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.

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?)?

And how do we know that the Council of Trent is true Catholic doctrine?  .... Answer: the Pope approved it.