Author Topic: Are there any anti una cuм people on cathinfo? (Read 9809 times)

ByzCat3000 · « **Reply #120 on:** May 05, 2021, 02:49:09 PM »

Quote from: SeanJohnson on May 05, 2021, 08:53:54 AM

You don’t seem to be able to perceive a qualitative distinction between “it is not impossible” and “I doubt he is pope.”

I myself could accept “it is not impossible,” yet I haven’t the least doubt regarding Francis’s legitimacy.

The coherence comes from recognizing the gulf between “theological certitude” and “infallibly certain.”

Ladislaus is using the term "doubt" differently than you do. He means "doubt" as opposed to certainty, whereas you seem to mean doubt as opposed to something like "relatively certain" or "certain enough that I don't consciously think about the other possibility that much, if ever."

SeanJohnson · « **Reply #121 on:** May 05, 2021, 02:54:07 PM »

Explains "authentic magisterium," distinguishing it from the ordinary magisterium.

Excerpt from another good article discussing the authentic magisterium:
https://sspx.org/en/clear-ideas-popes-infallible-magisterium

Clear ideas on the pope's infallible magisterium

What worries Catholics most in the current crisis in the Church is precisely the "problem of the pope." We need very clear ideas on this question. We must avoid shipwreck to the right and to the left, either by the spirit of rêbêllïon or, on the other hand, by an inappropriate and servile obedience. The serious error which is behind many current disasters is the belief that the "Authentic Magisterium" is nothing other than the "Ordinary Magisterium."

The "Authentic Magisterium" cannot be so simply identified with the Ordinary Magisterium. In fact, the Ordinary Magisterium can be infallible and non-infallible, and it is only in this second case that it is called the "Authentic Magisterium." The Dictionnaire de Theologie Catholique [hereafter referred to as DTC—Ed.] under the heading of "papal infallibility" (vol. VII, col. 1699ff) makes the following distinctions:

there is the "infallible or ex cathedra papal definition in the sense defined by Vatican I" (col.1699);
there is the "infallible papal teaching which flows from the pope’s Ordinary Magisterium" (col.1705);
there is "non-infallible papal teaching" (col.1709).

Similarly, Salaverri, in his Sacrae Theologiae Summa (vol. I, 5th ed., Madrid, B.A.C.) distinguishes the following:

Extraordinary Infallible Papal Magisterium (no. 592 ff);
Ordinary Infallible Papal Magisterium (no. 645 ff);
Papal Magisterium that is mere authenticuм, that is, only "authentic" or "authorized" as regards the person himself, not as regards his infallibility (no. 659 ff).

While he always has full and supreme doctrinal authority, the pope does not always exercise it at its highest level that is at the level of infallibility. As the theologians say, he is like a giant who does not always use his full strength. What follows is this:

"It would be incorrect to say that the pope is infallible simply by possessing papal authority," as we read in the Acts of Vatican I (Coll. L ac. 399b). This would be equivalent to saying that the pope’s authority and his infallibility are the same thing.

It is necessary to know "what degree of assent is due to the decrees of the sovereign pontiff when he is teaching at a level which is not that of infallibility, i.e., when he is not exercising the supreme degree of his doctrinal authority" (Salaverri, op.cit., no. 659).

ByzCat3000 · « **Reply #122 on:** May 05, 2021, 03:05:10 PM »

Quote from: Ladislaus on May 05, 2021, 02:26:05 PM

No, they don't have to answer these questions. You're absolutely right.

But we have to come to grips with how we can say that it's OK for Catholics to basically ignore the Magisterium.

Let's say a new St. Pius X comes on the scene (let's say a St. Pius XIII) and condemns some neo-Modernist movement. What can we say to the neo-Modernists who ignore that condemnation, thumb their nose at St. Pius XIII and say, "meh, you're not teaching infallibly; you've got that wrong. We'll carry on with our beliefs." Adopting such an attitude does irreparable harm to the Magisterium, and contradicts everything that's ever been taught about the Magisterium, and the obligation of Catholics to assent to it.

Whatever they do to come to terms with the crisis, it cannot be this neo-R&R attitude ... because that completely erodes Catholicism.

I think I'm honestly at the point where I think even the answer to that *second* question is going to demand some extra clarity from the Church in the future, and I think that's true regardless of what theory you go with *now*

If you go with Sedevacantism, for instance, you have to figure out why its not OK "normally" for Catholics to question the identity of Popes which have at least enough universal acceptance that there isn't an alternate claimant (I think you'd agree at least that Francis or JPII isn't in competition with *another* pope). "Why can you deny Francis' pontificate but not Pius XII" is just as logically valid of a question as "why can you accept Francis as a pope but not obey him but not Pius XII"

Whereas if you go with hermeneutic of continuity, you have a bunch of other questions to answer. Sure (for the sake of argument) the original 1965 Novus Ordo with ad orientum, gregorian chant, and latin would be acceptable to attend ,but does that mean any old boomer/clown Novus Ordo is offering worship that's truly acceptable to God and that we should attend on pain of mortal sin? Who answers *that* question? Its not answered in Vatican II. Heck, hypothetically even in that event if your only choices are a St Pius V chapel (which isn't dogmatically sede) or a clown mass, which do you choose? Honestly, at my most liberal (and goodness I waver on things) I'd still feel better about attending the SSPV chapel, though I'd probably decline to present myself for Holy Communion there especially if I clearly didn't have to.

I will say, part of why I lean towards some form of R and R is because "Vatican II was pastoral" isn't really an argument you can make for every council. Yes, it feels like question begging and yes there are arguments against it, but there are reasons you can use for V2 being pastoral that wouldn't apply to any other council you felt like applying them into. Whereas "JPII isn't a Pope because I don't agree with him" can easily spiral off into "Pius IX wasn't a Pope because you don't agree with him" and to be honest, if we're just gonna reject Popes *or* councils just because we don't think we can square them with tradition ourselves (rather than for any technical or procedural reason) Eastern Orthodoxy starts to just seem more logically coherent than Catholicism. Catholicism seems predicated on the fact that if the Magisterium teaches, fulfilling certain rules, you *have* to accept it whether you personally can square it or not. Of course, this line of reasoning would lead to H of C *if* the arguments for V2's infallibility are sufficiently strong.

As an aside, regarding the moral vs dogmatic certainty thing, I have a very hard time having more than moral certainty about anything. I always have. So perhaps I'm not really Catholic, or never really have been, according to some here. On the other hand, the Lord accepted "Lord I believe, help my unbelief" as a genuine confession of faith it seems, so I don't really understand how "having personal doubts" necessarily entails apostasy as long as you're *believing* what the magisterium says, etc.

DecemRationis · « **Reply #123 on:** May 05, 2021, 04:43:44 PM »

Quote from: Ladislaus on May 05, 2021, 02:47:32 PM

You just keep repeating this over and over despite the numerous times I've explained it. This is completely false.

All that is necessary to hold is that the Catholic Magisterium cannot go off the rails as badly as it has. There can be numerous explanations, given that constraint, which do not violate the principle, including the assertion made by XavierSem and others that the Magisterium has NOT in fact gone badly off the rails. You could adopt the attitude of a Bishop Schneider that there are only a couple minor tweaks needed to reconcile Vatican II with Tradition, and the rest is merely a question of Modernists spinning some ambiguities in their favor. That position, to be quite honest, is less offensive to a Traditional Catholic understanding of the Magisterium than the R&R promoted by Johnson and other (evidently also yourself lately).

It's also IMO very possible that Montini was being blackmailed, so that the various acts of his were not entirely free and therefore would not have constituted legitimate Magisterium. Montini has been credibly accused of both sơdơmy and of being a Communist agent. There was in fact a group of Communists at Oxford who were known to be a "honey pot" operation to lure in and then blackmail ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖs.

There's the position of Father Chazal that, while the See is not vacant, it has been deprived of all teaching authority due to the heresy of the papal claimants. Finally, there's the sedeprivationist theory (very similar to Fr. Chazal's) that the See is materially occupied but lacks formal authority.

But of course the Magisterium proper is just the tip of the iceberg. You also have the defective quasi-Protestant form of worship that many Traditional Catholics hold is offensive to God and a "Great Sacrilege"? Really, the Holy Catholic Church could promulgate and implement as its normative form of worship a "Sacrilege". Either you go the XavierSem route of claiming that it's merely less perfect (but not positively defective, harmful, and displeasing to God) or you must decide that this is not the work of legitimate Catholic authority. To claim that the Church's public worship is Sacrilege is in fact a blasphemy ... and in fact a proposition anathematized by the Council of Trent.

Finally, you throw in the canonization of Montini and Wojtyla ... thereby polluting the catalogue of saints with two of the biggest scoundrels to every (materially) occupy the See of Peter.

There's no recovery for the Church from this kind of smear against it. None. At that point the Church has lost all credibility and has defected.

No, you haven't addressed the points I made. But I've been down this road with you before, so I'll simply rely upon my prior post then for comparison with the above, and leave it at that:

Quote

You're simply trying to avoid the conflict between indefectibility and perpetuity, or between indectibility and the fact that 6 popes who have been elected with the unanimous consent of something like 10,000+ bishops (as Sean has pointed out) have promulgated laws and rites or taught things that amount to the defection of the Church.

You like logic, right? Well, it seems to me your doing something like violating the law of the excluded middle: if these popes are not the Magisterium, the seat is vacant; if they are, its not, and all the conditions of the Magisterium apply (indefectitility, etc.).

You're however not saying the seat is vacant, which is the necessary conclusion to your indefectibility doctrine, because:

Quote
I agree with the R&R (and sedeprivationist) criticism of sedevacantism that you can't, as a principle, have Catholics going around effectively deposing popes. While you can explain sedevacantism to "Aunt Helen," what give "Aunt Helen" the right to conclude on her own that the See is vacant?

You're in a box because, with the Magisterium as your formal motive and proximate rule of faith, you have nowhere to go - you can't declare the See vacant, and yet, if it's not, indefectibility goes out the window.

However, if dogma is the proximate rule of faith, the problem is gone, and sense and logic prevail.

In a roundabout way, you've come to the root of the problem: the only authority which can declare the See vacant has already declared that it's not - by electing those popes! This is where universal acceptance comes in, because that acceptance triggers the ɛƖɛctıon of a true pope and that ɛƖɛctıon triggers your indefectibility.

In other words, if the Magisterium is your proximate rule, they've shut down your position and indicated it's invalidity by the ɛƖɛctıon of these very popes by that Magisterium.

Quote
Quote
I cannot be sure what exactly happened.

Sure. I appreciate that.

But if I see something from a distance and I'm not sure what it is but it clearly has wings, I might not know what it is but I know it's not a man because men don't have wings. I don't need more facts to make that determination; it's simple logic and an understanding of what a man is.

But it's not simple logic for you because you rely upon "the Magisterium" to tell you if it's a bird or a man or whatever. And you're looking at something with wings that the Magisterium has already said is a man . . . and so you're in a pretzel and nonplussed.

This is your problem, and the problem with your doctrine.

DecemRationis · « **Reply #124 on:** May 05, 2021, 04:53:27 PM »

Quote from: Ladislaus on May 05, 2021, 02:47:32 PM

You just keep repeating this over and over despite the numerous times I've explained it. This is completely false.

All that is necessary to hold is that the Catholic Magisterium cannot go off the rails as badly as it has. There can be numerous explanations, given that constraint, which do not violate the principle, including the assertion made by XavierSem and others that the Magisterium has NOT in fact gone badly off the rails. You could adopt the attitude of a Bishop Schneider that there are only a couple minor tweaks needed to reconcile Vatican II with Tradition, and the rest is merely a question of Modernists spinning some ambiguities in their favor. That position, to be quite honest, is less offensive to a Traditional Catholic understanding of the Magisterium than the R&R promoted by Johnson and other (evidently also yourself lately).

It's also IMO very possible that Montini was being blackmailed, so that the various acts of his were not entirely free and therefore would not have constituted legitimate Magisterium. Montini has been credibly accused of both sơdơmy and of being a Communist agent. There was in fact a group of Communists at Oxford who were known to be a "honey pot" operation to lure in and then blackmail ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖs.

There's the position of Father Chazal that, while the See is not vacant, it has been deprived of all teaching authority due to the heresy of the papal claimants. Finally, there's the sedeprivationist theory (very similar to Fr. Chazal's) that the See is materially occupied but lacks formal authority.

But of course the Magisterium proper is just the tip of the iceberg. You also have the defective quasi-Protestant form of worship that many Traditional Catholics hold is offensive to God and a "Great Sacrilege"? Really, the Holy Catholic Church could promulgate and implement as its normative form of worship a "Sacrilege". Either you go the XavierSem route of claiming that it's merely less perfect (but not positively defective, harmful, and displeasing to God) or you must decide that this is not the work of legitimate Catholic authority. To claim that the Church's public worship is Sacrilege is in fact a blasphemy ... and in fact a proposition anathematized by the Council of Trent.

Finally, you throw in the canonization of Montini and Wojtyla ... thereby polluting the catalogue of saints with two of the biggest scoundrels to every (materially) occupy the See of Peter.

There's no recovery for the Church from this kind of smear against it. None. At that point the Church has lost all credibility and has defected.

I will however add this new comment regarding Father Chazal.

I've been reading his book, and so far he hasn't discussed indefectibility, which even a cursory reading of my exchange with you would indicate it's the critical issue, and he doesn't appear to address it. I haven't read word for word the whole thing, but I've glanced through what I haven't read and I didn't see any treatment of indefectibility, which is the substance of Father Cekada's objection, as I noted in another thread:

https://www.cathinfo.com/crisis-in-the-church/indefectiblity-fr-cekada-v-fr-chazel/msg743831/#msg743831

So Father Chazal doesn't help you, and neither do Bishop Schneider, Xavier Sem, or the others you mention, since none of them, like you, hold that the Conciliar Church has "defected" or that indefectibility is violated by the CC - or would be, if the V2 popes were popes.

The only ones who could help you are the Sedes, but because you're in your "Magisterium is the proximate rule of faith" box, and need the Magisterium to tell you the CC is not the Church, they can't really help you either.

Marion · « **Reply #125 on:** September 26, 2021, 09:51:20 AM »

Quote from: DecemRationis on May 04, 2021, 12:19:38 PM

Quote from: Ladislaus on May 04, 2021, 09:06:14 AM
In Catholic thinking, it is the Magisterium which is the SOLE legitimate interpreter of Tradition. Period. That's the only thing that differentiates Catholics from the Protestant heretics, and you have crossed the line over into Protestantism. Your constant assertion of believing dogma "as it is written" (derived from a misreading of that passage in Trent) sounds exactly like the Prots who quote lines from Scripture out of context with assumed interpretations.

This is laughable. The only thing? How about devotion to the Blessed Mother and the saints? How about the sacraments and the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass? How about the Holy Rosary? I'm sure you get the picture.

And you have the nerve to say Stubborn's spouting "nonsense" and is "bankrupt as to the sensus fidei." So says the man that has St. Alphonsus denying the necessity of the sacraments by allowing for justification by an implicit BOD contrary to his reading of Trent, so says the man who "doubts" that the V2 popes are true popes of the true Church while holding that the true Church is indefectible in her sacraments and laws and those same popes have promulgated defectible trash and corruption . . . what's to doubt?

Physician, heal thyself already.

Some of us worship God, and not men. Your nonsense about the "Magisterium" is what got us into this predicament, and not errors about EENS, which, if the sensus fidei was healthy - like Stubborn's - the heretical V2 popes would have been facing empty pews versus populum in their heretical "Masses" and the populum wouldn't have swallowed it as coming from an "indefectible" magisterium.

You should go back and read the spanking Drew gave you about dogma being the proximate rule of faith, oh defender of the sensus fidei.

Viganò seems to reject the false idea of modernists and neo-modernists, who see the Magisterium as the proximate rule of faith, instead of the Dogma proposed by the Magisterium.

Quote from: Viganò

Anyone with common sense can see that it is an absurdity to want to interpret a Council, since it is and ought to be a clear and unequivocal norm of Faith and Morals.

remnantnewspaper.com

No magisterial interpretation needed for defined dogma.

@Ladislaus
Are you going to call Viganò a "Protestant heretic"?

MichaelFullerSSPX · « **Reply #126 on:** September 26, 2021, 12:15:59 PM »

If I'm not mistaken, Bishop Williamson himself admits to doubt as to whether or not Bergoglio is the pope. (He has done this many times, even while Fr. Gruner was alive.) This also, if memory serves correctly, was stated in his most recent interview with Luigi. Bishop Fellay has stated that one day we may say that Bergoglio was not the pope. I don't know a Traditional group that does not doubt the legitimacy of the Conciliar church papal claimants.

The laity that follow those groups sometimes get really crazy against those of the sede position by asserting it is heresy to reject Bergoglio and on one account I was told I must submit to the Dalai Lama if elected pope by resistance faithful.

It would be a good thing if they would pay attention to what the priests and bishops they follow actually say. Dogmatic sedeplenists do the bidding of the nєω ωσrℓ∂ σr∂єr.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #127 on:** September 26, 2021, 03:44:05 PM »

Quote from: MichaelFullerSSPX on September 26, 2021, 12:15:59 PM

If I'm not mistaken, Bishop Williamson himself admits to doubt as to whether or not Bergoglio is the pope. (He has done this many times, even while Fr. Gruner was alive.) This also, if memory serves correctly, was stated in his most recent interview with Luigi. Bishop Fellay has stated that one day we may say that Bergoglio was not the pope. I don't know a Traditional group that does not doubt the legitimacy of the Conciliar church papal claimants.

People don't understand how critical this is. Normally a pope's legitimacy is known with dogmatic certainty, as a dogmatic fact. So when comments of this nature are made, this is not actually sedeplenism, but something in between, which I have termed sede-doubtism. Sedeplenism in the strict sense requires dogmatic certainty, which means that one could no more speculate that Bergoglio is not pope than one could speculate that there might only be Two Persons in the Holy Trinity.

If you were to ask any Traditional Catholic, do you believe with the certainty of faith that Bergoglio is pope, i.e., are you as certain that Bergoglio is pope as you are that Our Lord is present in the Blessed Sacrament ... you'd get a loud cry in unison of heck no. At best people may have some personal moral certainty. For most Traditional Catholics, Bergoglio falls squarely into the category of papa dubius ... which of course resolves into nullus papa. Sede-doubtism reduces, due to the lack of dogmatic certainty, to a practical sedevacantism, the nullus papa.

Moral certainty does not count. If Bergoglio were to come out tomorrow and solemnly define something, people who don't have certainty of faith regarding Bergoglio's legitimacy could not have the requisite certainty of faith regarding that dogma. That's why theologians held to the maxim of papa dubius nullus papa.

Incredulous · « **Reply #128 on:** September 26, 2021, 11:04:15 PM »

What would it take to make you believe Francis has lost any authority to the papacy (if he ever had any to begin with)?

It would be nice to have a Council called to rule and judge the Pope of heresy, but since the visible Holy See has been hijacked, that's not going to happen.
But we don't need a council in light of Francis's public heresies.

Uttering "Francis's" name in the Canon... do you think that is pleasing to God ?

In Pope Leo XIII's St. Michael's prayer (original long version), he described one Church and two thrones. Francis is obviously on the false throne.

St. Francis of Assisi warned of a non canonically elected Pope. Our Lady of La Salette said the Church will be eclipsed.

It's here! Why be so scrupulous as not skip over the anti-pope's name in the Canon?

Prayers Before Consecration
The priest bows over the Altar and says silently:
Te Igitur	For the Church
Te ígitur, clementíssime Pater, per Jesum Christum Fílium tuum, Dóminum nostrum, súpplices rogámus, ac pétimus, uti accépta hábeas, et benedícas, hæc + dona, hæc + múnera, hæc + sancta sacrifícia illibáta, in primis, quæ tibi offérimus pro Ecclésia tua sancta cathólica: quam pacificáre, custodíre, adunáre, et régere dignéris toto orbe terrárum: una cuм fámulo tuo Papa nostro N . . . et Antístite nostro N . . . et ómnibus orthodóxis, atque cathólicæ et apostólicæ fídei cultóribus.	Most merciful Father, we humbly pray and beseech Thee, through Jesus Christ Thy Son, Our Lord, to accept and to bless these + gifts, these + presents, these + holy unspotted Sacrifices, which we offer up to Thee, in the first place, for Thy Holy Catholic Church, that it may please Thee to grant her peace, to preserve, unite, and govern her throughout the world; as also for Thy servant N . . . our Pope, and N . . . our Bishop, and for all orthodox believers and all who profess the Catholic and Apostolic faith.

Incredulous · « **Reply #129 on:** September 26, 2021, 11:21:49 PM »

Quote from: Incredulous on September 26, 2021, 11:04:15 PM

What would it take to make you believe Francis has lost any authority to the papacy (if he ever had any to begin with)?

It would be nice to have a Council called to rule and judge the Pope of heresy, but since the visible Holy See has been hijacked, that's not going to happen.
But we don't need a council in light of Francis's public heresies.

Uttering "Francis's" name in the Canon... do you think that is pleasing to God ? Is the logic that God wants Francis to destroy the visible Church?

In Pope Leo XIII's St. Michael's prayer (original long version), he described one Church and two thrones. Francis is obviously on the false throne.

St. Francis of Assisi warned of a non canonically elected Pope. Our Lady of La Salette said the Church will be eclipsed.

It's here! Why be so scrupulous as not to skip over the anti-pope's name in the Canon? Let's pray for what few "Orthodox believers" that are left.

Prayers Before Consecration
The priest bows over the Altar and says silently:
Te Igitur
For the Church
Te ígitur, clementíssime Pater, per Jesum
Christum Fílium tuum, Dóminum nostrum, súpplices rogámus, ac pétimus, uti accépta hábeas, et benedícas, hæc + dona, hæc + múnera, hæc + sancta sacrifícia illibáta, in primis, quæ tibi offérimus pro Ecclésia tua sancta cathólica: quam pacificáre, custodíre, adunáre, et régere dignéris toto orbe terrárum: una cuм fámulo tuo Papa nostro N . . . et Antístite nostro N . . . et ómnibus orthodóxis, atque cathólicæ et apostólicæ fídei cultóribus. Most merciful Father, we humbly pray and beseech Thee, through Jesus Christ Thy Son, Our Lord, to accept and to bless these + gifts, these + presents, these + holy unspotted Sacrifices, which we offer up to Thee, in the first place, for Thy Holy Catholic Church, that it may please Thee to grant her peace, to preserve, unite, and govern her throughout the world; as also for Thy servant N . . . our Pope, and N . . . our Bishop, and for all orthodox believers and all who profess the Catholic and Apostolic faith.

Author Topic: Are there any anti una cuм people on cathinfo? (Read 9809 times)

ByzCat3000

Re: Are there any anti una cuм people on cathinfo?

SeanJohnson

Re: Are there any anti una cuм people on cathinfo?

ByzCat3000

Re: Are there any anti una cuм people on cathinfo?

DecemRationis

Re: Are there any anti una cuм people on cathinfo?

DecemRationis

Re: Are there any anti una cuм people on cathinfo?

Marion

Re: Are there any anti una cuм people on cathinfo?

MichaelFullerSSPX

Re: Are there any anti una cuм people on cathinfo?

Ladislaus

Re: Are there any anti una cuм people on cathinfo?

Incredulous

Re: Are there any anti una cuм people on cathinfo?

Incredulous

Re: Are there any anti una cuм people on cathinfo?