanted to disseminate. So much so, that the interpretive key that Bergoglio and his exegetes wanted to use, on the issue of Communion for divorcees, has become the authentic interpretation in the Acta Apostolicae Sedis[6] (https://onepeterfive.com/archbishop-vigano-is-vatican-ii-untouchable/#_ftn6).
The aim of Vatican II’s public defenders has turned out to be the struggle of Sisyphus: as soon as they succeed, by a thousand efforts and a thousand distinctions, in formulating a seemingly reasonable solution that doesn’t directly touch their little idol, immediately their words are repudiated by opposing statements from a progressive theologian, a German Prelate, or Francis himself. And so, the conciliar boulder rolls back down the hill again, where gravity attracts it to its natural resting place.
It is obvious that, for a Catholic, a Council is ipso facto of such authority and importance that he spontaneously accepts its teachings with filial devotion. But it is equally obvious that the authority of a Council, of the Fathers who approve its decrees, and of the Popes who promulgate them, does not make the acceptance of docuмents that are in blatant contradiction with the Magisterium, or at least weaken it, any less problematic. And if this problem continues to persist after sixty years revealing a perfect consistency with the deliberate will of the Innovators who prepared its docuмents and influenced its proponents, we must ask ourselves what is the obex, the insurmountable obstacle, that forces us, against all reasonableness, to consider Catholic what is not, in the name of a criterion that applies only and exclusively to what is certainly Catholic.
One needs to keep clearly in mind that the analogia fidei applies precisely to the truths of Faith, and not to error, since the harmonious unity of the Truth in all its articulations cannot seek coherence with what is opposed to it. If a conciliar text formulates a heretical concept, or one close to heresy, there is no hermeneutical criterion that can make it orthodox simply because that text belongs to the Acts of a Council. We all know what deceptions and skillful maneuvers have been put in place by ultra-progressive consultors and theologians, with the complicity of the modernist wing of the Council Fathers. And we also know with what complicity John XXIII and Paul VI approved this coup de main (surprise attack) in violation of the norms which they themselves approved.
The central vice therefore lies in having fraudulently led the Council Fathers to approve ambiguous texts – which they considered Catholic enough to deserve the placet – and then using that same ambiguity to get them to say exactly what the Innovators wanted. Those texts cannot today be changed in their substance to make them orthodox or clearer: they must simply be rejected – according to the forms that the supreme Authority of the Church shall judge appropriate in due course – since they are vitiated by a malicious intention. And it will also have to be determined whether an anomalous and disastrous event such as Vatican II can still merit the title of Ecuмenical Council, once its heterogeneity compared to previous councils is universally recognized— a heterogeneity so evident that it requires the use of a hermeneutic, something that no other Council has ever needed.
It should be noted that this mechanism, inaugurated by Vatican II, has seen a recrudescence, an acceleration, indeed an unprecedented upsurge with Bergoglio, who deliberately resorts to imprecise expressions, cunningly formulated without precise theological language, with the same intention of dismantling, piece by piece, what remains of doctrine, in the name of applying the Council. It’s true that, in Bergoglio, heresy and heterogeneity with respect to the Magisterium are blatant and almost shameless; but it is equally true that the Abu Dhabi Declaration would not have been conceivable without the premise of Lumen gentium.
Rightly, Dr. Peter Kwasniewski states: “It is the mixture, the jumble, of great, good, indifferent, bad, generic, ambiguous, problematic, erroneous, all of it at enormous length, that makes Vatican II uniquely deserving of repudiation.” The voice of the Church, which is the voice of Christ, is instead crystal clear and unambiguous, and cannot mislead those who rely on its authority! “This is why the last council is absolutely irrecoverable. If the project of modernization (https://onepeterfive.com/todaying-recover-tradition/) has resulted in a massive loss of Catholic identity, even of basic doctrinal competence and morals, the way forward is to pay one’s last respects to the great symbol of that project and see it buried (https://onepeterfive.com/rip-vatican-ii-catholicism/).”
I wish to conclude by reiterating a fact which, in my view, is very indicative: if the same commitment that Pastors have exerted for decades in defending Vatican II and the “conciliar church” had been used to reaffirm and defend the entirety of Catholic doctrine, or even only to promote knowledge of the Catechism of St Pius X among the faithful, the situation of the ecclesial world would be radically different. But it is also true that faithful formed in fidelity to doctrine would have reacted with pitchforks to the adulterations of the Innovators and their protectors. Perhaps the ignorance of God’s people was intended, precisely so that Catholics would be unaware of the fraud and betrayal perpetrated against them, just as the ideological prejudice that weighs on the Tridentine Rite serves only to prevent it from being compared with the aberrations of the reformed ceremonies.
The cancellation of the past and of Tradition, the denial of roots, the delegitimization of dissent, the abuse of authority and the apparent respect for rules: are not these the recurring elements of all dictatorships?
+ Carlo Maria Viganò, Archbishop
September 21, 2020
St. Mathew, apostle and evangelist
Official translation from the Italian by Diane Montagna
-
I believe Vigano is the first R&R theologian (and with this latest monumental letter, he is clearly a theologian) to suggest Vatican II is not an ecuмenical council.
And he -in this letter- is definitely the first to attempt a justification of that opinion by offering a cogent explanation of how that is theologically possible.
That explanation is possibly the most significant theological achievement since the Cassiciacuм Thesis (and quite a bit more persuasive, I might add).
Vigano has just plowed fertile soil for the possible unification of sedes and R&R, both of whom would need to modify their position:
R&R would need to accept Vatican II was not an ecuмenical council.
Sedes would need to accept that the popes are popes (a pill they could swallow, knowing V2 is null and void, along with all the post-conciliar aberrations, despite their hijacked Catholic “form.”).
Obviously, these thoughts are only first impressions, and I may myself reject them after further reflection, but Vigano has just brought the ecclesiological conversation to new ground for the first time in 60 years, and he may have found the key.
-
Vigano AGAIN, further down the letter, questions whether Vatican II is an ecuмenical council:
“And it will also have to be determined whether an anomalous and disastrous event such as Vatican II can still merit the title of Ecuмenical Council, once its heterogeneity compared to previous councils is universally recognized— a heterogeneity so evident that it requires the use of a hermeneutic, something that no other Council has ever needed.”
-
The Archbishop writes:
On the one hand, Catholics look at the form of the Council and consider its acts to be an expression of the Magisterium. Consequently, they seek to read its substance, which is clearly ambiguous or even erroneous, in keeping with the analogy of faith, out of that love and veneration that all Catholics have towards Holy Mother Church. They cannot comprehend that the Pastors have been so naïve as to impose on them an adulteration of the Faith, but at the same time they understand the rupture with Tradition and try to explain this contradiction.
This is the problem I have with his approach: haven't we been taught that the Holy Ghost would protect a pope and an ecuмenical council ratified and approved by him so that they could not "impose on them [us] an adulteration of the Faith"?
Now we jettison that concept (and the seemingly eternal and binding principle) in the face of the practical reality of what happened as a convenient post hoc explanation?
I'm not comfortable with that and my sense of the truth of what we are about is certainly disturbed by that.
This is a deep, thoughtful letter that requires much thought, and perhaps there's a satisfactory answer in principle to go with the psychologically/emotionally convenient explanation that I haven't grabbed in the first reading.
-
The Archbishop writes:
This is the problem I have with his approach: haven't we been taught that the Holy Ghost would protect a pope and an ecuмenical council ratified and approved by him so that they could not "impose on them [us] an adulteration of the Faith"?
Now we jettison that concept (and the seemingly eternal and binding principle) in the face of the practical reality of what happened as a convenient post hoc explanation?
I'm not comfortable with that and my sense of the truth of what we are about is certainly disturbed by that.
This is a deep, thoughtful letter that requires much thought, and perhaps there's a satisfactory answer in principle to go with the psychologically/emotionally convenient explanation that I haven't grabbed in the first reading.
If it’s not an ecuмenical council, there’s no protection from error.
It’s all at the level of the authentic magisterium, which enjoys no infallibility (and which is a bit of a misnomer, since the teachings of the authentic magisterium are not actually magisterial).
To be magisterial (ie., OUM), teachings must possess universality (spatial and temporal).
Conciliar teachings lack this.
If Vigano was seeking to erase teachings which were properly magisterial (ie., possessed universality), I would share your concerns about violating immutable principles, but his approach doesn’t infallibility.
Note also that Pistoia, to which Vigano compares V2 (yes, every analogy limps) was condemned after the fact. How could it be otherwise? And if it is clear this council taught error, then clearly it was not protected by the Holy Ghost, and needs to be discarded.
It would be nice if, for the sake of concerns like yours, Vigano could go into more detail about WHY or HOW V2 theologically could be considered not to be a council. I suspect my explanation (ie., authentic magisterium and universality would have a part to play in that explanation).
Again, just thinking out loud here; not stating things as fact.
As you say, this particular letter of Vigano is pretty thick, and requires sustained reflection to internalize the entire argument being made.
-
If it’s not an ecuмenical council, there’s no protection from error.
From what I understood, he said the modernists falsely dressed it up in the smells and bells of an EC, and the fruits of the Council made it certain it couldn't have been one - but how do we get around the pope literally calling it an Ecuмenical Council? Are there some other requirements for a general council with the assent of the pope to be called ecuмenical?
-
If it’s not an ecuмenical council, there’s no protection from error.
Yes, and if he's not a pope, he can teach heresy to the Church, impose a harmful sacramental rite, etc. etc.
But the man sits in the chair of Peter and was chosen pope by the bishops of the Church; the pope teaches heresy and signs off on it; but, the "harmful sacramental rite" is daily celebrated in the temples of Our Lord.
This is not much different that your cursed Sedevacantism, except, instead of calling the pop a non-pope, you call an ecuмenical council a non-ecuмenical council.
-
If it’s not an ecuмenical council, there’s no protection from error.
It’s all at the level of the authentic magisterium, which enjoys no infallibility (and which is a bit of a misnomer, since the teachings of the authentic magisterium are not actually magisterial).
To be magisterial (ie., OUM), teachings must possess universality (spatial and temporal).
Conciliar teachings lack this.
If Vigano was seeking to erase teachings which were properly magisterial (ie., possessed universality), I would share your concerns about violating immutable principles, but his approach doesn’t infallibility.
Note also that Pistoia, to which Vigano compares V2 (yes, every analogy limps) was condemned after the fact. How could it be otherwise? And if it is clear this council taught error, then clearly it was not protected by the Holy Ghost, and needs to be discarded.
It would be nice if, for the sake of concerns like yours, Vigano could go into more detail about WHY or HOW V2 theologically could be considered not to be a council. I suspect my explanation (ie., authentic magisterium and universality would have a part to play in that explanation).
Again, just thinking out loud here; not stating things as fact.
As you say, this particular letter of Vigano is pretty thick, and requires sustained reflection to internalize the entire argument being made.
Forlorn and DR-
Note that I added to this comment after you made your responses.
-
For Viganò’s theory to work (ie., V2 not an ecuмenical council), we would need to be able to distinguish a true council from a false one somehow.
I mentioned one criteria above: Universality.
Another could be an explicit rejection of the assistance of the Holy Ghost (ie., infallibility).
This rejection was made by both popes who presided over V2.
So it is not merely a hazy assessment of bad fruits post hoc, by which one discerns the falsity of an alleged ecuмenical council (such a criteria would easily descend into subjectivism), but two objective, concrete criteria:
1) Is universality (temporal) satisfied?
2) Have the pope(s) rejected their assistance of the Holy Ghost?
If both criteria are satisfied, the council is properly ecuмenical; if either criteria is lacking, the council is not ecuмenical.
There May be additional criteria.
Still just thinking it out.
-
He already equated Vatican II with the Synod of Pistoia here:
https://www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/archbishop-vigano-'heretical-propositions-in-vatican-ii-should-be-condemned'/
The Synod of Pistoia was not approved by a pope; therefore it can not be equated with Vatican II.
-
For Viganò’s theory to work (ie., V2 not an ecuмenical council), we would need to be able to distinguish a true council from a false one somehow.
I mentioned one criteria above: Universality.
Another could be an explicit rejection of the assistance of the Holy Ghost (ie., infallibility).
This rejection was made by both popes who presided over V2.
So it is not merely a hazy assessment of bad fruits post hoc, by which one discerns the falsity of an alleged ecuмenical council (such a criteria would easily descend into subjectivism), but two objective, concrete criteria:
1) Is universality (temporal) satisfied?
2) Have the pope(s) rejected their assistance of the Holy Ghost?
If both criteria are satisfied, the council is properly ecuмenical; if either criteria is lacking, the council is not ecuмenical.
There May be additional criteria.
Still just thinking it out.
Sure. I appreciate that. We're all still "thinking it out."
But it seems to me you're just coming up with ways you can call an ecuмenical council a non-ecuмenical council, sort of a prestidigitation with terms and definitions . . . while criticizing Sedes for doing a similar thing in calling a pope a non-pope.
-
He already equated Vatican II with the Synod of Pistoia here:
https://www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/archbishop-vigano-'heretical-propositions-in-vatican-ii-should-be-condemned'/
The Synod of Pistoia was not approved by a pope; therefore it can not be equated with Vatican II.
A perfectly valid distinction.
Every analogy limps.
But I think his point was that Pistoia has an aire of authority until it was condemned.
-
Sure. I appreciate that. We're all still "thinking it out."
But it seems to me you're just coming up with ways you can call an ecuмenical council a non-ecuмenical council, sort of a prestidigitation with terms and definitions . . . while criticizing Sedes for doing a similar thing in calling a pope a non-pope.
DR-
I am just troubleshooting Viganò’s idea that the council was not ecuмenical, and trying to come up with ideas on how such a thought might be theologically plausible and justifiable.
I’m merely exploring the idea.
I also understand the comparison you are making between saying the council is not a true ecuмenical council, and you saying the pope is not a true pope.
But I do not think that if one affirms the former, he must likewise affirm the latter, because the validity and/or certitude of each rests upon different criteria:
The validity of a pope is known and certain merely by the fact that his rule enjoys UPA, but this is not the foundation for a valid/true ecuмenical council.
-
Sean,
To be magisterial (ie., OUM), teachings must possess universality (spatial and temporal).
Conciliar teachings lack this.
The problem you have is that is not how the theologians, who were used by the Church in teaching the faith, have defined it. The "universality" only has to be spatial, not temporal, to command Magisterial authority as OUM - if I understand your terminology. The words the theologians have used is synchronic (the moral majority of the current bishops and the current pope) and diachronic (across time, always believed or taught, etc. ). The OUM, under the accepted pre-V2 teaching, is present when the then reigning pope and the bishops in union with him teach something - that is the guarantee of OUM, and one need not search or weigh it with prior teachings. That is the safety and indefectibility of the OUM.
Obviously, the post-V2 Church has stood that on its head.
So, again, we have flip-flop on a principle when it confronts fact. Now, forget the prior teaching, there must be both synchronic and diachronic "universality" for OUM.
This is a convenient explanation that fails to address or explain adequately the failings in the teaching regarding the OUM that previously was taught.
Until we deal with those failings and come up with a consistent and principled explanation for them, I don't see a way out of this mess.
-
DR-
The validity of a pope is known and certain merely by the fact that his rule enjoys UPA, but this is not the foundation for a valid/true ecuмenical council.
But the validity of an ecuмenical council is its being called by a true pope and then having its teachings confirmed by a true pope, which V2 had according to you. Again, you're trying to redefine what an ecuмenical council is to explain away the problem.
-
Sean,
The problem you have is that is not how the theologians, who were used by the Church in teaching the faith, have defined it. The "universality" only has to be spatial, not temporal, to command Magisterial authority as OUM - if I understand your terminology. The words the theologians have used is synchronic (the moral majority of the current bishops and the current pope) and diachronic (across time, always believed or taught, etc. ). The OUM, under the accepted pre-V2 teaching, is present when the then reigning pope and the bishops in union with him teach something - that is the guarantee of OUM, and one need not search or weigh it with prior teachings. That is the safety and indefectibility of the OUM.
Obviously, the post-V2 Church has stood that on its head.
So, again, we have flip-flop on a principle when it confronts fact. Now, forget the prior teaching, there must be both synchronic and diachronic "universality" for OUM.
This is a convenient explanation that fails to address or explain adequately the failings in the teaching regarding the OUM that previously was taught.
Until we deal with those failings and come up with a consistent and principled explanation for them, I don't see a way out of this mess.
I disagree, and believe theologians have used temporal universality as a necessary criterion to distinguish true from false teaching going all the way back at least to the 5th century (eg., St. Vincent of Lerrin’s famous Commonitorium):
“Moreover, in the Catholic Church itself, all possible care must be taken, that we hold that faith which has been believed everywhere, always, by all. For that is truly and in the strictest sense Catholic, which, as the name itself and the reason of the thing declare, comprehends all universally. This rule we shall observe if we follow universality, antiquity, consent. We shall follow universality if we confess that one faith to be true, which the whole Church throughout the world confesses; antiquity, if we in no wise depart from those interpretations which it is manifest were notoriously held by our holy ancestors and fathers; consent, in like manner, if in antiquity itself we adhere to the consentient definitions and determinations of all, or at the least of almost all priests and doctors. (2.6)”
-
Here are Kwasniewski's thoughts, from the article +Viganò was referencing.
Ever since Archbishop Viganò’s June 9 letter and his subsequent writing on the subject, people have been discussing what it might mean to “annul” the Second Vatican Council.
I see three theoretical possibilities for a future pope.
1. He could publish a new Syllabus of Errors (as Bishop Schneider proposed all the way back in 2010 (https://www.ewtn.com/catholicism/library/proposals-for-a-correct-reading-of-the-second-vatican-council-3837)) that identifies and condemns common errors associated with Vatican II while not attributing them explicitly to Vatican II: “If anyone says XYZ, let him be anathema.” This would leave open the degree to which the Council docuмents actually contain the errors; it would, however, close the door to many popular “readings” of the Council.
2. He could declare that, in looking back over the past half-century, we can see that the Council docuмents, on account of their ambiguities and difficulties, have caused more harm than good in the life of the Church and should, in the future, no longer be referenced as authoritative in theological discussion. The Council should be treated as a historic event whose relevance has passed. Again, this stance would not need to assert that the docuмents are in error; it would be an acknowledgement that the Council has shown itself to be “more trouble than it’s worth.”
3. He could specifically “disown” or set aside certain docuмents or parts of docuмents, even as parts of the Council of Constance were never recognized or were repudiated.
Through some combination of these, and recognising the fact that V2 never declared dogma(and its errors were designed to be vague rather than explicit), it may be possible to effectively annul Vatican 2 by correcting its errors, condemning its false fruits, and simply overriding its constitutions. After reading back through it, I think there is a fair argument to be made that since Paul VI explicitly denied that the council taught anything with the "note of infallibility", the council's designation as "ecuмenical" is effectively meaningless. We take an ecuмenical council to be one that teaches infallibly, yet its own presiding pope denied that it did this, which opens the possibility that it could be erroneous without posing insurmountable problems for the integrity of the Magisterium.
-
If it’s not an ecuмenical council, there’s no protection from error.
I think that depends on your understand of the degree to which errors could creep into the Magisterium. If it was not an Ecuмenical Council, then it's still some kind of authoritative universal teaching of the Pope and bishops to the Church, which most sedevacantists still hold is generally protected from grave substantial error.
As I've argued before, the real problem isn't with regard to infallibility in the strict sense, but about the broader indefectibility of the Magisterium and the Church's Universal Discipline.
I'm not understanding the logic of comparing this to Pistoia. Pistoia was rejected by the Pope, while Vatican II has been accepted and actively promoted by a series of V2 papal claimants. This sounds a bit like grasping at straws on the part of +Vigano. Evidently, the problem of how an Ecuмenical Council could do this, to be intrinsically defective, erroneous, and harmful ... has been weighing on +Vigano's mind. So he's come up with the proposal that the Ecuмenical Council wasn't really and Ecuмenical Council. With this he's at least tacitly admitting the problem of how an Ecuмenical Council could do such a thing. So, if this was not an Ecuмenical Council, why? If this was not an Ecuмenical Council, then what was it? Was "whatever it was" also exceeding the limits of the overall inerrancy of the Magisterium?
So recall the syllogism I laid out when +Vigano first published his famous June 9th letter.
Major: Ecuмenical Councils cannot teach gravely erroneous doctrine.
Minor: Vatican II taught gravely erroneous doctrine.
Conclusion: Vatican II was not an Ecuмenical Council.
So it actually sounds like he's admitting this logic now. In his earlier position statement, he articulated the Minor but did not dwell on the Major at all. Some people attacked him because of the Major. So upon reflection, he's tacitly conceding this argument by feeling the need to say that Vatican II was not an Ecuмenical Council.
Now the question is WHY was it not an Ecuмenical Council. Of course, the sedevacantist answer is that it was never approved by a Pope ... since Paul VI was not a pope. +Vigano just says that it was not an Ecuмenical Council but does not go to the next step of trying to explain exactly WHY.
-
Here are Kwasniewski's thoughts, from the article +Viganò was referencing.
Through some combination of these, and recognising the fact that V2 never declared dogma(and its errors were designed to be vague rather than explicit), it may be possible to effectively annul Vatican 2 by correcting its errors, condemning its false fruits, and simply overriding its constitutions. After reading back through it, I think there is a fair argument to be made that since Paul VI explicitly denied that the council taught anything with the "note of infallibility", the council's designation as "ecuмenical" is effectively meaningless. We take an ecuмenical council to be one that teaches infallibly, yet its own presiding pope denied that it did this, which opens the possibility that it could be erroneous without posing insurmountable problems for the integrity of the Magisterium.
I don't know that defining something infallibly is inherent in the definition of an Ecuмenical Council ... not in any of the theological definitions I've seen. I think it's typically assumed that ECs do that, but I've never seen this articulated as an essential part of the definition.
-
I don't know that defining something infallibly is inherent in the definition of an Ecuмenical Council ... not in any of the theological definitions I've seen. I think it's typically assumed that ECs do that, but I've never seen this articulated as an essential part of the definition.
But if it lacks universality, it is not magisterial at all (ie., such acts would all be at the level of authentic magisterium, which designation is actually a misnomer, because
There is no such thing as a fallible ordinary magisterium).
Such acts would be on par with the writings of a private doctor.
-
I don't know that defining something infallibly is inherent in the definition of an Ecuмenical Council ... not in any of the theological definitions I've seen. I think it's typically assumed that ECs do that, but I've never seen this articulated as an essential part of the definition.
You're right, it's not, and there were a few throughout history that didn't. But I think there's an argument to be made that the dogmatic constitutions weren't infallible, because Paul VI said as much, but that the title of "Ecuмenical Council" was used by the modernists to make people think they were. When we look at Pastor Aeternius, each paragraph is a new dogmatic teaching, so we might be lead into thinking Lumen Gentium was the same.
The question still remains, how could the whole body of the Church teach error? I don't know. It could be that the complete lack of clarity, and repeated rejections of infallibility, in literally any docuмent during and after Vatican 2 was the protection of the Holy Ghost preventing the Church from explicitly teaching error.
-
Now the question is WHY was it not an Ecuмenical Council. Of course, the sedevacantist answer is that it was never approved by a Pope ... since Paul VI was not a pope. +Vigano just says that it was not an Ecuмenical Council but does not go to the next step of trying to explain exactly WHY.
If you redefine "Ecuмenical Council" and Vatican 2 doesn't fit the definition, you've explained why it's not. This is what he is doing. He is effectively saying that a council that is heterogenous with Tradition isn't a council. As I said, it's too convenient. One could simply remove an "obex" by changing the implicated terminology; this is what he is doing: an ecuмenical council is a universal council open to all the bishops of the Church which has been called by the pope and whose teachings are confirmed by the pope, as long as those teachings are not heterogenous with prior teachings of the Magisterium. That clause is his "why": V2 is heterogenous.
It's a linguistic voila . . . and the problem is gone.
-
But if it lacks universality, it is not magisterial at all (ie., such acts would all be at the level of authentic magisterium, which designation is actually a misnomer).
There is no such thing as a fallible ordinary magisterium.
Such acts would be on par with the writings of a private doctor.
I don't believe that it's at all possible to compare them to the "writings of a private doctor". It was taught by Paul VI (et al.) in their official capacity. I believe Wojtyla wrote some book at some point while he was occupying the See of Peter, but that book was not an official act of his office. Typically what distinguishes an official teaching from some private teaching (i.e. a Sunday sermon or something or a book like this) is whether it appears in the Acta Apostolicae Sedis. There's a Church law/regulation which stated that those things and only those things in the AAS are considered part of the "authentic Magisterium."
So the typical argument from R&R is that the acts of Vatican II are what's known as the MERELY authentic Magisterium, with authentic meaning authoritative, i.e. in opposition to the acts of a private doctor.
This sounds like the Stubborn argument, that if it's erroneous then it's not Magisterium. But that's a tautology only one step removed from "if it's true, then it's true; if it's not true, then it's false." If the Pope INTENDS to teach the Church in his "official capacity" as Pope, vs. as Giovanni Montini (like writing a book), then it's known as "authentic" Magisterium.
I don't believe that the case can be made that V2 is not Magisterium in any sense.
-
You're right, it's not, and there were a few throughout history that didn't. But I think there's an argument to be made that the dogmatic constitutions weren't infallible, because Paul VI said as much, but that the title of "Ecuмenical Council" was used by the modernists to make people think they were. When we look at Pastor Aeternius, each paragraph is a new dogmatic teaching, so we might be lead into thinking Lumen Gentium was the same.
The question still remains, how could the whole body of the Church teach error? I don't know. It could be that the complete lack of clarity, and repeated rejections of infallibility, in literally any docuмent during and after Vatican 2 was the protection of the Holy Ghost preventing the Church from explicitly teaching error.
Except, for Vigano, he already said the teaching of DH on religious liberty was erroneous, and actually contradicted the teachings of the Magisterium and Tradition.
You can't get the Magisterium off the hook by saying it taught error, but the error wasn't explicit. The tradition says it can't teach error through this organ, period. It's indefectible in that regard.
-
If you redefine "Ecuмenical Council" and Vatican 2 doesn't fit the definition, you've explained why it's not. This is what he is doing. He is effectively saying that a council that is heterogenous with Tradition isn't a council. As I said, it's too convenient. One could simply remove an "obex" by changing the implicated terminology; this is what he is doing: an ecuмenical council is a universal council open to all the bishops of the Church which has been called by the pope and whose teachings are confirmed by the pope, as long as those teachings are not heterogenous with prior teachings of the Magisterium. That clause is his "why": V2 is heterogenous.
It's a linguistic voila . . . and the problem is gone.
Is that his argument? There's a huge problem with this. Magisterium is known a priori to any examination of its contents. If I can reject teachings of the Magisterium based on my private judgment that it's incompatible with Tradition, then there's no such thing as a priori authoritative Magisterium. It makes private judgment the ultimate rule of faith. This is not acceptable.
As I said, he's grasping at straws. But it's a step in the right direction. He started by simply pointing out that V2 is filled with erroneous doctrine (not just ambiguous). Now he's got to come to terms with HOW it's possible for V2 to have done this. At least the question is stirring in his mind.
-
I disagree, and believe theologians have used temporal universality as a necessary criterion to distinguish true from false teaching going all the way back at least to the 5th century (eg., St. Vincent of Lerrin’s famous Commonitorium):
Yes, the time criterion seems a bit uncertain to me. If you say that the "universality in time" argument is essential, this leads to problems.
It implies that at any given time the Magisterium could go off the rails and cease to be a reliable guide to truth and can even actively lead people into error ... which seems to contradict the indefectibility of the Magisterium.
Also, there are some striking counter-examples. So, for instance, since St. Augustine through about the year 1100, all Catholic theologians held that unbaptized infants went to hell, and that was later corrected by the Magisterium. Also, for the first 1600 years, all Catholics believed and taught that those without explicit faith in the Holy Trinity and Incarnation cannot be saved. But then some Jesuits started to innovate, and it's not been officially condemned by the Church.
Articles dealing with the OUM admit that it can be nebulous in terms of what belongs to the OUM and what does not, and that ultimately for Catholics to know for sure that something is dogma of the OUM, the Church would have to define it ... at least to make it clear.
So, Sean, my issue with R&R is that I simply cannot see how a major going off the rails of the Magisterium for 60+ years could in any way be consistent with the promises of Our Lord to preserve the Magisterium as a reliable source of the Catholic faith.
If telling people that they MUST REJECT the Magisterium (or large parts of it) in order to please God and to save their souls, then, if that isn't a defection of the Magisterium, then I have NO IDEA what would be.
That's really the big dispute between R&R and sedevacantists. R&R hold that a vacancy of 60+ years is incompatible with indefectibility, whereas the sedevacantists hold that a corruption of the Magisterium and Universal Discipline of the Church is a much bigger problem with indefectibility.
Here's from the Catholic Encyclopedia:
Among the prerogatives conferred on His Church by Christ is the gift of indefectibility. By this term is signified, not merely that the Church will persist to the end of time, but further, that it will preserve unimpaired its essential characteristics. The Church can never undergo any constitutional change which will make it, as a social organism, something different from what it was originally. It can never become corrupt in faith or in morals;
Is the Conciliar Church not "corrupt in faith or in morals". It's corrupt in both. It's corrupt in its public form of worshipping God.
So the R&R are focused on the "persist to the end of time" while sedevacantism considers this large-scale corruption of the Church to be a bigger problem, feeling that a long-term vacancy of the See is compatible with that persistence of the Church to the end of time.
-
Is that his argument? There's a huge problem with this. Magisterium is known a priori to any examination of its contents. If I can reject teachings of the Magisterium based on my private judgment that it's incompatible with Tradition, then there's no such thing as a priori authoritative Magisterium. It makes private judgment the ultimate rule of faith. This is not acceptable.
Exactly so.
As I said, he's grasping at straws. But it's a step in the right direction. He started by simply pointing out that V2 is filled with erroneous doctrine (not just ambiguous). Now he's got to come to terms with HOW it's possible for V2 to have done this. At least the question is stirring in his mind.
Yes. He's made many a positive move that others haven't. Kudos to him for that.
-
haven't we been taught that the Holy Ghost would protect a pope and an ecuмenical council ratified and approved by him so that they could not "impose on them [us] an adulteration of the Faith"?
Can you post this teaching?
This is not much different that your cursed Sedevacantism, except, instead of calling the pop a non-pope, you call an ecuмenical council a non-ecuмenical council.
Sums it right up.
-
I disagree, and believe theologians have used temporal universality as a necessary criterion to distinguish true from false teaching going all the way back at least to the 5th century (eg., St. Vincent of Lerrin’s famous Commonitorium):
“Moreover, in the Catholic Church itself, all possible care must be taken, that we hold that faith which has been believed everywhere, always, by all. For that is truly and in the strictest sense Catholic, which, as the name itself and the reason of the thing declare, comprehends all universally. This rule we shall observe if we follow universality, antiquity, consent. We shall follow universality if we confess that one faith to be true, which the whole Church throughout the world confesses; antiquity, if we in no wise depart from those interpretations which it is manifest were notoriously held by our holy ancestors and fathers; consent, in like manner, if in antiquity itself we adhere to the consentient definitions and determinations of all, or at the least of almost all priests and doctors. (2.6)”
I'll put off whether I agree with you in the interpretation of this, since what we're dealing with here is obedience to authority and how the Church interprets it. In the words of the notorious Holy Office letter:
However, this dogma must be understood in that sense in which the Church herself understands it. For, it was not to private judgments that Our Savior gave for explanation those things that are contained in the deposit of faith, but to the teaching authority of the Church.
Here's a link to an authoritative explanation of the canon by Cardinal Franzelin:
https://novusordowatch.org/wp-content/uploads/franzelin-vincentian-canon.pdf (https://novusordowatch.org/wp-content/uploads/franzelin-vincentian-canon.pdf)
He says that universality is confirmed in either of 2 ways: a) the present consensus of the Church; or, b) the consensus of relative antiquity.
Now if you want to argue this interpretation of the canon wasn't the consensus of the Church pre-V2, I'd like to hear it.
As both Lad and I have pointed out, this definition or understanding of the canon accords with the purpose of the Magisterium: it is our assurance and safeguard, when the pope and the bishops teach something, that it is free from error, and certainly can't be harmful to our souls to go along with.
-
So I finally had a chance to read the entire text.
Here appears to be the crux of his argument.
if doctrine teaches us that the acts of the Magisterium do not contain error, the conclusion is not that these propositions are not erroneous, but that they cannot be part of the Magisterium
So he applies a modus tollentis argument. He concedes that Magisterium = no error, so his conclusion: error = no Magisterium. It's a circular argument which renders Magisterial authority entirely moot. It's a convenient way out that so many R&R have taken. There's a resistance to the possibility that the authority behind it was illegitimate because it shocks the mind to think that the See has been empty and taken over by infiltrators all these years.
So he wonders how this could have happened:
The central vice therefore lies in having fraudulently led the Council Fathers to approve ambiguous texts – which they considered Catholic enough to deserve the placet – and then using that same ambiguity to get them to say exactly what the Innovators wanted.
This happened, according to him, because the Council Fathers THOUGHT they were approving the Catholic sense of ambiguous texts. But this then contradicts his earlier (and consistent assertion) that there are texts which are straight out erroneous and cannot be understood in a Catholic sense.
So contradictions are beginning to appear ... all because +Vigano has an emotional aversion to the possibility that the See is vacant.
-
So he applies a modus tollentis argument. He concedes that Magisterium = no error, so his conclusion: error = no Magisterium. It's a circular argument which renders Magisterial authority entirely moot. It's a convenient way out that so many R&R have taken.
Right. But then it sorts of mirrors the Sede argument:
1) the pope cannot exercise his office to teach heresy to the Church;
2) the "pope" is teaching heresy to the church via his office;
3) the "pope" is not pope.
We have a lot circles, and I'm waiting for a square.
Which is why I think the argument sound that this is a sui generis situation, one that is an anomaly, an exception to valid and universal rules that govern under normal times: we are in the end game, and the "son of perdition" is in the "temple of God." God made the rules, and tells us that He can and will break them at the appointed time.
As Our Lady said at Fatima, pray and do penance.
-
Right. But then it sorts of mirrors the Sede argument:
Precisely. And I've point this same thing out as one of the issues with sedevacantism. While with R&R you have Magisterium-sifting, with sedevacantism, you get into Pope-sifting. That was the title of a paper I wrote that was published (without my knowledge) by The Angelus in 1995.
... yet another reason why the Siri theory works very well. You're not relying upon a private-judgment examination of the Magisterium to argue backwards to the vacancy of the Holy See or non-Magisterium of the Magisterium. You're arguing a priori from an illegitimate election.
With this principle in place, the modus tollentis approach, what would stop a Catholic at the time of Vatican I from arguing backwards from the argument that Papal Infallibility was error to then claim that Pius IX was not a legitimate pope? Nothing really. In Father Cekada's rebuttal to my article, he claimed that the distinction is that Pius IX (and others were) "past" popes who were never disputed while they were alive. But that doesn't answer the hypothetical. If I were living during the time of Pius IX, what would have stopped me from so arguing? Does that mean I could not be sure whether infallibility was dogma to be received with divine faith until after Pius IX died? He based this argument on a misinterpretation of the term "historical" in the definition of dogmatic fact to mean "past". No, "historical" in the definition of dogmatic fact means ... in opposition to doctrinal propositions, we're dealing with historical facts. But I never published my rebuttal of his attack against my paper, because I didn't really intend for the original to be published in the first place.
Father Cekada, you now know this was wrong. [wink]
-
I can’t take seriously the opinion of those who discard a teaching (universality of time) which goes all the way back to Scripture (“Though we or an angel from heaven preach to you a doctrine other than that which you have received, let him be anathema.”).
If you would discard antiquity as a criteria for magisterial teaching, why wouldn’t you discard the popes?
But there is little doubt that Viganò has hit upon something new: The idea of a false council.
In this regard, sedes appear not to notice (or simply disregard) the dangerous terrain they have entered:
1) A pope’s disavowal of infallibility amounts to nothing;
2) By jettisoning universality of time, they reject a teaching contained in Scripture, the Fathers (St. Athanasius, St. Vincent, et al), and countless popes and approved theologians, and pave the way for every novelty to be considered Catholic.
Contrarily, Viganò seems to have discovered the solution to the recovery of orthodoxy:
Lacking these two criterion, any alleged council would not be authentically ecuмenical.
This would be a substantial development of doctrine in ecclesiology (ie., How the Church understands or validates or rejects councils).
Now I am also considering a new argument:
Dogmatic fact:
All other councils were clearly dogmatic facts PRECISELY because they were infallible and universal (spatial AND temporal).
But Vatican II was neither.
Therefore, the teachings of Vatican II are not dogmatic fact.
But the manuals all list ecuмenical councils as dogmatic facts.
Therefore Vatican II was not a true ecuмenical council.
Ps: Please note I am still merely troubleshooting Vigano’s ideas here, not stating things as fact and conclusive.
-
In this regard, sedes appear not to notice (or simply disregard) the dangerous terrain they have entered:
1) A pope’s disavowal of infallibility amounts to nothing;
I've never made this argument. I have always prescinded from debates regarding the limits of "infallibility in the strict sense" (as Msgr. Fenton calls it) and have appealed to the notion of the overall indefectibility of the Church. We're not talking with Vatican II about a single sentence or two of problematic teaching; we're talking about a thorough corruption and pollution of the Magisterium and of the Church's Universal Discipline and public worship. Otherwise, there would be no Traditional movement, but just a few Catholics within the Church respectfully raising concerns about those specific propositions.
-
I can’t take seriously the opinion of those who discard a teaching (universality of time) which goes all the way back to Scripture (“Though we or an angel from heaven preach to you a doctrine other than that which you have received, let him be anathema.”).
It has to be universal in time in the sense that it concurs with what the Church has always taught, of course, but it's the Church that decides that--which it does when it issues the teachings of the council in the first place. By this standard that ecuмenical councils can be rejected entirely as false decades later because we decide that they didn't agree with past teaching, any and all ecuмenical councils could be brought into question.
-
I can’t take seriously the opinion of those who discard a teaching (universality of time) which goes all the way back to Scripture (“Though we or an angel from heaven preach to you a doctrine other than that which you have received, let him be anathema.”).
And I can't take seriously those that purposely mistake an argument and retard it when it was moving forward nicely.
Here's what I said:
I'll put off whether I agree with you in the interpretation of this, since what we're dealing with here is obedience to authority and how the Church interprets it. In the words of the notorious Holy Office letter:
Quote
However, this dogma must be understood in that sense in which the Church herself understands it. For, it was not to private judgments that Our Savior gave for explanation those things that are contained in the deposit of faith, but to the teaching authority of the Church.
Here's a link to an authoritative explanation of the canon by Cardinal Franzelin:
https://novusordowatch.org/wp-content/uploads/franzelin-vincentian-canon.pdf (https://novusordowatch.org/wp-content/uploads/franzelin-vincentian-canon.pdf)
He says that universality is confirmed in either of 2 ways: a) the present consensus of the Church; or, b) the consensus of relative antiquity.
Now if you want to argue this interpretation of the canon wasn't the consensus of the Church pre-V2, I'd like to hear it.
As both Lad and I have pointed out, this definition or understanding of the canon accords with the purpose of the Magisterium: it is our assurance and safeguard, when the pope and the bishops teach something, that it is free from error, and certainly can't be harmful to our souls to go along with.
I'd still like to hear it.
That would move our discussion forward.
-
...we're talking about a thorough corruption and pollution of the Magisterium and of the Church's Universal Discipline and public worship...
If you continue to refer to a non-magisterial council as magisterial, you are going to continue reaching faulty conclusions:
The magisterium has not actually been corrupted at all, because V2 is not part of the magisterium.
Vigano is saying this is all a mirage: That by using the Catholic "form" of an ecuмenical council, its teachings are fraudulently proliferated as magisterial, simply because true councils (which are magisterial) use this form.
But by shifting the gaze from the form to the substance of its texts, we see this cannot be so.
It is undeniable that Vatican II lacks essential components of true ecuмenical councils:
1) It is not infallible
2) It lacks universality (and is therefore not really magisterial at any level, except that of the authentic magisterium, which is a misnomer);
3) Because of 1 and 2, it i not a dogmatic fact.
4) But all councils are dogmatic facts.
5) Therefore, Vatican II is not an ecuмenical council.
Still working this out.
-
It has to be universal in time in the sense that it concurs with what the Church has always taught, of course, but it's the Church that decides that--which it does when it issues the teachings of the council in the first place. By this standard that ecuмenical councils can be rejected entirely as false decades later because we decide that they didn't agree with past teaching, any and all ecuмenical councils could be brought into question.
This argument comes across as disingenuous for several reasons:
1) We all recognize the council contains errors, in which case, why are you declaring the necessity of waiting for the Church to concur?
2) Sedevacantists have no qualms about deposing popes on their own authority, but for a council in which there is unanimity as regards its containing error, we are told we must not reach such a conclusion until the Church concludes such. But we need no such confirmations from the Church regarding the deposition of popes?
3) Contrary to what you say, it is impossible to call the other councils into question, since those councils, being both infallible and universal, are dogmatic facts. Vatican II possesses none of those qualities.
4) Implicit in your rationale is the suggestion that Catholics cannot recognize deviations from tradition, yet the Scriptures say exactly the opposite ("Though we or an angel from heaven preach to you a doctrine other than that which you have received, let him be anathema").
-
This argument comes across as disingenuous for several reasons:
1) We all recognize the council contains errors, in which case, why are you declaring the necessity of waiting for the Church to concur?
2) Sedevacantists have no qualms about deposing popes on their own authority, but for a council in which there is unanimity as regards its containing error, we are told we must not reach such a conclusion until the Church concludes such.
3) Contrary to what you say, it is impossible to call the other councils into question, since those councils, being both infallible and universal, are dogmatic facts.
4) Implicit in your rationale is the suggestion that Catholics cannot recognize deviations from tradition, yet the Scriptures say exactly the opposite ("Though we or an angel from heaven preach to you a doctrine other than that which you have received, let him be anathema").
1&2) Where did I say anything about waiting for the Church to concur? I'm saying that the fact that a new council is compatible with previous Church teaching is always implied in the Church's approval of it, and it's not down to laymen to determine whether or not it truly is.
3) Universal says who? Why would it have been any different for someone to have questioned Vatican I's universality? It's still people using their private judgement to determine that the Church broke with tradition, and that therefore it must've been wrong. Same principle.
4) Catholics cannot reject Church teaching based on their private judgement that it ruptures with previous Church teaching. A Protestant could've claimed Trent lacked "universality" and then rejected the "Tridentine-Conciliar Church" in much the same way, same with an Old Catholic and Vatican I.
-
1&2) Where did I say anything about waiting for the Church to concur? I'm saying that the fact that a new council is compatible with previous Church teaching is always implied in the Church's approval of it, and it's not down to laymen to determine whether or not it truly is.
3) Universal says who? Why would it have been any different for someone to have questioned Vatican I's universality? It's still people using their private judgement to determine that the Church broke with tradition, and that therefore it must've been wrong. Same principle.
4) Catholics cannot reject Church teaching based on their private judgement that it ruptures with previous Church teaching. A Protestant could've claimed Trent lacked "universality" and then rejected the "Tridentine-Conciliar Church" in much the same way, same with an Old Catholic and Vatican I.
1&2) You said "its for the Church to decide" (but apparently, its not for the Church to decide if there's a pope);
3) What? You are suggesting a previous council taught novelty? No? Then you are not questioning its universality!
4) Catholics who reject Vatican II would not be rejecting Church doctrine (as you yourself will admit).
This is why I say your arguments come across as disingenuous.
You give the impression of trying to save sedevacantism, rather than arriving at truth. Yes, yes, you will protest!
Nevertheless...
-
1&2) You said "its for the Church to decide" (but apparently, its not for the Church to decide if there's a pope);
3) What? You are suggesting a previous council taught novelty? No? Then you are not questioning its universality!
4) Catholics who reject Vatican II would not be rejecting Church doctrine (as you yourself will admit).
This is why I say your arguments come across as disingenuous.
You give the impression of trying to save sedevacantism, rather than arriving at truth. Yes, yes, you will protest!
Nevertheless...
1&2) Yes, the Church decides that something is compatible with Church teaching when it decides to teach it. Otherwise it wouldn't teach it. Not sure what there is to argue here. The Council Fathers promulgated their teachings without any opinion as to whether or not it was Catholic or not?
3) The Old Catholics did. Why is their questioning of V1's universality any less legitimate? It's still private judgement determining that a council taught falsely, and that therefore it was a false council. Same principle applies.
4) Well yes, I abandoned my own hastily thought up theory of how one could reject V2 without rejecting the V2 popes because of corrections from Ladislaus and Decem, namely that it's still a problem for a council to teach falsely even if it wasn't defining dogma.
Now I'm offering issues I perceive with your own theory. It's a very easy cop-out to just accuse everything of being a blind roundabout defence of sedevacantism. Every ecuмenical council being fallible, by us having no infallible way of knowing if they had universality, is still an issue either way.
-
1&2) Yes, the Church decides that something is compatible with Church teaching when it decides to teach it. Otherwise it wouldn't teach it. Not sure what there is to argue here. The Council Fathers promulgated their teachings without any opinion as to whether or not it was Catholic or not?
3) The Old Catholics did. Why is their questioning of V1's universality any less legitimate? It's still private judgement determining that a council taught falsely, and that therefore it was a false council. Same principle applies.
4) Well yes, I abandoned my own hastily thought up theory of how one could reject V2 without rejecting the V2 popes because of corrections from Ladislaus and Decem, namely that it's still a problem for a council to teach falsely even if it wasn't defining dogma.
Now I'm offering issues I perceive with your own theory. It's a very easy cop-out to just accuse everything of being a blind roundabout defence of sedevacantism. The issue of every ecuмenical council being fallible, by us having no infallible way of knowing if they had universality, is still an issue.
1&2) Which church are you referring to? It was the conciliar church which decided V2 was compatible with Tradition, via the hermaneutic, not the Catholic Church.
3) You are citing heretics in defense of your position?
4) Not if it isn't really an ecuмenical council.
Not sure why you are conjuring up the novel idea that there is no way to recognize universality: Both St. Paul and St. Vincent give us the key. If it isn't already contained in tradition (at least implicitly), it doesn't have universality (and this basically encapsulates every error of Vatican II).
-
1&2) Which church are you referring to? It was the conciliar church which decided V2 was compatible with Tradition, via the hermaneutic, not the Catholic Church.
3) You are citing heretics in defense of your position?
4) Not if it isn't really an ecuмenical council.
Not sure why you are conjuring up the novel idea that there is no way to recognize universality: Both St. Paul and St. Vincent give us the key. If it isn't already contained in tradition (at least implicitly), it doesn't have universality (and this basically encapsulates every error of Vatican II).
1&2) So what, are you now saying that Vatican 2 was just a council of the "Conciliar Church" and not the Catholic Church at all then? Gee whizz, problem solved, I guess.
3) Showing how a line of reasoning is the same as what heretics used to reject the Church is a rather good way of showing how said line of reasoning is problematic, is it not?
4) And how do we know what an ecuмenical council is? Usually the presumption is just "if the Church says it is, it is". And then if the Church tells us it's ecuмenical, we can be sure its teachings are true. But with this universality argument, now the Church telling us it's ecuмenical isn't good enough, and we must judge for ourselves(with our fallible judgements) whether or not the council possesses universality. So we have no way of knowing for sure which councils are ecuмenical or not.
-
1&2) So what, are you now saying that Vatican 2 was just a council of the "Conciliar Church" and not the Catholic Church at all then? Gee whizz, problem solved, I guess.
3) Showing how a line of reasoning is the same as what heretics used to reject the Church is a rather good way of showing how said line of reasoning is problematic, is it not?
4) And how do we know what an ecuмenical council is? Usually the presumption is just "if the Church says it is, it is". And then if the Church tells us it's ecuмenical, we can be sure its teachings are true. But with this universality argument, now the Church telling us it's ecuмenical isn't good enough, and we must judge for ourselves(with our fallible judgements) whether or not the council possesses universality. So we have no way of knowing for sure which councils are ecuмenical or not.
1&2) Of course. What is novel is conciliar; what is true is Catholic. The separation is not complete. One pope for two churches. http://www.dominicansavrille.us/is-there-a-conciliar-church/
3) Except that you have removed that line of reasoning from context, so that it wwould appear to apply equally to infallible dogmatic definitions and certainly infallible ecuмenical councils, and those which you yourself acknowledge teach error.
4) You are making Vigano's argument for him: He said people presume it is ecuмenical and therefore infallible simply because of the form of teaching, without reference to the substance. It is the substance which must meet the criteria of infallibility and universality, in order to attain the level of dogmatic fact (and therefore certainly ecuмenical). If it lacks those three criteria, one might be allowed (or compelled) to doubt the legitimacy of calling a council ecuмenical.
-
4) And how do we know what an ecuмenical council is? Usually the presumption is just "if the Church says it is, it is". And then if the Church tells us it's ecuмenical, we can be sure its teachings are true. But with this universality argument, now the Church telling us it's ecuмenical isn't good enough, and we must judge for ourselves(with our fallible judgements) whether or not the council possesses universality. So we have no way of knowing for sure which councils are ecuмenical or not.
There's an incredibly amusing irony in all of this. Both the R & R and Sede groups will rail against Feeneyites for "private judgment," when we have both of those groups weighing ecuмenical councils and popes against Tradition and prior Magisterial teachings to make their determinations that either such a council or a pope was not genuine because they taught or acted contrarily.
It was especially amusing to get Galatians 1:8-9 quoted back at me when I talked about the consensus of the Church regarding the meaning of the Vincentian canon.
I guess the old "do as I say, not as I do" in all its wonderful variations is part of our genetic makeup.
As they say, you can't make this stuff up.
-
There's an incredibly amusing irony in all of this. Both the R & R and Sede groups will rail against Feeneyites for "private judgment," when we have both of those groups weighing ecuмenical councils and popes against Tradition and prior Magisterial teachings to make their determinations that either such a council or a pope was not genuine because they taught or acted contrarily.
It was especially amusing to get Galatians 1:8-9 quoted back at me when I talked about the consensus of the Church regarding the meaning of the Vincentian canon.
I guess the old "do as I say, not as I do" in all its wonderful variations is part of our genetic makeup.
As they say, you can't make this stuff up.
Oh, you can (and have been) making it up just fine.
So long as you remove all context and nuance, you can pretend there is irony to your heart's content!
The only irony I perceive is sedes deposing popes without reference or deference to the Church's decision, while calling for declarations from the Church to declare the council false.
As regards the Feeneyites, St. Vincent roundly condemns them: Popes, saints, and doctors of the Church have been teaching BOD since post-apostolic times. Clearly BOD possesses universality and is de fide.
Meanwhile, you would defend the authenticity of a council which is lacking in infallibility and universality (and is clearly therefore no dogmatic fact, yet persist in this defense even though we know ecuмenical councils must be dogmatic facts), and pretend to find no distinctions between Vatican I and Vatican II, so as to create irony.
-
Sean, do you believe the NO teaching that the teachings of all the bishops, either together in a council or dispersed throughout the world, all teaching the same thing in unison with the pope are infallible teachings? If so, what does it matter what the Council is called?
-
Sean, do you believe the NO teaching that the teachings of all the bishops, either together in a council or dispersed throughout the world, all teaching the same thing in unison with the pope are infallible teachings? If so, what does it matter what the Council is called?
All I know is that Vatican II taught error.
-
Meanwhile, you would defend the authenticity of a council which is lacking in infallibility and universality (and is clearly therefore no dogmatic fact, yet persist in this defense even though we know ecuмenical councils must be dogmatic facts), and pretend to find no distinctions between Vatican I and Vatican II, so as to create irony.
There were ecuмenical councils that didn't teach dogma, like the First Council of Lyons. And obviously Vatican I and Vatican II are very different, but do you not see the issue with how this universality argument makes it so that we never know if a council is ecuмenical for certain? If the Church can say V2 is an ecuмenical council, and it can be wrong in that because of a lack of universality, then who's to say other ecuмenical councils didn't lack the same? How can we ever know if a council is ecuмenical for certain if we must use our own private judgement to decide if their teachings are universal or not?
-
There were ecuмenical councils that didn't teach dogma, like the First Council of Lyons. And obviously Vatican I and Vatican II are very different, but do you not see the issue with how this universality argument makes it so that we never know if a council is ecuмenical for certain? If the Church can say V2 is an ecuмenical council, and it can be wrong in that because of a lack of universality, then who's to say other ecuмenical councils didn't lack the same? How can we ever know if a council is ecuмenical for certain if we must use our own private judgement to decide if their teachings are universal or not?
I don’t see that at all.
Why wouldn’t you know if novelty is taught, thereby robbing a council of universality (and therefore of legitimacy)?
You yourself know novelty was taught at V2, and therefore you reject it. So it seems you are creating an argument which you yourself don’t believe.
-
I don’t see that at all.
Why wouldn’t you know if novelty is taught, thereby robbing a council of universality (and therefore of legitimacy)?
You yourself know novelty was taught at V2, and therefore you reject it. So it seems you are creating an argument which you yourself don’t believe.
But that's my private judgement. The whole point of having a magisterium is so we don't have to rely on our private judgement regarding matters of faith. If we don't know with infallible certainty which councils were ecuмenical, then we don't know any dogma with certainty, since all dogma were taught either by an ecuмenical council or (in the case of very few) by papal infallibly, which was itself defined in an ecuмenical council. Discard our certainty of which councils are ecuмenical, and what do we know for certain?
-
But that's my private judgement.
No, it isn't "private judgment" if one uses the rule of faith to judge. The rule of faith is what the Church taught before.
The 1960s robber council is a robber council because it contradicts Church teaching.
Lookup CI-posts of user drew with keywords proximate rule faith.
-
I have [...] appealed to the notion of the overall indefectibility of the Church.
The indefectibility of the Magisterium was defined twice by the Vatican Council to last usque ad consummationem saeculi (https://www.cathinfo.com/the-sacred-catholic-liturgy-chant-prayers/vatican-council-says-there-will-be-shepherds-'usque-ad-consummationem-saeculi'/). Both of the main docuмents have it in the first paragraph, or first sentence:
Pastor aeternus [...] ita in Ecclesia sua pastores et doctores usque ad consummationem saeculi [Mt 28,20] esse voluit.
Dei Filius et generis humani Redemptor Dominus Noster Iesus Christus, ad Patrem caelestem rediturus, cuм Ecclesia sua in terris militante, omnibus diebus usque ad consummationem saeculi [Mt 28,20] futurum se esse promisit.
When there are no more shepherds and doctors found in the Church of the eternal shepherd, then all days up to the consummation of the age (https://www.cathinfo.com/the-sacred-catholic-liturgy-chant-prayers/vatican-council-says-there-will-be-shepherds-'usque-ad-consummationem-saeculi'/) are past. Then Antichrist is seducing most sheep, and all kinds of false prophets and sects call scattered sheep to the deserts or closets and say 'here is Christ'. Believe it not. [Mt 24,26]
CHAPTER XXVI. Concerning the Antichrist.
It should be known that the Antichrist is bound to come. Every one, therefore, who confesses not that the Son of God came in the flesh and is perfect God and became perfect man, after being God, is Antichrist. But in a peculiar and special sense he who comes at the consummation of the age is called Antichrist.
-
I believe Vigano is the first R&R theologian (and with this latest monumental letter, he is clearly a theologian) to suggest Vatican II is not an ecuмenical council.
Fr. Hesse, who was a canon lawyer, also argued that Vatican II was not an ecuмenical council. One of his tapes was dedicated this subject, which you can listen to here:
https://archive.org/details/FatherHesse/Fr.+Hesse+-+Why+Catholics+May+Doubt+Whether+Vatican+II+Was+a+Valid+Council+(Remastered).mp3 (https://archive.org/details/FatherHesse/Fr.+Hesse+-+Why+Catholics+May+Doubt+Whether+Vatican+II+Was+a+Valid+Council+(Remastered).mp3)
-
All I know is that Vatican II taught error.
And with absolute certainty of faith, you are right. V2 was the cause, the means of the greatest scandal in the history of the world, of this we are absolutely certain.
Has not it always been known that all the bishops together in a council with the pope is called an ecuмenical council? And is it not undeniable that all the bishops together in a council with the pope taught - and continue to teach error?
So I ask again, why does the name of the label they gave to the Council matter?
-
No, it isn't "private judgment" if one uses the rule of faith to judge. The rule of faith is what the Church taught before.
The 1960s robber council is a robber council because it contradicts Church teaching.
Lookup CI-posts of user drew with keywords proximate rule faith.
But drew believes that the proximate rule of faith is the set of dogmatic doctrines of the Church. This is why he believes Bergoglio is the true pope and also why he believes he can justly resist the pope and use his own private judgment to overrule the pope’s decisions.
The Church on the other hand teaches that obedience to the pope is necessary for salvation. But it was always necessary to use our own private judgment to identify the pope and the true hierarchy of the Church. E.g. St Vincent Ferrar vs St Catherine of Siena during the Great Western Schism.
So if you believe that it is the pope who is the proximate rule of faith, then in order to know what the Church teaches, you first have to identify who is the pope or in the case of an interregnum, who are the legitimate hierarchy of the Church.
In the case of V2, no one disobeyed the supposed pope in 1965. It wasn’t until at least 1967 that anyone questioned the legitimacy of the pope (Shuckhardt). The traditional Catholic movement didn’t start until 1970 at the earliest after the new “Mass” had already been concocted. So it wasn’t a problem with the texts of V2 (although the problems certainly were there) that sparked the traditional Catholic movement, it was the founding of a new religion with the Mass being the most obvious manifestation.
It was only after the fact of the new religion that we traced the problem back to V2. And for sedes, it was traced back to the elections of 1958 and 1963.
If Vigano is going to have any success at uniting the clans he will have to address the new religion and its positively doubtful sacraments. I wonder if he will have the courage to do that since his own legitimacy will come into question.
-
But drew believes that the proximate rule of faith is the set of dogmatic doctrines of the Church. This is why he believes Bergoglio is the true pope and also why he believes he can justly resist the pope and use his own private judgment to overrule the pope’s decisions.
The Church on the other hand teaches that obedience to the pope is necessary for salvation. But it was always necessary to use our own private judgment to identify the pope and the true hierarchy of the Church. E.g. St Vincent Ferrar vs St Catherine of Siena during the Great Western Schism.
So if you believe that it is the pope who is the proximate rule of faith, then in order to know what the Church teaches, you first have to identify who is the pope or in the case of an interregnum, who are the legitimate hierarchy of the Church.
In the case of V2, no one disobeyed the supposed pope in 1965. It wasn’t until at least 1967 that anyone questioned the legitimacy of the pope (Shuckhardt). The traditional Catholic movement didn’t start until 1970 at the earliest after the new “Mass” had already been concocted. So it wasn’t a problem with the texts of V2 (although the problems certainly were there) that sparked the traditional Catholic movement, it was the founding of a new religion with the Mass being the most obvious manifestation.
It was only after the fact of the new religion that we traced the problem back to V2. And for sedes, it was traced back to the elections of 1958 and 1963.
If Vigano is going to have any success at uniting the clans he will have to address the new religion and its positively doubtful sacraments. I wonder if he will have the courage to do that since his own legitimacy will come into question.
Drew is 100% right, dogma is the rule of faith, truth or doctrine will forever reign over authority since truth binds even authority - thankfully for trads because trads live by this principle.
But the trad movement was talking roots in my neck of the woods at least, a few years prior to 1970 and I agree with you re: his own legitimacy would have to come into question.
-
No, it isn't "private judgment" if one uses the rule of faith to judge. The rule of faith is what the Church taught before.
Sure it is. We have made the judgment, against what the putative authorities in the V2 Conciliar Church have said, that some or much of V2 contradicts Tradition. It's theoretically possible that we're misinterpreting something or missing some distinction, or something. Until such a time as the Church is restored and declares that V2 contradicted Tradition, we're operating in private judgment mode. This thinking is similar to what the Dimonds do. They claim that various propositions contradict Tradition and so declare them to be heretical. As great as they believe their syllogisms are to establish this, the logic is their own and not that of the Church. Every syllogism involves some human reasoning. They (and we) typically start with a Major that is in fact from Church teaching, and then we like to pretend that the conclusion we draw from it is also therefore Church teaching. But often the Minor is not necessarily Church teaching, and the entire argument is not, in that it's always possible that we're missing a distinction somewhere in the reasoning.
What you stated here is simply an extension of the Protestant use of Scripture. "Look, here's a statement in the Bible, therefore the Catholics are in error." We say, "Look, here's a statement in Tradition, and therefore V2 is in error." So, while we would recognize TWO sources of Revelation rather than ONE, the attitude here is Protestant. It is for the Church's Magisterium alone to interpret (i.e. "safeguard") the Deposit of Revelation and right doctrine.
-
Drew is 100% right, dogma is the rule of faith, ...
No, he's been debunked over and over again on this (with many citations and evidence). This, as explained in my previous post, is nothing more than an extension of Protestantism. Protestants claim that Scripture is the rule of faith, and can stand alone as such. Those Traditionalists who adopt this attitude are merely extending the same concept to a second source of Revelation.
St. Augustine articulated the Catholic attitude in saying that he would not believe the Scriptures themselves had the Church not proposed them to him for belief. It is none other than the Magisterium that is our PROXIMATE RULE OF FAITH.
-
Laudislaus,
Drew has been "debunked"? :facepalm: Below is the thread which was locked after 40K viewings in May of 2018. To this day, it is being read and has over 80.5K viewings and even though your posts were wiped out because you offered nothing but insults, in all of Drew's replies, you are fully quoted as was everyone he replied to on the thread. To those interested, Drew started posting on page 4. I should point out the thread becomes increasingly more interesting after a few pages.
https://www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/is-father-ringrose-dumping-the-r-r-crowd/45/
-
But drew believes that the proximate rule of faith is the set of dogmatic doctrines of the Church.
Yes, and that's correct and very important. It's the neomodernists who make the(ir fake) Pope the rule of faith such that the "Pope" can reinterpret Church doctrine as he pleases.
This is why he believes Bergoglio is the true pope and also why he believes he can justly resist the pope and use his own private judgment to overrule the pope’s decisions.
As far as I understood him, Dr. Drew prefers to believe that Bergoglio is the true pope, because he thinks that Pastor aeternus forces him to believe so. It's not because he correctly states that the proximate rule of faith are the infallible teachings of the Church. I on the other hand, believe that the consummation of the age has come (https://www.cathinfo.com/the-sacred-catholic-liturgy-chant-prayers/vatican-council-says-there-will-be-shepherds-'usque-ad-consummationem-saeculi'/), and that there are no apostolic shepherds or a Pope, anymore. And to judge that those who say they are apostles (Rev 2:2) aren't such, I measure them using the rule of faith.
The Church on the other hand teaches that obedience to the pope is necessary for salvation. But it was always necessary to use our own private judgment to identify the pope and the true hierarchy of the Church. E.g. St Vincent Ferrar vs St Catherine of Siena during the Great Western Schism.
Yes, sure. But I have one objection: It's not "private judgment" as you say. We don't use "private judgment" to decide whether someone who says he's an apostle is or isn't an apostle. Rather, we use the rule of faith. We use the rule of faith to determine whether he's a manifest heretic or he isn't. If he is, then we reject him as an apostle. Dr. Drew chooses to resist him, while I prefer to go with the unanimous opinion of the Father's as passed down by St. Robert Bellarmine and I call him a fake-apostle.
So if you believe that it is the pope who is the proximate rule of faith, then in order to know what the Church teaches, you first have to identify who is the pope or in the case of an interregnum, who are the legitimate hierarchy of the Church.
If you believe that it is the Pope who is the proximate rule of faith, then you believe what the neomodernists believe. Then you put a man above defined dogma. Then Popes, or rather "Popes", can fool you every day.
Any man must to follow his conscience, anyway (St. Thomas Aquinas). And all we have to judge properly, are the infallible truths fallen from heaven and written down by the Magisterium of the Church. The only way to reject those who call themselves Magisterium, but aren't, is to use the past Magisterium. When contradictions start, then they aren't.
And that's not "private judgment". We don't use private rules, we use the rule of faith as proposed by the Church of Our Lord.
-
Drew is 100% right, dogma is the rule of faith, ...
No, he's been debunked over and over again on this (with many citations and evidence). This, as explained in my previous post, is nothing more than an extension of Protestantism. Protestants claim that Scripture is the rule of faith, and can stand alone as such. Those Traditionalists who adopt this attitude are merely extending the same concept to a second source of Revelation.
St. Augustine articulated the Catholic attitude in saying that he would not believe the Scriptures themselves had the Church not proposed them to him for belief. It is none other than the Magisterium that is our PROXIMATE RULE OF FAITH.
No, Dr. Drew is right, Dr. Drew is not a protestant, rather you are a neomodernist. I recommend you go back and study again and again the hundreds of lines of arduousness he spent on you personally.
-
https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05766b.htm (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05766b.htm)
See above article. I think we are not using precise terminology. I’m talking about the living proximate rule of faith and you and drew are talking about the inanimate proximate rule of faith. We can use the inanimate proximate rule of faith as an aid to identify the true Catholic clergy but once we have identified who is the pope we don’t use the inanimate proximate rule of faith to double check his fidelity to the Church’s teachings. Rather it is his job to make sure we are faithful. We need only obey him. Our Lord prayed that Peter’s faith would not fail. To imply that prayer was in vain is blasphemous. This is why St Robert Bellarmine believed it was impossible that a pope even in his private teachings could ever fall away from the faith. But it certainly is possible that imposters have duped the whole world into believing that they are successors of Peter. Except for the elect that is. Yes, it certainly is possible that we have no successors of the Apostles at the moment. And it is possible that we are experiencing the consummation of the world. But we don’t have moral certainty about the later. There could be a legitimate election which produces a true Catholic pope. I have heard there is some movement of traditional Catholic clergy in Rome to do something. So we shall see. God’s will be done.
-
https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05766b.htm (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05766b.htm)
See above article. I think we are not using precise terminology. I’m talking about the living proximate rule of faith and you and drew are talking about the inanimate proximate rule of faith. We can use the inanimate proximate rule of faith as an aid to identify the true Catholic clergy but once we have identified who is the pope we don’t use the inanimate proximate rule of faith to double check his fidelity to the Church’s teachings. Rather it is his job to make sure we are faithful. We need only obey him. Our Lord prayed that Peter’s faith would not fail. To imply that prayer was in vain is blasphemous. This is why St Robert Bellarmine believed it was impossible that a pope even in his private teachings could ever fall away from the faith. But it certainly is possible that imposters have duped the whole world into believing that they are successors of Peter. Except for the elect that is. Yes, it certainly is possible that we have no successors of the Apostles at the moment. And it is possible that we are experiencing the consummation of the world. But we don’t have moral certainty about the later. There could be a legitimate election which produces a true Catholic pope. I have heard there is some movement of traditional Catholic clergy in Rome to do something. So we shall see. God’s will be done.
I recommend to prefer infallible Church teaching. What is an article written by a man named "Hugh Pope" compared to infallible Church teaching, e.g. of the Council of Trent? In various docuмents of the holy Synod of Trent we find statements like the following:
But It [the holy Synod] hath resolved to condemn whatsoever things are contrary thereunto, in express and specific canons, in the manner following; in order that all men, with the help of Christ, using the rule of faith, may, in the midst of the darkness of so many errors, more easily be able to recognise and to hold Catholic truth.
The infallible Council of Trent says that we should use their teachings as the rule of faith, to recognise the Catholic truth in the midst of the darkness of so many errors.
And it's not "private judgment"! It's "all men, with the help of Christ, using the rule of faith, in the midst of the darkness of so many errors, more easily being able to recognise and to hold Catholic truth."
-
Yes, it certainly is possible that we have no successors of the Apostles at the moment. And it is possible that we are experiencing the consummation of the world. But we don’t have moral certainty about the later.
I do have moral certainty. But others typically do not.
There could be a legitimate election which produces a true Catholic pope. I have heard there is some movement of traditional Catholic clergy in Rome to do something. So we shall see. God’s will be done.
"Traditional Catholic clergy" doesn't have more apostolic authority that you or I do. If they elect a Pope, then it's indeed your or my "private judgment" to accept or reject the candidate. Then we cannot rely on any Church teaching, which explains when and how apostolic mandates can be created out of thin air.
-
And how do we know that the Council of Trent is true Catholic doctrine? .... Answer: the Pope approved it.
-
Where Peter is, there is the Church.
-
Not where Peter is we can proof text the existence of the Church.
-
And how do we know that the Council of Trent is true Catholic doctrine? .... Answer: the Pope approved it.
Not enough! The Council of Trent doesn't contradict what was known as Catholic doctrine so far.
-
Where Peter is, there is the Church.
Yes sure, and where Angelo Giuseppe, Giovanni Battista, Albino, Karol Józef, Joseph Aloisius, and Jorge Mario are, there is the Antichurch.
They mock the Church.
-
The Catholic clergy of Rome have the responsibility and the right to elect their bishop, the Bishop of Rome. Normally the voting is reserved to the Cardinals. But Billot, Journet, Salvieri? And others all recognize that in extraordinary circuмstances it is possible for the vote to devolve to the rest of the clergy of Rome. It could even devolve to an imperfect general council of the Church. The Catholic clergy most certainly do have more authority than laymen such as you and I. They are the hierarchy after all. See the definition of hierarchy in Parente’s Dictionary of Dogmatic Theology. Hint: the hierarchy is not limited to the Successors of the Apostles.
Google John Daly’s romeward.com site for papal elections. He has a good article on it. Also John Lane has an article by James Larrabee about elections on his Bellarmine Forums site.
-
https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05766b.htm (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05766b.htm)
See above article. I think we are not using precise terminology. I’m talking about the living proximate rule of faith and you and drew are talking about the inanimate proximate rule of faith. We can use the inanimate proximate rule of faith as an aid to identify the true Catholic clergy but once we have identified who is the pope we don’t use the inanimate proximate rule of faith to double check his fidelity to the Church’s teachings. Rather it is his job to make sure we are faithful. We need only obey him. Our Lord prayed that Peter’s faith would not fail. To imply that prayer was in vain is blasphemous. This is why St Robert Bellarmine believed it was impossible that a pope even in his private teachings could ever fall away from the faith. But it certainly is possible that imposters have duped the whole world into believing that they are successors of Peter. Except for the elect that is. Yes, it certainly is possible that we have no successors of the Apostles at the moment. And it is possible that we are experiencing the consummation of the world. But we don’t have moral certainty about the later. There could be a legitimate election which produces a true Catholic pope. I have heard there is some movement of traditional Catholic clergy in Rome to do something. So we shall see. God’s will be done.
That has been addressed here:
https://www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/is-father-ringrose-dumping-the-r-r-crowd/msg601723/#msg601723
-
The Catholic clergy of Rome have the responsibility and the right to elect their bishop, the Bishop of Rome. Normally the voting is reserved to the Cardinals. But Billot, Journet, Salvieri? And others all recognize that in extraordinary circuмstances it is possible for the vote to devolve to the rest of the clergy of Rome. It could even devolve to an imperfect general council of the Church. The Catholic clergy most certainly do have more authority than laymen such as you and I. They are the hierarchy after all. See the definition of hierarchy in Parente’s Dictionary of Dogmatic Theology. Hint: the hierarchy is not limited to the Successors of the Apostles.
Google John Daly’s romeward.com site for papal elections. He has a good article on it. Also John Lane has an article by James Larrabee about elections on his Bellarmine Forums site.
Which "Catholic clergy of Rome" are you talking about? Can you name one?
-
Not enough! The Council of Trent doesn't contradict what was known as Catholic doctrine so far.
It is impossible that a true pope can teach contrary to Church doctrine. So approval certainly is enough. A true pope has never, does not now and will never contradict Church dogma. If there is the appearance of contradiction then you are likely to be misunderstanding something. Or possibly you have mistakenly taken a non-pope to be a true pope.
-
It is impossible that a true pope can teach contrary to Church doctrine. So approval certainly is enough. A true pope has never, does not now and will never contradict Church dogma. If there is the appearance of contradiction then you are likely to be misunderstanding something. Or possibly you have mistakenly taken a non-pope to be a true pope.
I agree (with the latter option).
More than 2400 heretics (who may have appeared to be apostles) taught heresy contradicting the rule of faith, thus allowing us to use the rule of faith to assert that their teachings are heresy and they are manifest heretics, presenting their heresy in the most solemn way ever seen.
-
No, he's been debunked over and over again on this (with many citations and evidence). This, as explained in my previous post, is nothing more than an extension of Protestantism. Protestants claim that Scripture is the rule of faith, and can stand alone as such. Those Traditionalists who adopt this attitude are merely extending the same concept to a second source of Revelation.
St. Augustine articulated the Catholic attitude in saying that he would not believe the Scriptures themselves had the Church not proposed them to him for belief. It is none other than the Magisterium that is our PROXIMATE RULE OF FAITH.
Only in your mind he's been debunked. Only in your mind.
The Magisterium, not the hierarchy, is truth. God said that He is "the truth" *and* "the way". Dogma is truth, dogma is the rule of faith because truth is our rule of faith, which is our way - "the way". The pope is not God, is not "the truth", is not "the way", is not the Magisterium, ergo, the pope is not the rule of faith. All faithful Catholics, including popes, are bound to and must live according to the Church's doctrines, which are the Church's truths, which is our rule of faith.
It's not complicated, but for whoever wants a clear explanation in defense of the rule of faith, see Maria's link. (https://www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/is-father-ringrose-dumping-the-r-r-crowd/45/)
-
It is impossible that a true pope can teach contrary to Church doctrine. So approval certainly is enough. A true pope has never, does not now and will never contradict Church dogma. If there is the appearance of contradiction then you are likely to be misunderstanding something. Or possibly you have mistakenly taken a non-pope to be a true pope.
V1 says the pope is promised, by divine assistance, infallibility when he defines a doctrine ex cathedra, ie defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole Church. To say "It is impossible that a true pope can teach contrary to Church doctrine" is to extend his infallibility beyond the strict limit set at V1, which is to give him an infallibility V1 never gave him, which is to say an infallibility that he does not have.
To say it is impossible that a pope can teach contrary to doctrine, particularly after all this time of popes actually teaching contrary to Church doctrine, is the brainchild of theologians of the last few centuries and nothing more.
-
Not enough! The Council of Trent doesn't contradict what was known as Catholic doctrine so far.
It's not up to laymen to decide that. Using your private judgement to determine whether the Church is right or not when it teaches is private judgement and protestant to the core.
You find the true Church, and then you accept what the true Church teaches. There is no other way. "Dogma" as a rule of faith is useless unless you know who has the rightful authority to pronounce it in the first place. You find the Church, and then you accept what She teaches.
-
Unfortunately, the Crisis in the Church has forced laymen into trying to interpret past Councils (those before V2) as well as what it is that constitutes Dogma or true faith, or even private judgement. However, laymen were never meant to interpret such things; and as such, there are bound to be disagreements (which seem to be never-ending). But I understand how they are just trying to stand up for the Faith.
-
Laudislaus,
Drew has been "debunked"? :facepalm: Below is the thread which was locked after 40K viewings in May of 2018. To this day, it is being read and has over 80.5K viewings and even though your posts were wiped out because you offered nothing but insults, in all of Drew's replies, you are fully quoted as was everyone he replied to on the thread. To those interested, Drew started posting on page 4. I should point out the thread becomes increasingly more interesting after a few pages.
https://www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/is-father-ringrose-dumping-the-r-r-crowd/45/
Maria,
Thank you for the citation. A fantastic thread and incredible discussion.
At one point Drew says this:
The Indefectibility of the Church is another question. The attribute of Indefectibility has not been dogmatized like the attribute of Infallibility so there remains theological liberty to its understanding. I would offer only this at this time. The theological speculations regarding Indefectibility made by theologians during times of general stability in the Church may not necessarily be true. Such as Fr. Fenton's speculations published in AER that no one could ever suffer spiritual harm by blind obedience to Church authority.
https://www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/is-father-ringrose-dumping-the-r-r-crowd/msg600171/#msg600171
A gem. We are getting here to the heart of the problem. Drew says, "may not necessarily be true." That's being kind and respectful. They could not have been other than wrong, as history of the Church post-V2 shows. To go beyond this: pre-Conciliar popes also, when speaking below the level where their infallible charism is invoked and the Holy Ghost attends their utterance, have been wrong in encyclicals and in statements of merely "authoritative" magisterium.
If the evidence, the facts, establish something, you do yourself, and the truth, no service by coming up with evasive but satisfying arguments that attempt to explain the facts away. Confronted with a pope who ratified an ecuмenical council which promulgated not only error but heresy (meaning the pope taught and promulgated heresy), the teaching of the theologians, and even some popes in their "authoritative" magisterium, that the Church is "spotless" in her discipline etc. (Pius XII) presents an "obex" (to borrow Vigano speak) to the mind: how could the pope (the magisterium of the Church) do this?
So, the Trad world recognizes the facts (error if not heresy in the Magisterium), and theorizes: the V2 popes were not popes, and therefore the Church's indefectibility is not implicated - the true Magisterium remains indefectible. This is the Sedevacantist "solution." The R & R folks recognize the facts and say, "well, this is the living magisterium regnant in the Church, but it's proclaiming things that are not part of the deposit of the faith, and has become unreliable in such as such aspects of its teaching."
The Sede "solution" applies a principle accepted a priori - the indefectibility of the Magisterium in its teaching authority (even when not speaking infallibly) - to the facts and declares "not Magisterium." This is not good "science." If the hypothesis is belied by the facts, you need a new hypothesis to explain them. The Sede error is a deductive error in holding to a principle or thesis belied by the reality.
The R & R error is not so much an error, since its inductive conclusion is accurate, but it doesn't solve the underlying problem because it confines the error temporarily into a span of time (the "Conciliar" church, the magisteriums post-Paul VI or John XXIII). During this period of time we thus have the contradiction of two magisteriums as it were, or two churches (the true Church and the Conciliar) existing in the same space, one entity being two, or however you want to formulate it.
This is the point of my argument with Sean Johnson in this thread. He rejects the erroneous teachings of popes and the council post-V2 as not from the Church, but refuses to recognize that possibility in the pre-Vat II Church in his position against Feeneyites regarding implicit BOD and implicit faith, two errors which have never been proposed by the Church with her infallible authority, and which are as erroneous (at least in principle one must allow that they can be) as the ecuмenism, etc. of the V2 Church.
However, if we take the first step of recognizing that a true and genuine Magisterium can be wrong at least when not invoking its solemn authority or speaking within the confines of its infallibility as defined by Vatican I (which requires that the Magisterium either solemnly or ordinarily declare something to be "of Revelation" or "the faith"), we can understand the apparent contradictions between a Magisterium teaching error if not heresy and an accepted teaching of theologians and popes that the Magisterium couldn't so teach: thoses pope and theologians, not speaking with the protection against error (duly confined as defined by the solemn authority of a pope who taught with that protection in Vatican I - Pius IX) were wrong regarding the Church's "indefectibility." I believe this is a point Stubborn has made and advocated.
Thus, my disagreement with Mr. Johnson is not based on his interpretation of the Vincentian canon (always believed, etc.) but his failure to be consistent and extend that principle to pre-V2 theologians and popes regarding implicit BOD or implicit faith, which would require recognition of a valid principle underlying the Feeneyite argument (the possibility of error in the pre-V2 merely authoritative magisterium and the consensus teachings of its theologian), and accordingly merely a disagreement rather than claiming Feeneyite "heresies" or accusing them of disobedience to the Magisterium, which is contradicted by his own disobedience to merely "authoritative" Magisterium post-V2.
For example, Sean says this:
Suffice it to say that the post-Tridentine popes declared that anyone might follow St. Alphonsus’s teachings in Theologia Moralis without any fear of error, and it is in book 6 of that masterpiece which is contained St. Alphonsus’s teaching -which he claims is de fide, and stands unchallenged by the same popes- on implicit baptism of desire.
Perhaps the sedes should back up the date of the start of the alleged current interregnum to 1570 (in which case they will have to jettison the sainthood of Pope St. Pius V), seeing how they promoted such grievous “error” in endorsing St. Alphonsus’s doctrine.
https://www.cathinfo.com/baptism-of-desire-and-feeneyism/implicit-bod/msg714522/#msg714522
Sean, what you need to do is recognize that your principle of Magisterial error and error in its theologians post-V2 can in principle be "back[ed] up" to recognize the possibility of Magisterial errors pre-V2, and that your understanding of Tradition and the Vincentian canon can be likewise and legitimately applied to things like "implicit BOD" and "implicit faith," because your principle of Magisterial error applies as well to those theories and teachings.
But that's only a relevant side observation.
The point is Drew's "dogma is the proximate rule of faith" argument recognizes true teaching and true authority and provides a rational basis for rejection of both post-V2 and pre-V2 Magisterial error. It has the virtue of a hypothesis that is consistent with the facts, and consistent across time, a true universal rule.
It has deficiencies neither the Sede nor myopic R & R views (only applied to the near, Conciliar Magisterium) contain - among one of its virtues.
-
Maria,
Thank you for the citation. A fantastic thread and incredible discussion.
At one point Drew says this:
A gem. We are getting here to the heart of the problem. Drew says, "may not necessarily be true." That's being kind and respectful. They could not have been other than wrong, as history of the Church post-V2 shows. To go beyond this: pre-Conciliar popes also, when speaking below the level where their infallible charism is invoked and the Holy Ghost attends their utterance, have been wrong in encyclicals and in statements of merely "authoritative" magisterium.
If the evidence, the facts, establish something, you do yourself, and the truth, no service by coming up with evasive but satisfying arguments that attempt to explain the facts away. Confronted with a pope who ratified an ecuмenical council which promulgated not only error but heresy (meaning the pope taught and promulgated heresy), the teaching of the theologians, and even some popes in their "authoritative" magisterium, that the Church is "spotless" in her discipline etc. (Pius XII) presents an "obex" (to borrow Vigano speak) to the mind: how could the pope (the magisterium of the Church) do this?
So, the Trad world recognizes the facts (error if not heresy in the Magisterium), and theorizes: the V2 popes were not popes, and therefore the Church's indefectibility is not implicated - the true Magisterium remains indefectible. This is the Sedevacantist "solution." The R & R folks recognize the facts and say, "well, this is the living magisterium regnant in the Church, but it's proclaiming things that are not part of the deposit of the faith, and has become unreliable in such as such aspects of its teaching."
The Sede "solution" applies a principle accepted a priori - the indefectibility of the Magisterium in its teaching authority (even when not speaking infallibly) - to the facts and declares "not Magisterium." This is not good "science." If the hypothesis is belied by the facts, you need a new hypothesis to explain them. The Sede error is a deductive error in holding to a principle or thesis belied by the reality.
The R & R error is not so much an error, since its inductive conclusion is accurate, but it doesn't solve the underlying problem because it confines the error temporarily into a span of time (the "Conciliar" church, the magisteriums post-Paul VI or John XXIII). During this period of time we thus have the contradiction of two magisteriums as it were, or two churches (the true Church and the Conciliar) existing in the same space, one entity being two, or however you want to formulate it.
This is the point of my argument with Sean Johnson in this thread. He rejects the erroneous teachings of popes and the council post-V2 as not from the Church, but refuses to recognize that possibility in the pre-Vat II Church in his position against Feeneyites regarding implicit BOD and implicit faith, two errors which have never been proposed by the Church with her infallible authority, and which are as erroneous (at least in principle one must allow that they can be) as the ecuмenism, etc. of the V2 Church.
However, if we take the first step of recognizing that a true and genuine Magisterium can be wrong at least when not invoking its solemn authority or speaking within the confines of its infallibility as defined by Vatican I (which requires that the Magisterium either solemnly or ordinarily declare something to be "of Revelation" or "the faith"), we can understand the apparent contradictions between a Magisterium teaching error if not heresy and an accepted teaching of theologians and popes that the Magisterium couldn't so teach: thoses pope and theologians, not speaking with the protection against error (duly confined as defined by the solemn authority of a pope who taught with that protection in Vatican I - Pius IX) were wrong regarding the Church's "indefectibility." I believe this is a point Stubborn has made and advocated.
Thus, my disagreement with Mr. Johnson is not based on his interpretation of the Vincentian canon (always believed, etc.) but his failure to be consistent and extend that principle to pre-V2 theologians and popes regarding implicit BOD or implicit faith, which would require recognition of a valid principle underlying the Feeneyite argument (the possibility of error in the pre-V2 merely authoritative magisterium and the consensus teachings of its theologian), and accordingly merely a disagreement rather than claiming Feeneyite "heresies" or accusing them of disobedience to the Magisterium, which is contradicted by his own disobedience to merely "authoritative" Magisterium post-V2.
For example, Sean says this:
Sean, what you need to do is recognize that your principle of Magisterial error and error in its theologians post-V2 can in principle be "back[ed] up" to recognize the possibility of Magisterial errors pre-V2, and that your understanding of Tradition and the Vincentian canon can be likewise and legitimately applied to things like "implicit BOD" and "implicit faith," because your principle of Magisterial error applies as well to those theories and teachings.
But that's only a relevant side observation.
The point is Drew's "dogma is the proximate rule of faith" argument recognizes true teaching and true authority and provides a rational basis for rejection of both post-V2 and pre-V2 Magisterial error. It has the virtue of a hypothesis that is consistent with the facts, and consistent across time, a true universal rule.
It has deficiencies neither the Sede nor myopic R & R views (only applied to the near, Conciliar Magisterium) contain - among one of its virtues.
The Catholic Church has not defected.
It has been eclipsed by the creation of a conciliar church.
The eclipse is like tinted windows on a car (with John XXIII tinting them, and Francis darkening the tint):
The tint (conciliar church) is superimposed onto the glass (true church) to obscure the light (truth).
But the driver (pope/hierarchy) looks through both at the same time.
To see the true light again (Catholic doctrine), the conciliar tiny must be removed.
Note: St. Alphonsus said the sacrifice of the Mass would come to an end, but apparently that opinion was not incompatible with indefectibility, since he was not condemned for it. This implies to me that perhaps the Church can be eclipsed in certain aspects without defecting (but then how does it remain a perfect society possessing all the means necessary for the accomplishment of its ends, as a perfect society must?)?
-
It's not up to laymen to decide that. Using your private judgement to determine whether the Church is right or not when it teaches is private judgement and protestant to the core.
I don't use my judgment to determine whether the Church is right or not, I use it to determine whether I am being preached a gospel besides the one that the Church preached before. And if so, I let the false preachers be anathema.
And I don't base my procedure on my private interpretation of Gal 1:9, but on infallible teaching of the Council of Trent. Above, I quoted the Council of Trent stating that the teachings of the same holy Synod are to be used as rule of faith, and asking me to use that same rule of faith to, in the midst of the darkness of so many errors, more easily be able to recognise and to hold Catholic truth.
On the other hand, I might argue against you ad hominem: If you take your own approach seriously, why don't you abstain from posting? You are using your own protestant private judgement to tell me what a Catholic should do or omit.
And another comment ad hominem: If I listen to those who you call apostles, then why do you bother me when they preach freedom of speech, salvation for all men (excepting arms dealers), ..., and finally celebrate Dr. Martin private interpretation Luther's anniversary.
You find the true Church, and then you accept what the true Church teaches. There is no other way. "Dogma" as a rule of faith is useless unless you know who has the rightful authority to pronounce it in the first place. You find the Church, and then you accept what She teaches.
All I find are neomodernists and other kinds of heretics. Not a single faithful shepherd with an apostolic mandate. But I also find written dogma definitively explaining content of the depositum fidei.
-
The Sede "solution" applies a principle accepted a priori - the indefectibility of the Magisterium in its teaching authority (even when not speaking infallibly) - to the facts and declares "not Magisterium." This is not good "science." If the hypothesis is belied by the facts, you need a new hypothesis to explain them. The Sede error is a deductive error in holding to a principle or thesis belied by the reality.
I don't intend to speak for the Sede "solution".
For my part, I reject the false apostles of the Church of the 1960s Pentecost 2.0 not because of (whatever kind of) indefectibility of the Magisterium. I reject them, because they are manifest heretics and hence neither apostles nor the Magisterium.
I don't understand R&R-folks saying: "But they didn't define dogma!" Who cares whether a heretic claims to be defining dogma or whether he just spits out his heresies? The point is: They did contradict already defined dogma.
-
A most useful explanation how The definition of heresy necessarily makes Dogma the rule of faith by Dr. Drew:
I have provided expert opinions from theologians (Rev. Pohle, St. Thomas, and Scheeben's) who regard dogma as the proximate rule of faith, three magisterial references that directly refer to dogma as the rule of faith. But ever stronger than this is the fundamental fact of the definition of heresy. I am re-posting what was previously offered to Cantarella with minor changes for clarification.
A strong proof that dogma is the proximate rule of faith is the definition of heresy. I did not explain it any further in previous posts because this is not an argument but rather a definition. I think if you look from the perspective of heresy it may be easier to see. An excerpt taken from the 1907 edition of the Catholic Encyclopedia under the heading of "heresy":
Quote
St. Thomas (II-II:11:1) defines heresy: "a species of infidelity in men who, having professed the faith of Christ, corrupt its dogmas". The right Christian faith consists in giving one's voluntary assent to Christ in all that truly belongs to His teaching. There are, therefore, two ways of deviating from Christianity: the one by refusing to believe in Christ Himself, which is the way of infidelity, common to Pagans and Jєωs; the other by restricting belief to certain points of Christ's doctrine selected and fashioned at pleasure, which is the way of heretics. The subject-matter of both faith and heresy is, therefore, the deposit of the faith, that is, the sum total of truths revealed in Scripture and Tradition as proposed to our belief by the Church.
Catholic Encyclopedia, 1907
Heresy is "the corruption of dogmas" while "the right Christian faith consists in giving one's voluntary assent to Christ in all that truly belongs to His teaching." These "teachings" are found in "the sum total of truths revealed in Scripture and Tradition as proposed to our belief by the Church." What the Church, by her "teaching authority" (i.e.: Magisterium) "proposes to our belief" is called Dogma. Those who keep Dogmas and do not corrupt them are called the faithful, those who do corrupt them are called heretics.
This difference represents a clear division in the "Tree of Porphyry." It is this division that establishes a species from a genus which is called an "essential definition" and is regarded as the best definition because it is the most intelligible. As the article points out, "The subject-matter of both faith and heresy is, therefore, the deposit of the faith." Heresy and faith have the same subject, that is, "the sum total of truths revealed in Scripture and Tradition as proposed to our belief by the Church" which is the total of divine revelation. They differ in their object. The heretic breaks the rule of faith, the faithful keep it. This establishes that Dogma is the rule of faith not by argument but by fact of an essential definition. The definition of heresy necessarily makes Dogma the rule of faith. The Magisterium is necessary but insufficient means by which we know Dogma, but it is the Dogma itself which is known. It is the what that we know and therefore the rule of faith. If you exchange "Magisterium" for Dogma, even though the Magisterium has the same subject-matter, there cannot be a clear distinctive division because there exists no species in the genus of Magisterium, the "teaching authority" of the Church, excepting only in the case where the Magisterium itself is treated as a dogma like every other dogma, then those who reject the "teaching authority" constituted by God in His Church are just another kind of heretic.
cathinfo.com (https://www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/is-father-ringrose-dumping-the-r-r-crowd/msg604230/#msg604230)
-
I don't use my judgment to determine whether the Church is right or not, I use it to determine whether I am being preached a gospel besides the one that the Church preached before. And if so, I let the false preachers be anathema.
Right, and if the Church is teaching a "false gospel", then it's wrong. So you are using your private judgement to determine if the Church is right or not.
And I don't base my procedure on my private interpretation of Gal 1:9, but on infallible teaching of the Council of Trent. Above, I quoted the Council of Trent stating that the teachings of the same holy Synod are to be used as rule of faith, and asking me to use that same rule of faith to, in the midst of the darkness of so many errors, more easily be able to recognise and to hold Catholic truth.
But you already said that to accept Trent you first have to determine that it "doesn't contradict what was known as Catholic doctrine so far". So you put Trent itself subject to your own private judgement.
On the other hand, I might argue against you ad hominem: If you take your own approach seriously, why don't you abstain from posting? You are using your own protestant private judgement to tell me what a Catholic should do or omit.
And another comment ad hominem: If I listen to those who you call apostles, then why do you bother me when they preach freedom of speech, salvation for all men (excepting arms dealers), ..., and finally celebrate Dr. Martin private interpretation Luther's anniversary.
All I find are neomodernists and other kinds of heretics. Not a single faithful shepherd with an apostolic mandate. But I also find written dogma definitively explaining content of the depositum fidei.
It's not my private judgement that Catholics must accept Church teaching. The Church said that, not me.
I quoted you talking about Trent; I don't think the Tridentine Fathers did any such thing.
-
It's not my private judgement that Catholics must accept Church teaching. The Church said that, not me.
I could ask you to quote what the Church said. But then you would have to write to Rome for an interpretation to avoid private judgment.
-
I don't intend to speak for the Sede "solution".
For my part, I reject the false apostles of the Church of the 1960s Pentecost 2.0 not because of (whatever kind of) indefectibility of the Magisterium. I reject them, because they are manifest heretics and hence neither apostles nor the Magisterium.
I don't understand R&R-folks saying: "But they didn't define dogma!" Who cares whether a heretic claims to be defining dogma or whether he just spits out his heresies? The point is: They did contradict already defined dogma.
Right. And I have no issue with you, Struthio.
-
I could ask you to quote what the Church said. But then you would have to write to Rome for an interpretation to avoid private judgment.
From the 1917 Code of Canon Law:
CANON 1323 § 1. All of those things are to be believed with a divine and catholic faith that are contained in the written word of God or in tradition and that the Church proposes as worthy of belief, as divinely revealed, whether by solemn judgment or by its ordinary and universal magisterium. § 2. It belongs to an Ecuмenical Council or to the Roman Pontiff speaking from the chair to pronounce solemnly this sort of judgment. § 3. A thing is not understood as dogmatically defined or declared unless this is manifestly established.
You have to believe the teachings of Trent by virtue of it being an Ecuмenical Council. Not by your own reason. Rejecting Trent is heresy, and accepting Trent because you agree with it and not because it's an Ecuмenical Council is rejecting the rule of faith.
As St. Thomas put it: "Now the formal object of faith is the First Truth, as manifested in Holy Writ and the teaching of the Church, which proceeds from the First Truth. Consequently whoever does not adhere, as to an infallible and Divine rule, to the teaching of the Church, which proceeds from the First Truth manifested in Holy Writ, has not the habit of faith, but holds that which is of faith otherwise than by faith." (II-II, Q. v, a. 3) (https://www.newadvent.org/summa/3005.htm)
And we also owe religious assent even to non-infallible teachings:
CANON 1326 Bishops also, although individually and even gathered in particular Councils they do not partake of infallibility in teaching, nevertheless, for those faithful committed to their care under the authority of the Roman Pontiff, they are truly doctors and teachers.
-
Archbishop Vigano we will remain in the Church and fight the modernists:
https://www.lifesitenews.com/blogs/archbishop-vigano-we-will-remain-in-the-church-fight-the-modernists-who-undermine-the-faith?utm_source=blogger_articles
-
You have to believe the teachings of Trent by virtue of it being an Ecuмenical Council. Not by your own reason. Rejecting Trent is heresy, and accepting Trent because you agree with it and not because it's an Ecuмenical Council is rejecting the rule of faith.
I am wondering about the amount of private judgment you're capable of!
-
Archbishop Vigano we will remain in the Church and fight the modernists:
https://www.lifesitenews.com/blogs/archbishop-vigano-we-will-remain-in-the-church-fight-the-modernists-who-undermine-the-faith?utm_source=blogger_articles
'It is not the traditional faithful – that is, true Catholics, in the words of Saint Pius X – that must abandon the Church in which they have the full right to remain and from which it would be unfortunate to separate; but rather the Modernists who usurp the Catholic name, precisely because it is only the bureaucratic element that permits them not to be considered on a par with any heretical sect.'
And I heard another voice from heaven, saying: Go out from her, my people; that you be not partakers of her sins, and that you receive not of her plagues.
-
I am wondering about the amount of private judgment you're capable of!
"no u" is not an argument.
Keep promoting Protestant heresy if you want; I can't stop you. But it ruins your credibility.
-
Keep promoting Protestant heresy if you want; I can't stop you. But it ruins your credibility.
Well, you're littering me with your own protestant private judgments. Good luck with your own credibility!
Given your approach, you should post videos and tweets of Pope Jorge!
-
Keep promoting Protestant heresy if you want . . .
At the least a tad bit rash, no?
-
"no u" is not an argument.
So what? An argument would be private judgment.
-
At the least a tad bit rash, no?
Saying you can pick and choose which dogma you want to believe is objectively heretical.
-
Look, forlorn, the "private judgment" thing is about private interpretation of the depositum fidei. Or, for protestants, about private interpretation of Scripture.
As Catholics, we have a Magisterium who is competent to do the interpretation. But then, after the Magisterium has done the interpretation, then interpretation is over and dogma has begun. With dogma, there is no more interpretation. To claim that dogma needs interpretation again, is nonsensical because it would lead to an infinite regress.
-
Given your approach, you should post videos and tweets of Pope Jorge!
You and Sean should get in touch sometimes. You're both two sides of the same coin. Whenever he can't defend his position, he screams about sedevacantism. Whenever you can't defend yourself, you scream about "Jorge".
It doesn't matter that I quoted you regarding Trent, to which the V2 popes are completely irrelevant. You still resort to your usual way of dodging an argument regardless.
-
Look, forlorn, the "private judgment" thing is about private interpretation of the depositum fidei. Or, for protestants, about private interpretation of Scripture.
As Catholics, we have a Magisterium who is competent to do the interpretation. But then, after the Magisterium has done the interpretation, then interpretation is over and dogma has begun. With dogma, there is no more interpretation. To claim that dogma needs interpretation again, is nonsensical because it would lead to an infinite regress.
Exactly. Of which Trent is a part. We have to accept Trent unequivocally, not after going through it and deciding if we agree with it line by line.
-
Saying you can pick and choose which dogma you want to believe is objectively heretical.
You have a "Magisterium" currently interpreting your dogma for you.
Why don't you just pack it in and go off to the Novus Ordo?
-
Exactly. Which Trent is a part. We have to accept Trent unequivocally, not after going through it and deciding if we agree with it line by line.
Why not go through Trent line by line, to find out whether there are inner contradictions or contradictions against earlier Church teaching? Paul IV did warn: false shepherds ahead!
-
You have a "Magisterium" currently interpreting your dogma for you.
Why don't you just pack it in and go off to the Novus Ordo?
Yes, why forlorn?
-
You have a "Magisterium" currently interpreting your dogma for you.
Why don't you just pack it in and go off to the Novus Ordo?
I don't, and clearly you haven't read the argument at all, because I never brought up "interpreting dogma" at all.
-
Why not go through Trent line by line, to find out whether there are inner contradictions or contradictions against earlier Church teaching? Paul IV did warn: false shepherds ahead!
Because:
CANON 1323 § 1. All of those things are to be believed with a divine and catholic faith that are contained in the written word of God or in tradition and that the Church proposes as worthy of belief, as divinely revealed, whether by solemn judgment or by its ordinary and universal magisterium. § 2. It belongs to an Ecuмenical Council or to the Roman Pontiff speaking from the chair to pronounce solemnly this sort of judgment. § 3. A thing is not understood as dogmatically defined or declared unless this is manifestly established.
Rejecting an Ecuмenical Council, in whole or in part, is a rejection of the Catholic faith. I mean sure, if you want to validate your faith in Catholicism by verifying that no contradictions exist, then go ahead. But you can't start talking about rejecting ecuмenical councils, in whole or in part, and call yourself a Catholic.
I'm not making an argument against sedevacantism here. Arguing that Vatican 2 isn't an Ecuмenical Council in the first place is a whole different story. But you said that even knowing a true pope approved the Council of Trent, that a Catholic must go through it and determine for himself that it's consistent with Catholic dogma to accept it. That's nonsense. If the pope approves of an Ecuмenical Council, it's an Ecuмenical Council and any dogma that it defines is infallible. No need to second-check on the pope's behalf.
-
You and Sean should get in touch sometimes. You're both two sides of the same coin. Whenever he can't defend his position, he screams about sedevacantism. Whenever you can't defend yourself, you scream about "Jorge".
It doesn't matter that I quoted you regarding Trent, to which the V2 popes are completely irrelevant. You still resort to your usual way of dodging an argument regardless.
I didn't dodge your command to abstain from private judgment. I just returned it to you.
-
Rejecting an Ecuмenical Council, in whole or in part, is a rejection of the Catholic faith. I mean sure, if you want to validate your faith in Catholicism by verifying that no contradictions exist, then go ahead. But you can't start talking about rejecting ecuмenical councils, in whole or in part, and call yourself a Catholic.
I don't reject any general Council of the Church. I reject the heresies of those false apostles of that 1960s robber council.
And I do this based on using my own upper storey, that the robber council contradicts infallible Church teaching. As an aside: Ratzinger, Schillebeeckx and more of those heretics openly admitted the contradictions ("french revolution of the Church", "antisyllabus", "non catholics now can be saved ", ...)
But: my using of my own upper storey is based on the Church's rule of faith. It's not private judgment. It's judgment based on the Church's rule of faith.
-
I don't, and clearly you haven't read the argument at all, because I never brought up "interpreting dogma" at all.
You don't have a Magisterium?
Please tell us how you reached that judgment?
-
I don't reject any general Council of the Church. I reject the heresies of those false apostles of that 1960s robber council.
And I do this based on using my own upper storey, that the robber council contradicts infallible Church teaching. As an aside: Ratzinger, Schillebeeckx and more of those heretics openly admitted the contradictions ("french revolution of the Church", "antisyllabus", "non catholics now can be saved ", ...)
But: my using of my own upper storey is based on the Church's rule of faith. It's not private judgment. It's judgment based on the Church's rule of faith.
Once again, I quoted you regarding TRENT and I specifically said I'm not talking about Vatican 2. You said that a Catholic, even knowing that Trent was approved by a pope, has to look through Trent and confirm the dogma defined therein don't contradict previously defined dogma. That is wrong. Once you accept that a council is a true Ecuмenical Council, i.e you accept it was approved by a true pope, then you MUST accept everything it teaches.
-
You don't have a Magisterium?
Please tell us how you reached that judgment?
You implied I was a sedeplenist in some weird and irrelevant ad hominem attack. I am not. Stop trying to turn an argument about Trent into an argument about Vatican 2. It's blindingly obvious you haven't actually read the argument.
-
You implied I was a sedeplenist in some weird and irrelevant ad hominem attack. I am not. Stop trying to turn an argument about Trent into an argument about Vatican 2. It's blindingly obvious you haven't actually read the argument.
You're accusing Struthio of private judgment. My question is very relevant and not weird or ad hominem at all. Stop being evasive.
How, pray tell, did you come to the conclusion you do not have a Magisterium today?
-
Once again, I quoted you regarding TRENT and I specifically said I'm not talking about Vatican 2. You said that a Catholic, even knowing that Trent was approved by a pope, has to look through Trent and confirm the dogma defined therein don't contradict previously defined dogma. That is wrong. Once you accept that a council is a true Ecuмenical Council, i.e that you accept it was approved by a true pope, then you MUST accept everything it teaches.
History teaches: you better read it line by line before accepting it as a true Ecuмenical Council.
-
You're accusing Struthio of private judgment. My question is very relevant and not weird or ad hominem at all. Stop being evasive.
How, pray tell, did you come to the conclusion you do not have a Magisterium today?
Private judgment refers to the concept of picking and choosing one's own dogma based on their own interpretations, rather than accepting the dogma of the Church. Not really relevant to the question of finding where the Church is in the first place. If you want to get into an argument about sedevacantism, go ahead and make a thread, but I'm not about to go off on another huge detour here.
Do you or do you not agree that if a true pope(let's assume we know this with certainty) approves an Ecuмenical Council, that all the dogma defined by that Council are infallibly true?
-
Private judgment refers to the concept of picking and choosing one's own dogma based on their own interpretations, rather than accepting the dogma of the Church. Not really relevant to the question of finding where the Church is in the first place. If you want to get into an argument about sedevacantism, go ahead and make a thread, but I'm not about to go off on another huge detour here.
Do you or do you not agree that if a true pope(let's assume we know this with certainty) approves an Ecuмenical Council, that all the dogma defined by that Council are infallibly true?
No, forlorn. Private judgment refers to substituting your judgment for that of the Magisterium, of placing your authority above that of the Magisterium in any and all instances where the Magisterium should be decisive and controlling.
Like many, both Sedes and R & R, you hurl the accusation "private judgment" when it suits you. Most of them do it with a huge beam of "private judgment" in their eye, and I suspect you do too, and am testing the suspicion.
So, since you don't like my direct question "how did you decide you don't have a Magisterium?," I'll rephrase it in a way that you seem to be more comfortable with: how did you "find" that the hierarchy of the Conciliar Church is not "where the Church is"?
Unfortunately for you, this is not a "detour." It's an arrow pointed at your heart.
You'll likely dodge again and that will be as good as a direct answer.
Go ahead.
-
No, forlorn. Private judgment refers to substituting your judgment for that of the Magisterium, of placing your authority above that of the Magisterium in any and all instances where the Magisterium should be decisive and controlling.
Which is exactly what Struthio did, subjecting Trent to his private judgement. As you'd know if you actually read the argument instead of rushing in to make some half-hearted insult about "doctrinal interpretation", when I never mentioned or alluded to that concept at all.
Now you want to run off on some tangent about sedevacantism because it's easier for you to play sidekick by changing the subject than it is by defending what Struthio actually said, since it's completely indefensible.
So, since you don't like my direct question "how did you decide you don't have a Magisterium?," I'll rephrase it in a way that you seem to be more comfortable with: how did you "find" that the hierarchy of the Conciliar Church is not "where the Church is"?
Unfortunately for you, this is not a "detour." It's an arrow pointed at your heart.
You'll likely dodge again and that will be as good as a direct answer.
Go ahead.
We've been through this before. The question of where the Church is is entirely different to the question of whether or not the Church has authority to teach dogmatically, and it(the former) is one I don't claim to know the answer to. Yes, one has to use their private judgement to find the Church in the first place, and yes the presumption in normal times is that the man who everyone says is the pope, is indeed the pope. We could argue for hours about why he is or he isn't and the theological implications of that.
But none of that defends the proposition that one does not have to accept the dogma of an Ecuмenical Council by a true pope. Whether I'm right or wrong re: the pope is completely irrelevant to this discussion(regarding Trent, which we all agree had a true pope). So I ask, yet again, do you or do you not agree that if a true pope(let's assume we know this with certainty) approves an Ecuмenical Council, that all the dogma defined by that Council are infallibly true?
-
Private judgment refers to the concept of picking and choosing one's own dogma based on their own interpretations, rather than accepting the dogma of the Church. Not really relevant to the question of finding where the Church is in the first place. If you want to get into an argument about sedevacantism, go ahead and make a thread, but I'm not about to go off on another huge detour here.
Do you or do you not agree that if a true pope(let's assume we know this with certainty) approves an Ecuмenical Council, that all the dogma defined by that Council are infallibly true?
You are correct. Once we have moral certainty that we have correctly identified the Roman Pontiff and the hierarchy in communion with him, we have only to give our assent to their teachings. But I think Struthio’s concern has to do with how we could legitimately come to the conclusion that we have been following a false pope. How can we justify a refusal of assent to the teachings of a man who we believed to be a true pope? We would have to be allowed (or at least well-trained clergy would have to be allowed) to make assessments about fidelity to the traditional doctrines of the Church. That could also include non-theological evidence such as evidence of membership in forbidden societies, etc. Those kind of assessments ought to be done carefully because getting it wrong could cost you your soul. But nevertheless cuм Ex Apostolatus implies those kind of assessments are permitted (assuming they are well-founded and not rash).
-
Those kind of assessments ought to be done carefully because getting it wrong could cost you your soul.
Omitting such kind of assessments ought to be done carefully, too, because getting it wrong could cost you your soul, too.
But I plead: evidence of membership in forbidden societies is secondary, more to the point is manifest heresy.
-
Which is exactly what Struthio did, subjecting Trent to his private judgement. As you'd know if you actually read the argument instead of rushing in to make some half-hearted insult about "doctrinal interpretation", when I never mentioned or alluded to that concept at all.
Now you want to run off on some tangent about sedevacantism because it's easier for you to play sidekick by changing the subject than it is by defending what Struthio actually said, since it's completely indefensible.
We've been through this before. The question of where the Church is is entirely different to the question of whether or not the Church has authority to teach dogmatically, and it(the former) is one I don't claim to know the answer to. Yes, one has to use their private judgement to find the Church in the first place, and yes the presumption in normal times is that the man who everyone says is the pope, is indeed the pope. We could argue for hours about why he is or he isn't and the theological implications of that.
But none of that defends the proposition that one does not have to accept the dogma of an Ecuмenical Council by a true pope. Whether I'm right or wrong re: the pope is completely irrelevant to this discussion(regarding Trent, which we all agree had a true pope). So I ask, yet again, do you or do you not agree that if a true pope(let's assume we know this with certainty) approves an Ecuмenical Council, that all the dogma defined by that Council are infallibly true?
Forlorn,
Yes, one has to use their private judgement to find the Church in the first place . . .
Very good. Thank you.
But none of that defends the proposition that one does not have to accept the dogma of an Ecuмenical Council by a true pope. Whether I'm right or wrong re: the pope is completely irrelevant to this discussion(regarding Trent, which we all agree had a true pope). So I ask, yet again, do you or do you not agree that if a true pope(let's assume we know this with certainty) approves an Ecuмenical Council, that all the dogma defined by that Council are infallibly true?
You're standing on a circle and you don't see it.
Let's concede that one has to accept the dogma of an Ecuмenical Council by a true pope. Paul VI certainly appeared to be a true pope, and was recognized as such. He continued the V2 council of John XXIII, and confirmed most of its decrees. According to you, the game should have been over then, and any true Catholic, not exercising "private judgment," should have accepted the teaching of V2.
But it was the false and erroneous teaching of V2 which prompted and prompts (at least in part) most Trads, both Sede and R & R, to conclude that Paul VI was not a true pope. The decrees of the V2 council were necessarily weighed in reaching that judgment. Yet that is improper "private judgment" according to you.
How was it determined that Paul VI was not a true pope? Did that determination occur before or after he approved the decrees of the V2 ecuмenical council? If after, why were they not accepted to avoid "private judgment"?
Apparently the whole Trad movement rests upon "private judgment" by your lights. You should regard Struthio therefore in very good company.
And yes, I noticed your use of the word "dogma." Your limitation is no good. This concerns the indefectibility of the Church, the possibility of an ecuмenical council approved by the pope teaching error to the Church. Whether it is formulating dogma is irrelevant to its coming from the "loving Mother" that is "spotless" in her teaching and discipline (Pius XII, Mystici Corporis). And you know this from your argument with Sean Johnson.
A "true pope" is known by the soundness of his teaching, it's conformity with Tradition and previously defined dogma, it's conformity with the rule of faith. A false pope is often only known by his departure from it - Paul VI, JPII, BXVI, Francis.
If that were not the case, there would be no foundation or legitimate basis for the Trad movement.
-
It wasn’t V2 that gave birth to the trad movement, it was the new “Mass” and to a lesser extent the new “Holy Orders”. V2 caused controversy but that’s all it would have been if the sacraments had been untouched. But how do you explain the concoction of fake sacraments? R&R traced it back only to V2. Sedes trace it back to the 1958 and 1963 elections. Also, the trad movement was not driven by laymen. It was the clergy who got it going. There were some prominent laymen involved but they would have went nowhere without the clergy. So this really is all about identifying the true Catholic hierarchy. Even some R&R folks will admit that at least practically Frank is not a pope.
-
Forlorn,
Very good. Thank you.
You're standing on a circle and you don't see it.
Let's concede that one has to accept the dogma of an Ecuмenical Council by a true pope. Paul VI certainly appeared to be a true pope, and was recognized as such. He continued the V2 council of John XXIII, and confirmed most of its decrees. According to you, the game should have been over then, and any true Catholic, not exercising "private judgment," should have accepted the teaching of V2.
But it was the false and erroneous teaching of V2 which prompted and prompts (at least in part) most Trads, both Sede and R & R, to conclude that Paul VI was not a true pope. The decrees of the V2 council were necessarily weighed in reaching that judgment. Yet that is improper "private judgment" according to you.
How was it determined that Paul VI was not a true pope? Did that determination occur before or after he approved the decrees of the V2 ecuмenical council? If after, why were they not accepted to avoid "private judgment"?
Apparently the whole Trad movement rests upon "private judgment" by your lights. You should regard Struthio therefore in very good company.
And yes, I noticed your use of the word "dogma." Your limitation is no good. This concerns the indefectibility of the Church, the possibility of an ecuмenical council approved by the pope teaching error to the Church. Whether it is formulating dogma is irrelevant to its coming from the "loving Mother" that is "spotless" in her teaching and discipline (Pius XII, Mystici Corporis). And you know this from your argument with Sean Johnson.
A "true pope" is known by the soundness of his teaching, it's conformity with Tradition and previously defined dogma, it's conformity with the rule of faith. A false pope is often only known by his departure from it - Paul VI, JPII, BXVI, Francis.
If that were not the case, there would be no foundation or legitimate basis for the Trad movement.
It's the idea that you must verify the teachings of a true Ecuмenical Council that I have issue with. If you're trying to do that, you either must be saying that it's a false council or approved by a false pope(which in your eyes and mine are probably one and the same, but they aren't to some in the R&R). Once you accept that it was a true pope or a true council, there's no questioning anything therein as "unCatholic" or "novel" because, like you said, that's questioning the indefectibility of the Church.
-
Modernism infiltrated the Church some time ago. Pope St. Pius X wrote Pascendi over a hundred years ago. Modernism was a problem even then. The saintly Pope provided the details of how Modernists think and operate within the Church, and though he did not provide for the eventuality of a pope or Council being overtly influenced by Modernism, he did not say that it couldn't happen. Modernists have infiltrated the Church to the very top. God has allowed this for reasons we can only guess at. And the Sedes still think that somehow this cannot happen to the Church which was founded by our Lord Himself.
-
It's the idea that you must verify the teachings of a true Ecuмenical Council that I have issue with. If you're trying to do that, you either must be saying that it's a false council or approved by a false pope(which in your eyes and mine are probably one and the same, but they aren't to some in the R&R). Once you accept that it was a true pope or a true council, there's no questioning anything therein as "unCatholic" or "novel" because, like you said, that's questioning the indefectibility of the Church.
I don't understand why you're using the words "must verify," as if some of your fellow Catholics here who believe that dogma is the proximate rule of faith reject the hierarchical structure of the Church and the role of the pope and stand ready waiting to "verify" and declare a "gotcha" when there is a departure from Catholic dogma. It's not like that at all.
One of the things that produced this crisis is a twisted sense of the authority of the hierarchy and obedience to it, without which Vatican II and the program of the Conciliar popes would not have been accepted by the vast majority of the Catholic world. Your argument that keeps that twisted sense of authority and obedience front and center and wants to maintain it even in the face of the last 60 years is disturbing to me and the reason I'm spending time engaging you on this.
That, and your accusing faithful Catholic brothers of "Protestant private judgment," brothers who are holding to Catholic truth and rejecting novelty and departures from it. That novelty and those departures came from a hierarchy that appeared to be a true one. The "appearance" was rejected by a weighing of the actions of that hierarchy, including an Ecuмenical Council, against the deposit of faith.
It could not be otherwise. Paul VI was accepted as a true pope by virtually all until he did something that didn't measure up. Measure up to what? The faith. He was sifted and found wanting; he went against the faith once delivered to the saints; he preached a false gospel and the faithful to that gospel rejected him.
I'll end this by simply noting my objection to your view as a red herring that you falsely associate with Struthio and by extension others who accept the Catholic faith - which includes the structure and hierarchical nature of the Church under pope and bishops - but reject false shepherds who had all the appearance of true ones and should have simply been accepted as such by your argument.
If you want to except an Ecuмenical Council as immune from necessarily being held to the same standard (and potentially the same judgement), you have the absurdity of a false council with false teachings that had to be accepted until there was some later manifestation of the falsity of the pontiff who affirmed it, as if Vatican II was and would have remained binding until the New Mass or something else happened to show that Paul VI was a false pope - then we could go back and reject false teachings in Vatican II.
You have the cart before the horse, or something like that. (LOL - as to my fumbling for an analogy).
My disagreement with you is noted, and you can have the last hurl. I appreciate the discussion.
-
Which is exactly what Struthio did, subjecting Trent to his private judgement.
It's the idea that you must verify the teachings of a true Ecuмenical Council that I have issue with.
If you use Scripture as your rule of faith, to verify the teachings of an Ecuмenical Council, then you act like a protestant. But I just check whether the texts contradict previously defined dogma. If they do, the authors are heretics and I do not only have no duty to accept their heresies, but a duty to reject them. I might err when checking, but that's life as a mere human. If I didn't check, I might err in accepting the heresies of antichrists.
The 1960s robber council teaches that man has a natural right (i.e. a god-given right) to choose a religion as he pleases. This would imply that man has a god-given right to reject God, his Church, and his commandments. God would on the one hand decree commandments, and on the other hand make it optional to follow them. "Thou shalt ... if you'd like to." They imply that God is a clown. Only fools can fall for such brazen a lie.
If you don't check the 1960s robber council, you fall for antichrists; I believe, you acquire the mark of the beast this way.
-
The Catholic Church has not defected.
It has been eclipsed by the creation of a conciliar church.
The eclipse is like tinted windows on a car (with John XXIII tinting them, and Francis darkening the tint):
The tint (conciliar church) is superimposed onto the glass (true church) to obscure the light (truth).
But the driver (pope/hierarchy) looks through both at the same time.
To see the true light again (Catholic doctrine), the conciliar tiny must be removed.
Note: St. Alphonsus said the sacrifice of the Mass would come to an end, but apparently that opinion was not incompatible with indefectibility, since he was not condemned for it. This implies to me that perhaps the Church can be eclipsed in certain aspects without defecting (but then how does it remain a perfect society possessing all the means necessary for the accomplishment of its ends, as a perfect society must?)?
This post is confusing. You quote DecemRationis but the way you did it appears to be Drew's. So your reply is to DecemRationis. Just a clarification. This is the correct quote:
https://www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/vigano-equates-vatican-ii-with-false-council-of-pistoia/msg715571/#msg715571
-
This post is confusing. You quote DecemRationis but the way you did it appears to be Drew's. So your reply is to DecemRationis. Just a clarification. This is the correct quote:
https://www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/vigano-equates-vatican-ii-with-false-council-of-pistoia/msg715571/#msg715571
Agreed. Been a member here for 10 years, but never had the inclination to figure out how to use the quote function properly, so if I quote someone’s post, which in turn had them parsing someone else’s post and adding their own commentary, this happens.
Maybe Matthew can do a short YouTube tutorial on using the quote function 😂
-
And how do we know that the Council of Trent is true Catholic doctrine? .... Answer: the Pope approved it.
That's why Drew said: "The pope is the necessary but insufficient material and efficient cause of Dogma.God is the formal and final cause.."
https://www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/is-father-ringrose-dumping-the-r-r-crowd/msg600102/#msg600102
-
The 1960s robber council teaches that man has a natural right (i.e. a god-given right) to choose a religion as he pleases. This would imply that man has a god-given right to reject God, his Church, and his commandments.
Does V2 say that? Dignitatis Humanae says:
Therefore it leaves untouched traditional Catholic doctrine on the moral duty of men and societies toward the true religion and toward the one Church of Christ.
-
Sounds like +Vigano is flirting more and more with becoming full Trad...
We should pray for him.