Quote from: An even Seven

Quote from: Stubborn

The quote from V1 does not say that "if the pope says such and such are part of divine revelation, we are bound to believe that such and such must be believed" does it?

Really? It most certainly does. Unless you believe the Magisterium is linked to someone other than the Pope. I'd be interested to see who you think can teach Magisterially, infallibly.
"8.Wherefore, by divine and catholic faith all those things are to be believed which are contained in the word of God as found in scripture and tradition, and which are proposed by the church as matters to be believed as divinely revealed, whether by her solemn judgment or in her ordinary and universal magisterium"

This is just too far out to let go.

V1 identifies for us, "all those THINGS" that we are bound to believe:
"all those things which are contained in the word of God as found in scripture and tradition and which are proposed by the church as matters to be believed as divinely revealed, whether by her solemn judgment or in her ordinary and universal magisterium.

V1 in no way, shape or form says that "if the pope says something is Divinely Revealed, then that's infallible."

V1 in no way, shape or form says that "if the hierarchy all teach the same thing, then it's infallible."

These above ideas are blatant corruptions of what the Church teaches and teaches clearly, yet these ideas are used by sedevacantists in order to somehow conclude their own erroneous idea of infallibility - of which they have zero faith in. It's madness.

V1 clearly does say that whether they are teachings of the OUM OR solemn papal pronouncements, those teachings which are contained in the word of God as found in Scripture AND tradition AND are proposed by the Church as matters to be believed as divinely revealed - all these THINGS are to be believed because all these THINGS are infallible.

Is the pope a "thing"?  

Stubborn,

It is as if sedevacantists interpret the second “and” conjunction in the dogma to effectively mean “or,” and the narrative before the infallible dogma that references “never-failing faith” of Peter as if this were a personal gift of God to all popes which it is not.  It would explain how they arrive at holding the pope as the rule of faith which in practice means that whatever he says is either directly infallible through the pope’s personal “never-failing faith” or indirectly infallible through their version of the indefectibility of the Church even when they are not found in scripture or tradition.  

The pope is then no longer the servant of revealed truth but becomes the revealer.  It is a bizarre new religion that believes in an empty office that never can and never will be filled.  And since, “The Roman Pontiff is the true vicar of Christ, the head of the whole Church and the father and teacher of all Christians; and to him was committed in blessed Peter, by our lord Jesus Christ, the full power of tending, ruling and governing the whole Church," they belong to a church that cannot be Catholic because it does not possess a necessary attribute.  It is a church that will never be “ruled and governed.” They have no pope, and they have no way to ever get one because they will never have any government because the government is dependent upon the pope and not vice verse.  

They cannot point to any historical example for their situation because there has never been a historical example where there existed no possibility for choosing a pope.  Some of the more extreme sedevacantists have even arrived at an invisible church which is really ironic because many began as Catholic converts by rejecting the Protestant concept of an invisible Church only to end up where they started.

Your point in a previous post is important and well made.  Sedevacantists demand a degree of obedience to the pope which they themselves never made.  If they applied in practice the same demands of obedience they impose upon others they could never have become sedevacantists in the first place.  Their blind unconditional obedience that they demand of others to the pope, that can only be given to God, would have made them typical Indultists.  

Have you ever asked a Sedevacantist exactly where and when the pope lost the office?  You’ll never get the same answer twice.  Probably not even from the same person.

Drew

Quote from: drew

The pope is then no longer the servant of revealed truth but becomes the revealer.  It is a bizarre new religion that believes in an empty office that never can and never will be filled.

I think most sedevacantists take it even further than this, because to them, he is not merely the revealer, oh no, he is much more than that because whatever he says, no matter what he says, is made an infallible truth upon his utterance - the same is said as regards the hierarchy misnamed; "the magisterium." This takes him from being the Revealer to being the Instituter - but this Instituter is somehow, something less than God yet is, as you say, still their rule of faith.

 

Re: My bolded.   Stubborn, that's not possible, unless a new kind of being is the reference point (which could only be an unapproved novel theology created in the 20th or 21st century).  The Revealer, as you know, is the same Divine Person -- Our Lord Jesus Christ -- Who was also the Instituter.  The Pope is not an in-between being.  Only the Divine Person, the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity, instituted the true Church and is the Author of Revelation.

A Vicar has a limited role, one subordinate to the Revealer and Instituter.  The Vicar is a man, a fallible man with no divine or quasi-divine status ontologically.  

In her integrity, the Church is Christ's bride and is protected by His guarantee of The Holy Ghost.  But that integrity is not always and everywhere, in all circuмstances, extended to the pope as a man.  The pope is not mechanically passive to the action of the Holy Ghost, either.  The wisdom of the Holy Spirit is not forced or automatic but depends upon a yielding, cooperative subject.  

I agree, the comments I made was going off of........

Quote from: An even Seven

Quote from: Stubborn

The quote from V1 does not say that "if the pope says such and such are part of divine revelation, we are bound to believe that such and such must be believed" does it?

Really? It most certainly does.

I know.  I was reaffirming your reply, in more expanded form.

Quote from: Pax Vobis

This is not correct.  There are different levels of the magisterium.  I don't have any theologian manuals handy but I've read many articles on the topic.  The pope's infallibility, outside of 'ex cathedra' statements (which, mind you, is the only part of infalliblity directly explained by Vatican 1) is open for debate.  Many theologians have discussed the different 'levels of assent' which a catholic must give to writings or sermons from the pope, when a dogmatic decree is not involved.  This is ESPECIALLY the case when we have a pope whose catholicity is shaky at best.

Answer this please. Is the following statement true? Do we have to believe as true, what the living, authoritative, and permanent Magisterium says is divinely revealed? Or is Pope Leo in error?

Quote

Pope Leo XIII, "Satis Cognitum", (#9)Wherefore, as appears from what has been said, Christ instituted in the Church a living, authoritative and permanent Magisterium, which by His own power He strengthened, by the Spirit of truth He taught, and by miracles confirmed. He willed and ordered, under the gravest penalties, that its teachings should be received as if they were His own. As often, therefore, as it is declared on the authority of this (the Church) teaching that this or that is contained in the deposit of divine revelation, it must be believed by every one as true. If it could in any way be false, an evident contradiction follows; for then God Himself would be the author of error in man.

Once again, this is another out of context quote and once again, you are reminded  that there is no Church teaching that vindicates sedevacantism, so quoting Catholic teachings toward that end remains futile.

The conciliar church is not the Catholic Church.

Answer this please. Is the following statement true? Do we have to believe as true, what the living, authoritative, and permanent Magisterium says is divinely revealed? Or is Pope Leo in error?

Quote

Pope Leo XIII, "Satis Cognitum", (#9)Wherefore, as appears from what has been said, Christ instituted in the Church a living, authoritative and permanent Magisterium, which by His own power He strengthened, by the Spirit of truth He taught, and by miracles confirmed. He willed and ordered, under the gravest penalties, that its teachings should be received as if they were His own. As often, therefore, as it is declared on the authority of this teaching that this or that is contained in the deposit of divine revelation, it must be believed by every one as true. If it could in any way be false, an evident contradiction follows; for then God Himself would be the author of error in man.

This quotation taken from Satis Cognitum is sufficient in itself without further contextual framing to destroy the arguments of sedevacantism, and yet, here it is be offered by a sedevacantist as evidence in support of his position.  Pope Leo is not in error but the sedevacantist understanding of this quotation most certainly is .  

This quote describes an attribute of Christ’s Church.  There is in Christ’s Church a “living, authoritative and permanent Magisterium…. strengthened by the Spirit of truth.”  The church that sedevacantists belong to does not have this attribute and has no way of ever recovering it or correcting the problem.  This fact should give every sedevacantist a sobering slap in the face.  They belong to a church that cannot be the Church founded by Jesus Christ.  They have arrived at a dead end and they need to retrace their steps.  

Sedevacantists misunderstand this passage because they do not understand the Magisterium of the Church, and this is primarily because they make the pope the rule of faith rather than dogma.   In this quote Pope Leo is referring to the infallible Magisterium of the Church. This is clearly seen because he says, “If it could in any way be false, an evident contradiction follows; for then God Himself would be the author of error in man.”  The quote is referring to “its teachings.”  It is not the pope’s teachings.  The “its” refers to the Church’ teachings that is taken from the “deposit of divine revelation” which has already been entrusted to the Church.  “He who heareth you heareth Me” refers only to this infallible Magisterium of the Church because God cannot possibly be the “author of error in man.”  

The attributes of the Church are Authority, Infallibility, and Indefectibility.  These three attributes directly correspond to the three functions of the Church identified by St. Pius X in Pascendi, that is: to rule, to teach, and to worship.  The pope is the person authorized to engage these attributes.  He possesses these attributes only accidentally for when he leaves the office by death or resignation, they do not leave with him.   The attribute of Infallibility to teach without the possibility of error is called the Magisterium.  It is engaged either in an extra-ordinary mode, or in an ordinary and universal mode.  In either case when it is engaged it becomes everywhere, for all time, and for all people, without exception, the infallible teaching of God’s truth.  

The word “magisterium” is not used univocally.  There is another sense in which the word is applied that refers to the teaching of churchmen by their grace of state.  This teaching is not infallible and cannot be followed unconditionally.  It must be accepted with a prudent and conditional assent because it is the teaching of men.  When that human teaching is from the pope it is called the authentic ordinary magisterium.  The difference between the Magisterium of the Church grounded upon the attribute of Infallibility which Christ endowed his Church and the teaching magisterium of churchmen based upon their grace of state is one of KIND and not one of DEGREE.  Why do most sedevacantists confuse these two distinct usages of the same term?  It is because they make the pope the rule of faith.

The teaching of Vatican II is the teaching of churchmen.  Pope John XXIII who opened the council, Pope Paul VI who closed the council, and theological note published by the council unequivocally state that no infallible authority was engaged at the council.  It is at most an extra-ordinary engagement of the most ordinary magisterium in the history of the Church.  Every novelty taught by Vatican II is purely the teaching of churchmen by their grace of state.  The strongest binding of its teachings is “religious observance” which was imposed by Pope Paul VI.  “Religious” obedience is that which is owed to the pope teaching by his grace of state.  It is always and everywhere a conditional obedience proximally governed by the virtue of Religion.  No one can be obedient to anyone, including the pope, in violation of the virtue of Religion without sin. When the pope engages the infallible Magisterium of the Church, the teaching is dogma which constitutes the “formal objects of divine and Catholic faith.”

“There are those who ask what authority, what theological qualification, the Council intended to give to its teachings, knowing that it avoided issuing solemn dogmatic definitions backed by the Church's infallible teaching authority. The answer is known by those who remember the conciliar declaration of March 6, 1964, repeated on November 16, 1964. In view of the pastoral nature of the Council, it avoided proclaiming in an extraordinary manner any dogmas carrying the mark of infallibility.” Pope Paul VI, General Audience, December 1, 1966, published in the L'Osservatore Romano January 21, 1966

Sedevacantists make the teaching of men the teaching of God when they overthrow dogma as the rule of faith and replace it by making the pope the rule of faith.  Then “religious” submission to whatever the pope say or does is given the same authority that by nature belongs only to dogma, God’s revealed truth.  That is clearly what they do when they demand that faithful Catholics must obediently submit to teachings that either directly or indirectly oppose the “deposit of divine revelation” on the authority of the authentic magisterium of the pope.

Also, for the record, in Pope Pius XII’s Humani Generis when he teaches that obedience is owed to the “ordinary magisterium” in the sense that “he who heareth you heareth Me,” the pope is actually referring to the ordinary and universal Magisterium.  This is evident in that every single example given without exception in the encyclical where this obedience is commanded is the universal teaching of the Church from her “deposit of divine revelation” and is contrasted with modern novelties.  The word, “novel” or its cognates occurs six times in the encyclical and is always severely censored.  

The only cure for this is to return to the proper understanding of the nature of Dogma as Dogma.  This is why Fr. Leonard Feeney is so important.  The very foundation of his theology is to treat Dogma as the formal object of divine and Catholic faith, to treat it as the true irreformable revelation of God who can neither deceive nor be deceived.  Those who follow his enemies and reject Dogma as the formal object of divine and Catholic faith by reducing it to theological maxims and meaningless man-made formulas are open every error possible.  Sedevacantism is just one example.

Drew

Quote from: drew

It is because they make the pope the rule of faith.

Take your "they make the pope the rule of faith"  put it into your Chesterton pipe and smoke it! Stop with your "novelty" idea already.

I don't care if a person who claims to be a Catholic is wearing a suit and necktie, cassocks or dressed up like a pope, if they BLATANTLY speak against the infallible teachings of the Church, whether it be word, action, or deed they are a heretic and maybe apostate. Now the hope always will be that God give sight to the blind as He has done numerous times or lift the veil off the heart as He as done many times, but until that happens that individual is a heretic, not a Catholic and clearly not a member of the Church.

Credit the fact you don't post the "once a Catholic always a Catholic" novelty, or use terms like Membership card to describe the means of identification members of the Church militant carry, or contemplate that the "cockle" refer only to those who are not Catholic......

Quote

it avoided proclaiming in an extraordinary manner any dogmas carrying the mark of infallibility.”

it avoided? Do you really believe that? Only the Catholic Church can proclaim Dogmas carrying the mark of infallibility.

Now, if Montini  were honest this is how it would have read: since we are modernist heretics as pointed out by the late St Pius X and not Catholics we CANNOT proclaim anything in any manner since we are not endowed with the charism of Christ. Of course if he said that there would be no deception right?

I suggest you quit following Siscoe and Ebbert Salza.

BTW, while you have your pipe out don't look for "sede" vacantism tobacco it does not exist.

Sedevacantists, besides the errors of making the pope the rule of faith overthrowing Dogma from its proper role, they also draw unnecessary conclusions from good principles.

The Catholic Church is the Mystical Body of Christ.  Every mortal sin destroys the life of grace in the soul, that is, it ends the indwelling of the Holy Ghost, makes the soul an enemy of God, destroys all merit of every previous good work, and deprives the soul of the right to eternal life.  Every mortal sin formally separates the soul from the friendship of God completely.  It is not possible for a soul to be an enemy of God and remain part of the Mystical Body of Christ.  He is the dead branch on a living vine where the sap of eternal life, of grace, is lost, completely cut off from life.  He remains formally removed from the life of the vine but materially part of the vine.  Every mortal sin formally separates the soul from God, but it does not materially separate the soul from membership in God’s Church.  

The sin of heresy, like every mortal sin, formally removes a Catholic from the life of grace and friendship with God.  But heresy can, but not necessarily, does more.  It can also lead to the material separation of the Catholic from membership in the Church.  If the mortal sin of heresy is an occult sin in the internal forum, it will formally, but cannot materially, remove the sinner from the Church.  If it ipso facto necessarily caused the material removal of an occult heretic from the Church then the Church would not then be visible because no one could ever know who was or who was not a member of the Church.  If the sin of heresy is public and contumacious, then it is a different problem.  But the important point is that it is not the heresy per se that materially removes from the Church but the fact of the public and contumacious manifestation of the crime.  The public and contumacious character of the crime is the efficient cause and not the heresy itself for the material removal of the heretic from the Church.  The instrumental cause is the imposition of the ipso facto penalty after due process determination of guilt.  The final cause is the glory of God and the protection of the faithful from the scandal of heresy.  

In such cases, the Church determines that the sin of public and contumacious heresy is a problem of scandal for faithful Catholics and therefore the Vicar of Christ, the vicar of the “Lord of the harvest,” may determine to materially remove the cockle before the time of the harvest for the sake of the faithful “wheat.”  But this is not always or necessarily done.  For example, very, very few Modernist heretics were ever materially removed from the Church and then, always after due process even though every Modernists heretic was already formally removed from the Church and cut off from the life of grace.  It is important to recognize that ipso facto penalties are only materially imposed by the law itself after due process. It is analogous to mandatory sentences for specific crimes under specific circuмstances.  The penalty is imposed by the law itself but only after the determination of guilt after due process.  Also, the matter of removing a heretic materially from the Church is a matter of human law and has all the limitation of all human laws, that is, it must be an act of reason, by competent authority, for a good end, promoting the common good, not be overly burdensome, etc.  The essential consideration in the determination to material remove a heretic form the Church is the welfare of the faithful “wheat” in the judgment of the Church authority.

Sedevacantists make themselves the “Lord of the harvest.”  They begin by making the pope the rule of faith and then they get rid of the “rule” because of his personal heresy.  The proof that they hold the pope as the rule of faith is seen in their insistence, just like most conservative Catholics, that Vatican II was “infallible” and the every Catholic must be “obedient” to every disciplinary norm of heretical popes that are clearly harmful to the faith.  They, both the conservative Catholics and the Sedevacantists, corrupt the virtue of Religion by inverting the proper hierarchical order making the virtue of Religion subject to the duty of obedience.  This is evidence of the absence of Wisdom which not only requires the recognition of all truths but necessarily will see them in their proper hierarchical order.

Every good-willed Catholic when they reach a dead-end in the road will conclude that they must have made a wrong turn and will begin to retrace their steps.  Sedevacantists are just pacing back and forth on a dead-end road doing nothing more but insisting that they have faithfully followed the map in every detail.  They have no pope for their Church although they recognize that the Church Jesus Christ founded was established on the first pope, St. Peter.  Even worse, they have no plans of every getting a pope.  They cannot even begin to explain how or when a new pope will be created.  The church they belong to is missing an essential attribute of the Catholic Church.  It clearly is not the Catholic Church!  They insist the pope is the rule of faith and therefore whoever belongs to a Church in which has a heretic pope as the head must necessarily participate in his heresy.  This is absurd.  It is as if to say that Jesus Christ, by worshiping at the temple in Jerusalem, participated in the heresy of the high priest, Caiaphas, or that the man born blind owed unconditional obedience to the high priest and therefore he should have refused to acknowledge Jesus as the Christ.

I have not read the book by Siscoe and Salza.  If I am repeating what they have already said, I apologize for wasting anyone's time, but I do not think that is the case.  Their book is favorably approved by the SSPX and conservative Catholic Indultists alike.  That would not be the case if they argued that the principle problem for the great majority of Sedevacantists is the overthrow of Dogma from its proper role as the irreformable "formal object of divine and Catholic faith" replacing the revealed truth of God with the opinions of man.

Drew

Quote

Vatican II docuмent, Dignitatis Humanae:
“PAUL, BISHOP, SERVANT OF THE SERVANTS OF GOD(1.in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians), TOGETHER WITH THE FATHERS OF THE SACRED COUNCIL FOR EVERLASTING MEMORY...9.The things which this Vatican Synod declares concerning the right of man to religious liberty… this doctrine on liberty has its roots in divine Revelation(3.he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole church); with all the more reason, therefore, it is to be preserved sacredly by Christians...12.The Church therefore, faithful to the truth of the Gospel, follows the way of Christ and the Apostles when it acknowledges the principle of religious liberty as in accord with human dignity and the revelation of God(3.he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole church), and when it promotes it…EACH AND EVERY ONE OF THE THINGS SET FORTH IN THIS DECREE HAS WON THE CONSENT OF THE FATHERS.  WE, TOO, BY THE APOSTOLIC AUTHORITY CONFERRED ON US(2.in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority) BY CHRIST, JOIN WITH THE VENERABLE FATHERS IN APPROVING, DECREEING, AND ESTABLISHING THESE THINGS IN THE HOLY SPIRIT, AND WE DIRECT THAT WHAT HAS THUS BEEN ENACTED IN SYNOD BE PUBLISHED TO GOD’S GLORY… I, PAUL, BISHOP OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH.”

Where did you get your Dignitatis Humanae quotes from - the Dimond Fools? Use this version posted on the Vatican's web site. The DF's, in their zeal to condemn, are notorious for purposely mis-quoting everyone and anyone - DH is no exception.  

Much of what you quoted does not even appear anywhere in the Vatican's DH at all. Also note that there is nothing defined, nothing binding - and also missing are any penalties at all, no condemnations or anathemas - nothing.

There is no way I could stomach reading the whole thing, I only skimmed it, but it's as if the pope wrote a long story that mixes truth with heresy to get the whole idea off his conscience, he did not infallibly define any doctrine, nor is there even any hint or implication whatsoever that that was his intention - far from it the way it drags on and on, alternating saying nothing then something, presumably so as not to sound too harsh or snarky - typical Pauline Speak.

Not sure what St. Gertrude the Great is, but unless they are part of the Magisterium then no.

That is the Church of Father Cekada and Bishop Dolan. I mentioned it because I figured it was the most famous sedevacantist Church. I am surprised to find a sedevacantist who has internet access who did not know what Saint Gertrude the Great Church was.